Category: Erection / Set-Up Interface Risk Incident Overview On a major London project, an incident occurred during crane-related set-up activity where an over-hoist chain became entangled, causing chain and block to fall free. No one was injured, but the drop potential was severe. What Went Wrong Unexpected movement/entanglement occurred mid-task Secondary retention/controls were not sufficient to prevent a drop A “non-lifting moment” became a lifting incident Key Lessons Learned Set-up phases carry lifting-level risks Suspended components require the same controls as live lifts Secondary retention prevents drops when things snag Safety Recommendations Control entanglement hazards, maintain exclusion zones during set-up, and ensure secondary retention where drop risk exists. Incident source Crossrail safety alert on auxiliary jib chain detachment causing chain/block to fall. https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Health-and-Safety-Alert-140917-Crawler-Crane-Auxiliary-Jib-Chain-Detachment-Update.pdf ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Set-up phases require control. ●PUWER Reg. 11 – Falling object risks must be prevented. ●PUWER Reg. 4 – Equipment must be used safely. ●BS 7121-1 – Set-up activities are lifting operations. Key point Set-up is not “low risk”.

Incident Overview A mobile crane overturned during an operation where planning and lift selection were not adequately controlled. The incident illustrates a common pattern: crane size/type selected for “expected” conditions, then conditions or configuration shift and capacity margin disappears. What Went Wrong Crane selection did not match real operating radius/ground conditions The lift became “unplanned” in execution Risk was assessed in isolation, not as a full system Key Lessons Learned Crane selection is part of lift planning, not procurement If the plan changes, the crane choice must be revalidated Margin is your safety buffer—don’t spend it Safety Recommendations Confirm crane selection using verified weight, radius, configuration, and ground strategy. Re-plan if site constraints change. Incident source UK mobile crane overturn prosecution linked to poor planning/unplanned lift. vertikal.net ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Lifts must be properly planned. ●LOLER Reg. 9 – Planning must be by a competent person. ●PUWER Reg. 4 – Equipment must be suitable for the task. ●BS 7121-1 – Crane selection must match load and site. Key point Margin is part of safety. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 99

Incident Overview HSE describes an incident where failure of a hookloader lifting arm led to the skip disconnecting and being ejected, fatally injuring a worker. This is a lifting/handling interface failure with the same end result: a heavy container becomes uncontrolled. What Went Wrong Mechanical failure occurred during handling Unsafe operating method contributed (jogging/shock actions) People were exposed within the hazard zone Key Lessons Learned “Container handling” is still lifting risk Mechanical failures need strict exclusion zones Shock actions multiply failure likelihood Safety Recommendations Maintain hookloader lifting systems, ban “jogging” methods, keep people out of the hazard zone, and treat container ejection as a catastrophic foreseeable risk. Incident source HSE guidance example on skip ejection after lifting arm failure. hse.gov.uk ●LOLER Reg. 4 – Loads must remain secure. ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Lifting must be controlled and supervised. ●PUWER Reg. 5 – Mechanical systems must be maintained. ●BS 7121-1 – Containers/skips must be handled safely. Key point Ejection risk is foreseeable and fatal. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 98

Category: MEWP Failure / Equipment Integrity Incident Overview In March 2025, two workers were seriously injured in Northampton when the platform/deck detached from a large scissor lift during use. The incident triggered investigation and industry safety attention. What Went Wrong Mechanical integrity failed at the interface between deck and arms Pre-use checks did not prevent operation in a dangerous condition Consequences were immediate and severe Key Lessons Learned MEWP failures are sudden and unforgiving “It worked yesterday” is not a check Equipment integrity is a frontline control Safety Recommendations Strengthen MEWP inspection discipline, defect reporting, and isolation rules. If anything feels abnormal (movement, noises, pins, connections), stop and quarantine the machine. Incident source: Industry reporting on Northampton scissor lift platform detachment. https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2025/03/28/deck-falls-off-huge-scissor-lift-at-winvic-site ●LOLER Reg. 4 – Equipment must remain stable and secure. ●PUWER Reg. 5 – Equipment must be maintained. ●PUWER Reg. 6 – Inspections must detect defects. ●PUWER Reg. 11 – Prevent people being struck or crushed. Key point Structural failure gives no warning. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 97

Category: Public Interface / External Hazard Incident Overview In January 2013, a helicopter struck a tower crane jib at St George Wharf, Vauxhall and crashed into the street. The pilot and a pedestrian were killed and others were injured. The investigation highlighted visibility conditions and obstacle awareness. What Went Wrong Crane became a critical public interface hazard External/aviation interface risk exists in dense urban zones Consequences extended far beyond the site boundary Key Lessons Learned Urban cranes create off-site risks Not all hazards are “construction workers” Emergency response planning matters Safety Recommendations Where aviation/river/road interfaces exist, ensure robust hazard awareness measures, emergency plans, and strict control of crane configuration/out-of-service arrangements. Incident source/ Reference AAIB special bulletin on the Vauxhall helicopter crash. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422f95ae5274a1317000781/S1-2013_-_Agusta_A109E_G-CRST_03-13.pdf Key point Crane risk does not stop at the fence. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 96