Truck mount overturn

Dan93
Could anyone from Nationwide/Loxam answer my questions please

Is it true that a 48m Palfinger snapped its boom with a lighting rig on its basket a couple of years ago - over extending the outreach ??

Now this 48m Palfinger over turns with a lighting rig on it also.

Isn't it common practice for your operators to send the boom out from the bottom on the emergency controls, knowing full well that they can gain extra height & outreach.

It makes me laugh that big companies get to sweep this type of incident under the carpet.

xMellowx
Fortunately no one is injured.
Last picture looks like the cylinder came out of the rear right outrigger. On the first and third picture is only a tip above the wheels. Maybe the right outriggers were both complete out and the impact pushed the rear outrigger completely in that the attachment is broken. Also noticed some cables on the ground directly nearby the stabilizers.

Mr X
Mr Ponsonby

My real name is of no relevance or interest to you or the rest of the world, My user name is all anyone needs to know, and those who do know me would know my user name is about as close as it gets to my real name. I shall sleep soundly and the world will carry on revolving without the need for you knowing who i am.

Regards

Mr X

o
Good Morning Mr X,

Please have the Courage of your convictions and sign off in your real name, so the World knows your True Identity ?

Kind Regards
Mike Ponsonby

Mr X
Mr Ponsonby

The first line of your response copied and pasted to NWP from your previous post with my user name on it, can we just clarify i am in no way a colleague or have and association with NWP/Loxam or like i said before, not involved in this incident.

Regards
Mr X

o
FAO Colin Hotchkiss esq
Managing Director
Nationwide Platforms
Lutterworth
Leics. LE17 4PN.

Good Afternoon Mr Hotchkiss,

Thank you for the comprehensive explanation from your Colleague below, the content of which is noted.

The Facts always speak for themselves and here we have an AWP overturned and lieing on its side in Slough. That is a fact and does not need a High Court Inquiry to confirm that Lifting over one Extended Outrigger, while the other Three are Retracted is always risky because it produces an unstable platform due to the leveraged effects of One Long and Three Short Outriggers producing different Tm2 loadings on the Ground. Worse still on Grass, as grassland will always compress under the vertical weights imposed by the Hydraulic Outrigger Jacks.

The Technological Development called Variobase is a significant improvement, but once the Machine is overturned it confirms that while stability must always be managed, that Gravity can never be defeated and will have the last word on Safety ?

While I fully accept your desire to avoid bad publicity for this AWP Incident, this had the potential to be Fatal for someone and is number 595 in my Database which has already Killed 535 Men, Women and Children Worldwide since I started researching this subject on 7 May 2007.

So while we are happy to wait for your Formal Investigation to conclude, may I respectfully request that you Publish this Report, so that we can all learn from it. Please do not keep it secret, as Secrecy is the Enemy of Safety.

Finally this overturned AWP confirms once again the importance of Operator Training, because not only is it a sensible use of expensive capital equipment, it also complies with the Common Law Duty on all UK employers to adopt Safe Systems of Work SSoW. This means that Lifting Operations should always be planned in such a way, that if something goes wrong, that no-one gets Killed.

Because Worker Safety is Important, Very Important and much too important to leave it to chance, because 535 Fatal Lifting Incidents Worldwide since 7 May 2007 is 535 too many ?

The AWP World now awaits the Publication of your Report please ?

Kind Regards
Mike Ponsonby

lost in france
Hi all, the stabilizer configuration is key on this accident, if the cage load was within its limits, then no problem there??
Looking at the position of the stabilizer plates(from the pictures) all should be ok, some points to note;
it would appear that the ground loading was fine(evidence from the photos)
Irrelevant of working in front or to the rear of the machine.
I would presume there is some damage to the turntable(pinon gear damage thus the turntable has turned on impact)???
RNS outrigger is buried/broken ????
last of all, the machine was being operated from the ground controls,so there are two possibilities machine was shunted onto the emergency controls due to the machine being on its limits
or maybe a booming down movement caused some excessive dynamic forces to come into action(fishing rod effect).
I do think its now best to see what others are saying, I.E driver,witnesses, manufacturer.
platforms are perfectly safe for this type of work so long as all aspects of site and machine safety are adhered to, been working on all makes of machine for years, although accidents happen and will always happen, lets wait for the experts on people on site to evaluate the problem and not try too work it out with just some photos.

o
Good Afternoon Mr X,

Thank you for comprehensive explanation below, the content of which is noted.

The Facts always speak for themselves and here we have an AWP overturned and lieing on its side in Slough. That is a fact and confirms that Lifting over one Extended Outrigger, while the other Three are Retracted is always risky because it produces an unstable platform due to the leveraged effects of One Long and Three Short Outriggers producing different Tm2 loadings on the Ground.

The Technological Development called Variobase is a significant improvement, but once the Machine is overturned it confirms that while stability must always be managed, that Gravity can never be defeated and will have the last word on Safety ?

This overturned AWP also confirms the importance of Operator Training, because not only is it a sensible use of expensive equipment, it also complies with the Common Law Duty on all UK employers to adopt Safe Systems of Work SSoW. Because the Employer is the duty holder, not the Employee.

This means that the Lifting Operation should be planned in such a way, that if something goes wrong, that no-one gets Killed. Because Worker Safety is Important, Very Important and much too important to leave it to chance, because 535 Fatal Lifting Incidents Worldwide since 7 May 2007 is 535 too many ?

Kind Regards
Mike Ponsonby

cmc
I'm getting a bit sick of reading the same nonsense comments made by some on here,
let me address some of the points made below.

First of all please tell me what the "Newtonian principle of how to calculate Force, Mass and Stability on Grass" is, I must have missed that day in physics.

Next, the 30 degree angle of the wreckage does not illustrate anything other than further investigation is required to determine the outrigger extension,
the O/S outrigger mats are parallel with the N/S outrigger mats and as we can see the N/S outriggers are both retracted so the evidence is pointing towards the assumption that the O/S where both extended to the same length.

The next point is that the appliance appears to have tipped over the front so the argument about the OSR outrigger may be irrelevant anyway. The evidence for this comes from the damage to the grass, the damage to the OSF of the cab and the distance that the rear of the appliance is away from the mats. (maybe you could have used the Newtonian principle of how to calculate Force, Mass and Stability on Grass to work this out)

I work to the rule of thumb that a crane is used for lifting things and a platform is used for lifting people. There are exceptions but there was no apparent reason to not use a crane or a scaffold in this instance.

I'm also getting sick of your comments blaming the operators before the facts are known, It could have malfunctioned, the wind may have picked up suddenly, something may have failed, a unexpected dynamic load may have occurred, the possibilities are endless. There is no proof in those pictures that lack of training was responsible for this incident.

The only criticism of the operator you could have at this moment in time is why was he working over the front and not the rear? There is a huge amount of counterweight in the cab and engine when working over the rear. I work with cranes and would always favour working over the rear to the front when possible.

To be fair, I do appreciate that you are showing an interest in safety and your knowledge base is apparent in some of the things you say but sometimes you need to look a bit deeper and stop jumping to conclusions, you have completely missed the fact that this MEWP tipped forward and over the OS, you yourself have stated that the OSF outrigger was fully extended so how is this a good example of unstable outrigger setup? to me, it looks like it was setup fine, lifting over the fully extended outrigger.

lost in france
lets see what the fault memory comes up with, this model records the last 40 faults

Sherm
In my 18 years of tree work in two MEWPs I would assess this incident to be caused by the wrong choice of lifting device. These turf boards and mats do not show failure...the load was too great and extended to far up and out. I’m reminded of a new $700,000 6-axle Liebherr crane had been sent to a concrete two-story parking garage about the year 2003 assigned to extend full beam to lift and slew a commercial A/C set to a low-boy truck bed. Once the crane began to lift it’s load the concrete garage gave way. The crane fell through and the concrete and was adjusted as a full total wreck simply because of bad planning and insufficient knowledge to choose the best approach to the lift.

Tmayes
Mr X
Regarding your comment to Mike ponsonby, I think you are giving him way to much credit with that statement, copy and paste is this guys current field of expertise.

Pemby
I think Loxam should put in a claim for misuse against the client, as its twice for this machine, and these tend to go over due to being used to lift not-people, when they're designed to only life people.

If Clarkson, Hammond and May can hire Mobile Cranes to play BattleCaravans, I'm sure multimillion dollar movie studios can spare a few thousand for a crane.

Mr X
Mr Ponsonby

I realise cranes are your expertise so ill just leave this here for you, As with most modern AWP”s The P480 truckmount above can variable jack, so regardless where the legs are positioned the software will work out what radius is achievable taking into account the cage load, boom angles and leg position etc etc, although i do find it bizarre that the sole boards left on the trackway all look at equal distances apart, the rear off side outrigger beam is retracted, perhaps as a consequence of the incident the outrigger beam has been somehow pushed back in upon contact with the ground? But narrow jacking isn’t something unusual or unstable for a machine of this type, Your statement says the OSR outrigger is not extended, The offside rear jack leg has been extended, if you zoom in you can see the chrome jack and footpad below bumper height but buried in the grass. I am in no way involved with this incident, just sticking my 2 penneth in to correct what i can see. Whether this is machine or operator failure remains to be seen.

AccessibL
Some of these film people are very insistent and persuasive... "It doesn't weigh much", "The last one lifted it", "Can you just give it a tweak?", "The last bloke said it was okay" etc.

AccessibL
https://vertikal.net/en/news/story/25407/truck-mount-overturn

https://vertikal.net/en/news/story/27603/whoops-in-triplicate

https://vertikal.net/en/news/story/27606/fallen-booms-recovered

o

Good Morning Mr Editor,

Thank you for publishing this Report as the AWP Tipped above, had the potential to be Fatal for someone.

As The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regs 1998 LOLER applies to all Machines that lift off the Ground, that is AWP, Cranes and Telehandlers etc.

The Machine lieing on its side above is a good example of an Unstable Outrigger Set-Up, the subject of Regulation 4A of LOLER. Please allow me to explain.

1. The OSF Outrigger appears to be correctly fully extended, with the Hydraulic Jack Set up on a Mat.

2. By comparison, the NSF and NSR Outriggers are both Retracted, despite the Jacks both being Extended down to the Mats.

3. However the OSR Outrigger is Both Retracted and Not Extended, as illustrated by the 30 degree angle of this AWP in Photo.

Therefore this AWP Incident is number 85 in my Database of 595 which has already Killed 535 Men, Women and Children Worldwide since 7 May 2007.

As Nationwide Platforms/Loxam is the owner of this Machine, the MD may like to protect his own interests by

4. Starting an AWP Safety Training Programme.

5. Include the Newtonian principles of how to calculate Force, Mass and Stability on Grass.

6. Invite CEO plus all Directors and Managers to attend because if they are not Personally Committed to Safety, no one else will be ?

The reason being that Worker Safety is Important, Very Important and much too important to leave it to chance, because 535 Fatal Incidents is 535 too many ?

Kind Regards
Mike Ponsonby

Timno
Access platform with a scaffold bolted on load at radius???
Use a crane for lifting,its what they are made for !!!

Mr X
Same registration P480 that tipped a few years back. Not a 2 axle 60m Mr Sparrow