RAF women pilots 'quitting early' [Archive]

BEagle

21st Sep 2004, 07:39

Quite so, chutley.

The MoD appears to want to have its cake and eat it. Pretend that there's no difference between male and female employees, yet express surprise, shock, horror when healthy young ladies elect to take time out to start breeding? Then fail to provide the 'back to work' facilities for them once the initial feeding and wiping is over and they want to get back to their jobs....? Quelle surprise then that many of them will subsequently decide to leave at the first available opportunity.....

I don't think that the RAF will ever introduce crèches in the workplace (apart from Harrier crewrooms....:E ), but to state that there are no different conditions of service for women than for men is hardly going to encourage retention...

Or maybe that's the hidden agenda? Pretend to be an EO employer, yet make it difficult for mothers to return to flying....

allan907

21st Sep 2004, 08:57

Surely the main point is that the Armed Services are NOT just another career. Either sign up for the full option or not at all. It is pure selfishness on the part of anyone - male or female - to accept Aunty Betty's millions and then not fulfill their part of the bargain - particularly when trying to prove some sort of feminist/equality deal. And no, I'm not a mysogynist - I had to deal with a disaffected doctor who had been put through uni etc by the RAF and refused to play ball.

Back in '88 (or thereabouts) there was a great deal of discussion in MOD about the subject. Every western air force that had trodden the path of female pilots/navs was canvassed and, without exception, they advised not to go down that way if we could help it.

Megaton

21st Sep 2004, 09:12

Judith : Here! I've got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb - which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' - but that he can have the "right" to have babies.

Francis : Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother... sister, sorry.

Reg : What's the "point"?

Francis : What?

Reg : What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?

Francis : It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

Reg : It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Mosspigs

21st Sep 2004, 09:18

allan907

Sadly signing up for life is no longer available for most. It is the employer who quite rightly wants to test one out on a lilmited contract (commission).

Moreover when mosty of us take the shilling, we are under 25 yrs old which is the point the boffins say that the basis of ones character is fixed. Add this start point to the ever evolving social climate and throw in a pinch changing of goal posts and one is left with very differnet perception of what life in the AF is really like.

Flatiron

21st Sep 2004, 09:57

The Air Force Board is living in a bygone age. It isn't that long ago that a top personnel nebby was signing S10 letters reprimanding the lower orders for naughty activities while he was having an affaire with one of his Wg Cdrs. And there is an air officer today whose wife was allowed a sabbatical in Germany, only to be allowed back after a couple of years to carry on her career and get promoted (as she deserved).
In numerical terms, the RAF is reducing to where it was in the locust inter-war years, only there are now four times as many air ranking officers. If we cut down the RAF to be headed by an AVM (as in Israel), threw out all the deadwood at P&TC and ran personnel management along 21st century lines - no married quarters (but proper allowances when you move house), no antiquated officers' messes but super O Clubs, no worries about bonking outside the unit, financial support for partners forced to give up their job when spouse detached long-time, genuine equality of opportunity etc, we might be more appealing to our good people today.

JessTheDog

21st Sep 2004, 10:04

With a shrinking air force, it will be harder to maintain the balance between work and family committments. This is more applicable in the modern era in which the missus has a job of her own instead of occasionally doing the Mess flowers and looking after the brood. Once you start a family, the family comes first - for most normal people - and added pressures generated by cutbacks will drive people away.

The Maintainer

21st Sep 2004, 10:07

I really can't understand why so many people are getting hot under the collar about this topic. We ALL have the right to leave early if we want to - it's called PVR, and it's part of your terms and conditions of Service. While those who have posted criticism may not like it, those leaving early, of either sex and for whatever reason, are perfectly entitled to do so. Would you be getting on your high horse about a male colleague exercising his entitlement to go early? I don't see too many threads on that topic... The automatic right of females to leave on having a family was withdrawn years ago, so I'm guessing that any female leaving now to start a family is going under PVR terms. Therefore, BEagle, there is no difference between male and female employees.

Flatiron - well said!:ok:

BigGrecian

21st Sep 2004, 10:27

Rumour had it (I know its only rumour but..) that women would be asked to sign a seperate clause to say that they wouldn't get pregnant during the first few years of productive service (i.e training and first/maybe 2nd tour). Not quite sure how it would work but maybe similar to a bond in the civvy world.

The women I have spoken to aren't against the idea, as they see the Air Force's side (at the moment). They know what they are commiting themselves too and understand that being pregnant/having a child doesn't necessarily fit in with the career.

However, it doesn' stop most of them wanting to get married and have a kid after 1 tour, then leaving the Air Force!

Discuss :D

RVR800

21st Sep 2004, 13:21

Im a civilian - shock horror how should I be allowed to contribute
to this forum but I will..

This programme was to do with women having babies and then the expectation of returning to a career.

What I saw was evidence of the fact that flying requires currency, and is competitive, so that a returning post natal airwoman has no place in the structure that assumes all hands remain on deck
during their career?

This is not really sexism - it is to do with posts and whether as a front line pilot you have a post when taking maternity leave to return to at all... ?

That's important in for female pilots to understand...

allan907

21st Sep 2004, 15:28

Mosspigs Re-read my post. I did not say or infer that a modern career was for 'life'. I did say that an individual should be prepared to give the full 9 yards of their original commitment whether it be SSC, PC, 12 years or whatever. That is why there used to be a delay factor when applying for PVR.

I know things have changed markedly in the 12 years since I left and PVR is a much more instantaneous thing now but that doesn't change the original argument that getting pregnant is a reneging of the original contract. The RAF cannot delay discharge if pregnancy is involved. The Armed Forces are not acting as a State creche.

If a woman has the ability and ambition to pursue her chosen career and sees it through to a logical end without putting a gun to the head of her employer by means of pregnancy then all well and good. A good female is the equal of a good bloke (sometimes more so); but I have no time for those who pull the female card when things do not suit them (and I've seen more than a few of them).

And this is from a bloke who married a WRAF officer who saw it through to the end.

JessTheDog

21st Sep 2004, 15:52

The argument that, if a woman gets pregnant it is a breach of committment, is untenable nowadays.

The reason it is untenable is because of the rapid civilianisation that the Armed Forces have undergone. This is a culture change in terms of ethos and business practice, and in the adoption of the human rights agenda.

We are trying to ride two horses and it simply does not work. We will never go back to the full military ethos as there are too many cats out of the bag and it costs far too much in government eyes to invest in the infrastructure and support that would be required to underpin the separate-from-society ethos. The completion of the civilianisation process is equally unlikely, because the government can squeeze more out of us in uniform, as we do not have full employment rights or a union.

So we get stuck in the half-way house that makes no-one happy, when (for example) one of our female colleagues get in the family way and takes a few months off, leaving a gapped post. In civvy street, a temp would be hired, but we are expected to get on with it and cover the gap (and OOAs, leave, courses, guarding etc) by working harder. So, once again, lip-service is paid to equal opportunities at a cost to others that is not publicised! I have no axe to grind with the double-X chromosomes, but with the MoD for once more pushing a PC policy without resources.

Hueymeister

21st Sep 2004, 15:52

The Americans offer creche facilities on ALL their bases, and they offer career breaks to both sexes to look after their off-spring. So do the Germans; a colleague of mine has just returned from 6 months paternity leave (on 2/3 pay though)...can't be bad!!!

Can't see why we shouldn't offer better facilities/care to our employees. Yes it will require some adjustment, but if it's managed properly then why shouldn't we all benefit from it?

Specaircrew

22nd Sep 2004, 20:52

Creches are pointless, if women want to be mothers then they should face their responsibilities and not dump their unfortunate offspring on someone else while they try to carry out their military duties. I pity the poor child that has to see its mother bog off to Basrah for 4 months during its formative years!

Granted there may be some professions where motherhood and work can co-exist but the military isn't one of them. Unless of course you're prepared to go down the 'I can only do a cushy job because I've got children' route!

handysnaks

23rd Sep 2004, 08:29

if women want to be mothers then they should face their responsibilities and not dump their unfortunate offspring on someone else while they try to carry out their military duties. I pity the poor child that has to see its mother bog off to Basrah for 4 months during its formative years!

Does the same apply to fathers then spec? :hmm:

Specaircrew

23rd Sep 2004, 10:22

The child - father relationship isn't the same as the child - mother relationship is it though(assuming both parents live together). I think it's fair to say that it's the mother that has the major influence on a child in the early years.

Most mothers feel guilty when they give their baby/toddler to someone else for the day so they can go to work, I can't see how it's practical in todays 'expeditionary' military life.

Political correctness b*o*ll*o*c*k*s will of course mean that the forces will bend over backwards to make sure women can have their cake and eat it as long as the chaps they work with will cover for them!

Training Risky

23rd Sep 2004, 23:18

Bl**dy hear hear Specaircrew!:cool:

I have just become a father and am about to be detached somewhere exotic. Do I have the right to pull the 'parent' card? NO... Should I try? NO!

I knew that I signed up to service anywhere, anytime when I joined, as did the women who got millions of £££ out of the RAF when the RAF backed down over the pregnancy issue... they all knew the deal.

My wife is at home looking after TR jnr until she returns to civilian work part-time next year and he goes in a creche.

Why should some other bu**er have to cover my job because I have chosen to start a family? They shouldn't... I wish the same could be said for the females in this military!

Chinook

24th Sep 2004, 05:49

Well said TR ..... but I fear you are in the minority of chaps in the units who is going to speak his mind, and cop flak for it.

(removes pin from grenade)

I don't care which way you dress or what gender you want to be / are / bonk but I do care when a good deal of training time and money is spent on someone who decides that 'it's really not for them anymore'.

Ladies are usually assumed to be lost due to motherhood, blokes for other reasons. Fact is training is risky, it sometimes results in wasted resources because the trainee would rather grow flowers than get in a jet and go to a fight - this is not gender driven.

Male or female, if you will fight, lets fight them together. If you aren't going to fight, bugger off! Babies are an excuse, not the cause.

(throws grenade ...)

What concerns me more is the way minority pilots will immediately, almost without exception, take any criticism of their performance as an attck on their gender / sexuality / ethnic origin / sports preference instead of MAYBE thinking thay have something to learn and learning. This is mostly evident in female pilots in my neck of the woods.

Change that attitude and they can have al the babies they like. I'll nanny for them!

BEagle

24th Sep 2004, 06:52

Then there is 'tactical brat breeding' - NOT restricted to female aircrew by any means. Approaching Tourex, decision made to breed. "I can't possibly be posted now, my wife is expecting a baby" - so some other mate gets shafted with the $hitty stick.

But there was one scheming woman pilot who elected to have a year off brat-breeding just after completing AFTS. Was very pi$$ed off when told she wasn't going to get Flying Pay because she had deliberately made herself UFFD. Later did her OCU OK, went on to finish operational work up etc. The very day she clocked up full wings-keeping QSP status (op & 6 months productive), she announced that she was expecting another brat..... Did a fair while on the Ops desk - then asked to leave. Did the RAF say "Yes, just bugger off?" No - they gave her a huge redundany handout during the last redundancy scheme.....

That's what gives some female aircrew a bad name...

Dengue_Dude

25th Sep 2004, 13:28

BigGrecian

How can you say pregnancy isn't 'productive' service?

Strikes me if women actually ARE leaving early then they've got a damn sight more sense than those of us who fooled ourselves into thinking 'staying for the pension' was actually a good cost/benefit option.

Good luck to them, my missus was always far brighter than me and if I'd listened to her I'd have had 20 years at Cathay and lived in a modest mansion now.

Charlie Luncher

26th Sep 2004, 00:22

Beags

Your senisitve side is coming out:ugh:

Must be all the time you have flown with the VC10 Tarts:E

Charlie sends

Braveheart

26th Sep 2004, 00:58

What is the point here? I feel it has been lost amongst the rantings. Before i start, I'm male and in service. If a woman who is in service gets pregnant then she should be allowed to leave to look after the small one. That's it, what is the argument with that? This is a basic human right when it boils down to it and I do not agree with the old farts who say that they shouldn't have joined up if they weren't willing to stay the whole 9 yards etc.... I think it's time to get aquainted with modern values. Females have the right to leave on pregnancy. Nothing further to say.

allan907

26th Sep 2004, 08:02

Well said Braveheart:ok:

You're obviously going to be the first one to put his hand up to do 2 jobs when a post is gapped because of 'maternity leave'. Oh, and obviously you will be deliriously happy to stay in your ****ty posting while the maternity leave returnee gets the cushy slot (are there any of them left any more) so that she can be with bub and hub.

Well done for sticking up for new values and the new world. The Armed Forces should be full of the likes of you then there would be no more whinging ('course you might be a few short for the next Tony Warathon)

Wee Weasley Welshman

26th Sep 2004, 11:02

I think the military should be granted the resources such that female pilots can maintain a career AND a family without it having a negative impact on their colleagues.

This won't happen whilst service members maintain a can-do attitude. If the task can't be done with the resources - don't bother trying. Its the only way you'll ever get more resources out of the Treasury.

I see friends in the RAF just starting families and the support is miserly. The workload and lifestyle have simply not kept up with Civvy street. The answer is more money and the question will not be asked until you unionise.

If Doctors, Airline Pilots, Civil Servants and Fireman can have union representation I don't see why in this day and age Officers of the Crown cannot. I doubt the Soviets are still placing agents in the TUC any more.

WWW

Pindi

26th Sep 2004, 11:23

WWW

Can we assume that you have canvassed the officer body of the
armed services and that the concensus favours union representation ?

BigGrecian

26th Sep 2004, 11:35

I agree with BEagles comments. I know plenty of women who are willing to do their tour then hoping to "breed".
These women are given just a fair ride at the moment, if not treated better then most of the men on courses, (Its amazing what a pair of breasts will do) yet they wish to leave later with kids. Should some of these women be employed in the first place if these are their true intentions?

16 blades

26th Sep 2004, 12:30

Unions are for people who want to do less work for more money, and would be totally counterproductive in the Armed Forces. What are we going to do? Strike if we don't like going on Det 3 times a year? The Forces are there to do a specific and unique job. We are there to serve the job - the job is not there to serve us in any way whatsoever. That is, after all, what we signed up for. As has already been stated, there is the PVR option if you no longer wish to be bound by the Oath of Allegiance you took. I'm not spouting the party line here, just stating the reality.

Back to the original topic, I feel that Feminism has lied to women for years. It has told women that you can have it all - a perfect career and a perfect family at the same time. It must now be obvious to anyone with half a brain that YOU CANT HAVE BOTH!
Children need their parents - one obviously needs to earn to support the family, the other needs to be there for the children - period. Children who are left with strangers to bring them up generally fare worse in life than those who had a parent at home to take care of them. This has traditionally been the mother, since women are generally more suited to being care providers and men, in general, have had more earning power than women. Feminism has sought to reverse or eradicate these gender roles and has, in my opinion, failed miserably. Posters here have written of the need to embrace 'modern' social values; however, recent developments in social thinking have started to re-introduce traditional roles - many prominent career women have recently given up work to concentrate on their family, and appear to be much happier for it. If you have a family AND a demanding career, one will always compromise the other.

I have nothing against career women, in the forces or otherwise, but at the end of the day someone has to look after the kids. After all, what could possibly be more important to you than your own children? If the woman earns more than the man, it makes economic sense for the man to stay at home, but few men, or women, seem to be happy with this arrangement. Some do, and it works for them. Whatever suits you and your circumstances, I suppose.

Why , therefore, should a woman be allowed to take a voluntary career break of 9-12 months (pregancy IS voluntary nowadays, largely thanks to feminism) and expect to pick up where they left off, when there is no way that a man would be allowed to do the same? This job simply isn't condusive to such practices.

Join the RAF as a pilot. If you make the grade, do the job on a squadron. If you decide to start a family, do so. If you feel that you can no longer continue in the job, exercise your right to PVR and don't whinge about it, since it is your own choices that have put you in this position. This applies to both men and women, before I am accused of misogyny.

Equal Opportunities is a misnomer, since it doesn't seem to apply to white, heterosexual men.

JessTheDog

26th Sep 2004, 17:01

Unions are for people who want to do less work for more money, and would be totally counterproductive in the Armed Forces. What are we going to do? Strike if we don't like going on Det 3 times a year?

An Armed Forces Federation would be extremely useful. A body that is officially constituted to represent the views of all ranks would carry a lot of clout. The public would listen closely to the words of the "official spokesman" regarding overstretch, cuts and pension back-stabbing come election time and the government would pay far closer heed to maintaining (or enhancing) our terms and conditions of service. There is a Council of Europe recommendation that all European armed forces have industrial representation, with a prohibition on strike action, but the liars at the top - Euro-enthusiasts on anything else - are not interested.

Incidentally, QRs do not explicitly prohibit union membership and encourage it in some instances (for professional reasons) and I would refer anyone interested to a debate in the Lords a couple of years ago, in which the late Lord Vivian spoke on the subject. For a HRA 98 opt-out, specific legislation must be passed and none has on this matter. The only obstacle to "like-minded" service personnel forming a union would be the career-wrecking methods that would be employed by MoD to dissuade anyone from asserting their rights, but I suspect that these would be far more difficult to keep hidden post-FOI implementation and that we wil end up with a federation in a couple of years, founded by persons (ex-serving or still in) with fatter wallets as the result of litigation.

If the police and the spooks at GCHQ can have unions (with a bar on strike action) then the case for denying one to the armed forces is untenable.

Polly Gnome

26th Sep 2004, 20:48

I'm a bit worried about posting as I can't really comment about conditions in the forces because my only knowledge is from friends/family. However a few posts have made some terrific assumptions about women.

I appreciate that many women, as do many men, want children (and a career too?).

However, the proportion of absolutely childless women is increasing rapidly and may soon reach 1/4. Don't assume all women will want or can have children.

I know of several families where the father is the main child carer (our own Flaps 40?). Not all women want to be at home. There's a programme on TV now where the father is much more ' child minded'.

Birthcontrol ISN'T infallible. The failure rate for the most reliable (the pill) is about 1 in 1000, often due to antibiotics/stomach upsets. The other methods are far less reliable. Some very healthy women are not suited to the pill as it causes them to have high blood pressure - a problem for flyers.

Blacksheep

27th Sep 2004, 05:58

Women may have earned the right to take time out to have children but there is a large gap between rights and reality. In the civilian world anyway.

My 32 year old daughter has no children yet because she simply can't afford to take time off work. She's a lawyer, he's a banker and they both work 60 hour weeks. The mortgage on their very modest three bedroom end of terrace is 180,000 pounds and they must both keep on working full time to pay for it.

So, I'm amazed that an RAF pilot is sufficiently wealthy to be able to take time off to start a family, let alone to PVR. There may be a severe shock waiting for some of them on the civil side of the fence.

jockspice

27th Sep 2004, 18:24

I had a post here, but I have pulled it under advisement. Please PM me if you have any questions.:ok:

Hueymeister

27th Sep 2004, 19:33

Jock me'old...stick to your guns...time away from the family is something you can never make up for...slightly better pension or not. Been there, seen that, done it.

16 blades

27th Sep 2004, 19:40

Blacksheep,

"The mortgage on their very modest three bedroom end of terrace is 180,000 pounds and they must both keep on working full time to pay for it."

I find this very difficult to believe, with what their joint income must be and current interest rates. Perhaps I am way off here, I don't know the full story. My mortgage is in the region of £150,000 and I can afford it on a single (RAF) income.

What you mean to say is, they can't afford to stop working because of the lifestyle they have CHOSEN to lead. Why does a childless couple NEED a 3-bed house??

I don't mean to single out your kin here, my point is alot of people claim they can't afford to stop working, when what they really mean is they don't want to give up the cosy lifestyle they currently live, children or not. In other words, they are not prepared to give up having a nice house, 2 cars, expensive clothes / furniture and an active social life for the sake of their children. To me this is an indicator of everything that is wrong with western society right now, the 'Me, Me, Me; I want it all!' culture that simply isn't condusive to the sacrifices required to raise children. In my humble opinion that is........I am sure many will disagree! I can't afford a flash motor or fancy furniture or 2 overseas holidays per year, or even to go out for a drink sometimes, but that's tough sh1t - my family comes first.

Nothing can be more important than your children. Nothing. Period.

Jockspice,

"Why can't I fly and be home every night?"

Because there simply aren't enough hours in the day. See my earlier post about the lie of being able to 'have it all'.

Polly,

"Birthcontrol ISN'T infallible."

True, but early terminations are. I appreciate that not all women would want to take this option for religious, moral or other reasons, (and I myself am not particularly in favour of them) but my point was that nowadays, women have complete choice and therefore complete control over when they have children. To therefore demand concessions from their employer that men cannot access is bare-arsed cheek and totally inequitable, in this climate of so-called 'equal' opportunities.

16B

jockspice

28th Sep 2004, 01:45

JunglyAEO

Aurora aka fun in the USA with some (minimal) work and lots of runs ashore, followed by trials (but no tribulations) in the Californian desert, with weekends (most of them long) in LA or Vegas. My heart bleeds. Surely someone else could have been found to take you punishment tour to California?

Aurora? Fun? Minimal work? Lots of runs ashore? This leads me to believe that you weren't there and please don't surmise that everyones workload is as slack as your own.
Time away is still time away, just less dangerous depending where you are.
Feel free to PM me if you know me, (I know who you are) so we can have a more private chat.:ok:

Huey
Cheers me old bucket - I intend to!

Edited by advisement.

Blacksheep

28th Sep 2004, 05:38

The joint income isn't too bad 16 blades, but you've forgotten about the student loan repayments, season tickets for the daily two hours commuting, car parking fees at the station and a few other little hidden extras...

As you're a singly military pilot, I should explain about commuting - it's the civvy equivalent of sauntering down from the mess to the squadron. ;) [ Oh happy days! ] For many people it costs almost as much as their mortgage...

All I meant to imply is that some of the girly pilots who bale out when they acquire a rug-rat may find that life outside the service isn't as rosy as they thought.

16 blades

28th Sep 2004, 22:04

BS,

Read my post carefully - My single childless status would come as something of a surprise to Mrs Blades and Blades Jnr!

I have done plenty of commuting - we don't always live where we work in HMFC - including central London, and I'm aware of the cost and pain in the @rse factor, and I don't wish to do it again! However, since we go where we're told, we have even less of a choice in this respect than most civvies.

And since the majority of Mil pilots are also graduates, I and most of my colleagues also have / had student loan repayments to meet.

I will concede, however, that they don't charge us for parking on base (but watch this space!!!!)

It sounded like you were suggesting that your daughter couldn't possibly afford to raise a child on the single salary of either a lawyer or a banker. This would come as a surprise to ordinary folk like me who's pay is 1/2 - 1/3 the average lawyer's / banker's salary, but who manage quite nicely - albeit without 2 fancy motors in the drive of my smaller-than-average, non-designer-decorated house. See my point?

16B

Blacksheep

29th Sep 2004, 05:00

Touche 16 blades, I do see your point.

Been there, done that, though the longest commute I ever had was from MQ in Bampton to Brize Norton and I had free parking both ends. BTW, you'd be surprised how little lawyers and bankers really make until they reach partner/VP status. (Solicitor 4 years PQE = 28,000 typical) Another daughter (law graduate) earns 12 grand a year before tax, pays her employer 5 pounds a day for parking and together with her fiance has just acquired a 200,000 mortgage. Her take-home is less than 600 a month but I doubt if the pair of them will be able to manage without it.

So, back to the question - how does a woman pilot really afford to give it all up to care for a child? Or is there really some other reason...

16 blades

29th Sep 2004, 22:01

Touche yourself, BS!

I really didn't know the legal profession paid its juniors so little. Although I think my point about unwillingness to lower living standards is still valid, I see my comments may not apply to your kin. Thank you for the enlightenment - I humbly concede! (for once!)

16B

Dengue_Dude

1st Oct 2004, 06:19

Blades!

You are now stretching credulity. . .

You might concede you're wrong (usually Mrs Blades's job to point THAT one out), but 'humble' and pilot NEVER belong in the same sentence.

Yet another oxymoron to store away!

(That said, I must agree with much of what you said about people's 'choices' and bearing responsibility FOR them)

As for 16 blades? We've got hundreds!

Fly carefully.

volrider

3rd Oct 2004, 15:24

Well to be honest I think its only fair that we let the ladies sit in the front and drive for a change. lets face it they have been doing it from the back for years:ok:
However I do feel that we have gone into silly season full time of late, we can't say anything about anyone any more for fear of being Racist Homophobic or Sexist, seems that common sense has long gone. I guess if your a white hetrosexual male your knackered mate!
What I want to know who took the off bluddy leg irons that attached them to the washing machine! Let alone unchanied em from the fence and gave them the vote:D
I hope the missus isnt watchin this one:uhoh: