2007 Puma Crash, Enquiry and Inquest (Merged)
Tiger mate -
"Biscuit 74: It goes against the grain to defend an air force that leaves itself wide open for your comments, and I suspect the Navy & Army are quite happy that the Air Force are taking the flak that they could so easy be in the firing line for.
However if you want a static line up of nice new shiny aeroplanes and crews with high morale oozing out of their ears you need to invest in quality training, airframe & equipment procurement, and sufficient staff to permit a quality of life in balance with operational abscence. In short, the country cannot afford the air force you desire. Nobody would argue that your aspiration is not logical or reasonable, but those days are well and truly over."
Thanks. Very true. I agree those days are over. Actually I wasn't thinking of a nice line up of shiny new aeroplanes, wonderful dream though that might be to certain of 'Their AirShips', I was just reflecting basic good engineering practice. When I see stuff kept clean and tidy, neat, be it old or new, I know I am looking at an outfit which takes pride in what it does. As a gnarly old engineer and pilot, it tells me a lot about how much reliance I can place on their capability. That was the disappointing bit.
To me it doesn't look as if the RAF do care any more. The claimed reasons - overstretch, undervaluing by politicians I fully understand. 'Twas ever thus - as reading some Kipling will quickly show.
Recent accidents in the RAF, and some not so recent that folk simply won't accept were human error, don't give me much confidence in the quality and fibre of that force any longer. And as a taxpayer I pay a hell of a lot for that inadequate performance.
Very sad. Perhaps the Army and Navy, having been around longer, are better able to cope with this sort of challenge.
Thanks for your reply.
"Biscuit 74: It goes against the grain to defend an air force that leaves itself wide open for your comments, and I suspect the Navy & Army are quite happy that the Air Force are taking the flak that they could so easy be in the firing line for.
However if you want a static line up of nice new shiny aeroplanes and crews with high morale oozing out of their ears you need to invest in quality training, airframe & equipment procurement, and sufficient staff to permit a quality of life in balance with operational abscence. In short, the country cannot afford the air force you desire. Nobody would argue that your aspiration is not logical or reasonable, but those days are well and truly over."
Thanks. Very true. I agree those days are over. Actually I wasn't thinking of a nice line up of shiny new aeroplanes, wonderful dream though that might be to certain of 'Their AirShips', I was just reflecting basic good engineering practice. When I see stuff kept clean and tidy, neat, be it old or new, I know I am looking at an outfit which takes pride in what it does. As a gnarly old engineer and pilot, it tells me a lot about how much reliance I can place on their capability. That was the disappointing bit.
To me it doesn't look as if the RAF do care any more. The claimed reasons - overstretch, undervaluing by politicians I fully understand. 'Twas ever thus - as reading some Kipling will quickly show.
Recent accidents in the RAF, and some not so recent that folk simply won't accept were human error, don't give me much confidence in the quality and fibre of that force any longer. And as a taxpayer I pay a hell of a lot for that inadequate performance.
Very sad. Perhaps the Army and Navy, having been around longer, are better able to cope with this sort of challenge.
Thanks for your reply.
not one single RAF pilot who can put their hand up and honestly state they have never, and I do mean never, knowingly broken their auth in the pursuit of of some fun, not one 
If the three of you so far with hands up have never ever once, even all those years ago during flying training when solo, never even pushed the envelope slightly, not even the tiniest bit for the thrill of it then I take my hat off to you for your complete and utter professionalism
Baston, as for RW crews breaking their auth on ops to achieve the task - I am sure they don't do that in search of "fun" or for the "tiniest bit of thrill". So those crews can put their hands up as well.
...........you never once asked for a "bunt for the troops sir"
Is such an event really as common as has been suggested? If so, there is definitely a systemic issue which needs to be sorted out with some urgency.
Last edited by BEagle; 30th Oct 2009 at 20:27.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do believe that it is possible that the penny has finally dropped for SFFP - not to knowingly bend or break the Rules is to act Professionally!!
To act otherwise is crass stupidity deserving of the most severe condemnation.
To act otherwise is crass stupidity deserving of the most severe condemnation.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle:
Contrary to SFFP and Roger's assertions "requests for troop entertainment" might have happened on rare occasions. In a mere 1200 hours of crewing the Puma over three years the pax never asked for anything illegal - if for no other reason than they had no idea what legal was. Their idea of "throwing it around" meant little more than straight and level flight - I can talk about this with some authority having previously been one of those troops down the back. With regard to low level flight I wrote the following in private to someone here that was flying Pumas when I was in the mid to late 80's and is still serving:-
Not surprisingly, the recipient of that message relates that I wouldn't recognize SH today and that this accident has been waiting to happen for several years and that it was only a matter of time. Granted, he did not state that it couldn't have happened back then but history is it's own witness.
A "bunt for the troops" is an utterly safe manoevre where the aircraft gains height while at speed and then suddenly decreases height to provide a small amount of negative g with no net loss in altitude. It's not a move that holds any risk at all and I have not idea why SSFP used it as an example. You'd have to ask him about his motives.
Roger:
You stated earlier that the squealing and yahooing was common on aircraft you flew on. You were also, by what you say, a pilot. One can only assume that you were the captain on at least some of these occasions. Introspection required?
Contrary to SFFP and Roger's assertions "requests for troop entertainment" might have happened on rare occasions. In a mere 1200 hours of crewing the Puma over three years the pax never asked for anything illegal - if for no other reason than they had no idea what legal was. Their idea of "throwing it around" meant little more than straight and level flight - I can talk about this with some authority having previously been one of those troops down the back. With regard to low level flight I wrote the following in private to someone here that was flying Pumas when I was in the mid to late 80's and is still serving:-
Thinking back, whenever we did our "riskier" flying it was almost always in an empty airframe. Yes, we'd do some LL with pax but then the LL was, largely, done within legal limits. On one occasion with a QHI as captain and pax aboard we were clearly flying illegally - so much so that I made the comment that I didn't know how scared our pax were, (16 seat fit, doors open), but that he was scaring the **** out of his crewman. To the mans credit that's all I had to say. He pulled up and maintained safe flight after that and the episode was never mentioned again.
A "bunt for the troops" is an utterly safe manoevre where the aircraft gains height while at speed and then suddenly decreases height to provide a small amount of negative g with no net loss in altitude. It's not a move that holds any risk at all and I have not idea why SSFP used it as an example. You'd have to ask him about his motives.
Roger:
You stated earlier that the squealing and yahooing was common on aircraft you flew on. You were also, by what you say, a pilot. One can only assume that you were the captain on at least some of these occasions. Introspection required?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom,
there's a big difference between pushing ones own limits, and even the aircraft's, and BREAKING auth and legal limits.
One can be fun and safe, the other downright inexcusable and dangerous.
For the record I've never knowingly broken an auth and yet I seem to have had plenty of fun whilst developing my own skills to a more than acceptable level.
If this doesn't suit you then you would have no place in a professional aviation command.
there's a big difference between pushing ones own limits, and even the aircraft's, and BREAKING auth and legal limits.
One can be fun and safe, the other downright inexcusable and dangerous.
For the record I've never knowingly broken an auth and yet I seem to have had plenty of fun whilst developing my own skills to a more than acceptable level.
If this doesn't suit you then you would have no place in a professional aviation command.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy street
I am not sure how you got that from my posts, but you may have missed the point of my previous utterings.
My contention is that to stick rigidly to the rules on operations will seriously downgrade the service to the PBI and others using our services. The "can do" attitude that the customer requires is not best served by rigid adherence to the the strictures laid down by the authorising officer. (see Borneo 1965)
The mindset of "Rules uber alles" will never deliver the goods.
See my previous posts on my view of the "rules" and how to apply them.
1. A book of rules that tells you what you can do.
2. A book of rules that tells you what you cannot do.
Achieving the task in search of "fun"as you state makes no sense whatsoever in this context.
Caz
Dear Caz - you seem to have lost the plot a tiny bit.
Sweet dreams........................
Baston, as for RW crews breaking their auth on ops to achieve the task - I am sure they don't do that in search of "fun" or for the "tiniest bit of thrill". So those crews can put their hands up as well.
My contention is that to stick rigidly to the rules on operations will seriously downgrade the service to the PBI and others using our services. The "can do" attitude that the customer requires is not best served by rigid adherence to the the strictures laid down by the authorising officer. (see Borneo 1965)
The mindset of "Rules uber alles" will never deliver the goods.
See my previous posts on my view of the "rules" and how to apply them.
1. A book of rules that tells you what you can do.
2. A book of rules that tells you what you cannot do.
Achieving the task in search of "fun"as you state makes no sense whatsoever in this context.
Caz
not to knowingly bend or break the Rules is to act Professionally!!
To act otherwise is crass stupidity deserving of the most severe condemnation.
To act otherwise is crass stupidity deserving of the most severe condemnation.
Sweet dreams........................
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points to address before bed,
Easy Street,
"There is a world of difference between "pushing the envelope slightly" and "knowingly breaking your auth in the pursuit of some fun".
Sir, did you ever have a written auth telling you to go explore the envelope, you can argue the knowingly thing till the cows come home but 20 odd years of Rotary and Fixed wing flying tell me something completely different
BEagle,
Imagine a freight bay full of troops all secured by lap straps, tactically the best way to escape the threat zone is to zoom climb to 1200' and at 1200' aggressive lowering of the collective lever reduces the "G" and folks get a little bit lighter in their seats. Technically nothing illegal but where the **** was that ever auth'd.
AA,
After several years as an aircraft technician I joined the SH force as a crewman in 1989, arriving on 33 in 1990. Tours on 33, 230, and 18 Sqn tell me that the SH force that you pontificate about bears little resemblance to the one I gained 2000 hours in. I could regale tails about bunts causing ammo boxes to leave the aircraft and more but suffice to say you, for reasons only best known to yourself are talking tosh
Farfrom,
"there's a big difference between pushing ones own limits, and even the aircraft's"
I fully accept that but were your ever in your whole flying career out briefed to go "push the aircrafts limits" ?
Flying is a whole bunch of fun and when the task is achieved there is absolutely no buzz like it but if someone tells me they have never ever ever broken the rules then sorry but I, and I can only imagine countless others reading this thread simply do not believe you
Easy Street,
"There is a world of difference between "pushing the envelope slightly" and "knowingly breaking your auth in the pursuit of some fun".
Sir, did you ever have a written auth telling you to go explore the envelope, you can argue the knowingly thing till the cows come home but 20 odd years of Rotary and Fixed wing flying tell me something completely different
BEagle,
Imagine a freight bay full of troops all secured by lap straps, tactically the best way to escape the threat zone is to zoom climb to 1200' and at 1200' aggressive lowering of the collective lever reduces the "G" and folks get a little bit lighter in their seats. Technically nothing illegal but where the **** was that ever auth'd.
AA,
After several years as an aircraft technician I joined the SH force as a crewman in 1989, arriving on 33 in 1990. Tours on 33, 230, and 18 Sqn tell me that the SH force that you pontificate about bears little resemblance to the one I gained 2000 hours in. I could regale tails about bunts causing ammo boxes to leave the aircraft and more but suffice to say you, for reasons only best known to yourself are talking tosh
Farfrom,
"there's a big difference between pushing ones own limits, and even the aircraft's"
I fully accept that but were your ever in your whole flying career out briefed to go "push the aircrafts limits" ?
Flying is a whole bunch of fun and when the task is achieved there is absolutely no buzz like it but if someone tells me they have never ever ever broken the rules then sorry but I, and I can only imagine countless others reading this thread simply do not believe you
Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 30th Oct 2009 at 23:48.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Seldom, did we do the same OCU??
Although I wasn't much of a 'wazzer' (who called me captain sensible?), I can remember doing things that were not quite cricket. There is more to breaking auths than wazzing. I have been known to carry pax who were not on the manifest
and doing things like landing at RAF Carlisle for a shower (once or twice) during field conditions exercises. This wasn't professional, but it wasn't dangerous. I learned many many years ago that non regular passengers get a huge thrill just by being airborne, they don't need to see huge wingovers. In my current job, my licence is my future and I stick to the rulebook like glue. The comment from bannednew made me prickle a bit. Mate, from day 1 of military aviation, we have lessons to learn. You think things are SO different now?? Different aircraft, different crews but SAME OLD PROBLEMS. There is something to learn from us crusty old duffers who keep reading the military forums, even though we retired years ago. FACT: the Puma bites, it always did, I told the coroner that at a Puma inquest last year. There is a history of accidents, but it seems to have peaked in recent years. Why is that? What did we do differently? We flew it heavy and hot and high and had fewer accidents (fewer, not zero) Why was that?
Although I wasn't much of a 'wazzer' (who called me captain sensible?), I can remember doing things that were not quite cricket. There is more to breaking auths than wazzing. I have been known to carry pax who were not on the manifest
and doing things like landing at RAF Carlisle for a shower (once or twice) during field conditions exercises. This wasn't professional, but it wasn't dangerous. I learned many many years ago that non regular passengers get a huge thrill just by being airborne, they don't need to see huge wingovers. In my current job, my licence is my future and I stick to the rulebook like glue. The comment from bannednew made me prickle a bit. Mate, from day 1 of military aviation, we have lessons to learn. You think things are SO different now?? Different aircraft, different crews but SAME OLD PROBLEMS. There is something to learn from us crusty old duffers who keep reading the military forums, even though we retired years ago. FACT: the Puma bites, it always did, I told the coroner that at a Puma inquest last year. There is a history of accidents, but it seems to have peaked in recent years. Why is that? What did we do differently? We flew it heavy and hot and high and had fewer accidents (fewer, not zero) Why was that?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT,
Not the same OCU but we were in Ireland together, flew together, I drank in your house when you and Mrs JT MK1 were together and you describe the SH force I knew so well perfectly, hope you are keeping well
Not the same OCU but we were in Ireland together, flew together, I drank in your house when you and Mrs JT MK1 were together and you describe the SH force I knew so well perfectly, hope you are keeping well
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom:
in fact I spent quite a few years doing just that; pushing the a/c to it's limits quite within my auth. So: yes!!
Can be done and can be done safely and professionally.
If you think you can re-invent the rules go to ETPS. if not, then accept the Lims quite sensibly imposed.
in fact I spent quite a few years doing just that; pushing the a/c to it's limits quite within my auth. So: yes!!
Can be done and can be done safely and professionally.
If you think you can re-invent the rules go to ETPS. if not, then accept the Lims quite sensibly imposed.
Last edited by Farfrompuken; 31st Oct 2009 at 01:33.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many years have you been flying and with that in mind can you honestly say say hand on heart you have never ever ever done something even the tiniest bit illegal or just wrong
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've done things wrong; things I'd aim to improve on the next sortie. But wrong as in illegal; never. I've expressed issues over legal concerns at the auth and had them resolved there and then.
Hey; I'm always trying to improve my game so I will never offer the product to which I aspire but that is a long way from getting ****s and giggles by flying like a dick.
Sorry but I would expect every crewmember from my unit to behave the same.
Hey; I'm always trying to improve my game so I will never offer the product to which I aspire but that is a long way from getting ****s and giggles by flying like a dick.
Sorry but I would expect every crewmember from my unit to behave the same.
AA
No I did not! Show me where it says that. You seem to be reading whatever you want.
AA
I really cannot work how your mind works or doesn't. YOU come on this thread, slagging off the standards of the crew, then YOU recall a story which recounts tales of extreme flying indisciplne, but you think that was OK for you but everybody else is an asshole.
No AA, you are the problem. Your type think it OK to breach flying dicipline as you were being 'professional' and you are unable to admit you were wrong! THAT is the problem.
AA
For some reason you seem to label me as a pilot who was a serial rule breaker. On a public forum that is rather an uncharitable thing to do, particularly that when I have written I have not said I broke the rules. When I did the western Highway, I did it within my authorised height as was the same for the Eastern Branch. For the record I have knowingly broken my authorisation only once in my entire career, and it lasted 5 seconds. Having delivered supplies and had lunch with the soldiers at Hunting Caye, on my departure as normal when I did a 180 turn out to sea one would fly past the OP at 50 ft wings level, as per the authorisation. On this particular day I eased the height down to 30 ft wings level over the sea abeam the OP, as I passed, the 10 soldiers in the water waving all stood on their heads and to the crews amusement they were all stark naked. I eased up to 1000 ft for the trip home. Whilst the soldiers stunt was amusing, I was SO annoyed that I had actually broken my auth, I felt a complete and utter kn*b. Upon my return to base, I asked the boss for a cup of tea, told him what I had done and how I felt. He said no problems and thanks and I never ever knowingly broke my auth on any other occasion in my career.
Roger:
You stated earlier that the squealing and yahooing was common on aircraft you flew on.
You stated earlier that the squealing and yahooing was common on aircraft you flew on.
Between you and Roger you are demonstrating exactly why this accident occurred. You two, along with some others, seem to be perfect examples of the problem
I really cannot work how your mind works or doesn't. YOU come on this thread, slagging off the standards of the crew, then YOU recall a story which recounts tales of extreme flying indisciplne, but you think that was OK for you but everybody else is an asshole.
So, you have less than twice the hours than I had. Interesting admittance for someone who tries to tell me how "it is/was" Hours flown are not an indication of ability or experience. The lads now adays do more in 300 hours than you did in 2000.. It's funny, on the few occasions where a bunt occurred it was, most often, the captain's suggestion most often? but not always!, (probably in response to the discussion he had had with the commanders of the unit we were flying), but most importantly he would inform me that it was about to occur and I would actually look back into the cabin if I wasn't already there and ensure that the area was secure before "giving him permission" you did not give permission, you told the Capt the cabin was secure! to carry out the manouevre...
Between you and Roger you are demonstrating exactly why this accident occurred. You two, along with some others, seem to be perfect examples of the problem
Thinking back, whenever we did our "riskier" flying it was almost always in an empty airframe almost!!. Yes, we'd do some LL with pax but then the LL was, largely, done within legal limits largely done!. On one occasion with a QHI as captain and pax aboard we were clearly flying illegally - so much so so much so! You either are or are not. There is not a sliding scale. that I made the comment that I didn't know how scared our pax were, (16 seat fit, doors open), but that he was scaring the **** out of his crewman. To the mans credit that's all I had to say. He pulled up and maintained safe flight after that and the episode was never mentioned again.well maybe you should have had a good chat about it!
You don't see how your self indulgent and "superior attitude" contributes(ed) to the problem
AA
For some reason you seem to label me as a pilot who was a serial rule breaker. On a public forum that is rather an uncharitable thing to do, particularly that when I have written I have not said I broke the rules. When I did the western Highway, I did it within my authorised height as was the same for the Eastern Branch. For the record I have knowingly broken my authorisation only once in my entire career, and it lasted 5 seconds. Having delivered supplies and had lunch with the soldiers at Hunting Caye, on my departure as normal when I did a 180 turn out to sea one would fly past the OP at 50 ft wings level, as per the authorisation. On this particular day I eased the height down to 30 ft wings level over the sea abeam the OP, as I passed, the 10 soldiers in the water waving all stood on their heads and to the crews amusement they were all stark naked. I eased up to 1000 ft for the trip home. Whilst the soldiers stunt was amusing, I was SO annoyed that I had actually broken my auth, I felt a complete and utter kn*b. Upon my return to base, I asked the boss for a cup of tea, told him what I had done and how I felt. He said no problems and thanks and I never ever knowingly broke my auth on any other occasion in my career.
Last edited by Roger Sofarover; 31st Oct 2009 at 05:41.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bannednew
Re your post #526
Congratulations, you get my vote for the most inane post yet on this thread.
I see from your profile that you were just 18 days old when I received my "Wings" and more than 30 years old when I left the Service. During that period the total number of RAF Aircraft Accidents (Cat 3 or above) totalled 764 and the number of fatalities ran into many hundreds.
A large proportion of those Accidents and fatalities were caused by people who "pushed the limits".
Re your post #526
Congratulations, you get my vote for the most inane post yet on this thread.
I see from your profile that you were just 18 days old when I received my "Wings" and more than 30 years old when I left the Service. During that period the total number of RAF Aircraft Accidents (Cat 3 or above) totalled 764 and the number of fatalities ran into many hundreds.
A large proportion of those Accidents and fatalities were caused by people who "pushed the limits".
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roger : re your post @ 01.46 - two things
One, I admire a man who can fess up to a sin like that, where by you have exceeded the auth and been illegal yet still safe and within personal ability and aircraft envelope. It is good to know that the skygod master race are human after all.
Two, it's stupid o clock here when you posted - go to bed.
I think there is some common ground between most of the posters: there has been in every pilot's flying life a time where by the lines have been crossed, some have been intentional, some have been in error. there is also the amount the line has been crossed to consider - yes for all the pedants there is no grey, BUT, in reality a few knots over VNE or a few feet below the min can generally be gotten away with AND LEARNED FROM.
Flying like (and I use the terms used previously) a total ******** (in whatever steed and where/when ever it was) is not acceptable.
End of..
the word was mentioned earlier - Discipline, it's either that or time to go fly a cargo plane full of rubber dog**** out of Hong Kong. I, and every other taxpayer that funds your lifestyle expect and demand you to be professional in all things, a non exhaustive list follows:
Flying, Drinking, having fun, being military, putting up with bull****, admin, not putting in fraudulent claims on JPA, engineering, owning up when you f*ck up, integrity, paying off the engineers beer when you flip the war and peace switch coz you failed to keep up with the words the engineers told you, briefs, auths, putting your hand up if you are too tired/sick to fly and should not try to man up.
In short, if you can't do this the I want you to hand your wings in and go and be helpful at main building - or send your scroll back to Auntie Betty.
One, I admire a man who can fess up to a sin like that, where by you have exceeded the auth and been illegal yet still safe and within personal ability and aircraft envelope. It is good to know that the skygod master race are human after all.
Two, it's stupid o clock here when you posted - go to bed.
I think there is some common ground between most of the posters: there has been in every pilot's flying life a time where by the lines have been crossed, some have been intentional, some have been in error. there is also the amount the line has been crossed to consider - yes for all the pedants there is no grey, BUT, in reality a few knots over VNE or a few feet below the min can generally be gotten away with AND LEARNED FROM.
Flying like (and I use the terms used previously) a total ******** (in whatever steed and where/when ever it was) is not acceptable.
End of..
the word was mentioned earlier - Discipline, it's either that or time to go fly a cargo plane full of rubber dog**** out of Hong Kong. I, and every other taxpayer that funds your lifestyle expect and demand you to be professional in all things, a non exhaustive list follows:
Flying, Drinking, having fun, being military, putting up with bull****, admin, not putting in fraudulent claims on JPA, engineering, owning up when you f*ck up, integrity, paying off the engineers beer when you flip the war and peace switch coz you failed to keep up with the words the engineers told you, briefs, auths, putting your hand up if you are too tired/sick to fly and should not try to man up.
In short, if you can't do this the I want you to hand your wings in and go and be helpful at main building - or send your scroll back to Auntie Betty.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Flying like (and I use the terms used previously) a total ******** (in whatever steed and where/when ever it was) is not acceptable.
End of.."
Not quite sure where from Roger's or any other poster in this tread you got the notion that we thought what you describe WAS acceptable
End of.."
Not quite sure where from Roger's or any other poster in this tread you got the notion that we thought what you describe WAS acceptable