Aerobatics in a 407 (Incl. video)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Uperuberboot
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rich Lee..last I heard (back in "01) Chris Townsend was still running his flying school out of Hoxton Park, Sydney.
I did my ab-initio training up to CPL with Chris in the mid 90's.
I recall Chris charged a little more than the competition at the time but to this day without a doubt, I reckon it was the best investment I had ever made.
cheers
I did my ab-initio training up to CPL with Chris in the mid 90's.
I recall Chris charged a little more than the competition at the time but to this day without a doubt, I reckon it was the best investment I had ever made.
cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: In my skin, strapped to my Helo...
Age: 47
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I heard, the pilot's licence was suspended until he re-wrote Law & Procedures and also the Helicopter technical and general exams at SACAA. He was flying again a week later.
I also believe that the insurance companies refuse to insure any aircraft owned/operated by the beforementioned company. OUCH!!
The pilot is currently flying Puma's in Greece for the company...
I also believe that the insurance companies refuse to insure any aircraft owned/operated by the beforementioned company. OUCH!!
The pilot is currently flying Puma's in Greece for the company...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South Africa
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bell 407 Looped and Rolled at Virginia
I have reread the entire Virginia Airshow thread from back to front, including watching the videoclip about a dozen times, and I'm confused.
Perhaps there are experienced helicopter pilots and engineers out there who can help me understand something.
Let's forget for a moment that this was a deliberate manouevre in (apparent) clear breach of the manufacturer's performance limitations. Let's just think about what actually happened.
It seems to me that all aircraft, including helicopters and including Bell 407s, have been known to experience potentially-damaging stress from time to time.
You only have to think of mountain flying and encountering severe up-or down-drafts; how about a power-off autorotation, or a plain and simple hard landing that buckles the skids?
When these things happen, what does the manufacturer do? Immediately ground the aircraft and produce a list of required inspections, replacements and overhauls that effectively write-off the aircraft, without any regard for whether damage has actually occurred?
I don't think so.
As far as I know, there are standard, acceped, inspections that are required following such incidents that are designed to quickly establish whether stress-related damage has occurred. If so, further inspections and/or repairs are called for. But if not, the aircraft is returned to service. End of matter.
In this case, though, the difference seems to be that it was deliberate and this is what has got the aviation community into a self-righteous orgy of how the manufacturer suddenly has a public duty to ensure this aircraft never leaves the ground again, or how the pilot should be strung up by his toenails and tickled to death with an ostrich feather.
C'mon, guys, let's get real.
Show me a pilot who has never exceeded the manufacturers' performance limitations - whether accidentally or deliberately - and I'll show you a flying saint who should immediately be cast in bronze and displayed, stark-naked, in the Aviation Hall of Fame!
So what really is happening here?
It seems to me that someone, somewhere, is out to "get" either the pilot or the owner of this aircraft and is ignoring the fact that, but for the issue that it was a deliberate act (of stupidity in front of 10000 people, I'll concede), this is really no different to a multitide of incidents that have the potential to over-stress an aircraft, but for which there are accepted inspections that, if carried out, can determine whether damage has, in fact, occurred.
So now the dust has settled, so to speak, isn't there anyone out there who can offer some sensible, unemotional, un-let's-get-the-pilot comment?
Does anyone really believe that this aircraft is now so damaged that the only way forward is to scrap it?
I'd really be interested to hear some expert views.
Cheers
Perhaps there are experienced helicopter pilots and engineers out there who can help me understand something.
Let's forget for a moment that this was a deliberate manouevre in (apparent) clear breach of the manufacturer's performance limitations. Let's just think about what actually happened.
It seems to me that all aircraft, including helicopters and including Bell 407s, have been known to experience potentially-damaging stress from time to time.
You only have to think of mountain flying and encountering severe up-or down-drafts; how about a power-off autorotation, or a plain and simple hard landing that buckles the skids?
When these things happen, what does the manufacturer do? Immediately ground the aircraft and produce a list of required inspections, replacements and overhauls that effectively write-off the aircraft, without any regard for whether damage has actually occurred?
I don't think so.
As far as I know, there are standard, acceped, inspections that are required following such incidents that are designed to quickly establish whether stress-related damage has occurred. If so, further inspections and/or repairs are called for. But if not, the aircraft is returned to service. End of matter.
In this case, though, the difference seems to be that it was deliberate and this is what has got the aviation community into a self-righteous orgy of how the manufacturer suddenly has a public duty to ensure this aircraft never leaves the ground again, or how the pilot should be strung up by his toenails and tickled to death with an ostrich feather.
C'mon, guys, let's get real.
Show me a pilot who has never exceeded the manufacturers' performance limitations - whether accidentally or deliberately - and I'll show you a flying saint who should immediately be cast in bronze and displayed, stark-naked, in the Aviation Hall of Fame!
So what really is happening here?
It seems to me that someone, somewhere, is out to "get" either the pilot or the owner of this aircraft and is ignoring the fact that, but for the issue that it was a deliberate act (of stupidity in front of 10000 people, I'll concede), this is really no different to a multitide of incidents that have the potential to over-stress an aircraft, but for which there are accepted inspections that, if carried out, can determine whether damage has, in fact, occurred.
So now the dust has settled, so to speak, isn't there anyone out there who can offer some sensible, unemotional, un-let's-get-the-pilot comment?
Does anyone really believe that this aircraft is now so damaged that the only way forward is to scrap it?
I'd really be interested to hear some expert views.
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Just west of here
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Way-back-when" the regulators regulated, the looping and rolling of a non-aerobatic aircraft would have resulted in the immediate withdrawal of the C. of A. and the prosecution of such an un-disciplined pilot.
One can only assume that the S.A. regulatory authorities, (a) didn't see it or, (b) are unaware of the event or, (c) they feel the flight manual limitations are too restrictive.
In any case, one would not expect a professional pilot to expose the aircraft or himself to critisism by a such a blatant dis-regard of limitations
(It wouldn't have been so bad if the manouevres hadn't been so poorly executed. It looked sh$thouse. The roll looked like "Oh sh$t, what do I do now?)
(Apologies to Tony Draper for any possible mis-use of the word, "one")
One can only assume that the S.A. regulatory authorities, (a) didn't see it or, (b) are unaware of the event or, (c) they feel the flight manual limitations are too restrictive.
In any case, one would not expect a professional pilot to expose the aircraft or himself to critisism by a such a blatant dis-regard of limitations
(It wouldn't have been so bad if the manouevres hadn't been so poorly executed. It looked sh$thouse. The roll looked like "Oh sh$t, what do I do now?)
(Apologies to Tony Draper for any possible mis-use of the word, "one")
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South Africa
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WRL
That's really my point. There has been a good deal of debate as to what sanctions, etc., should be taken against the pilot for having done what he did. No question, he probably deserves to have his licence pulled, etc., etc.
But what about the aircraft itself? That's what I'm interested in. Has the aircraft been so badly stressed that it needs to be scrapped (or completely rebuilt, depending on which way you look at it)?
Or should the manufacturer have simply required the standard stress inspections to be carried out and make a decision then as to whether the aircraft could be put back into service or whether further tests, etc. are needed?
The reaction of the manufacturer seems, to me anyway, to have been based on more of a desire to "punish" someone, rather than to objectively establish whether the integrity of the aircraft has been compromised.
ARM505
The original thread is called "Virginia Airshow" and can be found by searching the African Aviation forum within PPRUNE with "Virginia" as the keyword. Sorry, I don't know how to insert a shortcut into this message to take you straight there.
The video of the helicopter doing the loop and roll is at:
http://hagar.up.ac.za/christo/Bell407Loop.wmv
That's really my point. There has been a good deal of debate as to what sanctions, etc., should be taken against the pilot for having done what he did. No question, he probably deserves to have his licence pulled, etc., etc.
But what about the aircraft itself? That's what I'm interested in. Has the aircraft been so badly stressed that it needs to be scrapped (or completely rebuilt, depending on which way you look at it)?
Or should the manufacturer have simply required the standard stress inspections to be carried out and make a decision then as to whether the aircraft could be put back into service or whether further tests, etc. are needed?
The reaction of the manufacturer seems, to me anyway, to have been based on more of a desire to "punish" someone, rather than to objectively establish whether the integrity of the aircraft has been compromised.
ARM505
The original thread is called "Virginia Airshow" and can be found by searching the African Aviation forum within PPRUNE with "Virginia" as the keyword. Sorry, I don't know how to insert a shortcut into this message to take you straight there.
The video of the helicopter doing the loop and roll is at:
http://hagar.up.ac.za/christo/Bell407Loop.wmv
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Africa
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
407 Aeros
The issue here is that Bell were contacted on the day and asked whether the machine was capable of doing the manoevre as described. They acknowledge that their test pilots do similar manoevres in the 407. The manual says that such manouvres are not approved.
Now if Bell were to sit back and say that after a brief inspection the helicopter could carry on flying, and after another couple of hundred hours some component should fail, maybe not even related to the incident, Bell would be liable for some HUGE claims.
The insurance and product liability mindset of the Yanks is actually to blame here. What is the solution? Change all the components that could possibly be stressed during such a manoevre and then you can claim that they could have no part in a subsequent failure.
Now if Bell were to sit back and say that after a brief inspection the helicopter could carry on flying, and after another couple of hundred hours some component should fail, maybe not even related to the incident, Bell would be liable for some HUGE claims.
The insurance and product liability mindset of the Yanks is actually to blame here. What is the solution? Change all the components that could possibly be stressed during such a manoevre and then you can claim that they could have no part in a subsequent failure.
GunsssR4ever
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Out there somewhere ...
Posts: 3,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir Cumference what is the lastest on the machine ?
Was it send to the US as described previously ?
Is it actually scrapped ?
As catalogue says .. who has not gone past the normal. Surely the airframe / gearboxes and blades could take the bit of extra strain ... I am sure I have strained a few helicopters more by overloading / flying through a thunderstorm and hanging onto the roof in my straps ... thanks to some luvly negative g's .... oh just to fall back into my (by now dark stained) flying overall
Have a great Friday and a great BOKKE weekend
Gunssss
Was it send to the US as described previously ?
Is it actually scrapped ?
As catalogue says .. who has not gone past the normal. Surely the airframe / gearboxes and blades could take the bit of extra strain ... I am sure I have strained a few helicopters more by overloading / flying through a thunderstorm and hanging onto the roof in my straps ... thanks to some luvly negative g's .... oh just to fall back into my (by now dark stained) flying overall
Have a great Friday and a great BOKKE weekend
Gunssss
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir cumference has a point when it comes to liability in the states. But I think it would apply in Africa also. Lawyers feed on this stuff.
End reult will be interesting so heres hoping someone will keep us up to date.
You can also bet that no manufacturer would let one of their Demo aircraft hit the street without zero timing stuff after "unapproved" manuvers.
End reult will be interesting so heres hoping someone will keep us up to date.
You can also bet that no manufacturer would let one of their Demo aircraft hit the street without zero timing stuff after "unapproved" manuvers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: In my skin, strapped to my Helo...
Age: 47
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last I heard the aircraft is parked in a hangar in Jo'Burg and CE is up and flying again. He had to re-write 2 exams, and needless to say, aced them both first time.
Gunss,
I'll get his number and e-mail address for you and PM it to you if you want it
Gunss,
I'll get his number and e-mail address for you and PM it to you if you want it
GunsssR4ever
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Out there somewhere ...
Posts: 3,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the PM Sir Cum ... and thanks DD.
CE has left where he was and he flies for an old chum
Well done CE and ...
Nothing wrong with the old boys net
CE has left where he was and he flies for an old chum
Well done CE and ...
Nothing wrong with the old boys net
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: sandton
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Catalogue 2, thank you. Your comments are both insightful and thought provoking.
I agree that there should have been severe repercussions for the pilot (far more severe than was actually the case).
I further support the fact that the manufacturer needs to take a stance on the issue to protect their reputation and also as a precaution against the product liability issue which, as we all know, is big business in the States.
Also, there is a better than average chance that had Bell simply ignored the incident (as it has more or less been sanctioned by both the CAA and the show director) we would most certainly have a fair proportion of the 407 jockeys out there trying to better CE's performance, turning the 407 into a ground burrowing device.
Having said this, it brings one back to the burning question. Is Bell acting in a fair and reasonable manner considering the fact that firstly, in the video of the manoeuvre (which a number of us have watched over and over again) there is no indication of any undue stress being placed on the machine.
Secondly, neither the gauges nor the computer download of the data from the HMU indicated any exceedences.
Thirdly, that the same manoeuvres are regularly performed at Bells Canadian plant, where, sure, they are executed by test pilots and perhaps the machines are zeroed before being put on the open market.
However, fourthly and perhaps most importantly, it is common knowledge, to all who have trained at Fort Worth, that the instructors there are quitely getting up to similar antics albeit, without official sanction. Is it not strange then that these training machines find their way into the open market without any major rework or zero timing?
Is Bell overeacting on this incident? Have they decided to use it to send a clear and unambiguous signal to the industry as a whole? More importantly, are they beaing fair to the present owners, the insurance industry and all their current and potential clients by their actions?
You be the judge...
Detailed below is Bell's official response covering their requirement for returning the ship to service. The cost estimate so far is in excess of R4.7 million excluding the shipping, import and export costs, repair and inspection costs of the components (blades, etc) that have to be returned to Bell. A conservative estimate is that the final bill is going to be in the order of R6 million.
Gunship, for your info, the machine is currently with Alpine Aviation at Grand Central.
LETTER FROM BELL HELICOPTER
SPECIAL INSPECTION PROCEDURES
ATTACHMENT A to Letter August 30, 2004
The following actions will be required in order to evaluate the continued airworthiness of Model 407 Serial Number 53078
A. Permanent removal from service is required for the following components:
a. All metal components of the main rotor hub assembly including
the elastomeric components and blade bolts
b. Main rotor mast assembly
c. Boosted main rotor fixed and rotating controls, including the
swashplate assembly and support.
d. Main rotor control hydraulic actuators, and the support casting.
e. Flight control bolts in the boosted control system.
f. Drive system components to include tail rotor drive shafts,
bearings, hangers, flex couplings and splined adapters.
g. Input (Ka-Flex) drive shaft
h. Transmission top case
i. Transmission-mounted flight control bellcranks and support
brackets.
j. Tail rotor mast
k. Tail boom and attach hardware
l. Pylon support structure including the pylon side beams, corner
mounts, longitudinal pitch restraints, stop fittings and
associated attachment hardware.
B. Components requiring complete inspection and overhaul at
Bell Helicopter:
a. Main and tail rotor blades
b. Main rotor yoke assembly
c. Tail rotor yoke assembly
C. Components to be overhauled by a facility suitable to Bell (Bell
Tennessee/CSR):
a. Transmission assembly
b. Freewheel assembly
c. Tail rotor gearbox
D. Airframe inspection by qualified personnel suitable to Bell:
a. Fuselage structure for evidence of cracks or distortion
b. Instrument panel console for evidence of distortion
c. Battery and ballast weight supports
d. Cabin roof beam assembly
e. Roll-over bulkheads
Page 2:
f. Vertical control tunnel
g. Engine deck for cracks, distortion evidence
h. Tail boom attachment fittings and longerons
i. Horizontal stabilizer
j. Vertical and auxiliary fins
In support of the above return to service action, the aircraft interior shall be removed and other systems and controls as necessary to permit close and rigid visual inspection of the entire fuselage structure as recommended above. Prior to release
for return to service, items not listed above shall be inspected in accordance with the basic aircraft 300 hour / annual inspection.
Any material abnormalities or discrepancies identified during the conditional inspection are to be reported to Product Support Engineering - Light Helicopters, for evaluation.
Items listed above that are to be permanently removed from service are deemed unsuitable for use, and shall be destroyed, permanently marked or otherwise disfigured so as to prevent inadvertent installation on an operational helicopter.
Upon completion of the actions above, a written statement should be provided to PSE Light by responsible person(s). Upon review and agreement, Bell Helicopter will issue a Special Conditional Acceptance (SCA) statement to cover the continued
airworthiness of the helicopter. This SCA will be provided to the appropriate Regulatory authority with the recommendation to return the ship to flightworthy service.
Reference: Attachment A, JD2004-039
I agree that there should have been severe repercussions for the pilot (far more severe than was actually the case).
I further support the fact that the manufacturer needs to take a stance on the issue to protect their reputation and also as a precaution against the product liability issue which, as we all know, is big business in the States.
Also, there is a better than average chance that had Bell simply ignored the incident (as it has more or less been sanctioned by both the CAA and the show director) we would most certainly have a fair proportion of the 407 jockeys out there trying to better CE's performance, turning the 407 into a ground burrowing device.
Having said this, it brings one back to the burning question. Is Bell acting in a fair and reasonable manner considering the fact that firstly, in the video of the manoeuvre (which a number of us have watched over and over again) there is no indication of any undue stress being placed on the machine.
Secondly, neither the gauges nor the computer download of the data from the HMU indicated any exceedences.
Thirdly, that the same manoeuvres are regularly performed at Bells Canadian plant, where, sure, they are executed by test pilots and perhaps the machines are zeroed before being put on the open market.
However, fourthly and perhaps most importantly, it is common knowledge, to all who have trained at Fort Worth, that the instructors there are quitely getting up to similar antics albeit, without official sanction. Is it not strange then that these training machines find their way into the open market without any major rework or zero timing?
Is Bell overeacting on this incident? Have they decided to use it to send a clear and unambiguous signal to the industry as a whole? More importantly, are they beaing fair to the present owners, the insurance industry and all their current and potential clients by their actions?
You be the judge...
Detailed below is Bell's official response covering their requirement for returning the ship to service. The cost estimate so far is in excess of R4.7 million excluding the shipping, import and export costs, repair and inspection costs of the components (blades, etc) that have to be returned to Bell. A conservative estimate is that the final bill is going to be in the order of R6 million.
Gunship, for your info, the machine is currently with Alpine Aviation at Grand Central.
LETTER FROM BELL HELICOPTER
SPECIAL INSPECTION PROCEDURES
ATTACHMENT A to Letter August 30, 2004
The following actions will be required in order to evaluate the continued airworthiness of Model 407 Serial Number 53078
A. Permanent removal from service is required for the following components:
a. All metal components of the main rotor hub assembly including
the elastomeric components and blade bolts
b. Main rotor mast assembly
c. Boosted main rotor fixed and rotating controls, including the
swashplate assembly and support.
d. Main rotor control hydraulic actuators, and the support casting.
e. Flight control bolts in the boosted control system.
f. Drive system components to include tail rotor drive shafts,
bearings, hangers, flex couplings and splined adapters.
g. Input (Ka-Flex) drive shaft
h. Transmission top case
i. Transmission-mounted flight control bellcranks and support
brackets.
j. Tail rotor mast
k. Tail boom and attach hardware
l. Pylon support structure including the pylon side beams, corner
mounts, longitudinal pitch restraints, stop fittings and
associated attachment hardware.
B. Components requiring complete inspection and overhaul at
Bell Helicopter:
a. Main and tail rotor blades
b. Main rotor yoke assembly
c. Tail rotor yoke assembly
C. Components to be overhauled by a facility suitable to Bell (Bell
Tennessee/CSR):
a. Transmission assembly
b. Freewheel assembly
c. Tail rotor gearbox
D. Airframe inspection by qualified personnel suitable to Bell:
a. Fuselage structure for evidence of cracks or distortion
b. Instrument panel console for evidence of distortion
c. Battery and ballast weight supports
d. Cabin roof beam assembly
e. Roll-over bulkheads
Page 2:
f. Vertical control tunnel
g. Engine deck for cracks, distortion evidence
h. Tail boom attachment fittings and longerons
i. Horizontal stabilizer
j. Vertical and auxiliary fins
In support of the above return to service action, the aircraft interior shall be removed and other systems and controls as necessary to permit close and rigid visual inspection of the entire fuselage structure as recommended above. Prior to release
for return to service, items not listed above shall be inspected in accordance with the basic aircraft 300 hour / annual inspection.
Any material abnormalities or discrepancies identified during the conditional inspection are to be reported to Product Support Engineering - Light Helicopters, for evaluation.
Items listed above that are to be permanently removed from service are deemed unsuitable for use, and shall be destroyed, permanently marked or otherwise disfigured so as to prevent inadvertent installation on an operational helicopter.
Upon completion of the actions above, a written statement should be provided to PSE Light by responsible person(s). Upon review and agreement, Bell Helicopter will issue a Special Conditional Acceptance (SCA) statement to cover the continued
airworthiness of the helicopter. This SCA will be provided to the appropriate Regulatory authority with the recommendation to return the ship to flightworthy service.
Reference: Attachment A, JD2004-039
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: All around
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vince290
As someone that was actually at Virginia during the show I can tell you that the display was definately not sanctioned by the CAA or the safety officer. The indemnity that all display pilots have to sign clearly states that the display have to be within the flight envelope as stated in the AFM. (Clearly not the case in this saga)
The CAA inspector at the show stated to a number of people after the event that it was quite possibly the most expensive display witnessed in a number of years.
As to the CoA, it is my understanding that if the manufacturer withdraws a type certificate, the CoA is automatically suspended pending rectification to the satisfaction of the manufacturer.
As someone that was actually at Virginia during the show I can tell you that the display was definately not sanctioned by the CAA or the safety officer. The indemnity that all display pilots have to sign clearly states that the display have to be within the flight envelope as stated in the AFM. (Clearly not the case in this saga)
The CAA inspector at the show stated to a number of people after the event that it was quite possibly the most expensive display witnessed in a number of years.
As to the CoA, it is my understanding that if the manufacturer withdraws a type certificate, the CoA is automatically suspended pending rectification to the satisfaction of the manufacturer.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ZA
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I read Vince290's message, he's not arguing that the pilot was way out of line or whether Bell/SACAA had the right to ground the aircraft pending further investigation.
What he appears to be doing is following the line of comment made earlier by Catalogue2.
Cat2 questioned the severity of the reaction from Bell and asked whether this was entirely warranted in terms of establishing the structural integrity of the aircraft as distinct from "punishing" the owner of the aircraft and sending a blunt message to all other wannabee aerobatic pilots: "don't try it in any of OUR aircraft!".
If you read the list of requirements laid down by Bell, it makes you wonder why they didn't simply say:
(a) open fuel cap
(b) light match
(c) drop match into fuel tank
(d) Have a Nice Day!
I still want to hear what Gunns thinks about this!
What he appears to be doing is following the line of comment made earlier by Catalogue2.
Cat2 questioned the severity of the reaction from Bell and asked whether this was entirely warranted in terms of establishing the structural integrity of the aircraft as distinct from "punishing" the owner of the aircraft and sending a blunt message to all other wannabee aerobatic pilots: "don't try it in any of OUR aircraft!".
If you read the list of requirements laid down by Bell, it makes you wonder why they didn't simply say:
(a) open fuel cap
(b) light match
(c) drop match into fuel tank
(d) Have a Nice Day!
I still want to hear what Gunns thinks about this!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Africa
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like Vince290, Catalogue2 and Sandiron have struck a nerve. Suddenly, no-one has an opinion. Where are all those ppruners who climbed in when it was CE that was being torn apart, or praised, for what happened? "Silence implies consent", is the phrase that springs to mind, so I guess we're all agreed that Bell has grossly over-reacted in a cynical attempt to protect itself from future lawsuits and is prepared to consign ZS-RIB to the scrapheap if that's what it takes?
Nice one.
Nice one.