Incident Overview In a busy construction site, a tower crane base was found with no dedicated entrance gate, no secure locking arrangement, and no crane identification or information board displayed. The crane tower was freely accessible from the site, allowing unauthorised persons to approach or potentially climb the tower. Although there is no specific legal requirement stating that every tower crane must have an information board at its base, it is widely regarded as good industry practice to provide clear crane identification, emergency contact details, crane information, and secure access control. Without these measures, the risk of unauthorised access, vandalism, misuse, or climbing the crane increases significantly. What Went Wrong No dedicated crane entrance provided. Tower crane base left accessible to unauthorised personnel. No lockable access gate fitted. No crane identification or information board displayed. Poor control of access around lifting equipment. Failure to follow recognised industry good practice. Key Lessons Learned Tower cranes should be treated as restricted work equipment. Unauthorised climbing places individuals at significant risk. Physical security is part of crane safety management. Information boards assist emergency services and site personnel. Good practice often exceeds the minimum legal requirement. Safety Recommendations Provide a dedicated, lockable entrance to every tower crane. Restrict access to authorised personnel only. Display a crane information board showing crane identification, emergency contacts, crane type and safe working information where appropriate. Inspect crane base security during routine site inspections. Challenge poor access control before lifting operations begin. Incident Source Real site observation – UK construction site (2026). Multiple tower cranes observed without secure access control or crane identification boards despite being located within active construction sites. Regulatory Mapping ● PUWER Reg. 23 – Measures must prevent unauthorised use of work equipment.

Incident Overview During a lifting operation, the lifting team attached a tagline after the load had already left the ground because the load began to rotate during the lift. By the time the slinger attempted to control the suspended load, the load was already moving unpredictably. The slinger was forced to move closer to the suspended load to catch and attach the tagline, increasing the risk of being struck, trapped, or pulled into the load path. The purpose of a tagline is to prevent uncontrolled movement from the moment the load leaves the ground, not to correct a problem once it has already developed. What Went Wrong Tagline not attached before lifting commenced. Load allowed to rotate immediately after take-off. Personnel moved closer to a live suspended load. Load control relied on reactive rather than proactive measures. Poor lifting preparation before the crane operator took the load. Key Lessons Learned A tagline is a preventive control, not a recovery tool. Load control starts before the hook takes the weight. Never approach a suspended load to attach a tagline. Planning prevents rotation. Good preparation makes lifting predictable. Safety Recommendations Attach taglines before the crane takes the weight. Check tagline length allows personnel to remain outside the danger zone. Carry out a trial lift to confirm stability. Stop the lift immediately if the load cannot be controlled safely. Brief the lifting team on tagline responsibilities before every lift. Incident Source Real construction site observation – UK lifting operations (2026). Unsafe practice observed where taglines were attached only after the load became unstable during lifting. Regulatory Mapping ● LOLER Reg. 8 – Lifting operations must be properly planned and supervised. ● PUWER Reg. 11 – Prevent persons being exposed to moving loads. ● PUWER Reg. 9 – Personnel must receive adequate instruction and training. ● BS 7121-1 – Loads should be controlled throughout the lifting operation using suitable methods, including taglines where appropriate.

Incident Overview A site team needed to lift materials into a restricted internal courtyard with limited access, poor turning space, and sensitive ground conditions. The first suggestion was to use a HIAB / lorry-mounted crane because it was already delivering materials. This looked quicker and cheaper on paper. However, the lorry-mounted crane required vehicle access, enough outrigger space, and a stable set-up area. A spider crane would have been more suitable because it can access tighter spaces, work inside restricted areas, and set up closer to the lift point. Spider cranes are specifically used where larger cranes or vehicle-mounted cranes cannot easily access, including confined spaces and restricted routes. What Went Wrong Wrong crane type considered for the environment. HIAB selected because it was convenient, not because it was best. Access route and outrigger space were underestimated. Ground conditions were not fully assessed. Risk of collision with site structures increased. Risk of instability or overturning increased. The lift was treated as delivery work instead of a planned lifting operation. Key Lessons Learned Convenience is not crane selection. A HIAB is excellent for delivery/offload work, but it is not always the safest choice for restricted lifting. Spider cranes are better where access is tight, the lift point is internal, or the crane must get closer to the load. Lorry loaders still require proper stabiliser deployment and strict adherence to manufacturer instructions. HSE has also warned of serious crush risks around some lorry-loader stabilisers. A smaller crane can sometimes be the safer crane. https://www.hse.gov.uk/safetybulletins/lorry-loaders.htm Safety Recommendations Choose the crane based on the lift environment, not availability. Check access, ground bearing, outrigger positions, radius, and collision risks. Use a spider crane where access is restricted or the lift point is difficult to reach.

Incident Overview A major London project required a large generator and mechanical plant to be installed on the roof of a high-rise building. Instead of using a conventional mobile crane, the contractor chose a helicopter lift to save time, reduce costs, and avoid lengthy road closures and council permits. The helicopter successfully delivered the load to the roof within minutes. Helicopter lifting is increasingly used in London because it can avoid major traffic disruption and long crane setups. However, the operation demonstrates an important lesson: Just because a helicopter can complete the lift quickly does not mean the planning can be quick. What Went Wrong Pressure to save time and money can reduce planning quality. The speed of helicopter operations leaves almost no margin for error. Load preparation, sling arrangement, landing area, and rooftop coordination must be perfect before the aircraft arrives. Unlike a mobile crane, there is little opportunity to "pause and adjust" once the helicopter is in position. Every second of delay increases operational risk and cost. Key Lessons Learned Fast lifting does not mean simple lifting. Helicopter lifts require even greater planning than conventional crane lifts. Ground crew and rooftop teams must work as one coordinated operation. Every load must be accurately weighed, prepared, and secured before take-off. The landing area must be completely clear and ready before the helicopter arrives. Safety Recommendations Carry out a full contract lift assessment before selecting a helicopter solution. Confirm accurate load weights and centre of gravity. Prepare and inspect all lifting accessories before the aircraft arrives. Establish exclusion zones on both the pick-up and landing areas. Ensure continuous communication between pilot, lifting supervisor, rooftop team, and ground crew. Never allow programme pressure or cost savings to compromise planning. Incident Source Helicopter lifting is increasingly used on UK construction projects to install rooftop generators, chillers, and HVAC plant where mobile cranes would require significant road closures or cannot access the site. Operations are completed in minutes but demand extensive planning and coordination.

Incident Overview A HIAB lorry arrived on a construction site to move materials under what appeared to be a routine lifting operation. The lorry driver was also acting as the crane operator and effectively took on the role of lift supervisor, despite no formal coordination taking place. The slinger/signaller attending the lift was simply told to "crack on". No toolbox talk was delivered, no discussion took place regarding the lifting sequence, crane capacity, load weights, exclusion zones, communication methods, or emergency procedures. The lift plan, if available, was signed quickly without any meaningful review or verbal briefing. The operation relied entirely on experience and assumption rather than communication and planning. What Went Wrong No pre-lift toolbox talk delivered No verbal briefing provided to the slinger Roles and responsibilities never confirmed No discussion regarding crane capacity or lifting methodology No communication plan established between operator and slinger No confirmation of exclusion zones or pedestrian control Operation relied on assumption rather than planning Safety culture reduced to "just crack on" Key Lessons Learned Routine lifts still require proper planning and communication A toolbox talk aligns the entire lifting team before work begins Experience should never replace a safe system of work The slinger must understand the lifting method before attaching the load Good communication prevents incidents before they happen Safety Recommendations Conduct a toolbox talk before every lifting operation, regardless of size. Clearly define the roles of operator, slinger, and supervisor. Review the lift plan and lifting methodology with the entire team. Confirm communication methods and emergency stop procedures. Establish exclusion zones before lifting begins. If the lifting team has not been briefed, stop the lift until a proper briefing takes place. Incident Source Real construction site observation – UK HIAB lifting operation (2026).