Why bother with the A Check?

[DavidHoul52]

Most flying club Cessna 152s are showing their age. When hiring one of these and finding faults when doing the A check one inevitably finds long faces when returning to reception to report. One feels one is seen as a trouble maker.

Some responses I have received (there are from two different flying clubs)

No fire extinquisher: "There's one on order"

Landing light not working: "You won't be flying a night"

Nav light not working: (ditto)

Left door doesn't open from the inside: "Everyone else lives with it"

Pitot heat not working : "You won't need it unless you are flying over 5000 feet"

The irony is that you as a club member gets bollocked for breaking one of a multitude of rules, many of them quite petty.

(Sorry for the rant!)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

But why do you return to reception to report those?

If they're known faults they're documented in the aircraft log book, which you checked before signing for the aircraft, so you knew perfectly well those bits weren't working.

Having said which I did once discover a previously unknown non-functioning beacon:

"Er, the beacon doesn't work."

"Oh. Hmm. We're a bit short of an alternative aircraft to give you just right now. Do the strobes work?"

"Yes."

"So, if you went flying you'd feel that you were just as safe with the strobes on, even if not exactly technically legal?"

"Yes."

"So, how's about you discover the failed beacon at the end of your flight, then, rather than at the beginning? Given that the alternative is to scratch your booking?"

I said yes, of course. A certain amount of common sense does have to be applied sometimes! Like, I also wouldn't be bothered about nav lights and pitot in good visibility day VFR.

[DavidHoul52]

If they're known faults they're documented in the aircraft log book


Do you mean the Technical Log? According to Jeremy Pratt's air law book "These should include the time the aircraft took off and landed and details of any defects".

When I did just that I was trounced on as the column marked "Defects" was only to be used if I "bumped into something and caused the aircraft to stop" (???????).

So. no ... there was nothing in the log.

I take the point about nav and landing lights as only the anti-collision light is legally required during the day. But no fire extinquisher?

Yesterday there was a half flat tyre - with all the negative vibes I let it go- made for two interesting landings. This is how we kill ourselves.

I know there is pressure for aircraft to be available - but surely pilots should be thanked profusely for pointing out faults instead of a lot of grief as this means faults are picked up in good time and don't go tech the next time someone checks out the aircraft?

[IO540]

Only one solution David: buy your own plane, or buy into a group whose members have enough money to pursue aviation :)

[TheGorrilla]

..... Or set light to the C152, claim you overprimed it because that's what their instuctors taught you to do therefore you shouldn't have to pay the excess :}, wait for club to claim insurance and buy a new plane.

[IO540]

No, they will collect the £20k and buy another 1972 C152 :)

[Say again s l o w l y]

David, if I found a list like that in an aircraft. I'd ground the thing. Write them up in the tech log. It sounds like the maintenance isn't as it should be.

As Gertrude mentions, one minor non-airworthiness issue is one thing. A whole litany including things like doors that don't open and missing safety equipment, simply isn't on.

What is wrong with clubs? It just isn't good enough.

[englishal]

"So, how's about you discover the failed beacon at the end of your flight, then, rather than at the beginning? Given that the alternative is to scratch your booking?"
I remember once turning up and preflighting the aeroplane. "Umm the transponder is missing" I said. "Oh yea we took it out this morning to put into G-ABCD so they can do instrument tuition"....

This is typical of flying clubs and the reason I left and firstly joined a non capital syndicate - which had better aeroplanes, all with working avionics (airways approved) as well as IFR GPS's. I then eventually left that and bought a share. Shares don't have to be expensive either - although ours is not IFR approved (see Flyer April 09 ;)) , £6000 will buy a decent share in something better than your average club aeroplane!

[flybymike]

I would consider a 1972 C150 quite modern for most flying clubs...

[Final 3 Greens]

David

Asking you to fly without a fire extinguisher?

Go and see Deryck Gunning at ModernAir, Fowlmere.

A bit of a drive for you, I know, but when I lived in the UK, I flew out of there for several years.

His fleet are well maintained, used to be all Pipers.

I am sure other posters can recommend alternative organisations that are equally good.

One thing for sure, don't accept the cr*p you are being given.

[Say again s l o w l y]

A second vote for Derek here. Great aircraft and well managed. Not cheap, but far better value than bouncing around in some horrid PoS that you never really relax in.

[Rallye Driver]

I can remember being taken to task for snagging an aircraft in the tech log, as it could then not be used until an engineer had taken a look the next day. That particular school used Post-It Notes instead. One day a man came from the CAA and asked what all these yellows bits of paper were in the tech logs? Ho hum!

I used to fly an Arrow at this club. It needed an awful lot of forward trim to fly straight and level. I mentioned this several times and was told the engineers had checked it and there was nothing wrong. :ugh:

It was eventually sold and shortly afterwards I moved clubs. The aircraft was sold on again, and by co-incidence an acquaintance of mine bought it and did a lot of work on it inside and out. I knew he had got an Arrow, what I didn't realise at the time was that it was the same one re-registered. This only came to light fairly recently, and when I saw him last I asked about the trim. "Completely knackered" was the reply. Had to be replaced.

I'm glad I don't fly with the old club any more. Especially in today's financial climate.

RD

[Whopity]

Do you mean the Technical Log? According to Jeremy Pratt's air law book "These should include the time the aircraft took off and landed and details of any defects".
Try reading this document http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP520.PDF it includes an example of a Technical Log and Defect Reporting sheet. There should be one with your aircraft and all the defects should be in there.
Why bother with the A Check?
Under the National system the Check A was part of the C of A and if not completed you were flying illegally!

[tmmorris]

Totally agree with above comments. If your club doesn't approve of you writing defects in the tech log, find another.

It's one thing to say 'the landing light isn't working, it's in the tech log but I'm afraid it will have to wait for the 50hr check and meanwhile, no night flight' but quite another to say 'we know the landing light isn't working but please don't write it in the defect log'. The latter is a dangerous attitude and one day will cause an accident.

Tim

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that, to some extent, you do the A-check so that you can make a decision.

In much airspace, flying locally - personally I can live without a transponder quite happily - although I might not accept the aircraft with the missing transponder for a long trip, and certainly not if I thought there was a significant risk of going IMC.

Landing lights or nav lights - can't say it worries me massively for a 2 hour flight starting at midday. For a night flight - I'd not accept the aircraft.

No fire extinguisher in an enclosed aircraft. Well, I might be prepared to taxi it to maintenance. Actually no, they can bring the extinguisher over.

I've known a very experienced military pilot refuse to accept a 2-seat aircraft because the secondary altimeter was U/S in the rear cockpit. It was for a spinning test flight and the rear cockpit occupant was part of the crew - fair enough. I'm sure he'd have taken it for a couple of hundred miles navex.


The A-check is there to inform you the Captain, and allow you to decide whether to accept the aircraft - as well as what is or isn't working so that you can operate the aircraft accordingly.

On which subject - you don't need to accept the aircraft unless you judge it's safe and fit for purpose. So, if it isn't, don't. If more pilots would do that, clubs would maintain the aircraft better. (Or, as has already been said, buy a share and join in the task of looking after the aeroplane as you'd wish - most syndicate aeroplanes are much better looked after than most rental aeroplanes.

G

[DavidHoul52]

That particular school used Post-It Notes instead

Same system used at my flying club! As you point out they probably don't like anything in the "Defects" column as it means the aircraft would not be available for the rest of the day. Mind you this was after 5 pm - but no doubt the staff have their instructions.

By the way, I am not seriously asking to do away with the A check - its just that one is taught to take it very seriously and then in the next breath told the opposite! Obviously one does have to use one's judgement and not follow it blindly but opinions differ. At another club a Cessna continually used fuel from one wing only until it was exhausted. No one bothered much about it except for one instructor. An examiner agreed with him and had it looked at.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Post-it notes on a tech log...............Oh for crying out loud.

It is not acceptable. The systems must be robust enough to inform people about any defects that an aircraft is carrying.

Defects can be deferred until it is sensible to repair them. Operating restrictions might need to be put in place, but that isn't too hard.

You are PIC and it is well within your right to ground any aircraft you see fit to do so. If you get a row over it, then stand your ground. You are in the right. Whilst I have had many people ground things for no reason, you have to manage that and be able to defer the defect as needed.
A bit of commonsense is required, for example grounding an aircraft because an instrument light has gone out is a pain, but all that needs to happen is that the defect is deferred until it can be fixed, with a restriction such as "no night flying."

I once got into an aircraft that was loaded and fuelled and found a note on the throttle quadrant from the fleet manager.

"Took 5 attempts to lower gear on first sector, 3 attempts on the second sector.
Keep the show on the road and the engineers will look at it tomorrow."

Strangely enough, the first action was to unload the aircraft and then ring up the fleet manager and inform him that he was an f'in idiot if he thought we'd be taking that aircraft anywhere.
My 3rd action was to get out of that company as soon as possible.

Techlogs are there for a reason, use them properly. End of.

[TractorBoy]

Most flying club Cessna 152s are showing their age. When hiring one of these and finding faults when doing the A check one inevitably finds long faces when returning to reception to report. One feels one is seen as a trouble maker.

Some responses I have received (there are from two different flying clubs)

No fire extinquisher: "There's one on order"

Landing light not working: "You won't be flying a night"

Nav light not working: (ditto)

Left door doesn't open from the inside: "Everyone else lives with it"

Pitot heat not working : "You won't need it unless you are flying over 5000 feet"

The irony is that you as a club member gets bollocked for breaking one of a multitude of rules, many of them quite petty.

(Sorry for the rant!)

You wouldn't be flying from a place just south of the M25 and not too far from Epping would you ?

:}

[TheGorrilla]

There's only one answer, fly it like you stole it!

Return the smoking wreckage with no fuel, oil, battery still on, lights on (if they work) and don't bother to sign the tech log. Just get back in your car and drive away.

[500 above]

OK, I may take you up on that advice - in a certain Yak 52! Be scared, be very scared!

[julian_storey]

One of the posters earlier in the thread suggested using 'common sense'. The problem with 'common sense' is that it is tragically uncommon.

As the commander of an aircraft it is your responsibility to ensure that it is airworthy and fit for the flight that you intend to undertake, before you take to the air in it.

In FAA land, they have a useful mnemonic to help remind us what is required to be operational in an aircraft for VFR flight. The mnemonic is

T O M A T O F L A M E S

Where

T = Tachometer

O = Oil Pressure guage

M = Manifold Pressure Gauge (if a/c fitted with c/s prop)

A = Airspeed Indicator

T = Temperature gauge

O = Oil Temperature gauge

F = Fuel gauge

L = Landing Gear Position Indicator

A = Altimeter

M = Magnetic compass

E = ELT (required on US reg. aircraft)

S = Seat belts

If any REQUIRED piece (s) of equipment are either not present or not working, then clearly you should refuse to fly the aeroplane.

Equally though, I've been at a flying club on a beautiful Summers day when some guy (having spent almost an hour pre flighting a Cessna 172) caused a HUGE fuss about one of the NAV lights on the aircraft wasn't working and refused to fly it. He clearly needed a slap.

[DavidHoul52]

You wouldn't be flying from a place just south of the M25 and not too far from Epping would you ?


I would have felt more reassured if you had guessed wrong!:sad:

Apparently they have a good reputation for training (but I didn't train there).

[TractorBoy]

I had the same problem there. Post-it notes in the Tech Log, tatty aircraft, being moaned at for things I hadn't done, being fed up with rejecting aircraft which had faults. When you're on your 3rd A-check of the day, you begin to get a bit tee'd off. Especially as you find one you think is OK, taxi to the pumps and refuel it, only to find the radio is broken.

Once I dared to write a fault in the log. That got them really narked. "We'll have to get someone to look at it now !". That was the general idea... :ugh:

Many a time I used to go back to reception after spending 40 minutes trying find a Cessna I could use, only to tell them that I'd had enough and was going home. "But you've booked one" was the response. "Find me one that works and I'll take it" was my reply.

I gave up and moved to the other side of the M25 - much better. Aircraft well looked after - if there's a fault, it gets fixed quickly. If I'd stayed where I was, I would have given up flying by now.

[Say again s l o w l y]

That is simply appalling. I do hope they read the comments here and do something about it.

[Duchess_Driver]

There's only one answer, fly it like you stole it!

Return the smoking wreckage with no fuel, oil, battery still on, lights on (if they work) and don't bother to sign the tech log. Just get back in your car and drive away.

...and let me guess....
- you fly it at 'rental power' as well,
- don't lean (or over lean),
- don't listen out before you Tx
- infringe (but I only cut the corner!),
- scratch the windscreen with your headset,
- leave pens all over the place inside the cockpit (after you've scribbled all over the upholstery):ok::ok::ok:

[hatzflyer]

Purely out of interest is there any legislation that says a sep has to have a beacon or landing light in working order to be able to fly?

[Rod1]

“Purely out of interest is there any legislation that says a sep has to have a beacon or landing light in working order to be able to fly?”

No – not for daytime VFR.

Rod1

[BackPacker]

No – not for daytime VFR.

Unless the POH says so.

[Mike Cross]

They don't get any better

* Pilot: “Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.”
* Engineering: “Almost replaced left inside main tire.”

* Pilot: “Test flight OK, except autoland very rough.”
* Engineering: “Autoland not installed on this aircraft.”

* Pilot: “#2 Propeller seeping prop fluid.”
* Engineering: “#2 Propeller seepage normal.”
* Pilot: “#1, #3, and #4 propellers lack normal seepage.”

* Pilot: “Something loose in cockpit.”
* Engineering: “Something tightened in cockpit.”

* Pilot: “Evidence of hydraulic leak on right main landing gear.”
* Engineering: “Evidence removed.”

* Pilot: “DME volume unbelievably loud.”
* Engineering: “Volume set to more believable level.”

* Pilot: “Dead bugs on windshield.”
* Engineering: “Live bugs on order.”

* Pilot: “Autopilot in altitude hold mode produces a 200 fpm descent.”
* Engineering: “Cannot reproduce problem on ground.”

* Pilot: “Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.”
* Engineering: “That’s what they’re there for.”

* Pilot: “Number three engine missing.”
* Engineering: “Engine found on right wing after brief search.”

[hatzflyer]

Does the POH overrule the ANO ?

[Karl Bamforth]

In the UK, I'm fairly sure if you have a beacon (not strobe) it must work. That said there is no requirement to have it fitted for day VFR.
I must admit, they normally work on the preflight but I have noticed they failed when I got back.

[BackPacker]

Does the POH overrule the ANO ?

I would expect that an aircraft would not get a CofA if its POH contents contravene the ANO. So it's a bit of a duff question.

But I see what you mean: what if the ANO does not require a certain light/beacon/gadget for Day VFR, but the POH says it's required? In that case it's required.

[Duchess_Driver]

UK ANO (CAP 393) Schedule 4 details what and when it is required.

[Rod1]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf

Rod1

[hatzflyer]

The point I was trying to make (or should I say ask) is this. The poh is issued by the manufacturer as guidance. The ANO is the law.An aircraft does not have to have a POH but it does have to comply with the law.
An aircraft does not have to be equiped with a beacon or a landing light.
So back to my original question, if the aircraft has a broken beacon or landing light is it reason to ground it?:rolleyes:

[julian_storey]

To balance things a little, (and I'm NOT in the aircraft rental business) I've seen people book aircraft, then refuse to fly them because of a 'fault' which does not in anyway affect either its airworthiness or the legality of the flight.

If there is a REAL defect with an aircraft then it is your duty (in my view) to note it in the defect log.

Equally though, the person who records something trivial as a defect is causing unnecessary hassle for the flying school :=

[julian_storey]

An aircraft does not have to have a POH

It absolutely does have to :oh:

[hatzflyer]

It absolutley don't!!!!

[IO540]

That is simply appalling. I do hope they read the comments here and do something about it.

Sure they will. They will chuck the poster off the airfield ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

It's entirely possible for the POH and ANO to sort-of contradict each other.

All you need is an ANO amendment without the powers that be simultaneously amending the POH. It's bound to happen at some point.


But, when it does happen, the only legal route since both are legally mandatory documents is the most restrictive of the two. This shouldn't be a problem since I can't imagine one saying "you must carry the following" whilst the other says "you may not". It's more likely that the two carry different minimum equipment lists for a particular condition - in which case you must carry the minima of both lists. Serviceable!

G

[TractorBoy]

Sure they will. They will chuck the poster off the airfield

Heheheheh !!! :}

[Genghis the Engineer]

Oh yes, and ref: the requirement for a POH.

It's not, so far as I know, an ANO requirement. However, the various certification standards used for aeroplanes, of which there are many, all require a POH to be written, with varying requirements for what should be in them.

For reasons that I don't claim to either understand or agree with, the PFA/LAA have historically regarded this requirement as optional and many of their aircraft have no POH, and those which do rarely have a POH which actually complies with the airworthiness standard.

To me, the POH is a cheap but useful flight safety aid, and I think that the PFA are wrong not to insist upon one, and the CAA wrong not to make them insist upon one. However, it's what they do.

G

[BackPacker]

If there is a REAL defect with an aircraft then it is your duty (in my view) to note it in the defect log.

The way it works in our club is simple. We have a defect log (an IVW-approved electronic one which runs alongside the reservation system actually). Everybody can enter defects in the log, regardless of how minor. Before the flight, in addition to the A-check, you review the list of defects and determine if it affects YOUR flight. But an aircraft is not automatically grounded when a defect is written down.

It is rare for aircraft to have no defects at all (unless fresh out of maintenance), and it's equally rare for an aircraft to have more than, say, ten defects. So this is entirely doable.

If somebody notices a defect that makes even VFR Day flight illegal or impossible, then in addition to entering the defect in the log, you also inform the reception people, who will then confiscate the logbook (effectively grounding the aircraft) until maintenance has had a look. They might also ask an instructor or experienced pilot for a second opinion and if necessary will inform other members who have made a reservation for that aircraft.

This works well, even for minor defects. And it avoids surprises. For instance, we have a VFR only aircraft which is also used for aerobatics (R2160). It's not certified for IFR so it does not need an AH, but it does have one. The AH is worn, probably partly due to the aerobatics, and has a sideways deviation of about 15-20 degrees. It's in the defects list and maybe it will be fixed eventually, maybe not. It's not something that makes a VFR flight illegal so nobody really cares, but it is something that an instructor will want to know before he books this aircraft for an "under the hood" PPL lesson.

The system is setup so that everybody can add comments to defects as well, ranging from "second opinion please", "defect not found", "here's a workaround" to "parts on order" and eventually "repaired". And the reception and a few other persons are able to enter official "flight restrictions" ("No IFR" for instance) too.

[Islander2]

The poh is issued by the manufacturer as guidance. The ANO is the law.An aircraft does not have to have a POH but it does have to comply with the law.
An aircraft does not have to be equiped with a beacon or a landing light.
So back to my original question, if the aircraft has a broken beacon or landing light is it reason to ground it?For an aircraft operated on a CofA, it has to have an Approved Flight Manual (which, ordinarily, is also the POH) and that Flight Manual forms part of the CofA for the aircraft. The 'Limitations' section of a Flight Manual is not guidance ... compliance is mandatory otherwise the CofA is invalidated.

In the Limitations section of many (but not all) Flight Manuals, you will find something called (or words to the effect of) "Kinds of Operations Equipment List", which shows the systems and items of equipment that must be installed and operable for different flight regimes (normally VFR day, VFR night, IFR day, IFR night). Again, this is mandatory, not discretionary. The requirements (other than duplications) listed in Schedule 4 of the ANO are in addition to those listed in the KOEL.

FWIW (not much, admittedly!) what both you and Rod1 have observed about the need for an anti-collision light is not the whole story. True, you don't have to have one. But if one is fitted, Rules 47 & 48 of the Rules of the Air require you to display it whenever the engine is running or, if it is defective, to have it repaired "at the earliest opportunity".

[julian_storey]

For reasons that I don't claim to either understand or agree with, the PFA/LAA have historically regarded this requirement as optional and many of their aircraft have no POH, and those which do rarely have a POH which actually complies with the airworthiness standard.

In that case, I stand corrected.

I know relatively little about permit aircraft and really should make an effort to find out more at some point.

So if you were planning on flying a PFA / LAA type aircraft, where would you look to find basic stuff like speeds, fuel burn, weight and balance figures etc?

[Genghis the Engineer]

In that case, I stand corrected.

I know relatively little about permit aircraft and really should make an effort to find out more at some point.

So if you were planning on flying a PFA / LAA type aircraft, where would you look to find basic stuff like speeds, fuel burn, weight and balance figures etc?

There will certainly be a W&CG report for the aeroplane, but for the rest I'd ask experienced pilots of the type (perhaps via LAA's coaching scheme), and maybe use sales brochures, unapproved foreign manuals and the engine manual (which usually does exist), then apply some healthy safety factors - although ultimately, I think if I bought such an aeroplane, I'd rather enjoy the task of generating the data and producing my own, which I have done before.

Permit aircraft (or vintage aircraft) are wonderful fun, far more so on average than your typical "modern" Piper/Cessna product, but they do require you to get involved with your eyes wide open.

G

[NigelOnDraft]

So if you were planning on flying a PFA / LAA type aircraft, where would you look to find basic stuff like speeds, fuel burn, weight and balance figures etc?There are a number of categories of LAA Permit aircraft, one of which is ex-CofA, so those will be reasonably consistent in construction, and have (out of date) POHs.

Ex-Mil Aircraft can use the Mil documents.

I am familiar with the home-build Kit planes - ours is an RV-8 (http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-8int.htm). With all the "options" (160HP - 200HP, 15lb Fixed Pitch Wooden prop, 55lb Hartzell VP Prop, you design the panel from 3 clockwork Insts to more EFIS than an Airbus etc. etc.) let alone construction variations, the handling characteristics and techniques vary wildly - let alone performance (take-off ldg dists, speed, fuel consumption). A "POH" to cover all RV-8s is therefore a non-starter.

A nominated test-pilot does the initial flying and establishes some bottom lines on performance and handling i.e. is it safe. However, thereafter you are on your own... Knock up a checklist on your PC, add some things when you realise something got forgotten, see how fast it goes... Great fun!

NoD

[DavidHoul52]

When you're on your 3rd A-check of the day, you begin to get a bit tee'd off.


To be fair, I have hired their aircraft five times in the last couple of months and it was only this last time their were significant faults (and then with two aircraft on the same day!). The only other fault previous was an intermittent radio volume knob. They generally have good availability at short notice although the reception staff can sometimes be grumpy (but not as a rule).

I am really confused about the tech log thing though and I will continue to record defects if I feel they effect the safety of the aircraft.

By the way it is a requirement that an aircraft have an anti-collision light turned on even during the day for VFR. If one faults in flight one can still fly on to one's destination as long as it fixed at the earliest opportunity. (This I remember from my PPL air law exams)

[Crash one]

Quote:- By the way it is a requirement that an aircraft have an anti-collision light turned on even during the day for VFR. If one faults in flight one can still fly on to one's destination as long as it fixed at the earliest opportunity. (This I remember from my PPL air law exams)

I dont think so.
My a/c has never been fitted with any lights whatsoever since it was built in 1959. It is legal. It is a group A. Fixed wing.
It may be that lights IF FITTED must work, rather like the MOT on cars.

[TheGorrilla]

Well if carrying out that many A checks on a Yak in one day, folk will start to notice hand prints on the underside of the fuselage!

On a more serious note.. If you're the captain of the aircraft (as a solo hirer you are), do you trust the inspection of the aircraft done by the previous person (hirer, student or instructor) enough to sign for it yourself??

I think it's always worth asking yourself if the aircraft is fit for the flight you are about to do. Many are obvious, by that I mean if your next flight is going to be aerobatic, are there any loose articles at all? Parachutes? If the flight is over lots of water, are there enough life jackets, dingies? If the flight is likely to be on the limit of the aircraft performance, can I get rid of some weight? or even ask yourself if the plane you're renting is likely to give the published performance stated in the manual.

It may be a peice of crap, but you signed to say it's ok! :}

[eharding]

If the flight is likely to be on the limit of the aircraft performance, can I get rid of some weight?

I'd be careful about shouting too loudly about that one, if I were you.

You might find yourself doing the return trip on some of those more tricky sectors on foot.

The 'bus only has a finite amount of power available, and it is a matter of common knowledge how much fruit crumble you can put away at a sitting.

[DavidHoul52]

It may be that lights IF FITTED must work

This is correct according to Jeremy Pratt's PPL Air Law Course. Only holds true for UK-registered aircraft.

[hatzflyer]

Julian, you have a P.M.

[smith]

Why bother with the A Check?

I think that, to some extent, you do the A-check so that you can make a decision.


I think the original poster was being sarcastic! Doh!!!!