Heading for disaster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: inside
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like the new one who, rumours say, is very old school. Probably would love to hear from idiots willing to sweep floors. Good idiots are hard to get these days 
This whole idea of doing something not related to the actually job generally works in the favour of those NOT willing to do it. Guess who gets the job. Kindda like a Hollywood casting couch. The ones not willing generally have belief in their own talent, and therefore has a higher chance of succeeding.
PS. A brand new instructor probably knows more in his/hers first year as an instructor than anybody else. Helicopter zen-wisdom is irrelevant when learning to do patterns/hover practice.
This whole idea of doing something not related to the actually job generally works in the favour of those NOT willing to do it. Guess who gets the job. Kindda like a Hollywood casting couch. The ones not willing generally have belief in their own talent, and therefore has a higher chance of succeeding.
PS. A brand new instructor probably knows more in his/hers first year as an instructor than anybody else. Helicopter zen-wisdom is irrelevant when learning to do patterns/hover practice.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Belgium
Age: 60
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if the general idea is that there are too many low-time instructors, and they don't make good pilots, why isn't the accident rate much higher? Also a conclusion would be there aren't many good pilots because 80% of the instructors are low-time (initially)
This is complete bogus!
Low time instructors passed the test (government standard) and so they're supposed to know how to teach and to fly. Perfectly able to teach PPL. Then government standard tell when you can start teaching CPL or even FI. In the US this is not true but there aren't that many flightschools allowing 200hr instructors to teach CPL let alone do full-down autorotations.
I much rather hire a guy who build up his hours by instructing 2 years (or less) to get his 1000 then someone who's been sweeping the floor and flying every now and then for 5 years.
The whole hangar rat idea is ridiculous, just cheap labour. And has nothing to do with learning the industry from the ground up. Hands on experience that's what you need 'stick time' not 'broom time'.
This is complete bogus!
Low time instructors passed the test (government standard) and so they're supposed to know how to teach and to fly. Perfectly able to teach PPL. Then government standard tell when you can start teaching CPL or even FI. In the US this is not true but there aren't that many flightschools allowing 200hr instructors to teach CPL let alone do full-down autorotations.
I much rather hire a guy who build up his hours by instructing 2 years (or less) to get his 1000 then someone who's been sweeping the floor and flying every now and then for 5 years.
The whole hangar rat idea is ridiculous, just cheap labour. And has nothing to do with learning the industry from the ground up. Hands on experience that's what you need 'stick time' not 'broom time'.
NC43,
Just how many "Scottish" helicopter companies are there with rude,crude, totally unacceptable for social company Chief Pilots? I mean, why would the CP take the time to craft a rude, crude, arrogant response to an e-mail from a budding young pilot.
OH! I see your point.....one name jumps to the fore now that I think about it. Must be company doctrine sort of thing I guess....like an outfit that does not particularly show much concern for the staff....that kinda company I guess.
Just how many "Scottish" helicopter companies are there with rude,crude, totally unacceptable for social company Chief Pilots? I mean, why would the CP take the time to craft a rude, crude, arrogant response to an e-mail from a budding young pilot.
OH! I see your point.....one name jumps to the fore now that I think about it. Must be company doctrine sort of thing I guess....like an outfit that does not particularly show much concern for the staff....that kinda company I guess.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: AUS
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think part of the disagreement here may be as a result of different culture. In Aus I would think that the amount of ppls being trained is fairly low. Most students in flying schools here are cpls. It's not just a matter of teaching them to hover and fly circuits.
Also where hangar ratting works well here is that a lot of the operators that take on low hour pilots are in fairly remote areas so there is plenty to learn about the company operations,self sufficiency etc before you head out to remote camps. Generally the time spent sweeping floors, assisting engineers, greeting customers etc gives a good solid grounding(apprenticeship) If you see your time in the hangar as a waste it is probably more a reflection on your attitude than anything else.
Also where hangar ratting works well here is that a lot of the operators that take on low hour pilots are in fairly remote areas so there is plenty to learn about the company operations,self sufficiency etc before you head out to remote camps. Generally the time spent sweeping floors, assisting engineers, greeting customers etc gives a good solid grounding(apprenticeship) If you see your time in the hangar as a waste it is probably more a reflection on your attitude than anything else.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,149
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Hmm, low time instructors....
Whilst I recognise that they are only supposed to bring students "up to their standard" as the CAA say, I am of the opinion that, since your real training starts with your first job, and most companies will spend a minimal amount on training, all there is between you and an accident is the quality of training you get before you arrive, in which case there is a lot beyond the basic syllabus that can (and should) be taught, and if you haven't got that sort of experience, you can't teach it.
Just a season in the industry before starting to teach would be enough, preferably in Canada or Australia and not punching autopilot buttons round racecourses.
Otherwise, I have flown with 17,000 hour pilots who I wouldn't trust with a pram, and 1000 hour pilots who I'd trust with anything, and I'm sure it's the same with instructors. Flying is more of a mental game than anything else.
Phil
Whilst I recognise that they are only supposed to bring students "up to their standard" as the CAA say, I am of the opinion that, since your real training starts with your first job, and most companies will spend a minimal amount on training, all there is between you and an accident is the quality of training you get before you arrive, in which case there is a lot beyond the basic syllabus that can (and should) be taught, and if you haven't got that sort of experience, you can't teach it.
Just a season in the industry before starting to teach would be enough, preferably in Canada or Australia and not punching autopilot buttons round racecourses.
Otherwise, I have flown with 17,000 hour pilots who I wouldn't trust with a pram, and 1000 hour pilots who I'd trust with anything, and I'm sure it's the same with instructors. Flying is more of a mental game than anything else.
Phil
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha! Bloody hell!
Move over old timer - your time is done! (Ch.OTBrd)
HillerBee is about right.
Its all about whether these people are able to teach to the minimum standard required.
Sure, a newer CFI won't be able to preach about the pros and cons of a steep approach when landing in hot LZ in 'Nam. But, he's not required to do that. He's able to perform a perfectly safe maneouver, and that's all he's required to teach.
Gone are the day's of apprenticeships and internships. Nowadays, the apprenticeship is carried by the company not the educational institution. Its simply a shift in the pardigm.
As far as quality of instruction goes, hours don't necessarily increase the quality of primary instruction at all. Show me figures that say otherwise. Good quality instruction requires the instructor to be able to convey the concepts and knowledge in an effictive manner, and to know and have experience of what he is required to teach. To not try to teach more. Some of the best teachers I know (and I know a few) are not experts in their fields, but their quality of instruction is enhanced by knowledge and enthusiasm.
I know of a great many 'high-time' pilots who would make CRAP instructors, because they don't know the first thing about people, they are too stuck up their own arses to be able to empathise with a student and understand his needs. So don't come in here griping about low-time pilots without substantiating your claims with solid educational philosophy!
Of course, you can argue that a 10000 hr instructor has a lot more 'experience' to draw from. True, but as I said before, why does a primary student need to know about how to land in a hot LZ?
The last words from me, are those written by Bob Dylan...
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
cl12pv2s
Flamesuit on!
Move over old timer - your time is done! (Ch.OTBrd)
HillerBee is about right.
Its all about whether these people are able to teach to the minimum standard required.
Sure, a newer CFI won't be able to preach about the pros and cons of a steep approach when landing in hot LZ in 'Nam. But, he's not required to do that. He's able to perform a perfectly safe maneouver, and that's all he's required to teach.
Gone are the day's of apprenticeships and internships. Nowadays, the apprenticeship is carried by the company not the educational institution. Its simply a shift in the pardigm.
As far as quality of instruction goes, hours don't necessarily increase the quality of primary instruction at all. Show me figures that say otherwise. Good quality instruction requires the instructor to be able to convey the concepts and knowledge in an effictive manner, and to know and have experience of what he is required to teach. To not try to teach more. Some of the best teachers I know (and I know a few) are not experts in their fields, but their quality of instruction is enhanced by knowledge and enthusiasm.
I know of a great many 'high-time' pilots who would make CRAP instructors, because they don't know the first thing about people, they are too stuck up their own arses to be able to empathise with a student and understand his needs. So don't come in here griping about low-time pilots without substantiating your claims with solid educational philosophy!
Of course, you can argue that a 10000 hr instructor has a lot more 'experience' to draw from. True, but as I said before, why does a primary student need to know about how to land in a hot LZ?
The last words from me, are those written by Bob Dylan...
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
cl12pv2s
Flamesuit on!
Last edited by cl12pv2s; 20th May 2006 at 07:25.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by is gravity respons..
well no, im not going to be mean, but its a leader in the field apart from their chieff pilot!
SASless...thanks for that, silly me, how could I have forgotten...
NC43
cl12pv2s
What the 
has that got to do with anything?
You said it yourself. If you're happy with the minimum standard well for you.
Where do you think you would get the best value for money?
Teaching capability aside.
What category does that put the low time instructor in that can't teach all that well?
By the way, Bob had a few good tunes but at the end of the day he was just a drug ed idiot
Hillerbee
Nice one. That's one of the stupidest things Ive ever heard. You might think twice when one of your boys is out in the field on the phone to an engineer telling him that "He thinks that the noise is coming from that round looking thing with the square on the end near where the pipe is bolted to the grey bit" Amplifiedby the fact that he did his license with a 207.6 hour instuctor that didn't have the operational experience to pass on any tips and things to look out for on the machine.
Other than that, it's a great theory
Sure, a newer CFI won't be able to preach about the pros and cons of a steep approach when landing in hot LZ in 'Nam
has that got to do with anything?
Its all about whether these people are able to teach to the minimum standard required.
for you.Where do you think you would get the best value for money?
Teaching capability aside.
What category does that put the low time instructor in that can't teach all that well?
By the way, Bob had a few good tunes but at the end of the day he was just a drug
ed idiot Hillerbee
The whole hangar rat idea is ridiculous, just cheap labour. And has nothing to do with learning the industry from the ground up. Hands on experience that's what you need 'stick time' not 'broom time'.
Other than that, it's a great theory
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Qld, Aus
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
best hanger rat in the world
good day chopperpug.i have read your bit on breaking into the industry and i know first hand how hard it is to get that illlusive first job.
you have probably had 1000's of replies since your posting, but i think I am the person you are searching for to put in the hard yards in the hangar. i can also make a bloody good cup of coffee and know how to anwer a phone. your hangar and premises would have never looked better. the flying will come with time. i know the best way to start is at the bottom.
i have 183 hrs on the R22 and about 17 hrs on the R44. i am not in posession of my log book at the moment, so i can not give you the exact totals.
thanks again
sajoe
you have probably had 1000's of replies since your posting, but i think I am the person you are searching for to put in the hard yards in the hangar. i can also make a bloody good cup of coffee and know how to anwer a phone. your hangar and premises would have never looked better. the flying will come with time. i know the best way to start is at the bottom.
i have 183 hrs on the R22 and about 17 hrs on the R44. i am not in posession of my log book at the moment, so i can not give you the exact totals.
thanks again
sajoe
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: the one less travelled
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just because you don't want to pick up a broom doesn't mean you don't spend time in the hangar with the engineers..
Any aspiring pilot should want to be there, when not flying..
Any aspiring pilot should want to be there, when not flying..
Those that stand out and get ahead are the ones that do what needs to be done without being asked. ie- If the floor is dirty it needs to be swept.
As far as i am concerned if you don't want to pick up a broom you can take your lazy ass somewhere else.
That my friend is a questionable attitude in any industry
As far as i am concerned if you don't want to pick up a broom you can take your lazy ass somewhere else.
That my friend is a questionable attitude in any industry
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: the one less travelled
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah...maybe I didn't put it well before...
What I mean is, you should already be in the hangar, spending time, doing whatever needs to be done ( and that includes picking up a broom, cleaning a windshield ), something I'm happy to do.
That's different to having to be employed purely as a broom sweeper to get a head start.
What I mean is, you should already be in the hangar, spending time, doing whatever needs to be done ( and that includes picking up a broom, cleaning a windshield ), something I'm happy to do.
That's different to having to be employed purely as a broom sweeper to get a head start.
Last edited by bluestack; 20th May 2006 at 11:29.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Denver, CO and the GOM
Age: 63
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IT seems we have two different topics here. One is the concept of low-hour, new to the industry CFIs providing primary training. In the USA, all training up through CFII should be considered "primary training" - your profession-specific training starts when the job starts. To me there's no issue.
CFIs teach the basics of helicopter flying and the aviation environment, and indeed, the "minimum standard" is good enough, as long as employers don't expect their new 1,000-pilot to have more than a really good handle on the basics. If an employer needs their pilots to be able to do field repairs, the employer has to train the pilot to do field repairs. If the minimum standard is not being met (or is not acceptable), that's a problem with our method of certifying pilots. Don't blame a CFI for training folks to the standards of the FAA or CAA or JAR or whatever - fact is, you don't need a bazillion hours to understand the concepts, and lots of time in the cockpit doesn't mean you'll be a good instructor.
The other issue is the perceived (or actual) work ethic of a pilot. Unfortunately, it's an entirely subjective issue just how willing a pilot (any employee) should be to do "whatever comes along", "go the extra mile", whatever. If I hire on as a pilot, should I be happy stripping paint off of old hangars because it needs to be done? Should I know how to work on helicopters (and put in the extra hours doing so) because an operator is unwilling to hire a full-time mechanic? At what point am I allowed to say "this is not the job I hired on for"?
It's one thing if a pilot is shirking duties, or if a want-to-be pilot is unwilling to put in the time and training required. If floor-sweeping is a recognized part of the industry, or a documented part of the job, then yes, we should see pilots sweeping floors. Otherwise...
CFIs teach the basics of helicopter flying and the aviation environment, and indeed, the "minimum standard" is good enough, as long as employers don't expect their new 1,000-pilot to have more than a really good handle on the basics. If an employer needs their pilots to be able to do field repairs, the employer has to train the pilot to do field repairs. If the minimum standard is not being met (or is not acceptable), that's a problem with our method of certifying pilots. Don't blame a CFI for training folks to the standards of the FAA or CAA or JAR or whatever - fact is, you don't need a bazillion hours to understand the concepts, and lots of time in the cockpit doesn't mean you'll be a good instructor.
The other issue is the perceived (or actual) work ethic of a pilot. Unfortunately, it's an entirely subjective issue just how willing a pilot (any employee) should be to do "whatever comes along", "go the extra mile", whatever. If I hire on as a pilot, should I be happy stripping paint off of old hangars because it needs to be done? Should I know how to work on helicopters (and put in the extra hours doing so) because an operator is unwilling to hire a full-time mechanic? At what point am I allowed to say "this is not the job I hired on for"?
It's one thing if a pilot is shirking duties, or if a want-to-be pilot is unwilling to put in the time and training required. If floor-sweeping is a recognized part of the industry, or a documented part of the job, then yes, we should see pilots sweeping floors. Otherwise...
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bellfest,
OK Bellfest, this is of course a metaphor. Of course what I'm saying is that sometimes the 'extra' knowledge of the high-time pilot is inappropriate to the level of learning that a primary student requires. Thus that 'extra' knowledge doesn't help that student whatsoever. Just as an Ph.D Asto-physicist won't necessarily make a better primary school science teacher.
Please, don't put words into my mouth. 
I never said I'm happy to accept the minimum myself. What I'm saying is, the authorities impose standards to which flight training should be conducted. Let's call them (for want of a better phrase) 'minimum standards'. Therefore, an instructor should (at a minimum) have a level of competency and knowledge appropriate to teach to that standard. Surely you agree.
Is your complaint that students aren't meeting this standard. If so, then you're justified to grumble. However, iIf you're asking for the minimum to be raised, then that's another issue.
How can you put 'teaching capability aside? Surely that's the crux of this entire branch of this thread! A low time pilot who is a crap teacher is as effective as a high time pilot who is a crap teacher.
I could go on about the education side of flight training, but Flingwing put things in a more diplomatic sense than I did, and said pretty much what I agree.
rgds,
cl12pv2s
Sure, a newer CFI won't be able to preach about the pros and cons of a steep approach when landing in hot LZ in 'Nam
What the has that got to do with anything?
What the has that got to do with anything?
Its all about whether these people are able to teach to the minimum standard required.
You said it yourself. If you're happy with the minimum standard well for you.
You said it yourself. If you're happy with the minimum standard well for you.
I never said I'm happy to accept the minimum myself. What I'm saying is, the authorities impose standards to which flight training should be conducted. Let's call them (for want of a better phrase) 'minimum standards'. Therefore, an instructor should (at a minimum) have a level of competency and knowledge appropriate to teach to that standard. Surely you agree.Is your complaint that students aren't meeting this standard. If so, then you're justified to grumble. However, iIf you're asking for the minimum to be raised, then that's another issue.
Teaching capability aside.
I could go on about the education side of flight training, but Flingwing put things in a more diplomatic sense than I did, and said pretty much what I agree.
rgds,
cl12pv2s
Last edited by cl12pv2s; 20th May 2006 at 12:59.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep positive, Rotary is good.
I don’t think anyone needs a flamesuit, all have a lot of good points and perhaps some newbie instructors do miss explaining some of those million questions.
For instance we should all visit Blenders’ ‘settling with power and/or vortex ring etc thread’ to quantify “just some” of the more elaborate points, LTE is another oft mistaken phobic pile of bull dust. Dare I mention Melbourne Australia? –old thread-
I clearly, very clearly remember a bit of a discussion I had with my 300hr newbie instructor, (a yarpie) state-side when I was upgrading from PHPL to CHPL. We’d been talking about hovering autos that we’d been doing down-under in ‘47s from the top side or less of the magic curve. He reckons, “let’s go and do them in this 269B”. I had about 3.5K at the time, all in 47’s, and five – that’s 5.O - only on the 269 and my reply was kind of unprintable. Like-No way!
On the other side of the experience coin;
Another student there, a NASA employee and multi endorsed from DC3 to many fast jets, was doing his rotary as a prelude for going onto A5’s. He picked up on the conversation and went out with his instructor, a 1200 or so hour femme (as good as they all are) and worked down to them quite neatly. Why, I don’t know as a flame out in an A5 at a 300’ hover would fall into the - extremely exciting for a short space of time- category.
However a basic license is about basic skills, with discipline! “Nothing’s a-changin there”. One big problem that I have experienced is as below;
I can say with all honesty of the several hundred newbies and many others that were not newbies that I have flown with well less, yes I mean well less than half actually, basically, put the life saver right down – or even less - when I cut the power. Quite plainly their first engine failure would have been their last!!
Why is this??!!
Maybe instructors could use a musical chairs charade as a simulator, when the music stops – push down with your left arm – someone else (their close friend?) standing behind to cuff 'em with a broom when they don’t! Make it real? with the Apocalypse now sound track, oh yeah and the bloody video!!
Mind you, here I am only talking about what happens before ‘they’ get to the hangar! Quite happy to put some logic, and facts, into the other later, like the broom is not the master of advancement at all, (absolutely no pun intended there, sorry!) merely an indicator of attitude.
Keep smiling newbies; I wouldn’t have missed this life for quids!!!
For instance we should all visit Blenders’ ‘settling with power and/or vortex ring etc thread’ to quantify “just some” of the more elaborate points, LTE is another oft mistaken phobic pile of bull dust. Dare I mention Melbourne Australia? –old thread-
I clearly, very clearly remember a bit of a discussion I had with my 300hr newbie instructor, (a yarpie) state-side when I was upgrading from PHPL to CHPL. We’d been talking about hovering autos that we’d been doing down-under in ‘47s from the top side or less of the magic curve. He reckons, “let’s go and do them in this 269B”. I had about 3.5K at the time, all in 47’s, and five – that’s 5.O - only on the 269 and my reply was kind of unprintable. Like-No way!
On the other side of the experience coin;
Another student there, a NASA employee and multi endorsed from DC3 to many fast jets, was doing his rotary as a prelude for going onto A5’s. He picked up on the conversation and went out with his instructor, a 1200 or so hour femme (as good as they all are) and worked down to them quite neatly. Why, I don’t know as a flame out in an A5 at a 300’ hover would fall into the - extremely exciting for a short space of time- category.
However a basic license is about basic skills, with discipline! “Nothing’s a-changin there”. One big problem that I have experienced is as below;
I can say with all honesty of the several hundred newbies and many others that were not newbies that I have flown with well less, yes I mean well less than half actually, basically, put the life saver right down – or even less - when I cut the power. Quite plainly their first engine failure would have been their last!!
Why is this??!!
Maybe instructors could use a musical chairs charade as a simulator, when the music stops – push down with your left arm – someone else (their close friend?) standing behind to cuff 'em with a broom when they don’t! Make it real? with the Apocalypse now sound track, oh yeah and the bloody video!!
Mind you, here I am only talking about what happens before ‘they’ get to the hangar! Quite happy to put some logic, and facts, into the other later, like the broom is not the master of advancement at all, (absolutely no pun intended there, sorry!) merely an indicator of attitude.
Keep smiling newbies; I wouldn’t have missed this life for quids!!!
Therefore, an instructor should (at a minimum) have a level of competency and knowledge appropriate to teach to that standard. Surely you agree.
However, iIf you're asking for the minimum to be raised, then that's another issue.
It's a bit like chalk and cheese to compare this to primary school teaching but if we must, would you be happy for an inexperienced teacher to teach your child in primary school if they themselves are still brushing up the finer points the bunsen burner?
I'm not suggesting the equivelent of a Phd. Maybe just puberty would be a good start.
A lot is retained from your flight training so it should be good quality.
There is a much better guarantee of this if the bar is raised.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't figure out why the Insurance companies demand high timers as PIC on any decent equipment. Lots of people seem fully qualified at 200-1000 hours..?
I think the paradigm shift mentioned by cl12pv2s exists along with the pilot shortage...may or may not exist in reality, but it's possible existence might help you feel better if you're young, inexperienced and out of work..
But in the world of helo's, any paradigm shift is destined to end the way of the last one! We called them hippies! seen any around lately?
I know if I was looking for a pilot. It'd be guys like Bellfest and Bluestack I'd be calling!
Bellfest...You're point about the round looking thing, bolted to the gray bit was right on the money..
The issue of sweeping floors is kind of a stupid notion, how many times a day does the damn thing need sweeping?
But washing out a component for the engineers would do a lot of people a lot of good...Along with stripping out components (because the boss doesn't want to hire an engineer?)
Also, helping re-build a machine you one day hope to fly, is not exactly the dumbest thing on the planet...As one day, the round looking thing might shake loose, and it'd be great to know if it's an important bit?
170
ps..is gravity respons: Check your PM's
I think the paradigm shift mentioned by cl12pv2s exists along with the pilot shortage...may or may not exist in reality, but it's possible existence might help you feel better if you're young, inexperienced and out of work..
But in the world of helo's, any paradigm shift is destined to end the way of the last one! We called them hippies! seen any around lately?
I know if I was looking for a pilot. It'd be guys like Bellfest and Bluestack I'd be calling!
Bellfest...You're point about the round looking thing, bolted to the gray bit was right on the money..
The issue of sweeping floors is kind of a stupid notion, how many times a day does the damn thing need sweeping?
But washing out a component for the engineers would do a lot of people a lot of good...Along with stripping out components (because the boss doesn't want to hire an engineer?)
Also, helping re-build a machine you one day hope to fly, is not exactly the dumbest thing on the planet...As one day, the round looking thing might shake loose, and it'd be great to know if it's an important bit?
170
ps..is gravity respons: Check your PM's
Last edited by 170'; 20th May 2006 at 13:40.