I think it comes down to common sense. You have to ask yourself: “Is this pallet going to topple over when I brake?” If the answer is yes then it needs securing. For me that can be as simple as running an inteneal strap either across the back, front or both to support it. I picked up some Japanese food products last week, weight wise they didn’t need strapping but the way they were stacked and the ■■■■ poor cling film used mean’t it would be all over the bed if I had to give it the beans so I just slung the internals across the back and that was all it needed. Other things like the Scania stuff we collect gets ratcheted down as its heavy and the boxes can be stack 4-6 high.
All that is ‘needed’ (in teal terms) there mate is cross strapped internals on the arse end…However.
Unfortunately we have to do stuff that is downright unnecessary nowadays to keep the Waffen division of DVSA happy 
and to live up to our illustrious DCPC training. 
So internals on every pallet, but deffo not ratchet straps imo.
Btw if you do use single hook ratchets on other loads, the SS also do not like you using the rope hooks, if it was me I would also put it on chassis rather than side capes as you have, but that is only my own preference, not text book.
At least you have asked as you are not sure, good to see nobody has been harsh on you on here or took the ■■■■, we have all had to learn.
Securing a load will will only come through experience… But now with the present VOSA requirements a trailer box should be fitted, with inside are 15 strappes…Plus Internals on Trailer. Then Driver is equipped to face any eventually…Unnecessary exspence… But the law like it or not is the law…And we have to work under it
robroy:
All that is ‘needed’ (in teal terms) there mate is cross strapped internals on the arse end…However.
Unfortunately we have to do stuff that is downright unnecessary nowadays to keep the Waffen division of DVSA happy
So internals on every pallet, but deffo not ratchet straps imo.Btw if you do use single hook ratchets on other loads, the SS also do not like you using the rope hooks, if it was me I would also put it on chassis rather than side capes as you have, but that is only my own preference, not text book.
At least you have asked as you are not sure, good to see nobody has been harsh on you on here or took the ■■■■, we have all had to learn.
I’ve heard this a lot and I’m never sure if they are referring to the pull up square cleats or the hooks on the side of the cape, which I’ve only seen on flats. On our newer trailers all these cleats have 2.5T stamped on them and most older ones you can see it although more faded.
I’ve stopped putting ratchets on the chassis when I can avoid it as a nice lump of something obliterated one of my good ratchets. My cape is in good nick thankfully so it isn’t a problem, for now at least.
A.
Carryfast:
weeto:
The law doesn’t say every load needs to be secured to be safe on a moving vehicle, it says…
‘The load carried by a motor vehicle or trailer shall at all times
be so secured, if necessary by physical restraint other
than its own weight , and be in such a position, that neither
danger nor nuisance is likely to be caused to any person
or property by reason of the load or any part thereof falling
or being blown from the vehicle or by reason of any other
movement of the load or any part thereof in relation to the
vehicle.’
VOSA/DVSA the police are not in a position to decide that a load is secure or insecure on a curtainsider with out physical evidence that that particular load is unsafe in that particular curtainsider just because their guidelines say it is, without actually testing the trailer and load no one can say if it is safe or not.
There has already been at least one court case that shows VOSA guidelines are totally incorrect.It depends on your definition of ‘if necessary’.Which in this case would probably mean anything that was much heavier than empty or very light packages the individual and combined weight of which could be ‘contained’ by the curtains ( as opposed to a ‘restraining’ heavy pallet loads ).Other than that the curtains,roof and doors are an irrelevance regards load security in just effectively being a flat trailer which doesn’t need to be sheeted for weather protection.On that note even the pallets alone would probably take it over that threshold.All that being a fact not a guideline.Feel free to take on the law if/when they decide that I’m right and you’re wrong bearing in mind up to a charge of dangerous driving for that offence.
This person took on the law re. load security and won, professional defence evidence proved that VOSA guideline figures were totally wrong,
http://skiphiremagazine.co.uk/skip-hire-magazine-reports/unsecure-loads-maths-proved-dvsa-wrong/
Convictions should be based on facts, and the only way to do that is testing, not by unproveble figures published by VOSA.
Carryfast:
dieseldog999:
load up…possibly strap the rear two depending on how close to the back doors they are…close curtans,and light er up…job doneDepending on the weight of this lot exactly how does strapping just the rear pallets stop the rest from going out sideways through the curtains or through the headboard.
On that note the second example seems better than nothing or the first example.
That all depends on how you throw your Venice around corners !
Vehicle
weeto:
Carryfast:
It depends on your definition of ‘if necessary’.Which in this case would probably mean anything that was much heavier than empty or very light packages the individual and combined weight of which could be ‘contained’ by the curtains ( as opposed to a ‘restraining’ heavy pallet loads ).Other than that the curtains,roof and doors are an irrelevance regards load security in just effectively being a flat trailer which doesn’t need to be sheeted for weather protection.On that note even the pallets alone would probably take it over that threshold.All that being a fact not a guideline.Feel free to take on the law if/when they decide that I’m right and you’re wrong bearing in mind up to a charge of dangerous driving for that offence.This person took on the law re. load security and won, professional defence evidence proved that VOSA guideline figures were totally wrong,
http://skiphiremagazine.co.uk/skip-hire-magazine-reports/unsecure-loads-maths-proved-dvsa-wrong/
Convictions should be based on facts, and the only way to do that is testing, not by unproveble figures published by VOSA.
That example isn’t exactly going to be relevant if a pallet load or more of freight punches its way into let alone if it gets through the curtains of a curtain sider for example because they’ve been wrongly viewed as there to secure the load instead of just being there to keep it dry and/or the load restraint abilities of roof anchored internal straps has been over estimated.
Carryfast:
weeto:
Carryfast:
It depends on your definition of ‘if necessary’.Which in this case would probably mean anything that was much heavier than empty or very light packages the individual and combined weight of which could be ‘contained’ by the curtains ( as opposed to a ‘restraining’ heavy pallet loads ).Other than that the curtains,roof and doors are an irrelevance regards load security in just effectively being a flat trailer which doesn’t need to be sheeted for weather protection.On that note even the pallets alone would probably take it over that threshold.All that being a fact not a guideline.Feel free to take on the law if/when they decide that I’m right and you’re wrong bearing in mind up to a charge of dangerous driving for that offence.This person took on the law re. load security and won, professional defence evidence proved that VOSA guideline figures were totally wrong,
http://skiphiremagazine.co.uk/skip-hire-magazine-reports/unsecure-loads-maths-proved-dvsa-wrong/
Convictions should be based on facts, and the only way to do that is testing, not by unproveble figures published by VOSA.That example isn’t exactly going to be relevant if a pallet load or more of freight punches its way into let alone if it gets through the curtains of a curtain sider for example because they’ve been wrongly viewed as there to secure the load instead of just being there to keep it dry.
So it needs testing then like that case was, VOSA have no evidence a particular palletised load would come through the curtains under normal driving conditions, but have the power to penalise the driver without that evidence,
“if necessary” you secure it if it needs to be secured, ie, 52 pallets of bog roll wont need securing apart from last row criss crossed at the rear, retained sideways by the “non load bearing weather protection only curtains”, but VOSA say every load has to be secured!!
Carryfast:
When if the packages aren’t strong enough to support the required restraint then use of aircraft type securing nets ‘would’ be a great idea.
Interesting you mention nets, I used to think cargo nets were a good idea on general before I worked in aviation. I couldn’t work out why air cargo net systems were not widely adopted on general.
Then I saw how the cargo netting worked on aircraft for real, and how the entire load bearing system actually work. It’s not the net that’s the problem, it is the load system. Air cargo nets are of course extremely strong. They aren’t used solely on heavy loads, ratchets (brown lines) are used for those.
The nets are secured to each loaded PMC via vickers rings (PMC is a large metal pallet system). This happens before the pallet is loaded. The PMC in turn is loaded as a secure unit and throughly secured to the main deck system by vast amounts of heavy duty main deck interlocks. For outsized and extremely heavy loads like mining machinery or aircraft engines and steel frames spread over many pallets, further securing takes place to the main deck once loaded. Mil commonly just use cargo nets directly to the vickers rings on the deck.
The whole thing works on this idea. The nets are secured in a square around each pallet or item of load. For example, you couldn’t sling a cargo net over the entire bed of a curtain sider, secure to 3 edges and have any effectiveness beyond ratchet straps. You’d need to secure each 4 sides to a deck secured plastic/metal pallet or directly to rings on the deck around each 4 sides of a pallet to make it work. The space is a problem. You could get past this with a series of imbedded rings on the bed I suppose. As each pallet is placed on the driver secures the net to the deck, but it’s too time consuming for road transport.
It was a loading failure whilst carrying military vehicles that brought down the B747 freighter at Bagram. This aircraft was previously owned by a company I used to work for.
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
When if the packages aren’t strong enough to support the required restraint then use of aircraft type securing nets ‘would’ be a great idea.Interesting you mention nets, I used to think cargo nets were a good idea on general before I worked in aviation. I couldn’t work out why air cargo net systems were not widely adopted on general.
Then I saw how the cargo netting worked on aircraft for real, and how the entire load bearing system actually work. It’s not the net that’s the problem, it is the load system. Air cargo nets are of course extremely strong. They aren’t used solely on heavy loads, ratchets (brown lines) are used for those.
The nets are secured to each loaded PMC via vickers rings (PMC is a large metal pallet system). This happens before the pallet is loaded. The PMC in turn is loaded as a secure unit and throughly secured to the main deck system by vast amounts of heavy duty main deck interlocks. For outsized and extremely heavy loads like mining machinery or aircraft engines and steel frames spread over many pallets, further securing takes place to the main deck once loaded. Mil commonly just use cargo nets directly to the vickers rings on the deck.
The whole thing works on this idea. The nets are secured in a square around each pallet or item of load. For example, you couldn’t sling a cargo net over the entire bed of a curtain sider, secure to 3 edges and have any effectiveness beyond ratchet straps. You’d need to secure each 4 corners to a metal pallet or rings on the deck around each pallet to make it work. The space is a problem. You could get past this with a series of imbedded rings on the bed I suppose. As each pallet is placed on the driver secures the net to the deck, but it’s too time consuming for road transport.
I was going by the idea of modifying the net attachment system to secure the load to the truck bed ‘but’ obviously limited to the usual anchorage points.The end longitudinal restraint could probably be dealt with in a similar way as we used crossed ropes to provide that restraint using just the same side anchorage points and not floor anchorages and with each set of nets covering one or two rows of pallets each.Although it’s time that truck manufacturers did start to put in floor anchorage points for longitudinal restraint attachments anyway.
Although having said that and having carried numerous loads in tilt and curtainsiders similar to in the example given.I’d guess that firstly wrapping and banding to loads to the pallets properly and then roping the load in the usual good old fashioned way would be better than either of the options shown and certainly the former internal straps method.In which case the removal of the widespread provision of rope hooks just removes that other option.
As for the 747 load getting loose.It was horrific. 
Carryfast:
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
When if the packages aren’t strong enough to support the required restraint then use of aircraft type securing nets ‘would’ be a great idea.Interesting you mention nets, I used to think cargo nets were a good idea on general before I worked in aviation. I couldn’t work out why air cargo net systems were not widely adopted on general.
Then I saw how the cargo netting worked on aircraft for real, and how the entire load bearing system actually work. It’s not the net that’s the problem, it is the load system. Air cargo nets are of course extremely strong. They aren’t used solely on heavy loads, ratchets (brown lines) are used for those.
The nets are secured to each loaded PMC via vickers rings (PMC is a large metal pallet system). This happens before the pallet is loaded. The PMC in turn is loaded as a secure unit and throughly secured to the main deck system by vast amounts of heavy duty main deck interlocks. For outsized and extremely heavy loads like mining machinery or aircraft engines and steel frames spread over many pallets, further securing takes place to the main deck once loaded. Mil commonly just use cargo nets directly to the vickers rings on the deck.
The whole thing works on this idea. The nets are secured in a square around each pallet or item of load. For example, you couldn’t sling a cargo net over the entire bed of a curtain sider, secure to 3 edges and have any effectiveness beyond ratchet straps. You’d need to secure each 4 corners to a metal pallet or rings on the deck around each pallet to make it work. The space is a problem. You could get past this with a series of imbedded rings on the bed I suppose. As each pallet is placed on the driver secures the net to the deck, but it’s too time consuming for road transport.
I was going by the idea of modifying the net attachment system to secure the load to the truck bed ‘but’ obviously limited to the usual anchorage points.The end longitudinal restraint could probably be dealt with in a similar way as we used crossed ropes to provide that restraint using just the same side anchorage points and not floor anchorages and with each set of nets covering one or two rows of pallets each.Although it’s time that truck manufacturers did start to put in floor anchorage points for longitudinal restraint attachments anyway.
Although having said that and having carried numerous loads in tilt and curtainsiders similar to in the example given.I’d guess that firstly wrapping and banding to loads to the pallets properly and then roping the load in the usual good old fashioned way would be better than either of the options shown and certainly the former internal straps method.In which case the removal of the widespread provision of rope hooks just removes that other option.
As for the 747 load getting loose.It was horrific.
It is an interesting one. The more I thought over it, the more I realised that without being able to secure individual units, a wide net covering the whole cargo would have to be so tightly robust and secured that it’s basically back to rope and sheeting. With a curtain sider over the top . I just went round in circles thinking about it
That was horrific. Our loading procedures were changed afterwards to emphasise checking the main deck. I’ve found loose straps, interlocks left down on very odd occasions. Makes you think. We trust these blokes loading but they’re often very very tired and under paid.
Freight Dog:
It is an interesting one. The more I thought over it, the more I realised that without being able to secure individual units, a wide net covering the whole cargo would have to be so tightly robust and secured that it’s basically back to rope and sheeting. With a curtain sider over the top
It would possibly be an awkward worst of all worlds solution but the upside might be a useful additional option in the case of heavy items in relatively weak packaging.But as I said given reasonably strong packaging in the example shown the logical choice is between ratchet straps or possibly ropes.Obviously the more passes over the load the better.While as I said using ropes with a tilt or a curtainsider usually seemed to be the most flexible best of all worlds combination in most cases to me. 
So to clarify. …
The pallets were adequately film wrapped.
The boxes contained nappies.
I ran out of internal straps and so had to use ratchet and straps on the last two lines of pallets.
I had to fashion some corner guards out of some cardboard boxes to prevent crushing for those ones.
The picture with the ratchet and straps… I hadn’t fully finished strapping. … which is probably why the hooks looked dodgy. I undone them and put the corner guards on and then restrapped tightly.
Not sure how heavy the pallets were. … I didn’t see a weight anywhere!
My colleague had the same load as me and he didn’t use any straps at all.
Thanks for all your input chaps!
cav551:
http://www.truckaccidents360.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Coca-Cola-truck-accident.jpg
Do you have a point to this picture■■?
That’s obviously a heavy load!
Also looks like it’s been in a head on collision so no amount of strapping would of made a different with that kind of force involved.
cav551:
http://www.truckaccidents360.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Coca-Cola-truck-accident.jpg
Also in Americas by the looks of things. No relevance here
The point being that if the load is not anchored effectively to the floor it will try to do this. There seems to be a general worry or argument about whether A load is going to fall out of the curtains, or possibly be seen by some official who opens the back doors to not see a cross strapping of the rearmost pallets. Other threads on a similar theme often see views expressed that pallets of drink in cans or bottles only need cling film or cling film and internals to secure the load. I am far more worried about being joined in the cab by what is on the trailer than any issue with vosa. Yes this is a picture from the USA and it was a bonneted vehicle which did hit something, but the driver may well have survived the collision if it hadn’t been for the load, in what seems to be a box trailer, bursting through the headboard.
The OP’s picture it turns out relates to comparatively lightweight boxes of nappies, which are for some reason only two layers high on the pallets. A load of this height would frequently indicate more weight in each carton than so in this instance. If this had been in fact a reasonably heavy load then the internals, as shown, are ineffective and the ratchets straps, as shown, do not do what was intended, since they do not act on the entire pallet of boxes.
cav551:
The point being that if the load is not anchored effectively to the floor it will try to do this. There seems to be a general worry or argument about whether A load is going to fall out of the curtains, or possibly be seen by some official who opens the back doors to not see a cross strapping of the rearmost pallets. Other threads on a similar theme often see views expressed that pallets of drink in cans or bottles only need cling film or cling film and internals to secure the load. I am far more worried about being joined in the cab by what is on the trailer than any issue with vosa. Yes this is a picture from the USA and it was a bonneted vehicle which did hit something, but the driver may well have survived the collision if it hadn’t been for the load, in what seems to be a box trailer, bursting through the headboard.The OP’s picture it turns out relates to comparatively lightweight boxes of nappies, which are for some reason only two layers high on the pallets. A load of this height would frequently indicate more weight in each carton than so in this instance. If this had been in fact a reasonably heavy load then the internals, as shown, are ineffective and the ratchets straps, as shown, do not do what was intended, since they do not act on the entire pallet of boxes.
It’s obvious that light loads that don’t present movement hazards are going to be the exception rather than the average.As for longitudinal restraint it seems obvious that too much reliance is being put on front bulkheads,with longitudinal floor anchorage points being the solution,which should have been sorted out decades ago as compulsory provision.While in this case the important point being that internal roof anchored straps should be banned on the basis that they don’t do anything to provide any actual clamping force between the load and the vehicle in the way that the other options do.
Sod it. Monday morning lethargy. 24 ton. 2 ratchets. Toot toot.