Lifting Matters Issue 11 Febuary 2010

12 LIFTING MATTERS February 2010

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 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-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.

http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite2/jokes/executioner.htm

http://www.vertikal.net/en/news/story/9089/

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?" "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?" "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?" "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!"

LIFTING MATTERS February 2010 1

LIFTING MATTERS Published in the interest of promoting safety in the crane industry

Sharing and Learning

FEBRUARY 2010


EDITORIAL 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 and workers.

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 protected] or contact us

by phone on +61 7 3907 5800. (RDP)

IN THIS ISSUE

Editorial 02

Industry HSE alert 03

Telehandler for a hearse 03

Australian bricklayer’s report 04

Safety advisory-25T Franna tip over 05

160T crane tip over 05

Fatality during load testing of equipment 06

London death wish 07

HSE safety alert on the use of tower cranes 08

Hotel owners hit for £22 000 09

Two access methods in one 09

How tight can you get 10

Excavator ride in Phuket 10

Fall off bed of crane truck 11

Prison sentences for fatal crane accident 12

The executioner, the axe and the safety officer 12

ON THE COVER

Two mobile

U n i v e rs a l

C r a n e s

were used

to reposi-

t i o n a

‗ m a c h i n e

house‘ in

F o r g a c s

Dockyard in

Brisbane.

One was a Liebherr LTM 1300 300T which

used 87T of counterweight and 35m of boom.

The other was a 130T Grove GMK 130 which

used 65T of counterweight and 7m of boom.

The weight of the ‗machine house‘ was 105T.


http://www.buildsafeuae.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=4229&tabid=3046


EXCAVATOR RIDE IN PHUKET A photo sent by Craig Kingston shows this worker ‗riding‘ the boom of an excavator in Patong Beach, Phuket, Thailand with no fear of his position.

Apparently what you can‘t see is the ditch the digger was digging – about 2 m deep x 1.5 wide x 6 m long - no benching, shoring or battering with about 6 people in it knee deep in water – amazing.

Also of note in the picture is the lack of fall protec-tion for the stairs and floor levels in the building behind.

At least he had a hard hat on!

Craig Kingston [email protected]

How tight can you get?

September 23, 2009

Scotland‘s James Jack crane hire has completed a lift which

required the crane to pass between two walls with just

20mm to spare.

Working with Ross-Shire based engineering experts Isle-

burn, the job involved lifting a 500Kg Head Stock, an essen-

tial part of the mechanism required to open the Loch gates,

into position at Mullardoch Loch near Cannich.

A Kato CR-250 city crane was selected for the job and trans-

ported by low loader from Jack‘s Aberdeen depot to Can-

nich, 130 miles away. The crane was then offloaded and

completed the final nine miles of the journey to the Loch

through the Mullardoch Estate, including wading the es-

tate‘s river due to a weight restriction on the bridge.

The skill and precision of James Jack‘s crane operator,

Walter Petrie, were then put to the test not only in the lift

process itself which involved divers and instruction from

below water by radio contact, but also in the positioning of

the crane ahead of the lift.

The lift required the 2.39 metre wide crane to travel through

the centre of the high sided concrete dam walls - a space

measuring just 2.43 metres, allowing only 20 millimetres to

spare on either side of the crane.

The crane then lowered the equipment 20 meters down the

dam wall and a further 10 metres below the surface of the

water, where divers instructed the operator via underwater

radios to accurately position the headstock.

The result of the operation saw the Loch gates opened for

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.

The cranes eazes down the top of the dam

With barely 20mm each side it was a tight squeeze

Final load positioning was underwater http://www.vertikal.net/en/news/story/8761/


A telehandler for a hearse January 18, 2010

When the recently departed George Ardley was due to be buried there was a problem in that the heavy snows and freezing weather prevented the hearse from reach-ing Saddleworth church near Oldham, Manchester.

After the funeral was postponed once and a second delay was looking likely the late farmer’s family and friends came up with the bright idea to rent in a tele-scopic handler to carry his coffin to the funeral.

Telehandler operator Mick Harrington first of all used the machine to clear a path through the 2ft (600mm) deep snow to the church before carrying the coffin to the ceremony. After the service, Ardley’s coffin was loaded into the Manitou telehandler’s bucket and driven 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 the funny side of this and would have loved his send-off."


INDUSTRY HSE ALERT

Incident: Luffing Rope failure on Lattice Boom Crane Description:

In December 2004, the luffing rope on a

Manitowoc 4100 lattice boom crane failed,

resulting in the boom falling. The boom

landed in the pre cast yard destroying the

crane boom, a utility and a number of pre-

cast beams. No workers were injured. The

failed rope showed localised damage due

to surface peening.

In the period prior to the incident, the crane

had been working in a narrow luffing range

in the pre cast yard. Pre start and mainte-

nance inspections had not revealed any

unacceptable rope damage.

Potential Issues to Be Aware Of:

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.

2. Industry standards for recording of inspections do not include an appropriate amount of

quantitative and qualitative information on location and nature of rope condition. Existing

damage may therefore be difficult to track between inspections.

3. Operations involving repetitive crane use in a narrow luffing range have the potential to

cause localised rope damage and therefore risk based inspection practices should be

adopted.

Possible Actions to Prevent Recurrence:

1. Improve luffing rope inspection practices including increasing inspection frequency

where risk dictates.

2. Improve inspection recording practices to include both qualitative and quantitative data

on rope condition.

3. Review operating practices that limit crane use to a narrow luffing range for repetitive

lifting. http://www.worksafe.nt.gov.au/corporate/safety_alerts/sa032005.pdf


If hard work were such a wonderful thing, surely the rich would have kept it all to themselves.

Lane Kirkland

If we had no winter, the spring would not be so pleasant; if we did not sometimes taste of adversity, prosperity would not be so welcome.

Anne Bradstreet

The most pathetic person in the world is someone who has sight, but has no vision.

Helen Keller

AUSTRALIAN BRICKLAYER'S REPORT: Possibly the funniest story in a long while:

This is a bricklayer's accident report, which was printed in the newsletter of the Austra1ian equiva-lent of the Workers' Compensation Board. This is a true story. Had this guy died, he'd have received a Darwin Award for sure.

Dear Sir,

I am writing in response to your request for additional information fn Block 3 of the accident report form. I put poor planning" as the cause of my accident. You asked for a fuller explanation and I trust the following details be sufficient .

I am a bricklayer by trade. On the day of the accident, I was working alone on the roof of a new six story building. When I completed my work, I found that I had some bricks left over which, when weighed later were found to be slightly in excess of 500 lbs .

Rather than carry the bricks down by hand, I decided to lower them in a barrel by using a pulley, which was attached to the side of the building on the sixth floor.

Securing the rope at ground I went up to the roof, swung the barrel out and loaded the bricks into it. Then I went down and untied the rope, holding it tight.ly to ensure a slow descent of the bricks.

You will note in Block 11 of the accident report form that I weigh 135 lbs. Due to my surprise at be-ing jerked off the ground so suddenly, I lost my presence of mind and forgot to let go of the rope. Needless to say, I proceeded at a rapid rate up the side of the building.

In the vicinity of the third floor, I met the barrel, which was now proceeding downward at an equally impressive speed. This explained the fractured skull, minor abrasions and the broken collar bone, as listed in section 3 of the accident report form. Slowed only slightly, I continued my rapid ascent, not stopping until the fingers of my right hand were two knuckles deep into the pulley.

Fortunately by this time I had regained my presence of mind and was able to hold tightly to the rope, in spite of beginning to experience pain. At approximately the same time, however, the barrel of bricks hit the ground and the bottom fell out of the barrel. Now devoid of the weight of the bricks (that barrel weighed approximately 50 lbs) I refer you again to my weight.

As you can imagine, I began a rapid descent, down the side of the building. In the vicinity of the third floor, I met the barrel coming up. This accounts for the two fractured ankles, broken tooth and sev-eral lacerations of my legs and lower body.

Here my luck began to change slightly. The encounter with the barrel seemed to slow me enough to lessen my injuries when I fell into the bricks and fortunately only three vertebrae were cracked.

I am sorry to report, however, as I lay there on the pile of bricks, in pain unable to move, I again lost my composure and presence of mind and let go of the rope and I lay there watching the empty bar-rel begin its journey back down onto me. This explains the two broken legs.

I hope this answers your inquiry.

Kevin Roben

Wagga Glass e Aluminium Pty Ltd

PO Box 5004 (11 Dobney Ave)

Wagga Wagga NSW 2550

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 weights, ropes and rigging tasks would have been in order here. RDP


Hotel owners hit for £22,000

The man responsible for the work, maintenance man-

ager John Partridge, 38, was fined £1,500 for failing

to take reasonable care about the safety of the two

men on the roof and not obtaining “suitable and suf-

ficient” safety equipment.

The two men were spotted on the roof without any safety

equipment in June 2006. Council health & safety staff

saw them from their offices and took photographs of them in action pushing and pulling the flagpole to try and

free it from its socket.

The prosecutor said: ―The photograph shows the signifi-

cant height at which the men are working and neither are

wearing a safety harness. A step ladder leaning on the

ledge of the roof hatch, was also a dangerous access

method in that two of its legs were entirely unsupported

and the legs themselves are held together with a rope.‖

She also went on to say that there were discrepancies

over what Partridge had been told by his employers. He denied being told to buy whatever safety

equipment he needed and to do the job himself. He also said he had received no health and safety

training, something which the company's records appeared to dispute—though the Council brought

these into question.

The prosecution said that: Partridge claimed he had done a verbal risk assessment, but that it was

―insufficient‖ and the ―risk was obvious‖ - there was ―potential for serious harm to the workers.‖ John

Coen, representing the hotel and Partridge told Bradford magistrates that following the verbal risk

assessment they decided that the work would be done on a dry day and in day light. The roof was

flat and about eight by three metres in size and the pole was in the middle. ―The risk did not require

the men to go towards the edge of the roof and there were only up there ten to 15 minutes.‖

The men had been told to stay away from the edge and to simply unscrew the bracket, not pull the

pole back and forth.‖ After the case David Clapham, principal environmental health manager at the

Council, said: ―We are pleased with the level of these fines which illustrate how serious these of-

fences were. We hope this sentence sends out a strong message to other businesses that the

health and safety of their employees must be paramount.‖

Simon Grybas, the hotel's current general manager said: ―We take the welfare of our employees very seriously and we have learned from this experience. We now

have full training systems in place and we are fully compatible with

all Health and Safety regulations.‖

http://www.vertikal.net/fileadmin/journals/ca/2009/ca_2009_1_p58-59.pdf

Two access methods in one

12 January, 2010

We are not sure where or when the following method of reaching

the top of an obelisk occurred. It looks a little seasonal but?

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

to go the extra few metres!

We assume that everyone survived to tell the tale?



HSE safety alert on the use of tower cranes

The HSE is issuing a safety alert to the construction industry to remind those working on projects

where tower cranes are in use of the importance of the safe erection, operation, maintenance and

dismantling of such cranes. This alert has been prompted by a number of serious incidents involving

tower cranes in recent years.

Those responsible for the management of tower cranes on site should ensure that:

1. Tower cranes are erected and dismantled by competent people who have the necessary

training and experience. Companies should draw up written procedures for each type of

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

with them;

2. A thorough examination of the crane is undertaken after its erection by a competent person

who is sufficiently independent and impartial and is not involved in the erection process;

3. Only competent people are allowed to operate the crane;

4. Pre-use checks are carried out by the crane operator at the start of each shift to ensure that

the crane has not suffered any damage or failure and is safe to be used;

5. In-service inspections are carried out by the crane operator, generally at weekly intervals, and

records kept of these inspections;

6. A properly planned maintenance system is established and used. Competent people should

undertake this maintenance at intervals specified by the manufacturer and records kept of

the work completed including any parts that have been replaced. In general the original

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

the original manufacturers specification and are fit for purpose. Any parts replaced should

be installed in accordance with the manufacturers instructions;

7. Further thorough examinations are carried out by a competent person at specified intervals,

after major alterations or repair or after the occurrence of exceptional circumstances which

are liable to jeopardise the safety of the crane; and

8. Lifting operations are properly planned and appropriately supervised.

Detailed information on all these issues can be found in:

• ―Safe Use of Work Equipment‖ - Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998

Approved Code of Practice and Guidance;

• BS7121 “Code of Practice for safe Use of Cranes” Part 1: General;

• BS 7121 “Code of Practice for safe Use of Cranes” Part 2: Inspection, testing and examination;

• BS 7121 “Code of Practice for safe use of Cranes” Part 5: Tower Cranes. (This was revised in

February 2006);

• CIRIA publication C654 ―Guide to Tower Crane Stability‖; and

• The Construction Plant-hire Association‘s Tower Crane Interest Group Technical Information

Notes.

HSE has worked closely with industry to revise BS7121- Part 5 and to produce the CIRIA publication

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

crane companies incorporating site visits and head office visits to discuss health and safety manage-

ment of the supply, erection, operation and dismantling of tower cranes. This work will be continuing

in light of the recent tower crane collapse at Battersea and we will expect companies to be able to

demonstrate compliance with relevant legislation and industry best practice

http://www.cpa.uk.net/data/uploads/public/269-HSE-safety-alert---use-of-tower-cranes.pdf


160T MOBILE CRANE TIP OVER This incident was reported on last month and due to a lack of accurate information at the time the wrong impres-sion might have been created. I would like to correct the story on having received the CFMEU report.

Background

On Wednesday afternoon on the 16th December 2009, a 160 Demag crane tipped over in Jundakot, Perth, WA. It also took out a corner of the toilet block and a concrete tilt‐up panel that had been placed earlier.

Observations

• Many personnel on site were in shock but no‐one had any physical injuries. • The single hook and headache ball had catapulted through the left side of the toilet block destroying a urinal and pan – ‘just luck no‐one was using them at the time’. • The rear of the crane carrier also took out a tilt‐up panel that was propped in it’s final position. • There were 28 tonnes of detachable counterweight mounted on the crane at the time. • 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. • The operator noticed the counterweight slew in the rear‐vision mirror while relocating. • It seems that the locking pin for the slew ring failed to engage properly, allowing the turntable to rotate, shifting the load of counterweights over the left side of the crane carrier. With outriggers in, this resulted in the crane falling over.

Recovery lift

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. The investigation is continuing.

SAFETY ADVISORY—25 TON FRANNA CRANE TIP OVER

INCIDENT DESCRIPTION:

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.

The incident was notified to the regulator (WHSQ) and the senior management of the companies involved.

Thorough investigations are continuing.

POSSIBLE CAUSES:

Preliminary factors are thought to be:

The crane was working in excess of 66% of tipping in

pick & carry mode.

There was a ground side slope of approx 5%.

There was a degree of articulation.

The removable counter weight was not attached.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS:

With workers (doggers) in the vicinity of this type of work it is obvious that major injury could result.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS / BEHAVIOURS:

ALL personnel (including supervisors) are to review each work location and configuration for potential risks associ-ated with machinery stability.

This includes ALL trucks, earth moving equipment, light vehicles and cranes.

Additional information will be supplied at the completion of the investigation.

RDP

RDP


Contractor Fatality During Load Testing of Equipment Date: 6th January 2010

BRIEF INCIDENT SUMMARY: · On the 2nd of December 2009, a Contractor lifting crew was engaged to conduct lifting operations of the Principal Contractor’s (PC) equipment for load testing to be witnessed by another inspection company. · A 20t concrete load block was used to simulate the load and a 45t telescoping crane was used as the lifting equipment. It was noted that the crane was load rated for 32t only. All lifting crew and crane were supplied by the Contractor. · After the completion of the load test, the Contractor’s lifting crew was moving the concrete load block (P1) to a position away (P3) from the equipment and truck movement that is expected to arrive on the 3rd De-cember for a job mobilization. It was during this activity that the incident occurred. · The crane driver was reversing the crane into position just in front of the concrete load block for the next lift. (see figure below) · He was guided by the Contractor’s signalman (spotter). However, the signalman was not positioned at the concrete load block, instead he was positioned to the side of the crane. It does not appear that he had a clear line of sight to the rear of the crane and the concrete load block. · The PC was not involved in the lifting process. Three of the PC’s employees were in the area of the signal-man’s location doing painting work. · The Contractor’s IP was discovered crushed between the concrete load block and the crane when the sig-nalman went to the rear to check if the crane hit the block. ROOT CAUSE 1. Lack of Knowledge and Skills – The Signalman received rigger training on 14th December 2007. His certification is valid to 2012. He has not been trained as a Signalman. His job scope as a rigger started in Sept 2003. – The IP was a Short Service Employee (SSE). He was trained as a rigger on the 9th November 2009. About 1 month before this incident. He was with the company for 3mth 14days. His past experiences were working as a welder in various companies. – Although the IP was a (SSE), the Contractor’s company did not assign a ‘mentor’ to him to guide him through. There were no records of any safety induction being carried out. – There were no records that the Contractor did a pre-job safety briefing on the day’s activities or conducted their own JSA or toolbox meeting before the job commenced. 2. Inadequate Leadership and/or Supervision – 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. – The IP was using his mobile phone during the lifting operation. There was no proper supervision by the Contractor’s supervisor. 3. Inadequate Maintenance – There were no maintenance records available for the crane. The crane daily checklist was not done. The Contractor company could not show any records of any verifiable daily checks being done. The checklist does not check for the reverse warning signal. However, the checklist dated 2nd December 2009 showed that the loud hailer for the driver to use while reversing the crane was not operational. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR THE CONTRACTOR: 1. The Contractor MUST provide maintenance records of the crane that will be operating on the PC’s site during the JSA. 2. The Contractor MUST provide the daily crane checklist before operating the crane on the PC’s site during the JSA. 3. The Contractor employees MUST be trained for the task that he is assigned responsibility before working on the PC site, and provide training records and certification of each of their employee who will be working on the PC’s site during the JSA. 4. The Contractor MUST conduct their own risk assessment before any lifting task to be conducted on the PC’s site. 5. The Contractor MUST provide to PC their procedure, Work Instruction or SOP on their lifting operations.


6. To address the new employees working in an unfa-miliar work environment, the Contractor should implement a (SSE) system. 7. The Contractor should create their company’s STOP WORK policy, have it implemented and en-forced with their employees. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR PC: 1. Enforce the ban on the use of mobile phones, Blackberrys, music listening devices in the area of work, extending it to contractors. 2. Ensure that when a PC JSA is conducted, all rele-vant parties are involved. DO NOT allow work to begin if a member of the team is not present during the JSA. The JSA must be conducted for any late comers before they can take part in the job. 3. PC MUST check all documentation is in order be-fore allowing contractors to operate on site. Docu-ments include training records, certifications, crane maintenance records & checklists, JSA, JSA atten-dances and any other local requirements. 4. PC MUST ensure that the crane checklist is con-ducted by the relevant contractor’s personnel before the start of the job. To physically verify that the con-tractor’s lifting crew conducts the checklist at every JSA. 5. PC MUST ensure that all 3rd party contractors have completed the site safety induction briefing. This must be checked at every JSA. 6. Ensure that all contractors’ SSEs are identifiable on PC’s site. 7. Ensure that contractor’s employees are aware of the PC’s STOP WORK policy during the safety briefing, and add the STOP WORK requirements into the JSA. 8. Implementing cordoning off system of the lifting work area when heavy lifting is in progress. 9. Plan for a full audit of a contractor’s heavy lifting operation to ensure a robust system is in place.

London Death Wish January 19, 2010

A reader from London sent us a note after two men arrived at the building opposite his premises and pro-ceeded to unload and then use a six metre ladder to climb up onto the fragile roof.

Once on the roof one of the men walked over it, one assumes inspecting it?, without using any form of crawl board or method of spreading his weight. This in spite of the fact that it was made from light weight roofing panels that are prone to give way under a mans weight.

Seeing the danger our reader and his employees went over and offered the free use of their Niftylift HR21 which was standing outside in full view only metres away from the job, only to be told: ―We‘re OK, we are only going to be a minute or two‖

This in spite of the fact that falls through roofing panels is one of, if not the most common causes of fatalities and serious injury from falls at height.

Some people will never learn! http://www.vertikal.net/en/news/story/9411/

Our man stands in the middle of the roof without a care in the world while risking a 7m drop to a concrete floor

Article submitted by [email protected]

Business

Lifting Matters Issue 11 Febuary 2010