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 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 A mobile crane overturned during a lift after the ground and outrigger support arrangement proved inadequate. The lift had not been properly planned for ground bearing and the support strategy was not engineered. The incident led to enforcement action and fines. What Went Wrong Ground bearing pressure was not verified against outrigger reactions Mat/pad selection did not match the ground conditions The lift proceeded as if “standard mats” were a safe default Key Lessons Learned Mats are an engineering control, not a guess “Looks solid” is not a calculation Outrigger loads can exceed what sites assume Safety Recommendations Calculate outrigger reactions, confirm ground bearing capacity, and select mats/pads using verified dimensions and load spread. Stop work at the first sign of settlement. Incident source UK mobile crane overturn prosecution reported in industry press. vertikal.net ●LOLER Reg. 4 – Stability must be ensured. ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Lift must be properly planned. ●PUWER Reg. 4 – Equipment must be suitable for conditions. ●BS 7121-1 – Ground bearing capacity must be verified. Key point Mats are an engineering control, not an assumption. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 86

Incident Overview A worker operating a lorry-mounted crane was fatally electrocuted when the crane contacted an overhead powerline during unloading. What Went Wrong This is a classic, repeatable failure: inadequate planning, inadequate controls, and insufficient separation from overhead services. Key Lessons Overhead lines are unforgiving Exclusion distances must be engineered, not guessed “Just one lift” is how people die Safety Recommendations Service scans, safe systems of work, exclusion distances, a spotter/banksman, and strict “no-go” zones. Incident source/ Reference HSE press release on lorry-mounted crane electrocution case. press.hse.gov.uk ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Plan and control lifting near hazards. ●PUWER Reg. 11 – Prevent contact with dangerous hazards during movement. ●PUWER Reg. 4 – Method must be suitable and safe. ●BS 7121-1 – Overhead services must be identified and controlled. ●CDM 2015 – Site coordination of services risks is required. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 90

Incident Overview A heavy screening machine (“flip-flop/Trisomat screen”) was being handled as part of a replacement task. The operation involved crane use and subsequent movement/handling steps. A worker was fatally crushed. What Went Wrong The job had multiple phases and the hazard profile changed after the initial crane movement. Planning and control did not effectively cover the full sequence and stability risks. Key Lessons “Phase 2” is where people drop standards Stability and route control matter after the lift One task can contain multiple high-risk activities Safety Recommendations Plan the entire job end-to-end. Re-brief after each phase. Control stability, movement routes, and stop points. Incident source/ Reference UK HSE-linked reporting on the fatal screening https://constructionmanagement.co.uk ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Plan the full job, not just the first lift. ●PUWER Reg. 4 – Method must be suitable for each phase. ●PUWER Reg. 11 – Crush zones must be prevented/controlled. ●BS 7121-1 – Sequence control and stability must be managed. Key point Phase changes require re-control. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 87