Failure of crane hook during load test.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ม.ค. 2021
- In May 2020, the Orion 1 was in the port of Rostock after having its 5000-tonne heavy-lift Liebherr crane installed. During the test load of the crane (35 metres outreach and 175 metres hoisting height), the hook collapsed with the result that the complete crane collapsed.
- วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
As I understand it, that was a 5,000 ton lift test in progress when the hook failed at around 2500 tons. The ship must ballast to counter-balance that weight, so when the hook let go, the crane boom recoiled as the ship listed, causing the boom to go over center and collapse across the ship. That was a brand new crane, just installed, being tested before heading out to sea. Nobody killed, minor injuries.
It's possible the ship being berthed against the wharf saved it from capsizing, because of all the ballast on the port side.
Also, Quite remarkable the buoyancy of the test pontoon. I would have thought it would have gone straight to the bottom because of opposite forces.
Thanks for Imformation
Good to know that no-one was seriously hurt 😳👍
@@simonmaney3438 the barge was not out of the water when the hook failed, they were only just beginning the test, and it had already been floated to the ship, so they were lucky there was sufficient drag and freeboard remaining!
@@stillsearchingthesky Well, they had lifted 2500 tonnes. You see what effect suddenly releasing this had on the crane!
There are equal and opposite forces at play, so incredible really the physics of water bouyancy etc.
First time I see a vid from this angle of the accident. Thank you for posting.
You're welcome.
@GUY POPEY 02 English please
@@MartinInAmsterdam What do you mean? That you can enforce a language on your TH-cam channel? French is a major international language. I know Brits and Americans generally don't value multilingualism very highly, but come on. You could at least have tried to translate his sentence - that is if you really care about what he said. If you don't, why ask him to use English?
By the way, he said that it would be better to have 30% of overload capacity on hooks like that, which I believe is a little too small. I know that heavy duty ropes are tested with a 5x overload capacity and craning chains I work with have a 50% overload capacity.
You must be 3rd world blind..
@@uschurch There's a difference between MBL and SWL. MBL is between 2 and 10 X the SWL depending on the application.
Thus the reason cranes are load tested. Better to have a big f... Up in a controlled environment that in a pitching sea with dozen of lives depending on everything working as designed
the hook breaking shouldnt topple the crane.. they had the vessel ballsted so far over, the crane would have overboomed and toppled no matter what
@@peeonu25 you’re right. Why should a hook/sling breaking break probably the most expensive crane. Rather it break here than lifting something out at sea. It’s a fault that is better being found here.
cranes are in cradle underway!
Doesn't look like a terribly controlled environment to me and the incident caused a bunch of injuries. Excessive confidence in passing the test and failure to do contingency planning. Seems to be endemic to the industry, considering the scale of everything and potential to harm you would expect good safety culture and careful planning, but actually incredibly stupid accidents are quite common in marine industry. The front fell off indeed.
this crane has a cradle, too bad at the boom angle of the crane and at that degree of list, that model of crane is going to go over backwards... everytime.
point is. the crane went over because it was boomed up so high and with the added angle because of the list of the vessel, not the hook breaking.
As ETO on multi-purpose cargo ships with either 5 or 6 deck cranes, it was my responsibility, along with the C/E to gave the load tests carried out by an approved contractor, with a Lloyd's Surveyor in a supervisory/conformity role.
The last ones I did were alongside in Brisbane.
Prior to carrying out the tests, Lloyd's thoroughly checked all the crane hooks, to make sure the correct hook was fitted to the correct crane.
I had to adjust crane pressures to ensure the crane was capable of lifting the test load, which was an enormous water bladder.
They had a weight reading "strain gauge" fitted to the bladder strops, to ensure the appropriate weight was applied.
From a safety point, no-one was allowed on deck anywhere near the particular crane under test.
The Surveyor also had a really good look around each crane before testing, looking for any signs of hydraulic leaks, mechanical defects etc.
The sudden loss of the test weight from the crane in the video had a profound effect on the ship, due to the huge weight being suddenly released .
Looked like a fair bit of damage to the jib/wire ropes. Must have set a few pulses racing on the ship! Glad I'm retired & don't have to go through that again!
I love this comment. Thanks man!
ahem, no one cares.
This guy was NEVER an ETO. I guarantee it
That tested more systems than was bargained for. This was actually a stroke of luck; better this happen in that setting than in a live operation.
yeah that might be true. the question here is, why those engeneers are to self confident that such accidents could not happen..... it happenend hundrets of times in past, that cranes who lost their load, especially with a high boom angle and high load, tilted backwards . in the seventies, so nearly since half a centurie, there exist "setback, tilt or tumbling stopper" for crane booms to prevent such (for the crane fatal) results. with a setback/tilt/tumbling stopper, there would have been damage, but not that extreme like here.
the Dutch supplier of the crane's hook was responsible for that failure
@@expansionone Then the designer of the crane itself got off free. The rest of the failure of the crane boom falls on the designer. Should have been designed to handle a hook failure.
@@Ferndalien the collapse of the crane was the result of the failure of the hook. How about blaming the structural engineer about the collapse of a building when a concrete supplier delivered substandard concrete for a foundation. ...They should have designed to handle a foundation failure????? The hook, boom, guy-lines, swing bearing and hoist cable are the foundation of the crane. It will always be a catastrophic collapse if any of these components fail because of the energy released at the moment of failure, which is magnified by the instability of the floating foundation
its almost like thats what load testing is for!
Imagine being below deck and the shipsuddenly tilting followed by the sound of the crash. Must have been terrifying.
It was a load test, so everybody on board was on sort of an alert, -or at least new something serious is on its way
@@stefanritscher7868 well yeah everybody knew something could be on the way but if you're below deck and you can't see anything to the point that hell you don't even know if they're actually doing the test or not yet that still would scare the shit out of you. Especially cuz anybody that wasn't prepared was probably thrown a couple of feet right before the bang of that thing collapsing it's still kind of frightening
Deciding where to run!
But knowing it's moored to a dock lessens the scare.
Nah, try being in a submarine and beaching.
Finally at last a vid showing the hook breaking. Thanks for posting
You're welcome.
I got too see one split in half once. Well the aftermath any way it kind of happened all of a sudden lol it shot the headache ball into the boom tip and all of the hoist wire between the tip and the gantry piled up on the deck of the barge by the boom but in the blink of an eye.we got lucky there wasn't more damage or any injuries.
It was made on either Monday morning or Friday afternoon is my conclusion.
the feeling when the one thing u doesnt build yourself fails and destroys everything
The load testing guy just walks away and says, yep it’s failed, see you next year 😂
That went from small failure to total destruction real quick
and only why there weren`t safety installations that exists since half a century like a boom setback etc...they safed perhaps 50000 for safety installations a caused 100 000 000 in result. super business economics..
Captain to ship owner: Situations have developed not necessarily to our advantage.
things are really coming down over here...
"The current state of things has noticeably shifted towards the unfavourable part of the spectrum, sir."
Finally the video we all have been waiting for.
And on that day it was reported that multiple engineers said "fuck" at the exact same time
3 coffee cups met their demise on the wall.
And 7 solid objects were dejectedly kicked.
Yep a full mix of "fuck" and "shit" all around the same time.
I wonder why it is that when something bad happens, words describing bodily functions are the first thing that automatically comes from our lips. The other thing is....the word fuck is so dang useful in just about any situation, good or bad. I say fuck is a good word, despite what any preacher will try to convince you otherwise.
Pretty sure the word was "Scheisse!"
I knew there had to be more footage of this out there, thanks for the upload
you're welcome
At their wikipedia site, they wrote: 12 peoples injured, 2 of them serious. They lifted 2.600 ton at the moment and then the hook broke.
Any word on what happened to company that supplied the faulty hook?
@@rockets4kids Not sure, the dutch company "Ropeblock" designed it, got it approved and a third certified manufacture company build it.
@@AGWittmann The cause of the failure was in the hook supplied by yet another company. That hook failed well below its rated capacity. The cost of that hook was surely only a tiny fraction of the estimated $50-$100M damage caused as a result of it failing.
@@rockets4kids well said. thats some new kind of human wonder, that there is at some points the opion, that its worth to safe for example 10000 on that hook and risk multibillions and human health and life. the relations are running out of reason on millions of points in the society.. and finally i doubt that 50 000 000 € are enough for this damage cause the crane can`t have done the work for long term , it has been contracted for even while in construction. conventional penalties are very expensive in this part of economic. i very much doubt that orders will only be agreed for the crane once it has been built finally.
@@MrDriftspirit They could possibly claim "Force Majeure". Depends a lot on the wording of the contracts and the jurisdiction. Would probably end up being fought out by the relative insurance companies.
And on that day it was observed that multiple lawyers said "Yesss!" at the exact same time.
Never saw the crane before the damage. Thanks for posting now it makes more sense
hopefully that this enourmous expensive and dangerous failure gives all test engineers and company ceos the warning, that simulations and tests on computers should never replace the activ and long testing of parts, machines and euipment...
@Jakob
Soooo...
Do you think they didn't use eny computer on this then....?
its always human error, Im not a specialist at this but the simulations give you results according to parameters a human puts in.If the real parts were not up to the exact specs the program used then we have a mis-placement (failure IRL), could have been many faults... Though I do not argue that real life tests shou;ld be conducted.
During the development of the Boeing 777 one of the engine manufacturer (there were several) such as Rolls Royce, General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, CFM were all developing a new from ground the up engine and one of them had a a prototype. At this point there developed an argument among one of the manufacturer teams occurred about testing the new engine to extreme angles of attacks to test for compressor stalls where the angle at which the air is entering the engine. If that angle becomes too extreme the airflow becomes interrupted an d the engine begins to shake and surge violently. The computers modeling showed they were well within design parameters and were arguing that flight testing was an unnecessary cost! Ultimately the real world testors won out thankfully because at high angles of attack on the 747 test aircraft the engine experienced severe compressor stalls requiring modifications to be made. Computers are great, but at some point a machine needed to be tested in the real world. Because once in a while there are surprises!
;
@Jakob A computer simulation does NOT equate to a real world test which is the essence of the OP's post.
Bullshit in=bullshit out
Remarkably enough this was the second serious accident at Liebherr in 3 months. End of January they dropped two new 400 ton cranes in the water while loading them on a ship.
Leibherr?? Germany?
That's rare why so many accidents?
Chinesium steel ?
@@MitzvosGolem1utch contractor using the wrong technique
We had load-outs for two new pedestal cranes from that yard the following Monday! They actually damaged both our crane booms moving them around in their yard. On top of that, the rigging almost failed watching a zoom broadcast of the testing, and a friction clamp slipped in one of the load tests and we had to do an all-stop, and I poo-pooed their design.
It is a very impressive fabrication facility though, you could eat off the fab floor, and very large, about 1km long hall. And, their ultra high strength steel is impossibly strong without quenching/tempering/pre-post heat treatment…
I’ve got mixed emotions about the liebherr gang.
Ist das nicht Rostock/ Germany?
First time i see this from this perspective. Thanks!
Fair amount of water pumped into the hull to act as a counter balance.... Gave it a proper list at the end
Let's see now... needs 1) New pair of trousers for the crane operator, 2) Fresh coat of paint on the side of the ship, and 3) New crane!
And a new hook too.
@@flick22601 is included in the crane I guess
Crane kit now sent with 2 hooks
What was that flash of light on the right side of the ship?
Were they in the charts/proper parts per line/rope when this occurred?
Hi - do you have the original for the video?
Is it the weight of the collapsed crane and/or weight in side the boat that shifted which is cause the boat to stay leaned to the right side?
Finally found the full video!! Thanks! I knew it was out there but hard to find.
It has been properly tested. The outcome is a little disappointing. However better save then sorry. I hope they had a proper insurance.
*Better SAFE than sorry*
Work on Your grammar buddy.
@@johncholmes643 Your absolutely right, sorry for the mistake.
@@johncholmes643 what does grammer have to do with it? Proof read before post be more accurate, just had to point that out...
@@johncholmes643 pee counter
I presume the list to starboard was due to the load compensation (sea water) ballasting?
and the crane counterweight by the looks of it.
Port!!!
the video ended just a bit too soon
Port.. it is literally docked at the port on the port side.
Is such an accident unavoidable or could it have been avoided with appropriate technology?
Did the hook just basically break into pieces?
You get to see the whole picture from this angle!
I can't stop thinking about how they are going to clean up this mess. It's huge and the damage to various parts is immense. That ship won't be sailing for another year or more, that's for certain.
They need a large crane to hold the crane boom in place while the pivoting pins and cables are disconnected. There are already proper lifting points for each segment of the boom, but if needed they can get additional points welded and cut the boom into smaller manageable pieces. Then the crane can be detached from the pedestal and lifted out. Once the operation is complete, it would be safe to carry out a proper survey to help decide whether the crane pedestal and other structures will need to be replaced as well. Then the pedestal can be cut at the desired height to give way for the new undamaged section to be welded in place.
The vessel will be under repairs for more than a year for sure, to allow for the proper planning to take place, also cranes are not easily replaced, they are built one by one and it takes more than a year to build and commission one, and usually there's a long waiting list for both complete cranes and large spare parts.
The accident was in May 2020 and dismantling started in October or November. They finished it in December or January 2021
"That ship won't be sailing for another year or more, that's for certain."
You seem so certain of yourself, but it is just a comment based on your own assumptions and no facts.
@@kingy002
Yep. Turns out I was wrong. , how long do you think it took to repair this mess
Whats more crazy is that the crane was the LARGEST LIEBHERR CRANE EVER MADE
i'm assuming the ship was ballasted on the port side to counteract the lifting load on the starboard and thats why when the crain failed that it listed towards the port
that DOCK probably prevent a ship roll over
I e seen cable fail, booms, winch, brakes, motors, clutches, outriggers, even the ground. Never saw the hook snap.
First for me as well the hook is always the fool-proof part...until now.
Uh, captain, we have experienced an unscheduled deconstruction event....
RUD's are always fun to watch, but very painful to being there
Have we really bosun, I thought you farted
What makes these crane ships list after a line breaks suddenly like this ? I have seen a few all do the same thing
They are using ballast tanks filled with water as counterweights too keep the ship in level. They can fill/empty the tanks only so fast, so the crane has to increase load accordingly. When the load suddenly vanishes, the ship starts rolling
So, who made the Crane hook
I certainly hope Liebherr designs an anti kickback support on future designs. And....a better hook. Heard it was outside sourced.
There is nothing that can be designed that could stop something like that if the hook brakes.
That was one hell of a costly test.
Not just the hook, the whole crane and some boat is puckerooed.
You have primary, secondary failures...
And what could be done in preparation for such a failure, that actually happened, and very little damage done, as opposed to what could have been the outcome!? Cheers
How many hook tests (hook on a test bench) under max certified load can you run to pay one crane collapse?
I heard that they skipped the bench test because of corona.
@@MartinInAmsterdam What a great idea!
Poor QM does induce some extra costs ...
I think they learnt now having this event in company's story telling ...
BTW: This vid is great instruction video.
Always remember that people who prevent problems are never popular.
@@simplyamazing880 You never know a "prevented problem", there is no problem, so they are useless.
Do you understand?
so it broke with only half it's regulated load? Faulty hook? Wouldn't a new hook have been land tested first?
Yes. Lifting and Rigging equipment must be tested before being put into service, then periodically every few years. I used to watch Proof Load Testing in a Navy dockyard with a massive hydraulic ram pulling cables, wires, hooks and chains. The Test data is stamped on a Tag attached to the article and the date the next test is due. My guess is, someone fudged a Certificate.
@@philnorman9425 I am EKH keurmeester (Dutch certification) and i use a 1200 ton test bank for hook testing and the hooks we get for testing are smolten down every year in rotation and all the other heavy equipment get tested with a safety of minimum of 50% overload capacity (the higher the capacity the lower the safety marge get) and get magnetic particle inspections from 3rd party and we get also controlled by another 3rd party (for EU certification) the owner of the hook and the builder of the hook. so fudging the certificate is almost impossible and keep in mind these heavy equipment are special 1 of 1 pieces and not build in 1000 at a time so there is a closer eye on these hooks for safety. But in the end, my experience is never trust tested equipment ever. It can always break (we have a saying in the factory , warrant till the door because of poor handeling of equipment or bad transport your hook can get damaged and making the whole factory testing and certification useless .
@@kekwelrisitas2931 I was being a little facetious with my comment on certification. I have worked in the heavy forge industry and have seen the testing procedures.
"See Jimmy,.....I told u it wasnt gonna hold !"
What kind of load *testing* is it where instead of slowly increasing the weight, checking the whole structure simultaniously and stopping for full-checks in between, you just go for it?
They were slowly increasing the load. This happened at half of the expected load capacity. It was a brittle fracture and they are always sudden and unpredictable.
@@MartinInAmsterdam oh ok thx
Ah when you test something with the 100% assumption that it will not fail.......then it does.
Didn't appear to be hook failure more like rigging failure?
Why do the test next to a ship?
76 members of Liebherr’s management have thumbed down this video.
Is that bad?
If this is a test, surely this was always a possible outcome? Obviously they expected/hoped it would be ok but didn't anyone think "what if it fails?"
Yes, before getting to the testing phase, they hold many safety and HAZID/HAZOP meetings with the purpose of identifying potential hazards and operational mishaps. Then measures are taken to mitigate the identified risks as much as possible. In the final operation review, if all parties agree that all major hazards have been identified and taken care of, they'll declare that all risks are now ALARP (as low as reasonably practical) and they're good to go. The chances of a crane hook failing are really low, but not nil. Lifting gear have inspection expiry dates, if it's in date, it's going to be used. Lifting procedures also demand a visual inspection in all lifting gear prior to commencing the operation, but visually spotting internal defects is not possible and requires specialised expensive tools and personnel, so it's only carried out when the gear tag has expired, also requires a load test prior to being put back into service.
@@_John_P thanks for the response 👍
@@_John_P Was this hook ever tested or analyzed (searching for cracks/ lunkers?
I doubt!
@@peterebel7899 Yes, it was. It turned out the hook was rated at 2,000t, but the crane was tested to the full capacity of 5,000t.
@@_John_P So the test proved the right rating of the hook!
So.. did they pass the test?
Welche Bude hat den Haken eigentlich hergestellt? Bommern wars nicht
Does anyone knows how the testing process is made? First they test it in a simulation then they test the real thing when installed or what?
Yup. Pretty much. But it looks like the shackle snapped which caused the reaction. Which shouldnt destroy it but did.. Things snap or human error in wrong weight capacity in hardware happens. But for it to cause all that shouldnt of.
@@mattgaming8717 it was not a shackle that failed it was literally the hook itself that another company built. It should not have failed. But if you have a couple thousand tons on the end of your hook if something fails it’s will absolutely destroy everything. No way around it.
Copy paste from another comment:
Yes, before getting to the testing phase, they hold many safety and HAZID/HAZOP meetings with the purpose of identifying potential hazards and operational mishaps. Then measures are taken to mitigate the identified risks as much as possible. In the final operation review, if all parties agree that all major hazards have been identified and taken care of, they'll declare that all risks are now ALARP (as low as reasonably practical) and they're good to go. The chances of a crane hook failing are really low, but not nil. Lifting gear have inspection expiry dates, if it's in date, it's going to be used. Lifting procedures also demand a visual inspection in all lifting gear prior to commencing the operation, but visually spotting internal defects is not possible and requires specialised expensive tools and personnel, so it's only carried out when the gear tag has expired, also requires a load test prior to being put back into service.
This was the last and most powerfull loadtest of several practical tests before delivery.
Crane ships with cranes of that size are not really a good idea. That size of crane should really be on a big flat barge, but i presume they want it ocean going. Barges are not well suited for getting out into the ocean.
It must have take a massive crane to fix that massive crane.
I just saw her in Dartmouth NS a few weeks back and it is a truly awesome sight.
As Alan Partridge said “Let’s call it as it is. It went tits up“
It was alot more than the hook that broke, it might have been the first thing but surely not the only thing😂
How do you know?
Same thing happened again with the Saipem 7000 in Norway during a load test. 2022 apr 14th ish.
The person in the kayak or boat to the left probably needs a change of pants
Good video... Support from India 👍
Wow, this really shows the forces involved. Still waiting to hear 'why' the hook failed - been kept very quiet...
Simon. Because of corona-virus, the hook wasn't tested separately as would normally happen. I suspect is was a problem with the casting process, possibly inclusions.
@@MartinInAmsterdam Thanks for the reply.
I worked in the Aussie mining industry for a while which involved a lot of lifting (though not to this scale!)
I am curious to hear the exact reason for failure - casting, design, human error somewhere along the line?
I know it is a bit frivolous to say, but this shouldn't happen - look at the result!
Liebherr are a well respected leader in construction machinery, I didn't expect this from them (even if the hook was outsourced).
@@simonmaney3438 I suspect the hook was made in China - the manufacturer of the hook (Ropeblock in The Netherlands) has stated that the design was approved by the authorising body, and that the hook was not manufactured by Ropeblock, but by "a certified supplier who is familiar with parts of similar and larger sizes"
@@Penguin_of_Death Thanks for this. I don't really want to point the finger without knowing, but find it 'unusual' for the apparent secrecy, so we are kind of left to make assumptions.
I believe this was a first of its kind crane for Liebherr. Behind closed doors they must be absolutely fuming about such a monumental cock-up - unless, it was their outsourcing program that was the part of the problem.
@@MartinInAmsterdam I would doubt the hook was cast should have been a forging
I didn't think a Liebherr crane could break. This is why we test I guess.
Well that the Liebherr crane however
Very unfortunate, hope nobody was injured! I find it hard to believe that with a crane of that magnitude that it did not have appropriate boom stops to prevent it from going over, that is a tragic miscalculation in design. If it did have stops, they may have been too weak to hold the boom...
It did have stops that stopped the boom. However the force from stopping the boom buckled the boom structure causing it to fold in half.
There were 3 lightly injured.
Hencho in Mexico?
I've seen other clips of this accident, but only side or bows on. This is very different from the stern angle. I believe that no one was injured thankfully. It could have been much worse!! 🇬🇧
I suppose now they will have questions about where the purchasing agent bought the crane hook and how much did he pocket after his Chinese discount!
How did the boat get all dented up....hook failure sir....carry out another test....Captain it's complicated now
Wow, that was an expensive test.
Damn that's going to leave a mark and there ain't going to be no buffing it out!!!!
Insane forces at work ^^ Man i'd love to hear the sound of that. Shame it's disabled.
Sure makes the words “Made In America”
Sound better and better.
That looked expensive!
Why did they test this on a boat?
Because that is where it's going to be used, on that ship. When you create a mechanical system made of many parts such as a crane you test the parts individually, at least you're supposed to, and then you test the completed system in the way it is going to be used.
Oh my goodness. That's gonna cost a fortunes' fortune.
Worth checking the certificate on that hook.
That's now the job of several lawyers on each side.....
So did it pass? 🙂
Yep.....wait, we'll circle back on that.
The load passed.
The crane passed by.
The hook failed, so did QM.
This is what happns when you buy a low cost, a chinese or a spanish item.
Wow - In hindsight you would think a bit of dye penetrant or wet mag on the hook before such a test would be wise. If it was a new hook supplied under survey it is hard to believe it would not have have been subjected to a full metallurgical and crack detection program of some kind prior to use.
Dear Martin Adams,
My name is Ava Kuo, a Taiwan-based producer. I am currently working on a documentary film for Discovery channel, we would like to explore the possibility to use this footage for the documentary. Could we establish contact with you?
That system did not fail in an orderly way. Very messy consequential damages.
Why the ship didnt sink did it!? For a cock up of this scale its managable
@@stevengunter4990 For a single element failure, bringing down the entire crane structure is not orderly; there are meant to be elements that fail to prevent catastrophic structural failure like that in any properly designed system.
@@andyowens5494 well its a maritime crane it is extremly dangerous to lift heavy stuff on water because ships cant counterpalance fast enough..... that is fact you cant prevent them from nearly capsizing. Its the dangerous nature that heavy lifting has on the open sea.
@@andyowens5494 - from what I've read there was an anti-roll system, but it wasn't dimensioned for that kind of dynamic load
You would think they would have a testing method that did not destroy the crane. Maybe put some shock cords in place to cushion the recoil.
Well, at least the boat floated
ooo i bet that sounded gnarly
Do we have a plane B ??
@@mmm365 Like I said before , Call a Dutchman !
So much for building components to an international standard rather than like grandpa used to do it figure out what's strong enough then add 50% extra then put your name on it cause you're not ashamed of it.
I once filled 3m3 concrete and while pulling it up the hook got lose and the 95 meter crain was going like a spring.
ouch
That's exactly what happened here. But the load was a little bit heavier than a few barrels of concrete.
@@jurgenthomas5993 That's for sure.
It's was only about 9 ton of concrete in the kubel (dutch).
But it was on the max of reach at that moment.
It was a Potain crane.
Besides it had to be inspected there was some rainbow shit to be cleaned up there.
But luckely it did not break.
It was in the middle of the city. (Rotterdam)
0 pre lift risk analysis I see.
Just do the lift - she'll be right!
Gotta love it don't you??
I hear Bart Simpson say "Breaky breaky". During ww2 that would be repaired in a week, nowadays it's going to be at least a full year or two. Too bad. And think about the guys in the galley when the ship suddenly lists violently, the food goes on the deck. Some engineering mistake.
I doubt there were floating cranes that size during ww2 ;)
By hook or by crook...........
They got the counter weight right any more and it could of been a capsize 😬
It is always a pleasure to see deutsch
What die they expect?
That would still get a passing grade in American public schools!
Wow, that disaster must have cost a pretty penny, ouch.
80-100 millon
ラチス式クローラクレーンに装着されているブームバックストップの様な装置が有ればこれ程迄に損害が大きくはならなかっただろうにと本当に思う。