Incident Overview During a contract lift on a construction site, the lift supervisor identified that the lift plan drawings did not match the actual site conditions. A tram power line was shown as being approximately 4 metres away from the crane, but in reality it was positioned less than 3 metres away and directly above the crane setup area. When raised with the Appointed Person (AP), the proposed solution was to “find a sweet spot” by moving the crane with the boom raised — a method not included in the lift plan. Additional failures included lack of radios, missing exclusion zone barriers, no competency checks during induction, and unverified claims that the power lines were isolated. What Went Wrong Lift plan drawings were inaccurate and not site-verified Crane positioned within unsafe proximity to overhead power lines Unplanned crane movements introduced outside the lift plan No formal confirmation or proof of power line isolation Inadequate communication systems (insufficient radios) No exclusion zones established Competency and ID checks not carried out during induction Pressure and poor attitude from AP when safety concern raised Key Lessons Learned Lift plans must reflect real site conditions, not assumptions Any deviation from the lift plan requires stop and re-plan Working near power lines requires absolute verification, not trust Communication is a critical safety control, not optional Raising concerns is a duty, not a problem Safety Recommendations Stop the lift immediately if drawings do not match site conditions. Do not operate cranes near power lines without written isolation confirmation. Ensure full communication systems are in place for the entire lifting team. Install and enforce exclusion zones before any lifting activity. Verify competence of all personnel during site induction. Reject any “on-the-spot” method not covered in the lift plan. Incident Source Real site experience – Contract lift operation, UK construction site (2026). Regulatory Mapping

Incident Overview During lifting operations on a residential project in Kensington, London, a tower crane jib collapsed onto the construction site. Images from the incident potentially show the hoist ropes running across sections of the scaffolded building, suggesting the hook block or rope may have become entangled with the scaffold structure. The site was evacuated immediately and no injuries were reported, but the potential consequences were severe. What Went Wrong Hoist rope or hook block likely became caught on scaffold structure Crane movement continued while rope was restrained Abnormal lateral forces transferred into the crane structure Possible overload of the jib connection or slew system Key Lessons Learned Tower cranes are designed for vertical lifting, not restraint forces Hook block and rope position must be constantly monitored near structures Entanglement hazards can generate structural loads far greater than the lifted load Safety Recommendations Control crane operating envelopes near scaffolding and buildings. Maintain visual control of the hook block at all times and stop operations immediately if abnormal resistance or rope tension is observed. Incident source Tower crane collapse reported on a residential development site in Kensington, London (March 2026). Incident under investigation by authorities. ● LOLER Reg. 8 – Lifting operations must be properly planned and supervised. ● PUWER Reg. 11 – People must be protected from falling objects or plant movement. ● PUWER Reg. 4 – Equipment must be used safely within its intended limits. ● BS 7121-1 – Crane operations must account for surrounding structures and obstructions. Key point Crane structures are not designed to resist restraint forces caused by entanglement. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 101

Category: Erection / Set-Up Interface Risk Incident Overview On a major London project, an incident occurred during crane-related set-up activity where an over-hoist chain became entangled, causing chain and block to fall free. No one was injured, but the drop potential was severe. What Went Wrong Unexpected movement/entanglement occurred mid-task Secondary retention/controls were not sufficient to prevent a drop A “non-lifting moment” became a lifting incident Key Lessons Learned Set-up phases carry lifting-level risks Suspended components require the same controls as live lifts Secondary retention prevents drops when things snag Safety Recommendations Control entanglement hazards, maintain exclusion zones during set-up, and ensure secondary retention where drop risk exists. Incident source Crossrail safety alert on auxiliary jib chain detachment causing chain/block to fall. https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Health-and-Safety-Alert-140917-Crawler-Crane-Auxiliary-Jib-Chain-Detachment-Update.pdf ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Set-up phases require control. ●PUWER Reg. 11 – Falling object risks must be prevented. ●PUWER Reg. 4 – Equipment must be used safely. ●BS 7121-1 – Set-up activities are lifting operations. Key point Set-up is not “low risk”. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 100

Incident Overview A mobile crane overturned during an operation where planning and lift selection were not adequately controlled. The incident illustrates a common pattern: crane size/type selected for “expected” conditions, then conditions or configuration shift and capacity margin disappears. What Went Wrong Crane selection did not match real operating radius/ground conditions The lift became “unplanned” in execution Risk was assessed in isolation, not as a full system Key Lessons Learned Crane selection is part of lift planning, not procurement If the plan changes, the crane choice must be revalidated Margin is your safety buffer—don’t spend it Safety Recommendations Confirm crane selection using verified weight, radius, configuration, and ground strategy. Re-plan if site constraints change. Incident source UK mobile crane overturn prosecution linked to poor planning/unplanned lift. vertikal.net ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Lifts must be properly planned. ●LOLER Reg. 9 – Planning must be by a competent person. ●PUWER Reg. 4 – Equipment must be suitable for the task. ●BS 7121-1 – Crane selection must match load and site. Key point Margin is part of safety. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 99

Incident Overview HSE describes an incident where failure of a hookloader lifting arm led to the skip disconnecting and being ejected, fatally injuring a worker. This is a lifting/handling interface failure with the same end result: a heavy container becomes uncontrolled. What Went Wrong Mechanical failure occurred during handling Unsafe operating method contributed (jogging/shock actions) People were exposed within the hazard zone Key Lessons Learned “Container handling” is still lifting risk Mechanical failures need strict exclusion zones Shock actions multiply failure likelihood Safety Recommendations Maintain hookloader lifting systems, ban “jogging” methods, keep people out of the hazard zone, and treat container ejection as a catastrophic foreseeable risk. Incident source HSE guidance example on skip ejection after lifting arm failure. hse.gov.uk ●LOLER Reg. 4 – Loads must remain secure. ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Lifting must be controlled and supervised. ●PUWER Reg. 5 – Mechanical systems must be maintained. ●BS 7121-1 – Containers/skips must be handled safely. Key point Ejection risk is foreseeable and fatal. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 98