http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPoUpUYOYw&feature=related
How the heck is it that there is always somebody filming these incidents??? Great link Steve,wonder where it was or was I not paying attention?Ron G
The label on the boat is in spanish and the bus appears to be European built. I'm guessing it's somewhere in South America.
Wow i just saw this on world most shocking video's!
http://www.kirotv.com/slideshow/news/15046475/detail.html Looks like the ring bearing or the bolts attaching the bearing broke. Good thing truck driver was not in his seat.
I saw that on the tube yesterday. It is a Krupp crane which was swallowed up by Demag a few years ago. That unit has to be at least ten years old. I'm wondering if the unit has a quick couple setup to make it easy to remove the house from the truck unit for transport. I can't imagine a turntable bearing breaking like that and I don't see the truck body broken in the photos. We seem to have had our share of crane accidents in the last couple of years. I know I won't work where a crane is swinging over my head all the time.
Yeah inital reports were that it was a tower crane and I could not believe that it had happened again. SO GLAD everyone will be ok. NESS CRANE was operating both cranes that have fallen in the last few years here, I bet their safety guy is going gray in a hurry.
Grove owns Krupp, the KMK, Krupp Mobile Krane, become the GMK, Grove Mobile Crane. However, Grove is owned by Manitowac, and Demag is now owned by Terex.
In the seventh picture you can see the house has failed aft of the turntable, the ring gear and bearing are still attached. Perhaps a failure caused by repeated overloading. You can only fatigue metal so many times.
Good eye, I missed that the first time I looked at the photos. It was hard for me to visualize at first since a hydrolic excavator's boom attaches forward of the ring gear not behind it.
Do new zero turn radius excavators have the boom butt behind the turntable? Anyway, rumors fly everywhere, but I heard that crane was at a radius of 95' good for 9000 structural failure, not tipping. The load he was lifting was 20,000. Of course, that's only hearsay.
Here's one that just happened yesterday on the new Canada Line: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/01/21/bc-crane.html
What contractor's working on the Canada Line? I didn't see that job when I was out there... I stuck to North Van mostly.
I have no idea who's the big contractor.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HI-ENqgjQXM This link shows a Lampson Transilift (i believe it was one of their 1500 toner) lifting a roof section for a new stadium back east. The lift was 400+ tons on the jib (yea its a big crane) and was considered a critical lift due to the radius and load weight. The operator that was tasked with making the lift refused it due to the winds (note the wind sock in the top right corner of the vid). The Project Manager said fine we will get someone else and they did. The video shows the result of a poor decision on the part of the 2nd operator. 3 people in the manbasket you can see suspended from the crane in the background were killed. As the holder of an unlimited tonage in both hydralic and lattice cranes certification (for about 17 yrs) I hope that they put the operator in jail for the rest of his life. Just remember any of you younger crane operators just starting out. "if it leaves the ground on your hook, it belongs to you no ifs, ands or buts! One other thing if a foremam or supers lips are moving when he is telling you what YOUR lift is going to weigh, chances are good that he is lying to you.
Wow! Not much to say there. Do you know what the noises were, the screeching and two bangs? Was the wind a factor in the failure?
wind was the cause for the boom failure. the 2 loud bangs are the main boom chords letting go from the side loading of the wind in the load and boom
This is not true. Although I've never worked for Lampson directly I have operated several of their cranes so I took an interest in this when I saw it on the news. I also have a friend that worked for them several years that was friends with the operator of Big Blue. He broke his hip and a shoulder when he jumped out as it went over. There was a crew change on this crane but it took place several weeks before the accident. The original crew Flagman and the project manager for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries had butted heads from day one. I'm not sure what it was all about but do know some of it was site conditions, compaction and how level it was. Mitsubishi wanted him fired and they finally won out and Lampson swapped crews with another Transi lift they had running somewhere else. There was concern expressed the morning of the accident about the wind by both the Crane Crew and the Iron Workers but Mitsubishi's project manager decided to go forward with the lift. There was finger pointing in all directions after this happened but Lampsons Crew was cleared of any wrong doing. Lampson was fined by OSHA for a few infractions.
The screeching was the brake. Its common for the brakes to squeal on a friction cranes.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I forgot to mention that although the investigation found that the wind had caused the accident, the operator always maintained that he didn't agree. He had a guage in the boom and said it never gusted above 20 MPH. One track had settled a little and with that much boom he figured it was enough to cause the collapse. Who knows? Maybe a little of both.
I wondered that. Thanks! I've never seen a crane that size.
You are right about the crane crew change out being a couple of weeks before the accident, apparently the original operator/crane crew/ironworkers had a number of run-ins with the Mitsubishi PM (Grotlisch) over ground conditions, rigging, wind, about everything you can imagine to try and keep the project on schedule (famous last words.) As for the cause, it was determined to be wind loading the Transi Lift was cleared of any structural problems by Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, 149 Commonwealth Drive, P.O. Box 3015, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA There paper describes the comprehensive engineering analyses undertaken to disprove the Mitsubishi theories of failure as confirmed by jury verdict. Among the topics discussed are: wind tunnel testing, structural analyses of the boom, metallurgy of failed parts from a critical king-pin assembly, and soils engineering work related to ground loads and displacements during the lift. Crucial role of the SAE J1093, 2% design side load criterion and Lampson’s justification for an 85% crawler crane stability criterion are presented. Excerpts from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel during the trial. "Site Superintendant Grotlisch (Mitsubishi) admitted under examination that he had "dropped the ball" the day of the accident and that he had no idea what effect the wind would have on the roof piece being lifted. That was because nobody at the job site did so-called wind-load calculations, which are commonly (should read always done) done for crane lifts in windy conditions. They are designed to predict the effect of the wind on the load being raised. Employees of Mitsubishi and Lampson each testified that they thought the other firm was doing the wind-loading calculations. Lampson employees maintained that they explained to Mitsubishi officials that Mitsubishi would be responsible for doing them." Come on guys, a 100 × 180 × 16 ft open truss panel roof section weighing close to 500 tons at a lift height of 230 ft."and nobody bothered to ask about the effect of wind on the load, I find that a little hard to believe. "Testimony showed that Grotlisch went to the Mitsubishi construction trailer shortly after the accident and that someone unplugged the firm's weather computer there, leaving no record of the wind speeds measured at the time of the accident." ya think that someone had an idea they were dancing on thin ice? According to Steve Prior, of WeatherData a private weather service in Wichita, Kan., sustained winds at the time of the accident were 23 mph gusting to 28 or 29 mph. I have ran several cranes with an anemometer mounted in the boom, they are a man made instrument and prone to inconsistencies, I always look around for things (wind socks, flags, trees,ect) to reinforce the mechanical readings just to be sure. I'll give you James Headly's remarks on that (owner of Crane Institute of America, one of the most respected crane safety companies in the US)"I can't believe they would want to do it. I can't understand it." It goes on and on untill the COURTS decide that Mitsubishi is 97 % responcible and Lampson is 3%, which brings me to the crux of this post. In my opinion one simple word could have saved 3 lives. That word, no should have to come from the operator had he had any reservations about the lift (like meabe the other crane ops on-site had been suspended earler in the day due to the wind (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) )! Like it or not he made a conscious desicion to pull the lever and lift the load. Whether he was bullyed or threatened or what ever by a PM or Super, it is irrelevant, as the operator he has the last word in any lift! The point I am trying to make to any crane operator regardless of experience is that you are the LAST word for any lift, when you sky the load you have checked and rechecked every aspect of the load, from the ground to the crown and all inbetween, use that power. my apologies for the long post, I hope I have not PO'd anyone, but felt that since this was probably one of the most catastrophic crane accidents we have ever had some things needed to be cleared up. I apologize for my inaccuracies in the orignal post. Joe
No apology required. Good, insightful posts can be as long as they need to be. I pay a lot of attention to aviation stuff, and there's are a concept I've picked up in those discussions that seems to apply here. It's what's called CRM; "Cockpit Resource Management", or sometimes "Crew Resource Management". In the wake of a few particularly nasty accidents, the industry realized that the way things were often done in the pointy end of the plane was that the Captain was the sole authority, and what he said was the way it was going to be, period. The result was that sometimes the Captain would be wrong, but the copilot and flight engineer would not say anything, (at least not strongly enough), because they didn't feel they had any meaningful say in the matter anyway. CRM teaches that everybody has the duty to make sure that the flight is conducted safely, even if it means pointing out that the Captain is wrong, and the Captain is obliged to listen. I've always tried to make it clear to everybody that I'm working with that if they think I'm doing something stupid, they should tell me. And I've always tried to keep those I'm working for from getting us all into trouble by speaking up when I'm not comfortable with something. Certainly that's true, at least in the sense that he'll have to live with the consequences of a bad decision, but, on a big job, costing big money, like that one, can that "last word" concept be made to work? In other words, can the operator have that "last word" without losing his job? It's easy enough to say that the operator has the last word, but harder to put that into practice if you qualify it with, "and then he can go stand in the unemployment line". I'm not taking issue with what you've said, Big Iron, but more questioning whether it exists in the real world workplace, or is it more of an ideal that we've not yet achieved?
Along a similar vein.... I have a problem with so called "site supervisors" who don't supervise...that is to say they don't give you all the information they should for you to do the task they have called you for. I am sure this is sometimes done to divulge responsibility or, I suspect, because they don't want to display their lack of knowledge about what should be done. Too often you meet on a new site and its something like "dig hole here" and "I'll be back in a couple of hours" (not). The operator is responsible for "Operating the machine in a safe and efficient manner". He is not solely responsible for site safety, organisation and planning. Operators and supervisors are required to have this weird thing called communication and a degree of trust and cooperation.
CRM teaches that everybody has the duty to make sure that the flight is conducted safely, even if it means pointing out that the Captain is wrong, and the Captain is obliged to listen. On our daily safety meeting forms I used to have a saying at the bottom that read " Anyone can STOP work on this project, even your Grandma! They made me take the Grandma part out, no sense of humor I guess. CRM is what I am talking about (as Squizzy said communication is the key) that one simple concept can not only make a project safer, but increase productivity as well In other words, can the operator have that "last word" without losing his job? It's easy enough to say that the operator has the last word, but harder to put that into practice if you qualify it with, "and then he can go stand in the unemployment line". it is not a tough concept for me at my age and position in life today, however you are absolutly right when it is a tough concept is for a young guy just starting out or has a family to feed or has medical bills or whatever, it becomes a very difficult decision. Safety has to start with managment! On that same note we had our present job (6 to 8 million dollar job) shut down by the operator of the 250 link belt who driving pile for me, for poor sub surface site conditions . The client stood behind his decision 100% and gave him a safety award to boot. we can only hope that not only are we training our operators well enough to make the tough decisions as this lad did, but that the message is starting to get through to upper managment as well (unfortunately I think their reasons are more finanically based than anything else). Too often you meet on a new site and its something like "dig hole here" and "I'll be back in a couple of hours" (not). You hit the nail right on the head Squizzy comunication is the single most important tool we have and sometimes the least used. I am dealing with that very same problem as we speak, am doing a large job (same job from above) for a major oil company in OR. The PM for this client has been on site a grand total of about 10 times in 5 months and I don't like not having someone on site at least once a week to approve or disaprove plan changes, safety concerns, budget, ect. (the project has turned into a design build with all the change orders) however the client has made a total commitment to safety which makes my life a little easier. Thanks for the comments guys, I pride myself on running a safe job site and any input that will help me get my project completed safer, quicker and better is appreciated. Great forum by the way
Steve good clip,thanks.tim
That's exactly right. And that's why I raised the question. It comes down to a matter of the company's "safety culture". It sounds like your company has a good grip on that. I'm not sure that it's an attitude that is pervasive throughout the industry though.
I've refused to make many many pics in my career. Some we were able to jump though a few hoops and fix the problem, some I've folded up my toys and went home. In no instance have the owners of the company done anything but back me up. When I refuse a pick I'll explain to the person in charge why I won't do it and I don't argue. My favorite thing I hear is," Just try it". When I first saw this accident on the news two thing came to mind. 1. Why would anyone make a critical pick in those conditions. 2. Why were those Iron workers in the situation that they were. However, anyone can be a "Monday Morning Quarterback" and tell you what they would have done instead. Nobody in their wildest imagination thought this was going to happen. Not the Operators. The Iron Workers in the man basket or the two OSHA guys on location filming the pick. If I'd been the operator would I'd have made this pick? I simply don"t have a clue and won't speculate. I wasn't there and anyone who wasn't is second guessing.
I'm curious what agency did you get your certification from? Do you think certification for crane operators should be mandatory?
My first crane certification came in the early 90’s and was not a “certification” parse, but a 5 day crane safety seminar, which at the end of you received a certificate of completion. This was the first crane safety course offered by VECO North Slope. It was put on in Anchorage by the Crane Institute of America (from Orlando, Florida) and is still today one of the best safety seminars I have ever been to. From that time on I have been certified (it is a certification as prescribed by ANSI/ASME, OSHA, USACE, DOE Hoisting and Rigging requirements) by Overton Safety Engineering out of Portland. I enjoy going to the recerts every couple of years, even though I spend very little time in cranes anymore. It seems that I learn something new every time from them. The new safety knowledge/regulations I learn from them helps me in my decision making as a project manager on a daily basis. The project I’m on now has had as many as 5 cranes (from 250 ton (w/200’ of boom and they even let me run it for a while!) to 50tn, 4 excavators, 3.5 cy loader, 2 forklifts, 8-axle dump trucks and enough people to build the Empire State building, in an area about 1100’ long by 100’ wide) at one time. Tight area to say the least! Having the knowledge (both practical and classroom) has helped in making this a safe project. Got a little long winded there, to answer your second question is a toughie. Many states are adopting or have adopted NCCCO type certifications as law (I am not NCCCO certified although I will be next year as it is a requirement of BP project I am on). I have mixed feelings about this type of a program, as you will read below. I have been pulling friction levers since the mid 60’s (god I hate to date myself like that) and have watched the transgression from operators that have started as oilers/groundmen and worked there way up to the seat (as I did), as opposed to operators that have attended a heavy equipment operator school and received an NCCCO certification are two different things. I guess the point I am trying to make is that you can teach anyone how to pull levers, that being said you cannot teach people the practical aspect of running a piece of equipment, that comes with experience and is something that cannot be taught in a classroom situation (that includes being out in the yard for a few hours in a controlled situation) The little things like an eye swage in a sling giving way, or the ground under an outrigger sinking an inch or two with a load on the hook or a brake failure, you know the stuff that makes you pucker up to the point you couldn’t drive a 10 penny nail in there with a sledge hammer . I believe that any new operator (be it cranes, excavators, dozers you name it) that has not oiled or been part of the ground crew on that piece of equipment for a period of time should have to before being handed the responsibility of the seat. This type of experience is invaluable (Sort of like a doctor’s residency before they let him cut on me!) I believe that we as operators should attend some form of safety seminars on a regular basis, whether it is in the form of a certification or a certificate of completion or online course. I don’t know, I do know I benefit from it on a regular basis it is one of reasons that I lurk on any construction heavy equipment or construction safety sites I can find. Posts such as yours can offer a wealth of information to those young operators and to us old farts as well. On the regulatory end of the spectrum, it is hard enough to keep up with the new regulations coming out on a daily basis (most written by incompetent morons) and are damn near impossible to keep up with even when you work at it. There are a few boards (such as this one) which carry forums on safety regs. They tend to condense the BS and help get to the root of the effect it will have on us in the field. These can be a great tool for us. Upper management fights the apprenticeship approach because it is a financial burden to the company. They would much rather see a certification type program as it relieves much of the liability (and like it or not that is the bottom line) from them, is quicker and less costly to maintain. Its easier for them to tell a dead mans family that he was trained (at great expense to the company) for that job and should have known better. Safety is not cheap and never will be it slows production and is costly to maintain, is it worth it? Having seen several deaths in the loggin woods (one a very close friend for many years) and some nasty injuries on construction sites, I believe it is! Well that’s what you get when you let me answer a question on a Saturday morning when the snow is falling and its to early to go to the shop and drink beer!:drinkup
I have thought about this off and on for a week now, and I must say that as an operator, you are forced to assume some things. First off if you are told that all the engineering has been done on the lift and all the proper equipment is in place, who are you to second guess them as to if it actually has been done. If someone had told the operator that no one had done wind load calculations he would have never done the life. Any lift of that size requires those studies. We must assume that the operator had no indication that there was no wind study done as no reasonably cafeful person would have continued had they any doubt that a critical study was being omited. I think we should cut the operator some slack, as he only can make decisions based upon the information avalible to him.
Thanks for your thoughts Big Iron, We do have a difference of opinion about Crane Institute of America though. We get our cranes third party inspected every year. I never could figure out why something that was OK one year all of a sudden wasn't the next. Or why one inspector would let something pass and the next one wouldn't. In the mid 90s Crane Institute put on a Mobile Crane inspection seminar over in Anchorage. The owner decided I should attend this and maybe get a few answers. The cost was $600 plus the airfare, room,meals wages and rental car. I was excited about the class. However, what we got for an instructor was a helicopter pilot that the closest he ever got to a crane was he worked around a digger derrick when he was in the military. About 4 times a day we'd venture off on stories that happened to him during flights. Basically all I learned was, 1. The regs are hard to understand. 2. The regs are open to interpretation. I already had a pretty good handle on that. Out of the 54 people that took the class I'd be shocked if any of them ever took a class from Crane Institute again. Total waste of time and money. I did get a nice little certificate which I promptly threw away. As far as Certification of Crane Operators I think some kind of program needs to be instituted. I think so far the NCCCO is about the best there is. I know Crane Institute is trying to get their own going. The thing I like about the NCCCO is their non profit, The boards represented by manufactures, owners, OSHA personnel, rigging companies, and others. There does need to be an industry standard though. A few years ago a company got a breakwater and dredging job in Larsen Bay on the backside of the Island. They rented a 50 ton Lorain from a company in Anchorage. When they brought it down on the barge they put a little tug boat on the barge they had to offload with it, When it didn't have enough capacity they lashed the Crane down to the barge with every chain they could get on it. When the boat got a couple feet out of the cradle it slowly settled back in. It had buckled the live mast. Luckily it just slowly bent rather than snap and drop the boom. They brought it around to our dock and we set the boat in the water for them. Then we offloaded the crane into the yard. We had to send a rigger up the boom and help lower it to the ground with our crane. They unhooked the pennants and chained it to the carrier and were pulling with the boom hoist to try to straighten it back up. They were going to straighten it and weld gussets on it to fix it. I decided that if this was my crane I'd appreciate someone calling me about major damage to it so I called the owner and asked him if he knew what had happened. He hadn't been notified. He flew in and inspected the damage. He told them it couldn't be fixed and needed to be replaced. He found one at a crane dismantler in Washington State. Since this was an Army Corp job they decided this was a "Crane Incident". They wouldn't let the crane back on the job without a new inspection certificate. They also wouldn't let the operator back on the job without a certification. When the parts came in and crane was repaired they called an inspector from Anchorage to come down. He looked the crane over and certified it. He then asked the operator 4 questions. What was the signal for boom up? What was the signal for boom down and float the load? He gave him a page of the load chart and asked him how far out he could take a certain weight with 80' of boom? The last question was which direction should a crane swing when you push the swing lever forward? The operator got a 100% on his test and the guy wrote him a certification card. I told the guy that I wanted a certification. How much do they cost? He told me $350. I asked him if I could get mine written on toilet paper so I'd have a good use for it? After he stomped off mad and everyone quit laughing we loaded the crane back on their barge. They went to lower the boom down to secure it on the deck for travel. Their drill leads that weighed around 15,000# needed to be moved over a couple feet so the boom could rest on the deck. Rather than boom up and bring the block down to pick it the operator just swung the boom over the leads. They used log chains to chain it to one boom cord. He just boomed it up until the leads were off the deck and moved them over. I swear the boom had a 3' bow and a 1/4 twist. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. All this took place while the operator was sitting on that nice new certification he'd just got. Anyway, who am I? It seemed to work. They sailed away and as far as I know never had anymore trouble. I got an NCCCO certification in 98 and have been re certified twice. However, I'm not anymore certified than that operator is. Until these type of certifications are stopped, it means nothing. Sorry this got so long winded but this is why I feel like I do.
Well the week is finally done and I have some time (before the honey doos start). Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with Crane Institute. As I stated mine was one of the best I have had the opportunity to attend, of course I didn’t get a retired pilot for an instructor. We had James Headly the owner, as I recall he had retired from 20 years as an operator in New York State and his partner at that time (I think he is totally retired now), who was retired from the Iron Workers as a master rigger also from New York. Needless to say they had a wealth of knowledge to share. And yes they offer NCCCO training. I agree 110% with the fact that NCCCO is the best thing we have going right now, however it is not without its own faults, but is head and shoulders above anything else we have going at the present time. The crane industry today is in dire need of stricter operator/owner guidelines/regulations. There are so many cranes of all types on all kinds of construction work today. You see things like you mentioned happen on a daily basis, it’s a wonder more have not been killed and injured than have. I’m looking forward to taking the CCO tests this year. I have read their sample material on the web and the written portion looks to be more comprehensive than some of the certification programs I have been exposed to in the past. As far as the regulations being hard to understand and open to interpretation, of course they are. Once the regulation has been written (hopefully by someone who knows as least a little of the subject matter), the attorneys then rewrite it just to make sure you and I can’t understand it and they fully cover the governments collective large rearend. Short safety story. This week we had a LB 80100 on site to lift some steel into the tank farm. As we they doing there pre-lift safety meeting the BP safety man asked to see the crane certs, lift plan, safety meeting form, ATW permit, ect. sure says the operator (a buddy of mine) and crawls into the cab and hands the certs to him along with another wad of paperwork. Good says the BP man, but these certs are expired by a year. Blank look from the operator ! Oooppps! Gets on the phone with the home office. What do you mean we just had those cranes certified 6 months ago. Well by about 5 in the afternoon they found the proper cert and faxed it to operator. The next morning at yet another pre-lift safety meeting the now grinning operator hands the new certs to the BP man. Great says the BP man and we go about our safety meeting. We are about to go to work when the BP man say wait, these certs are no good! Another blank look from the operator ! The inspector’s certs were expired at the time of the inspection. Back on the phone to the home office. The inspector is in WA doing an inspection on another crane. To make a long story short the inspector had used the wrong stamp and was in fact legal at the time he had inspected the crane, so they faxed the corrected certs and we were working by noon. The moral of this story is that you need to have all your paperwork in order before you hit the job site whether it is from the porta-potti or the crane, cause when it hits the fan you will get some on you. :shf