User
Write something
Case Study 51: Rebar Bundles Lifted with Single-Use Slings (Fourth Use)
Incident Overview Multiple bundles of steel rebar were lifted overhead using single-use slings that had already been reused several times. What Went Wrong Single-use slings were knowingly reused and supervision failed to intervene. Key Lessons Learned - Single-use means single-use - Supervisors must act, not observe Safety Recommendations Single-use lifting accessories must be discarded after one lift and unsafe practices stopped immediately. ●LOLER 1998 – Regulation 4 (Strength and stability); Regulation 8 (Organisation of lifting operations); ●Regulation 9 (Thorough examination where applicable) ●PUWER 1998 – Regulation 4 (Suitability); Regulation 5 (Maintenance) ●BS 7121-1 – Selection and use of lifting accessories; compliance with manufacturer instructions; supervision and stop-work expectations ●Manufacturer guidance – “Single-use” accessory limitation and disposal requirements Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safety HUB | Case Study 51
0
0
Case Study 49: Load Left Suspended While Issue Was Discussed
Incident Overview A load was left suspended while the team discussed an issue with the landing area. What Went Wrong Exposure time under suspended load was increased unnecessarily. Key Lessons Learned - Suspended loads increase risk Safety Recommendations Loads must be lowered to a safe position before discussions. ●LOLER 1998 – Regulation 8 (Organisation and control of lifting operations) ●PUWER 1998 – Regulation 8 (Information and instructions) ●BS 7121-1 – Minimising time under suspended loads; active supervision and decision-making ●HSG guidance – Reducing exposure to suspended load risk Wolf Lifting Dynamics Limited – Safety HUB | Case Study 49
0
0
Case Study 49: Load Left Suspended While Issue Was   Discussed
Case Study 43: Lift Supervisor Demonstrating Poor Practice
Incident Overview A lift supervisor personally carried out a lift involving a long rear load for a flatbed lorry. The load was unbalanced and slung without forming a stable triangular configuration. Load instability was observed during the lift. What Went Wrong The lift supervisor failed to apply correct slinging methods, demonstrating unsafe practice and setting a poor example for the lifting team. Key Lessons Learned - Supervisors must lead by example - Poor leadership normalises unsafe behaviour - Competence must be demonstrated Safety Recommendations Lift supervisors must demonstrate correct lifting practice at all times. Unsafe techniques must be challenged regardless of role. ●LOLER 1998 – Regulation 8 (Organisation, supervision, and competence) ●PUWER 1998 – Regulation 9 (Training) ●BS 7121-1 – Roles and responsibilities; supervision; correct slinging practice ●CDM 2015 – Leadership and management of high-risk construction activities Wolf Lifting Dynamics Limited – Safety HUB | Case Study 43
0
0
Case Study 43: Lift Supervisor Demonstrating Poor Practice
Case Study 22: Multiple Cranes Operating Without Proper Coordination
Incident Overview Four cranes were operating simultaneously on a congested construction site. What Went Wrong No coordinated lifting plan was in place, leading to overlapping slewing radius and confusion between teams. Key Lessons Learned - Multiple crane sites require coordination - Overlapping radius increase collision risk - Clear leadership is essential Safety Recommendations Introduce a coordinated lifting plan and appoint a single point of control when multiple cranes operate on one site. ●LOLER: Reg 8 ●PUWER: Reg 8/9 , training for coordination ●BS 7121: Part 1 (planning/control), plus crane-type parts (2 mobile / 3 tower) re: zoning/anti-collision/coordination methods Wolf Lifting Dynamics Limited – Safety Hub | Case Study 22
0
0
Case Study 22: Multiple Cranes Operating Without Proper Coordination
Case Study 20: Lifting Without Active Lift Supervision
Incident Overview An Appointed Person authorised himself as Lift Supervisor but remained in the site office throughout the lifting operation. One slinger was left to manage loads between floors without oversight. What Went Wrong No lift supervisor was present to control load movement, monitor weather, or enforce exclusion zones. The slinger repeatedly moved between levels, leaving suspended loads uncontrolled. Key Lessons Learned - Lift supervision must be active and present - AP and Lift Supervisor roles must not conflict during live lifts - Lone slinging significantly increases risk Safety Recommendations A competent Lift Supervisor must be physically present for all suspended loads. Lifting must stop if supervision, communication, or exclusion zones cannot be maintained. ●LOLER: Reg 8 ●PUWER: Reg 8 (instructions), Reg 9 (training) ●BS 7121: Part 1 (supervision/roles) Wolf Lifting Dynamics Limited – Safety Hub | Case Study 20
1
0
Case Study 20: Lifting Without Active Lift Supervision
1-8 of 8
powered by
Safety Hub-Lifting Operations
skool.com/wolf-lifting-dynamics-9548
This community shares real lifting case studies, consultancy insights, and site-proven lessons covering cranes, supervision, planning, and execution.
Build your own community
Bring people together around your passion and get paid.
Powered by