Access and Scaffolding report: Rising danger

In the past six months there have been two high profile fatal accidents involving tower cranes - one in Battersea, London, and one in Liverpool. The fact that they both involve the same company, Falcon Crane Hire, may encourage the impression that this is either a statistical blip, simple bad luck or a one-off company that needs to address its safety procedures.

However, there have also been several other recent tower crane accidents. Self-erectors have toppled in London and Belfast, a luffing jib collapsed on a City of London site in October, and in February a hoist rope broke on a London site and the load fell. Numerous other incidents, well known within the industry, have gone unreported.

The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) says that, aside from the fatal accidents, there have been 18 "dangerous occurrences" involving tower cranes reported to it in the past two years. These are defined as "collapsing, overturning or failure of any load bearing part".

While this number is not as high as the 28 reported dangerous occurrences involving mobile cranes, or 90 involving excavators, tower crane safety is now firmly in the spotlight.

Tower crane manufacturers argue that if the equipment is maintained, erected and operated according to their instructions, safety is assured and the cranes can be good for 20 or 30 years.

Industry failings

The precise causes of accidents can be hard to determine. The last published HSE report on a tower crane accident investigation was on the May 2000 Canary Wharf accident, where three men were killed during the erection of a luffing jib crane. That report found a litany of failings endemic across the industry but failed to pinpoint the actual cause.

However, it is the firm belief of those close to the accident and the industry generally, that whatever happened was the result of some kind of human error. The fact that the crew drove down from Castleford, West Yorkshire, to London and back each day, setting out before dawn, putting in 16-hour days on physically demanding work, with commercial pressures to get jobs completed, was undoubtedly a strong contributory factor.

While there have been no official reports yet on more recent accidents, it is the general view in the tower crane industry that when accidents happen it is almost always because of human error. Structural or mechanical failures are rarely the cause, and where they might be, it is because of human failure to implement thorough inspection and maintenance systems.

On 23 February 2006 the luffing jib brake failed on a 30-year-old crane - again owned by Falcon - on a Galliard Homes site in Greenwich, London. The HSE declined an invitation to get involved, says construction director Donagh O'Sullivan, but Galliard's own investigations revealed that the brake lining disintegrated on the drum, causing the jib to collapse.

Clearly a mechanical failure perhaps, but Galliard's investigations revealed that "the service records for the machine were of an incredibly poor standard, some of the test records were incomplete and there were not tests carried out on site when the crane was erected," says O'Sullivan. It can therefore be safely concluded that the mechanical failure was the result of a lack of maintenance, which makes it human error.

Record-keeping

Poor record-keeping was also highlighted in the HSE report on the Canary Wharf accident.

Tower crane rental company bosses spoken to for this article are more aware than anyone of the risks involved in their business and they take their duties seriously. However, there is a tendency among them to regard the recent spate of accidents as something that happens to other people. They believe they are following industry best practice and have systems in place to minimise the risks.

This line can be supported by the fact that a disproportionate number of accidents have involved Falcon Crane Hire. However, that still leaves an unprecedented high number of accidents with other companies. This is a crisis for the whole industry, not just one company.

Paul Phillips, chairman of the Construction Plant-hire Association's Tower Crane Interest Group (TCIG), acknowledges that there is a crisis across the industry, but the TCIG is trying to tackle it, he says.

The TCIG was established in the wake of the Canary Wharf accident and over the past couple of years has published a whole series of technical guidance notes. It has helped develop training schemes for tower crane installation and operation. Construction Plant Competence Scheme cards for tower crane appointed persons, crane supervisors and slinger/signallers have also been introduced, as have National Vocation Qualifications levels 1, 2 and 3 for tower crane installation.

Training is a significant issue. The inquest into the death of two men who were killed while dismantling a tower crane at a school near Worthing, West Sussex, in 2005 found that they had no formal qualifications. A colleague, also untrained, but who survived, had loosened bolts prior to dismantling, but had not left enough torque to withstand the turning moment. The lack of formal qualifications was not the fault of their employer, since no industry programme existed. Once again, this had already been highlighted in the HSE's Canary Wharf report.

Recent initiatives

The industry has undertaken other initiatives in the past couple of years. The British Standard BS 7121-5 Safe use of cranes - Tower cranes has been re-written and beefed up from 18 pages to 96, including a new section on the safe use of climbing frames. An amendment relating to climbing frames has been added to BS EN14439. The Construction Industry Research & Information Association (CIRIA) has published Tower Crane Stability (C654).

However, despite all of this activity, safety has got worse, not better, as evidenced by the rise in accidents.

When one looks at what has happened in the tower crane sector in recent years it is easy to see that safety was always going to be at risk.

Ten years ago there were approximately 500 tower cranes in the UK. Today, according to Phillips, there are approximately 1,800 top-slewing tower cranes, of which some 1,500 are in the air and at work. In addition, there are perhaps as many as 400 or 500 pedestrian-operated self-erecting cranes. Ten years ago there were hardly any.

The tower-crane sector has gone through an unprecedented explosion. Ray O'Rourke led the movement, setting up Select Tower Cranes in 1999, which soon became the country's biggest fleet with more than 300 cranes. Several established rental companies have grown their fleets hugely. Falcon has grown from fewer than 40 to close to 200 over the period and WD Bennett's has grown from 18 cranes to more than 100.

Following O'Rourke's lead, two other concrete specialists with Irish roots entered the fray. J Reddington set up London Tower Crane Hire & Sales and already has more than 100 cranes. Lancsville set up Henry Cranes and has lofty ambitions.

Belgian company Arcomet, the world's biggest owner of tower cranes, has also entered the UK market and now has more than 60 top slewing cranes and more than 100 self-erectors.

Too many players

While all this is hugely positive in many ways, it has created two massive problems. The first is cut-throat competition, which can induce corner-cutting. The second is that the industry is now populated by too many people with less than optimum experience.

Recruitment is proving to be the biggest crisis facing the tower-crane sector. A four-fold increase in cranes requires a four-fold (or at least three-fold) increase in skilled, experienced personnel.

"Where do you get the people from?" asks Trevor Vanson, owner of crane dealer Vanson Cranes. "There are a lot more cranes out there and there aren't the people to do the work." He is not just talking about operators, but also erection crews, electricians and maintenance and inspection personnel.

Vanson used to operate a rental fleet, but sold it last year to City Lifting. "I felt I was no longer able to provide the level of service required," he admits.

Another rental company boss, who asked not to be named, says: "I think it would be fair to say that there has been a fairly constant shortage of people with the right skills and attributes. Hiring and retaining the right calibre staff is a major problem. It gets progressively harder to recruit."

He says this makes it difficult to do anything about the culture of long working hours, the contributing factor identified by the HSE in the Canary Wharf accident. "The vast majority of crews consistently work well above the 48-hour working time limit. Our people work long hours," he says. "There are too few people and those who are good are working too hard and too long and so the likelihood of mistakes is growing."

Phillips says a big part of the problem is that many contractors do not allow crane technicians on site to carry out preventative maintenance. Instead they expect it to be done out of hours, in the dark.

Adequate training

With the growing tide of self-erectors, the issue is rather different. While the HSE at first welcomed the arrival of these machines to UK sites, since they usually meant a reduction in the dangers associated with vehicle movements, now it has grown concerned about the adequacy of operator training.

Overall, says Phillips, the solution to tower crane safety lies with policing, which means the HSE. The industry, he says, has now set down best practice procedures. Anyone choosing to ignore these exposes themselves to severe sanctions in the event of an accident.

However, Phillips recognises that the hard-pressed HSE is in need of more resources to police effectively.

But, and here's the killer, with the new CDM regulations coming into force in April, maybe it doesn't need the HSE any more. Clients will now be held liable for accidents on their sites.

If a crane falls, it will be because of either the competence of the supplier or fitness for purpose of the equipment.

Whatever the case, the client is liable to be held culpable. Maybe construction clients will start to drive the much-needed improvement in tower crane safety.

Maintenance in the spotlight

Paradoxically, the staffing crisis in the tower crane sector has been exacerbated by a measure designed to implement safety. A few years ago, it was standard practice for crane operators to walk along the jib of their cranes to inspect them and grease them.

Systematic inspections by people who know what they are doing is hugely important. Cranes are subject to intensive dynamic forces and have a natural tendency to self-dismantle.

Because of concerns about the risk of falling, operators are no longer allowed to walk the jib to check the crane. Instead, crane owners now send out inspection personnel for periodic inspections. There is a statutory requirement for annual third party inspections (or six-monthly if the cranes are lifting people), which are usually carried out by insurance companies that are likely to lack specific expertise on the crane model they are inspecting. The frequency and thoroughness of interim inspections vary from company to company, but best practice appears to be every 12 weeks or so.

John Batey, president of the United Crane Operators Union, says: "None of the drivers walk the jib any more. We used to get an hour's greasing time every day. Now we get someone coming round the sites to do it but I haven't seen one of these guys for months. I'm part of the old school where if you're operating it, it's your machine. You look after it. But that doesn't happen any more."

Industry leaders like Tower Crane Interest Group chairman Paul Phillips and HTC Tower Cranes managing director Alex Lowe think safety is enhanced by stopping operators walking the jib.

Trevor Vanson of Vanson Cranes is not sure and questions whether an inspection every 10 to 12 weeks is any substitute for daily or weekly checks by the operator.

He also points out the extra cost that the crane owner now has to bear for inspections. Any inspection personnel walking the jib are now required to have recovery gear and a second person in support to assist in case of a fall.

Says Vanson: "The whole thing to me is a mess. When you sit in my chair, as director of a company handling tower cranes, you think: Christ, do I want to be put in this position?"