I recently had a call from a member who had done a thorough examination of some lifting equipment and found that a safety feature was missing. In this case, the safety latches on sling hooks had been removed. However, it might equally have been the safety net for crane forks, the back-up systems for vacuum lifters or magnets, or one of many other similar safety related features.
Sometimes on such occasions, the equipment in question has originally been fitted with the safety feature, and it has been removed or disabled by the user. In other cases, it was never fitted in the first place, perhaps because of the age of the equipment. Usually, the equipment is otherwise sound and safe to use. The question raised is whether it should it be allowed without the safety feature? The instinctive response is often a very definite no. However, depending on the circumstances of use, this may not always be the correct answer.
In the case of the sling hooks, the safety latch has, in the last decade or two, become a standard feature of general purpose slings. Its purpose is to retain the hook onto the connection until the tension in the sling leg takes over. This removes the need for the slinger to hold it in place with the attendant risk of a trapped hand. Also, it can prevent unintended disconnection in the event of the tension being removed, such as might occur if one corner of a load is temporarily or accidentally landed.
However, there are applications where a safety latch might actually increase the risk. A simple example is the handling of moulding boxes in a foundry. The boxes have a lifting trunnion on each end and the usual hook employed has a large bowl to match the trunnion but no latch. In this application the hook can easily be located and the tension applied without the risk of hand injury. Moreover, it can easily be removed without touching the hook or the box which, after pouring, will remain hot for some considerable time.
The value of the safety latch therefore depends upon the application and the associated risks. The manufacturer of general purpose slings is unlikely to know what they will be used for so errs on what is usually the safe side and fits latches.
Equipment such as crane forks, vacuum and magnet handling equipment can be used in various applications and the risk varies accordingly. For example, on a construction site, crane forks may be used to unload materials such as bricks or blocks from the delivery lorry onto an adjacent storage area. The height lifted need only be sufficient to clear the lorry and personnel can easily be excluded from the area beneath the load. In the event of the load falling apart, there is no risk to persons. However, if the same loads are to be lifted up several floors and personnel cannot be excluded from the site below, the risk of an uncontained load falling apart is simply unacceptable. Hence the forks must be fitted with a safety net or mesh cage to contain the material and thereby control the risk.
The risk of injury arising from manual handling has led to the development of new and often relatively simple lifting accessories such as vacuum pads for lifting kerbstones and similar items. Vacuum handling equipment has been used for many years and proved very successful. Many applications, particularly those lifting sheet material to a height from which it can glide if released, require warning devices and back-up vacuum reserves to provide adequate time to evacuate the danger zone in the event of power failure. However, simple vacuum pads such as those used for kerbstones often lack these features and need to be treated accordingly. The same is true of lifting magnets.
There are numerous other examples I could give, but the lesson from all of them is essentially the same. To ensure safe operation, the equipment must be suited for the purpose intended and that includes not just the weight of the load but its shape, flexibility, strength, porosity, temperature, available lifting points, the height of lift and degree of movement to be carried out.
In Europe there is a duty on the manufacturer of lifting equipment to provide adequate information about the safe use of the equipment, including foreseeable misuse. Regardless of whether it is required by local legislation, this is a principle worth including in any contract to purchase or hire. It is vital that any safety limitations on the use of the equipment are clearly stated. It is equally vital that the employer who provides such equipment is aware of its limitations and ensures that it is used accordingly.
To return to the original query regarding a thorough examination, generally speaking the lifting equipment examiner or inspector is looking primarily at the condition of the equipment to see whether it remains safe for a further period of service. The responsibility for its suitability lies with the employer whose duty it is to assess and control the risks. In situations where the examiner finds the equipment in otherwise serviceable condition but is concerned about its suitability for the particular application, my recommendation is always that this is reported to the employer as soon as possible and preferably confirmed in writing. Even the most responsible of employers can occasionally miss something vital and safety is, after all, everyone’s responsibility.
