In defence of the operator

3 September 2014


In 1988, James Headley, of the Crane Institute of America argued in Cranes Today that the industry placed far too much responsibility for safety on the shoulders of operators. While much progress has been made, US OSHA still has to implement a new Cranes and Derricks Rule. With that in mind, we here run an edited version of Headley’s article.

Already shouldering an enormous burden of responsibility, the operator also has to face almost total accountability for any mishaps that occur during a lift. But is this burden fairly apportioned, and should managers and supervisors be made more aware of the operator's plight?

Perhaps the age-old phrase 'the buck stops here' has more application to the operator than its original intention. Dealing with this is something I learned early in my operating career, while serving a crane operator apprenticeship.

I was hired to apprentice on a 60t crawler. After discovering that I had developed some operating skills, the operator began using me to handle the lighter loads. We were working with the ironworkers moving various loads from one place to another, when I was asked to place a long bundle of steel flat-bar strips across the bed of a truck.

Following the ironworker's signals, I picked the bundle up and positioned it about four feet above the truck bed. He directed me down about two feet and had me stop. After aligning the load, he signaled me to gently place it crossways on the bed. Wanting to impress my operator, who was standing beside me, I began with great care and precision to ease off the brake. However, my forgetting to engage the 'power down' caused the load to suddenly drop, striking the truck bed and slapping the sides.

Shocked by the sudden drop and with mouth wide open, the ironworker appeared ready to pronounce great judgment on me. Realizing that his impression of my operating skills had greatly diminished, I quickly began a mental search for a good explanation. However, before I could speak, the operator, apparently experienced in handling delicate and awkward situations as this, shouted,

"Now ain't this crane got a fast power down!" Regarding the blunder, nothing more was ever mentioned. But afterward, the operator gave me some excellent advice. "Whenever you err," he said, "Always find some way to blame it on the crane, because as an operator they will always point the finger at you."

The problem
Years later these words are more relevant than ever, for the operator is held by many as being responsible for over 80% of crane accidents. This is not simply an overlooked cause of crane accidents; it is a personal indictment against the operator himself.

What we are dealing with here is not a peripheral issue, bur an area that has been labeled by many safety experts as having the highest potential for accidents and liability of all equipment currently utilised in industry and construction. Because of their enormous versatility and flexible configurations, the variables encountered on a mobile crane are more than any other type of material handling equipment. Combining these variables with human control makes it all the more difficult to predict mobile crane accidents.

Donald Dickie, internationally known crane expert, and author of the widely acclaimed book, Mobile Crane Manual, said, "There still is no other piece of equipment that has the potential of causing so much damage or harming so many people as does a crane in an accident."

Facts such as these must be taken seriously, especially since criminal charges are on the rise for workplace injuries and deaths. When I first wrote this article, in 1998, a subcontractor, foreman and crane operator had faced charges over an accident in New York. Almost two decades later, in the same city, a crane owner and his employee, as well as a master rigger, again found themselves facing criminal charges over two separate crane accidents.

Still, the overriding concern and bottom line should be the prevention of accidents. Yet until we learn to look beyond 'operator error' as being the major cause, we will have failed in our endeavours. Though in our pursuit to identify the real cause we have not been totally wrong, only misdirected. Our major mistake has been our inability to relate to the operator, to sit where he sits and see things through his eyes, and, above all else, to understand the tremendous responsibility he faces.

This inability to relate to the operator is derived mainly from the fact that only a small percentage of people in supervision, safety, or training have ever actually operated mobile cranes. Undoubtedly, some of these people have sat in the sear and run the ball up and down; perhaps even swung the crane around. Bur it's one thing to do that and entirely another to have the full responsibility of operating a crane under load in close proximity to other equipment and fellow workers.

Certain operating techniques are not taught in books, they are passed down from operator to operator. And we need not be fooled into thinking that the smaller a crane is, the easier and less complicated it is to operate. Obviously large cranes and long booms require particular skills and present different challenges, but everything is relative, Lifting 10t with a 20t crane can represent the same potential for an accident as lifting 100t with a 200t crane. The awesome responsibility one feels when operating cranes, is difficult to explain in words.

To sit in a crane and look up the boom, to sense the enormous power and force created as the load leaves the ground is an extraordinary feeling. It is a feeling, not of superiority, but of humility, for to sit and think of the disaster that could result from one mistake is overwhelming. It is a feeling that can only be experienced. And because of the potential dangers involved, a feeling reserved only for the operator: to assume that simply putting an unloaded crane through its motions duplicates that experience is absurd.

You can be a crane engineer, responsible for crane design and calculating its many capabilities; you can even own cranes and supervise crane operators, but you will never be able to understand what the operator goes through without sitting where he sits and experiencing what he experiences. It would be impossible for everyone working with cranes to have these experiences. But, until we change our attitude, the way we perceive the crane operator and his responsibilities, there will be no lasting effect on reducing crane accidents.

Once when operating a large 165t crane, I was asked by a sincere, but overzealous supervisor to lift and place a load a considerable distance beyond the radius specified in the load chart. After resisting to the point of being threatened with a lay-off (that's being fired while they are hiring), I told the supervisor to stand behind my seat and I would give it a try. He replied by saying he would watch my outriggers and tell me when the crane started to tip, He wouldn't stand behind the seat so I wouldn't attempt the lift. He ordered a larger capacity crane.

To be supervised by personnel lacking the required crane knowledge is a persistent problem. To those people all cranes appear to operate the same. No time is allowed the operator to familiarise himself with the manuals, instructions, load charts, etc. Yet cranes are different, each one having its own idiosyncrasies. To operate one crane while being accustomed to another, without first receiving instruction and time for familiarization can be confusing: and the lack of which can greatly increase the chance of an accident.

Mobile cranes have also undergone tremendous change through the years. Industry demands have brought about an increase in technology effecting both design and limitations. Capacities which were once based solely on stability are now based more on structural competence. The operator, being unaware of this, can cause serious structural damage to the machine. Operating cranes by the 'seat of your pants', or relying on the raising of outriggers to indicate an overload is a dangerous practice, and one to be avoided at any cost.

Also, the operator is often required to perform daily monitoring and annual inspections on the crane without prior training. It is one thing to operate a crane and yet another to be knowledgeable of applicable codes, standards, and regulations. This is not to mention the abilities required to accurately detect deficiencies and prescribe certain measures reward correction.

Additionally the operator could find himself relying on a fellow employee or an inspection company to inspect the crane, both of which could be unqualified to ensure the crane's safe mechanical and structural condition. Either way, whether it be the operator, fellow employee, or inspection company, a crane inspection performed by incompetent personnel puts the operator and those working around the crane in jeopardy.

What the operator needs to perform his job safely is a support team where each person involved in the overall crane operation is knowledgeable and responsible. The failure of one or more of these people to perform their required responsibilities cannot result in the operator being blamed. Total responsibility for a lift cannot be placed exclusively on the operator, but must be shared by everyone involved.

The employer's duty
In the aviation industry, if an accident is blamed on the incompetence in inexperience of a pilot, their employer will have to shoulder the entire responsibility for the crash. In a crane accident, the focus instead of being on the requirements for the employer to ensure operator qualifications, experience, and training would more likely be placed on the operator.

In all likelihood nothing would be mentioned as to the party responsible for determining his qualifications and providing the necessary training. As in flying, where a pilot's qualifications, experience and training are of utmost importance to safety, in a crane operation this same importance applies to crane operators. In fact, upon closer examination we would probably find that a failure to determine and maintain an operator's qualifications is the underlying cause of most crane accidents. Therefore, it is essential that we identify the company responsible for making such determinations.

In the US, OSHA's Safety & Health Standards make this the responsibility of the employer, for in the Code of Federal Regulations 1926.20 we read that, "The employer shall permit only those employees qualified by training or experience to operate equipment and machinery."

When we turn to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B30.5, the national consensus standard on mobile cranes, we see that an employer has many responsibilities in a lift operation such as equipment selection, maintenance, and inspection, but none are as important as the selection and training of personnel.

The standard not only states that only qualified personnel should operate, cranes but goes on to specify in particular who can operate cranes and in what capacity. In actuality only a designated 'qualified' operator and a trainee under his direct supervision are allowed to operate cranes in a work situation.

Cranes present special safety problems because of their versatility, possible configurations, and the different variables involved.

Operators are confronted by a multitude of experiences unique only to the crane industry. It takes a highly qualified and perceptive individual to adequately deal with and react to these problems. A failure to verify operator competence can lay waste the best laid job plans. Consequently the selection of qualified operators becomes the first and foremost responsibility of the employer. Yet here is where the confusion les and the breakdown occur. Employers generally feel as if their cranes are operated by qualified personnel, but does the employer understand what constitutes a qualified operator, and the process he must go through to make that determination?

Outlined for employers in this portion of the standard are three areas in which an operator must prove competence before they are considered qualified.

The first area for examination by the employer pertains to the physical qualifications of the operator. This examination is usually performed by a physician and must take into account factors such as vision, the ability to distinguish colours, hearing, strength, coordination and speed of reaction, any evidence o f physical defects or emotional instability which could represent a hazard to the operator or others, and or of any susceptibility to seizures or loss of physical control.

The next area of examination is the operator's mental abilities. Written examinations will reveal to the employer whether the operator possesses adequate technical knowledge and theory of operations required to operate the crane safely.

Having this mental ability has always been important but perhaps never so much as it is today. Industry demands and increased technology have resulted in crane manufacturers building sophisticated machines, specifically designed to maximize capability.

To achieve this manufacturers have not only changed the original design of cranes, but have also included in their instructions greater technical data and information which must be learned and implemented by the operator.

ANSI also tells the employer it is their responsibility to consider their operator's practical competency.

Having complied with the physical and mental requirements, the operator demonstrates his practical skills in an actual crane operation.

Even though simulators are being used in this type of testing, the crane remains the most popular and economical method. Compared with the physical and mental area, determining the practical competency of an operator is perhaps the most difficult. This can be especially true if the person performing the evaluation has little or no past experience operating cranes. While extreme care must be taken in maintaining a high degree of objectivity when developing and administering these practical examinations there still remains a certain amount of subjectivity, based on the evaluator's judgement.

Experience is basically the only way to measure whether the crane is being operated at an adequate speed or if the operator is maximising crane efficiency. Often a slow operating speed is crucial for maintaining safety, but slow operating speeds can also be a sign that the operator lacks confidence and skill. When developing these written and practical examinations we must remember that their purpose is two-fold.

First, these examinations are designed to determine the overall competency of the operator, for it is possible for an operator to be partially qualified. In other words, they could prove qualified to operate the crane practically, but upon examination; fail to meet the established criteria for mental competency. If operator incompetency is detected through either the practical, written, or physical examination, the safety of everyone involved demands that the operator must be considered by the employer as unqualified.

The second purpose of these examinations is to identify any deficiencies the operator may have so that corrective action can be taken. But whatever action is taken, it must go toward equipping the operator to meet those criteria established to determine their competency.

Spreading the burden
There is much confusion amongst those involved in the various aspects of a crane operation. The role each person plays and the duties to be fulfilled are often unclear. Many personnel do not fully understand their responsibilities, until an accident occurs and the litigation process begins. In terms of accidents, these ill defined responsibilities have played a major role and may be one of the most overlooked causes underlying crane accidents.

Depending on the nature of the lift and circumstances involved, most crane operations directly involve three parties: the operators, riggers (or crane users) and supervisors. However, before discussing the responsibility of these parties we must first understand the role management plays.

Management's role
Planning: There has been a tendency for management to overlook to this area, when in reality this is the first step towards ensuring success in any operation involving cranes. Even though large eccentric loads require more attention, planning is required for all lifts. There are times when qualified and experienced supervisors are capable of performing this task, but other situations require the assistance of a competence engineer. Yet whatever type of lift is to be accomplished, management must be involved.

Selection and training of personnel: This is perhaps the most important of all management responsibilities and, sadly, the most neglected. Most safety experts agree that human error accounts for the vast majority of crane accidents. But in the end it is a failure of management to accurately select and train personnel that results in these errors.

Inspection and maintenance: These are the means by which safety and reliability are ensured. Inspections performed on a regular basis will go far in detecting those deficiencies that constitute a safety hazard. Inspection and maintenance should be performed only by competent individuals who are knowledgeable of the equipment and who understand the requirements set forth in crane safety standards.

Additionally, inspection and maintenance personnel must possess the ability to properly evaluate any deficiencies and assess their effect on equipment safety.

The operator
ANSI B30.5 Standard, in the subsection conduct of operators, states, 'Each operator shall be held responsible for all operations under the operator's direct control'.

There has been much confusion as to the meaning of this statement. Many times it has been misinterpreted and used to falsely accuse the operator. To arrive at a correct interpretation we must first identify the operator mentioned here.

Is he just anyone who happens to be operating the crane, as most think? No. The 'operator' is defined as that individual specifically designated by the employer to operate the crane. They are a highly trained and experienced worker whose competence and qualifications have been verified by physical, written, and practical examinations.

If management fails in making this determination and there is an accident resulting from the error of an unqualified operator, the employer must assume responsibility. You cannot hold an unqualified person accountable for an accident when they were ill-equipped to perform the lift but were directed by management to operate the crane. Only when management provides the training and examinations necessary to ensure competence, does the operator assume responsibility.

Direct control refers only to the crane and its operation and not to those responsibilities occurring below the hook. Although not directly responsible for actually rigging the load, the operator is responsible for 'knowing basic load rigging procedures and ensuring that they are applied.' This is often neglected in the training of operator, but it is essential.

Riggers and supervisors
Even though the crane operator shoulders a tremendous responsibility, they in no way have total responsibility for the life. Standing alongside the operator are the riggers who have their own particular area of responsibility. Whereas the operator is directly responsible for the crane, the riggers are primarily responsible for the load.

Basic responsibilities include determining the load weight, selecting the appropriate slings and hardware, inspecting and maintaining rigging equipment, and signaling the crane.

As important as these basic responsibilities are, there is an area of responsibility related to the crane itself that is often overlooked by both riggers and supervisors.

There are times when without them realising it they have assumed total responsibility for the crane.

ANSI B30.5 states, 'the operator shall respond to signals from the person who is directing the lift or an appointed signal person'. The signal person, whether the rigger or someone else in a supervisory capacity, has authority over they crane when they provide the signals

This does not mean an operator should knowingly obey a signal which could be dangerous. But usually, when a signal person is required, the operator is unable to see well enough to operate the crane safely. It is during situations such as this that responsibility for the crane is transferred to the signal person, as they become the operator.

But what if the signal person is unqualified to direct the crane? Signaling a crane involves much more than pointing your finger in a certain direction. Before riggers and supervisors assume these and other responsibilities related to cranes they should have a thorough understanding as to how cranes are rated and a working knowledge of the load chart. If they lack this information, the operator will be relied upon to take on their responsibilities.

Perhaps the greatest pressure to be placed on an operator occurs when the supervisor is incapable of making the final decision pertaining to safety. Most often these decisions are left with the operator, bur according to ANSI, 'whenever there is any doubt as to safety the operator shall consult with the supervisor before handling the loads'. This does not mean that the supervisor should not confer with the operators and riggers or not take their recommendations. However, it does mean that the supervisor has the final decision, and, for the outcome, total responsibility.

A young James Headley on one of his first jobs, operating a cralwer on the Tombigbee Bridge in Alabama in 1974
Operators taking part in CIC’s Crane Rodeo at ConExpo 2014