Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Concorde crash: Continental Airlines cleared by France court

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Concorde crash: Continental Airlines cleared by France court

Old 12th Dec 2012, 13:45
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bonjour AZR...

Given that the accident crash has been discussed at such length, it is predictable that complete agreement will be elusive. Impasse is not unfriendly, or need not be.

* "Between leaving the maintenance hangar and the fateful flight of July 25 the Concorde flew two round trip flights to New York and back.* In that time after each gear retraction the right hand shear bush began to slide down into the gap left by the missing spacer.* By the day of the accident the shear bush had moved a full seven inches out of alignment to the point where the two washers were almost touching.* The movement of the shear bush allowed the beam and wheels to wobble up to three degrees in any direction."

.......From "Heritage CONCORDE"

So therefore.....

The accident takeoff was the fifth since return to service. At Rotate speeds approaching 300 miles per hour, the stresses are formidable, so.....

It is my belief the problematic landing gear issue was at the very least contributory, definitely not "irrelevant".


re the "Transverse Cut". I would be looking for evidence of Zinc Chromate from the strip's painted (primered) surface, and remnants of Red Applicating mastic.

The site of deposition? The "cut" area of the tyre tread separating the two recovered oval pieces of tire tread surface. Evidence of elastomer (tyre material) was identified on the Titanium strip itself, there is no reason that the tyre remnants would be free of applied materials from the metal shard.

I am sure it is in the report, and my cursory review missed it. For me, evidence of Red Mastic and paint primer on the tyre pieces would be absolutely conclusive of rupture due to Continental's shoddy shop work on the DC-10.

merci beaucoup

Last edited by Lyman; 12th Dec 2012 at 16:02.
Lyman is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2012, 16:28
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's generally accepted by all parties that the deviation from centreline was caused by the sheer amount of thrust asymmetry caused by the starboard engines functioning normally with reheat and the port engines being impeded/damaged by the fuel fire. The missing spacer may have had an effect, but even if correctly fitted it is *extremely* unlikely to have changed the outcome beyond losing control at a marginally higher altitude.

Such a gain in altitude might have altered the location of the crash, but the controls would still have been destroyed by the fire (the existence of which is irrelevant to the spacer) at the same rate - there's simply no way they could have made Le Bourget and landed safely with that kind of damage.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2012, 17:04
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lyman
Given that the accident crash has been discussed at such length, it is predictable that complete agreement will be elusive. Impasse is not unfriendly, or need not be.
Oh, but I've no problem with that.
Indeed, we differ on the spacer. Neither of us has conclusive evidences, and both scenarii are possible/sensible. I hope not to give the impression of being unfriendly here.

at the very least contributory, definitely not "irrelevant"
I can also agree with that. Not a problem.
I didn't say it's irrelevant per se. I said it's irrelevant in the scenario I presented (and which is by no means a personal one).
I notice you "forgot" to answer about that scenario. Too bad, it was the only point I really stressed. Should I take it that you agree with me here, then?


there is no reason that the tyre remnants would be free of applied materials from the metal shard
Well, I disagree, and I could think of a number of reasons. Relative hardness of materials involved, for example.
If you have no counter-proof, you may "just" admit it, say "I don't know" (*) instead of asking for a complementary proof that we know doesn't exist.
As you said yourself, impasse is not unfriendly, or need not be.
OTOH, trying to "noyer le poisson" could be seen as unfriendly.

(*) I tried to do that at lenght earlier in the topic, and I'm not hurt for having done that.
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2012, 21:31
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi AZR

negative on the Poissons, Monsieur...

Ici.....

Quote:
"there is no reason that the tyre remnants would be free of applied materials from the metal shard"

Well, I disagree, and I could think of a number of reasons. Relative hardness of materials involved, for example.

if My interest was required to be objective I would not stop once I had found elastomer on and in the Titanium strip. I would continue and seek to find deposition of Alkyd and epoxy mastic on the rubber pieces. Did BEA? (it is exceedingly unlikely Titanium would be found on the rubber ). But NOT impossible, since remnants of grinding might be bound in the primer, or mastic!

"If you have no counter-proof, you may "just" admit it, say "I don't know" (*) instead of asking for a complementary proof that we know doesn't exist."

I missed this, does this mean you believe no proof one way or the other exists?
Do you think they sought such evidence?

1. They must have, if only to cement further their theory of "transverse cut".

2. They did not report the results of their Gas chromatography/electro phoresis?

3. They did report, and I missed it?

4. There was no such deposition?

5. If none, they missed a chance to cement Continental's 'guilt'?

6. If foreign material was identified, and not reported, they are incompetent?

I have no bias here, my enjoyment is in the discussion, especially with a bright and patient person such as you

Last edited by Lyman; 12th Dec 2012 at 21:35.
Lyman is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2012, 21:51
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi

When I cut meat with a knife, I think findind bits or traces (juice) of meat on the knife is proof enough that the knife was used. Especially when there is no other meat in the neighborhood that could have been cut by this knife, and when I learn that the bits/traces found on the knife were analysed, and found consistant with the two parts of meat in my plate.
I don't have to find bits of knife on the meat to be convinced.
In fact, finding bits of knife (or knife's coating) on my meat would worry me.


Originally Posted by Lyman
I have no bias here, my enjoyment is in the discussion, especially with a bright and patient person such as you
Thanks for saying that, Sir

Last edited by AlphaZuluRomeo; 12th Dec 2012 at 21:56.
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2012, 23:27
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AZR...

My friend, your 'knife' is coated with chemicals that are made from petroleum, and the meat is made from naturally occurring proteins, and fats. That there could be commingling is a virtual certainty.

The rubber in the tire is a product of organic chemistry, the mastic is composed of basic chemicals found in the same lab, and the paint alkyd resin. If the Titanium 'knife' has been ground at the bench, it may have donated ground Titanium to the applied paint.

There was elastomeric debris covering the runway, that is the nature of runways.

BEA said only that the elastomer on the Titanium was consistent with Goodyear rubber, not that it was proof that the Titanium had entered the carcass of BTSC's tyre. With possible proof available, the forensics are untried and the result is insufficent, unsatisfactory.

I think a test should have been done, rather than being so easily satisfied that Titanium from CAL sliced the tyre.

It suggests satisfaction at a low threshold, that a preconceived theory was proved by the presence of material that is found all over the runway, as well as in the GoodYear #2.

Were the tyre remnants rubber only, or complete through and through sections of the tyre to include fabric?

See you next time?
Lyman is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2012, 23:51
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Dozy....

You write...

It's generally accepted by all parties that the deviation from centreline was caused by the sheer amount of thrust asymmetry caused by the starboard engines functioning normally with reheat and the port engines being impeded/damaged by the fuel fire.
By what mechanism were the port engines impeded, or damaged, by fire?
Lyman is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2012, 23:54
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lyman
BEA said only that the elastomer on the Titanium was consistent with Goodyear rubber, not that it was proof that the Titanium had entered the carcass of BTSC's tyre. With possible proof available, the forensics are untried and the result is insufficent, unsatisfactory.
But that's the limit of forensic science right now. Just as it is in criminal murder trials, the furthest the evidence can be taken is that the "wounds" are consistent with having been caused by the object in question (unless a portion broke away inside the "wound" and can be physically matched up). Further speculative conclusions may be drawn, but they will not be legally admissible as evidence.

I think a test should have been done, rather than being so easily satisfied that Titanium from CAL sliced the tyre.
Several tests *were* done as part of the investigation and the results from every test supported the conclusion.

It suggests satisfaction at a low threshold, that a preconceived theory was proved by the presence of material that is found all over the runway, as well as in the GoodYear #2.
Not true. In accident investigation the theories are derived from the evidence, not the other way around. The BEA applied due diligence in trying to prove or disprove the sequence of events that led to the evidence with which they were confronted.

I remember reporting of this case very well, and it was at least weeks following the accident before the possible role of the titanium strip was publicised. As usual the press published a lot of incorrect information in the rush for an exclusive story - one of the most repeated was the allegation that there was a 747 with then-President Chirac on board nearby. I still see this repeated in articles today but it was never true.

Were the tyre remnants rubber only, or complete through and through sections of the tyre to include fabric?
The latter. They simulated the wheel and tyre behaviour with and without the missing spacer and the loads were never sufficient to precipitate catastrophic failure of the tyre.

The outcome of this legal process simply stated (correctly in my opinion, as criminal law and accident investigation should not mix except in significant extenuating circumstances) that Continental should not be held *criminally* liable for the unorthodox repair of the titanium strip - it does not alter the facts of the case itself.

Originally Posted by Lyman
By what mechanism were the port engines impeded, or damaged, by fire?
The fire heated the air in front of the intakes to a temperature that was outside the normal operating range. This caused both engines to surge during the take-off roll, from which engine one eventually (briefly - once airborne) recovered, but engine two did not.

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 13th Dec 2012 at 00:13.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2012, 00:26
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Makes sense......

May I rule out convection? So radiative. Were starboard engines affected? I would think so. By what amount?

You are defending French rules of evidence, above. Manslaughter demands "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the USA. Had I been the Titanium gearhead charged, I would have wanted all procedures exhausted.qa

The procedures I discuss above are not new. GC has geen around for decades, all that is required is a solution of tyre, and the 'unknowns'.
Lyman is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2012, 00:41
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lyman
May I rule out convection? So radiative. Were starboard engines affected? I would think so. By what amount?
No, the starboard engines were not affected because the fire was well away from the intakes of those engines. Convection causes heated gases to travel upwards and sink as they cool. In the case of the port engines, hot gases from the fire were being sucked straight into the intakes - no time for the convective process to be established.

You are defending French rules of evidence, above. Manslaughter demands "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the USA. Had I been the Titanium gearhead charged, I would have wanted all procedures exhausted.qa
I am doing no such thing - I've stated several times that I believe the continental legal process following aviation accidents to be counter-productive in many ways. Criminal procedure on the continent differs from that of the US and the UK in that the supposition is of guilt, and that guilt must be disproven rather the other way around.

There's no doubt in this case that the mechanic overstepped his bounds and performed a repair job that he didn't fully understand - even though he probably thought he was doing no harm (see also the mechanic who used the wrong window bolts leading to separation and decompression on BA5390). I don't believe criminal negligence is an appropriate description of what he did - the issue was and is far more complex.

The procedures I discuss above are not new. GC has geen around for decades, all that is required is a solution of tyre, and the 'unknowns'
In this case there was no need - the tyre remnants were reassembled and the initiating point of damage was conclusively proven to be consistent with the titanium strip. They ran theoretical and physical reconstructions over and over again and the results of those experiments proved (beyond reasonable doubt) that the failure of the tyre was initiated due to contact with the titanium strip. No other failure mode matched either the debris pattern as was found on the runway, or the velocities required to breach the fuel tank.

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 13th Dec 2012 at 00:47.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2012, 01:22
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I remember reporting of this case very well, and it was at least weeks following the accident before the possible role of the titanium strip was publicised. As usual the press published a lot of incorrect information in the rush for an exclusive story - one of the most repeated was the allegation that there was a 747 with then-President Chirac on board nearby. I still see this repeated in articles today but it was never true.
All newspaper articles confirm that Jacques Chirac was aboard the plane with his wife
He was back from Japan (G7 meeting)
Centre de Documentation G8
If you have a press article release or any other document that proves otherwise (contradicted by Jacques Chirac .. etc. ..) they are welcome
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/1...ed-chirac.html
Eléments d
Crash Concorde 'almost killed Chirac' | Mail Online
Le Figaro - France : Concorde*: Continental Airlines joue son va-tout
| The Sun |News
Chirac a assisté au crash en direct - Libération
CONCORDE: Anatomy Of A Disaster [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums
Concorde : enqute sur un incroyable crash - L'EXPRESS

Last edited by jcjeant; 13th Dec 2012 at 01:34.
jcjeant is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2012, 01:31
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@jcj:

All those articles used the same source, which turned out to be incorrect.

See here (from #219 for the next couple of pages):
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...-crash-11.html

The only AF 747 in the vicinity was vacating runway 26L and M. Chirac was categorically *not* on board. It makes for a juicy, emotive story though - which is probably why it was repeated so much without proper verification.

[EDIT : Friendly word of advice - it's not advisable to link to the David Icke forums if you want your point to be taken seriously. Unless of course you subscribe to the theory that most if not all world leaders are in fact shape-shifting lizard aliens intent on enslaving the planet! ]

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 13th Dec 2012 at 01:45.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2012, 01:45
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DozyWanabee
http://www.pprune.org/6111388-post205.html
As an aside, while French officials did and do sometimes travel on AF charters, the usual mode of travel in Chirac's day was a government-owned A310.
A310 (official aircraft) for go and return from Japan ?
Poor Chirac ......
Joke ?
I'm waiting a denial of the presence of Chirac aboard the 747 .... from a independent source
So far I find nothing ....

Last edited by jcjeant; 13th Dec 2012 at 01:47.
jcjeant is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2012, 01:52
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why should he deny it? He was all over the international press within hours of the event - do you think that if he were an eyewitness or somehow directly connected that he would not have mentioned or confirmed it?

Aside from the fact that I know there was only one source for the claim, other things that make me suspicious include the fact that the reports do not agree on the airline the supposed 747 belonged to (some say AF, others JAL), as well as the fact that none agree on how close F-BTSC came to the supposed 747. As I said before - variations on the story include F-BTSC passing within 7m, 70m or 7 yards(!) of the alleged Chirac 747, the alleged 747 itself either on the runway and exiting, at a holding point or *actually crossing the runway across F-BTSC's path*. Some even have Chirac himself "looking on in horror" as the flaming Concorde passed by.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2012, 02:53
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ft. Collins, Colorado USA
Age: 89
Posts: 215
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
This is my first post on this topic. To establish myself, I put in over fifty years in aircraft maintenance in positions from mechanic to vice president and I managed Quality Control as well.

The controversy over whether the missing spacer contributed to the accident is impossible to settle. It does show a shocking lack of adherence to process and poor quality control at Air France. Work of this nature in the USA is mandated as a "Required Inspection" which is a warning sign to the Inspector. I believe the British used a “Double Inspection” to ensure compliance. What failed here is not fully explained. I might also add, I found the cavalier attitude toward an overweight takeoff and in a downwind direction disturbing. The corporate safety culture apparently failed all around.

The titanium repair spacer from the DC-10 engine was apparently not installed in accordance with the Structural Repair Manual (SRM). Continental also is at fault for shoddy work.

All these aside, the bigger issue is the failure of the relevant regulatory agencies and the manufacturer to prevent the chain of events caused by a tire failure. As an example, early on in the B727 history there were some tire failures that punctured the composite material tank access plates on the bottom of the wing in the gear area. I seem to remember Boeing Service Bulletins and an Airworthiness Directive mandating their replacement with metal tank access plates to prevent puncture. Every time we purchased a used B727 we had to check to see the AD was complied with to get the aircraft on our certificate.

After Concorde suffered a major tank rupture at Dulles, what regulatory action was taken? Apparently there were tire improvements. But tire failures continued. Every single tire failure was a roll of the dice as to where the shrapnel would go. It took the CDG crash to finally come up with some measure of protection which I believe was lining the tank bottom with Mylar fabric material. It took all those years from Dulles to CDG to drive the point home that the aircraft was vulnerable to a simple tire failure.

Lord knows I have seen many tire failures. Early on it was a B720 that wiped most of the hydraulics off the strut, a B747 that damaged the horizontal stabilizer (the mechanics on duty never thought to look back there until I told them to take a peek). I have seen landing gear doors badly damaged, etc, all of these from failed tires that threw pieces or chunks or even entire recaps but they didn't bring the aircraft down.

The real cause of the crash was the failure of the regulators and the manufacturer to take definitive corrective action to prevent a repeat of the Dulles tank rupture. If it was impossible to do so, then the aircraft certificate of airworthiness should have been pulled. The Concorde was a magnificent flying machine but it had a fatal Achilles Heel. They had adequate warning at Dulles, they should have taken action.
tonytales is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2012, 07:35
  #156 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 925
Received 266 Likes on 152 Posts
A now retired member of the Concorde flight crew told me that the engine problems were down to one engine (can't recall which one) ingesting runway lighting debris and the adjacent engine ingesting neat fuel which was interpreted as a second failure on the flight deck. The ingress of fuel into the engine was a transient condition and full power would have been available after it had sorted itself out. Once both engines had been rolled back, Concorde was then on the back of the drag curve. Had power been maintained and the ruptured tank had fully drained, there may have been a better chance of a survivable outcome but it's a purely academic discussion.

The flame front could not advance faster than the airflow so it begs the question what ignited the fuel ? It was thought that damage in the wheel well caused electrical arcing which by some means of a disrupted airflow in that area, ignited the fuel. The reheats are thought not to have been the source due to the airflow speed being greater than the speed of flame front advancement.

Either way, it was a very dark day in aviation and has revealed once again the consequences of lax attitudes to process.
B Fraser is online now  
Old 13th Dec 2012, 07:55
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Very well said B Fraser :

".....and has revealed once again the consequences of lax attitudes to process."


Some times all the holes in the Swiss cheese line up, and an accident is the result.

As professionals, we most do our utmost to keep these holes out of alignment.

Last edited by jaja; 13th Dec 2012 at 08:16.
jaja is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2012, 09:00
  #158 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 925
Received 266 Likes on 152 Posts
As a fare paying passenger, I ask that the holes are found and filled in.
B Fraser is online now  
Old 13th Dec 2012, 09:00
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Lyman,

I've quoted a number of sources, established facts and so on.
I'm convinced of the role of the strip. So is the BEA, the AAIB, and a number of other detailed analysis.

You have doubts? Fair enough, you're entitled to that.

But I you want me (or anyone) to share those doubts, you don't need to ask for "more proof".
You need to demonstrate, first, that what we consider as proof is not good enough. And you need to do that with more than "just" your doubts and convictions, because you're "fighting" material evidences.

That's not easy. And by the way, I'm perfectly happy with you having doubts about the strip. I'm not a lawyer, I don't think PPRuNe is a court either.
I suggest we put that point at rest until your doubts are backed by either hard evidence, of a logical demonstration able to counter all of the evidences/conclusions of the final report.


Now, the matter in discussion when you joined this thread, the point I was trying to make is this one:
BA Concorde was not more immune to tyres events leading to damage to the wing/tanks/electric that AF Concorde. Basically, they were the same aircraft, even if operating procedures differed (in definition or in the quality of their execution).
Therefore, it was the right decision to ground both fleets until the tyres were replaced by NZG ones (resistant to blow-up IIRC) and a kevlar liner fitted inside the fuel tanks.

Even if you think BTSC didn't roll on the strip (or have doubts about it), you surely agree with the above? I mean, the strip was one FOD, there was no way to ensure that never such an aggressive FOD will find its way to Concorde's tyres, with the potential catastrophic consequences we're all aware of since july 2000 (or since '79 or any other tyre incident since, depending your view).


Originally Posted by B Fraser
Had power been maintained and the ruptured tank had fully drained, there may have been a better chance of a survivable outcome but it's a purely academic discussion.
Calculations were made about that (and other theories) here if you're interested.
Short answer is: the tank would not have fully drained before the aircraft was rendered uncontrollable by fire damage to the wing & elevons.
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2012, 17:30
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AZR

"Even if you think BTSC didn't roll on the strip (or have doubts about it), you surely agree with the above? I mean, the strip was one FOD, there was no way to ensure that never such an aggressive FOD will find its way to Concorde's tyres, with the potential catastrophic consequences we're all aware of since july 2000 (or since '79 or any other tyre incident since, depending your view)."

There are several ways to see this, my preference is to agree with you.....

Any patent vulnerability to disaster requires mitigation, in a sane and honest way. My perspective is that the Concorde was especially vulnerable to tyre issues. Likewise, as a unique design, she had other vulnerabilities exclusive to her mission. Air France purposely avoided their most basic responsibilities. Evidence? Continuing with the use of recycled tyres well past the first disintegration of the installed problem......

stuckgear broaches what I expect is the nucleus of the discussion.

BTSC was overweight......substantially

She was without a required part in her left bogie....unconscionable

Regardless, she pushed back, and initiated a Take Off on the 'wrong' runway.

What follows in the take off is the genesis of a spirited discussion, and Legal action.

All of it MOOT......

Characteristically, partisans focus on the irrelevant and inconsequential, in a practiced way, to distract and confuse the course of Aviation as it relates to duty of care, fundamental safety, and honestly derived profit.

The Court has decided the evidence is not sufficient for criminal retribution, as regards the errant metal shard.

Works perfectly well for me.......

Tip of hat to you, sir......
Lyman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.