Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443

On 02/09/2011 17:08, harry wrote:
Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443

What a shambolic lifting operation.

There didn't even seem to be any kind of banksman directing the lift,
signalling to the crane driver. Just some idiot shouting about the chimney.

The load was out of the driver's view once it was in the back garden.

And no tag-lines on the load to guide it in.

But the over-extended jib!

It's the crane driver's job to know the crane's capacity at different
load centres, and he *way* over-exceeded it, as was made obvious.
I'm surprised there was not an alarm in the cab way before it came to that.

Perhaps in the US, you can just hire a self-drive crane and have at it
yourself! Dunno.

Incompetence all round.

--
R

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:08:18 -0700, harry wrote:

Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443

Predictable but fairly spectacular!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:08:24 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
Each was
jacked up off its wheels with pretty substantial outriggers or whatever
they're called sticking in all directions.

Yes, this one seemed to have nothing at the back - I'm not sure if the
driver had forgotten to extend them, they weren't working, or simply
weren't fitted. Either way it seems like a screw-up waiting to happen.

On 02/09/2011 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:08:18 -0700, harry wrote:

Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443

Predictable but fairly spectacular!

They had two cranes like that in the centre of Cambridge a few years ago
when finishing off the new shopping area (John Lewis etc). Each was
jacked up off its wheels with pretty substantial outriggers or whatever
they're called sticking in all directions. No chance of them going over.


Most will have seen the Irish 2-cranes thing that circulated a few years
back, but here it is again:

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/two-crane...t-photos.shtml

It's all real, except the last picture of the 2nd crane going over.

--
R

On 02/09/2011 18:26, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:08:24 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
Each was
jacked up off its wheels with pretty substantial outriggers or whatever
they're called sticking in all directions.

Yes, this one seemed to have nothing at the back - I'm not sure if the
driver had forgotten to extend them, they weren't working, or simply
weren't fitted. Either way it seems like a screw-up waiting to happen.


The outriggers or whatever you want to call them would not have made the
slightest bit of difference.

They can't hold the crane *down*, unless they were in some way bolted
into the ground!

The only thing that could be done is to add counterballance weights to
the outside.

It's simply a case of operating the crane well outside it's rating plate
specs in relation to load centres.

Pure incompetence.

--
R

On Sep 2, 6:35*pm, Ron Lowe wrote:
On 02/09/2011 18:26, Jules Richardson wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:08:24 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
Each was
jacked up off its wheels with pretty substantial outriggers or whatever
they're called sticking in all directions.

Yes, this one seemed to have nothing at the back - I'm not sure if the
driver had forgotten to extend them, they weren't working, or simply
weren't fitted. Either way it seems like a screw-up waiting to happen.

The outriggers or whatever you want to call them would not have made the
slightest bit of difference.

They can't hold the crane *down*, unless they were in some way bolted
into the ground!

The only thing that could be done is to add counterballance weights to
the outside.

It's simply a case of operating the crane well outside it's rating plate
specs in relation to load centres.

Pure incompetence.

--
R

Cranes in the UK usually have a bleeper goes off as the limit is
approached.

In article , Ron Lowe wrote:

Most will have seen the Irish 2-cranes thing that circulated a few years
back, but here it is again:

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/two-crane...t-photos.shtml

It's all real, except the last picture of the 2nd crane going over.

Ah rubbish! I thought you meant this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW8l_REm_1Q

Now _that_ is a crane crash!

You have to put up with wind noise and with what presumably is the
warning siren for the major crane being in motion; also, switch on your
NornIrish accent filter in order to understand what's being said. The
major crane is coming back towards you. There is a lot of **** flying
about towards the end. Oh: and I assume (from their hilarious
reactions) that there's no operator in the one that's hit.

J.

On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 09:08:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443

Exactly the same thing happened here a few years ago... :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/4305786.stm


--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland

On 02/09/2011 19:13, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Ron Lowe wrote:

On 02/09/2011 18:26, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:08:24 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
Each was
jacked up off its wheels with pretty substantial outriggers or
whatever
they're called sticking in all directions.

Yes, this one seemed to have nothing at the back - I'm not sure if the
driver had forgotten to extend them, they weren't working, or simply
weren't fitted. Either way it seems like a screw-up waiting to happen.


The outriggers or whatever you want to call them would not have made
the slightest bit of difference.

They can't hold the crane *down*, unless they were in some way bolted
into the ground!

But they move the pivot point, if there's going to be one, so that the
weight of the crane exerts a bigger moment against the crane arm plus
load trying to tilt it.


Only if they are in the direction of the load, and in this case, they
were. ( video, 2:44 onwards. )

Outriggers towards the front of the truck ( away from the load in this
video ) make no difference whether they are deployed or not in this
scenario. They are 'in tension' so to speak, not compression. And they
can't go into tension unless they were bolted down!

It just so happens they *are* deployed ( video 2:12 onwards )

It's clearly not an issue with the deployment of these.
They are deployed, they did indeed move the pivot point as you say, and
yet the crane did actually pivot over them.

--
R

"harry" wrote in message
...
Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443

You're right, but for the wrong reasons.
This accident happened because the rear right outrigger sunk into the ground
when the crane was at, or approaching, maximum capacity. See the last bit of
the video, it's quite visible.
Load bearing mats should have been used and perhaps the rep that surveyed
the job did not ask about any underground services (drains/ducts etc).
All outriggers were fully deployed, this quite visible. There would
certainly have been a banksman in contact with the crane operator, the voice
heard in the video is the camerman only.
All cranes (EU & USA) are required by law to have a safe load indicator that
must be regularly calibrated and certified. These SLI's basically shut down
the crane electronically at about 75% of tipping moment and ONLY allow
lowering of the load or retraction of the boom. This brings the crane back
into a safe operating range.

I can't see the make/model of the crane but would guess it's in the 150-200t
class. Could be 200-250T, not sure. I imagine a similar new machine would
cost about £800k, could well be more
These machines are not sent out willy-nilly to lift fishponds over
structures.
I am sure that this was a well prepared lift. Flawed possibly by the rep's
inexperience or the crane hirer avoiding the expense of hiring in mats by
not declaring the existence of below ground services. I would suspect the
latter but that is a matter for insurance.

The boom of the crane was not over extended, otherwise the SLI would have
limited the crane's functions. There was no jib fitted. Boom and jib are
very different animals.
Incompetence perhaps but whose? Again, a matter for insurance to investigate
and decide upon.

harry wrote:

Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443

"Hillbilly borrows crane"?

If that was a professional operator, I find it hard to believe he did not
walk the route ("Chimney, there's a chimney??") or that he did not know the
safe operating prameters of the crane. Lucky noone was squashed...



--
Tim Watts

Ron Lowe wrote:

On 02/09/2011 18:26, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:08:24 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
Each was
jacked up off its wheels with pretty substantial outriggers or whatever
they're called sticking in all directions.

Yes, this one seemed to have nothing at the back - I'm not sure if the
driver had forgotten to extend them, they weren't working, or simply
weren't fitted. Either way it seems like a screw-up waiting to happen.


The outriggers or whatever you want to call them would not have made the
slightest bit of difference.

They can't hold the crane *down*, unless they were in some way bolted
into the ground!

The only thing that could be done is to add counterballance weights to
the outside.

It's simply a case of operating the crane well outside it's rating plate
specs in relation to load centres.

Pure incompetence.


Also seemed to me that given the position of the crane on the truck bed it
would have been better to have the truck parked the other way around (the
crane looks like it's positioned 1/3 away along the base).

--
Tim Watts

On 02/09/2011 19:00, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Ron Lowe wrote:

On 02/09/2011 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:08:18 -0700, harry wrote:

Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443

Predictable but fairly spectacular!

They had two cranes like that in the centre of Cambridge a few years
ago
when finishing off the new shopping area (John Lewis etc). Each was
jacked up off its wheels with pretty substantial outriggers or whatever
they're called sticking in all directions. No chance of them going
over.


Most will have seen the Irish 2-cranes thing that circulated a few
years back, but here it is again:

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/two-crane...t-photos.shtml

It's all real, except the last picture of the 2nd crane going over.

About 30 years ago, in Geneva, a mate added an overdrive box to his
Range Rover. Now, on this left-hand drive model, IIRC to do this he had
to remove the handbrake, and at the time in question hadn't put it back.

Various bods were having a party on one of the paddle steamer jobs on
the lake. He was tasked to deliver the booze to the boat. He forgot to
leave it in gear and needless to say it rolled backwards, rear end going
over the edge into the lake, but front still on the quayside (I have a
pic of this somewhere).

Of course like a fathead he said watch this 4WD and tried to drive out.
Rear end and fuel tank full of water, all he did was fill the engine
with water.

I wasn't there but AIUI, the first truck they sent along to get him out
put its nose in the air like the one in harry's video. Bigger one
managed it though.

A skip wagon came to move a skip from the house opposite us some years
ago. The controls were at the base of the driver's seat, for operation
while standing next to it. At the first attempt, the cab rose into the
air; he rammed the rear support wheels down harder and tried again, only
stopping when the controls were heading out of reach; he rammed the
supports down harder and tried again - just as the controls were about
to head out of reach, the skip lifted and as it swung in, the truck came
back down ... leaving two holes through the pavement where the support
wheels had been.

SteveW

On 02/09/2011 20:30, Nick wrote:
wrote in message
...
Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443

You're right, but for the wrong reasons.
This accident happened because the rear right outrigger sunk into the ground
when the crane was at, or approaching, maximum capacity. See the last bit of
the video, it's quite visible.
Load bearing mats should have been used and perhaps the rep that surveyed
the job did not ask about any underground services (drains/ducts etc).
All outriggers were fully deployed, this quite visible. There would
certainly have been a banksman in contact with the crane operator, the voice
heard in the video is the camerman only.
All cranes (EU& USA) are required by law to have a safe load indicator that
must be regularly calibrated and certified. These SLI's basically shut down
the crane electronically at about 75% of tipping moment and ONLY allow
lowering of the load or retraction of the boom. This brings the crane back
into a safe operating range.

But they can still be overloaded when wind loading has not been taken
into account and there's a strong wind blowing.

SteveW

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:08:18 -0700, harry wrote:

Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443

Predictable but fairly spectacular!

They had two cranes like that in the centre of Cambridge a few years ago
when finishing off the new shopping area (John Lewis etc). Each was
jacked up off its wheels with pretty substantial outriggers or whatever
they're called sticking in all directions. No chance of them going over.

Every chance if the load*extend factor is exceeded.

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:08:24 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
Each was
jacked up off its wheels with pretty substantial outriggers or whatever
they're called sticking in all directions.

Yes, this one seemed to have nothing at the back - I'm not sure if the
driver had forgotten to extend them, they weren't working, or simply
weren't fitted. Either way it seems like a screw-up waiting to happen.

They would not have helped. The pivot point is the rear extenders ..the
front are not useful when going 'over the back'

Nothing would have helped. the weight and the extent together were
simply too much.

Steve Walker wrote:
On 02/09/2011 19:00, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Ron Lowe wrote:

On 02/09/2011 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:08:18 -0700, harry wrote:

Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443

Predictable but fairly spectacular!

They had two cranes like that in the centre of Cambridge a few years
ago
when finishing off the new shopping area (John Lewis etc). Each was
jacked up off its wheels with pretty substantial outriggers or
whatever
they're called sticking in all directions. No chance of them going
over.


Most will have seen the Irish 2-cranes thing that circulated a few
years back, but here it is again:

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/two-crane...t-photos.shtml

It's all real, except the last picture of the 2nd crane going over.

About 30 years ago, in Geneva, a mate added an overdrive box to his
Range Rover. Now, on this left-hand drive model, IIRC to do this he had
to remove the handbrake, and at the time in question hadn't put it back.

Various bods were having a party on one of the paddle steamer jobs on
the lake. He was tasked to deliver the booze to the boat. He forgot to
leave it in gear and needless to say it rolled backwards, rear end going
over the edge into the lake, but front still on the quayside (I have a
pic of this somewhere).

Of course like a fathead he said watch this 4WD and tried to drive out.
Rear end and fuel tank full of water, all he did was fill the engine
with water.

I wasn't there but AIUI, the first truck they sent along to get him out
put its nose in the air like the one in harry's video. Bigger one
managed it though.

A skip wagon came to move a skip from the house opposite us some years
ago. The controls were at the base of the driver's seat, for operation
while standing next to it. At the first attempt, the cab rose into the
air; he rammed the rear support wheels down harder and tried again, only
stopping when the controls were heading out of reach; he rammed the
supports down harder and tried again - just as the controls were about
to head out of reach, the skip lifted and as it swung in, the truck came
back down ... leaving two holes through the pavement where the support
wheels had been.

SteveW

I did similar on a digger..I was working to clear a pile of demolished
house by digging away under an 8 foot mound of rubble (I was on top)
while my wife drove the dump truck. One section of fireplace and chimney
- about a ton, came up in the bucket..as I swung it over the dump truck
I realised the reach was tipping the digger over..I let go of the load
about 5 feet above the truck.. it made a huge crash and my wife nearly
fainted....

In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 09:08:18 -0700, harry wrote:

Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443

Predictable but fairly spectacular!

They had two cranes like that in the centre of Cambridge a few years ago
when finishing off the new shopping area (John Lewis etc). Each was
jacked up off its wheels with pretty substantial outriggers or whatever
they're called sticking in all directions. No chance of them going over.


Having used a few and been up quite some height in man buckets they,
well the ones we've hired in, do have a few overload indicators but that
shambles is something a self respecting pro crane operator would be
ashamed of;!....
--
Tony Sayer

On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 09:08:18 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443

Almost unwatchable from here, 2 second spurts separated by ten
second gaps

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da7_1309318395 is the same but
much better feed.

Imagine being the operator and having to make the call to your
boss. If you didn't have a sore head beforehand you probably
did afterwards, though note to the above says it was an
electrical fault.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 21:13:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:08:24 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
Each was
jacked up off its wheels with pretty substantial outriggers or
whatever they're called sticking in all directions.

Yes, this one seemed to have nothing at the back - I'm not sure if the
driver had forgotten to extend them, they weren't working, or simply
weren't fitted. Either way it seems like a screw-up waiting to happen.

They would not have helped. The pivot point is the rear extenders ..the
front are not useful when going 'over the back'

Now I'm lost. By 'back' I mean the rear of the vehicle - the opposite of
the cab end. I'm not sure if that's what everyone else means or not :-)

On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 09:08:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443

The lust for jacuzzis has many outcomes.

"harry" wrote in message
...
Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.
http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=28443


Ooooooooppppssssssss !!! You learn something new everyday. Archy Meedes
could actually have been correct on that lever action thing he was talking
about. Ya'tink ? :-)) Hee Hee Hee




--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

En el artículo
oups.com, harry escribió:

Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.

What was the thing being lifted? Looked like a giant kitchen sink.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 08:56:07 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

En el artículo
oups.com, harry escribió:

Fairly predictable outcome. Hope he has insurance.

What was the thing being lifted? Looked like a giant kitchen sink.


Swimming pool, I'd guess. With a couple of small jacuzzi-like things.

--
Rod

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

What was the thing being lifted? Looked like a giant kitchen sink.

I assumed it was a hottub ...