Incident Overview During a lifting operation, a slinger attempted to lift a tonne bag by tying a knot at the top of the bag, instead of using the designated lifting eyes provided by the manufacturer. The knot was used to “secure” the load and prevent it from falling out of the bag. No lifting accessories were connected to the lifting eyes. The bag had been previously used multiple times and contained full gas bottles, increasing the risk of catastrophic failure. There was no lift supervisor present, and the lift plan did not define any lifting methodology. What Went Wrong Tonne bag not lifted using manufacturer’s lifting eyes Load secured using a knot, not a rated lifting method Bag fabric and stitching took the full load instead of designed lifting points Bag reused beyond safe condition Gas bottles lifted in a non-approved container No lift supervisor present Lift plan missing lifting methodology Slinger demonstrated lack of understanding of safe rigging practices Key Lessons Learned Tonne bags are designed to be lifted only from certified lifting eyes Knots do not create a safe or rated lifting point Fabric and stitching are not designed to carry dynamic lifting loads Improvised methods increase risk of sudden failure Lack of supervision allows unsafe practices to happen Safety Recommendations Always use the manufacturer’s lifting eyes for tonne bags. Never tie knots or use fabric as a lifting point. Do not reuse tonne bags unless certified for repeated lifting. Never lift gas bottles in non-approved lifting containers. Ensure a competent lift supervisor is present during lifting operations. Lift plans must clearly define the lifting method and equipment required. Incident Source Real site observation – UK construction site (2026). Image evidence showing tonne bag secured by knot instead of using lifting eyes. Regulatory Mapping ● LOLER Reg. 4 – Lifting accessories must be suitable and used correctly. ● LOLER Reg. 8 – Lifting operations must be properly planned and supervised.

Incident Overview A woman died in Bow, East London after being struck by falling bricks as she walked past a construction site. The case led to corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter charges being authorised. What Went Wrong Public interface controls failed Falling-object risk was not effectively prevented Site protection did not stop materials reaching the pavement Key Lessons Learned Public protection is a lifting risk too “Outside the fence” is still your liability Dropped materials can be fatal without warning Safety Recommendations Strengthen public interface controls: designed fans/gantries, exclusion of the footway when needed, strict overhead work controls, and active supervision. Incident source/ Reference CPS announcement on charges following death from falling bricks. Crown Prosecution Service cps.gov.uk ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Lifts must protect people not involved. ●PUWER Reg. 11 – Prevent people being struck by falling objects. ●BS 7121-1 – Overhead work must be controlled. ●CDM 2015 – Public protection must be managed. The main contractor has been charged with corporate manslaughter and a Health and Safety at Work Act offence, while lifting team, have each been charged with a single count of gross negligence manslaughter and offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Key point Outside the hoarding is still your responsibility. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 95

Incident Overview A worker was seriously injured during a lifting operation in Northern Ireland. Investigation and enforcement followed due to failures in managing lifting safety. What Went Wrong This is the common pattern: lifting work happening as “routine” without the same discipline as a complex lift. Key Lessons Routine lifts still need control “Normalisation” creates blind spots Supervision is a control measure Safety Recommendations Define lift categories. Enforce supervision and briefings. Ensure lifting accessories and method are controlled and checked. Incident source/Reference HSENI press release on lifting operation injury case. hseni.gov.uk ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Routine lifts still need planning and supervision. ●PUWER Reg. 4 – Equipment and method must be suitable. ●PUWER Reg. 9 – Training/competence must be assured. ●PUWER Reg. 11 – Protect people from moving loads/plant. ●BS 7121-1 – Safe system of work and exclusion zones required. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 93

Incident Overview During construction works at a UK university project, a scissor lift was knocked over by a crane, leading to a fatality and serious injury. What Went Wrong This was not “bad luck”. It’s an interface failure: plant movements + work-at-height platform in a shared envelope without adequate control. Key Lessons Plant interfaces must be controlled as one system “Someone else’s plant” is still your risk Exclusion zones must be enforced, not assumed Safety Recommendations Segregate routes and operating envelopes. Assign a controlling role with authority to stop movements. Treat the area as a single coordinated operation. Incident source/ Reference: British Safety Council ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Lifts must be coordinated and supervised. ●PUWER Reg. 11 – Prevent contact between moving plant and people. ●PUWER Reg. 9 – Competence must be assured for all roles. ●BS 7121-1 – Shared envelopes need strict control and exclusion zones. ●CDM 2015 – Simultaneous operations must be coordinated. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 85

Incident Overview A general foreman instructed a slinger to lift a MEWP/scissor lift without the correct lifting accessories or shackles. No lift supervisor had been appointed. When the slinger refused, the foreman accused him of non-cooperation and attempted to source advice from unqualified personnel outside the lifting team. The slinger continued to refuse. What Went Wrong Programme pressure escalated into coercion. The foreman attempted to bypass lifting controls and undermine competent refusal. Key Lessons Learned Refusal is a safety control Outside advice does not replace competence Blame culture discourages safe decisions Safety Recommendations Mechanical plant must only be lifted using manufacturer-approved methods and accessories. Refusal to lift under unsafe conditions must be supported, not challenged. ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Unsafe lifts must not proceed. ●PUWER Reg. 4 – Accessories must be suitable and approved. ●PUWER Reg. 9 – Competence includes refusing unsafe work. ●BS 7121-1 – Plant must be lifted using approved methods only. Clear Message Refusal to lift is a safety control. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 81