By the Riskora Editorial Team · Reviewed against our editorial standards · Last reviewed
Lifting operations are among the highest-risk activities on any construction site. Whether you are using a tower crane, mobile crane, telehandler, or hoist, your RAMS must cover the lift plan, exclusion zones, equipment inspection, and emergency procedures. Riskora generates structured documentation with lifting-specific hazards — ready for site submission in minutes.
UK (RAMS) example document — Two-Storey Rear Extension — 14 Birchwood Lane, Reading. Client: Mr & Mrs A. Whitfield (Private Client). Site: 14 Birchwood Lane, Reading, RG1 5JT. Scope: Construction of a two-storey rear extension (6.4m × 4.2m) to an existing semi-detached dwelling. Works comprise breaking out of existing rear elevation, trench-fill foundations to 1.0m, traditional cavity blockwork to first floor, pre-stressed concrete lintels, timber roof structure with natural slate finish, plus alterations to existing rear wall to form structural opening with rolled steel joist (RSJ 203×102 UB23). Works programmed over 9 weeks with a peak site team of 6 operatives. Hazards assessed: Manual handling — blocks, lintels, plasterboard, Working at height — independent scaffold & roof structure, Buried services strike during excavation, Collapse of excavation / trench wall, Hand-arm vibration (HAVS) — breaking out, drilling, Silica dust — cutting blocks, brick, concrete, Vehicle/pedestrian segregation — narrow domestic street.

Full version
Takes less than 5 minutes
No card required · 1 free PDF · Upgrade any time (completely free)
A RAMS for lifting operations is a combined risk assessment and method statement covering the hazards of using cranes, hoists, and lifting equipment on site. Under LOLER 1998, every lifting operation must be planned by a competent person, and the plan must address the load, the equipment, the ground conditions, and the working environment.
Crane collapses, dropped loads, and rigging failures result in some of the most serious incidents on UK construction sites. LOLER (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998) requires that every lifting operation is properly planned, supervised by a competent person, and carried out in a safe manner. This means a documented lift plan covering the load weight, radius, ground conditions, exclusion zones, and communication procedures. Many contractors still rely on generic RAMS that list 'crane operations' without specifying the actual lift geometry, sling configuration, or wind limits for the specific operation. Many contractors aren't sure what a RAMS document actually requires, which leads to submissions being rejected.
LOLER 1998 requires that all lifting operations are planned by a competent person, the equipment is suitable and thoroughly examined, and the operation is properly supervised. BS 7121 provides the code of practice for safe use of cranes. Every crane must have a current thorough examination certificate.
Riskora generates lifting operation RAMS with pre-loaded hazards for crane collapse, dropped loads, overturning, sling failure, and overhead powerline contact. The system includes lift plan templates, exclusion zone specifications, and LOLER compliance prompts. You add your site-specific details — crane type, load weights, ground conditions — and download a professional document. For more complex projects, you may also need a standalone risk assessment or method statement.
Before you generate your document, these guides cover the knowledge that underpins every good RAMS, risk assessment, and method statement.
What Is a RAMS Document?
Understand the two components of a RAMS and why they're required before work begins on site.
How to Write a RAMS Document
A step-by-step guide to structuring your RAMS from project details through to sign-off.
UK Legal Requirements for Risk Assessments
What the law requires under MHSWR 1999 and CDM 2015, and what 'suitable and sufficient' means.
Who Needs a RAMS?
Find out whether your work requires a RAMS and who is responsible for producing one.
RAMS vs Risk Assessment — Key Differences
When you need a full RAMS versus a standalone risk assessment, and how the two documents work together.
How to Write a RAMS (UK Guide)
A practical walkthrough of writing RAMS from scratch, covering structure, common mistakes, and what reviewers look for.
Direct quotes from the named regulations, with plain-English explanations of what each one means in practice.
Regulation 8(1), Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998
“Every employer shall ensure that every lifting operation involving lifting equipment is properly planned by a competent person, appropriately supervised and carried out in a safe manner.”
LOLER Reg 8 is the single most important regulation for any lifting RAMS. The 'planned by a competent person' duty is what makes the appointed person's role mandatory on any non-trivial lift — and the RAMS must name that person.
Read the source on legislation.gov.uk →Regulation 9(3), Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998
“Every employer shall ensure that lifting equipment which is exposed to conditions causing deterioration which is liable to result in dangerous situations is thoroughly examined at least every 6 months in the case of lifting equipment for lifting persons or an accessory for lifting.”
Personnel-lifting equipment (MEWPs, hoists with cradles) needs a thorough examination every 6 months; goods-lifting every 12. The RAMS must reference the most recent examination certificate by date and examiner.
Read the source on legislation.gov.uk →Why this matters — the most recent published figures from the Health and Safety Executive and ONS.
9 lifting-related deaths
Approximate annual UK fatalities involving lifting operations — including crane collapse, suspended-load strikes, and MEWP overturns. Inadequate lift planning is the recurring proximate cause.
Source: HSE — Fatal workplace injuries →£2m+ fines in 2023
Combined fines from major lifting-incident prosecutions in 2023 — typically where the lift plan or appointed-person involvement was inadequate or absent.
Source: HSE — Recent prosecutions →A timber-frame contractor is lifting six pre-fabricated roof trusses (each 380kg, 9m long) onto wall plates at first-floor level of a new-build housing development. The trusses are too long for a single-crane pick at the available radius, so a tandem lift using two 6t spider cranes is planned.
The structured builder sequences the activity: (1) appointed person (CPCS A62 + AP qualification) prepares the lift plan as a separate document referenced in the RAMS, (2) ground assessed and outrigger pads sized for both cranes, (3) trusses delivered and pre-slung at ground level by the named slinger-signaller, (4) trial lift of the first truss to 100mm with pause to confirm balanced load between cranes, (5) lifted and walked into position with both crane operators following the slinger-signaller's signals, (6) hold-back ropes managed by two ground operatives, (7) truss bolted to wall plate before unhooking.
Cranes are LOLER-examined within 12 months (certificates referenced). Wind threshold 7m/s for the tandem lift (lower than single-lift 9m/s due to tandem complexity). Operatives' CPCS A66 and A40 cards are recorded. Total RAMS production: 14 minutes — a tandem lift like this in Word would historically take a senior planner 3 hours.
1. Lift plan absorbed into the RAMS rather than separate
Why it fails: LOLER Reg 8 expects a discrete lift plan prepared by the appointed person. Folding it into a generic RAMS dilutes the technical detail and creates document-version confusion.
Fix: Keep the lift plan as a standalone document referenced from the RAMS by document number. The appointed person owns the lift plan; the contractor owns the RAMS.
2. Wind threshold copied from manufacturer without considering load shape
Why it fails: Manufacturer wind limits are for compact loads. Long, awkward or sail-shaped loads need lower thresholds. RAMS that quote 'manufacturer's limit' without the load-shape adjustment are inadequate.
Fix: Set the wind threshold from the lift plan, taking the load's projected area into account. Document the reasoning briefly in the RAMS.
3. Slinger-signaller and crane operator not formally identified by qualification
Why it fails: CPCS card numbers (A40 slinger-signaller, A66 lorry-loader, A62 mobile crane) are the standard expectation. A name without a number doesn't satisfy the LOLER 'competent person' test.
Fix: Record CPCS card numbers and categories for every named role in the lifting team. Include the appointed person's AP qualification.
Will this take long?
Under 5 minutes. Select your trade, pick hazards, download.
Is it complicated?
No training needed. The guided builder walks you through every step.
Do I need experience?
If you know what work you're doing, you can use Riskora.
Is it free to try?
Yes. The Free plan needs no card — generate, review and download one free PDF. Upgrade any time for branding, DOCX, sign-off and higher limits.
Create your RAMS in under 5 minutes
No onboarding or setup needed — start generating documents instantly
Try Riskora FreeNo card required · 1 free PDF · Upgrade any time (completely free)
All documents generated by Riskora should be reviewed by a competent person before use on site. Riskora provides structured templates — professional judgement is always required.
Riskora builds a structured, client-facing document — not a generic AI paragraph. Every section is shaped around your job, your site and your team.
Task-specific hazards for the job, captured row by row — not a generic list pulled from an old RAMS.
Control measures mapped to each hazard with residual risk scoring after controls are applied.
PPE requirements tied to the activity and site, ready to brief to the team.
Step-by-step method statement structured around how the work is actually sequenced on site.
First aid, rescue plan, emergency contacts and site-specific escalation routes.
Substance prompts when the work involves chemicals, dusts, fumes or sealants — flagged early, not missed at review.
Operative sign-off captured against the document — names, dates and acknowledgement of the brief.
Every change tracked so you can show what was issued, when, and which version the team signed.
Clear approval state on every document — draft, in review, approved, issued — visible across the team.
Who created it, who reviewed it, who signed it. A complete trail you can hand to a principal contractor or auditor.
The reason RAMS get rejected is rarely the format — it's that the document is obviously generic. Riskora rebuilds it around this job, this site and this task.
Generic template copied from an old job.
Site-specific document structured around this job, site and task.
A four-step workflow used by contractors, consultants and safety teams to turn informal job details into client-ready safety paperwork.
Drop in a client email, a WhatsApp from the site manager, a scope of works or a tender note. Anything that describes the job.
Riskora turns your brief into hazards, controls, method steps, PPE, emergency arrangements and COSHH prompts.
You stay in control of every section. Tweak anything, then download a clean PDF or share a link.
Brief operatives, capture their sign-off and keep a full audit trail of who signed which version.
Riskora is built by a founder with hands-on site and document experience — designed for contractors, consultants and safety teams who need to issue, brief and prove safety paperwork without losing a day to admin.
No training. No complex setup. Just select your trade and go.
Start Your RAMS Now — It's FreeNo card required · 1 free PDF · Upgrade for branding, DOCX, sign-off and audit trails (completely free)
Primary UK sources covering the legal and practical framework behind RAMS, risk assessments and method statements.
Generate a preview first. Sign up only when you want to save, edit or export.
Final RAMS must be reviewed and approved by a competent person before use.
Riskora is an assistive document preparation tool. All documents generated must be reviewed, verified, and approved by a competent person before use on site. Riskora does not replace professional safety judgment, and no output should be treated as a legal compliance guarantee.