Crane incidents remain one of the most serious and costly risks on a mine site.

Despite modern cranes being equipped with advanced onboard systems designed to prevent overload and instability, rollovers, rigging failures and fatalities continue to make headlines.

This session breaks down crane safety systems to first principles.

Liam will explain the two fundamental failure modes in lifting operations: loss of stability and structural overload.

Attendees will see how rated capacities are calculated, where safety factors sit within AS 1418, EN 13000 and ISO 4305, and how those factors relate to real physical limits.

The presentation examines the interaction between engineering design and onboard crane control systems.

Using practical examples, Liam will demonstrate how crane computers determine allowable loads, and how configuration errors, incorrect inputs or manual overrides can move the machine closer to, or beyond, its true limits.

The session will clarify which protections are embedded in the control system of the crane, which rely on operator input, and where risk re-emerges when those systems are misapplied.

Attendees will leave with:

• A working understanding of crane stability versus structural failure
• Clarity on how rated capacity and safety factors are embedded in design
• Insight into the limitations of load moment indicators and onboard controls
• Greater confidence assessing lift plans and challenging unsafe assumptions
• Practical understanding of the Queensland Mobile Crane Code of Practice (2024) and its engineering intent

This session delivers a clear, engineering-based understanding of crane risk and equips mining professionals to identify red flags before they become incidents.

Dozer operations near highwalls, embankments, and voids remain a persistent and high‑consequence safety risk in mining, with historical incidents - including a fatal event in Queensland (2018) - highlighting the need for improved controls. This paper presents the development, implementation, and operationalisation of an onboard Edge Detection System for dozers, designed to provide early warning of hazardous edges using 3D computer vision (ViDAR) technology. The system generates real‑time depth maps from multiple cameras to identify abrupt changes in terrain and alert operators before a hazardous condition escalates.
The paper outlines a structured, staged implementation approach - from trial and development through validation, pilot, and business‑as‑usual deployment - demonstrating how technical performance, operational adaptability, and human factors were addressed in parallel. Key technical challenges include dust, variable lighting, vibration, sensor alignment, inclined operating surfaces, and the risk of false or nuisance alarms. These are mitigated through targeted algorithm development, dynamic tolerances, vision impairment detection, robust hardware design, and optimised sensor and illuminator placement.
Operational adaptation focused on tailoring system parameters to diverse dozing activities such as slot dozing, rehabilitation, stockpile work, and ramp construction, using a “silent mode”. A commissioning phase strategy is implemented to optimise detection accuracy prior to activating alarms. Operator adoption is prioritised through extensive consultation, intuitive in‑cab user interface design, configurable alerting strategies, and demonstrable reliability in harsh environments.
The solution is further enhanced through integration with a remote analytics platform, enabling real‑time event reporting, system health monitoring, heatmapping of high‑risk areas, maintenance responsiveness, and incident investigation support. While developed for dozer operations, the paper concludes that the approach is readily transferable to other mobile mining assets operating near edges. Collectively, the findings demonstrate how advanced computer vision, when combined with disciplined implementation and strong operator engagement, can materially support zero‑harm objectives in mining operations.

Ground falls associated with the roof and rib is one of the leading causes of injury and fatalities associated with the underground coal industry. In Australia, strata control is recognised as a critical hazard requiring each colliery to have a Principal Hazard Management Plan (PHMP) for ground or strata failure.

Unlike explosions where typically multiple fatalities or injuries result (e.g. Moura, 1994 and Grosvenor, 2020); strata control fatalities/injuries do not have the same impact in terms of reform or action as generally it is one or two workers that are injured/killed as a result of a particular incident and therefore doesn’t have the same impact on the public, elected officials or the inspectorates as a mass killing requiring an urgent inquiry and reform.

However, over time there are just as many fatalities associated with ground falls and many more injuries as typically very few survive explosions with Grosvenor (2020) being the exception not the rule. It is remarkable what the human body can survive with respect to ground fall impact.

Those that have been killed or injured by ground falls and their families deserve reform with respect to current strata control practices at Australian collieries. It should be a reality that an underground coal mine is a workplace (not a war zone), that every individual deserves the right to come home safely from their shift or tour of duty and that one death is one too many and that these are not just statements trotted out after a fatality.

The recent fatalities at Mammoth Mine (2 January 2026) and Crinum Mine (14 September 2021) tragically highlight that critical changes to colliery strata control practices are required to improve worker safety. These men and their families deserve reform.

This presentation provides both practical examples and solutions as to how strata control practices can be dramatically improved to reduce ground fall rates/fatalities/injuries. The main areas addressed are with respect to responsibility/accountability at a minesite level, the definition and required reporting of strata control high potential incidents, information sharing and minimum standards that should not be compromised by productivity.

Heat stress is a well-recognised occupational health and safety risk across the Queensland resources industry, particularly in surface coal mines and surface areas of underground coal mines. Resources Safety and Health Queensland’s Guidance Note QGN32, Managing Exposure to Heat in Surface Coal Mines and Surface Areas of Underground Coal Mines, has provided practical guidance for identifying heat risk factors, evaluating thermal exposure, controlling heat exposure and managing heat-related illness. As a consequence, adoption of heat Trigger Action Response Plans is already well underway across many sites. The next challenge is not simply whether a Trigger Action Response Plan exists, but how it is operationalised, reviewed and improved in day-to-day operations.
This presentation proposes a practical heat risk maturity framework for assessing how effectively heat management processes are being operationalised. The framework builds on existing guidance and site Trigger Action Response Plans by shifting attention from documentation to decision-making and, consequently, action. It describes five maturity levels: reactive, aware, planned, operational and learning. These levels help sites identify whether heat controls are applied late, whether decisions vary between supervisors or shifts, whether pre-summer planning is being used effectively, and whether observations and outcomes are feeding back into continual improvement.
The presentation will explore how digital systems such as Kite® can support the operational, automation and refinement of heat Trigger Action Response Plans. This includes using pre-season assessments to identify higher-risk work groups, providing forward visibility of changing heat risk, linking triggers to the work being performed, supporting supervisors with clear and timely information, and recording observations, symptoms, near misses and outcomes during hot conditions.
By using a maturity approach, sites can identify where heat management decisions currently break down and prioritise the next achievable step. This supports stronger implementation of existing Trigger Action Response Plans, more consistent decisions across crews and shifts, better evidence for review, and a clearer pathway for continual improvement in managing heat stress risk.