help - load securement

I'll stand by my original statement as it is. Please re-read the cite that I included, even the un-emphasized sections. You have to read regulation with attention to the detail of how things are phrased.

 

I have read it in its entirety, numerous times. Perhaps you could point out the part that you feel requires there be two straps within five feet of each end of the secured item?

 

Clearly printed in parts 2 and 3. Even emphasized for you. Using part two as reference, and providing that it isn't immobilized in some other way, you'd place two within the first five and one strap every 10. If load is placed against a header or some other immobilizing device, then you wouldn't need two. But even against a header, a piece greater than 5 needs two. What it also says a 5 foot piece needs two if its greater than 1,100 lb. If its less then you could use one. Regardless of weight, if a piece is over 5 ft but not greater than 10 it will need two.

You'd place two on both ends because both ends could be considered the start of a load. And it would also be your rear securement.

Sent from your local FBI Surveillance Van

 

Those regs only state how many tie downs are required based on TOTAL length of the load, they say nothing about how close those tiedowns must be to each other, or the front of the load.

 

Nope, it actually tells you where, not how many. You can determine how many using that rule, sure, but if you got a 70,000 pound coil those rules won't help you one bit. Those rules determine where, but is also left open ended to be interpreted by LE. To me, they imply what I just said. Id just rather cover my butt versus take a chance that a trooper is having a good day.

Google is a powerful tool.

Sent from your local FBI Surveillance Van

 

It's funny how often people read into the regs words and/or meanings that simply aren't there.

 

Ok let's break this down.

Here it quite clearly states the number of tiedowns required depends upon the length (weight requirements not withstanding for this part of the regs.)

These 3 parts are not cumulative. They are an either/or tree. If the article falls under the 1st part, IE 5' or less and less then 1100lbs, only one tiedown is required. If the article is less then 5' but greater then 1100lbs, OR if it is longer then 5' but less then or equal to 10', then it requires 2 tiedowns. If the article is longer then 10' then it requires 2 tiedowns plus and additional tiedown for every extra 10' of the load (or portions less then 10'.) Now where in that does it state that on loads longer then 10' there must be 2 tiedowns in the first 5' of the load? If your load is longer then 10' you automatically default to part 3.

 

Raezzor, by excluding (b) you have changed the entire regulation, so let's break this down in it's entirety.

-- this means the very minimum.

-- as for your point of cumulative, note that this part tells you that indeed it is cumulative, as it depends on the lengths and the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c). This means for the purpose of minimum securement, you have to apply the sections separately or in your words "cumulatively". Notice that it is setting up the conditional understanding that this applies to using tiedowns as part of the securement system, because as the next section describes, if you don't have something that is normally required it is going to setup what you need to do "instead" of that missing part of the securement system.

--notice that this section is describing a blocking structure that is missing and is giving "alternative" minimum requirements just to meet the blocking structure requirements.

--- this is for the first part of the article on the flatbed and it is basically using tiedowns to secure this part of the article so that the next section (c) can also be applied to it. Remember it said paragraphs (b) and (c), not (b) or (c). This section basically is like the aggregate WLL section, it's an alternative to a bulkhead, but the rest of the article's length and that of any touching behind it will be secured accordingly.

---after the first part of the article is secured, it now is subject to this part of the regulation.

What this says to me, and apparently several other people, is that when you have created the alternative bulkhead you can't possibly meet the rest of the measurements unless you have done the first two straps within the first 5 feet...and since the regulations prominently refer to that measurement it is logical to apply it to the first 5 feet. Then overlap it applying one extra strap for every 10 feet or fraction thereof. When you combine this with the additional requirements of WLL and immobilization aspects, this "rule of thumb" is entirely logical and supported by regulation and prudence.

We can continue to disagree, and I don't for one minute think you'll convert, but when I see regulations, I read them as they can be applied......literally. I've had people tell me they got gigged for these things and that, in particluar the 5 feet from the back securement, as it was interpreted that a backing truck hitting it's brakes then made the reverse end the forward movement restraint requirement. As a precaution, I will continue to secure as I read it, and, as always, you are entirely welcome to do whatever you want with your load and hope that it doesn't come back to haunt you.

 

You guys are correct but going way to far into it! Dont read into the regs read them for what they are! I have always followed the rules and the basics that I was trained on back in the day, which I still feel are the best advise ever recieved!
1. ITS EITHER GOING TO STAY ON OR FALL OFF
2. THROW AS MANY CHAINS TILL YOU FEEL SAFE THEN THROW 2 MORE!
3. THE MORE CHAINS/STRAPS THE MERRIER!

 

Note the term "or braking in reverse" for the "Rearward Force" requirement is clearly covered.

Drivers get "gigged" because they rely on what other drivers tell them rather than reading the actual regulations and other associated instructional and interpretive materials and because they let (some) enforcement personnel who know less than they should bully them into a citation/violation.