What safety protocols did this Pythom Space rocket crew ignore?

Question

The video below of Pythom Space's first rocket test has raised a few eyebrows

The video prompted hundreds of replies on Twitter, including some from rather horrified rocket scientists. "We knew better as untrained college students," said Jordan Noone, the co-founder of Relativity Space.

Pythom “Micro jump”

What exactly did they get wrong with this test?

Note: The Pythom Space CEO did eventually respond to the original Ars Technica story linked above. It does offer their own take on some of the issues raised there and elsewhere (including some of the points in the answer below)

Answer 1

The easy-to-spot stuff:

1. (assumed) Improper transportation of hazardous materials. Both white fuming nitric acid and furfuryl alcohol are considered hazardous materials; none of the vehicles in the video appears to have a hazmat placard, the rocket is not an approved hazmat container, and the fuel containers seen in other videos are emphatically not approved.
2. No personal protective gear. Nitric acid and furfurly alcohol are both toxic, and heavy loads are being lifted. Nobody is seen wearing any sort of protective gear, not even hard hats or safety glasses.
3. Insecure rigging when lifting the test object upright. A strap, particularly one being pulled at a sharp angle, is far less safe than a proper lifting point.
4. Bad angle when lifting the test object upright. This puts excess loads on things, increasing the risk of a fall or failure.
5. Using unbraced legs as a pivot point when lifting the test object upright. You can see they're on the verge of buckling.
6. (assumed) Lifting the test object while already fueled. In the event of a fall, this ensures an explosion if the tanks rupture, as the fuels are hypergolic.
7. Having people stand under a suspended load. If the test object falls, this will cause serious injury or death to at least two people.
8. Using a truck to pull the lifting cable. This provides far less control than a proper winch.
9. Having personnel in the blast area of the test object. In the event of an failure, this makes it highly likely that they will be engulfed in the fireball, struck by debris, or poisoned by fuel vapors.
10. Having personnel in the exhaust area of the test object. Even during normal operation, they will be exposed to nitric acid, furfuryl alcohol, and assorted nitrogen oxides, all of which are highly toxic.
11. Having unnecessary equipment in the test area. In the event of a failure, this can become additional flying debris.
12. Not properly securing the test object. In the event of higher-than-expected performance, this will become self-propelled debris; in the event of a premature shutdown, the resulting hop-and-crash will rupture the fuel tanks and cause an explosion.
13. Not providing a flight termination system. In the event that the test object becomes airborne, they have no way of keeping it from leaving the test area.
14. (assumed) Insufficient fire-extinguishing equipment on site. None of the area views show a pumper truck or other equipment capable of dealing with a brush fire ignited by 15+ kg of hypergolic fuels.
15. Improper fire-extinguishing equipment. At one point, you can see what appears to be an ordinary dry-chemical fire extinguisher. This should not be used when dealing with nitric acid.
16. Oxidizer-rich shutdown. You can see see the reddish cloud of nitric-acid byproducts at the end of the burn; this is likely the result of the oxidizer reacting with the engine.
17. (assumed) No post-burn decontamination of the area. The celebratory post-burn shot shows no sign of cleanup. Combined with the oxidizer-rich shutdown, this means they're likely walking through an area contaminated with nitric acid.