Did a BA B747 dump 50t of fuel due to a miscalculation? [Archive]

Rainboe

5th Aug 2007, 20:06

Unlikely. If this took place at all, I would have thought that it was due to reassignment of a heavily fuelled aircraft to maintenance at Cardiff, or unexpected repairs needed. No 'miscalculation'. Between preparation of loadsheet and crew monitoring of take-off/landing weights, any miscalculation is impossible. It's not unknown for aeroplanes to very infrequently take-off knowing they will be exceeding max landing weight for a few limited reasons, relying on increased fuel burn through various methods to adjust to max landing weight. Jettison is not routinely an option.

Airbubba

5th Aug 2007, 22:38

Between preparation of loadsheet and crew monitoring of take-off/landing weights, any miscalculation is impossible.

Yeah, right... :)

Rainboe

5th Aug 2007, 23:20

Well Ba always do computerised loadsheets, where all values are confirmed by crew. There is the possibility that the fuel order was misheard- this would be picked up. It's pretty obvious to a crew on a 25 minute delivery flight whether landing weight problems will be experienced. I believe possibilities for human error have been trapped there. Therefore I would expect some other explanation for this alleged (and as yet unconfirmed) incident, if indeed it took place at all!
Aviation stories are worse than old womens' gossip! I never believe anything now on the internet unless someone I trust confirms it. Especially stories circulated by people who are not closely involved. It's all generally garbage.

Airbubba

6th Aug 2007, 02:34

Aviation stories are worse than old womens' gossip! I never believe anything now on the internet unless someone I trust confirms it.

It must be true, it starts "Now, this is no s**t!";)

Hand Solo

6th Aug 2007, 08:30

Sounds like bolleaux to me. Given that a typical ZFW for a CWL flight is around 200T and MLW is around 285T you'd need to put about 145T of fuel on before you'd need to dump 50T to get down to MLW. Do you not think somebody would question why you needed 145T of fuel for a 100nm flight?

NigelOnDraft

6th Aug 2007, 09:37

HS Sounds like bolleaux to me.In that you seem familiar with BA 744 CWL operations, might I suggest you read the recent safety bulletins :ooh:

Hand Solo

6th Aug 2007, 10:18

NoD :ooh: Wonder if it was one of the usual suspects.

Magplug

6th Aug 2007, 14:03

I'm sure that won't affect his bonus :*:*:*

suppie

6th Aug 2007, 20:49

Anybody think about the possibility that the a/c was fuelled for a different flt and that the a/c was rescheduled for a CWL flt....tara there U hv the possibility that the a/c was overfuelled....like I always say... nothing is for sure in the airline bussiness:)

Beanbag

6th Aug 2007, 22:18

Suppie, are you really saying that once fuel is on an aircraft the only way to get it off is either to burn it or pour it into the sea from a great height? As mere SLF, I find that hard to believe.

exeng

6th Aug 2007, 22:38

No Suppie wasn't saying that at all.

Any jet transport can be de-fuelled, however it is a time consuming process and the fuel has to be stored and then re-used on another company aircraft (i.e it cannot be re-sold to another airline) This process is generally considered to be more expensive than just dumping it into the atmosphere.
By the way the minimum altitude for dumping on the 747 is (or at least used to be) 6000 ft except in dire emergencies. It is thought that at this altitude the kerosene will be dispersed into into extremely small droplets and not cause any hazards on land or sea. (Not too sure our tree hugging friends would entirely agree with this last statement)

Any additional costs due to fuel usage in this way is passed on to the customers by way of a fuel surcharge, amounts of which are arrived at after discussion with other interested parties such as Virgin Atlantic.:}

Regards
Exeng

West Coast

7th Aug 2007, 02:39

"any miscalculation is impossible"

Air Canada thought the same I imagine.

prospector

7th Aug 2007, 05:36

"No 'miscalculation'. Between preparation of loadsheet and crew monitoring of take-off/landing weights, any miscalculation is impossible"
Surely "unlikely" would be more accurate than impossible.
The
rotation speed had been mistakenly calculated for an aeroplane
weighing 100 tonnes less than the actual weight of 9V-SMT. A take-off
weight transcription error, which remained undetected, led to the
miscalculation of the take-off data, which in turn resulted in a low
thrust setting and excessively slow take-off reference speeds. The
system defences did not ensure the errors were detected, and the
aeroplane flight management system itself did not provide a final
defence against mismatched information being programmed into it.

http://www.taic.org.nz/aviation/03-003.pdf

Rainboe

7th Aug 2007, 07:15

Any sensible pilot on a plane for more than a few months knows the 'right' weights he should be seeing on a loadsheet, and a glance at the fuel figures is all that is needed. You point to errors that have occurred in this process- as far as I am aware it has not happened anywhere where I have flown. I think the system is sufficient, and any such errors are gross negligence.

So this thread rumours idiocy or serious error afoot in BA. I have just said I would like to see more evidence please. The reason would be far more likely late reassignment of a fuelled aeroplane to a 25 minute flight, but I'm afraid as pointed out, as it currently stands, there would be no circumstance I can see where such events as outlined here would happen. It would mean the 747 must have departed at max take-off weight for a 25 minute flight to Cardiff.

I simply say put up or shut up, but don't denigrate an innocent party with these nonsense rumours without anything substantial.

Super VC-10

7th Aug 2007, 07:40

Is this incident subject to an AAIB investigation?

prospector

7th Aug 2007, 07:54

Well I would say my post, though not directly referring to BA, it was addressed to your statement of "any miscalculation is impossible", shows a miscalculation is quite capable of being perpetrated in the best of circles. Still believe "unlikely" would be more appropriate then "impossible". One could come up with many more examples if required.

old,not bold

7th Aug 2007, 08:06

fuel has to be stored and then re-used on another company aircraft (i.e it cannot be re-sold to another airline)

Hmmm...I wonder why?

When I sold fuel, among other airport services, if we defueled (slow process, as someone pointed out) the stuff went back into the main storage, after contamination and quality (specification) checks, and was resold.

If the fuel failed the tests it was used for fire training, and obviously would not go into any aircraft, including the company from whence it came.

The only consideration was contamination and quality, because the aircraft tanks mixed fuel from many sources.

We charged the earth for all this, if we could do it at all when needed, which meant that very, very few aircraft were defuelled. Among other problems, you need a spare tanker or three on hand to receive and probably store the discharged fuel, at least until it can go back into the main storage.

woodpecker

7th Aug 2007, 08:27

BA 757 operation to near Europe. My fuel requirement was around 10 tons but on arrival at the aircraft there was in excess of 20 tons in the tanks. Error? No! The aircraft had been at base following a fuel control valve change with an obvious engine run following the change.

There was a requirement for a minimum fuel level in the tanks even when doing ground runs. Perhaps (if it actually happened) this was a similar case.

When Blair (remember him) returned from the middle east a few years ago the 777 on shutdown had almost 40 tons in the tanks (management pilot). If that aircraft on its next sector had been on its way to Cardiff then there may have been a landing weight problem. There wasn't, I took it to Boston!

Back to the plot, whatever the reason (yet again assuming for a moment it actually happened) for the "extra" fuel loaded prior to departure the options would have been to dump when airborne or defuel. Defuelling takes ages and ages (aircraft tanks do not like negative pressure being applied to them) and, assuming that the fuel company can provide an empty bowser in the first place, the resultant fuel has to be returned to the refinery (Fawley in this case) for re-refining... All very expensive.

Let's have the facts (if it even happened).

blue up

7th Aug 2007, 08:29

You need a very big bucket to store 50tons of go-go juice. Where at EGKK can 50tons be stored prior to contam testing?

tristar 500

7th Aug 2007, 13:10

Having been involved with de-fuelling over the years I can confirm that it was indeed a pain in the backside taking fuel off an aircraft.

Fuel being taken off an aircraft does NOT go back to the depot, it is put on another company aircraft, subject to contamination checks etc. If it fails them it goes for central heating oil.

screwdriver

8th Aug 2007, 13:03

Lots of people saying that the processes in place wouldn't allow this to happen etc etc. I've been on a flight where all three of the crew failed to notice that we were 5T over our MLW on a AUH - SEZ sector. Blamed it on the Flt Eng!!!:=

Pinkman

8th Aug 2007, 14:08

Its quite common to have that restriction on re-use defuelling.
Aircraft fuel is subject to a chain of custody type arrangement and is incredibly well tested, inspected and certified, even though each batch is slightly different because of small variations in its distillation charateristics, the refinery it came from and the processes employed there (eg in catlytic cracking, Sulphur removal etc.), and the crude it was distilled from. Even the minute amounts of water and sediment it picked up during distribution is removed just before final storage and the quality and water content is spot tested yet again at the hydrant servicer before going into the wing.
The simple answer is that you break that chain of custody and inspection by putting it in your dirty old aircraft and taking it out again and you just dont know what you have got, in terms of contaminants, fungus, sediment, water, etc. etc. Aircraft operating in tropical environments and subject to high relative humidity, heating/cooling cycles etc. frequently experience microbial growth which is treated using special additives eg Biobor JF or others. But there's no easy on-site spot test for these additives and anything other than the basic contaminants, so you really have no idea what you might get UNLESS its one of your own company fleet in which case you will have the assurance (you hope!) that the overfuelled aircraft was fuelled according to your own policy and you and your insurers would be a bit more relaxed about taking it.
The other thing that makes it a pain is that while large aircraft are commonly fuelled under pressure from a 'hot hydrant system' which is kept pressurised and is set into the apron, the reverse process is not possible. So it usually has to be discharged into a bowser (like you would use for smaller aircraft or with AVGAS) and there you have another point of contamination, need to inspect, certify, etc etc. Its a dogs breakfast, a lot of extra work, huge amounts of implied risk, and its easier just to dump it into power kerosene. because the spec is usually the same (except that Jet has a restriction on freeze point, power or heating paraffin/kerosene has a restriction on smoke point).
Pinkman

old,not bold

8th Aug 2007, 15:09

Pinkman

I started my comments with When I sold fuel, among other airport services, ie I am fairly aware of the quality issues and system in so far as I was the accountable manager.

My point was a response to the statement that defuelled fuel could go back into an aircraft of the same company, but no-one else's.

I don't get that; there can be no differentiation on safety grounds, although I can see a commercial desire not to throw away paid-for fuel.

We did not differentiate; IF we had a tanker(s) available and were able to defuel at all, we would put it into the tanker (s), subject it to stringent contamination and specification checks, and eventually put it back into main storage, where it would re-enter the quality control system. The tankers would go back into use for normal deliveries, and be checked in the usual way. We would credit the airline concerned, minus the whole cost of this laborious operation, which usually meant that he paid us rather than the other way round.

As I said, if the fuel failed the quality checks we would not reload it into any aircraft, company or otherwise, or return it to the supplier, instead using it for fire practice, running the fire trucks, or heating.

It's the bit about "It's OK to reload defuelled fuel into the same company's aircraft but no-one else's", that I don't like. Not in my book, it's not.

PS I know Tristar 500 mentioned decontamination checks; it was Exeng's earlier post I quoted and responded to. But even with such checks, the problems of storing that fuel until called for are huge; will the airline hire in replacement vehicles while 2 or 3 are full of "their" fuel? Only very big airports/fuel depots have large fleets of into-plane fuelling tankers. Tanker storage is subject to the same QA, Fire, Environmental and H&S controls as the main storage, and you can only store in a tanker for a short time.

Pinkman

8th Aug 2007, 19:10

ONB- oops sorry - didnt see that bit on your post - apologies for preaching to the converted.

But I think we are on the same page because although I worked for the Oil Company, if I was the airline, I wouldnt do it either. But having said that, our SOPs didnt allow us to put it back into the AIRPORT day tanks.

In most cases it was downgraded to 'DPK' (Dual Purpose Kerosene) and it went to who - knows - where.

Maybe we were just overcautious in deepest darkest Africa.

Again, apologies.

old,not bold

8th Aug 2007, 21:09

Pinkman, ego te absolvo, as we would say on JB, and your post was full of good stuff from which I've learned a lot, especially if that's how it was done in darkest Africa. Wish I could claim that.

Beeline

9th Aug 2007, 12:07

CAP 748, Aircraft Fuelling and Fuel Installation Management, answers a few SOPs on the UK side regarding Fuelling/defuelling, contamination checks etc. :ok:

cirrus01

11th Aug 2007, 10:35

'tis true , ....for all the disbelievers out there....:eek:
" B747 G-**** LHR-CWL CRUISE
50 tonnes of fuel dumped during positioning flight to Cardiff
The flight was a positioning flight which departed late and the crew were trying to beat the jet ban. Dispatch passed a message stating the aircraft was approx 6 tonnes too heavy to land in Cardiff. The flight departed and the figures were re-checked and it was discovered that the aircraft was 50 tonnes too heavy. The situation was discussed with Flight Tech Dispatch and the Ops Control manager gave permission to dump fuel down to safe level .
50 tonnes of fuel jettisoned. "

:eek:

old,not bold

11th Aug 2007, 11:02

Where.......?

PS Didn't the crew know the weight at take-off? And the MLW? And the sector burn in Kgs?

Am I so old-fashioned I don't understand how they can go without these numbers? Or are we blaming the computer?

BOAC

11th Aug 2007, 11:13

Just as worrying is the message 'from Dispatch':mad:

old,not bold

11th Aug 2007, 13:03

Exactly....and I'd still be interested to know where they went to jettison 50 Tonnes of Jet A1.

Surely it wasn't done on route? Or was it? How long does it take? Or to put it another way, how many miles are covered during the process?

What FL was it done at? If on route, that would have been quite low, wouldn't it, unless a special climb for the purpose was carried out.

So many questions, so little time. Does anyone know some or all the answers?
I don't, obviously. This is outside my experience/knowledge.

PS If, say, it takes 15 mins to lose 50,000 Kgs, my guesswork says that means 500-600 Kgs per mile, if flying a straight line during the whole process. Would that be in the ball-park? Or miles away? Presumably the fuel forms a mist as it emerges into the slipstream/vortex, in non-scientific terms. Then what? I would imagine that 500Kgs per mile/313gm per metre (if that's anywhere near the right figure) is negligible at ground level, especially after dispersal by winds, but what are the facts?

11K-AVML

11th Aug 2007, 21:07

Anybody hazard a guess at what date or even time this was supposed to have happened? Obviously sometime before the 5th August 2007, 20:25.

CR2

12th Aug 2007, 01:36

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=81634

So you see what it looks like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAbJgrqkBoI

old,not bold

12th Aug 2007, 07:49

Thanks for that; it looks as though it would take 30 minutes or so to lose the 50 tonnes, thus spreading the fuel twice as far as my rough guess above, assuming the aircraft wasn't circling....

So, in the case of this LHR-CWL positioning flight, if it was done at all was it done on route, over the sea, or somewhere specially designated?

Does anyone know?

There's no news story here; 250 Kg per mile, as a mist at altitude, is not significant. I'm merely curous, and not a journalist in the first place.

teghjeet

12th Aug 2007, 12:48

what about overweight landing procdures? dont know the figures for 747

Rainboe

12th Aug 2007, 14:03

The flight takes 25+ minutes. Dumping that alleged quantity would take 25+ minutes, all at least 6000' above ground level. The whole of the south of England wasn't going to go up if someone started a car engine! Nobody would even sniff it- it will vaporise. Overweight landings are 'an emergency only procedure' and not to be used in the course of normal operations. Fuel dumping is an 'emergency only procedure' as well- there are subsequent ramifications to the fuel gallery and engineering procedures.

I still find the alleged explanation garbled. It may well have taken place, but the hints at confusion and lack of knowledge don't make any sense. It is standard procedure to confirm aircraft weights and all it takes is an eye to confirm fuel on board for the flight- all this is automatically in the FMS system so full that knowledge is confirmed by a computerised loadsheet. Nobody was 'caught out'. I suspect it was late reassignment of a heavily fuelled aeroplane to maintenance 25 minutes away. Cardiff is not that long for a max landing weight 747. But before too many expressions of astonishment are made, I would like some positive confirmation of exactly what happened.

747-436

12th Aug 2007, 17:57

It has happened before where aircraft have been assigned to a positioning flight and then changed for whatever reason.

I canceled a positioning flight (Not a BA 744 flight!) last year where the aircraft was changed at the last minute and the aircraft which was assigned the positioning flight now had a full tank of fuel as it was due to fly elsewhere with passengers.

This meant it was out of trim with no pax on board.
There was no way of getting the fuel off the plane so the flight was canceled.

So it could be that something like that happened to the BA 744 but they chose to dump the fuel instead of canceling the flight, who knows!!

old,not bold

12th Aug 2007, 22:02

Sounds possible, doesn't it, bearing in mind that if some of the posts on this thread are correct they set off not knowing about their extra 50 tonnes, and therefore not knowing there would be a trim problem and, if the extra 50 tonnes above MLW is enough to create one, without pax, presumably wondering why there was a trim problem.

Cancelling the flight was not an option, noting that they were airborne when advised of the extra fuel, if that information is right.

Would they have jettisoned the fuel to resolve the trim problem, the landing weight problem, or both?

woodpecker

13th Aug 2007, 07:21

Trim Problem?

Passengers/freight badly positioned are what cause trim problems.
Numerous 747's departed LHR during the recent security scare with no passengers/freight and well in excess of 50,000kgs in the tanks.

No red herrings please, just facts.

wiggy

13th Aug 2007, 07:47

"..they set off not knowing about their extra 50 tonnes...." Not at all credible old but bold, how could they not know??..We don't just fill her up and launch into the air muttering " oh, I wonder how much fuel is on board"? There's the small matter of the Flight Crew agreeing/accepting the fuel figures with the ground personnel, the EICAS fuel display (flight deck) has to be checked when setting up the fuel configuration up prior to departure and the small matter of the Captain signing for the fuel prior to doors closed....

And I agree with woodpecker, over the years most of us on the Fleet have positioned empty aircraft with various fuel loads and I have never heard of problems with trim. The only way 50 tonnes of fuel and no pax would put you out of trim would be if the refullers had seriously stuffed up, and again the crew would most definitley be aware of that fact before starting engines.

Frankly there has been no mention of this alledged incident in the offices at BA, so either it was management foul up and a lid been kept on it ( and I'm not saying that's impossible but the stories always leak out) or more likely, IMHO, it's a good rumour/story but it didn't happen as has been described and ths thread should be put to bed.

old,not bold

13th Aug 2007, 07:59

Wiggy, please note the whole quote............................

if some of the posts on this thread are correct they set off not knowing about their extra 50 tonnes,I found it quite difficult to believe too, but a number of posts, from people who appear to know what they are talking about, indicate that this was exactly what happened. EG the post that said they were advised of the extra load in a message from dispatch, after departure.

Woodpecker,

I was also surprised that fuel could cause a trim problem in those circumstances, but the post that said so came from 747-436 who also said that he/she flies BA's B747s.

As to the veracity of the whole rumour, this is a rumour network, not an incident investigation forum! But many of the posts have been sceptical, and I hope mine have been of the "If it happened, what happened?" variety. But perhaps I and others have been ready to accept some posts at face value.

On the other hand, if BA could cover up a "fuel dumping nightmare" news story they would, and so would I. It is pprune's task, as I see it, to uncover the cover-ups, whether BA's or anyone else's.

747-436

13th Aug 2007, 09:01

It seems that my post yesterday implied that it was a 744 flight with a trim problem that was cancelled, it was an airbus, and not BA at that!
I cancelled the flight on the information from the pilots.

I edited my post last night to clear up any confusion.

So I think that is where the talk of the trim problem came when in fact it had nothing to do with the BA issue and I was just using it to illustrate the point that last minute A/C swaps can happen and aircraft can be fueled to go elsewhere and then have to do a short flight which causes problems.

And old not bold, I never said that I flew BA 747's, I am not a pilot.

old,not bold

13th Aug 2007, 10:13

747-436 OK, understood....I assumed too much from the words in the post, before the edit............

This thread is going nowhere, it seems to me, unless someone can confirm or deny, with some obvious authority, that the incident took place at all.

I get the impression it probably didn't.

BOAC

13th Aug 2007, 10:20

o,nb - there is an intersting 'whiff' of fish around posts 6 and 7, don't you think?:)

Hand Solo

13th Aug 2007, 10:39

I found it quite difficult to believe too, but a number of posts, from people who appear to know what they are talking about, indicate that this was exactly what happened.

onb - Whatever turns out to be the basis of this incident, it is almost impossible to set off with an extra 50T of fuel that you don't know about. Before departure you need to:

1) Agree a fuel figure for the flight
2) Notify dispatch, who will use this figure on the fuel sheet.
3) Verify the amount of fuel loaded with the fueler.
4) Verify the loadsheet fuel weights.
5) Check the EICAS fuel loaded figure.
6) Inspect the EICAS fuel page for correct fuel distribution
7) Select the appropriate fuel pumps for the appropriate fuel tanks.
8) Calculate aircraft take off speeds for the known weight.
9) Verify these speeds against those generated by the aircraft FMC.
10) Complete the 'Before Start Checklist' which would sweep up any omissions.

The chances of getting through all 10 steps without spotting an extra 50T you weren't expected are all but zero and would require gross incompetence from a whole chain of people.

old,not bold

13th Aug 2007, 11:07

Hand Solo

Funny isn't it. I do know that all those things are reasons why it's almost impossible. For me, it's much simpler "It's almost impossible to depart without a load sheet, end of story." But it's the almost that gets us, isn't it. That's what Murphy's law is all about.

BOAC, yes, but the real culprit, if the thread was in fact nonsense, is Post No 30. Was that mischievous?

Rainboe

13th Aug 2007, 12:36

One cannot help but get a bit impatient with yet another pprune thread, based on what appears to be little more than an unsubstantiated rumour of an event that cannot have taken place as described, gets discussed to death- in this case over 3 pages, and despite gentle indications that the description is rubbish and without any verification whatsoever, some people refuse to accept it smells of garbage to the very end! What part of 'this is nonsense!' is so hard to understand? Unless someone can verify positively the accusation, then please can we lay this to rest? It does the bulletin board no credit to harp on for weeks and multiple pages on an event that most probably never took place or had a logical explanation.

My God if my company was dragged through the mire over rubbish like this I would set lawyers with big teeth onto everyone who dared drag its name through the mud like this! Unless the accusation is verified, I really don't understand why so much garbage is allowed to fester here- that thread title will remain in the history even if it is all shown to be nonsense.

NigelOnDraft

13th Aug 2007, 12:57

Rainboe... I agree with all of what say except the if it occurred. Read the posts again, and I think there are a couple fairly reliable 'clues' that it did ;)

Why it occurred, whether it matters it occurred, is as you say a non-event. It just cost BA 50 tons of fuel - pretty small fry in their league of blowing cash :{

the_hawk

13th Aug 2007, 13:07

My God if my company was dragged through the mire over rubbish like this I would set lawyers with big teeth onto everyone who dared drag its name through the mud like this!
RB, posts #6, #7, #30 (and #50) from the respective (longtime) PPRuNers wouldn't be there if all would be unsubstantiated rubbish. Of course you could still be right regarding the
logical explanation
but I'm afraid we won't get one here.

PS: regarding the thread title, deleting the "because of a miscalculation" would do some good, agreed ;)

Albert Driver

13th Aug 2007, 20:25

BOAC, yes, but the real culprit, if the thread was in fact nonsense, is Post No 30. Was that mischievous?

Look not at the post, look at the previous threads started by the poster...

...and do it quick before the Mods remove this, as they did my earlier words of caution on the subject. :ouch:

The_Steed

13th Aug 2007, 20:51

How much does 50t of fuel cost?

NigelOnDraft

13th Aug 2007, 21:13

£10K - £15k ? http://tmdg.co.uk/misc/fuel.php

747-436

14th Aug 2007, 09:20

All I have seen is the text that is in post 30 so I don't know anymore than that.

Leezyjet

14th Aug 2007, 21:14

Not too sure about the fuel system of the 747-400, but certainly on the A340 the computers distribute the fuel as it is being loaded. If the figure dialled in is high enough to warrent the stab tank to be used, the fuel will automatically start to fill up into the stab tank from the start of refuelling, not once the other tanks are full as one would expect.

If there is suddenly a last minute problem, and the a/c is swapped and is then placed on a route with a lower fuel requirement, you then have the problem that some of the fuel is in the stab tank where it is not supposed to be with the lower fuel figure and this can cause an aft trim problem if the a/c is lightly loaded.

As I said, not sure how the 747-400 fuel system works, just merely providing an explination as how it could have had a trim problem with just the fuel.

:\

Hand Solo

15th Aug 2007, 00:06

I have a theory about this. Cardiff on easterlies is rather limiting for a 744. Lock out a brake unit as well and the MLW is over 70T less than normal MLW. So if you're ready to head off to maintenance, the engineers decide to lock out a brake to get you away then the wind changes direction..........

Not saying this is what happened, I don't know what did, but I'm starting to see how someone could have a bad day.