Global traveller

David, whilst this may seem to have been option, you would have ended up with the transport frame obstructing the installation of the deck. Admittedly you could have cut up / unbolted the frame and removed it with a smaller crane situated on one of the abutments, but this would have considerably added to the timeframe and involved personnel working close to a suspended load with all the risks that involves. As mentioned previously I am of the opinion (and not alone) that the whole operation was poorly conceived, and executed. Thankfully only minor injuries, material damage and loss of reputation / pride.

The reason I see for turning the bridge deck through 90 degrees would be so as to bring the booms and counterweight pretty much inline with the fore and aft line of the barges and in doing so increase the stability of the barges prior to moving them into the narrows for installation. However this is only supposition, but based on previous experience.

Tony ref your post #32 you are correct in your assumption that the deck was to be installed within the narrows, where the bridge abutments are, you are also correct in that the farthest crane slewed too quickly. What we cannot be clear about at this stage is whether the speed of slewing is due to loss of control of the operation due to the instability of the barge or due to other factors, possibly inexperience of the operator. Having studied all available footage today in conjunction with our marine engineers, we have identified a few contributing factors which I will not post on a public forum, suffice to say that as per what we have seen this is not an operation we would have signed off as being safe. A clear indication of the proposed operation can be seen from this promotional video shot just before the incident. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hNq2qbf-RY8

Tony, the multi axle trailer is purely the trailer that accompanies the crane, bringing the additional ballast and lifting equipment required for the lift. At no point was there any intention to use it during the installation of the bridge deck.

Not sure how to edit my previous post but the line "The comments mentioned that the crane slewing left are also incorrect" should have read "the comments mentioning that the crane slewing left was unintentional either due to malfunction or operator falling ill are also incorrect"

Not sure where all the talk of control/mechanical malfunction and on what basis these are cited as probable cause suddenly appear from, and whilst it may eventually come about that there was a malfunction the most likely cause is poor planning and execution of the operation. Whilst these types of cranes do have a computer within the operators cab, they merely act as an aid to the operator, it is the operator who physically must push the control lever to the left to enable the crane to move to the left and the speed would have been governed by the degree to which the lever is moved and the settings made by the operator to the hydraulic pumps governing the slew (swing). If the operator, as people are surmising, had fallen ill, unless he had collapsed on the control lever forcing it to the left, the lever would have remained in the neutral position and there would have been no movement. The comments mentioned that the crane slewing left are also incorrect. In this operation the furthest crane from the camera would initially start slewing left whilst the second crane (nearest) would have followed by slewing right, during this operation the bridge deck would have been turned 90degrees in its orientation and would have been touched down on the free space on the deck of the barge. Then as previously mentioned by a previous contributor, the two barges with the cranes on would have been manoeuvred into position between the two bridge abutments and the bridge deck would have been installed. This whole operation is what in the industry is termed a critical lift and when carried out on dry land with solid foundations it requires experienced crane operators and supervisors; when carried out on floating barges with the additional issues of ballasting and inherent instability, the whole operation becomes a whole lot more riskier and in most cases would be avoided and a different solution sought. Apologies for the length of the post, if anyone requires further explanations or wishes to discuss further feel free, by the way I have 35 years experience in the Lifting Industry and work for a Dutch lifting and transport company, fortunately not the company involved in this incident.

Back in the mid 80's myself and some friends purchased an ex naval 48' pinnacle, sailed it across the channel. Through the French canals, hugged the coast of southern France and Italy and eventually hopped over to Malta. Previous experience of mine was the odd jaunt from Portsmouth to the Isle of Wight. Qualifications at the time nil and during the whole trip none of the authorities encountered asked for anything. Realise changes have since been made on the French canals, but on the sea it is still almost anything goes. Up until last year had a 35' yacht in Turkey and authorities never asked for any paperwork apart from insurance in the marina. Common sense, self preservation and respect for the sea goes a long way.