SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez nos Conditions d’utilisation et notre Politique de confidentialité.
SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez notre Politique de confidentialité et nos Conditions d’utilisation pour en savoir plus.
Prison sentences for fatal crane accident
17 November, 2009
A court in Taiwan has given prison sentences to six
people held responsible for a fatal crane accident in
April of this year.
The Taipei District Court handed down prison sentences
ranging from eight to 10 months for those involved in the
accident that killed three Chinese tourists when the
tower crane‘s jib hit their bus.
On the afternoon of April 24, the jib fell from the 37th
floor of a high rise construction in Taipei's Xinyi District,
landing on the back of a tour bus carrying 25 tourists
from Guangdong Province of China.
Prosecutors said that the luffing jib tower crane had a Published in the interest of promoting safety in the crane industry
maximum capacity at its boom length and radius of 3.2
tonnes and yet was lifting a total of five tonnes.
In addition, the crane was being operated in high winds
and the construction company had not cordoned-off the
area below the lift.
The district court found the rigging company and the sub
-contractor‘s engineer and five other employees, includ-
Sharing and Learning
ing the team leader, a crane operator and three other
men from the crane operations team, guilty of causing
death by occupational negligence.
The judgment said the six showed remorse for their crimes and were unlikely to repeat such negli-
gence and so received two years probation. The sentences can also be appealed.
THE EXECUTIONER, THE AXE AND THE SAFETY OFFICER
Once upon a time there lived three men: a doctor, a chemist, and an Safety Officer. For some rea-
son all three offended the king and were sentenced to die on the same day.
The day of the execution arrived, and the doctor was led up to the guillotine. As he strapped the
doctor to the guillotine, the executioner asked, "Head up or head down?" "Head up," said the doctor.
"Blindfold or no blindfold?"
So the executioner raised the axe, and z-z-z-z-ing! Down came the blade--and stopped barely an
inch above the doctor's neck. Well, the law stated that if an execution didn't succeed the first time
the prisoner had to be released, so the doctor was set free.
Then the chemist was led up to the guillotine. "Head up or head down?" said the executioner. "Head
up," said the chemist.
"Blindfold or no blindfold?"
So the executioner raised his axe, and z-z-z-z-ing! Down came the blade--and stopped an inch
above the chemist's neck. Well, the law stated that if the execution didn't succeed the first time the
prisoner had to be released, so the chemist was set free.
Finally the Safety Officer was led up to the guillotine. "Head up or head down?" asked the execu-
tioner. "Head up."
"Blindfold or no blindfold?"
So the executioner raised his axe, but before he could cut the rope, the Safety Officer yelled out,
"WAIT! I see what the problem is!"
12 LIFTING MATTERS February 2010 LIFTING MATTERS February 2010 1
OFTEN the most visible pieces of equipment on a construction site or in a factory, cranes also have
the potential to be the most dangerous, with accidents resulting in extensive damage to equipment
Since the Australian Standards 2550 series was introduced, the onus is on the equipment owner to
demonstrate that their inspection regime and maintenance procedure is equal to or better than the
Australian Standards. Under the standard, cranes are required to be checked periodically every
three months, with major certification and refurbishment compulsory at 10 years for mechanical and
25 years for structural inspection to assess their suitability for continued safe operation.
So companies and crane operators, who for their own reasons short cut on accepted good mainte-
nance practice, should seriously consider their position within the crane industry for their own safety
and that of their own and other workers.
The Australian State, Territory and Commonwealth Governments have agreed that by the end of
2011, new harmonised Occupational Health and Safety model legislation will replace all existing
State and Territory OHS laws.
What harmonisation promises is that these standards will be expressed and enforced consistently
throughout the country. Each state will have it‘s own regulator. Importantly, these regulators have
agreed to work to a national enforcement and compliance protocol, so that they interpret and en-
force the new law in the same way.
Australia‘s workplace safety standards and outcomes are among the best in the world, and legisla-
tion that is consistent across all jurisdictions will ensure we stay that way.
The HSE alert (page 3) is from 2004 but a reminder to check on our procedures around luffing ropes
would be timely. A very funny story (page 04) ‗Bricklayer‘s Report‘, should bring a smile to your
faces and a revisit to the 160T Demag tip-over in Perth last month (page 05) sheds more light on
what actually happened.
The ‗Fatality During Load Testing‘ report (page 06) again underlines the highly dangerous practice
of using mobile phones during crane operations. An alert from the HSE in the UK on the safe erec-
tion, operation, maintenance and dismantling of tower cranes appears (page 08).
Working at heights it seems will always be an issue on worksites around the world as can be seen in
the articles on pages 07, 09, 10 and 11.
Your opinion and any queries and wishes you may have are extremely important to us! Let us know
what's on your mind. Please send your contributions to email@example.com or contact us
by phone on +61 7 3907 5800. (RDP)
IN THIS ISSUE ON THE COVER
Editorial 02 Two mobile
Industry HSE alert 03
C r a n e s
Telehandler for a hearse 03 were used
Australian bricklayer’s report 04 to reposi-
Safety advisory-25T Franna tip over 05 tion a
160T crane tip over 05 ‗machine
Fatality during load testing of equipment 06 house‘ in
London death wish 07
HSE safety alert on the use of tower cranes 08 Brisbane.
Hotel owners hit for £22 000 09
One was a Liebherr LTM 1300 300T which
Two access methods in one 09 used 87T of counterweight and 35m of boom.
How tight can you get 10 The other was a 130T Grove GMK 130 which
Excavator ride in Phuket 10 used 65T of counterweight and 7m of boom.
Fall off bed of crane truck 11 The weight of the ‗machine house‘ was 105T.
Prison sentences for fatal crane accident 12
The executioner, the axe and the safety officer 12
2 LIFTING MATTERS February 2010 LIFTING MATTERS February 2010 11
How tight can you get? INDUSTRY HSE ALERT
September 23, 2009 Incident: Luffing Rope failure on Lattice Boom Crane
Scotland‘s James Jack crane hire has completed a lift which Description:
required the crane to pass between two walls with just In December 2004, the luffing rope on a
20mm to spare. Manitowoc 4100 lattice boom crane failed,
resulting in the boom falling. The boom
Working with Ross-Shire based engineering experts Isle-
landed in the pre cast yard destroying the
burn, the job involved lifting a 500Kg Head Stock, an essen-
crane boom, a utility and a number of pre-
tial part of the mechanism required to open the Loch gates,
cast beams. No workers were injured. The
into position at Mullardoch Loch near Cannich.
failed rope showed localised damage due
A Kato CR-250 city crane was selected for the job and trans- to surface peening.
ported by low loader from Jack‘s Aberdeen depot to Can- In the period prior to the incident, the crane
nich, 130 miles away. The crane was then offloaded and The cranes eazes down the top of the dam had been working in a narrow luffing range
completed the final nine miles of the journey to the Loch in the pre cast yard. Pre start and mainte-
through the Mullardoch Estate, including wading the es- nance inspections had not revealed any
tate‘s river due to a weight restriction on the bridge. unacceptable rope damage.
The skill and precision of James Jack‘s crane operator, Potential Issues to Be Aware Of:
Walter Petrie, were then put to the test not only in the lift 1. Luffing ropes can be difficult to comprehensively check because of the manner in which
they are rigged. A fully documented inspection procedure should be considered.
process itself which involved divers and instruction from
2. Industry standards for recording of inspections do not include an appropriate amount of
below water by radio contact, but also in the positioning of
quantitative and qualitative information on location and nature of rope condition. Existing
the crane ahead of the lift.
damage may therefore be difficult to track between inspections.
The lift required the 2.39 metre wide crane to travel through 3. Operations involving repetitive crane use in a narrow luffing range have the potential to
the centre of the high sided concrete dam walls - a space cause localised rope damage and therefore risk based inspection practices should be
measuring just 2.43 metres, allowing only 20 millimetres to With barely 20mm each side it was a tight squeeze adopted.
spare on either side of the crane. Possible Actions to Prevent Recurrence:
The crane then lowered the equipment 20 meters down the 1. Improve luffing rope inspection practices including increasing inspection frequency
dam wall and a further 10 metres below the surface of the where risk dictates.
water, where divers instructed the operator via underwater 2. Improve inspection recording practices to include both qualitative and quantitative data
radios to accurately position the headstock. on rope condition.
3. Review operating practices that limit crane use to a narrow luffing range for repetitive
The result of the operation saw the Loch gates opened for lifting. http://www.worksafe.nt.gov.au/corporate/safety_alerts/sa032005.pdf
the first time in the 50 years since the dam was built, divert-
ing water into the river and allowing maintenance work to
be carried out on the dam. A telehandler for a hearse
January 18, 2010
Final load positioning was underwater When the recently departed George Ardley was due to
be buried there was a problem in that the heavy snows
EXCAVATOR RIDE IN PHUKET and freezing weather prevented the hearse from reach-
ing Saddleworth church near Oldham, Manchester.
A photo sent by Craig Kingston shows this worker After the funeral was postponed once and a second
‗riding‘ the boom of an excavator in Patong Beach,
delay was looking likely the late farmer’s family and
Phuket, Thailand with no fear of his position.
friends came up with the bright idea to rent in a tele-
Apparently what you can‘t see is the ditch the scopic handler to carry his coffin to the funeral.
digger was digging – about 2 m deep x 1.5 wide x
6 m long - no benching, shoring or battering with Telehandler operator Mick Harrington first of all used
about 6 people in it knee deep in water – amazing. the machine to clear a path through the 2ft (600mm)
deep snow to the church before carrying the coffin to
Also of note in the picture is the lack of fall protec- the ceremony. After the service, Ardley’s coffin was loaded into the Manitou telehandler’s bucket and driven
tion for the stairs and floor levels in the building
to the cemetery with mourners walking behind.
Ardley’s cousin Glenys Henshaw said: "George was a really jovial man who loved a joke and would have seen
At least he had a hard hat on!
the funny side of this and would have loved his send-off."
Craig Kingston firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.vertikal.net/en/news/story/9405/
10 LIFTING MATTERS February 2010 LIFTING MATTERS February 2010 3
AUSTRALIAN BRICKLAYER'S REPORT: Hotel owners hit for £22,000
Possibly the funniest story in a long while: The man responsible for the work, maintenance man-
This is a bricklayer's accident report, which was printed in the newsletter of the Austra1ian equiva- ager John Partridge, 38, was fined £1,500 for failing
lent of the Workers' Compensation Board. This is a true story. Had this guy died, he'd have received to take reasonable care about the safety of the two
a Darwin Award for sure. men on the roof and not obtaining “suitable and suf-
Dear Sir, ficient” safety equipment.
I am writing in response to your request for additional information fn Block 3 of the accident report The two men were spotted on the roof without any safety
form. I put poor planning" as the cause of my accident. You asked for a fuller explanation and I trust equipment in June 2006. Council health & safety staff
the following details be sufficient . saw them from their offices and took photographs of
I am a bricklayer by trade. On the day of the accident, I was working alone on the roof of a new six them in action pushing and pulling the flagpole to try and
story building. When I completed my work, I found that I had some bricks left over which, when free it from its socket.
weighed later were found to be slightly in excess of 500 lbs . The prosecutor said: ―The photograph shows the signifi-
Rather than carry the bricks down by hand, I decided to lower them in a barrel by using a pulley, cant height at which the men are working and neither are
which was attached to the side of the building on the sixth floor. wearing a safety harness. A step ladder leaning on the
Securing the rope at ground I went up to the roof, swung the barrel out and loaded the bricks into it. ledge of the roof hatch, was also a dangerous access
Then I went down and untied the rope, holding it tight.ly to ensure a slow descent of the bricks. method in that two of its legs were entirely unsupported
You will note in Block 11 of the accident report form that I weigh 135 lbs. Due to my surprise at be- and the legs themselves are held together with a rope.‖
ing jerked off the ground so suddenly, I lost my presence of mind and forgot to let go of the rope. She also went on to say that there were discrepancies
Needless to say, I proceeded at a rapid rate up the side of the building. over what Partridge had been told by his employers. He denied being told to buy whatever safety
In the vicinity of the third floor, I met the barrel, which was now proceeding downward at an equally equipment he needed and to do the job himself. He also said he had received no health and safety
impressive speed. This explained the fractured skull, minor abrasions and the broken collar bone, as training, something which the company's records appeared to dispute—though the Council brought
listed in section 3 of the accident report form. Slowed only slightly, I continued my rapid ascent, not these into question.
stopping until the fingers of my right hand were two knuckles deep into the pulley. The prosecution said that: Partridge claimed he had done a verbal risk assessment, but that it was
Fortunately by this time I had regained my presence of mind and was able to hold tightly to the rope, ―insufficient‖ and the ―risk was obvious‖ - there was ―potential for serious harm to the workers.‖ John
in spite of beginning to experience pain. At approximately the same time, however, the barrel of Coen, representing the hotel and Partridge told Bradford magistrates that following the verbal risk
bricks hit the ground and the bottom fell out of the barrel. Now devoid of the weight of the bricks assessment they decided that the work would be done on a dry day and in day light. The roof was
(that barrel weighed approximately 50 lbs) I refer you again to my weight. flat and about eight by three metres in size and the pole was in the middle. ―The risk did not require
As you can imagine, I began a rapid descent, down the side of the building. In the vicinity of the third the men to go towards the edge of the roof and there were only up there ten to 15 minutes.‖
floor, I met the barrel coming up. This accounts for the two fractured ankles, broken tooth and sev- The men had been told to stay away from the edge and to simply unscrew the bracket, not pull the
eral lacerations of my legs and lower body. pole back and forth.‖ After the case David Clapham, principal environmental health manager at the
Here my luck began to change slightly. The encounter with the barrel seemed to slow me enough to Council, said: ―We are pleased with the level of these fines which illustrate how serious these of-
lessen my injuries when I fell into the bricks and fortunately only three vertebrae were cracked. fences were. We hope this sentence sends out a strong message to other businesses that the
I am sorry to report, however, as I lay there on the pile of bricks, in pain unable to move, I again lost health and safety of their employees must be paramount.‖
my composure and presence of mind and let go of the rope and I lay there watching the empty bar- Simon Grybas, the hotel's current general manager said: ―We take the welfare of our employees
rel begin its journey back down onto me. This explains the two broken legs. very seriously and we have learned from this experience. We now
I hope this answers your inquiry. have full training systems in place and we are fully compatible with
Kevin Roben all Health and Safety regulations.‖
Wagga Glass e Aluminium Pty Ltd http://www.vertikal.net/fileadmin/journals/ca/2009/ca_2009_1_p58-59.pdf
PO Box 5004 (11 Dobney Ave)
Wagga Wagga NSW 2550 Two access methods in one
12 January, 2010
After we’ve finished slapping our thighs and chortling all over the place, on a more serious note, the
preparation of a JSA assessing the risks and/or SWMS for each task including heavy We are not sure where or when the following method of reaching
weights, ropes and rigging tasks would have been in order here. RDP the top of an obelisk occurred. It looks a little seasonal but?
If hard work were such a wonderful thing, surely the rich would have kept it all to themselves. Clearly the truck mounted lift has run out of reach to do whatever
needs to be done to the star at the top. The solution surely get a
larger lift? Not if you have a Death Wish, you simple use a ladder
If we had no winter, the spring would not be so pleasant; if we did not sometimes taste of adversity, to go the extra few metres!
prosperity would not be so welcome.
We assume that everyone survived to tell the tale?
The most pathetic person in the world is someone who has sight, but has no vision.
4 LIFTING MATTERS February 2010 LIFTING MATTERS February 2010 9
SAFETY ADVISORY—25 TON FRANNA CRANE TIP OVER
At approx 12.15 am on 19/1/2010 a crane being operated
in the a storage yard in Brisbane, QLD, tipped over while
unloading a PCB from a semi-trailer.
HSE safety alert on the use of tower cranes The incident was notified to the regulator (WHSQ) and the
The HSE is issuing a safety alert to the construction industry to remind those working on projects senior management of the companies involved.
where tower cranes are in use of the importance of the safe erection, operation, maintenance and Thorough investigations are continuing.
dismantling of such cranes. This alert has been prompted by a number of serious incidents involving POSSIBLE CAUSES:
tower cranes in recent years. Preliminary factors are thought to be:
Those responsible for the management of tower cranes on site should ensure that: The crane was working in excess of 66% of tipping in
1. Tower cranes are erected and dismantled by competent people who have the necessary pick & carry mode.
training and experience. Companies should draw up written procedures for each type of There was a ground side slope of approx 5%.
tower crane and these procedures should be based on the manufacturers instructions.
These procedures should be available on site and those involved in the work be familiar There was a degree of articulation.
with them; The removable counter weight was not attached.
2. A thorough examination of the crane is undertaken after its erection by a competent person POTENTIAL EFFECTS:
who is sufficiently independent and impartial and is not involved in the erection process; With workers (doggers) in the vicinity of this type of work it
3. Only competent people are allowed to operate the crane; is obvious that major injury could result.
4. Pre-use checks are carried out by the crane operator at the start of each shift to ensure that CORRECTIVE ACTIONS / BEHAVIOURS:
the crane has not suffered any damage or failure and is safe to be used; ALL personnel (including supervisors) are to review each
5. In-service inspections are carried out by the crane operator, generally at weekly intervals, and work location and configuration for potential risks associ-
records kept of these inspections; ated with machinery stability.
6. A properly planned maintenance system is established and used. Competent people should This includes ALL trucks, earth moving equipment, light
undertake this maintenance at intervals specified by the manufacturer and records kept of
vehicles and cranes.
the work completed including any parts that have been replaced. In general the original Additional information will be supplied at the completion of the investigation. RDP
manufacturers parts should be used. Where parts are sourced from suppliers other than
the original manufacturer a competent engineer should assess that the parts selected meet 160T MOBILE CRANE TIP OVER
the original manufacturers specification and are fit for purpose. Any parts replaced should This incident was reported on last month and due to a lack of accurate information at the time the wrong impres-
be installed in accordance with the manufacturers instructions; sion might have been created. I would like to correct the story on having received the CFMEU report.
7. Further thorough examinations are carried out by a competent person at specified intervals, Background
after major alterations or repair or after the occurrence of exceptional circumstances which On Wednesday afternoon on the 16th December 2009, a
are liable to jeopardise the safety of the crane; and 160 Demag crane tipped over in Jundakot, Perth, WA. It
8. Lifting operations are properly planned and appropriately supervised. also took out a corner of the toilet block and a concrete
Detailed information on all these issues can be found in: tilt‐up panel that had been placed earlier.
• ―Safe Use of Work Equipment‖ - Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 Observations
Approved Code of Practice and Guidance; • Many personnel on site were in shock but no‐one had
• BS7121 “Code of Practice for safe Use of Cranes” Part 1: General; any physical injuries.
• BS 7121 “Code of Practice for safe Use of Cranes” Part 2: Inspection, testing and examination; • The single hook and headache ball had catapulted
• BS 7121 “Code of Practice for safe use of Cranes” Part 5: Tower Cranes. (This was revised in through the left side of the toilet block destroying a urinal
February 2006); and pan – ‘just luck no‐one was using them at the time’.
• CIRIA publication C654 ―Guide to Tower Crane Stability‖; and • The rear of the crane carrier also took out a tilt‐up panel that was propped in it’s final position.
• The Construction Plant-hire Association‘s Tower Crane Interest Group Technical Information • There were 28 tonnes of detachable counterweight mounted on the crane at the time.
Notes. • There was no load on the crane hook at the time.
• The crane’s outriggers were in and the crane was in the process of relocating to another position.
HSE has worked closely with industry to revise BS7121- Part 5 and to produce the CIRIA publication
• The operator noticed the counterweight slew in the rear‐vision mirror while relocating.
and the CPAs Technical Information Notes mentioned above. As a result of this new guidance being
available to the industry HSE Construction Division has an ongoing programme of visits to tower • It seems that the locking pin for the slew ring failed to engage properly, allowing the turntable to rotate,
crane companies incorporating site visits and head office visits to discuss health and safety manage- shifting the load of counterweights over the left side of the crane carrier. With outriggers in, this resulted in
ment of the supply, erection, operation and dismantling of tower cranes. This work will be continuing the crane falling over.
in light of the recent tower crane collapse at Battersea and we will expect companies to be able to Recovery lift
demonstrate compliance with relevant legislation and industry best practice The recovery lift was completed using 3 cranes from a local crane hire company. It was a well planned, event
‐free recovery. The damaged 160 Demag crane is now in Terex’s depot awaiting assessment.
http://www.cpa.uk.net/data/uploads/public/269-HSE-safety-alert---use-of-tower-cranes.pdf The investigation is continuing. RDP
8 LIFTING MATTERS February 2010 LIFTING MATTERS February 2010 5
Contractor Fatality During Load Testing of Equipment 6. To address the new employees working in an unfa-
miliar work environment, the Contractor should
Date: 6th January 2010
implement a (SSE) system.
BRIEF INCIDENT SUMMARY: 7. The Contractor should create their company’s
· On the 2nd of December 2009, a Contractor lifting crew was engaged to conduct lifting operations of the STOP WORK policy, have it implemented and en-
Principal Contractor’s (PC) equipment for load testing to be witnessed by another inspection company. forced with their employees.
· A 20t concrete load block was used to simulate the load and a 45t telescoping crane was used as the lifting CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR PC:
equipment. It was noted that the crane was load rated for 32t only. All lifting crew and crane were supplied 1. Enforce the ban on the use of mobile phones,
by the Contractor. Blackberrys, music listening devices in the area of
· After the completion of the load test, the Contractor’s lifting crew was moving the concrete load block (P1) work, extending it to contractors.
to a position away (P3) from the equipment and truck movement that is expected to arrive on the 3rd De- 2. Ensure that when a PC JSA is conducted, all rele-
cember for a job mobilization. It was during this activity that the incident occurred. vant parties are involved. DO NOT allow work to
· The crane driver was reversing the crane into position just in front of the concrete load block for the next begin if a member of the team is not present during
lift. (see figure below) the JSA. The JSA must be conducted for any late
· He was guided by the Contractor’s signalman (spotter). However, the signalman was not positioned at the comers before they can take part in the job.
concrete load block, instead he was positioned to the side of the crane. It does not appear that he had a 3. PC MUST check all documentation is in order be-
clear line of sight to the rear of the crane and the concrete load block. fore allowing contractors to operate on site. Docu-
· The PC was not involved in the lifting process. Three of the PC’s employees were in the area of the signal- ments include training records, certifications, crane
man’s location doing painting work. maintenance records & checklists, JSA, JSA atten-
· The Contractor’s IP was discovered crushed between the concrete load block and the crane when the sig- dances and any other local requirements.
nalman went to the rear to check if the crane hit the block. 4. PC MUST ensure that the crane checklist is con-
ROOT CAUSE ducted by the relevant contractor’s personnel before
1. Lack of Knowledge and Skills the start of the job. To physically verify that the con-
– The Signalman received rigger training on 14th December 2007. His certification is valid to 2012. He has tractor’s lifting crew conducts the checklist at every
not been trained as a Signalman. His job scope as a rigger started in Sept 2003. JSA.
– The IP was a Short Service Employee (SSE). He was trained as a rigger on the 9th November 2009. About 5. PC MUST ensure that all 3rd party contractors have completed the site safety induction briefing. This
1 month before this incident. He was with the company for 3mth 14days. His past experiences were working must be checked at every JSA.
as a welder in various companies. 6. Ensure that all contractors’ SSEs are identifiable on PC’s site.
– Although the IP was a (SSE), the Contractor’s company did not assign a ‘mentor’ to him to guide him 7. Ensure that contractor’s employees are aware of the PC’s STOP WORK policy during the safety briefing,
through. There were no records of any safety induction being carried out. and add the STOP WORK requirements into the JSA.
– There were no records that the Contractor did a pre-job safety briefing on the day’s activities or conducted 8. Implementing cordoning off system of the lifting work area when heavy lifting is in progress.
their own JSA or toolbox meeting before the job commenced. 9. Plan for a full audit of a contractor’s heavy lifting operation to ensure a robust system is in place.
2. Inadequate Leadership and/or Supervision
Article submitted by Mike.M.ODonnell@stos.co.nz
– There is no clear STOP WORK policy by the Contractor company. The reverse warning signal was found as
faulty, but the job continued.
– There is no procedure, work instruction or SOP on lifting operations by the Contractor company. London Death Wish
– The IP was using his mobile phone during the lifting operation. There was no proper supervision by the January 19, 2010
Contractor’s supervisor. A reader from London sent us a note after two men
3. Inadequate Maintenance arrived at the building opposite his premises and pro-
– There were no maintenance records available for the crane. The crane daily checklist was not done. The ceeded to unload and then use a six metre ladder to
Contractor company could not show any records of any verifiable daily checks being done. climb up onto the fragile roof.
The checklist does not check for the reverse warning signal. However, the checklist dated 2nd December
Once on the roof one of the men walked over it, one
2009 showed that the loud hailer for the driver to use while reversing the crane was not operational. assumes inspecting it?, without using any form of crawl
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR THE CONTRACTOR: board or method of spreading his weight. This in spite
1. The Contractor MUST provide maintenance records of the crane that will be operating on the PC’s site of the fact that it was made from light weight roofing
during the JSA. panels that are prone to give way under a mans weight.
2. The Contractor MUST provide the daily crane checklist before operating the crane on the PC’s site during
Seeing the danger our reader and his employees went
the JSA. over and offered the free use of their Niftylift HR21
3. The Contractor employees MUST be trained for the task that he is assigned responsibility before working which was standing outside in full view only metres
on the PC site, and provide training records and certification of each of their employee who will be working away from the job, only to be told: ―We‘re OK, we are only Our man stands in the middle of the roof without a care
on the PC’s site during the JSA. in the world while risking a 7m drop to a concrete floor
going to be a minute or two‖
4. The Contractor MUST conduct their own risk assessment before any lifting task to be conducted on the
This in spite of the fact that falls through roofing panels is one of, if not the most common causes of
PC’s site. fatalities and serious injury from falls at height.
5. The Contractor MUST provide to PC their procedure, Work Instruction or SOP on their lifting operations.
Some people will never learn! http://www.vertikal.net/en/news/story/9411/
6 LIFTING MATTERS February 2010 LIFTING MATTERS February 2010 7