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 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.

Incident Overview A woman died in Bow, East London after being struck by falling bricks as she walked past a construction site. The case led to corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter charges being authorised. What Went Wrong Public interface controls failed Falling-object risk was not effectively prevented Site protection did not stop materials reaching the pavement Key Lessons Learned Public protection is a lifting risk too “Outside the fence” is still your liability Dropped materials can be fatal without warning Safety Recommendations Strengthen public interface controls: designed fans/gantries, exclusion of the footway when needed, strict overhead work controls, and active supervision. Incident source/ Reference CPS announcement on charges following death from falling bricks. Crown Prosecution Service cps.gov.uk ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Lifts must protect people not involved. ●PUWER Reg. 11 – Prevent people being struck by falling objects. ●BS 7121-1 – Overhead work must be controlled. ●CDM 2015 – Public protection must be managed. The main contractor has been charged with corporate manslaughter and a Health and Safety at Work Act offence, while lifting team, have each been charged with a single count of gross negligence manslaughter and offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Key point Outside the hoarding is still your responsibility. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 95

Incident Overview A worker was seriously injured during a lifting operation in Northern Ireland. Investigation and enforcement followed due to failures in managing lifting safety. What Went Wrong This is the common pattern: lifting work happening as “routine” without the same discipline as a complex lift. Key Lessons Routine lifts still need control “Normalisation” creates blind spots Supervision is a control measure Safety Recommendations Define lift categories. Enforce supervision and briefings. Ensure lifting accessories and method are controlled and checked. Incident source/Reference HSENI press release on lifting operation injury case. hseni.gov.uk ●LOLER Reg. 8 – Routine lifts still need planning and supervision. ●PUWER Reg. 4 – Equipment and method must be suitable. ●PUWER Reg. 9 – Training/competence must be assured. ●PUWER Reg. 11 – Protect people from moving loads/plant. ●BS 7121-1 – Safe system of work and exclusion zones required. Wolf Lifting Dynamics – Safe Lifting UK | Case Study 93