A flying Air Trafficer!!!!?????
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ripon
Age: 64
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fail to see how this rumour has proved to be true, (just because waverider says so?) and I frankly don't believe it, and can't see why, proper brevet, you are getting so upset. If it happens, then get upset, but it hasn't and probably won't. Air tragic is air tragic and surveillance controllers belong to the FC branch. We don't have a very good track record in doing each others' jobs.
I am laughing my socks of at some of the parochial comments on here. This thread shows all the worst aspects of the RAF.
When will you lot realise....its the best person for the job, regardless of brevet, branch, service, creed or colour. Aircrew! dont make me laugh. The person will be sat it a seat looking at a radar screen, decoding ATOs and using a radio. You don't need a brevet to do that!
Wake up and smell the coffee!
When will you lot realise....its the best person for the job, regardless of brevet, branch, service, creed or colour. Aircrew! dont make me laugh. The person will be sat it a seat looking at a radar screen, decoding ATOs and using a radio. You don't need a brevet to do that!
Wake up and smell the coffee!
Last edited by Widger; 8th Feb 2007 at 07:32.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger, Blimey, I think you have misunderstood what I was getting at. Sorry that we have managed to rattle you on a lovely, sunny Monday morning. I fully agree best man for the job, however if you read back most of the comments you will find that the annoyance and concern stems from the fact that it costs the RAF to put extra people in the air......fact. It also costs the RAF to keep paying flying pay to aircrew on the ground......fact. I've tried not to diverse from the original question I posed however sometimes it's unavoidable. I hate having to say that we are in hard times at the moment but unquestionably we are. I hate to see the precious resources we have squandered when it could be spent on helping less fortunate members of the RAF in far from glamorous situations. As for your opinion on this thread being parochial (bracketsew if you haven't bought a dictionary yet, that means narrowminded oops Banter again
), yes I agree but all I did was ask a simple question. I disagree though, with your comment on this showing the worst aspect of the RAF. Obviously sir, you might have been out of the loop for a while and a quick glance at the tristar thread might change your mind.
Have a good day sir.
Ps thanks guys for answering my parochial question.
), yes I agree but all I did was ask a simple question. I disagree though, with your comment on this showing the worst aspect of the RAF. Obviously sir, you might have been out of the loop for a while and a quick glance at the tristar thread might change your mind.Have a good day sir.
Ps thanks guys for answering my parochial question.
Proper Brevet,
No offence taken. However, I would not consider getting someone airborne in a "frontish line" aircraft a waste of resources. That is exactly where the money should be going.
As regard to aircrew getting pay whilst on the ground, well that's another issue which would fill a thread of it's own. My own opinion? Well yes it is perverse but, if you withdraw it, you will hemorrhage even more valuable people.
As for cross-dressing within branches, if you are against it, you will probably lose the argument against Darth Vader!
No offence taken. However, I would not consider getting someone airborne in a "frontish line" aircraft a waste of resources. That is exactly where the money should be going.
As regard to aircrew getting pay whilst on the ground, well that's another issue which would fill a thread of it's own. My own opinion? Well yes it is perverse but, if you withdraw it, you will hemorrhage even more valuable people.
As for cross-dressing within branches, if you are against it, you will probably lose the argument against Darth Vader!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hiq et Ubique
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of sounding that I am on side with PMA (trust me, I'm not!), I can see where they are coming from with this kind of move.
33B gets to keep one more WSOp at Kinloss by using someone from ATC who they perceive as the best man for the job on the E3. It makes sense to PMA, who are desperate to keep the Kipper fleet stocked up on a dwindling supply of WSOps keen to get away from their 20 weeks a year holiday in the sand.
I can sympathise with proper brevet, as well as many guys and girls who have done their fair share of time away (and yes, so have I), deserve a break, and would give their right arm for a tour at Waddo. However, I can see (but do not agree with) the use of 'non aircrew-trained' bodies in flying posts becoming more of a trend as our numbers continue to dwindle away.
If PMA continue to send these guys to flying tours, why stop at E3's- send them north as well!!
33B gets to keep one more WSOp at Kinloss by using someone from ATC who they perceive as the best man for the job on the E3. It makes sense to PMA, who are desperate to keep the Kipper fleet stocked up on a dwindling supply of WSOps keen to get away from their 20 weeks a year holiday in the sand.
I can sympathise with proper brevet, as well as many guys and girls who have done their fair share of time away (and yes, so have I), deserve a break, and would give their right arm for a tour at Waddo. However, I can see (but do not agree with) the use of 'non aircrew-trained' bodies in flying posts becoming more of a trend as our numbers continue to dwindle away.
If PMA continue to send these guys to flying tours, why stop at E3's- send them north as well!!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger
The problem about flying pay on ground tours is really quite a simple one. Most AIRCREW (like pb) don't want to be stuck in a crappy ground job, they want to be flying! Do you think its fair therefore to further finish them off by cutting their pay?? I don't. If aircrew don't want to fly, then there is a case for stopping flying pay, but nothing else.
The fact is, there are lots of aircrew, filling ground jobs that don't want to. When they see 'non-aircrew' filling seats in aircraft, its obviously going to hack them off and they are justified to voice their concerns.
If ground tradesmen want to be aircrew then that's fine - go off and get selected like the rest of the real aircrew world, and join a sqn. But too many people have 'wormed' their way onto the E-3 fleet who frankly, shouldn't be there! They have then left the fleet, keeping their flying pay, and returned several years later, several ranks higher!
As for your comment:
When will you lot realise....its the best person for the job, regardless of brevet clearly shows you know absolutely nothing about the E-3 fleet. Up until fairly recently, the position of TD, FA and SC HAD to be filled by a commissioned officer. Anyone who has spent any time at all on the fleet knows only too well, that some of them at best are poor and at worse are incompetant. It is not about best person for the job at all, it's all about RANK! I know its now starting to change, but for the first 14 years of the E-3 that's the way it was.
Kind regards
TSM
The problem about flying pay on ground tours is really quite a simple one. Most AIRCREW (like pb) don't want to be stuck in a crappy ground job, they want to be flying! Do you think its fair therefore to further finish them off by cutting their pay?? I don't. If aircrew don't want to fly, then there is a case for stopping flying pay, but nothing else.
The fact is, there are lots of aircrew, filling ground jobs that don't want to. When they see 'non-aircrew' filling seats in aircraft, its obviously going to hack them off and they are justified to voice their concerns.
If ground tradesmen want to be aircrew then that's fine - go off and get selected like the rest of the real aircrew world, and join a sqn. But too many people have 'wormed' their way onto the E-3 fleet who frankly, shouldn't be there! They have then left the fleet, keeping their flying pay, and returned several years later, several ranks higher!
As for your comment:
When will you lot realise....its the best person for the job, regardless of brevet clearly shows you know absolutely nothing about the E-3 fleet. Up until fairly recently, the position of TD, FA and SC HAD to be filled by a commissioned officer. Anyone who has spent any time at all on the fleet knows only too well, that some of them at best are poor and at worse are incompetant. It is not about best person for the job at all, it's all about RANK! I know its now starting to change, but for the first 14 years of the E-3 that's the way it was.
Kind regards
TSM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ripon
Age: 64
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"sorry to wee on your Kellogg's but I must admit that I have heard something similar. Also, it isn't too great a secret that there is yet another study going on looking at common competencies across the trades/specialisations"
In almost 24 years as an ATCO, I have lost count of the number of times the RAF has studied the issue of cross training/amalgamation of the ATC/FC branches. I'll believe it when I see it. Don't get me wrong, i'm actually in favour of amalgamation of the 2 branches - and not from any misguided wish to sit in the back of an areoplane all day long so that I can get to wear a brevet (someone else can do that bit), but having seen how other nations have made it work, I see no reason why we shouldn't do likewise.
Call me a bit of a cynic, but like I said, I'll believe when I see it.
cheers
In almost 24 years as an ATCO, I have lost count of the number of times the RAF has studied the issue of cross training/amalgamation of the ATC/FC branches. I'll believe it when I see it. Don't get me wrong, i'm actually in favour of amalgamation of the 2 branches - and not from any misguided wish to sit in the back of an areoplane all day long so that I can get to wear a brevet (someone else can do that bit), but having seen how other nations have made it work, I see no reason why we shouldn't do likewise.
Call me a bit of a cynic, but like I said, I'll believe when I see it.
cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Various threads here.
ATC/FC amalgamation - well I don't think we should waste any more time on that one for now.
The role of E3 rear crew - does it really require some super-human being with a brevet or is it really just a mobile ops room? What 'airmanship' is required?
What would ATC bring to the party? Is there a problem with supplying suitably skilled (note I didn't say qualified) personnel from within?
Protectionism - demonstrated by TSM. It would appear that there are those that believe the mantra 'aircrew first, specialist second' whilst there are others with a more circumspect view. What are we putting in the back of Sentinel?
PS. 20+ years as an air traffiker, no inclination to do endless orbits over Yorkshire/East Anglia and no real view on whether the whole thing is a good idea or just pie-in-the-sky.
ATC/FC amalgamation - well I don't think we should waste any more time on that one for now.
The role of E3 rear crew - does it really require some super-human being with a brevet or is it really just a mobile ops room? What 'airmanship' is required?
What would ATC bring to the party? Is there a problem with supplying suitably skilled (note I didn't say qualified) personnel from within?
Protectionism - demonstrated by TSM. It would appear that there are those that believe the mantra 'aircrew first, specialist second' whilst there are others with a more circumspect view. What are we putting in the back of Sentinel?
PS. 20+ years as an air traffiker, no inclination to do endless orbits over Yorkshire/East Anglia and no real view on whether the whole thing is a good idea or just pie-in-the-sky.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dass Etc
Avtur
I was not Impunning the R1 by any means as those guys were always in the same place or up threrat from us was just trying to make the point that the
E3 is just a 707 with nothing but YG with only 1 Bloke spending about half his time listening to the relevant whistles and bleeps. Now there is always the risk element being weighed against actual threat, but it seems that there are very few people who are aware of the lack of DASS or any self protection equipment on our ISTAR assets.
If I have offended you in any way then I apologise, but if you are R1 crew then I suspect you know the need for R1 and the need for an E3 in either Sandpit at the moment.
I was not Impunning the R1 by any means as those guys were always in the same place or up threrat from us was just trying to make the point that the
E3 is just a 707 with nothing but YG with only 1 Bloke spending about half his time listening to the relevant whistles and bleeps. Now there is always the risk element being weighed against actual threat, but it seems that there are very few people who are aware of the lack of DASS or any self protection equipment on our ISTAR assets.
If I have offended you in any way then I apologise, but if you are R1 crew then I suspect you know the need for R1 and the need for an E3 in either Sandpit at the moment.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,565
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Joining a few Threads
There appear to be quite a few threads which this post may refer to - I am using this thread for obvious reasons.
The strength of the E-3D is the diverse nature of the operators down the back - as "proper" aircrew on the E-3 I can pass on my knowledge about radar etc, while the FCs can bring a knowledge of air defence procedure and data link to the party. Goodness me, there are even Naval Types down the back, plus the odd tame German and American who can help when flying with certain foreign assets. We even have a few ex-fast jet types down the back, but they tend to be a bit "punchy" rather than knowlegeable about procedure. The question is - what will an air-trafficer bring with him/her?
By joining the surveillance team, the ATC operator will NOT be allowed to talk to aircraft - this was stopped during Afghanistan 1 in 2003 because a surveillance type was helpful (if not strictly legal) to a UN truckie and gave advisory information as to the whereabouts of another aircraft, and indirectly caused an airprox. "Threat Broadcast" was stopped forth-with. Therefore, what will our "new Brevet" do? Unless there is another attempt to "legalise" threat broadcast by the surveillance team, but an instructor is required for the qualification needed - hang on!
Whilst talking of Afghanistan 1, I seem to remember that the Taleban was defeated by the use of airpower by the "Coalition" together with Afghan troops. This answers one thread at the moment about how useful air power is in anti-insurgent ops. However, we had more that 7 Harriers and a couple of helicopters then, plus a major ISTAR C3 unit was running the show. Hum...
The Blue on Blue thread running at the moment shows the need for competent C3 in theatre with better comms. Not withstanding the capability of our SNCO/WO crews, I am a firm believer that Officers are paid to make decisions and SNCOs ensure that these orders are carried out. It would be interesting to see the affect on our gung-ho SNCOs if it was one of them responsible for the mis-ID of a target that turned out to be friendly, together with the subsequent witch hunt by the media at an inquest. My morale of the story - you need Officers to take the responsibility of these decisions. If SNCOs want the responsibility then they can alwys disappear to Cranwell for a few months to earn it. It is surprizing how many SNCOs want the kudos of an officers' job without the will to take on the full responsibility of a commission.
Finally - the DAS debate. The E-3D was on continuous operations from early 1992 to the end of Iraq 2 in 2003. Personnel whining about being in the sand pit for a mere 6 months need to get some time in - we have done it (plus lots of operations time from hotels it has to be said). NATO is in charge of Afghanistan - and of us: we are a NATO assigned Unit. The NATO Force Commander has decreed that none of his aircraft will deploy to trouble spots until DAS' are fitted. End of story.
The E-3D Component is in need of an Operation again - we have not been involved for over 3 years now (not including the ever popular Hi-visibility events). As well as bringing the operational edge back to the personnel (and the "new boys") it would bring a little more treasury money back to the fleet. Please do not banter us about our non-involvement - its not our fault or desire.
I await comments with baited mouse.
The strength of the E-3D is the diverse nature of the operators down the back - as "proper" aircrew on the E-3 I can pass on my knowledge about radar etc, while the FCs can bring a knowledge of air defence procedure and data link to the party. Goodness me, there are even Naval Types down the back, plus the odd tame German and American who can help when flying with certain foreign assets. We even have a few ex-fast jet types down the back, but they tend to be a bit "punchy" rather than knowlegeable about procedure. The question is - what will an air-trafficer bring with him/her?
By joining the surveillance team, the ATC operator will NOT be allowed to talk to aircraft - this was stopped during Afghanistan 1 in 2003 because a surveillance type was helpful (if not strictly legal) to a UN truckie and gave advisory information as to the whereabouts of another aircraft, and indirectly caused an airprox. "Threat Broadcast" was stopped forth-with. Therefore, what will our "new Brevet" do? Unless there is another attempt to "legalise" threat broadcast by the surveillance team, but an instructor is required for the qualification needed - hang on!
Whilst talking of Afghanistan 1, I seem to remember that the Taleban was defeated by the use of airpower by the "Coalition" together with Afghan troops. This answers one thread at the moment about how useful air power is in anti-insurgent ops. However, we had more that 7 Harriers and a couple of helicopters then, plus a major ISTAR C3 unit was running the show. Hum...
The Blue on Blue thread running at the moment shows the need for competent C3 in theatre with better comms. Not withstanding the capability of our SNCO/WO crews, I am a firm believer that Officers are paid to make decisions and SNCOs ensure that these orders are carried out. It would be interesting to see the affect on our gung-ho SNCOs if it was one of them responsible for the mis-ID of a target that turned out to be friendly, together with the subsequent witch hunt by the media at an inquest. My morale of the story - you need Officers to take the responsibility of these decisions. If SNCOs want the responsibility then they can alwys disappear to Cranwell for a few months to earn it. It is surprizing how many SNCOs want the kudos of an officers' job without the will to take on the full responsibility of a commission.
Finally - the DAS debate. The E-3D was on continuous operations from early 1992 to the end of Iraq 2 in 2003. Personnel whining about being in the sand pit for a mere 6 months need to get some time in - we have done it (plus lots of operations time from hotels it has to be said). NATO is in charge of Afghanistan - and of us: we are a NATO assigned Unit. The NATO Force Commander has decreed that none of his aircraft will deploy to trouble spots until DAS' are fitted. End of story.
The E-3D Component is in need of an Operation again - we have not been involved for over 3 years now (not including the ever popular Hi-visibility events). As well as bringing the operational edge back to the personnel (and the "new boys") it would bring a little more treasury money back to the fleet. Please do not banter us about our non-involvement - its not our fault or desire.
I await comments with baited mouse.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wensleydale,
First of all I agree completely with the diversity of an E3 with regards to fast jet, other allied exchange etc etc. However, an air trafficer that can't speak to any aircraft is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard with regards to what he can bring to the party (even though his knowledge may be beneficial). In essence (going back to my original post) it's costing a lot more to sit him in the seat than it is an already trained aircrew guy.
London Mil, I know you mean well but the surveillance role does contain a large percentage of ESM work, it's not just about radar work which I'm sure all ATCO are au fait with. Wsop (ew) are already trained in EW to an exceptionally high level. As with regards to airmanship well this is paramount on any platform even though (someone told me, honest ) it is lacking on E3's in comparison to say a MR2 or C130.
Wensleydale, one thing I thought was a little bit unfair was your
"Personnel whining about being in the sand pit for a mere 6 months need to get some time in - we have done it".
Most crews on MR2's are in double figures if not just short of it with regards to how many times they have deployed into theatre. These deployments now go beyond two months at a time meaning that on average most crews have spent nearly two years in the "sand-pit" as you call it. This time is split between a portacabin in a bad place and a tent in an even worse, dangerous place. If you think about it this is not even in the same ball park as sitting in a nice hotel in Italy enjoying a nice bottle of red, in fact it's not even the same sport and let us not forget the SH boys who have it ten times worst than us. I appreciate though that it is not your fault or desire that you are not utilized more.
First of all I agree completely with the diversity of an E3 with regards to fast jet, other allied exchange etc etc. However, an air trafficer that can't speak to any aircraft is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard with regards to what he can bring to the party (even though his knowledge may be beneficial). In essence (going back to my original post) it's costing a lot more to sit him in the seat than it is an already trained aircrew guy.
London Mil, I know you mean well but the surveillance role does contain a large percentage of ESM work, it's not just about radar work which I'm sure all ATCO are au fait with. Wsop (ew) are already trained in EW to an exceptionally high level. As with regards to airmanship well this is paramount on any platform even though (someone told me, honest
) it is lacking on E3's in comparison to say a MR2 or C130. Wensleydale, one thing I thought was a little bit unfair was your
"Personnel whining about being in the sand pit for a mere 6 months need to get some time in - we have done it".
Most crews on MR2's are in double figures if not just short of it with regards to how many times they have deployed into theatre. These deployments now go beyond two months at a time meaning that on average most crews have spent nearly two years in the "sand-pit" as you call it. This time is split between a portacabin in a bad place and a tent in an even worse, dangerous place. If you think about it this is not even in the same ball park as sitting in a nice hotel in Italy enjoying a nice bottle of red, in fact it's not even the same sport and let us not forget the SH boys who have it ten times worst than us. I appreciate though that it is not your fault or desire that you are not utilized more.
Guest
Posts: n/a
pb, you make a very valid argument. However, I think there are some mis-conceptions about what air traffikers are already doing, albeit on the ground. I just think that in today's, 'lean', RAF we need to make best use of what we have got. Do I have faith in the decision makers? Well let me go and ponder that one for a little longer. Sure as eggs are eggs, this 'experiment' will either work or not; there will be no grey area.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,565
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
PB,I was having a sly dig at those postees who think that Waddington is a cushy posting just because we have limited deployments for the time being - it was not always so. Yes, most of our ops tours during the 90s were in a lovely part of Italy - however the prospect of 5-6 months a year away from home - even here - was not ideal. Some personnel logged over 900 hours flying a year, (one pilot had to stop flying for a while as he threatened to hit the maximum 1,000 hours in a year) whilst my own best tally was 198 hours in my first 6 weeks of a tour (5 of them deployed). The Chickens came home to roost with Afghanistan and Iraq when the supplies of red wine dried up, and an unsympathetic non-Waddington DAG ran the det (but that's just another thread). The bottom line is - what goes around comes around. The E-3D crews were mighty relieved to get their first break from deployed live ops for 11 years after Iraq 2003 (and there have been only 9 crews realistically available during this time - the busy time over Bosnia was covered by just 6 complete surveillance teams available to the Component: 3 weeks deployed with 2 weeks home became the norm) - its just unfortunate that we haven't been properly used since. The difference it makes to individuals/crews performance by dropping from about 800 hours to less than 200 hours a year, combined with no operational edge does not have to be imagined. I am sure that the Kinloss crowd will feel the same when they are suddenly not utilised as they should be.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: grand britagne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger,
Sorry about this but i have to go back to your earleir comment.
Aircrew! dont make me laugh. The person will be sat it a seat looking at a radar screen, decoding ATOs and using a radio. You don't need a brevet to do that!
Wake up and smell the coffee!
Unfortunately i couldnt let this one go. I think the waking up and smelling the coffee is something you need to do. If you think that is all being aircrew on an aircraft is all about then i suggest you take your self on an airmanship and CRM course. I disagree with the mentality on E3's as it is very different from all other aircraft and in my eyes not conducive to CRM or airmanship, but this does not mean that an operator down the back should just sit there fat dumb and happy infront of his screen. that definately is not all he is there for.
(ps. cheers for the english tips proper brevet)
Sorry about this but i have to go back to your earleir comment.
Aircrew! dont make me laugh. The person will be sat it a seat looking at a radar screen, decoding ATOs and using a radio. You don't need a brevet to do that!
Wake up and smell the coffee!
Unfortunately i couldnt let this one go. I think the waking up and smelling the coffee is something you need to do. If you think that is all being aircrew on an aircraft is all about then i suggest you take your self on an airmanship and CRM course. I disagree with the mentality on E3's as it is very different from all other aircraft and in my eyes not conducive to CRM or airmanship, but this does not mean that an operator down the back should just sit there fat dumb and happy infront of his screen. that definately is not all he is there for.
(ps. cheers for the english tips proper brevet)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E-3D manning
PMA have said that an ATC Officer will take one of the 3 places on the next Sentry course in April, fact.
The next course is an "extra" course, and as such there is not time for the PET course at Cranwell for those with a non-aircrew background. As far as I am aware, there are no ATs on the next course, and I am not sure about the controllers, (re-treads possibly?).
I do question what an air trafficer can do as a surveillance operator; they do not necessarily have the skills that a TG 12 or NCA operator has.
Where PMA have got the manning completely wrong, and continue to do so despite Waddington telling them so, is that we need NCO surveillance operators far more so than commissioned operators. Officers are being upgraded to SC often within a year of graduating as an SO, and there is now a severe lack of experience on the SO side of the aircraft. What is the point in spending 6 months teaching an officer to operate YG when after a year or so they will never need to operate it again?
finally back to the air trafficer on the next course, although he is no longer aircrew since being commissioned .........
Y_G
The next course is an "extra" course, and as such there is not time for the PET course at Cranwell for those with a non-aircrew background. As far as I am aware, there are no ATs on the next course, and I am not sure about the controllers, (re-treads possibly?).
I do question what an air trafficer can do as a surveillance operator; they do not necessarily have the skills that a TG 12 or NCA operator has.
Where PMA have got the manning completely wrong, and continue to do so despite Waddington telling them so, is that we need NCO surveillance operators far more so than commissioned operators. Officers are being upgraded to SC often within a year of graduating as an SO, and there is now a severe lack of experience on the SO side of the aircraft. What is the point in spending 6 months teaching an officer to operate YG when after a year or so they will never need to operate it again?
finally back to the air trafficer on the next course, although he is no longer aircrew since being commissioned .........
Y_G
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
At least he will be able to talk himself down 
