Motorail / car transport

[Hugo]

Apologies for this off=topic post, but I've been reading some posts on here about taking a car to the South of France. I have a similar venture but the other way round - I bought a little Carver One three wheeler in North Italy & I need to get myself down there to collect it or possibly find a way to ship it home. I posted it on Uship but no responses at all (unlike the USA where you get inundated within minutes). I was looking at flights but everybody except Thompson seem to fly Airbuses & I will only fly Boeing. If I drive it back I might go via Nice or somewhere nice ;) Also how do I insure a car that's in Italy? If anybody has any ideas on all this a pm would be much appreciated.

[christopher storey]

On what is your antipathy to Airbus / enthusiasm for Boeing based ?

[Kember17]

Most insurance companies will insure on a chassis number. You would need Italian export tags to drive it back unless you could persuade the vendor to let you keep them and return them after your journey is over.

Peter

[Hugo]

On what is your antipathy to Airbus / enthusiasm for Boeing based ?

It's antipathy toward Airbus rather than enthusiasm for Boeing. Airbus are designed to be "pilot-proof" in many ways. There was the Paris Air-Show crash, where the pilot wanted to pull-up but was over-rued by the computer, which thought it knew better. There was the Queens N.Y. crash where the tail fin just fell off. I understand that the controls on an Airbus operate with reduced effectiveness when the aircraft is on the ground, in order to prevent the pilot from making any large inputs while taxiing. When in the air, the controls are far more sensitive to pilot input, and I am given to understand that the amount of pedal pressure needed to operate the rudder is not a whole lot less than the amount needed for full rudder. So the pilot in the Queens crash was effectively swinging between full left rudder and full right rudder, and then the bloody fin fell off can you believe! Same thing almost happened with a Lufthansa flight, being driven by a young twenty-something girl trainee who was attempting to land in gusting crosswinds; she just touched the left wheel down then was hit by a gust which caused the left wing to scrape the runway. Luckily she hit the throttles and got back up again. Looked like pilot error, but it wasn't; it turned out to everyone's surprise (not least Lufthansa's, who had not been told about it) that once she touched down with one wheel, she quite correctly gave it full right stick, but the computer thought "No, the wheels are on the ground now, so she doesn't really need that amount of aileron", and it over-ruled her and only gave 50%. As I said, nobody at Airbus had thought to inform Lufthansa of this very dangerous safety feature, so the pilots were unaware of it and not trained for it. Then there was Air France 447 from Brazil that fell into the sea; leaving aside the blistering incompetence of the crew in pulling back on the stick because the stall warning was going off, the fact that the 'joy-stick' was tucked away on the right of the cockpit where the other crew members didn't see it might have been a contributory factor. If they had put the steering wheel in the middle, somebody might have seen what was going on and corrected it. There was a terrible tragedy with a Russian Airbus; the pilot had allowed his children into the cockpit and let them take turns at the controls, knowing that the auto-pilot was engaged and that would be flying the plane. As his teenage son turned the yoke to the left, his father tweaked the auto-pilot settings to make it seem as though the boy was controlling the plane. All of a sudden all Hell broke loose; the aircraft started banking uncontrollably to the left, so much so that the display went blank because the computer couldn't understand what was going on. The father couldn't get back into the seat to regain control because of the G forces, and the plane ultimately dived into the ground killing everybody on board. Leaving aside the wisdom of allowing a child to 'fly' a laden airliner (the other experienced crew members were happy enough with the idea), why did this happen? Another clever little design feature of the Airbus that nobody knew about; - when you push the control column against the auto-pilot for thirty seconds, it dis-engages. So the boy was indeed flying the plane, but nobody knew it. Boeings are like E Types in a way - unsophisticated yet functional. Too soon for me to try out a 787 yet though - need to give them a few more years to 'bed in' first. For now I'll stick with 777s and the lovely old 747s.

[Heuer]

"Airbus: 35 crashes, 28.3 million flights, 0.81 million flights per crash
Boeing: 251 crashes, 461 million flights, 1.84 million flights per crash
So Boeing wins on this measure. One might think that more early crashes would have weighed more heavily on the averages. On the other hand, one could also say that Boeing has had longer to learn to be really safe (since 1916) versus Airbus (since 1970).

There is another statistic called Full Loss Event (FLE), which is the proportion of people killed in a plane crash. Running the numbers gives us:

Airbus: 24 FLE, 35 crashes, 0.686 FLE/crash
Boeing: 171.95 FLE, 251 crashes, 0.685 FLE/crash
So if the plane does crash, you have almost exactly the same chance of getting killed in either Airbus or Boeing."

Phobias apart - the Motorail services have been curtailed and only a few continue to run:

[Hugo]

I just feel that Airbus have so many built-in hazards, whereas Boeing keep it simple. It's the "We know better than the pilots" attitude of the designers, which in many ways reflects the different political attitudes on each side of the Atlantic. It took me a long time to convince myself that airliners have no right to stay up there. I used to think that if one rivet broke or one seal failed, you were dead. I hadn't realised how over-engineered these things actually are. Not to mention over-maintained. The safety record is simply staggering. But we take it all for granted - there we are, seven miles up in the air, eating a hot meal and flying at almost the speed of sound, and we complain about the choice of movies, or that the seat won't recline far enough. It's an over-used word, but I think the whole thing is simply awesome.

[christopher storey]

Well, I did ask !! To take you up on some points , however : the Queen's crash was an A300 which was not fly by wire and thus fundamentally different from current types, and it is very doubtful if any aeroplane would have survived what was done by the PF ( pilot flying) following the wake encounter. The airshow crash was in fact at Mulhouse, and I agree with you was pretty horrific. The Russian affair was an A310 and therefore again was conventional rather than fly by wire, and finally the Air France disaster was the result of pitot icing and, frankly, 2 very inexperienced young men left in control at night, on their own, in the known region of what is now called the inter-tropical convergence zone but which in my day was rather more accurately and graphically known as the inter-tropical front

The real point is this : virtually all civil aeroplanes, except ironically the Boeing 787 on which the jury is still out, are so safe that your chances of ever being harmed in one are infinitesimal . Your point about over-reliance on automation, though, is in my view a good one, but it applies to nearly all aircraft

PS I've just looked up relative statistics for the 2 families of aircraft which are now the most commonly used, and they make sobering reading if you are keen to travel on a 737

The 737 family has had 196 total losses out of 8572 aircraft built so far

The A319/320/321 has had 39 total losses out of 7238 built so far

[Hugo]

I didn't actually mention 'fly-by-wire'! I don't like it, but we seem to be stuck with it. There was a near-accident on take-off - can't remember where - because the First Officer, when he programmed the weight of the aircraft into the computer, transposed two digits. Something like 2350 instead of 3250. Consequently, the computer didn't give enough thrust to get off the ground. I think they clipped the fence or lights at the end of the runway, but they managed to get airborne. My concern about this is that you would never in a million years work out what the problem was. Well, you would if you had a million years of course, but in the few seconds available you would never figure out what was causing the lack of power on take-off.
The Queens crash was caused by composite construction of the tail fin I believe, and this material, while very strong, seems to de-laminate in ways that are difficult to detect. I should say that I speak as an absolute layman so you may well correct me on this and other points. You say no aricraft would have survived the actions of the pilot? Why not? He was apparently doing what he had been trained to do and had presumably done this before without bringing an aircraft down. (yes I know you only do it once!). To me it is like swerving to avoid a deer in the road and both front wheels fall off!
"The Air France disaster was the result of pitot icing and, frankly, 2 very inexperienced young men left in control at night,....". This made no sense to me at the time. In fact it still doesn't. Again, speaking as a layman, I don't see why a speed indicator is so vital. I reckon I could have flown the plane that night - and I am not a flyer. I would just have kept the engines at about 3/4 throttle and maintained altitude. Surely nothing else really matters? But they did precisely the wrong thing - everybody knows what a stall warning and stick shaker is and everybody knows how to get out of it, even the most inexperienced flyer, but they did the exact opposite. I know about it, and I'm not a flyer. They had plenty of altitude to play with, but they seem to have just frozen in panic, which I find rather disconcerting in so-called professionals.
My main criticisms of Airbus are that they often seem to reveal 'hidden' features which are designed into the aircraft to make them 'pilot-proof', but which only come to light after the thing has crashed! When I say 'come to light', I mean Airbus of course knew about them, but they don't seem to think it worth passing this knowledge on to the airlines.

[christopher storey]

Just to go back to statistics - I was surprised by David's figures - so I checked the Aviation safety database and came up with these

Boeing 707/720 195 losses ( at least 2 of these were blown up on the ground)
727 119
737 196
747 61
757 8
767 16
777 6
787 -
----
491 losses in the jet era
===

The point about the Queen's A300 is that no aeroplane will stand full control movement load reversals at significant airspeeds . These were frankly suicidal control applications . As far as the Air France A330 is concerned, in essence I agree with you, in that even if you lose ASI information, flying attitude on what is now called the attitude indicator ( but earlier was called the Artificial Horizon ) should still enable the aeroplane to be flown safely. Sadly too many young pilots are now taught to fly exclusively " by the numbers" and the problem with this is that the numbers change quite dramatically with the wide weight ranges that modern aircaft can cope with, and one of the terrible pitfalls for the inexperienced is that if you start " chasing the numbers" rather than concentrating on keeping attitude i.e. nose up/ nose down pitch within sensible parameters i.e. probably no more than +/- 5 degrees of pitch, things can get away from you horribly quickly, and if, as in the AF case, the numbers are completely unreliable, then a failure to fly attitude will lead to disaster in no time at all

I should perhaps make it clear that I was not a very experienced jet pilot but I did have about 2100 command hours , many of them instructional, and this is what shows one quickly how inventive people can be in trying to kill you!




Anyway, interesting though this all is, you are far safer going to Italy in any modern aircraft, than you will be driving back home. Go for it

[Hugo]

Apparently American Airlines at the time were training their pilots to do exactly that when they hit wake turbulence, instead of just skimming over the bumps they would try to correct and counter-correct. I must say I was surpised to learn that an airliner would just fall to bits if you did that!
I take it you're familiar with the spate of air accidents caused by Russian and Russian-trained pilots when the Soviet Union opened up & started buying western aircraft, and western airlines started employing pilots from the eastern bloc? Apparently the Russian 'artificial horizons' operated the opposite way to western ones - instead of the aircraft staying fixed in the screen and the horizon moving, the horizon would stay fixed and the aircraft would move in the screen. I think it was that way round? Confusing or what?

[Heuer]

If you want to see what the day to day real life situations are with commercial aircraft then have a read of this excellent site: http://www.avherald.com Every incident recorded and reported on with investigation updates as they become available. Not sure if it will make you more nervous or confident but it is an interesting read!

[Hugo]

Very thorough, aren't they. I find the whole thing very impressive. I am not phobic about flying (I am terrified of spiders, so I know what a phobia is!), but I used to be uncomfortable about it till a friend who works in the industry told me they fly with cracks in the airframe & just drill a hole at the end to stop them spreading. At that point I realised that airliners are not as delicate as I had imagined they were! The fact is they seem to be pretty good at staying up there!
Going back to my carver One in Italy, I have just found out that I cannot drive it back - something to do with the licence plates I gather. I posted a request for quotes on Uship last week and ... nothing! Unlike America, where I just bought a Chevy Corvair in Las Vegas & got 14 quotes back within a day for shipping back to Florida.
Anybody know any good car transporters, or a flatbed I can buy beg or borrow?

[JagWaugh]

Going back to my carver One in Italy, I have just found out that I cannot drive it back - something to do with the licence plates I gather.

You can get "transit plates" in Italy (and most places) which would allow you to drive it home.

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/ve ... dex_en.htm

You might need to learn some Italian, but the other possibility is to talk to the DVLA:
"You may also be able to apply for transit plates from your home country. Check with your relevant national authority. However, transit plates issued by the destination country might not be accepted by the Italian Police in the event of roadside checks."

[Hugo]

Very useful stuff - thank you. I am struggling a bit with the language already - the seller has obviously used Google Translate and this morning came up with this masterpiece; "Goodbye, or need his headline for his game because I have to make sales invoices and even the documents of the owner of the company. How does the retreat of the bike take place. Greetings and thanks."
I retaliated by using Google Translate to turn that gobbledegook back into Italian & sent it back to them!

[JagWaugh]

Very useful stuff - thank you. I am struggling a bit with the language already - the seller has obviously used Google Translate and this morning came up with this masterpiece; "Goodbye, or need his headline for his game because I have to make sales invoices and even the documents of the owner of the company. How does the retreat of the bike take place. Greetings and thanks."
I retaliated by using Google Translate to turn that gobbledegook back into Italian & sent it back to them!

There must be someone here on the forum who speaks enough Italian to help you through the mechanics of communication.

Ask the seller if he speaks any German, there I can help.

[Hugo]

I was surprised how difficult it was to communicate. I tried the traditional British approach of SHOUTING LOUDER but even that didn't work. I tried "Parlez-vous Francais peut-etre?" and got no response. The somebody from Italy phoned me this morning who spoke a bit of English, so we seem to be getting somewhere. I studied latin at school and can usually make sense of any Latin-based language when it is written down and I have time to work it out, but these guys have got me beat. I thought they might be speaking that weird slang language Polari, which, according to Wikipedia, is used by "... some actors, circus and fairground showmen, professional wrestlers, merchant navy sailors, criminals, prostitutes, and the gay subculture."
My wife is Swiss and her first langauage is German, which gives rise to her party trick; give her a glass or maybe two of wine, and you just have to say one word to her in German and she switches into German and can't get back to English till she sobers up - and when she does speak English it's with a thick Swiss accent!
Thanks for your earlier link to the DVLA site - I cannot help observing that here we have a Canadian living in Switzerland giving advice to an Englishman about importing a car from Italy and sending a link to the British government website.