IPAF SUMMIT
Chris Wraith, IPAF technical officer, called for ‘anti-entrapment device’ to be renamed as ‘secondary
guarding system’. He argued that the term anti-entrapment sends out a misleading safety message that
could have fatal consequences.
Mr Wraith made the demands during his presentation at the IPAF Summit, held in Miami, US. Following
the Summit, he told AI that the term anti-entrapment was too generic and in many cases suggested a level
of safety that doesn’t exist.
He added that there was now too much focus on so-called anti-entrapment equipment, when there were
other pressing issues like electrocution, overturning and falls from platforms, that should be considered.
“Machines are safe by design and manufacturers are governed by many different standards, including
ISO and ANSII. For example you have the ANSII Manual of Responsibilities which states it is important that
there is supervision of staff.”
Mr Wraith noted that none of the standards specifically refer to anti-entrapment solutions, and until one
is written manufacturers and users were not in a position to create such devices with a view that they were
somehow covered legally.
He added, “In many cases people are already in a crushing situation before the devices work, so they
are not really an anti-entrapment device. We should drop those words and call them secondary guarding
systems. We should not even call them a safety
system, as one is already installed into the device.
And they all provide different solutions for different
risks; there is not one that will save you from
entrapment all the time.”
Another problem comes from some users
creating their own anti-entrapment-like solutions
and thinking that they have their own effective
system that they can use day-to-day.
“But in the eyes of the law they may be
significantly modifying the machine. So they need
to seek manufacturer’s advice and approval before
they do it.”
Mr Wraith added, “If you asked manufacturers
which devices they recommend there would be very
few. Before you have secondary guarding you must
have all the information and guidance in place.
Secondary guarding is like PPE; it should only ever
be a last resort.”
This was the first time the IPAF
Summit had been held in the US
and it confirmed that similar
challenges are faced across the
world.
AI
reports from the event.
I
n his remarkable key not speach Ron
Defeo, Terex chairman and CEO,
challenged the industry to think about
safety as a top priority and urged the
350-strong audience at the Hilton Downtown
Miami hotel, in Florida, US, to find something
in their organisations that could be improved.
“Make a commitment to an outcome that is
better tomorrow than it is today,”He said. “But
you have to measure it, and then manage it,
before you can secure that outcome.”
Certainly safety and training were the
dominant themes of March’s summit, and so
the efforts of IPAF’s US training wing AWPT
to introduce its eLearning training scheme into
the US, with the help of US-based rental giant
NES Rentals, was perhaps an unsurprising start
to one of the morning’s two break-out sessions.
Later that afternoon Andy Studdert, CEO
of NES Rentals, spoke about the project. “I am
really confused,” he said, “The PAL Card and
IPAF offer the best product in the industry
from a safety, compliance and proven product
standpoint, but we can’t get any headway in the
US.With 460,000 IPAF cards issued in the
world, how many do you think are in the US?”
he asked the audience. “Well, I’ll tell you: 3,000
cards, including the 1,000 that NES uses.”
Chris Wraith, IPAF technical officer,
talks about the delicate subject of anti-
entrapment devices
Standard
bearers
38
access
INTERNATIONAL
MAY-JUNE 2013
‘ANTI-ENTRAPMENT’ OUTMODED?
