Incident Overview During a tower crane operation on a UK construction site, a tub of mortar was being lifted to upper floors for bricklayers. As the load began travelling upward, the slinger was still holding the tagline attached to the load. During the lift, the tagline became twisted and wrapped around the slinger’s hand, causing him to be lifted from the ground together with the moving load. The slinger was reportedly lifted approximately 3-4 storeys high (around 20 metres) before someone on site noticed the situation and communicated with the crane operator to stop the lift immediately. The incident had extremely high fatality potential. What Went Wrong Slinger remained attached to the tagline during live lifting operation Tagline wrapped/twisted around the slinger’s hand No safe release distance maintained from suspended load Lifting operation continued without immediate recognition of entanglement Poor monitoring of load travel during vertical movement Unsafe proximity between personnel and suspended load Key Lessons Learned Taglines must control the load, not control the person Personnel should never wrap taglines around hands or body parts Entanglement hazards can become fatal within seconds Tower crane lifts require constant monitoring during load travel Simple unsafe habits can escalate into life-threatening incidents Safety Recommendations Never wrap taglines around hands, wrists, or body. Maintain safe distance from suspended loads during lifting. Release taglines once load control is no longer required. Brief lifting teams on entanglement and snagging hazards. Ensure crane operators and supervisors actively monitor load travel paths. Stop lifting operations immediately if personnel become entangled. Incident Source Real incident reported on a UK construction site (2026). Slinger lifted approximately 20 metres after tagline became wrapped around hand during tower crane mortar tub lift. Regulatory Mapping ● LOLER Reg. 8 – Lifting operations must be properly planned and supervised.

Incident Overview During lifting operations on a construction site, a tower crane was used to lift 7 tonne bags simultaneously approximately 25 metres above ground level using a single 4-leg chain configuration. The tonne bags were grouped together and lifted as one suspended load despite the bags being designed for individual lifting operations. No one checked the bag label! The lift created an unstable and unpredictable load configuration with multiple suspended points moving independently during the operation. Workers remained active below and around the lifting area while the lift was taking place. What Went Wrong Multiple tonne bags lifted together without approved lifting methodology 4-leg chains used on unstable grouped loads Load centre of gravity not properly controlled Individual bags free to move and shift independently Risk of bag collision and uneven loading during lift No evidence of engineered lifting frame or spreader beam Workers exposed below suspended load Lift created excessive dynamic movement at height Lift supervisor did not stop the lift operation as advised. Key Lessons Learned Tonne bags are generally designed for individual lifting only Grouping multiple suspended bags creates unpredictable load behaviour Chain angles and unequal loading can overload lifting accessories Dynamic movement increases dramatically when loads move independently Suspended loads above live work areas create severe risk exposure Safety Recommendations Lift tonne bags individually unless a designed lifting arrangement is approved. Use engineered lifting frames or spreader beams for grouped loads. Verify total load weight and individual load distribution. Establish and enforce exclusion zones beneath suspended loads. Ensure lifting methodology is clearly detailed within the lift plan. Stop lifting operations if load stability cannot be guaranteed. Incident Source Real construction site observation – UK lifting operation (2026). Tower crane observed lifting multiple tonne bags simultaneously using 4-leg chains at approximately 25 metres height.

Incident Overview A contract lift was arranged for a busy construction project involving a mobile crane lifting HVAC units onto the roof of a multi-storey building. The crane company supplied the crane, operator, Appointed Person, and lift supervisor under a full contract lift arrangement. When the lifting team arrived on site, several critical conditions were not as described during the planning stage: •Access roads were partially blocked by deliveries •The agreed crane setup area was occupied by stored materials •Pedestrian routes crossed directly through the lifting zone •No exclusion barriers had been installed •Nearby subcontractors were unaware lifting operations were taking place Despite these issues, pressure from the project team pushed for the lift to continue to avoid delays. What Went Wrong Site conditions did not match the original planning information Setup area not maintained or protected by site management No effective coordination between contractors Exclusion zone not established before lifting began Pedestrians and workers allowed near suspended loads Pressure applied to continue despite unsafe conditions Contract lift responsibilities misunderstood by site team Key Lessons Learned A contract lift does not remove the client’s site responsibilities Site coordination is critical for safe lifting operations Unsafe site conditions can invalidate the original lift plan Pressure and programme deadlines create unsafe decisions If conditions change, the lift must stop and be reassessed Safety Recommendations Verify site conditions immediately before crane arrival. Maintain agreed crane setup and exclusion areas clear at all times. Ensure all contractors are informed of lifting activities. Stop lifting operations if the site no longer matches the lift plan. Clarify responsibilities between principal contractor and crane company before work starts. Incident Source Real contract lifting scenario observed on UK construction project (April 2026). Common failures involving poor coordination between crane supplier and principal contractor.

Incident Overview A Minifor hoist lift plan was presented on site for validation during lifting operations. The document appeared structured but lacked critical technical detail required for a safe and controlled lift. The plan included generic statements such as “inspect equipment,” “attach load,” and “proceed with lift,” but did not define how the load would be rigged, controlled, or safely executed in real conditions. No detailed drawings, rigging configurations, or load control methods were provided. Despite this, the plan was considered acceptable for use on site. What Went Wrong Lift plan relied on generic method statements, not specific methodology No rigging configuration or sling arrangement defined No drawings or visual references for the lift setup No load path or landing sequence described No defined exclusion zone layout or control measures Communication plan vague and incomplete No contingency planning for abnormal situations Plan not detailed enough to be validated or challenged Key Lessons Learned A lift plan must describe the exact lift, not a general process Generic statements do not control real risks If a method cannot be visualised, it cannot be executed safely Validation requires detail, not assumptions A poor lift plan creates unsafe decisions on site Safety Recommendations Ensure all lift plans include clear drawings and rigging configurations. Define exact lifting sequence, load path, and landing procedure. Specify lifting accessories and connection methods. Detail exclusion zones and communication systems. Include contingency plans for abnormal situations. Reject any lift plan that cannot be clearly understood and visualised. Incident Source Real site documentation. Minifor hoist lift plan reviewed on UK construction site (2026). Image evidence shows a generic, non-specific lift plan lacking technical detail. Regulatory Mapping ● LOLER Reg. 8 – Lifting operations must be properly planned. ● LOLER Reg. 9 – Planning must be carried out by a competent person.

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.