30 Apr 26
A recent interview in Rental Briefing caught our attention, with Peter Douglas, CEO of IPAF (International Powered Access Federation), speaking to IRN Managing Editor, Murray Pollok at ConExpo in Vegas about the industry’s ongoing safety challenges.
The conversation focused on what IPAF calls the “fatal five” – the five most common causes of serious incidents and fatalities involving MEWPs: electrocution, overturns, entrapment, falls from the platform, and being struck by an object or mechanical failure.
As Douglas points out, the list rarely changes. The order may shift from year to year, but the underlying risks remain stubbornly familiar across global markets. With IPAF representing around 2,000 member companies in more than 80 countries, and millions of MEWP users worldwide, the issue is no longer identifying the hazards. It is how the industry tackles them properly, consistently and at scale.
One of the clearest themes from the interview is the role of manufacturers. Douglas makes the point that while many OEMs are supportive, more can be done to help raise safety standards, particularly in fast-growing markets where training and regulation are still catching up. He also argues strongly for better accident and near-miss reporting, not as a sign of failure, but as evidence that companies are paying attention, learning lessons and taking safety seriously.
From an Xwatch point of view, none of this is surprising. The sector understands the risks. The bigger question is what can be done in day-to-day operation to reduce exposure to them.
There is no single solution to the fatal five. Training, planning, inspection and operator behaviour remain central. But machine-based control systems can play a practical part, particularly where risks are linked to movement, positioning and operation within known hazard zones.
This is where systems such as the Xwatch MEWP solution can make a difference.
The system is designed to give operators and site managers greater control over how a machine behaves within a defined working area. Operation is automatic and fail-safe, with key functions accessible quickly on site so limits can be set clearly and consistently.
Height limitation monitors the machine’s potential high points and prevents it from exceeding pre-set limits, helping when working beneath overhead structures or in confined areas. Just as importantly, full power remains available to move the machine safely away from the limit.
Slew limitation adds another level of control by allowing operators to create virtual boundaries around the machine. These can be set by entering values or by positioning the machine directly. The system then monitors the chassis and front-end equipment continuously, preventing slewing into restricted areas and helping maintain repeatable safe working zones.
Hydraulic or electrical integration helps control movement smoothly as the machine approaches a limit, reducing the risk of bounce or overshoot. Optional chassis sensing can also monitor pitch and roll to account for uneven ground conditions, while telematics adds visibility for fleet managers.
None of this replaces proper training or good planning. Nor does it directly solve every element of the fatal five. Risks such as falls from the platform or electrocution still depend heavily on operator behaviour, site assessment and safe systems of work. What machine control can do, however, is reduce the likelihood of certain movement-related incidents, support repeatable safe operation, and help prevent machines from entering known danger areas.
Douglas is right to raise the question of OEM responsibility. Better safety outcomes will not come from one intervention alone. They will come from a combination of better training, clearer standards, stronger reporting and practical tools that help operators work safely on site. Technology has a role to play, but it works best as part of that wider approach.
The full interview with Peter Douglas in Rental Briefing is well worth a read for anyone involved in powered access safety.
