Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By William Look at this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/...gow_and_west/7384014.stmHow no-one was killed or seriously injured is without a doubt a miracle, the company involved say that the crane involved passed its annual safety inspection in march it does appear that the inspection was not rigorous enough and perhaps the time has come to tighten up loler with respect to the standards which all lifting equipment is inspected. Anyone else feel that we need a prescriptive basis for inspection of lifting lifting equipment as there has been quite a few crane collapses recently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Difficult call on this one but the location suggests that the "annual inspection" may not have been the correct frequency. Having spent some time around dock and pier operations I am aware that the environment is not the best suited to cranes as salt water is corrosive. Will await investigation with interest.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By William
Does anyone know what the annual inspection would most likely have entailed? Is it only the wires and not the structure of the crane which would have been inspected on an annual basis and when is it required that a full MPI/UT inspection is carried out on the crane?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
It would have covered all load bearing parts, inclusive of structure and operating gear with relevance.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eddie Campbell
There may be just one reason or many different reasons that came together on the day for this crane to collapse and we won’t know what these reasons might be until the outcome of the investigation.
The thorough examination report for this crane could be treated in a similar way to the MOT on your vehicle. Only good for the day it was carried out.
MPI or other NDT techniques would only be used when the competent person carrying out the thorough examination deemed this to be necessary. From experience this will only be in specific cases where, for instance, a weld repair has been carried out or a boom lacing has been replaced. Some offshore based companies started to use UT for their wire rope inspections but this would not be common onshore.
Thorough examinations should never be treated as a form of maintenance. Effective maintenance management of the equipment should ensure that any faults with the crane will be found and repaired as part of the day to day inspections. Waiting for the 6 monthly or 12 monthly thorough examination reports to discover what needs to be repaired is a recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Daniel
Recently one of our clients (crane hire)reported that the insurance surveyor had carried out a "thorough examination" of one of his crane jibs with a pair of binoculars....
I'd been telling him how I'd found one engineer-surveyor who'd "throughly examined" 35 fork trucks at a warehouse in a short 6 hour day - that including finding them and very similarly worded "report of non-thorough examination" for a FLT that wasn't even on site, which my client hadn't spotted in the pile.
I can report similar instances of questionable practice spanning the whole of my 35 year career. There are plenty of good surveyors but unfortunately you can't rely on the thorough examination like you can the MOT on your car, for which at least there is a protocol to follow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By William
Thanks Dave this is what I am getting at, what I personally feel we need when it comes to the inspection of cranes, FLT's, chainblocks, shackles, slings, and anything else involved in lifting operations is a set of standards which equipment must be inspected to, when you consider how much cranes are expected to lift it is unrealistic to expect a visual inspection to pick up any defects.
Although I am not saying that the crane involved in this incident just had a visual inspection, we will have to wait until the investigation findings are available, this is something which does need debated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eddie Campbell
I agree that it is an unfortunate fact of life that there will be less than competent individuals in all walks of life. For that very reason I would not rely on an MOT as being a guarantee to my safety with a vehicle. Like the thorough examination it’s only good for the day of the inspection. The rest of the year’s safe motoring with the vehicle will be assured by regular inspections and competent maintenance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By William
Would someone who passed a crane as being fit to use when it was not, be liable for prosecution if someone died under the new corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide act 2007?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
Individuals cannot be prosecuted under the Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007 - only organisations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By alex mccreadie
As usual I would suggest Bob has got it right.
1 The parts that should be inspected.
2 The frequency is a possible cause not 12 Monthly for a Dockyard Crane.
His further comment is wait till the investigation is over.
We could speculate all day and get no where near the cause.
Ta Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
I am in awe of some of the posts above. You know the root cause without any data apart from the fact that it had it's stat inspection in March.....way to go!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Alex/Garyh
Agree with you both - this one is going to potentially take time to resolve. I rarely find such engineering surveyors at fault as they are well aware of the issues and potential weaknesses. Until all intervening factors are known it really is a minefield.
Yes there have been a number of collapses but many of these, including Canary Wharf remain mysteries. There may or may not be definitive answers - hopefully there will be an answer here.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By William
Gary, this is a discussion forum at no time has anyone decided on what caused the failure but in my opinion speculation and discussion is a healthy thing and proactive. If something is brought up here and it makes anyone involved with lifting think twice when it comes to inspection and in turn that prevents an accident or fatalities then it is entirely justified.
I also asked for others opinions on whether when it comes to inspection of lifting equipment there should be a prescriptive process, as there is not at the moment. If someone would answer me, how long should a crane be in service before the entire structure is checked for cracks or other defects from top to bottom, and what are others opinions on what is an acceptable inspection under loler?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
William
Ultimately it is the engineer who sets the timing between each test date. I personally do look askance at anything approaching 12 months for dock work but that is personal and based on a long ago gained experience. Engineers are generally the same and are often conservative in their approach. All the things you refer to can be done and the regulations place a clear duty on the competent person to decide the extent of testing required.
A failure is obviously a breach of the absolute duty to "adequately maintain" and there are many leading cases on this. The employer has this responsibility and can only be adjudged on the end results. To attempt a case that this or that should have been done is fruitless without detailed evidence. In some accidents the matter is more clear cut but in this one the water is potentially more murky.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By alex mccreadie
William BS7121 part 2 covers the Thorough Examination of cranes of all types.It gives a very good description of what an Examiner should look for.
All our Tower Cranes and POTC are independantly thoroughly inspected every time they are erected. They are then thoroughly Inspected again on the 6 monthly interval. As well as this they are Inspected on a 3 Monthly Internal programme. All of these Inspections check for weld cracks loose bolts as well as ropes and Lifting accessories.
Do not fall under the misapprehension that the last few UK crane collapses have been purely down to metal fatigue and the like. Canary Wharf and Croydon were both Crane Climbing incidents.Look at BS7121 PART 5 climbing equates to tight rope walking at some stages.
As already stated LOLER and BS7121 part2 do not say thorough examinations should be carried out 12 monthly. The Competent person should decide and in cases like Govan I would suggest much shorter.
Ta Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eddie Campbell
What if it was found to be operator error?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.