Summary
Trends
Evidence
Reports, concerns and published responses Receiving a report does not make the recipient responsible for every concern in it. PFD Monitor does not verify whether stated actions happened.
Reports over time Reports naming this recipient by issue year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Reports 1 Naming this recipient
Published responses 0% Found for named reports
Concerns addressed 0 Across all linked responses
Stated actions 0 Described in responses
Concerns raised 2 Failure to secure the tail end of coiled pipe during dispensing View source Insufficiency of exclusion zones alone to protect workers from springing coiled pipe tails View source
No linked response statements No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
×
AI-generated summary
Charles Harper · Prevention of Future Deaths report
This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.
Report summary
Charles Harper was struck by the unsecured tail end of coiled polyethylene pipe during dispensing operations on 27 April 2023 and died the following day. The principal concerns were that companies continue to dispense coiled pipe without securing its tail end, and that exclusion zones alone may not adequately protect workers from the unpredictable release of stored energy.
Read the report on judiciary.uk
× Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to The Pipeline Industries Guild Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to secure the tail end of coiled pipe during dispensing
Wider context from the report “1. A material number of drilling and pipe dispensing companies have in the past, and continue, to dispense coiled pipe without the use of any method of securing the tail end of the pipe coil, contrary to trailer operating manual instructions.
2. The use of exclusion zones may be insufficient alone, and provide a false sense of security, to guard against the risk of a worker being struck by the tail end of a coiled pipe springing in an unpredictable way when stored energy is released at the final stage of dispensing.
The trailer manufacturer in this case indicated – although their instructions make it clear the tail end of coiled pipe should always be secured to the trailer , and that clamps/straps were effective in preventing springing of the tail end of coiled pipe - an intention to do further testing around the forces generated when stored energy is released, the effectiveness of clamps and straps to restrain the tail end of coiled pipe, and consideration of cages being installed around trailers; This will take some time and will require collaboration with pipe coil manufacturers and pipe coil dispensers. The HSE indicated the facts will be considered by the relevant sector division who will decide what if any pro-active health and safety action to take; This will also take some time.
It appears to me that a number of drilling/pipe dispensing companies who do not always seek to secure the tail end of pipe coil during dispensing , are likely to be members of either The Pipeline Industries Guild and/or British Drilling Association. Both organisations explain on their respective websites an aim is to improve the health and safety of its members. Both organisations are likely to be in a position to take action to alert their members to the risk.
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to The Pipeline Industries Guild Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Insufficiency of exclusion zones alone to protect workers from springing coiled pipe tails
Wider context from the report “1. A material number of drilling and pipe dispensing companies have in the past, and continue, to dispense coiled pipe without the use of any method of securing the tail end of the pipe coil, contrary to trailer operating manual instructions.
2. The use of exclusion zones may be insufficient alone, and provide a false sense of security, to guard against the risk of a worker being struck by the tail end of a coiled pipe springing in an unpredictable way when stored energy is released at the final stage of dispensing.
The trailer manufacturer in this case indicated – although their instructions make it clear the tail end of coiled pipe should always be secured to the trailer, and that clamps/straps were effective in preventing springing of the tail end of coiled pipe - an intention to do further testing around the forces generated when stored energy is released, the effectiveness of clamps and straps to restrain the tail end of coiled pipe, and consideration of cages being installed around trailers; This will take some time and will require collaboration with pipe coil manufacturers and pipe coil dispensers. The HSE indicated the facts will be considered by the relevant sector division who will decide what if any pro-active health and safety action to take; This will also take some time.
It appears to me that a number of drilling/pipe dispensing companies who do not always seek to secure the tail end of pipe coil during dispensing, are likely to be members of either The Pipeline Industries Guild and/or British Drilling Association. Both organisations explain on their respective websites an aim is to improve the health and safety of its members. Both organisations are likely to be in a position to take action to alert their members to the risk.
” Open source report
Back to top
· Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations
Data last updated 7 September 2026
Includes reports addressed to a minister or senior office-holder acting for this organisation.
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations