help - load securement

If there is no bulkead then (b) applies (When an article is not blocked...), if there is a bulkhead then (c) applies (If an individual article is blocked...), not both. How can you possibly have both apply (to the same article) when they are polar opposites?

If (c) applies then the strap requirement (based on length) is only one strap in the first 10 feet. Similarly, under (b), if the article is more than 10 feet in length, then (1) and (2 [i & ii]) do not apply, and the driver must only heed the requirements of (3)... two tiedowns for the first 10 feet and another tiedown for each additional 10 feet or fraction thereof.

Also note that none of the above applies if the article securement falls under (d), which I use quite often. This tells us that the securement rules as posted above are not "set in stone" other than ensuring the article stays where it is supposed to.

I transport crane booms, pipe, wings, etc., which because of either the article itself, or because of the trailer design, cannot meet (b) or (c). I do frequently see drivers transporting similar items in ways that meet (b) and/or (c), but which run the risk of causing damage to the article.

 

Care to explain the distribution of these tiedowns according to your own reference material? At best, you have 2 straps within the first 6 feet. What is the aversion to the 5 feet term use?

 

They are not polar opposites if you read and apply them sequentially rather than exempting them. As I pointed out, the regulation doesn't say (b) or (c), it says (b) and (c).

So sequentially, you are first required to create the bulkhead equivalent on the article(s), then continue the sequential application of length / tiedown ratio.

Because an exemption is made for items that you may not be able to secure in accordance with the standard formula, does not in any way allow you to not apply it to items that can be secured in that manner, meaning that unless they qualify for the exemption they are to be secured by the rules as spelled out. In addition, the rules refer to other rules (WLL, general securement rules, etc.) that must also be applied. So in a sense, no they are not set in stone, but they get tougher rather than weaker by application of those other rules. They can never be allowed to get weaker in securement.

Additionally, and I forgot to point out this wording better in this part of the regulation that you think polarizes the same article:

----Notice that I've highlighted a particular word that you can't gloss over. It's saying that if an individual item is immobilized, it must be secured by the rest of this section. The article that is immobilized per (b) (1), (2) (i) or (ii), or 3 is now subject to (c).

Granted 3 and (c) may seem redundant, but depending on the make up of the cargo, it could have disimilar length pieces that would then be covered under the multiple/overlapping sections.

Perhaps I over simplify it but 2 tiedowns front and back and adding a tiedown every 8-10 feet seems to almost always work out for me in that the end WLL value equals or exceeds the actual cargo weight which is something I personally strive for. When I have done this method and have 59,400 lbs WLL securement for 43,589 lbs of lumber, I know I breathe easier and hope you and your loved ones will also, knowing they're on the road with someone that uses that kind of formula to secure their load.

 

That article is 12 ft long so wouldnt it meet the "2 straps for first 10ft and 1 strap for the next 10ft or fraction thereof" The extra 2 ft requires a 3rd strap.

 

Same as this...

artist's rendition.

 

Okay, so move the little box in front of the big box, is it now secured the same? Or will you now have 4 tiedowns for 16 ft of length? Yes you will, and the first two will be within the first 4 feet.

 

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/truck/vehicle/cs-policy.htm

Straight from the FMCSA's website. I don't know how much clearer it can be. It DOES say there must be 2 tiedowns in the first 10's feet, but ONLY if there is no bulkhead/blocking/etc. Notice all the "if"s in there? And that's the last I'm gonna argue about this crap.

 

Why would it require an extra strap just because the little box was in front? It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

I'm done arguing too., You guys win, I read too much into it. Cie la vie.

Good bye.

 

who knew the word "for" could cause so many problems. If I had nickle for every time.....