GLA accident Sept 2002 revisited.

[gaunty]

Just a little heads up.

In 3rd Sept 1999 an Air Taxi accident occurred with sad loss of the Edinburgh Air Charter C404 aircraft, flight crew and some of the passengers, Airtours flight and cabin crew deadheading from Glasgow to Aberdeen. (7 fatalities, 3 survivors)
I started a minor PPRuNe War and was accused of callow calumny amongst other things by questioning the policy of the airline company using what I call FAR23 type equipment, but I think in UK parlance it is called “Performance B”, and operators for deadheading, when the law proscribes the use of which for their (the Airline’s) passengers.
In other words their crew should be entitled to the same standard of safety whilst on duty as are the passengers and that if they are going to use aircraft for this purpose (deadheading) they should be FAR25 (Performance A?) types.
The responses confirmed for the most part something that I already knew anecdotally, that is that there are too few of us, wannabes and highly experienced professionals alike, who really understand the foundation and philosophy in regard to the difference between the design intentions, performance, crewing and use of FAR23 “private and business” and FAR25 “transport category” types and the consequences.
The “negative” responses suggested;
It was just bad luck;
They should have caught the bus.
It was a legal operation;
It was a twin-engine aircraft and ipso facto an EFATO should have been a routine climb and return to land;
The Commander was highly experienced.
It was a two (2) Crew operation, with the inference that it was therefore the “same” as a multi crew airline operation.
I/we’ve flown the type and they are “beaut” aircraft etc etc.
And so on.
In other words “what was I on about”?

I have recently been involved in a Coronial in Australia involving a similar set of circumstances in which as a result of my evidence the Coroner found that, where aircraft are used for the routine transport of staff, they should be of the same type and operated to the same standards as “the airlines” viz FAR25 operation and all that entails.

His findings coincided with the release of a Flight Safety Foundation report on the accident.
Flight Safety Foundation Accident Prevention (http://www.flightsafety.org/pubs/ap_2002.html)
Which if your company uses FAR23 type aircraft would commend to your earnest study and why I am posting hereon.

It was not my intention then nor is it now to “criticise” any person or company but simply to attempt blow away some of the myth and old wives tales, perceptions and assumptions that seem to infest the industry and lull the "uninformed" into a false sense of security.

If I may revisit the previous “negatives” which you should read in the context of the FSF report.

It was just bad luck;
True but the whole regulatory system is supposed to mitigate that as an outcome, which is why there is a very strict regulatory regime for the transport of the public. It was not available to the “airline” crew in this instance.
They should have caught the bus.
In the context of this incident that is, sadly, true, but not the point
It was a legal operation;
No doubt about that, but there was not then nor now, a regulatory requirement for the passengers to be informed of the significant difference in risk between Performance “B” and “A” type operations.
It was a twin-engine aircraft and ipso facto an EFATO should have been a routine climb and return to land;
True, in that the C404 aircraft FAR23 certification only requires that it demonstrate a positive (by definition >50fpm) rate of climb with gear and flap up and the failed engine feathered, with NO accelerate/stop or V1 cut decision, V2 or second segment climb gradient required as in FAR25 operations .
It is possible by an appropriate reduction of TOW to generate a “required” gradient.
The Commander was highly experienced.
In general terms yes, but relative to the experience required as a Commander in Airline/FAR25 ops not at all.
It was a two (2) Crew operation, with the inference that it was therefore the “same” as a multi crew airline operation.
Not even close, a “claytons” 2 crew operation is very much more dangerous than a single pilot operation due to the inevitable confusion of roles by lack of coordinated training. I am sure I do not need to expand the issue of multi-crew training.
I/we’ve flown the type and they Whizbang Mk1/2/3 are “beaut” aircraft etc etc.
True, but they as FAR23 types were not ever meant to be, designed or certified as a “Transport” category type.

So what am I on about?

There were lessons learnt and hopefully not forgotten.

Don’t assume that “everyone” knows what we are on about.

There is a difference between having fun on the weekend in the FAR23 type and getting serious about duty of care when we are at work.
Non-technical crew and staff look towards you “the professional” for a lead in matters aviation and may well follow you into tragedy without knowing it.
You might be happy for a nostalgic “return to the old days, I used to fly one of these” routine, but just consider that those following you may not be so happy if the “difference” in risk was explained to them.

If it is explained and made very clear to all then no harm is done.

I suspect that this is still not so in many cases and maybe rostering or whoever arranges your schedule and deadheading have already forgotten.

Is it so in your case?

[Pilot Pete]

Gaunty

A very well put together post imho.

As you are aware I was very close to the incident, perhaps too close to be totally objective hence my decision not to further respond on the last thread for fear of just 'arguing'.

This post is interesting and I totally agree that there is a complete lack of understanding of the risks involved in flying as a passenger in one of these types of aircraft. As a minor point I think you will find that the C404 on the UK reg was perf cat 'C'.

What is also interesting is the complete lack of risk assessment (or plain acceptance) that the general public have of all transport types. I feel that regulation can be used to ensure a 'level' of risk but it has to be put into context and a level playing field for all modes.

Statistically, road travel is far more risky than air travel with many, many more deaths per year in the UK. So the only problem I see is that standing in the crew room with half a dozen crew members looking to me and the captain for guidance on our deadheading transport are you suggesting that I say that a perf 'C' aircraft is too dangerous compared to perf 'A' therefore we should advise them not to accept that mode of transport in favour of the alternative which is a crew coach or taxi? Should I now make them aware that these two modes of travel are statistically far more risky than a perf 'C' a/c so the alternative is 'own way' in their own car which is statistically even more risky?

I am only playing devil's advocate here as my view has changed now I'm on the other side of the fence (thanks to hindsight and experience) and I agree that perf 'A' a/c should be used for crew positioning, but with the increased costs it could end up that airlines would insist on road travel and that would appear to me to have degraded the safety factor and not increased it as the initial argument had desired.

So, why do we perceive that road travel is safer? Probably because we do it all the time and have made it this far relatively unscathed.

It would be interesting to hear how many crew members have died in road traffic accidents whilst on duty (or travelling to and from duty) to put this all into perspective.

PP

[Roper]

Capt Homesick, there is a direct comparison between FAA FAR23/FAR25 and CAA Performance A/C. Both are performance categories under different regulatory authorities, but in effect the same thing (or in the context to which we are discussing).

Gaunty, very good post and I believe the airline company who lost crew in this aviodable accident no longer use Performance C aircraft for positioning their crew.

[gaunty]

Roper

Thank you for that welcome information and I hope any others in the same circumstances followed suit.

Capt Homesick seemed to have gone home :) and denied me the opportunity of thanking him for making for making my point.

Pilot Pete
Thank you also for your thoughts and clarifying th Perf "C" thing.

As a good devils advocate, you do indeed raise a thorny question.:D

My personal view is that cost should not ever be the issue.

Duty of care requires the highest possible standard available.

The Government/body politic requires Perf "A" for the public at large, what justification is there for less as staff.

We are talking about valuable company and human assets.

If I was to or could put a valuation on the training and experience residing in the tech and cabin crew it would have to be going towards many millions of Pounds.

I base this on a rough calculation of the cost of my training, recurrency and experience including cost of simulator and aircraft time.

Might I suggest that the hidden cost of the "loss" of the training and experience invested in that crew as well as the cost of their replacement would have more than covered the extra "expense" for many years hence.

Road travel whilst on duty other than the crew bus, should not even be an economic alternative when you calculate the loss of productive time of the tech and cabin crew.

And that doesn't include the subsequent legal, damages and fines if they do.

The only justification for the use of the Perf "C" in this context was, that it must have been more economic in straight dollars and time than road in the first place, all road safety issues aside. They just did not then, for reasons already discussed, take that small further step.

I guess it comes down to scheduling, rostering, using your own product or, having more crew available.:eek:

A handfull of revenue seats anywhere to anywhere, will always be cheaper than Perf "A" charter.

Road is just not on if there is an alternative.

[jumpseater]

Our company has a basic requirement spec for perf A, non piston, this means in 'real' terms King Air 200 spec or upwards, even though I don't think B200's are perf A in the UK. Also two fully licensed crew (not pilot assistant) full IFR wx radar and de-ice capability. We also extend this to engineers as well. For spares only, we can go for a lower spec a/c.

Perhaps of interest we will use helicopters in extremis and have a similar robust hire policy for their use too!

An important factor for the hirer is knowing the basic types well enough so you don't hire the wrong type!

Don't get me started on the subject of our favoured choice of road transport provider :mad:

[gaunty]

jumpseater

That is a very good start and sounds like they are on the right track, but that is also where I think the different countries regulatory confusion is.

It may be Perf "A" but it is not FAR25 transport category with its inbuilt "guaranteed take off ", construction, redundancy requirements and underlying safety philosophy in the same way is a Lear, Citation or B747. Yup same rules for all.
In fact the latest Lear, Citation X and I think Global Express are buillt to a higher or the latest amendment of FAR25 than the B744.
The B200 in certification terms, is just a 'big' turbine 'light' twin version of the Queen Air, the same way that a Cessna Conquest 11 is a pressurised turbine version of the C404.

I might need some tuition on your Perf "A" requirements because I thought that it would have applied to aircraft => 5700 kg, which automatically encompasses the FAR25 or its equivalent.
Mind you the British seem to have their own take on this from the days when they built airliners which was more robust than the US, which is why it would surprise me if the B200/C441 types were classed as Perf "A" .

D P Davies wrote the definitive book on this (Handling the Big Jets) and his Dept was IMHO the world "benchmark" as they either refused certification point blank (rightly so IMHO ands subsequently justified) to some US types or required substantial modification to correct dodgy design and certification.

The UK authorities were also responsible for uncovering some fraudulent certification data, which ultimately led to the demise of that company.

The King Air B200 is a fine aircraft but it is still only FAR23 certification, with only the same performance and construction requirements as the C404 and does not have the FAR25 transport category performance required for "airline".

It is possible by reducing the TOW and a bit of fiddling around with V speeds to "emulate" FAR 25 performance, but that is all that it can do "emulate".

If it is Raisbeck "modified" then it further complicates the V speed issue negatively. The use of this "mod performance" as "routine" rather than the "buffer" it was intended to provide is pushing the envelope even further away from the FAR25 philosophy.

As I said a good start but not entirely, IMHO, out of the woods.

Two fully licensed crew is good, multi crew trained is better.

Two "single pilot" trained crew, playing at multicrew work, is just plain asking for it.

I would hope it did have wx rdr and "known icing", as it is not possible to safely fly a turbine anywhere much at all without both being fully operational.
I'm barely here to tell you about what happens when the "known icing" fails on these types and I've got the seat cover with neat round holes in it to prove it.:D

Our regulator, actually, would you believe it, removed the radar requirement from this class of aircraft, due to operator pressure on repair and maintenance costs.:eek: there were some pics a year or so ago on D & G that showed the results of this insanity.

[411A]

gaunty,

With regard to the B200/super 200 KingAir or CE441 aircraft, altho still FAR23/CAR3b equipment, are chartered EVERYDAY by businessmen/women for corporate business flights.
Is it your opinion that these flights are unsafe?
And, if not, are positioning aircrew entitled to "better" aircraft than businessmen/women who charter these aeroplanes regularly?:rolleyes:

[dick badcock]

Then there is the other extreme. I spoke to an engineer for a charter airline a while back. He told me how his company was so tight that rather than fly him from the London area to Glasgow direct, they put him on a DC10 (own) that was going to Glasgow through Cyprus. An 11 hour day rather than the 1.5 it should have been. And he flew from London to Birmingham via Palma.

I don't mind being PY'ed in any aircraft that operates for commuter airlines, as long as they have 20 seats or more.

[RatherBeFlying]

Behind all this is the fact that the powers that be generally match up airworthiness requirements to seats as well as type of operation. The fellow flying his own design microlight is dealing with a gross weight significantly lighter than the engineering documentation for a modern airliner.

To put it brutally, the requirements become more stringent as the potential number of dead bodies increases.

Light twin charter operatiors can claim that they are regulated by the same body that regulates the national airline; however we know the rules and supervision are by no means the same, especially those pilots who survived flying for such operators before moving up.

Couple that to the training doctrine for piston light twins and some turboprops that assumes perf A performance -- and can generally get it with only two aboard, if not revenue flights at gross or a couple hundred pounds over.

The emphasis seems to be on rapid cleanup because there is no climb until then, but this need for rapid actions increases the probability of shutting down the wrong engine. In perf A, the doctrine seems to be just get into the initial V2 climb and then sort things out deliberately (eg, throttle down before shutdown) -- it does help immensely to know the climb is still there with everything down.

Has anybody taking a flight test on a piston light twin passed the EFATO section by throttling back and announcing a landing straight ahead?

[411A]

RatherBeFlying--
Yes, as a matter of fact. Did so on the ATPL check ride in 1966 in an Aztec, and that is exactly what the FAA inspector wanted to hear.
To quote him...."this damn thing sure won't climb in this heat...." (hot summer day at KBFL).
In fact, there were two inspectors onboard, one (general aviation guy) watching me and the other (air carrier guy) watching him.
Later, at KLAX (much cooler), did the usual drill, before delivering the air carrier guy to his office.

[Capt Homesick]

I deleted my last post because it was factually inaccurate- there is enough garbage on the net that I will not knowingly add to it. :) Yup, I mixed up my FARs! :rolleyes:
However, one part of my post remains valid: there are operators who use both Perf A and C aircraft, on scheduled airline operations. Yes, the fare-paying public can travel on Perf C aircraft!

[gaunty]

411A

CAR3b =safe
FAR23 =safer
FAR25 = safest

With regard to the B200/super 200 KingAir or CE441 aircraft, altho still FAR23/CAR3b equipment, are chartered EVERYDAY by businessmen/women for corporate business flights.

True in general terms, but most "enlightened" companies now insist on FAR25 equipment.
It is a question of "informed consent".

Is it your opinion that these flights are unsafe?

In relative terms yes, otherwise their use would be allowed unequivocally for RPT and before you tell me that they are used for such, you should go and look at your FARs which currently "grandfather" existing operators use of them and prevent any new start ups from using them with a total embargo after 2010.

And, if not, are positioning aircrew entitled to "better" aircraft than businessmen/women who charter these aeroplanes regularly

Simply yes, their employer does not usually give positioning crew the luxury/benefit of “choice”.
As far as the "businessmen/women who charter these aeroplanes regularly" are concerned, I posit that should they become "informed" that they would if they were able, make other choices.

In Australia we are a fair way down the road in this regard.

RatherBeFlying

To put it brutally, the requirements become more stringent as the potential number of dead bodies increases.

It may seem like that is the case but it is not the philosophical basis.
It was more to do with the evolution of the Regulations.
It was not so long ago that 30 seats (DC3) was a biggie and then the latter day Jumbos (DC4-6 L1049) arrived with 50-60 seats.

The use of FAR23 types in what was defined as SFAR 23 “commuter” services and the larger “commuter” variants that came out of them such as the B1900, Metro et al, came out of the huge surge of traffic generated by new start-up commuters as a result of the deregulation in 1978 of the airline system and the recognition that there were no suitably sized FAR25 type aircraft available nor likely within a short time frame.
The regulators placed as many qualifiers on the existing types performance as was possible, and formulated SFAR 41 as a precursor to SFAR23 as an attempt to raise the safety bar for the use of FAR23 types towards FAR25 if they were to be used for public transport as a interim measure only.

A visit here is illuminating.

http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/TypeDesignChangesSFAR41Airplanes.rtf

Here is the flavour of the time.

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 41 was a temporary rule intended to increase aircraft availability for the commuter market, which was burgeoning since enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. This regulation was intended to provide relief to the industry and the public from the lack of suitable certification procedures and standards, and to bridge the gap between Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 23 and 25 for the type and size of airplane that is appropriate for the commuter category. By meeting the SF AR 41 provisions, these airplanes could accommodate the surge in commuter airlines immediately following deregulation.

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/fsat/fsat9602.doc

The use of FAR23 types will be allowed for those already operating them but will be totally banned after 2010


Capt Homesick see above.
Yes they are for the moment, but not for long. It was only ever a matter of expediency.


Has anybody taking a flight test on a piston light twin passed the EFATO section by throttling back and announcing a landing straight ahead?

411A can go to the top of the class with the correct answer. BTW operated a brand spanking new one a lifetime ago

The Regulatory authorities in OZ, at ground level at least, have much to answer for in the insistence on perpetuating the myth of continued flight.
There is a fundamental lack of knowledge at this level.

EFATO on a FAR23 type has the potential for serious grief many many magnitudes beyond that of a FAR25 type unless the close the throttles and land straight ahead mind set is used as the initial action until alternative actions can be assured.

Heres an example of as pretty good performer;
Cessna 421C
ISA at SL, ROC One Engine Inop Gross weight =350 fpm at 111 KIAS.
ISA + 10 at SL, ROC One Engine Inop Gross weight =280fpm at 111 KIAS.
ISA + 20 at SL, ROC One Engine Inop Gross weight =210fpm at 111 KIAS.

That is only available after the aircraft is cleaned up and the usual 5deg into operative engine 1/2 ball slip.

That’s for straight ahead and does not consider the effects of a turn.

Subtract values listed below from value obtained above. Effects for a combination of gear, flap or windmilling propeller may be obtained by adding the effects for each.
Inoperative Engine
Windmilling = 400fpm
Gear Down = 350 fpm
Flap 15 = 200fpm not used for TO
Flap 45 = 800fpm.

Go figure the obstacle clearance basket for your local operation and then decide whether you want to chance your arm into other than the least worst area directly in front of you.

Dont imagine for a minute that your FAR23 turboprop does much or any better. Good old manufacturing competition ensures that it wont.

[RatherBeFlying]

Gaunty has rightfully crowned me with the regulatory history dunce cap.

So how many since 411A in 1966 have passed the EFATO section of a flight test in a light twin by throttling back and announcing a landing straight ahead?

[Rob_L]

I noted that one major UK airline recently chartered an ATR 42 to transport 3 cabin crew and an F/O from one UK airport to another.
Plenty of room to stretch their legs but where is the financial sense in that?

Having recently hurtled down a Dutch motorway in a crew bus with the driver attempting to break the sound barrier, I reckon by air has got to be safer in virtually anything with wings.

[411A]

Rob_L
Likewise with the soundbarrier driver, except mine was on the DXB-AUH highway in the fog at 4am and nearly hit a camel, never mind falling asleep from time to time. Ugh!

Gaunty,
Have to respectfully disagree with a few points.
FAR23 turboprops will still be permitted in adhoc charter ops (FAR135) for a long time to come, not phased out in 2010. Only applies to scheduled services.
And speaking of turboprops, flew a B200 KingAir very recently, and had the left engine autofeather just after rotation...climbed away nicely on one, no problems at all.
Think the business folks will be safe for now...:)

[gaunty]

411A

You are of course correct about FAR135 but that was not the point of my post.

Which was that employees and by that I mean crew, should be entitled to the same standards as that required by the public in RPT.
And;
The regulators are not all that comfortable with FAR23 types in that mode, hence the rule change.
So why should not the crew of a gazillion dollar aircraft with X00 hundred lives as their responsibility be entitled to the "safest" and that includes the kamikaze taxi drivers, been there, if only as an economic imperative for the operator

It's not about macho.

Of course the B200 and others like it will "climb away nicely on one", again not the point. On a nice cool day without any climb gradient challenges.
If the segment performance they will produce was acceptable for the public at large and fit happily inside the obstacle clearance basket then why go to all the trouble and thrust to produce the FAR25 result.
Heck, if thats not an issue, why, we could have been carrying many extra tonnes of fuel pax or whatever for all that time.

And yes the business folk are safe as long as they don't look too closely at the FAR23 turboprop v FAR25 accident statistics.

It's their choice, I'll bet your company don't pay you enough money for you to have to make one.

There is a very good reason why the worlds largest GA, manufacturer now only builds jets for this market, the very littlies in the range to FAR23 but with FAR25 performance.

Which is really the nub of the argument, it is the evolution of the "jet" engine with its power to weight ratio that has provided the opportunity for the evolution of the FAR25 philosophy and its many iterations and its availability to all types of travellers. Business folks as well.

I recently spent more time in a courtroom than I care for, giving expert testimony, for two separate cases with a third imminent. Between 7-8 passengers in each one, all in 70's FAR23 twins and yes, one was a B200, another a 690B each one thought that they were being "protected" by the regulator to the same level as "the airlines". Each operation was "legal", 2 commuter, 1 FIFO charter.

They were not fully "informed" and I will see the look on the relatives faces and that of the coroner in my dreams for a long time yet, at the point at which they they became "informed".

There was no information made available to them in regard to the differences and they perceived that if it had a regulatory stamp, which it did, then they all must be the same just smaller.
It's the old perception v expectation v reality.

And the reason I started this subject in Sept 1999, was because of the same lack of "informnedness" in the professional pilot population.

Feel free to disagree, I will not be offended, I just happen to believe, that what was acceptable in the late sixties early seventies which is where these types certification came from is no longer so. They may have been state of the art then but are not know by any measure, tricked up with glass etc maybe, but they are still basically 60's technology and most would not now obtain certification to the current amendments.

How do I know this, because, like you I was there.

We have moved on a very considerable distance from there dont you agree.:cool:

[Capt Homesick]

Gaunty, I've already demonstrated my knowledge of FARs :rolleyes: , so I'll accept unreservedly your point that such operations will cease in the US after 2010. However, here in the UK, I'm not aware of plans to prevent Perf C operations- especially in the Highlands and Islands, where Islanders and Twin Otters carry a great deal of traffic. Westray to Papa Westray in an RJ, anyone?
I'd be interested to hear what will happen in Canada, where small aircraft serve an even more important role in serving isolated communities.

[411A]

gaunty,

Yes, would agree that some of the CAR3 aircraft now flying would not meet present day certification requirements, but neither would the (for example) early models of the B707 meet present day FAR25 requirements, handling difficulties and all. Yet, if I wanted to put one into service, heavy checks, required emergency equipment (including floor lighting etc) could be done, and presto, ancient airlines would be open for business.

To throw these older CAR3/FAR23 still viable aircraft on the scrap heap seems unreasonable to me. Use 'em for charter, they still provide reasonable safety margins, IF properly operated.

[gaunty]

Capt Homesick

Canada and Oz have a lot in common geographically and demographically, except we play better cricket and you wouldn't get me anywhere but the bleachers at an ice hockey game.:D

And I know the Highlands and Islands.
We operated the first BN2 in OZ and they were then perfect for the short developmental routes.

We have the exactly the problem you describe down here, in so far as isolated communities are concerned and there isn't an easy answer.

Well there, is but the Governments aren't all that keen to subsidise a system that would provide "equity" in safety to those isolated communities that cannot support it on their own.

Down here and I suspect it is a universal problem, there is always someone who reckons they can do it cheaper and without subsidy using old technology bangers and thereby condemning those communities to GroundHog Day in aviation terms.:)

We have had enough fatalities down here in busted arse old crap, to get some attention from the pollies, but that doesn't mean that we are out of the woods yet.

411A

To throw these older CAR3/FAR23 still viable aircraft on the scrap heap seems unreasonable to me. Use 'em for charter, they still provide reasonable safety margins, IF properly operated.

Can't argue too much with that, IF properly operated except that in Dunnunda they (by that I mean the busted arse brigade) have taken this concept to its extreme evolution.

25,000 + hour airframes, maintained on the smell of an oily rag and the good old Parker wrench, flown by mere yoofs, usually for next to nothing just for the time, with an Ops Manual full of old wives tales and the usual myths.

It's back to front you see, because the very age and inherent performance limitations REQUIRE the MOST experienced to operate properly/safely, given the higher potential for disaster, yet it is the LEAST experienced that will always get the guernsey.

I wont bore you with the details of a really scary FAR135 type, audit flight in a C421B who had just been signed off by the regulator. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

It's safer for every one if they are at the knackers.

Dont get me wrong there are some who try very hard but they get ground down by financial pressures and rarely survive the price war.

Now as for the B707 when I get as rich as JT I'm gonna buy me one of them too, park it down the local aero club and go for the odd circuit and scenic even perhaps enter the monthly spot landing comp. I'll let you know and we can go have some fun.
An old training Capt friend of mine, now retired, has some wonderful photos of him standing in the wreckage of a B707, with engines scattered on and around the runway as a result of an assy training exercise gone wrong.
They all walked away unscathed, he swears by the way they were built like the proverbial brick s#ithouse.

But it's time to move on at least for the public anyway.

[Rob_L]

All things are relative. A few years ago I was speaking to a Dutch ships pilot about to be winched off a tanker in a force six gale in winter 3 o'clock in the morning. I suggested that this was an alarming prospect. He smiled and said the alternative was to transfer down the ladder into a launch which would be seriously trying to kill him. In any case this is what they pay me for.