Incident Overview A slinger remained on the platform while landing a concrete skip despite manufacturer warnings. What Went Wrong Manufacturer instructions were ignored. Key Lessons Learned - Crush zones must be respected - Fatigue affects judgement Safety Recommendations Personnel must stand clear when landing concrete skips. ●LOLER 1998 – Regulation 8 (Organisation and safe system of work) ●PUWER 1998 – Regulation 4 (Suitability); Regulation 8 (Information/instructions) ●BS 7121-1 – Exclusion zones and safe positioning during landing; supervision controls ●Manufacturer instructions – Concrete skip/washer stand restrictions and crush-zone warnings Wolf Lifting Dynamics Limited – Safety HUB | Case Study 55

Incident Overview A 13T excavator lifted and carried formwork panels with loose metal components on top while workers were nearby. What Went Wrong The load was unsecured and pedestrian control was ineffective. Key Lessons Learned - Loose items become secondary hazards - Distance is a control Safety Recommendations Loads must be secured and taglines used to maintain safe separation. ●LOLER 1998 – Regulation 4 (Stability); Regulation 8 (Organisation and control) ●PUWER 1998 – Regulation 4 (Suitability); Regulation 9 (Training/competence) ●BS 7121-1 – Planning/control of lifting operations; control of pedestrian interfaces; tag line use and safe positioning ●Manufacturer / site method statements – Excavator lifting limits and safe travel with suspended loads Wolf Lifting Dynamics Limited – Safety HUB | Case Study 54

Incident Overview Multiple warning signs indicated an unsafe lifting operation, including poor slinging and unstable load behaviour. Despite this, the lift continued without intervention. What Went Wrong Normalisation of deviation and failure to exercise stop-work authority allowed the unsafe lift to proceed. Key Lessons Learned - Silence enables unsafe lifting - Stop-work authority must be used - Experience does not replace judgement Safety Recommendations All lifting team members must be empowered to stop unsafe lifts immediately. ●LOLER 1998 – Regulation 8 (Organisation and safe systems of work) ●PUWER 1998 – Regulation 8 (Information and instructions); Regulation 9 (Training) ●BS 7121-1 – Stop-work authority, communication, and decision-making during lifting operations ●HSG guidance / site safety rules – Behavioural safety and intervention expectations Wolf Lifting Dynamics Limited – Safety HUB | Case Study 45

Incident Overview A scaffold-experienced slinger was carrying out a blind lift from Level 4 using a tower crane to lift scaffold tubes. During the lift, he became distracted by a personal phone conversation. Stop instructions were delayed, resulting in the load striking surrounding scaffold and falling to the concrete floor, where the tubes embedded themselves for several hours. What Went Wrong The lift required full attention, but distraction and overconfidence compromised control. The load had been slung using a single choke on long scaffold tubes. Key Lessons Learned - Blind lifts demand full concentration - Distraction is a critical hazard - Poor slinging increases consequences Safety Recommendations Personal distractions must be prohibited during lifting operations. Blind lifts must be properly planned, slung, and supervised at all times. ●LOLER 1998 – Regulation 4 (Strength and stability); Regulation 8 (Organisation and supervision) ●PUWER 1998 – Regulation 4 (Suitability); Regulation 9 (Training and competence) ●BS 7121-1 – Blind lifts, communication, slinging methods, and supervision ●BS 7121-3 – Tower crane operations and control of loads out of view of the operator ●Site rules / behavioural safety policies – Control of personal distractions during lifting Wolf Lifting Dynamics Limited – Safety HUB | Case Study 40

Incident Overview On a high-pressure construction site, a highly competent and experienced slinger/lift supervisor was attempting to manage multiple tasks simultaneously. He was responsible for slinging loads, supervising lifting operations, coordinating trades, and attempting to oversee three cranes at once. His PPE had deteriorated after prolonged sun exposure, reducing visibility to crane operators and colleagues. Despite his skill and commitment, the workload placed on him was unrealistic and unsafe. What Went Wrong The site relied heavily on one individual rather than providing adequate lifting team resources. Fatigue, reduced visibility, and excessive responsibility compromised effective supervision. Competence was mistaken for unlimited capacity. Key Lessons Learned Even the best operatives have limits Overloading individuals increases risk PPE condition directly affects visibility and safety Safety Recommendations Lifting teams must be adequately resourced, with clear role separation. PPE must be maintained in serviceable condition, and no individual should be expected to supervise multiple cranes while performing operational tasks. ●LOLER 1998 – Regulation 8 (Organisation of lifting operations, supervision and allocation of roles) ●PUWER 1998 – Regulation 9 (Training and competence); Regulation 4 (Suitability of PPE and equipment) ●BS 7121-1 – Competence, supervision, role separation and safe systems of work ●PPE Regulations 1992 – Suitability and condition of personal protective equipment ●CDM 2015 – Management arrangements and adequate resourcing of high-risk activities Wolf Lifting Dynamics Limited – Safety Hub | Case Study 38