Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not that 2 Grope and STC are unaware; there are and have been many 'low and middle-order' staff who have pointed out the folly of the hierarchy's course of action.
It is just that high-level decisions are made by 'the hiearchy' without consulting the expert advice below them. If, indeed, their airships ever listen to this advice, it all too late, as assurances are often already given to STC/PJHQ/AFB and ministers
"We are cuntent to manage the risk".
What a pants a way to do things!
All this acheives is to show a total lack of inclusive leadership and to waste our valuable ac, along with the lives of our irreplaceable friends!
I am sure, however, that the hierarchy are not devoid of feelings and they do not rest easy at night. Nor should they. It is, however, too late for remorse and they should have thought about that first. Furthermore, they should have the honour and decency to say so. Recompense to the families would also be a start.
God forbid we lose any more.
It is just that high-level decisions are made by 'the hiearchy' without consulting the expert advice below them. If, indeed, their airships ever listen to this advice, it all too late, as assurances are often already given to STC/PJHQ/AFB and ministers
"We are cuntent to manage the risk".
What a pants a way to do things!
All this acheives is to show a total lack of inclusive leadership and to waste our valuable ac, along with the lives of our irreplaceable friends!
I am sure, however, that the hierarchy are not devoid of feelings and they do not rest easy at night. Nor should they. It is, however, too late for remorse and they should have thought about that first. Furthermore, they should have the honour and decency to say so. Recompense to the families would also be a start.
God forbid we lose any more.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'appropriate'
I suppose that when/if the 'K' foam conversion is completed, foam will be another defensive aid added to the 'J' shopping list. The use of the word 'appropriate' should be consigned to the same bin marked "pretty straight sort of guy." Prior to 30 Jan 05 it was not considered 'appropiate' by the MoD to have foam in the wing tanks. The fuel tank exploded on XV179 and yet it is still not 'appropriate' to have foam in the wing tanks. Due to the frame shortage at Lyneham 'K' and 'J' crews are flying in the same theatres of war. They fly with different levels of protection. Dr Reid's statement may have fooled some of his fellow MPs but it does not fool anyone who understands the Hercules fleet. Equally, it will not fool a lawyer in a courtroom.
Maybe it is time we were given an 'appropriate' defence minister who is willing to take 'appropriate' responsibility for his/her actions.
Maybe it is time we were given an 'appropriate' defence minister who is willing to take 'appropriate' responsibility for his/her actions.
Last edited by nigegilb; 27th Mar 2006 at 19:42.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
foam fight
dear guys, do not fret we are here to help your fight. it's lovely bob o'connors sis here again. i've got my mum and dad here and i've brought them up to date with the situation and the b@&*s@#t that is coming from on high . while we read, my mum is breaking her heart with sadness and anger. so as far as we're concerned the fight has only started. we've been made aware if any action is taken there may be consequences with our pensions, but we do not frighten easily! nige you have a family prepared to take this all the way. you will all get your protection and the government will be brought to task. i have paperwork that shows the question of defensive aids was put to ingram back as far as 2001, so that will hopefully help! 
i was concerned yet relieved to see that there is talk, all be it tentatively, of K 's finally getting foam. i hope that this is not lip service, as we have had a gutsful of that.it's a help to know that you will start to have protection, but we don't want to see that just a handful of you will get it. you already have to endure a daily lottery with your lives and we want protection for all. that point is to be stressed. we do not want to cause offence within the armed forces we simply want to help. they owe us! we couldn't help bob
, but we hope to be able to help you. we do not want the focus on us, it's to be about the serving aircrew and their passengers, who must be protected 100%.i'm sorry for not getting in contact with you, time seems to runaway. we must meet. 
i was concerned yet relieved to see that there is talk, all be it tentatively, of K 's finally getting foam. i hope that this is not lip service, as we have had a gutsful of that.it's a help to know that you will start to have protection, but we don't want to see that just a handful of you will get it. you already have to endure a daily lottery with your lives and we want protection for all. that point is to be stressed. we do not want to cause offence within the armed forces we simply want to help. they owe us! we couldn't help bob , but we hope to be able to help you. we do not want the focus on us, it's to be about the serving aircrew and their passengers, who must be protected 100%.i'm sorry for not getting in contact with you, time seems to runaway. we must meet.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Chappie, thank you for being so brave, you have a lot of support out there. It has been said earlier that we would like to see the relatives receive compensation, I sincerely hope this will happen. If I can help in any way I would be delighted to do so.
With regard to the answers provided by both Dr Reid and Ingram concerning the cancellation of the J DAS program and the refusal to list the actual defensive aids on the J/K on the grounds that it may affect the security of service personnel, I offer the following. Do not place Hercules crews in harms way if they do not have adequate protection. Adopt a common standard of protection for the Hercules fleet. Ensure passengers are provided with protection. Instead the Government has admitted that it cancelled J upgrade on grounds of cost and it is afraid once again to admit to the inadequate protection of Hercules crews and their passengers. The only glimmer of hope is the fact that the Government is taking so long to answer the PQs that kicked this thread off. I believe we may have affected a change of course for the better.
With regard to the answers provided by both Dr Reid and Ingram concerning the cancellation of the J DAS program and the refusal to list the actual defensive aids on the J/K on the grounds that it may affect the security of service personnel, I offer the following. Do not place Hercules crews in harms way if they do not have adequate protection. Adopt a common standard of protection for the Hercules fleet. Ensure passengers are provided with protection. Instead the Government has admitted that it cancelled J upgrade on grounds of cost and it is afraid once again to admit to the inadequate protection of Hercules crews and their passengers. The only glimmer of hope is the fact that the Government is taking so long to answer the PQs that kicked this thread off. I believe we may have affected a change of course for the better.
Last edited by nigegilb; 27th Mar 2006 at 14:57.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks nige. i've given this alot of thought and there is no way that i can make sense of the positions that you're being placed in as aircrew on the alberts! whilst ac that are placed in theatre should not be there until FULL defence aids and foam are installed, the aircraft who do the cargo drops/freight runs should also be of the same standard. i've already said this once today but i think this is true...the ministers wouldnt get into a car knowing that the brakes aren't there to protect them, so why expect the men and women of the armed forces to get into a hercules without the full defensive aids suite AND foam. don't put aircrew into a plane that like the car with no brakes is unable to offer them full protection. while the risk in theatre is greater it must be remembered that all it took to down my brothers plane was a bullet....and a lethal tank half full of fuel. with guerilla warfare in the countries where you go, there is always the risk of being shot at. when at the inquiry being told of the involvement of the fuel tank and how foam is one of the recommendations we had our attention brought to two officers who at different times while flying their hercules were shot at! we listened, stunned, while we were told of how ones fuel tank drained when shot and the other had to be told he'd been shot at once landed! how very thoughtful of them to underline how else it could have been...but did'nt. the point to the anecdote...bugger knows! i guess to highlight the fact they all keep their heads in the sand, fingers crossed and hope to god it does'nt happen again. XV179 was an accident waiting to happen, but it has'nt changed anything so even losing lives won't wake them from the dreamland they inhabit. good luck guys...you'll need it!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
me again!!! if that does#'nt make much sense sorry! am v. tired but have turned into an insomniac these days....i wonder if i can blame the government for that as well! take care!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chappie, your analysis is spot on and your timing is immaculate. It is curious that no official announcement has been made about the fitting of foam to the smart K fleet. If your reaction is anything to go by, I doubt very much if the MoD will be able to silence its critics about the lack of protection on the Hercules fleet. I suspect there really is a rethink going on. Failing to protect the J fleet is lunacy but it does provide a glimpse of the sort of thinking that goes on at the top of the MoD. Dr Reid argued that it was a lucky shot and yet 2 other ac from the same small section were hit in the previous few months. You should not have to rely on luck if you are sent to war, we all know at some stage your luck runs out. Some of my former colleagues believe that this tragedy could easily happen again. I have also spoken with some of the widows and they are desperate for this not to happen to anyone else. Until we hear the decision the pressure is maintained.
Thought I would show you what the airlines are doing about it.
FAA Proposes Rule to Reduce Fuel Tank Explosion Risk
WASHINGTON, D.C. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today proposed a rule that would make aviation significantly safer by requiring more than 3,200 existing and certain new large passenger jets to reduce flammability levels of fuel tank vapors.
"Safer fuel tanks on aircraft will help prevent the possibility of future explosions and the tragic loss of lives," U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta said.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would require aircraft operators to reduce the flammability levels of fuel tank vapors on the ground and in the air to remove the likelihood of a potential explosion from an ignition source. The proposed rule is designed to reduce the likelihood of a repeat of the four fuel tank explosions over the past 16 years, including the 1996 TWA 800 accident, that together have resulted in 346 fatalities.
"This proposed rule is the next step to close the book on fuel tank explosions," said FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey. "We're proposing to increase the level of aircraft safety by reducing the potentially explosive ingredient of flammable fuel vapors."
These aircraft are not even being shot at!
Thought I would show you what the airlines are doing about it.
FAA Proposes Rule to Reduce Fuel Tank Explosion Risk
WASHINGTON, D.C. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today proposed a rule that would make aviation significantly safer by requiring more than 3,200 existing and certain new large passenger jets to reduce flammability levels of fuel tank vapors.
"Safer fuel tanks on aircraft will help prevent the possibility of future explosions and the tragic loss of lives," U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta said.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would require aircraft operators to reduce the flammability levels of fuel tank vapors on the ground and in the air to remove the likelihood of a potential explosion from an ignition source. The proposed rule is designed to reduce the likelihood of a repeat of the four fuel tank explosions over the past 16 years, including the 1996 TWA 800 accident, that together have resulted in 346 fatalities.
"This proposed rule is the next step to close the book on fuel tank explosions," said FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey. "We're proposing to increase the level of aircraft safety by reducing the potentially explosive ingredient of flammable fuel vapors."
These aircraft are not even being shot at!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for that. i think that part of the difference why crew and passengers are valued more by civillian airlines is the risk of lawsuits is increased tenfold as the public are at threat. the aircrew of the armed forces are doing their job and go into dangerous situation under the pretext of war, so who is going to start a lawsuit if the protection is'nt there!?! i bet you pond to a penny that one of the reasons. the government think that they're untouchable. however, the higher up you go the further you fall. i don't lnow if it's of anty use but i know somone who works on the hercules in marshalls. will this be useful?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many times must we ask for protection?
If ac protection is not available - and if totally robust proper procedures on the ground are not in place - day or night - (many don't believe this is possible), then the ac shouldn't be there - end!
Keep asking the questions, Nige
Flipster
If ac protection is not available - and if totally robust proper procedures on the ground are not in place - day or night - (many don't believe this is possible), then the ac shouldn't be there - end!
Keep asking the questions, Nige
Flipster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that the claims made in both of my letters to the Defence Committee are being investigated by the Military. I also understand that this is contributing to the delay in the PQs being answered. In the mean time I have asked sympathetic MPs to question the Government on the following;
1. Why are we the only customer of the A400 not ordering fuel tank inerting equipment?
2. Would the US Government be happy to allow its troops in Afghanistan to be passengered on RAF Hercules ac without foam protection in the wing tanks?
I believe Mr Ingram might be trying to get his ducks in a row before the next meeting of Defence Committee.
1. Why are we the only customer of the A400 not ordering fuel tank inerting equipment?
2. Would the US Government be happy to allow its troops in Afghanistan to be passengered on RAF Hercules ac without foam protection in the wing tanks?
I believe Mr Ingram might be trying to get his ducks in a row before the next meeting of Defence Committee.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure we really want to answer that question. Ingram was informed personally of the actual situation in Afghanistan in 2002, all he did was provide hollow reassurance.
This is what an MP mailed to me today;
"I am very anxious that if politicians put the lives of others in harms
way the very least that can be done is to ensure that every effort is
made to make sure lives are not needlessly endangered by cutting corners."
This whole issue of safety is very damaging to the Government, would you trust them with the lives of your own children? Unless it is sorted and sorted quickly the recruitment difficulty faced by the Armed Forces in general will rapidly turn into a crisis.
This is what an MP mailed to me today;
"I am very anxious that if politicians put the lives of others in harms
way the very least that can be done is to ensure that every effort is
made to make sure lives are not needlessly endangered by cutting corners."
This whole issue of safety is very damaging to the Government, would you trust them with the lives of your own children? Unless it is sorted and sorted quickly the recruitment difficulty faced by the Armed Forces in general will rapidly turn into a crisis.
Last edited by nigegilb; 28th Mar 2006 at 17:07.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I concur totally but the highest concern, I'm sure you'd agree, is that the lives of our crews and their pax are apparently being put at risk-levels that the US, AUS (and other forces) are not prepared to accept - either by improving their ac - or by not going 'sausage-side'.
This is despite many close calls and sad losses (going back to the Falklands) that have underlined the fact that some of our AT ac may have weaknesses. By right, ALL of our ac should have been 'sorted out' by now.....but, criminally, they have not.
Furthermore, in my opinion, 'Military Risk' is no longer a sufficient defence behind which 'our leaders' can hide, if indeed, it ever was?
Good hunting
This is despite many close calls and sad losses (going back to the Falklands) that have underlined the fact that some of our AT ac may have weaknesses. By right, ALL of our ac should have been 'sorted out' by now.....but, criminally, they have not.
Furthermore, in my opinion, 'Military Risk' is no longer a sufficient defence behind which 'our leaders' can hide, if indeed, it ever was?
Good hunting
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all just makes me a little bit angry. Heard a rumour that the A400M bods spent an absolute fortune (UK contribution £50M +) redesigning the engine so that it has an 'operationally essential' brake to stop the twirlly bits spinning on the ground. How many sets of DAS/sets of ballistic matting/sets of tank foam would that have bought? So instead, as Flight International reported, we will have only 9 of 25 ac fitted with DAS.
Hope it swaps easily between aircraft as those 9 sets are sure going to be in demand....
Hope it swaps easily between aircraft as those 9 sets are sure going to be in demand....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed a fine question!
Along the same lines, I can remember someone-or-other Boulton/Poulton (not sure - ex-staish at Brize, I think) doing a sales pitch for the A400 at a sqn trg day. Someone asked if the clever electronic heart/brain of the ac was to have protection - like a kevlar box (oo-er) around the FMGSs/FMCs/equivalents?
His answer was something along the lines of
'its an option but the RAF haven't bothered to order it'.
Well, it will be great if our ac eventually get wing foam/DAS but they could still fall out of the sky after being rendered ac uncontrolable when a stray AK47 round could take out the fly-by-wire at LL! Beagle may help here but I gather there will no proper mechanical back-up?
Along the same lines, I can remember someone-or-other Boulton/Poulton (not sure - ex-staish at Brize, I think) doing a sales pitch for the A400 at a sqn trg day. Someone asked if the clever electronic heart/brain of the ac was to have protection - like a kevlar box (oo-er) around the FMGSs/FMCs/equivalents?
His answer was something along the lines of
'its an option but the RAF haven't bothered to order it'.
Well, it will be great if our ac eventually get wing foam/DAS but they could still fall out of the sky after being rendered ac uncontrolable when a stray AK47 round could take out the fly-by-wire at LL! Beagle may help here but I gather there will no proper mechanical back-up?
Regarding the 21st century's most advanced military airlifter:
The A400M flight control system obtains information from the sidesticks and rudder pedals which is processed by 4 flight control computers which signal the input to hydraulic control surface actuators. Even in the event of the failure of all 4 FCCs, an independent electrical back up system controls additional electro-hydrostatic actuators for all 3 axes. Flaps, spoilers and stab trim are powered by both hydraulic systems.
Segregation between flight control system power sources, distributed routing of electrical cables and distributed avionic racking is a standard feature to maximise battle damage resistance.
An on-board fuel tank inerting system is offered as an option, providing the capability of extracting the air dissolved in the fuel and replacing it with nitrogen-enriched air, as well as filling the ullage space in each tank with nitrogen-enriched air. This reduces the risk of a fire hazard in a battle environment.
I cannot confirm or deny whether the MoD's caring defence procurement folk have specified this option for the UK's A400M - perhaps your local MP might be able to find out?
The A400M flight control system obtains information from the sidesticks and rudder pedals which is processed by 4 flight control computers which signal the input to hydraulic control surface actuators. Even in the event of the failure of all 4 FCCs, an independent electrical back up system controls additional electro-hydrostatic actuators for all 3 axes. Flaps, spoilers and stab trim are powered by both hydraulic systems.
Segregation between flight control system power sources, distributed routing of electrical cables and distributed avionic racking is a standard feature to maximise battle damage resistance.
An on-board fuel tank inerting system is offered as an option, providing the capability of extracting the air dissolved in the fuel and replacing it with nitrogen-enriched air, as well as filling the ullage space in each tank with nitrogen-enriched air. This reduces the risk of a fire hazard in a battle environment.
I cannot confirm or deny whether the MoD's caring defence procurement folk have specified this option for the UK's A400M - perhaps your local MP might be able to find out?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Beagle
As I said, no mechanical back-up but, at least, the electro-hydrostatic for all surfaces is a lot better than nowt and more than commercial aircraft get - all we get is rudder and manual pitch trim but we do get about 7 FC computers instead!
I am sure the wiring for the A400M IS all separated, thank the lord
, but is there no protection for the 4 FCCs at all? The Airbus chap gave the distinct impression that there was an option - or is the fact that they all in different, well-separated locations deemed sufficient??
Unfortunately, we all know the rumours surrounding the fuel fire suppressant!
As I said, no mechanical back-up but, at least, the electro-hydrostatic for all surfaces is a lot better than nowt and more than commercial aircraft get - all we get is rudder and manual pitch trim but we do get about 7 FC computers instead!
I am sure the wiring for the A400M IS all separated, thank the lord
, but is there no protection for the 4 FCCs at all? The Airbus chap gave the distinct impression that there was an option - or is the fact that they all in different, well-separated locations deemed sufficient??Unfortunately, we all know the rumours surrounding the fuel fire suppressant!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400M; several points have been raised with Defence Committee member, no answers yet, but the more we highlight now the greater the chance of influencing its procurement. Latest answer from Ingram concerns the issuing of the SA80 to crews at Lyneham.
SA80 Rifle
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will issue the SA80 assault rifle to C130 crews for self-defence purposes; and if he will make a statement. [61142]
Mr. Ingram: Royal Air Force Air Transport and Air Refuelling Squadrons have the flexibility to decide which weapons their crews should carry. RAF C130 aircrew operating in the most hostile environments have been carrying the SA80 weapon for many years.
I hate to assume anything with our friend Mr Ingram but does this mean that there is no shortage of SA80 at Lyneham and that crews will be issued with something other than a pistol?
SA80 Rifle
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will issue the SA80 assault rifle to C130 crews for self-defence purposes; and if he will make a statement. [61142]
Mr. Ingram: Royal Air Force Air Transport and Air Refuelling Squadrons have the flexibility to decide which weapons their crews should carry. RAF C130 aircrew operating in the most hostile environments have been carrying the SA80 weapon for many years.
I hate to assume anything with our friend Mr Ingram but does this mean that there is no shortage of SA80 at Lyneham and that crews will be issued with something other than a pistol?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so much gave up - more like effectively 'sacked' - for daring to ask questions - but that is history and is not important.
What IS important is that our sqns and crews get what they ask for - and have been asking for - for yonks!
Unfortunately, the crews and Sqns are between a rock and a hard place. The politicians have said something in AFG WILL happen and have told our very seniors officers 'to make it so'.
These VSOs, in turn, have issued orders and expect 2 Gp crews to do exactly what they have been 'legally ordered' to do - that is what we do in the military. Almost everyone in between goes with that but it does not stop them querying the orders. If their bosses listen and in turn pass on the misgivings - ok! But what happens when you just get the 'do as you are told' line?
In real life, people have careers and families to care for, so most of us just get on with things. How far do things have go before before one's conscience says 'stop'? - I dunno!
All I know is that, in the past, people have asked questions of 2 Gp only to get the the 'd-a-y-a-t' treatment - SPINS or not - and with the very real threat of disciplinary action! How many would still 'fight on' given the weight of such a threat - as i said these orders are still 'legal'??
Nonetheless, I am sure the sqns are still asking the questions and that higher levels of Grope (and above) are a bit more wary of hiding behind rank and orders but sadly, the politicians are obviously unchanged. Discussions such as these and the PQs highlights the problems and one hopes, prevents the ministers from trying to pass the buck.
Flipster
Ref the crews' knowledge of SPINS, GTM and 2Gp DAS policy - after early 2002 it was, and presumably is still, ingrained into Herc crews to be fully briefed on this before they leave UK, with updates on the way. To suggest otherwise is not giving the guys enough credit - one hopes that Brize and N'holt do the same? Mind you, to get the support to do this was sometimes hard work.
What IS important is that our sqns and crews get what they ask for - and have been asking for - for yonks!
Unfortunately, the crews and Sqns are between a rock and a hard place. The politicians have said something in AFG WILL happen and have told our very seniors officers 'to make it so'.
These VSOs, in turn, have issued orders and expect 2 Gp crews to do exactly what they have been 'legally ordered' to do - that is what we do in the military. Almost everyone in between goes with that but it does not stop them querying the orders. If their bosses listen and in turn pass on the misgivings - ok! But what happens when you just get the 'do as you are told' line?
In real life, people have careers and families to care for, so most of us just get on with things. How far do things have go before before one's conscience says 'stop'? - I dunno!
All I know is that, in the past, people have asked questions of 2 Gp only to get the the 'd-a-y-a-t' treatment - SPINS or not - and with the very real threat of disciplinary action! How many would still 'fight on' given the weight of such a threat - as i said these orders are still 'legal'??
Nonetheless, I am sure the sqns are still asking the questions and that higher levels of Grope (and above) are a bit more wary of hiding behind rank and orders but sadly, the politicians are obviously unchanged. Discussions such as these and the PQs highlights the problems and one hopes, prevents the ministers from trying to pass the buck.
Flipster
Ref the crews' knowledge of SPINS, GTM and 2Gp DAS policy - after early 2002 it was, and presumably is still, ingrained into Herc crews to be fully briefed on this before they leave UK, with updates on the way. To suggest otherwise is not giving the guys enough credit - one hopes that Brize and N'holt do the same? Mind you, to get the support to do this was sometimes hard work.
Last edited by flipster; 31st Mar 2006 at 21:53.