IPAF Issues Position Statement on Secondary Guarding Mandates
- Meagan Wood
- Jan 28
- 3 min read
30 Second Takeaway
IPAF has pushed back against UK contractors mandating specific secondary guarding systems for MEWPs, emphasising that robust risk assessment, competent operation, and internationally agreed standards must take precedence over prescriptive technology requirements.
IPAF Responds to Contractor-Led Secondary Guarding Requirements
The International Powered Access Federation (IPAF) has issued a detailed position statement on secondary guarding systems, also referred to as entrapment protection, following decisions by several major UK contractors to dictate specific solutions for all MEWPs entering their sites.
The move has so far primarily affected projects in Greater London, with some Tier 1 contractors indicating their intention to introduce mandatory secondary guarding requirements from January 2026.
IPAF’s statement does not oppose secondary guarding technologies outright but clearly challenges the practice of contractors prescribing a single technical solution to manage overhead entrapment risk.
Entrapment Remains a Critical Safety Risk
IPAF reaffirmed its commitment to preventing crushing and entrapment incidents across all MEWPs, with particular emphasis on scissor lifts and 3A-type machines, where proximity to overhead structures and restricted work envelopes can significantly increase risk.
The federation noted that entrapment events remain a key fatal hazard in global accident data, reinforcing the need for:
Task-specific risk assessment
Careful work planning
Competent operation and supervision
Heightened operator vigilance
These measures remain the primary means of reducing harm.
IPAF Position on Secondary Guarding
While recognising the potential benefits of emerging secondary guarding technologies, IPAF stated that it is not currently advocating the mandatory adoption of specific systems ahead of completion of the relevant international draft ISO standard.
IPAF’s position is founded on:
Robust, task-specific risk assessment
Internationally agreed performance criteria
A holistic application of the hierarchy of controls
The federation stressed that secondary guarding should be considered as part of a broader safety strategy rather than a standalone control.
Concerns Over Emerging Contractor Mandates
IPAF highlighted several challenges arising from contractor-led mandates, including:
Widely differing project specifications
Inconsistent definitions of “secondary guarding”
No single recognised performance benchmark
Conflicting procurement demands for rental companies and OEMs
This lack of alignment, IPAF warned, creates uncertainty for duty-holders when determining what is reasonably practicable and whether controls are proportionate to the risks identified through site-specific assessment.
IPAF encouraged members to engage early with clients and contractors to clarify expectations, technical requirements, and responsibilities, ensuring site rules are clearly linked to documented risk assessments and method statements.
Secondary Guarding Is Not a Stand-Alone Control
In line with guidance from the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE), IPAF stressed that secondary guarding systems must not be treated as a substitute for good planning, competent supervision, and vigilant operators.
The federation reiterated that no single secondary guarding system can protect against all known entrapment scenarios.
Factors influencing entrapment risk include:
Task design and sequencing
Selection of the correct MEWP type and configuration
Proximity to overhead structures or fixed plant
Environmental and ground conditions
Operator positioning and line-of-sight
Site supervision and exclusion zones
Emergency rescue planning
Robust, task-specific risk assessment therefore remains the primary safeguard.
Engineering Complexity and System Integration
IPAF also raised concerns about the engineering complexity of secondary guarding systems, noting that such technologies interact directly with critical machine systems, including:
Platform controls and emergency stops
Guardrails and structural components
Load-sensing systems
Emergency descent functions
With secondary guarding not yet specified in the draft ISO standard, IPAF said current contractor requirements often lack the technical clarity needed to ensure consistent system behaviour across different machines and manufacturers.
The federation warned that poorly defined requirements increase the risk of unintended consequences, such as nuisance activations or conflicts with existing safety systems.
About IPAF
The International Powered Access Federation (IPAF) is a global trade association representing manufacturers, rental companies, distributors, contractors, and users of powered access equipment. Founded in 1983, IPAF promotes the safe and effective use of Mobile Elevating Work Platforms (MEWPs) through training, safety guidance, accident analysis, and industry advocacy.
IPAF works closely with regulators, standards bodies, and industry stakeholders worldwide to improve safety outcomes and develop internationally recognised standards that support consistent, practical, and proportionate risk management across the powered access sector.
Website: https://www.ipaf.org/
Frequently Asked Questions
What is IPAF’s position on secondary guarding systems?
IPAF supports the use of secondary guarding as part of a wider risk management approach but does not support contractors mandating a specific system ahead of internationally agreed ISO standards.
Why is IPAF concerned about contractor mandates?
IPAF believes inconsistent definitions, lack of performance benchmarks, and conflicting requirements create uncertainty for duty-holders and may lead to disproportionate or ineffective controls.
Does IPAF oppose secondary guarding technology?
No. IPAF recognises the potential benefits of secondary guarding but stresses it must complement not replace planning, training, supervision, and operator vigilance.
What does IPAF consider the primary safeguard against entrapment?
Robust, task-specific risk assessment remains the primary safeguard, supported by correct equipment selection, competent operators, clear method statements, and effective supervision.
