The International Powered Access Federation (IPAF) has issue a statement in response to a move by tier one contractors in the UK to mandate secondary guarding on mobile elevating work platforms (MEWPs).
IPAF broadly represents the manufacturers and fleet owners, and it takes the lead on setting standards for MEWP design and use.
There are, as yet, no international standards for secondary guarding 鈥� the generic term used for technologies and devices designed to prevent operators being trapped in the basket in the event of a collision with rafters, beams or other obstacle (entrapment incidents).
IPAF says that it supports the move towards the adoption of secondary guarding but it does not advocate mandatory adoption of specific systems by contractors ahead of completion of the draft聽ISO standard.
It says that there is no single secondary guarding system that protects against all known entrapment situations. The concern is that ticking the box on secondary guarding devices will reduce risk awareness among contractors that use MEWPs.
鈥淩obust, task-specific risk assessment therefore remains the primary safeguard,鈥� IPAF said. 鈥淥perators must continue to exercise active vigilance, particularly when manoeuvring close to structures, working beneath steelwork or slabs, elevating while slewing, or operating in congested work areas. Engineering systems cannot replace the need for trained operators working to a clear method statement under competent supervision.鈥�
Here is IPAF鈥檚 full statement on the issue.
IPAF Position on Secondary Guarding
While the federation recognises the potential benefits of emerging secondary guarding technologies, IPAF is not currently advocating mandatory adoption of specific systems by contractors ahead of completion of the international draft ISO standard.
IPAF鈥檚 position is founded on the need for robust risk assessment, internationally agreed performance criteria, and a holistic application of the hierarchy of controls.
Emerging Contractor Mandates
IPAF is aware that some UK Tier 1 contractors intend to introduce secondary guarding requirements from January 2026. At present, IPAF has observed that:
- Project specifications differ widely
- Definitions of 鈥渟econdary guarding鈥� are inconsistent
- There is no single recognised performance benchmark
- Rental companies and OEMs may face conflicting procurement demands
This lack of alignment can create uncertainty for duty-holders when determining what is reasonably practicable for a particular task and whether proposed controls are proportionate to the risks identified through site-specific assessment.
IPAF encourages members to engage early with clients and contractors to clarify expectations, technical specifications and responsibilities, and to ensure that any site requirements are properly linked to documented risk assessments and method statements.
Secondary Guarding is Not a Stand-Alone Control
IPAF 鈥� in line with UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) 鈥� stresses that secondary guarding systems must not be treated as a substitute for good planning, competent supervision and vigilant operators. IPAF again emphasises that there is no single secondary guarding system that protects against all known entrapment situations.
Entrapment risk is strongly influenced by factors including:
- Task design and sequencing
- Selection of the correct MEWP type and configuration
- Proximity to overhead structures and 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. Operators must continue to exercise active vigilance, particularly when manoeuvring close to structures, working beneath steelwork or slabs, elevating while slewing, or operating in congested work areas. Engineering systems cannot replace the need for trained operators working to a clear method statement under competent supervision.
Engineering Complexity and System Integration
Secondary guarding and overhead detection technologies interact directly with critical machine systems, including platform controls and emergency stops, guardrails and structures, load-sensing functions, and emergency descent systems.
Secondary guarding has not been specified within the draft ISO standard and therefore is currently not defined by UK Tier 1 contractors in a detailed enough manner for every system to operate the same way. This drives even more importance on the primary protection methods such as equipment selection, training, familiarisation, operator vigilance and supervision.
These interfaces require careful engineering design, validation and inspection to ensure that new hazards are not introduced and that unintended consequences 鈥� such as nuisance activations or conflicts with safety systems 鈥� are avoided.
IPAF believes that internationally agreed standards are essential to provide clarity for OEMs, rental companies, inspectors, trainers and contractors, and to support consistent deployment across fleets.
Got a story? Email news@theconstructionindex.co.uk
