Orion 1 Crane Failure: ‘the ship could handle the “whiplash” effect, but the crane could not

The latest news on the Orion 1 crane collapse:

PS: The Orion 1 has been move to another wharf in Rostock, where the damaged crane will be removed and a replacement installed (in due time)

As some people have said, it’s better things like these happen during testing in port rather than offshore where it could have more disastrous consequences.

1 Like

Maybe something was lost in the translation but that seems like a funny article (the more recent one).

“We know that the crane was not capable of handling the whiplash because the crane did in fact collapse. In any case, all the certificates are in order.”


Ja, alles ist in ordnung.


except the hook that came from some unknown place outside Europe?

The Netherlands is a well know country in Europe. (Google it)

Where does it say the hook was made in the Netherlands?

Liebherr had ordered the crane hook from a third party. This turned out to be Dutch Ropeblock, which provided the design of the crane’s lifting blocks, including the crane hook. Manufacture of this crane hook was then purchased from a certified supplier who according to Ropeblock was familiar with parts of similar and larger sizes. Ropeblock also stated the design had been verified by the authorised Notified Body.

Another funny part, the supplier was familiar with parts that were of similar size, and larger!

so we still havnt read where the hook was made, by whom and whose certificate did it come with?

Where does it say that the hook was NOT manufactured in the Netherlands?

It is more likely than that it was made in China, (as somebody suggested earlier) or anywhere else “outside Europe”.

Even more likely would be that it was manufactured somewhere in Germany, since Liebherr built/assembled and installed the crane in Rostock. Germany has many forges capable of producing large items.

Yes, perhaps that hook was a forgery, a counterfeit, or a Chinese knockoff.


Should be able to narrow it down a bit. It was made by a firm that is familiar with making large things. So firms that make small things can be ruled out.


This has been a hilarious “mystery” full of careful investigative work “we know the crane wasn’t capable because it broke”, “the hook was supplied by a very experienced company (???) and all was in order”, “nobody can figure out why the hook broke because it was designed not to break”, the list of ludicrous and hilarious double-speak continues to grow. Everyone trying their hardest to point the finger at someone else without actually pointing the finger at someone else.

(I exclude the injuries to crewmen/workers from list of funny things. That wasn’t funny in the slightest.)

Did the hook actually break, or did it pull away from the block assembly?
Looking at the pictures available it looks like the last IMHO.

I know of a very experienced company that supplied chain to a project/vessel and most of the links were seriously compromised and resulted in a huge financial loss. At least no one was injured.

Until they publish more details my speculation is the part hanging from the block is a stem that was part of the hook assembly. Part of Incorporating a swivel. To me it looks like that stem parted or if they used a mechanical retaining scheme, it failed and allowed the stem to pull out.

So when you say did the hook break I would say yes that assembly failed. The blocks and pins above that seem intact.
This is what is remarkable about the comical reports so far. This stem if cracked has been thru forensic examination by now and either failed due to being under designed and not caught by a proof test at the maker or off spec material or poor manufacturing that left a crack initiation / propagation point.

Surely they know more than what’s made it out.

This is from the article:

The cause of the crane losing its load, was the crane hook, the stem of which broke during the test. Photos of the vessel after the incident reveal that the “horns” of the hook were missing.

Interesting the consequences of a catastrophic lifting gear failure was never considered and therefore designed into the system. My guess the replacement crane will have some sort of protection.

1 Like

How would you go about that? Hydraulics sounds expensive. Some sort of buckling column arrangement, maybe?

Maybe borrow some artillery technology from the military. They deal with recoil all the time.

That’d be hydraulics. We’re talking about really huge amounts of stored energy, vastly beyond what you see in an artillery shell, and you’d end up with really huge dampers.

If not a buckling column, could you do something akin to a fabric brake by laser cutting a sheet of steel?