Mobile Elevated Work Platform Safety: 2024 Data Reveals
INSIGHTS: Mobile Elevated Work Platforms: Construction and General Industry
MEWP Fatalities Fell 26% in 2024. The Entrapment Data Tells a Different Story.
Mobile elevated work platform safety data from IPAF’s 2025 Global Safety Report shows the headline number moved in the right direction: 100 fatalities in 2024, down from 135 in 2023, a 26% reduction. But the same report recorded a 75% surge in entrapment incidents and a 62% increase in entrapment fatalities year on year. That divergence, improvement in some categories alongside sharp deterioration in others, is exactly the kind of pattern that MEWP safety programmes need to interrogate rather than average out. This article examines what the data shows, what is driving it, and what the shift in the ANSI A92 standards since 2020 means for employers who still have not fully closed the training compliance gap.
26%
Reduction in Global MEWP Fatalities in 2024 Versus 2023
IPAF’s Global Safety Report 2025 recorded 100 fatalities in 2024, down from 135 in 2023. Total people involved in incidents fell 12% to 211, and fatal and major incidents dropped 15% to 170 reports from 26 countries. The reduction was driven primarily by fewer overturn fatalities, which fell 56%. Source: IPAF Global Safety Report 2025
+75%
Increase in Entrapment Incidents in 2024, Fatalities Rose 62%
While total fatalities fell, entrapment reports surged 75% and entrapment fatalities rose 62% from 2023 to 2024. Entrapment, where a worker is caught between the MEWP platform and a fixed structure, is now the second leading cause of fatal and major incidents globally, overtaking falls from the platform in year-on-year data. Source: IPAF Global Safety Report 2025
37%
Of All MEWP Fatal and Major Incidents Occur on Construction Sites
Construction accounted for 37% of all reported fatal and major MEWP incidents in 2024, more than any other sector. Arboriculture and electrical sectors each contributed 13%. The concentration in construction reflects both the volume of MEWP usage on job sites and the complexity of ground conditions, site traffic, and overhead hazards that construction environments present. Source: IPAF Global Safety Report 2025
Insight Summary
Global MEWP fatalities fell from 135 in 2023 to 100 in 2024, a 26% reduction driven primarily by a 56% drop in overturn fatalities. The improvement is real but uneven.
Entrapment incidents surged 75% and entrapment fatalities rose 62% in 2024, making it the fastest-deteriorating hazard category in MEWP safety and a clear signal that occupant awareness programmes are under-performing.
Overturns, entrapment, and falls from the platform have been the top three causes of MEWP fatal and major incidents since IPAF began collecting global accident data in 2012; the causes have not shifted in over a decade.
ANSI A92.22 and A92.24 went into effect on 1 June 2020, introducing operator versus occupant training distinctions, mandatory site-specific rescue plans, and 23 defined operator theory training topics. OSHA still references A92.2-1969 as its incorporated standard.
The 1b vehicle-mounted category accounted for 34% of fatal and major incidents in 2024, consistent with multi-year trends, while 3a scissor lifts and 3b boom lifts each contributed 26%.
Key Insight
The 2024 MEWP fatality reduction is not evenly distributed across hazard categories. Overturn controls appear to be improving. Entrapment controls are clearly not. For safety leaders, the meaningful programme question is not whether their MEWP incident count is trending down; it is whether the specific hazards that killed or seriously injured workers last year are being addressed by name.
Mobile Elevated Work Platform Safety: A Decade of Global Incident Data
IPAF has collected global accident data involving powered access equipment since 2012. The 2025 Global Safety Report spans data from 2015 through 2024, providing a 10-year view of fatality trends, cause distribution, sector concentration, and equipment category patterns. The 2024 data represents the most complete recent picture of where and how MEWP-related deaths and serious injuries occur globally.
2024 Fatalities by Cause (Fatal and Major Incidents)
Overturns
11 fatalities, 19 major injuries
Entrapment
+62% fatalities vs 2023
Falls from platform
Top 3 every year since 2012
Hit by falling object
50% fewer incidents, +75% fatalities
Source: IPAF Global Safety Report 2025
Incidents by Sector and MEWP Category (2024)
Construction sites
37% of all incidents
Arboriculture
13% of all incidents
Electrical sector
13% of all incidents
By MEWP category:
1b
Vehicle-mounted: 34%
3a
Scissor lift: 26%
3b
Boom lift: 26%
Source: IPAF Global Safety Report 2025
Year-on-Year Fatality Trend: 2023 vs 2024
Total Fatalities
135
2023
→
100
2024
-26%
Overturn Fatalities
25
2023
→
11
2024
-56%
Entrapment Fatalities
Low
2023
→
+62%
2024
Accelerating
Source: IPAF Global Safety Report 2025 (data spans 2015-2024, year comparison reflects 2023 vs 2024)
What the Data Shows: Three Findings That Matter
Finding 1: The top three causes of MEWP deaths have not changed in over a decade, and that persistence is the signal
Since IPAF began collecting global accident data in 2012, overturns, entrapment, and falls from the platform have consistently ranked among the top causes of fatal and major MEWP incidents. That 10-year pattern of unchanged cause distribution is not a data collection artefact. It is evidence that the industry’s training and risk management response has been producing incremental improvement, enough to move total fatality numbers in some years, without fundamentally shifting what is killing workers in these incidents.
What this means: A safety programme that responds to MEWP incidents with generic retraining is repeating a response that has failed to change cause distribution for over a decade. The evidence points toward the need for targeted, cause-specific interventions, particularly for entrapment, where the 2024 data shows a clear deterioration even as overall fatality numbers improved. Source: IPAF Global Safety Report 2025
Finding 2: The entrapment surge is the most urgent signal in the 2024 data, and it is directly connected to occupant awareness
Entrapment occurs when a MEWP platform or its occupants come into contact with a fixed structure or obstruction (a ceiling, beam, pipe, or other overhead obstruction) and the worker is caught between the platform and that structure. It is almost entirely preventable through two mechanisms: proper pre-work site assessment identifying overhead obstructions, and occupant awareness of the hazard and the correct response when unexpected contact occurs.
What this means: The 75% increase in entrapment reports and 62% increase in entrapment fatalities in 2024 suggests that occupant-level awareness of this specific hazard is not reaching a significant portion of the workforce using MEWPs. The ANSI A92.22-2020 standard explicitly requires that operators train occupants on operational factors including “how their actions could affect stability” and site-specific hazards. If occupants are not receiving this briefing before entering the platform, the A92 requirement is being satisfied on paper but not in practice. Source: IPAF Global Safety Report 2025; ANSI A92.22 Occupant Training Requirements
Finding 3: The falling object data shows a paradox: fewer incidents, more deaths, pointing to severity escalation, not frequency reduction
In 2024, incidents involving people being hit by falling objects decreased by 50% in number. Fatalities from those incidents rose 75%. This inverse relationship, fewer incidents but higher lethality per incident, suggests that the incidents being reported are becoming more severe rather than the underlying hazard being controlled. IPAF notes that falling objects striking MEWP occupants from above can be catastrophic given the terminal velocity of objects falling from height; the severity of each incident is inherently high.
What this means: A falling frequency reduction without a corresponding severity reduction is not a control success. It may reflect reporting patterns, or it may reflect that near-miss and lower-severity falling object events are not being captured while only the most serious are reaching the reporting portal. Either way, the fatality rate per incident moving upward is a signal that overhead hazard controls and MEWP overhead protection consideration need re-examination. Source: IPAF Global Safety Report 2025
What Is Driving the Pattern: The ANSI Gap and the Operator-Occupant Problem
The most structurally significant development in MEWP safety over the past five years is one that most employers have not fully absorbed: the June 2020 implementation of ANSI/SAIA A92.22 (Safe Use) and A92.24 (Training), which introduced the operator versus occupant distinction, mandated 23 specific operator theory training topics, and required a written site-specific rescue plan for every MEWP operation.
Before 2020, ANSI standards addressed MEWP training primarily through the operator lens. The 2018-2020 revision explicitly recognised that a significant proportion of people on MEWP platforms at the time of incidents are not the designated operator; they are occupants: workers in the platform performing the task while the operator controls movement. These occupants may have received no training at all, or general awareness training that did not address MEWP-specific hazards such as overhead obstruction entrapment.
What OSHA currently references
OSHA’s aerial lift standard at 29 CFR 1926.453 incorporates ANSI A92.2-1969 by reference, a standard that is now more than 55 years old. OSHA’s rulemaking to update its reference to the current A92 suite would require a full regulatory process. Until that occurs, the 2020 ANSI standards remain voluntary for most employers, despite representing the current industry consensus on safe use and training. In practice, OSHA can still cite general duty clause violations when MEWP incidents occur and an employer’s training did not reflect industry-standard practice, which the 2020 ANSI standards now define. Source: 29 CFR 1926.453
What the 2020 ANSI standard requires that most employers are not doing
ANSI A92.24 requires 23 specific topics in operator theory training alone, plus practical familiarisation on the specific MEWP model being operated. A92.22 requires a written site-specific rescue plan before every MEWP operation. Both standards require documentation of training and familiarisation. Industry experts have noted that many employers still treat MEWP training as a once-trained, always-qualified exercise without model-specific familiarisation, exactly the gap that contributes to overturn incidents when operators are unfamiliar with a specific machine’s stability characteristics. Source: Construction Executive: ANSI A92 Changes
A critical detail in the entrapment data connects directly to the A92.22 occupant training requirement. The standard requires operators to ensure that all occupants in the platform understand how their actions could affect stability, know the site-specific hazards relevant to the task, and know how to operate the controls in an emergency when the operator cannot. The 75% surge in entrapment incidents in 2024 is consistent with a population of MEWP occupants who have not received this briefing and are unaware of overhead obstruction risks or the correct response when unexpected contact occurs.
What This Means for Safety Leaders
Review your entrapment controls specifically (not MEWP safety generally)
The 2024 entrapment data demands a specific, targeted response. Safety leaders should audit whether pre-work site assessments require identification of overhead obstructions by name and location; whether operators are conducting the required occupant briefing before every platform elevation; and whether workers entering the platform as occupants understand what to do when unexpected contact occurs. A general MEWP safety refresher does not address this. An entrapment-specific protocol review does.
Audit whether your MEWP training distinguishes operators from occupants
If your MEWP training programme was designed before June 2020, it was built around a framework that did not distinguish between operators and occupants. Under A92.22-2020, occupants are a defined role with specific training requirements distinct from operators. Employers who have not updated their training to reflect this distinction are running programmes that are behind the current industry standard, and that gap is visible in the entrapment data. Source: ANSI A92.22 Standard Changes
Verify that model-specific familiarisation is documented for every MEWP in your fleet
ANSI A92.24 distinguishes between operator classification training (which qualifies a worker to operate a class of MEWP) and model-specific familiarisation (which must occur before operating a specific machine). An operator trained on boom lifts generally is not automatically familiarised with the stability characteristics and operating parameters of a specific boom lift model. Overturn incidents are disproportionately associated with operators who know how to operate a MEWP in general but have not been familiarised with the specific machine’s ground conditions, outrigger requirements, and load limits. Source: United Rentals: ANSI A92 Guide
Confirm your site-specific rescue plans exist and are current for every MEWP operation
ANSI A92.22 requires a written site-specific rescue plan for every MEWP operation. This is not a generalised rescue procedure document; it must address the specific site, the specific MEWP, and the specific hazards present. Most employers have a generic elevated worker rescue section in their emergency action plan. Very few have the site-specific MEWP rescue plan that A92.22 requires. The absence of this plan is both a standards compliance gap and a practical readiness failure: workers who cannot be retrieved quickly after an incident are at significantly higher risk of fatality.
Practical Implications: Three Priority Actions
Priority 1: Conduct an entrapment-specific review of every site where MEWPs operate near overhead structures
Map every work location where MEWP operations occur. For each location, identify all overhead obstructions within the operating envelope: pipes, beams, conveyors, wiring, racking systems. Require that this map be reviewed with the operator before each deployment and that occupants are briefed on the specific overhead hazards before the platform is elevated. This is not a new ANSI requirement; it is the existing A92.22 pre-work site assessment requirement, applied specifically to entrapment hazards with the discipline the 2024 data suggests it is not currently receiving.
Priority 2: Update MEWP training documentation to reflect the A92.24-2018 operator classification and model familiarisation distinction
Pull your current MEWP training records. Verify that each operator has documented classification training for the type of MEWP they operate and separate documented familiarisation records for each specific MEWP model they have been authorised to use. If records show only general MEWP training with no model-specific familiarisation, that gap must be closed. Classification training and model familiarisation are two separate documentation requirements under A92.24 and they must appear as two separate records.
Priority 3: Review MEWP incident data internally using the same cause-specific lens the IPAF data applies globally
Employers who track MEWP incidents as a single count are missing the analytical structure that makes safety improvement possible. Break your MEWP incident record down by cause: overturns, entrapment, falls from platform, electrocution, struck by. Compare year-on-year within each cause category. A facility whose total MEWP incident count is flat but whose entrapment incidents doubled is experiencing exactly the pattern the global data shows, and without cause-specific tracking, that signal is invisible. Source: IPAF Global Safety Report 2025
Executive Takeaway
The 26% fatality reduction is real but should not anchor programme decisions
A 26% headline reduction in global MEWP fatalities is a positive data point. It is not permission to deprioritise MEWP safety investment. The same dataset shows entrapment fatalities rising sharply, falling object lethality per incident increasing, and a cause distribution that has been essentially unchanged for a decade. Programme decisions should be anchored in cause-specific data, not headline totals.
The ANSI A92 gap is a real exposure, and OSHA’s outdated reference does not protect you
The fact that OSHA still references A92.2-1969 does not mean an employer’s MEWP training programme is compliant if it does not reflect the 2020 ANSI standards. OSHA’s General Duty Clause can reach employers whose training fell below the current industry standard when an incident occurred. The 2020 ANSI standards are now the industry consensus on safe use and training. An employer whose programme predates them is operating on a framework that the industry itself has moved beyond.
The entrapment surge is 2024’s clearest signal, and it has an identifiable, addressable cause
Unlike some MEWP hazards that are driven by equipment failure or unforeseeable site conditions, entrapment is primarily a planning and awareness failure. Sites with overhead obstructions can be mapped. Operators can be required to brief occupants before elevation. Occupants can be trained to recognise and respond to unexpected contact. The 75% increase in entrapment reports and 62% increase in entrapment fatalities in 2024 are not driven by a new hazard that emerged suddenly. They reflect a training gap in the occupant awareness provision of A92.22 that safety leaders can close today with existing tools.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a mobile elevated work platform (MEWP)?
A mobile elevated work platform is any machine designed to elevate a person and their tools and materials to a working height. MEWPs include scissor lifts (ANSI category 3a), self-propelled boom lifts (3b), and vehicle-mounted platforms (1b). The term MEWP replaced aerial work platform (AWP) under the 2018-2020 ANSI A92 standard revision. OSHA regulation at 29 CFR 1926.453 governs aerial lifts in construction, while 29 CFR 1910.67 covers general industry. OSHA classifies scissor lifts as mobile scaffolds under Subpart L, not as aerial lifts, which means different regulatory requirements apply to them. Source: OSHA: Aerial Lifts
What caused the 26% decrease in global MEWP fatalities in 2024?
According to IPAF’s Global Safety Report 2025, the primary driver was a 56% reduction in fatalities from overturns, which fell from approximately 25 in 2023 to 11 in 2024. Overturn incidents also decreased by 12.5% in number. This improvement may reflect growing adoption of improved ground assessment practices, outrigger use, and load stability controls that have been a sustained IPAF and industry focus. The total fatality count fell from 135 to 100 across 26 reporting countries, with 211 total people involved in incidents compared to 240 in 2023. Source: IPAF Global Safety Report 2025
Why did MEWP entrapment incidents and fatalities surge in 2024?
IPAF’s 2025 report recorded a 75% increase in entrapment reports and a 62% increase in entrapment fatalities from 2023 to 2024. IPAF’s Head of Safety identified ongoing education gaps and lack of adherence to safe working practices as key factors. Entrapment occurs when a MEWP platform or its occupants make contact with an overhead fixed structure, trapping a worker. It is primarily a planning and awareness failure: sites with overhead obstructions should be mapped in the pre-work site assessment, and occupants must be briefed on these hazards before platform elevation. The ANSI A92.22-2020 standard specifically requires operators to ensure occupants understand how their actions can affect stability and are aware of site-specific hazards. Source: IPAF Global Safety Report 2025
What does ANSI A92.22-2020 require that previous standards did not?
The 2020 ANSI A92 suite introduced several significant changes. It formally defined the occupant role (any person in the platform who is not the operator) and established specific training requirements for occupants distinct from operator training. It required operators to brief occupants before every platform elevation on site-specific hazards, stability factors, and emergency procedures. It required a written site-specific rescue plan for every MEWP operation. It also separated operator classification training from model-specific familiarisation, requiring documented familiarisation on each specific MEWP model before operation. These standards went into effect on 1 June 2020 and represent the current industry consensus on safe use and training. Source: Construction Executive: ANSI A92 Changes
Does OSHA require compliance with the 2020 ANSI A92 standards?
Not directly. OSHA’s aerial lift standard at 29 CFR 1926.453 incorporates ANSI A92.2-1969 by reference, a standard that predates the 2020 revision by more than 50 years. Updating this reference requires a formal rulemaking process. The 2020 ANSI standards are currently voluntary, not mandatory under federal OSHA. However, OSHA’s General Duty Clause allows citation when an employer’s practices fall below the recognised industry standard and a hazard results. Because the 2020 A92 standards represent the current industry consensus, an employer whose MEWP programme does not reflect them may face General Duty Clause exposure after an entrapment, overturn, or other MEWP-related incident. Source: 29 CFR 1926.453
Which industries and MEWP types are most involved in fatal incidents?
According to IPAF’s 2025 Global Safety Report covering 2024 data, construction sites accounted for 37% of all fatal and major MEWP incidents, followed by arboriculture at 13% and the electrical sector at 13%. By equipment category, 1b vehicle-mounted machines (truck-mounted platforms and spider lifts) were involved in 34% of fatal and major incidents, while 3a scissor lifts and 3b boom lifts each contributed 26%. US-based data within the IPAF portal shows the USA accounted for 70% of all incidents reported, reflecting both the scale of MEWP usage and the relative completeness of US incident reporting. Source: IPAF Global Safety Report 2025
What is the difference between operator training and occupant training under ANSI A92.24?
Under ANSI A92.24-2018, operator training is comprehensive and covers 23 defined theory topics plus practical training, model-specific familiarisation, and documented proof of both. Operators must be trained by a qualified person, and training must be documented with a training card or certificate. Occupant training is a lighter-touch requirement delivered by the operator before platform elevation. It covers the requirement to use fall protection and the location of anchors, how occupant actions affect stability, safe use of MEWP accessories assigned to the task, and site-specific work procedures. Occupants do not require the full operator training programme but must receive this pre-work briefing every time they enter a platform. At least one occupant must also be able to operate the platform controls in an emergency if the operator cannot. Source: ANSI A92 Training Requirements
Sources
Government and Regulatory Sources
- 29 CFR 1926.453: Aerial Lifts: primary OSHA construction standard for aerial lifts; incorporates ANSI A92.2-1969 by reference and sets operator training and equipment requirements.
- CDC/NIOSH: Aerial Lift Safety: source for NIOSH surveillance data on aerial lift and scissor lift fatalities, injury counts for 2011-2014 (87 deaths, 1,380 injuries), and cause distribution research including the finding that 83% of scissor lift OSHA/NIOSH investigation cases occurred at 10-29 feet.
- OSHA: Aerial Lifts: OSHA guidance page for aerial lift safety, scissor lift classification as mobile scaffolds, and relevant standards references including 29 CFR 1910.67 for general industry.
Research and Industry Sources
- IPAF Global Safety Report 2025: primary source for all 2024 MEWP fatality and incident data, including the 100 total fatalities (26% reduction from 135 in 2023), 75% increase in entrapment reports, 62% increase in entrapment fatalities, 56% reduction in overturn fatalities, sector distribution (construction 37%), and MEWP category breakdown (1b 34%, 3a 26%, 3b 26%). Data covers 2015-2024 from 26 countries via IPAF’s Accident Reporting Portal.
- DICA: Safety on MEWPs Starts From the Ground Up (2025): source for 2024 overturn incident specifics: 11 fatalities and 19 major injuries from overturn events, based on IPAF Global Safety Report 2025 data.
Standards and Technical Sources
- Construction Executive: Understanding New ANSI A92 Standard Changes (2020): source for the June 1, 2020 effective date of A92.22 and A92.24, the operator versus occupant distinction introduced by the 2018 revision, and the 8-10 year fleet integration timeline for new design standard requirements.
- HSI: New ANSI MEWP Standards (2024): source for the specific occupant training requirements under A92.22-2020, including the four elements operators must communicate to occupants and the requirement that at least one occupant can operate controls in an emergency.
- United Rentals: Guide to ANSI A92 New Aerial Lift Standards: source for the A92.24 operator classification versus model familiarisation distinction, the written site-specific rescue plan requirement under A92.22, and the 23-topic theory training curriculum requirement.
Related Insights
Law
Microlearning Safety Training Legal Requirements Explained
The legal framework article covering what OSHA requires for safety training effectiveness and documentation, directly relevant to MEWP employer training obligations and how the ANSI A92.24 training requirements interact with OSHA’s General Duty Clause.
Worker Safety
Methylene Chloride Safety: What Every Worker Needs to Know
A worker safety article on a chemical hazard that frequently co-exists with elevated work platform operations in construction and industrial maintenance environments where MEWPs are used for paint stripping and surface preparation tasks.
Situational
Microlearning Slips Trips and Falls Prevention
The microlearning case study demonstrating how cause-specific training interventions (the same analytical approach applied to MEWP entrapment in this Insights article) that produced a 71% reduction in STF incidents through targeted, evidence-driven programme redesign.
MEWP AND ELEVATED WORK SAFETY INSIGHTS
More Construction and General Industry Safety Insights
Explore VelSafe’s Insights library for evidence-based analysis of occupational safety trends, enforcement data, regulatory developments, and the patterns in injury and fatality data that inform effective safety programme decisions in construction and general industry.
Explore All Insights
