Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The level of frustration at lack of focus and progress here reminds me of Buster Keaton's film, The Awakening.
Anyway, once again to try and draw the focus onto what is known:
Grunt – if you look at the tracks, they were only closing with the shoreline at about 20 deg – only a slight turn left would have taken them up the coast – and presumably, being over the level sea, a lot less stressful control inputs were going on compared to when they were low flying over the 10 miles or so of Antrim hills that they had crossed earlier in the flight – such a coincidence that they should fail just there, surely? It is also highly improbable that the engines would have been found closely matched and with no record of emergency power demands if they had been struggling with a control problem.
Regarding undemanded power surges – I have made the point before that had this occurred the obvious immediate response would surely have been to pull up so keeping the RPM within limits – this would have been to their advantage, a miracle if it had happened. Anyway, there are 3 things which I can think of which argue against any undemanded run-up: no history in the DECU of such; distance/time calculations by Boeing indicate that they had started to slow down (in airspeed) over the course of the leg from waypoint change to impact; the engines were found to have been at matched power (within limits normally requiring power trim by either the pilots or the FADEC and normally when in a steady state – I suggest such as level cruise, cruise climb, approach, etc).
Regarding distractions - as Cazatou so rightly said, their number one priority was to fly the aircraft – and of course, a top priority in flying an aircraft is to avoid an unintended/ unexpected contact with terrain. It would be a reasonable excuse to have over stressed an engine after ignoring a warning light because the pilots were distracted by the imminent approach of high ground – but the other way around?!!! They had ¾ of the compass to turn towards while they sorted out anything within the a/c.
Not forgetting that unless they had a reason for going there, they were already imprudently close in, in the prevailing conditions, by the time they changed waypoint if they had just meant to be chugging past to somewhere else.
So why don't you all address the issues that may explain what they may have been doing, these being:
has anyone come across the use of a domestic squawk code (as 7760 was) for exercises?(as EUROControl told me did happen on occassion back then due to the shortage of codes for special exercises);
is the type of callsign used (F4J40) appropriate for a SAR ex? (as I have been told from several sources);
has anyone on this forum landed at the LZ I have described (the one by waypoint A) and if so would you like to describe what altimeter settings you would use and what approach heading you would take? - oh, and how far away would you start to let your speed wash off?;
what is the usual way of making a call to the regional ATC on VHF when you are approaching an area for a local low level exercise under VFR and do you need a response or is it just a formality? - is this the way you give an early warning to exercise participants on the ground to stand by on the local UHF?
Anyone know a good tailor?
Anyway, once again to try and draw the focus onto what is known:
Grunt – if you look at the tracks, they were only closing with the shoreline at about 20 deg – only a slight turn left would have taken them up the coast – and presumably, being over the level sea, a lot less stressful control inputs were going on compared to when they were low flying over the 10 miles or so of Antrim hills that they had crossed earlier in the flight – such a coincidence that they should fail just there, surely? It is also highly improbable that the engines would have been found closely matched and with no record of emergency power demands if they had been struggling with a control problem.
Regarding undemanded power surges – I have made the point before that had this occurred the obvious immediate response would surely have been to pull up so keeping the RPM within limits – this would have been to their advantage, a miracle if it had happened. Anyway, there are 3 things which I can think of which argue against any undemanded run-up: no history in the DECU of such; distance/time calculations by Boeing indicate that they had started to slow down (in airspeed) over the course of the leg from waypoint change to impact; the engines were found to have been at matched power (within limits normally requiring power trim by either the pilots or the FADEC and normally when in a steady state – I suggest such as level cruise, cruise climb, approach, etc).
Regarding distractions - as Cazatou so rightly said, their number one priority was to fly the aircraft – and of course, a top priority in flying an aircraft is to avoid an unintended/ unexpected contact with terrain. It would be a reasonable excuse to have over stressed an engine after ignoring a warning light because the pilots were distracted by the imminent approach of high ground – but the other way around?!!! They had ¾ of the compass to turn towards while they sorted out anything within the a/c.
Not forgetting that unless they had a reason for going there, they were already imprudently close in, in the prevailing conditions, by the time they changed waypoint if they had just meant to be chugging past to somewhere else.
So why don't you all address the issues that may explain what they may have been doing, these being:
has anyone come across the use of a domestic squawk code (as 7760 was) for exercises?(as EUROControl told me did happen on occassion back then due to the shortage of codes for special exercises);
is the type of callsign used (F4J40) appropriate for a SAR ex? (as I have been told from several sources);
has anyone on this forum landed at the LZ I have described (the one by waypoint A) and if so would you like to describe what altimeter settings you would use and what approach heading you would take? - oh, and how far away would you start to let your speed wash off?;
what is the usual way of making a call to the regional ATC on VHF when you are approaching an area for a local low level exercise under VFR and do you need a response or is it just a formality? - is this the way you give an early warning to exercise participants on the ground to stand by on the local UHF?
Anyone know a good tailor?
Walter, you make many good points, but by the same token you wish to junk the good points others have made because they do not accord with your scenario. What you call a lack of focus I would call keeping an open mind. A really serious compromise to the airworthiness of the aircraft as has been described by Winch Control regarding the delaminating of the control palette the day before may or may not have been a factor on the final flight of ZD576 and needs to be considered. Indeed it could possibly even accord with your scenario of an intended landing at the Mull LZ causing a loss of control during that approach, could it not? It seems to me as one who suspects that the airworthiness of the aircraft could be the smoking gun that one is spoilt for choice with so many likely candidates, be they DECU code and/or connectors, detached springs or delaminated control palettes, hydraulic fluid contaminated with metal particles, etc etc. In that respect you are right to complain of lack of focus. Ignoring all those possibilities does not entail a renewed focus but myopia.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winch-control has given a compelling account of the state of the flight control pallet, and more importantly it's attachments, on the day the aircraft arrived in theatre.
I too have had the opportunity of viewing this very same item, though very sadly post accident. I did so in the company of the senior investigator of air accidents, conducting the investigation into the events of 2nd June 1994.
I well remember his comment to me at the time. He said:
"Look at this. I wouldn't even consider this a safe means of attachment if this was on my bicycle, and this is the flight control system of a helicopter!"
I am intrigued to know whether chinook240 can tell us how this item has changed since the accident?
I believe any deference extended to chinook240, should also have been extended to the crew of ZD576 since they made the ultimate sacrifice. Sadly they have not even been shown the respect, in their absence, of being given the benefit of a VERY considerable doubt!
Let right be done.
I too have had the opportunity of viewing this very same item, though very sadly post accident. I did so in the company of the senior investigator of air accidents, conducting the investigation into the events of 2nd June 1994.
I well remember his comment to me at the time. He said:
"Look at this. I wouldn't even consider this a safe means of attachment if this was on my bicycle, and this is the flight control system of a helicopter!"
I am intrigued to know whether chinook240 can tell us how this item has changed since the accident?
I believe any deference extended to chinook240, should also have been extended to the crew of ZD576 since they made the ultimate sacrifice. Sadly they have not even been shown the respect, in their absence, of being given the benefit of a VERY considerable doubt!
Let right be done.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: taxfree
Age: 62
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the basic argument of this campaign is the unjustified verdict of gross negligence levelled at the two pilots, I find Winch Controls comments in post 4311 disappointing.
You ask the question did anyone check the suitability and cure time of the adhesive used to reaffix the pallet insert? YES the technician who did the job, the NCO who oversigned the work and the SNCO who carried out the independent check. You also state that you are not aware of any ground run being carried out, there would be no need to that's why, a simple APU run would be sufficient to verify the serviceability of the pallet and although I wasn't there, I see no reason why the groundcrew should consult you before such actions were carried out.
You also state as a matter of "fact" that the pallet had become detached from the floor that would be impossible as it is mounted vertically and doesn't contact any part of the floor. That is a fact.
Regards NC
Brian, keep up the good work I hope you suceed. Any help I can give you regarding technical information please ask.
You ask the question did anyone check the suitability and cure time of the adhesive used to reaffix the pallet insert? YES the technician who did the job, the NCO who oversigned the work and the SNCO who carried out the independent check. You also state that you are not aware of any ground run being carried out, there would be no need to that's why, a simple APU run would be sufficient to verify the serviceability of the pallet and although I wasn't there, I see no reason why the groundcrew should consult you before such actions were carried out.
You also state as a matter of "fact" that the pallet had become detached from the floor that would be impossible as it is mounted vertically and doesn't contact any part of the floor. That is a fact.
Regards NC
Brian, keep up the good work I hope you suceed. Any help I can give you regarding technical information please ask.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of detail - does anyone of you recall, when flying anything near the Mull light house, seeing a white post on the seaward edge of that landing area I have described?
I wondered when it was last seen standing upright.
When I came across it, it was lying down in the ferns near its post hole - it may have been decided it was no longer required at some stage but it was probably too heavy to be worth taking away - a foot in diameter and about 8 feet long - half painted bright white. It was in the middle of the edge of the cliff and would have been a handy aiming point on ground that was otherwise devoid of recognisable features - like DPM would look to a fly. Its position was only a matter of tens of yards from the position of waypoint A.
I wondered when it was last seen standing upright.
When I came across it, it was lying down in the ferns near its post hole - it may have been decided it was no longer required at some stage but it was probably too heavy to be worth taking away - a foot in diameter and about 8 feet long - half painted bright white. It was in the middle of the edge of the cliff and would have been a handy aiming point on ground that was otherwise devoid of recognisable features - like DPM would look to a fly. Its position was only a matter of tens of yards from the position of waypoint A.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notchy
'Given that the basic argument of this campaign is the unjustified verdict of gross negligence levelled at the two pilots, I find Winch Controls comments in post 4311 disappointing'
Can you please explain or pm me?
"You also state as a matter of "fact" that the pallet had become detached from the floor that would be impossible as it is mounted vertically and doesn't contact any part of the floor. That is a fact."
Nope the control pallet I am referring to is horizontal at stn 100 to 140 behind the LHS pilots seat.
Post glue fix a ground run may have occurred, however I was not party to it. No Air test did occurr. I would have been aware of it.
Notchy you are clearly on a different wave length.. but I like your thoughts..
Regards
Winch
'Given that the basic argument of this campaign is the unjustified verdict of gross negligence levelled at the two pilots, I find Winch Controls comments in post 4311 disappointing'
Can you please explain or pm me?
"You also state as a matter of "fact" that the pallet had become detached from the floor that would be impossible as it is mounted vertically and doesn't contact any part of the floor. That is a fact."
Nope the control pallet I am referring to is horizontal at stn 100 to 140 behind the LHS pilots seat.
Post glue fix a ground run may have occurred, however I was not party to it. No Air test did occurr. I would have been aware of it.
Notchy you are clearly on a different wave length.. but I like your thoughts..
Regards
Winch
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: taxfree
Age: 62
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WC
Not a bite, just trying to point out to you that the comments you made about adhesive and cure times and testing could be seen by others to impune the reputation of the groundcrew who carried out the work. or perhaps that was your intention. I would like to think not.
Regarding the control pallette I assume you mean flying controls If that is the case the only honeycombed ones around that area are the ones I described previously. I certainly would not like to fly in an aircraft that had a control pallet mounted to the floor at Stn 140 as you state, you might trip over it every time you moved around the aircraft as it would be in the cabin aft of the avionics cupboard as you described it.
Perhaps you could post a photograph of the offending item I would be most interested to know what it is you're on about.
Kind regards
NC
PS enjoyed your last post it made me laugh.
Not a bite, just trying to point out to you that the comments you made about adhesive and cure times and testing could be seen by others to impune the reputation of the groundcrew who carried out the work. or perhaps that was your intention. I would like to think not.
Regarding the control pallette I assume you mean flying controls If that is the case the only honeycombed ones around that area are the ones I described previously. I certainly would not like to fly in an aircraft that had a control pallet mounted to the floor at Stn 140 as you state, you might trip over it every time you moved around the aircraft as it would be in the cabin aft of the avionics cupboard as you described it.
Perhaps you could post a photograph of the offending item I would be most interested to know what it is you're on about.
Kind regards
NC
PS enjoyed your last post it made me laugh.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notchy, not a knock at he ground cew....Tho they may need one.....I don't think my comments on glue curing etc will have any impact on this case....Now the prawn Volovents.....ahem
And yep the control pallette is / was mounted to the floor, do we really need to go into CH47 stations again? ahem stn 100 to 140 is not in the cabin....
And yep the control pallette is / was mounted to the floor, do we really need to go into CH47 stations again? ahem stn 100 to 140 is not in the cabin....
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a long time since I worked on Chinooks, but I'm pretty sure 140 is in the cabin, and this diagram available on this page seems to agree:
The CH-47D Chinook Structural Drawings.
The CH-47D Chinook Structural Drawings.
Last edited by 8-15fromOdium; 27th Apr 2009 at 15:24. Reason: Original link didn't work
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: taxfree
Age: 62
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8.15
Officially the cabin section of the aircraft is spliced to the cockpit section at Sta 160 however between Sta 120 and 160 there is nothing on the floor except floor boards and tie down points, so to all intents and purposes it is cabin area.
Winchy I don't know what it is you think you saw but I can tell you with absolute certainty it was not part of the flying control system.
I've just noticed on your profile that you are from Perth, if that is Perth in Scotland I think you need to lay off the whiskey trail tours, if it is Perth in Australia I think you need to stay out of the sun.
......Only joking
NC
Officially the cabin section of the aircraft is spliced to the cockpit section at Sta 160 however between Sta 120 and 160 there is nothing on the floor except floor boards and tie down points, so to all intents and purposes it is cabin area.
Winchy I don't know what it is you think you saw but I can tell you with absolute certainty it was not part of the flying control system.
I've just noticed on your profile that you are from Perth, if that is Perth in Scotland I think you need to lay off the whiskey trail tours, if it is Perth in Australia I think you need to stay out of the sun.
......Only jokingNC
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearing in mind how much discussion there has been on the flight control pallete, surely someone here can confidently and authoritatively let us all know exactly where the control pallette was and how it was mounted.
Interestingly, I have had no less than two sources say that, when fitted in several HC2 Chinooks by early 1995, the airborne side of the PRC112 system (the CPLS/ ARS6/ whatever) was fitted on the floor behind the left hand pilot's seat.
So can we clear this up? - it may be important!
Interestingly, I have had no less than two sources say that, when fitted in several HC2 Chinooks by early 1995, the airborne side of the PRC112 system (the CPLS/ ARS6/ whatever) was fitted on the floor behind the left hand pilot's seat.
So can we clear this up? - it may be important!
Last edited by walter kennedy; 28th Apr 2009 at 11:44. Reason: remove note
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wilts
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The internet is truely a wonderful thing.
Walter in answer to your question about where the control pallet is and how it is mounted can be found here: TM-55-1520-240-23-9 CH-47D Heilcopter Manual scroll down to the instructions to 'Remove Control Pallet Sta 95' and 'Remove Control Pallet Sta 120'.
As you will see the pallets are fixed to the bulkheads (as Notchy advised) not to the floor, inside the control closet behind the LH seat, the pallets are secured to the bulkheads by 8 bolts. The manuals also describe exactly what flight control components are on the pallets. No radio/comms equipment at all was fitted to them.
Please bear in mind my first hand knowledge is distinctly dated, but (for what it's worth) my time and Talisker addled memories do concur with the information detailed in the documents above.
Walter in answer to your question about where the control pallet is and how it is mounted can be found here: TM-55-1520-240-23-9 CH-47D Heilcopter Manual scroll down to the instructions to 'Remove Control Pallet Sta 95' and 'Remove Control Pallet Sta 120'.
As you will see the pallets are fixed to the bulkheads (as Notchy advised) not to the floor, inside the control closet behind the LH seat, the pallets are secured to the bulkheads by 8 bolts. The manuals also describe exactly what flight control components are on the pallets. No radio/comms equipment at all was fitted to them.
Please bear in mind my first hand knowledge is distinctly dated, but (for what it's worth) my time and Talisker addled memories do concur with the information detailed in the documents above.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8-15 Thanks heaps - I am getting a bit slow as I have had the link to that manual for years but somehow didn't find this relevant bit when I was looking for it the other night.
The control pallette does seem to fit its common description of "broom cupboard" better by being vertical!
So let's spell it out - the infamous "broom cupboard" was not mounted horizontally on the floor.
The electronic kit which interests me would have been mounted on a pallette on the floor behind the LH pilot's seat - so if any others of you saw something there on ZD576, please come forward too - if I can get a significant number (say, 3 or more) to give a stat dec then we can progress.
Remembering that the sets delivered for early '95 were palletised for easy in-service-mod fit (30mins each way) for easy transfer between Chinooks, a set could have been put on board ZD576 with very little obvious activity.
If the kit was fitted, it would have probably been on loan at that time and so may not appear in the usual paperwork - so eye witness statements are crucial.
The control pallette does seem to fit its common description of "broom cupboard" better by being vertical!
So let's spell it out - the infamous "broom cupboard" was not mounted horizontally on the floor.
The electronic kit which interests me would have been mounted on a pallette on the floor behind the LH pilot's seat - so if any others of you saw something there on ZD576, please come forward too - if I can get a significant number (say, 3 or more) to give a stat dec then we can progress.
Remembering that the sets delivered for early '95 were palletised for easy in-service-mod fit (30mins each way) for easy transfer between Chinooks, a set could have been put on board ZD576 with very little obvious activity.
If the kit was fitted, it would have probably been on loan at that time and so may not appear in the usual paperwork - so eye witness statements are crucial.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notchy,
I may have the stn position incorrect. A function of time. However, the control pallette is indeed secured to a honey comb pallette, which is secured to the floor. (and still is). The pallette on the a'c in question was delaminated, raised at the rear by approx 1 1/2 inches. It is situated in the broom closet (as is/was known) behind the left hand pilots seat at station? Less than 120 by previous posts. It is not secured vertically. The control runs themself are. And if you think the base of the control runs do not affect the a/c, then what does?
Nochy, I don't drink whiskey, anyone that knows me knows that! a glass or 5 of Chardonnay maybe. And indeed the sun is great in WA!
I may have the stn position incorrect. A function of time. However, the control pallette is indeed secured to a honey comb pallette, which is secured to the floor. (and still is). The pallette on the a'c in question was delaminated, raised at the rear by approx 1 1/2 inches. It is situated in the broom closet (as is/was known) behind the left hand pilots seat at station? Less than 120 by previous posts. It is not secured vertically. The control runs themself are. And if you think the base of the control runs do not affect the a/c, then what does?
Nochy, I don't drink whiskey, anyone that knows me knows that! a glass or 5 of Chardonnay maybe. And indeed the sun is great in WA!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: taxfree
Age: 62
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WC
I have enjoyed playing E mail tennis with you but we are not really advancing the cause, so it is probably time to agree to disagree on this point. But I will end by saying that in 25 years of working on the Chinook Mk1 and 2 including 5 years of instucting at the maintenance school I never once saw, adjusted, measured, pinned or taught anything remotely like you described. enjoy the sun out in Aus.
Kind Regards.
PS I'm now off down the opticians to get my eyes tested.
NC
I have enjoyed playing E mail tennis with you but we are not really advancing the cause, so it is probably time to agree to disagree on this point. But I will end by saying that in 25 years of working on the Chinook Mk1 and 2 including 5 years of instucting at the maintenance school I never once saw, adjusted, measured, pinned or taught anything remotely like you described. enjoy the sun out in Aus.
Kind Regards.
PS I'm now off down the opticians to get my eyes tested.
NC
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps
This is all very interesting.
However, I would be very interested to hear what has changed regarding the method of attachment of critical parts of the flight control system to the honeycomb pallet?
Absolutely clearly this item was an utter disgrace at the time of the accident. I cannot believe it has not been modified?
Anybody know, or does it require a FOI request?
Many thanks.
This is all very interesting.
However, I would be very interested to hear what has changed regarding the method of attachment of critical parts of the flight control system to the honeycomb pallet?
Absolutely clearly this item was an utter disgrace at the time of the accident. I cannot believe it has not been modified?
Anybody know, or does it require a FOI request?
Many thanks.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: taxfree
Age: 62
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandem
There was a modification carried out to the fasteners that are bonded to the pallets I can't remember the details of the fix but the design is basically the same it has just made more robust to cope with the loads imposed on it. After the modification was carried out, the need to check the pallet components for security by moving the controls channels to full range of movement after each flight was discontinued.
NC
There was a modification carried out to the fasteners that are bonded to the pallets I can't remember the details of the fix but the design is basically the same it has just made more robust to cope with the loads imposed on it. After the modification was carried out, the need to check the pallet components for security by moving the controls channels to full range of movement after each flight was discontinued.
NC
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
As Winch-Control and Notchy Collective are completely at odds as to what was attached to what, when and where; and in addition, where these components were situated; I find it very difficult to accept your statement:
"Absolutely clearly this was an utter disgrace at the time of the accident"
I do believe, however, that the Detatchment Commander and his Replacement were beholden by their appointments to ensure that their aircraft were fit to fly. In this particular case they had been flying this aircraft for some 6 hrs that day and had not reported any significant defects - indeed, for the defect that they did report, they failed to raise the required paperwork; thus putting the groundcrew in the invidious position of having to attempt to isolate and cure a fault without completing any paperwork to show what had been done.
As Winch-Control and Notchy Collective are completely at odds as to what was attached to what, when and where; and in addition, where these components were situated; I find it very difficult to accept your statement:
"Absolutely clearly this was an utter disgrace at the time of the accident"
I do believe, however, that the Detatchment Commander and his Replacement were beholden by their appointments to ensure that their aircraft were fit to fly. In this particular case they had been flying this aircraft for some 6 hrs that day and had not reported any significant defects - indeed, for the defect that they did report, they failed to raise the required paperwork; thus putting the groundcrew in the invidious position of having to attempt to isolate and cure a fault without completing any paperwork to show what had been done.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NC
Thank you.
So thanks to this modification, an aircraft which was previously unairworthy has now been improved, and is much safer.
For the avoidance of doubt cazatou (K52) there are some on here who feel that reliable flying controls are considered a pre-requisite for 'airworthiness'. Presumably you aren't one of us??
As I have always said. The fact that the aircraft has flown blah thousand hours, and currently does sterling service for the RAF, doesn't change the fact that it was a heap of garbage in June of 1994.
Let right be done!
Thank you.
So thanks to this modification, an aircraft which was previously unairworthy has now been improved, and is much safer.
For the avoidance of doubt cazatou (K52) there are some on here who feel that reliable flying controls are considered a pre-requisite for 'airworthiness'. Presumably you aren't one of us??
As I have always said. The fact that the aircraft has flown blah thousand hours, and currently does sterling service for the RAF, doesn't change the fact that it was a heap of garbage in June of 1994.
Let right be done!