turboplanner

so there's a Safe Towing Guide ? is it given to people when they get their licence? does it come with every new trailer sold? but then what about used trailers?

The principle about used units is that when you build a new unit, it must be safe for the next buyer.

Before the code of practice I used to sell trucks with standard wheelbase and 7 meter vans to TNT. Rear axle was legal with parcels, and I painted red lines on the inside walls at the 6 meter point so they would also be legal with 6 meters of general freight. If they sold the truck they would have to explain the system to the new buyer, but there was no guarantee they would remember, or the next guy would sell it to someone and he would load the full 7 metres. The truck would then be out of balance and could oversteer on a wet corner or swap ends under brakes.

Once the Code of Practice came in I had to extend the wheelbase so the truck was balanced with both loads. This ensured it would still be safe in the hands of the second or fifth owner.

Same goes with a trailer; they are a pleasure to tow, corner like they're on rails.

Geoff is spot on, the LRG is just that - A Guide, as its title states. There is little in the Guide that is enforced by law. What is definitely needed, is more hands-on training.

Queensland TMR calls up their "Safe Towing Guide"

Towing (Department of Transport and Main Roads)

The Safe Towing Guide (note the key legal word "safe")

Towing (Department of Transport and Main Roads)

This says: "The load must be properly secured to your trailer. It is recommended that you refer to the Load Restraint Guide on the NTC Site"

While the word "must" is an imperative, "properly" is subjective - the government is not going to assume liability by prescribing how you can load the trailer and restrain the load "properly", so it refers you to an industry benchmark.

So while the LRG is not a prescriptive regulation, it is your lifeboat if someone is injured or killed and you're on the wrong end of a lawsuit. If you are compliant with the "guide", that's your defence against negligence.

As a couple have said, technically Compliance and Enforcement officers can't enforce it because it's not a prescriptive law, and it never ceases to amuse me that road authorities, having dumped the responsibility for public liability on our shoulders, can't help themselves in re-assuming the risk, which they do if they step in and give you advice on how to load and restrain the load.

NTC - National Transport Commission

The Load Restrain Guide, in Section G, Item 13, calls up Load Distribution, and you'll see a chart very similar to a Jabiru W&B Chart, and just as hard to understand.

You need to stay withing that distribution envelope every time you load a truck or trailer.

You can do that by calculating mass distribution, which for a straightforward truck takes me about 4 1/2 minutes manually with a calculator, 17 seconds using excel if the load is a straigh forward water level load.

So the steps are almost identical to what I laid out for vehicles over 4.5 tonnes GVM earlier.

The manufacturer has to produce a vehicle which is compliant with Australian Design Rules

The Body, when installed/trailer load bearing surface has to be calculated for dynamic stability by the builder/seller

The operator has to ensure the load is distributed correctly.

So when that vehicle/trailer is on the road, all the people have a legal responsibility for compliance. Courts usually place more weighting on the professionals - the builders and marketers and professional loaders, compared to the drivers whose primary skills are driving. That would explain why in some posts above, builders/loaders have been defendants.

Of course, the basic problem is getting drivers to understand what is happening to a load, or going to happen to a load, with the amount of wind pressure on it, at 100kmh.

Geoff had some disagreements with some of the restraint recommendations in the Guide. That is not surprising because the guide has been expanded in recent years, and sometimes during that process, thought bubbles are added by the deskbound.

Those disagreements should be brought to the attention of the NTC - they would usually be receptive, and the guide can be updated to weed out the crap.

For example ADR38, trailer braking originally required trailer park brakes to be capable of restraining both the trailer and the towing vehicles on a steep grade (from memory 18% for 20 minutes). The people who came up with this were primarily semi trailer engineers, and a tri axle trailer could easily hold a 6x4 prime mover.

When I pointed out that tiny luggage/kitchen trailers behind three axle touring coaches, light furniture vans behind tandem drive trucks, power pole carriers and a long list of other small trailers couldn't get enough traction to achieve this, my alternative proposal was just written in to ADR 38, so authorities will often respond positively.

The Qld Load Restraint Guide is just that.

We never used to take any notice of Australian Standards either, but noiw, if there is one, and you're not complying with it that's a breach of duty of care.

I refer you to post #25 with a link to the QLD safe towing guide, which refers you to the LRG

Salvation Jane

Interesting; I see I've done 70 minutes of searching and haven't found the key reference for mass distribution on trailers we need.

Vehicle Standards Bulletin 14, National Code of Practice - Light Vehicle Construction and Modification is the most likely place any regulations will reside, but it's still a work in progress.

Vehicles in the NA (less than 3.5 tonnes GVM) and NB (greater than 3.5 tonnes GVM) call up calculations in accordance with Vehicle Standards Bulletin 6, which applies to all heavier trucks.

This is relevant to just all light trailers, because the downforce on the towbar must be calculated, and particularly with dual cab utes and trays where the rear overhand is a long way behind the rear wheels, outside the wheelbase in a cantilever configuration, each kg on the towbar levers some mass off the front axle. That mass doesn't just stay up in the air, but is added to the rear axle.

So in designing the trailer, there will be a maximum tow ball weight the trailer can apply to keep the tow vehicle stable.

This requirement will often subtantially reduce the towing capacity of these vehicles when towing a conventional trailer (i.e. not one with a turntable on the front axle and a hinged A frame)

For trailer stability the tow coupling needs to apply a downforce, and the rule of thumb is 10% of the loaded weight. For dynamic stability the COG of the load needs to be between the tow coupling and the centre line of the trailer axle(s).

Trailers have a T Category

TA Very light trailer: Gross Trailer Mass not exceeding 0.75 tonnes

TB Light Trailer: Gross Trailer Mass not exceeding 3.5 tonnes (other than TA)

TC Medium Trailer: Gross Trailer Mass exceeding 3.5 tonnes, not exceeding 10 tonnes

TD Heavy Trailer: exceeding 10 tonnes

The design and construction of trailers with aggregate mass less than 4.5 tonnes is covered in National Code of Practice, Vehicle Standards Bulletin 1 - https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/vehicle_regulation/bulletin/files/VSB1_JUN2009.pdf

That's very comprehensive in terms of dimensions and lighting, but not loading, so I'll see if I can find that.

As a matter of interest, by now you should have replaced your old unrated safety chains on your trailer or caravan with the yellow coloured rated ones for the towed weight.

What an interesting concept, that someone other than me the driver could be responsible for incorrect loading of a trailer. The driver should be aware of the abilities of themselves and their vehicles. If I loaded a truck incorrectly and killed someone out on the road I am certain that the judge would be happy for me to say but your honor the girl on the weighbridge said it looked ok. I find it difficult to understand that you could even consider it would be someone elses fault other than the driver.As for trailer and caravan licences, should be compolsury without doubt.

 

Another point for anyone considering towing a trailer/caravan you should google double pendulum. It is a scary concept and We see the results every day we mostly just do not understand why.

A

The manufacturer loads a truck to GVM for the ADR35 brake test; it also meets the correct front and rear axle/tyre/legal limits.

It's tested so it doesn't get out of shape under emergency braking, stays straight within a certain lane width.

Then it's certified.

B

When a body is put on it a calculation must be done by all those involved in building the body, extending/shortening the wheelbase to a code of practice, so that when the centre of gravity of the load is placed on the mid-point of the body'y's load bearing surface, with mass is distributed so that, with the cab/chassis mass and full fuel and driver the weight is distributed for the correct front and rear axle/tyre/legal limits. Loading personnel can then confidently evenly load the body about the centre of the load bearing surface.

C

When the truck is loaded, the loader, and when driven the driver must meet the quaintly worded Load Restraint Guide, which commits the loader and driver to load the vehicle up to GVM with the Centre of Gravity on the mid point of the body, this loading the axles to their correct limits, and retaining the braking and handling stability of the truck as Certified.

Under the LRG, as the driver is making his deliveries, after each drop he is responsible to ensure the truck remains in balance; not unlike a pilot has to do.

So different people have responsibilities for different phases of manufacture and loading and operation of the vehicle.

I haven't checked what the codes in force for small trailers are, and I haven't got into the more complicated Semi Trailer and B Double situation where I could write a thesis.

World's largest aircraft has bumpy landing

Video view

Ok, Turbs, I did not expect you to provide anything cogent. Since (if RAA has 10K members), I expect that about 9,995 are not concerned with this 'issue', it actually doesn't matter.

Not good enough. You are hiding behind weasel words, Turbs, bring forward your explicit explanation of the situation. Less than this is simply trolling.

HH (Tubz),Exactly what is it that is "sitting there right now, available to be fixed"? And exactly what do you propose we do to "fix" it?

It is available to be fixed, provided the caretakers don't move forward to an election.

The best way to fix it is to get into compliance, then move to an election.

Then you fire them.

This situation has nothing to do with the broad philosphy, whinging, glasses half full, or any of other the red herrings that people think up.

It comes down to being able to read and understand a Constitution and know whether it's meets the requiremements or is only 40 cents in the dollar.

And it comes down to whether a public statement complies with that Constitution.

If you can't make a judgement on whether the Constitution is suitable for a group of flyers, put that aside, it's spilt milk anyway and can be built up to standard albeit over a period of years.

What you can't afford to ignore is any non compliance with the Constitution where it's going to affect you or other flyers down the track, and that won't be fixed by sitting there sucking on your lollipop and taking shots at the people trying to help.

Only if you make it a problem.

Evening HH,You are of course correct where Directors are unlawfully elected; and it would be technically unpleasant even where the outcome of an unlawful election was not detrimental to the members.

At this point in time I dont see how matters of legal technical argument around process would change the outcome even if the election had been held under the processes dictated in the new constitution at the time the election was called (and NO I am NOT endorsing failure to follow proper process, because process is the current argument). However, Kasp has indicated previously that he had a conversation with Michael Monke and that Michael had assured him the Board had sort a legal opinion and my understanding was that legal opinion was ratified by a second legal opinion. So I appreciate we have a difference of opinion and I cannot vouch for Kasp as I have no idea who he is or where he practices law; we just dont know because he hasn't told us. Please dont read that as disrespectful towards Kasp.

 

I suggest however, that we would be better putting our collective energies into special resolutions on matters that concerned us most about the new constitution prior to the votes that put the new constitution in place. We all know that on matters of equitable fairness we would have little problem convincing the masses to support any resolution that applied fairness to the members.

 

There were a few matters about the constitution that concerned a number of members of this forum and now is the time to formulate changes in special resolutions that would be equitably supported by the members. Somehow it appears we have lost sight of the matters of fury that were argued as affecting the members and yet we are head banging on technical matters of election over which there are conflicting legal opinions.

 

So given we appear to have a difference of legal opinion on this election matter, what possible value does expending energy on resolutions and technical argument when the outcomes would probably be no different in terms of who gets voted on the Board; and where the arguments and resolutions may present no perceived value (equitable or otherwise) to the members? Under these circumstances, why would the members support it when they are more interested in what affects them as members and how the constitution would influence the application of fairness?

PM, Never mind philosophy about the leadership; there's a problem here to be fixed, and fixed now.

Posting complaints on a forum will never solve any problems. If you are so very upset by any RAA happenings, the best course of action is to become a board member. Failing that, get actively involved with as many board members as possible. Get actively involved regularly. Become a friend and a positive influence. Ask them why (whatever), and if you can't offer any positive, achievable solutions (achievable in terms of all actual constraints such as time, cost, resources, etc), then take a deep breath, sit down, and let the board and exec get on with their work without this constant sniping. It just doesn't help anything get better.Meanwhile, fly safe and have fun. That's what rec flying is all about.

Peter

I I suspect that Kasper is much more of a lawyer than I am. Our politicians seem to have two views about everything, and many of them are lawyers. I just try to asses what people are doing, how hard they are working and whether their aims are aligned with mine and with good governance. As I said, I am happy, I trust the current team, they don't need or deserve vilification.

Kasper is not offering a general opinion; Kasper IS a lawyer and has given us very specific detail. The consequences of Directors being elected in an unlawful election is that every decision they make is invalid.

How silly would it be to proceed under those circumstances. This is a serious matter.

Who's talking about another organization besides you?

What is needed is for the shareholders of RAA Ltd to start paying attention to business.

Tosh and bollocks. As a member I am more happy now than I have ever been with the governance of the organisation.

(a) Where is the constitution better than a cricket club's?

(b) Is it OK just to ignore the requirements of the constitution and just do what you want to do?

© Are there no repercussions from operating in contravention of the constitution?

Never mind, you're always there to put a spanner in the wheel and divert the conversation FH.

Jato pods became popular for a short time in the 1950's, but really weren't logisically practical.

Some were turbines, some were solid fuel rockets.

They were great for getting a heavy bomber off the ground from its base, but if it was to land somewhere else, which is part of an advancing combat situation, all the ground support had to move with it.

Better to fit bigger engines in the first place, or make payloads more efficient, and so lighter.

Don't worry, sounds like they'll already know about it.

Like to give us an explanation Tubz?