Loading Mini-Ex onto truck

[Squizzy246B]

OK..I have only been promising these pics to Jeff for ages (well since I told he we just jumped the mini into the truck anyway). So here it is...pic's courtesy of my 6 year old daughter. The power lines are well clear (I know I know :( .

I hope I'm not taking up too much space but I thought I'd show the whole sequence as there has been a lot of discussion recently on this. We use the same procedure for any sized Ex that will fit in a dump truck. The jury is still out on the "blade first" bit. I like it that way cause it sits firm against the headboard and keeps out of the way...but its also good to have "down" the ramp when you are unloading.

Any comments are most welcome...constructive or otherwise...I can take it :D

[Squizzy246B]

Here is the next set.

[Squizzy246B]

This is the break over point where we lower the bucket into the bed and ease the machine over the change in plane. The Yanmar is real easy for this but the Kubota (161) always wants to bang down hard.

[Squizzy246B]

And here's the last couple:

[nobull1]

I load my mini the same way on my trailer except the blade out the back. The reason for the blade out the back is so when I curl the arm in and drop the boom, the bucket goes up tight against the blade. When I chain I crisscross over the bucket and it gives no potential movement. Great pic's by the way:thumbsup

[Wulf]

Squizzy... kind of off-topic but I was wondering whether you wear your seat belt when you load and unload your mini and operate your machinery.

[Squizzy246B]

Squizzy... kind of off-topic but I was wondering whether you wear your seat belt when you load and unload your mini and operate your machinery.

Wulf, always when loading and unloading and then anytime we are on a steep site, working around a large hole etc. I don't normally wear a seatbelt when we are just laying blocks.

[Wulf]

Wulf, always when loading and unloading and then anytime we are on a steep site, working around a large hole etc. I don't normally wear a seatbelt when we are just laying blocks.

That's a good habit and hope everyone reading these posts does the same. It's tough to buckle up each time when you are hopping up and down in and out of the seat, but risk awareness is important.

[jhill]

I have a Kubota KX -41. I can't load mine with the blade backward and the boom forward. I tried that once and it rocked back on the blade. Fortunately my neighbor was there with his tractor and he pushed against the ROPS with his loader so I could get on.

[Ford LT-9000]

Where is your safety chains for the ramps :nono

I know the workers compensation board of B.C. gave the local rental shop supreme doo doo about walking a mini up ramps without the ramps being chained to the truck. Even thou the ramps hooked into the back of the deck the ramps were still able to spit out and one did when one of the guys walking the machine up onto the 2 ton I wasn't there but the guy running the mini left some stuff in his underwear :bouncegri

Do you pin the front of your dump box down to keep it from lifting up when the weight starts on the end of the deck ?

The Yanmar looks good nice and shiny :thumbsup

[nobull1]

I use my boom, arm and bucket as an adjustable counter weight. As I am going up the ramp I just extend or retract the arm and makes it a smooth trip. It takes a little practise, but after quite a few trips up and down you get to know your machine. This is what works for me, but all machines are different.

[nobull1]

Where is your safety chains for the ramps :nono

I know the workers compensation board of B.C. gave the local rental shop supreme doo doo about walking a mini up ramps without the ramps being chained to the truck. Even thou the ramps hooked into the back of the deck the ramps were still able to spit out and one did when one of the guys walking the machine up onto the 2 ton


I had that happen to me a few years ago. I was unloading my cub tractor from the back of my one ton with the ramps hooked into the tailgate. As I was backing off both ramps spun out, there I was sitting on the tractor with the back wheels on the ground and the front wheels on the truck. If had gone back a couple more inches I would have had the cub on top of me. It happened so fast I didn't know what had happened.

P.s. 1954 cubs don't have ROPS:eek:

[Squizzy246B]

For Ex's 3.5 tonnes and less we use one pin per ramp. For Ex's 4 tonnes and over we use two pins per ramp......:confused: for Excavators between 3.5 and 4 tonnes ...well ....we don't have one:confused:

Anyway, the back of the dump bed is channel or RHS. The pin is drilled right through from top to bottom and a 11/16 lynch pin is shot through the ends of the pins so they wont come out. No regs for chains.

The excavator is not lashed in the dump bed. From what I have gathered on this forum; It would appear we have similar binding guidelines for equipment on flat decks to what most of you guys talk about. I have not been able to find anything specific in our regs about machines inside the dump body. You could safely assume that the same guidlines would apply (I expect) but over 40 to 50 operators in my area I know of none that secure a skid or a mini inside the dump bed. I don't know wether this is a grey area....there is some other regs or whatever but I have been pulled over by the heavies with the skid in the back of the 9 tonner and nothing has ever been said. A trip down the freeway in the morning will pass at least a dozen skids in six wheelers with not one of them chained.

That all said and having been operating that way for years I'm thinking of fitting two D rings in the dump body and putting two binders X to the back of the machine with the blade against the head board. Ultimatley the regs and the actual legislation state that it is the drivers responsibility to ensure a load is properly secured.

[Ford LT-9000]

You should have some chains holding the excavator in the box one way of doing it is load the machine into the truck so the blade faces to the tailgate.

You back the machine up till the tracks touch the headache rack then you lift the blade up as high as it will go take some chains from the headache rack to the lifting lugs on the top of the blade. Get the chains snug and even on both sides then drop the blade till the chains get tight it will pull the machine in tight. We do it that way when we were hauling the 161 Kubota in a rolloff box. The machine never really went anywhere even with the box tilted up in the air dropping or winching up the box with the machine.

The easiest thing to install on a flatdeck for tying stuff down is belts they don't do damage to stuff like chains they are easier than chains. You weld the belt winches to the deck and hooks on the driverside or your case passenger side and the winches are on your driverside.

The fine for us for hauling a load that isn't lashed down is 598 dollars you don't want too many of those. The worst part is if they catch you they give you a fine but your stuck on the side of the road and you have to call somebody to bring you some chains to strap the load down. Or they will police escort you to your destination at your cost.

[Jeff D.]

OK..I have only been promising these pics to Jeff for ages... Thanks for providing the pics Squizzy.:thumbsup

[OzDozer]

Ya know .. I reckon that bloke loading the excavator is so ugly .. they should've fined his Mother for unloading him .. :D :D :D

[Squizzy246B]

Ya know .. I reckon that bloke loading the excavator is so ugly .. they should've fined his Mother for unloading him .. :D :D :D

This is why I always stay in the truck when I go to the rubbish tip:rolleyes:

and Ford...the method you describe for securing to the dump (sounds to me) like about the worst way you could possibly do it. If you have to put the blade down to tighten the chains then you are applying up force and reducing your coefficient of friction. It would neither reduce lateral nor tipping moments. I would advise people to think long and hard before using that method.

[Ford LT-9000]

Like I said its the way we were moving the 161 Kubota and the same contractor has been doing it this way for 10 years. The machine and box is almost at 45 degrees for part of the way up the rails then you drop the rails lower then pull the box on. Oh ya the 161 Kubota has steel tracks its never slid around ever even when its wet and raining. With the bucket and boom pushing on the floor of the rolloff box the machine isn't going to roll forward.

Hey I'am not going to doubt a contractor that has been in the excavating and logging business for 30 years. What ever he showed me worked.

[Countryboy]

Like I said its the way we were moving the 161 Kubota and the same contractor has been doing it this way for 10 years. The machine and box is almost at 45 degrees for part of the way up the rails then you drop the rails lower then pull the box on. Oh ya the 161 Kubota has steel tracks its never slid around ever even when its wet and raining. With the bucket and boom pushing on the floor of the rolloff box the machine isn't going to roll forward.

Hey I'am not going to doubt a contractor that has been in the excavating and logging business for 30 years. What ever he showed me worked.

The chains are just keeping the hoe from sliding down the incline to the other end of the box. With that set up they are not holding it down, in fact like Squizzy said, they are placing and upwards force on it. If you were to hit something at a decent rate of speed, theoretically the machine could flip over the cab of the truck. The purpose of securing a piece of equipment is to halt movement on any plane of motion. Just because it has been done for 10 years doesn't mean it has been done right for 10 years.

[Ford LT-9000]

With fladecks when we hauled minis on the F-550 or tandem axle crane truck we used to use 2 belts over the tracks one over the front and one over the back . We also put a belt over the boom to keep the house from swinging side to side. The 4 inch wide straps

www.kinedyne.com/flatbed/flatbed-detail.asp?FamilyName=4Inch&Cat=WinchStraps

Then you weld on these winches

www.kinedyne.com/flatbed/flatbed-detail.asp?FamilyName=WeldOnWebbing&Cat=Winches

I use these type all the time too

www.kinedyne.com/flatbed/flatbed-detail.asp?FamilyName=4LongHandle&Cat=RatchetStraps

[Steve Frazier]

Not only are you applying opposing forces to the job you are trying to do, you are relying on the integrity of the hydraulic system to maintain the tension that you claim works so well. A slight leak in a valve (we never see those, do we?) or a failure of a hydraulic line, steel or hose, would result in a loss of tension. I'm sure DOT would not approve of this method.

A machine should be tied down by pure mechanical means and not rely on forces other than the chains and binders to maintain the tension.

[Ford LT-9000]

The DOT never hasseled us but atleast having 2 chains on the machine is better than none like Squizzy has been doing :bouncegri

Now that the new load securement rules are out the DOT is prolly looking for people not complying because its a license to steal. More violation fines they hand out the better they look :mad:

Myself I alway over tie things down been like that when I started trucking and working with dad. Dad always used to say to me your not tying down the titanic for christ sakes.

The mill I haul for the guy that owns and operates the mill says what do you need so many straps on the load for its not going to go anywhere. I tried doing it his way with one strap and it did work but I didn't like it so I put 2 more straps on. A 4 inch belt will hold allot of weight if its not running over a sharp edge to cut the belt. I seen guys bend truck decks by tightening the truck belts really tight.

[Squizzy246B]

The DOT never hasseled us but atleast having 2 chains on the machine is better than none like Squizzy has been doing
.

Thats the point!...what you describe IS worse than what we do inside a box.

[Ford LT-9000]

We are hauling machines in a dump box with two chains because the rolloff box only has 20 inch sides compared to 48 inch sides on a regular 16 foot dump box.

On a flatdeck you need to chain the machine down because the DOT can see the load. I don't imagine the roads down under are curvy so there is no risk of taking a corner too fast and flopping over.

To give you a idea how twisty roads are a 16 inch tire on a 1 ton truck will last 20,000 kilometres in a steering position. I get 20,000kms out of a LT-235R16 10 ply tire. The newer trucks running 19.5 225 rubber will get 40,000 kilomters out of a rib tread steer.

[Squizzy246B]

I have come back to this thread to clear up something I posted earlier and to stress the importance of a good understanding of what we are trying to acheive in securing a machine....despite some of what, in my opinion, is ill informed and unsafe information posted in this thread.

OK, I have spent about 20 hours researching our (DownUnder) cargo security regulations. There are 11 sections, 5 of which are directly applicable to my machines:dizzy but, in the main, most of the important stuff is located here:

http://www.ntc.gov.au/fileview.aspx?page=a02206503300790020&M=0&T=0

Firstly, the problem with humans and guidlines like this is we tend to home on a single paragraph/statement/regulation that gives us a Black & White answer to our situation. Of course you have to have a good working knowledge of the rest of the regulations in order to use that particular piece of guidance. What I'm saying is a part cannot be read in isolation...for the main anyways. The above section with its information on securing machinery cannot be really used without considering the strength, location and pre-tension of lashings as documented here:

http://www.ntc.gov.au/fileview.aspx?page=a02206509300640020&M=0&T=0

OK, I can have my mini-ex inside the dump body unsecured provided its hard up against the headboard and the implement is similarly inside the box.

I can't have my skid unsecured in my truck because the tyres come up above the sideboards.

Chaining of the tracks is also a nono. This is because of the lack of forward and aft restraint it provides (in many examples) mainly because you are relying on the machines hydraulics...ie, if the tracks roll forward then the bindings could loosen....that appears to be the aim of the regs anyway.

I also spent a fair amount of time trying:bash to compare US and Canadian federal regs with that of DownUnder. In the main they appear pretty similar but don't take my word on that.

One area that I believe is overlooked by many good operators is the strength of the bindings. The % of forward, aft, lateral and vertical restraint, (as a percentage of the machines gross mass) and the friction that will be acheived for a give deck material/track/tyre are well worth reading up on. I wonder just how many operators know the working load of their restraints....those that use them anyway:rolleyes:

Hope this helps

[jmac]

Squizzy, thanks for putting all the time into this subject. I am sure that good info is welcomed from everyone.
My observation is that most accidents happen because the machine is loaded to high or stick facing in the wrong direction. I have yet to read a story about a machine coming of trailer if it was chained down by at least two chains. If Someone has one please post. The big issue with the DOT here is if the machine is chained down in each corner. The only stories that I have read or heard about are the DOT ticketing guys for just common sense stuff, like not chains at all.
I would still agree that the extra time it takes to use 4 chains and 4 binders is very little compared to the possibility of the thing coming off the truck.

[Grader4me]

Squizzy, good job with your research and thanks for sharing with us. I just breezed through (your link) the regulations for your area, and what I am impressed about is the detail. Our regulations are slack on that as I am sure you noticed when comparing. With our regulations some explainations are so vague, that each person interprets it in their own way and this causes disagreements.

[PSDF350]

Squizzy, good job with your research and thanks for sharing with us. I just breezed through (your link) the regulations for your area, and what I am impressed about is the detail. Our regulations are slack on that as I am sure you noticed when comparing. With our regulations some explainations are so vague, that each person interprets it in their own way and this causes disagreements

Thats how they make money. Keep it confusing then no one knows whats what$$$$$

[Grader4me]

Thats how they make money. Keep it confusing then no one knows whats what$$$$$


I know it can be confusing and I get fustrated at times with it, but the main message here is to try and get everyone on the same page and try to provide the right information about load securement. Squizzy is providing this backed with his research and links to the regulations.

I don't think anyone should be in the mind set of securing their equipment properly to evade paying a fine. They should thinking about securing it properly to make it safe :my2c

[jmac]

times 2, nothing is more important than keeping it on the trailer.

[PSDF350]

Never said it was about avoiding fines. Only thats why it's so confusing in the states. To many lawyers making things unclear. Which is great for generating revenue.

[bobcatuser]

Squizey, I can see how those regs. are confusing. I did some research on carrying a machine in my dump truck and found the regs. in Canada are quite straight forward. Division 7 is the basic minimum standards.

If I wanted to secure the equipment in any other way it would have to meet a long list of standards and testing.

My plan is to weld ramps on the front of my trailer and drive the equipment into the dump truck with the high lift tailgate up. With this setup I could move both machines and still have a small trailer.

This is from the Standard Canadian National Saftey Code (Cargo Securement)

“heavy vehicle” (véhicule lourd) means
(i) a vehicle that weighs more than 4 500 kilograms, or
(ii) equipment or machinery that operates on wheels or tracks and weighs more than 4 500
kilograms;

“light vehicle” (véhicule léger)means
(i) an automobile, truck or van that weighs 4 500 kilograms or less, or
(ii) a piece of equipment or machinery that operates on wheels or tracks and weighs 4 500
kilograms or less;

Division 7 - Vehicles as Cargo
Application
87(1) This Division applies to the transportation of light vehicles, heavy vehicles and flattened
or crushed light vehicles.

Light vehicles
88(1) Light vehicles shall be secured in accordance with this section.
(2) Despite section 22, a light vehicle shall be restrained at both the front and rear from
moving sideways, forward, rearward and vertically using a minimum of 2 tiedowns.
(3) Tiedowns that are designed to attach to the structure of a light vehicle shall be attached to
the mounting points on the vehicle that are specifically designed for that purpose.
(4) Tiedowns that are designed to fit over or around the wheels of a light vehicle shall
restrain the vehicle from moving sideways, forward, rearward and vertically.
(5) Despite section 20, edge protectors are not required for synthetic webbing at points where
the webbing comes into contact with the tires of the light vehicle.

Heavy vehicles
89(1) Heavy vehicles shall be transported in accordance with this section.
(2) Accessory equipment on a heavy vehicle, including a hydraulic shovel, shall be
completely lowered and secured to the vehicle.
(3) Articulated vehicles shall be restrained in a manner that prevents articulation while the
vehicle is on a highway.
(4) Despite section 22, a heavy vehicle with crawler tracks or wheels shall be restrained
against moving sideways, forward, rearward and vertically by at least 4 tiedowns,
(a) each with a working load limit of at least 2 268 kilograms, and
(b) each attached, as close as practical, at the front and rear of the vehicle or to
mounting points on the vehicle that are specifically designed for that purpose

This is the default limits for un-marked tiedowns

PART 3 - DEFAULT WORKING LOAD LIMITS
Section 1 - Chain
Size Working Load Limit
7 mm (1/4 in) 580 kg (1300 lb.)
8 mm (5/16 in) 860 kg (1900 lb.)
10 mm (3/8 in) 1200 kg (2650 lb.)
11 mm (7/16 in) 1680 kg (3700 lb.)
13 mm (1/2 in) 2030 kg (4500 lb.)
16 mm (5/8 in) 3130 kg (6900 lb.)

Section 2 - Synthetic Webbing
Width WLL
45 mm (1-3/4 in) 790 kg (1750 lb.)
50 mm (2 in) 910 kg (2000 lb.)
75 mm (3 in) 1360 kg (3000 lb.)
100 mm (4 in) 1810 kg (4000 lb.)

[OzDozer]

Squizzy - Good work, on digging up those relevant NTC websites with all the pertinent info .. :thumbsup:
All we need now, is for the dumb truck drivers to read 'em .. and learn .. :rolleyes:

Some excellent pics on the last pages. Some of those FU's with steel loads moving forward and penetrating cabs, must have hurt .. :(
Saw a good one a few years back, where some clowns with a single drive, ridgid 8 tonne truck, were carrying a huge number of sheets of corrugated galvanised iron on a framework above the tray and cab.
The CGI extended forward to the front of the cab. They raced up to a level crossing (at Bassendean), slammed on the brakes, and the CGI took off - all of it - and the whole lot landed on the cab, crushing it down to near seat level.
They not only wrote off the truck, but blocked the level crossing too .. thus ensuring that all train movement was stopped, while the wreckage was cleared .. :rolleyes:
Wouldn't like to have seen the insurance claims on that lot .. :rolleyes:


Two things I hate .. which is aside from the discussed problems relating to chaining down equipment .. is truckies who don't anchor down unused chains, binders, gluts or wood blocking, on flat decks, when empty .. and drivers who don't take into account wind pressure at speed, with cargo.
I see way too many loose items floating around (and falling off) flat deck trucks, in my travels .. as well as wind pressure making light loads come unstuck at speed.

The Tonkin Hwy is my worst rated road around Perth. It is littered with debris that regularly falls off trucks, particularly the section from the Airport going South.
I have seen gluts, chocking, star pickets, unidentifiable chunks of metal, large numbers of cargo or part-cargo items, all lying in the traffic lanes, on a regular basis. The dangers posed, by not only the items falling off, but lying on the road while traffic is whizzing over it at 110 km/hr mostly, is obvious.
My pet hate, is truckies who shed tyre treads from blown tyres, and do nothing about removing them from the traffic lanes .. :cussing:


Re the equipment tie-down .. I have always been most concerned with tying down large rubber tyred equipment, as the sponginess of large diameter tyres is a real hassle when it comes to securing equipment solidly.
The system of using blocking or support stands under the frame, and pulling the frame down onto them .. thus eliminating the bounce from large diameter tyres, is the best technique I've found.

[Squizzy246B]

Bobcatuser. Those are some of the regs that I looked at, and at least you have more information in the one spot. Ours tend to be scattered through different sections. That said, in the bit you posted there is no mention of actually what the minimum is. By this I mean it doesn't tell you what are the minimum size of bindings to use. Our regs will want 80% of machine wait fore and aft, 50% sideways etc...as a percentage of the machine weight.

Is that information laid down somewhere else?.

[Jeff D.]

All we need now, is for the dumb truck drivers to read 'em .. and learn .. :rolleyes:Two things I hate .. which is aside from the discussed problems relating to chaining down equipment .. is truckies who don't anchor down unused chains, binders, gluts or wood blocking, on flat decks, when empty .. and drivers who don't take into account wind pressure at speed, with cargo.
My pet hate, is truckies who shed tyre treads from blown tyres, and do nothing about removing them from the traffic lanes .. :cussing:What would be your feelings towards this driver? Do you hate drivers who have their dozer fall off the trailer in a turn?Now comes the amazing part. I watched in horror, in the L/H mirror, as the L/H corner of the blade gouged into the dirt road .. and the D7F stood up .. almost vertical .. rotated 180° .. and bounced, BACK UP INTO THE AIR! .. above the trailer .. while the truck and trailer shot out from underneath .. !!
Sounds as if this could've been dangerous if someone were in the wrong spot. Thankfully no-one was. The driver mentioned he'd learned something from it too.

I'm not trying to defend any of the driver's errors mentioned above, but as in the last example, people can make mistakes, and situations are are not always the same.

Sorry Squizzy if I'm out of line in your thread.

[Squizzy246B]

Jeff, you are not out of line just looking at the subject from a different angle than Oz is expressing himself. I did get a laugh though. This thread has moved on from Loading to keeping it loaded. A mate of mine always says accidents don't happen, they are caused. Years ago I took off down the road in the SA and the 2 way tailgate swung open to the side...it took out a speed limit sign but it could have just as easily killed a pedestrian.....nobody else to blame:(

Oz, I am running from Hamilton Hill to Belmont for the new few weeks and the Tonkin/Roe are my route. The shredded retreads are a real problem.

Whilst I think you might be having a tongue in cheek dig at the truckies...sometimes "in jest there is never a truer word spoken". Despite all the PC flowery stuff that emerges in the media about how road transport safety and training is improving you can drive any day of the week and see insecure loads. I think Earthmovers are probably doing it a little better because it is their own pride and joy on the truck. The same can't be said for some general freight contractors. I think its the fear of the lawyers rather than a good work ethic and training that drives the standard/safety level we do acheive.

That said I am no expert on just how much training on load restraint is done these days.

[OzDozer]

Oz, I am running from Hamilton Hill to Belmont for the new few weeks and the Tonkin/Roe are my route. The shredded retreads are a real problem.

Whilst I think you might be having a tongue in cheek dig at the truckies...sometimes "in jest there is never a truer word spoken". Despite all the PC flowery stuff that emerges in the media about how road transport safety and training is improving you can drive any day of the week and see insecure loads. I think Earthmovers are probably doing it a little better because it is their own pride and joy on the truck. The same can't be said for some general freight contractors. I think its the fear of the lawyers rather than a good work ethic and training that drives the standard/safety level we do acheive.

That said I am no expert on just how much training on load restraint is done these days.Squizzy, I don't think enough is being done yet, to hammer in, proper load restraint, particularly amongst general freight drivers. The larger equipment operators seem to take care with proper restraint .. I guess in some cases, because the item is big, it automatically generates thoughts for decent load restraint.

What bugs me is the carelessness shown towards small stuff that can become deadly, if it leaves a truck tray at speed .. due to a swerve, wind pressure, or just plain vibration.

I recall a bloke, a couple of decades ago, on the Kwinana Freeway collecting a single brick in the face, from a brick truck going in the opposite direction. It killed him instantly. From then on, brick trucks were targetted for intensive load restraint regulation, and you hardly ever see a brick on the road now.

A bloke I knew from the wheatbelt collected a chunk of steel in the face, whilst passing a truck at night in Queensland. Same result as the brick-in-the-face bloke. They never found the truckie responsible, because they couldn't find any identifying marks on the chunk of steel.
Another episode was the Greyhound bus driver who collected a loader bucket, full on in the face, on a bend in the Gt Eastern Hwy, just east of Merredin, maybe 15 years ago. The bucket had been chained on, but the chains worked loose, and hadn't been checked. The sharp bend (which has since been removed) was all that was needed to see it go over the side.


Jeff D. - Yes, I'd hate to be coming towards any truck that lost their load .. particularly a D7 dozer .. :( .. however, I was much younger and more gung-ho in those days, and have been accused of being an overboard, extreme safety PIA, in recent times .. :)
I guess it all comes down to the experiences we all have, that are hard lessons learnt (and sometimes expensive ones).
The major point is, that a little bit of safety training goes a long way towards preventing what can become absolute disasters .. and fatalities.

[Jeff D.]

Jeff D. - Yes, I'd hate to be coming towards any truck that lost their load .. particularly a D7 dozer .. :( .. however, I was much younger and more gung-ho in those days, and have been accused of being an overboard, extreme safety PIA, in recent times .. :)
I guess it all comes down to the experiences we all have, that are hard lessons learnt (and sometimes expensive ones).
The major point is, that a little bit of safety training goes a long way towards preventing what can become absolute disasters .. and fatalities.Understood. I agree with all of this. Most of us have probobly learn something the hard way at some point. I know I have.

Take Care, and I hope you'll continue to share your experiences with us.

Jeff

[PSDF350]

Understood. I agree with all of this. Most of us have probobly learn something the hard way at some point. I know I have.Take Care, and I hope you'll continue to share your experiences with us.

Jeff

You mean theres an easy way:Banghead

[Grader4me]

Bobcatuser. Those are some of the regs that I looked at, and at least you have more information in the one spot. Ours tend to be scattered through different sections. That said, in the bit you posted there is no mention of actually what the minimum is. By this I mean it doesn't tell you what are the minimum size of bindings to use. Our regs will want 80% of machine wait fore and aft, 50% sideways etc...as a percentage of the machine weight.

Is that information laid down somewhere else?.

Is the below information what you are looking for?



*Minimum Strength of Securement System (DIVISION 3, Section 10)
• The aggregate working load limit of the cargo securement system used to secure an
article or group of articles of cargo on or within a vehicle shall be not less than 50% of
the weight of the article or total weight of the group.
• “Aggregate working load limit” is the sum of One-half of the working load limit for each
end section of a tiedown that is attached to an anchor point.

[Squizzy246B]

Is the below information what you are looking for?



*Minimum Strength of Securement System (DIVISION 3, Section 10)
• The aggregate working load limit of the cargo securement system used to secure an
article or group of articles of cargo on or within a vehicle shall be not less than 50% of
the weight of the article or total weight of the group.
• “Aggregate working load limit” is the sum of One-half of the working load limit for each
end section of a tiedown that is attached to an anchor point.

Thats part of it. What I'm talking about is on Page 58 here:

http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/SectionCLRGDec2004.pdf

[Grader4me]

Thats part of it. What I'm talking about is on Page 58 here:

http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Reports/SectionCLRGDec2004.pdf


That is about all we have in our regulations as near as I can tell. That is why I mentioned in my earlier post about the detail in your regulations. It is spread out, but seems to cover every angle. As well pictures are worth a thousand words so to speak.
Our regulations are clear as far as some things go, example number of tie downs etc, but vague in areas such as anchor points on equipment etc.

Good discussion...I see you changed you avatar...you are not going to show the "accessories" are you?:)

[Squizzy246B]

That is about all we have in our regulations as near as I can tell. That is why I mentioned in my earlier post about the detail in your regulations. It is spread out, but seems to cover every angle. As well pictures are worth a thousand words so to speak.
Our regulations are clear as far as some things go, example number of tie downs etc, but vague in areas such as anchor points on equipment etc.

Good discussion...I see you changed you avatar...you are not going to show the "accessories" are you?:)

It takes some reading to get it together...and having had some experience writing equipment operation manuals, its probably impossible to cover all angles and not have some fragmentation without lots of repetition...:confused:

I like the avatar:D :D

[imjustdave]

ok so you have a 11K lbs machine on a trailer that weighs 3K lbs, if you roll over your really just holding the trailer on the machine..... ***

[jimmyjack]

this you squizzy:rolleyes: :beatsme

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru0icmxv_rA
:)

[Hendrik]

For Ex's 3.5 tonnes and less we use one pin per ramp. For Ex's 4 tonnes and over we use two pins per ramp......:confused: for Excavators between 3.5 and 4 tonnes ...well ....we don't have one:confused:

Anyway, the back of the dump bed is channel or RHS. The pin is drilled right through from top to bottom and a 11/16 lynch pin is shot through the ends of the pins so they wont come out. No regs for chains.

The excavator is not lashed in the dump bed. From what I have gathered on this forum; It would appear we have similar binding guidelines for equipment on flat decks to what most of you guys talk about. I have not been able to find anything specific in our regs about machines inside the dump body. You could safely assume that the same guidlines would apply (I expect) but over 40 to 50 operators in my area I know of none that secure a skid or a mini inside the dump bed. I don't know wether this is a grey area....there is some other regs or whatever but I have been pulled over by the heavies with the skid in the back of the 9 tonner and nothing has ever been said. A trip down the freeway in the morning will pass at least a dozen skids in six wheelers with not one of them chained.

That all said and having been operating that way for years I'm thinking of fitting two D rings in the dump body and putting two binders X to the back of the machine with the blade against the head board. Ultimatley the regs and the actual legislation state that it is the drivers responsibility to ensure a load is properly secured.
I use a couple of half inch bolts to secure my ramps to the ute tray. Have drilled 8 holes in the tray so I can load the ex in the middle, to the side next to the track barrow and can un/load from either side if I feel the need, such as pulling up next to a set of stairs and then use the ramps to get it over the stairs.
I use a couple 2500kg ratchet straps to secure the ex and barrow, with the bucket in the barrow bin. I will take some pics next time I am loading the machines.
Also I think the law recently changed and the boss is now also liable if a worker does not secure the load properly.

[Iron Horse]

Either things have changed in the last couple of years , or it is the interpretation of the inspector at the scene whether a machine should be secured in a dump body . I have been told , very sternly that they must be secured . The reason , the inspector argued is that even if the truck tips over , the machine MUST stay with the truck and not become a missile or traffic hazard itself .

[Squizzy246B]

Either things have changed in the last couple of years , or it is the interpretation of the inspector at the scene whether a machine should be secured in a dump body .

IH - The inspector may be carrying over blanket rules from other situations. Wether he is right or wrong the rules are as stated in the National Transport Guidelines in the link I posted earlier. I've been pulled by the Heavies twice in the last couple of weeks and they have not said anything about the mini.....but they did chip me about the seat covers:confused: I told them the seat cover was just like the me old shorts (backside worn out:D) and invited them to have a look;).....NSU them female coppers...(No sense of Humour):(

[Iron Horse]

I can just imagine the stone face look you got from that one .

I started arguing the point with the inspector , he started rolling his pen on his sleeve with the palm of his hand . I asked him what he was doing ? He said , warming up the ink . Do you want to keep agruing the point ? :cool2