IPAF has issued a comprehensive statement regarding secondary guarding systems, or entrapment protection. It follows a move by some major contractors in the UK, dictating a specific type of secondary guarding system for all machines entering their job sites. So far, it has mostly affected sites in the greater London area.
Essentially, IPAF has come out against contractors dictating a specific solution to the risks/dangers of overhead entrapment incidents. But the statement speaks for itself, being thorough and comprehensive. We publish it in full below.
“IPAF fully supports the prevention of crushing and entrapment incidents across all Mobile Elevating Work Platforms, with particular focus on scissor lifts and 3A-type machines, where proximity to overhead structures and restricted work envelopes can significantly increase risk.
These events remain a key fatal hazard in global accident data, and IPAF continues to prioritise robust, task-specific risk assessment, planning, competent operation and supervision, and heightened operator vigilance as the primary means of reducing harm."
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’s 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 “secondary guarding” 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 – in line with the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) – 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 – such as nuisance activations or conflicts with safety systems – 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.”
Comments