New Turbine Rules Pass
02-07-2004, 03:06 PM
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (20)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ft Wayne, IN
Posts: 4,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Turbine Rules Pass
Click [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_1505542/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#1505874]HERE[/link] for more info.
.....ghost rider........out.......
.....ghost rider........out.......
02-07-2004, 06:48 PM
#4
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: right \'round here someplace
Posts: 839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
[sm=thumbup.gif][sm=thumbup.gif][sm=thumbup.gif][sm=thumbup.gif][sm=thumbup.gif][sm=thumbup.gif][sm=thumbup.gif][sm=thumbup.gif][sm=thumbup.gif][sm=thumbup.gif]
02-08-2004, 02:13 PM
#7
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (20)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ft Wayne, IN
Posts: 4,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
Oh well... I guess its time to deal with yet another restriction. That's a bit of a bummer, but a totally expected one.
Gordon
Oh well... I guess its time to deal with yet another restriction. That's a bit of a bummer, but a totally expected one.
Gordon
Hhhhmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!. Which restrictions are you talking about?
02-08-2004, 04:35 PM
#9
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (20)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ft Wayne, IN
Posts: 4,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
ORIGINAL: mr_matt
Good seeing you yesterday, Ben.
Good seeing you yesterday, Ben.
BTW, Gordon's airplane would never see 200 MPH. (lol)
Regards
Ben
02-09-2004, 09:37 AM
#10
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
ORIGINAL: ghost_rider
BTW, Gordon's airplane would never see 200 MPH. (lol)
BTW, Gordon's airplane would never see 200 MPH. (lol)
I actually don't have any slow jets
I don't fly them as fast as some folk do. { e.g. when Chris takes the sticks the airplanes always come back asking me "Why don't you fly that fast and that smooth with me?" }, because I stay firmly in my comfort zone, but I do bust 200 mph for a few seconds each flight. Or rather, I used to...Oh well. Given that the TRC was supposedly asked to go away and come up with new turbine rules from scratch without any preconceptions, it is totally beyond me why they decided to go the way they did, and ask for more thrust, more weight, etc, but less speed -
- but maybe all of the TRC members only want to fly big draggy scale airplanes and decided that for them to get new privileges for their type of models, they were perfectly willing to give up an existing privilege that they didn't personally care about.. and that if they started off by offering us up as a sacrificail lamb, then they might get what they wanted.It is also somewhat interesting to see the way that quite a lot of people justify the new restriction in terms of "only a relatively small percentage of pilots will lose out". While that is perfectly true, the people who use that as justification should remember that if turbines were banned altogether, only a relatively small percentage of RC pilots would lose out. i.e be careful of dismissing the minorty when you are in fact a minority yourself - if the AMA membership as a whole had that same myopic view as some of you guys, then we would not be flying turbines at AMA sites at all.
Later,
Gordon
02-09-2004, 09:46 AM
#12
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
ORIGINAL: mr_matt
Hey Gordon,
Would you have advocated:
1.) No speed limit?
2.) A higher speed limit?
And if 2.), what limit would have it been.
Hey Gordon,
Would you have advocated:
1.) No speed limit?
2.) A higher speed limit?
And if 2.), what limit would have it been.
Now that the foot is in the door for a speed limit, I expect it to filter down to the rest of the modeling community.
02-09-2004, 11:01 AM
#13
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
ORIGINAL: mr_matt
Hey Gordon,
Would you have advocated:
1.) No speed limit?
2.) A higher speed limit?
And if 2.), what limit would have it been.
Hey Gordon,
Would you have advocated:
1.) No speed limit?
2.) A higher speed limit?
And if 2.), what limit would have it been.
My first choice would have been (1) - no limit, since there is no limit on any other model type under AMA rules. Once that was proposed, if the AMA kicked that back as not acceptable, then negotiations on a limit could be made once it was established exactly what problem the AMA was trying to fix by insisting on a speed limit, and we could hopefully have ended up with a more realistic limit if needed. But since the initial suggestion was to start off with an open mind, certainly don't start off with suggesting a 200 mph limit.
If the AMA truly is concerned about fire (as is often claimed to be the reasoning behing a speed limit), then (a) how do they corelate speed with fire, and (b) why the heck have they not used some common sense and come up with rules that really do decrease fire risk instead of making dumb limits ? e.g. Banning the use of fragile soda-pop bottles as fuel tanks would do a heck of a lot more for decreasing fire risk, than imposing an arbitrary speed limit ever will. Dunno about you, but every single RC-crash related fire that I have seen involved a crash at below 200 mph :
[ul][*] Tam's F15 coming apart at SCCMAS in mid-air at about 150 mph and causing a fireball ; minor fire - put out by pilots & helper.[*] Unknown pilot's F15 ran off the end of the runway on landing at SCCMAS, ran into dry grass at about 15 mph; minor fire - put out by pilots & helper.[*] Jason's L39 crash at Fresno a year ago .. forward speed almost zero at the time; minor - put out by pilots & helper.[*] Roo (?) at a meet in Arizona this year ... maybe about 50 -> 70 mph at the time, on landing approach; minor fire - put out by pilot & helper.[*] Dallas's Bandit crashed at SCCMAS just after takeoff, at about 140 / 150 mph; significant fire - needed a couple of fire trucks[*] Ehab's helicopter at about 3 mph horizontally and 40 mph vertically - enormous fire - needed something like 57 firefighters, 11 fire trucks, a semi with a bulldozer, plus a CDF fire-fighting Huey doing water-bombing passes. Oh - and that was a 2-stroke methanol powered helicopter BTW.
[/ul]
Gordon
02-09-2004, 11:24 AM
#14
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: An Iceburg in, ANTARCTICA
Posts: 6,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
My first choice would have been (1) - no limit, since there is no limit on any other model type under AMA rules. Once that was proposed, if the AMA kicked that back as not acceptable, then negotiations on a limit could be made once it was established exactly what problem the AMA was trying to fix by insisting on a speed limit, and we could hopefully have ended up with a more realistic limit if needed. But since the initial suggestion was to start off with an open mind, certainly don't start off with suggesting a 200 mph limit.
If the AMA truly is concerned about fire (as is often claimed to be the reasoning behing a speed limit), then (a) how do they corelate speed with fire, and (b) why the heck have they not used some common sense and come up with rules that really do decrease fire risk instead of making dumb limits ? e.g. Banning the use of fragile soda-pop bottles as fuel tanks would do a heck of a lot more for decreasing fire risk, than imposing an arbitrary speed limit ever will. Dunno about you, but every single RC-crash related fire that I have seen involved a crash at below 200 mph :
[ul][*] Tam's F15 coming apart at SCCMAS in mid-air at about 150 mph and causing a fireball ; minor fire - put out by pilots & helper.[*] Unknown pilot's F15 ran off the end of the runway on landing at SCCMAS, ran into dry grass at about 15 mph; minor fire - put out by pilots & helper.[*] Jason's L39 crash at Fresno a year ago .. forward speed almost zero at the time; minor - put out by pilots & helper.[*] Roo (?) at a meet in Arizona this year ... maybe about 50 -> 70 mph at the time, on landing approach; minor fire - put out by pilot & helper.[*] Dallas's Bandit crashed at SCCMAS just after takeoff, at about 140 / 150 mph; significant fire - needed a couple of fire trucks[*] Ehab's helicopter at about 3 mph horizontally and 40 mph vertically - enormous fire - needed something like 57 firefighters, 11 fire trucks, a semi with a bulldozer, plus a CDF fire-fighting Huey doing water-bombing passes. Oh - and that was a 2-stroke methanol powered helicopter BTW.
[/ul]
Gordon
ORIGINAL: mr_matt
Hey Gordon,
Would you have advocated:
1.) No speed limit?
2.) A higher speed limit?
And if 2.), what limit would have it been.
Hey Gordon,
Would you have advocated:
1.) No speed limit?
2.) A higher speed limit?
And if 2.), what limit would have it been.
My first choice would have been (1) - no limit, since there is no limit on any other model type under AMA rules. Once that was proposed, if the AMA kicked that back as not acceptable, then negotiations on a limit could be made once it was established exactly what problem the AMA was trying to fix by insisting on a speed limit, and we could hopefully have ended up with a more realistic limit if needed. But since the initial suggestion was to start off with an open mind, certainly don't start off with suggesting a 200 mph limit.
If the AMA truly is concerned about fire (as is often claimed to be the reasoning behing a speed limit), then (a) how do they corelate speed with fire, and (b) why the heck have they not used some common sense and come up with rules that really do decrease fire risk instead of making dumb limits ? e.g. Banning the use of fragile soda-pop bottles as fuel tanks would do a heck of a lot more for decreasing fire risk, than imposing an arbitrary speed limit ever will. Dunno about you, but every single RC-crash related fire that I have seen involved a crash at below 200 mph :
[ul][*] Tam's F15 coming apart at SCCMAS in mid-air at about 150 mph and causing a fireball ; minor fire - put out by pilots & helper.[*] Unknown pilot's F15 ran off the end of the runway on landing at SCCMAS, ran into dry grass at about 15 mph; minor fire - put out by pilots & helper.[*] Jason's L39 crash at Fresno a year ago .. forward speed almost zero at the time; minor - put out by pilots & helper.[*] Roo (?) at a meet in Arizona this year ... maybe about 50 -> 70 mph at the time, on landing approach; minor fire - put out by pilot & helper.[*] Dallas's Bandit crashed at SCCMAS just after takeoff, at about 140 / 150 mph; significant fire - needed a couple of fire trucks[*] Ehab's helicopter at about 3 mph horizontally and 40 mph vertically - enormous fire - needed something like 57 firefighters, 11 fire trucks, a semi with a bulldozer, plus a CDF fire-fighting Huey doing water-bombing passes. Oh - and that was a 2-stroke methanol powered helicopter BTW.
[/ul]
Gordon
02-09-2004, 11:38 AM
#15
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
My first choice would have been (1) - no limit, since there is no limit on any other model type under AMA rules. Once that was proposed, if the AMA kicked that back as not acceptable, then negotiations on a limit could be made once it was established exactly what problem the AMA was trying to fix by insisting on a speed limit, and we could hopefully have ended up with a more realistic limit if needed. But since the initial suggestion was to start off with an open mind, certainly don't start off with suggesting a 200 mph limit.
My first choice would have been (1) - no limit, since there is no limit on any other model type under AMA rules. Once that was proposed, if the AMA kicked that back as not acceptable, then negotiations on a limit could be made once it was established exactly what problem the AMA was trying to fix by insisting on a speed limit, and we could hopefully have ended up with a more realistic limit if needed. But since the initial suggestion was to start off with an open mind, certainly don't start off with suggesting a 200 mph limit.
OK lets say they kick it back. Possible reasons:
1.) After a large incident (burn a million acres), we would be in jeopardy if we did not have any prior speed limits in place. Using that reasoning there is no need to present any other statistical data related to past events.....past event have no bearing. Keep in mind that the current statistical data (presented on Saturday) for crashes shows no correlation with speed at all.
2.) The reasoning is, faster airplanes might go farther before they impact, and the fire will be further away and harder for event participants to put out...
3.) or something other spin like 1.) and 2.), really does not matter like, they kick it back.
Now what limit are you going to go for?
02-09-2004, 12:06 PM
#16
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
ORIGINAL: mr_matt
1.) After a large incident (burn a million acres), we would be in jeopardy if we did not have any prior speed limits in place. Using that reasoning there is no need to present any other statistical data related to past events.....past event have no bearing. Keep in mind that the current statistical data (presented on Saturday) for crashes shows no correlation with speed at all.
1.) After a large incident (burn a million acres), we would be in jeopardy if we did not have any prior speed limits in place. Using that reasoning there is no need to present any other statistical data related to past events.....past event have no bearing. Keep in mind that the current statistical data (presented on Saturday) for crashes shows no correlation with speed at all.
If we start a million acre fire with a crash that occurs at 120 mph, how will the fact that we have a 200 mph speed limit in place remove jeopardy ? None of this makes any sense to me. Maybe I need to go get a couple more cups of coffee before revisiting the above logic.
2.) The reasoning is, faster airplanes might go farther before they impact, and the fire will be further away and harder for event participants to put out...
3.) or something other spin like 1.) and 2.), really does not matter like, they kick it back.
Now what limit are you going to go for?
Now what limit are you going to go for?
If I was just me, regular flier concerned only about himself, I'd offer up a vote of 250 mph.
Furthermore, if my only reason for requiring speed limits was some assumed fire risk, then I would make the speed limit that the AMA imposes a default that the individual clubs may increase or decrease at their discretion. This would allow clubs with very restricted airspace to lower the limit if they want, and would allow other clubs to open the limit up if e.g. they fly from a desert that simply isn't going to burn no matter what. If the TRC truly was suppossed to "think outside the box" then this sounds more like the kind of input that they ought to have given to the AMA.
Gordon
02-09-2004, 12:23 PM
#17
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Alpharetta, GA,
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
Oh well. Given that the TRC was supposedly asked to go away and come up with new turbine rules from scratch without any preconceptions, it is totally beyond me why they decided to go the way they did, and ask for more thrust, more weight, etc, but less speed -
Oh well. Given that the TRC was supposedly asked to go away and come up with new turbine rules from scratch without any preconceptions, it is totally beyond me why they decided to go the way they did, and ask for more thrust, more weight, etc, but less speed -
I would like to set the record straight before this thread goes any further.
Don't blame the TRC for the speed limit. The TRC did not include any speed limit in their recommendations. The 200mph speed limit was added to the regulations by the AMA Safety Committee on October 31, 2003 the day before the EC originally passed the new regulations on November 1. This was the AMA's original pre-condition to approving the new regulations and we decided that it wasn't worth throwing the baby out with the bath water over.
Gordon (The other one)
02-09-2004, 12:24 PM
#18
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
THis is the problem we have been having all along in this discussion, confusing the message with the messenger.
If someone want me PERSONAL view, I would be a strong advocate of having NO speed limit, after reaching a level of tested proficiency that would get us into the top 5% of fliers. I mean a really tough test. THen no limit. I hope I have made myself clear, this is what I want. NOT what the AMA EC or TRC wanted or could negotiate. Not what I claim. Not Matt's logic.
So you have finally gotten to the YOUR limit, 250 mph. Well this is arbitrary, cause I can ASSURE you there are people who have flown over this speed many times, so you would be arbitrarily discrminating against them...same thing you are pinging the TRC for. No different, just a higher limit.
If someone want me PERSONAL view, I would be a strong advocate of having NO speed limit, after reaching a level of tested proficiency that would get us into the top 5% of fliers. I mean a really tough test. THen no limit. I hope I have made myself clear, this is what I want. NOT what the AMA EC or TRC wanted or could negotiate. Not what I claim. Not Matt's logic.
So you have finally gotten to the YOUR limit, 250 mph. Well this is arbitrary, cause I can ASSURE you there are people who have flown over this speed many times, so you would be arbitrarily discrminating against them...same thing you are pinging the TRC for. No different, just a higher limit.
02-09-2004, 12:48 PM
#19
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
ORIGINAL: mr_matt
So you have finally gotten to the YOUR limit, 250 mph. Well this is arbitrary, cause I can ASSURE you there are people who have flown over this speed many times, so you would be arbitrarily discrminating against them...same thing you are pinging the TRC for. No different, just a higher limit.
So you have finally gotten to the YOUR limit, 250 mph. Well this is arbitrary, cause I can ASSURE you there are people who have flown over this speed many times, so you would be arbitrarily discrminating against them...same thing you are pinging the TRC for. No different, just a higher limit.
Try reading it again...
Gordon
02-09-2004, 01:31 PM
#20
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
ORIGINAL: Gordon_Dickens
Hi Gordon,
I would like to set the record straight before this thread goes any further.
Don't blame the TRC for the speed limit. The TRC did not include any speed limit in their recommendations. The 200mph speed limit was added to the regulations by the AMA Safety Committee on October 31, 2003 the day before the EC originally passed the new regulations on November 1. This was the AMA's original pre-condition to approving the new regulations and we decided that it wasn't worth throwing the baby out with the bath water over.
Gordon (The other one)
Hi Gordon,
I would like to set the record straight before this thread goes any further.
Don't blame the TRC for the speed limit. The TRC did not include any speed limit in their recommendations. The 200mph speed limit was added to the regulations by the AMA Safety Committee on October 31, 2003 the day before the EC originally passed the new regulations on November 1. This was the AMA's original pre-condition to approving the new regulations and we decided that it wasn't worth throwing the baby out with the bath water over.
Gordon (The other one)
Hi Gordon #2
I stand corrected that the TRC did not include the limit in their recommendations, but nevertheless it was the TRC who decided on behalf of all turbine pilots that it was okay to impose this limit in order to push though things like higher thrust allowances. Consequently, since the TRC decided on my behalf that accepting a 200 mph limit was fine, I do still consider them to be jointly responsible for the limit being put in place.
When the limit was advocated by the AMA, did you guys at least try to negotiate for a higher one ?
BTW, I've had enough "positions of responsibility" that I do understand that it's easier to poke holes in what the TRC did, than to be a part of the TRC and try to satisfy everyone ; nevertheless I see nothing wrong with debating both the rights and the wrongs of the result. If I (and others) have issues with anything that the TRC does, yet we are afraid to voice them, then you guys will never know whether your decisions were for the best, and you will never have any feedback that gives you any ideas for what should perhaps be considered differently the next time.
On a lighter note - personally, I don't like babies, so throwing them out with the bathwater seems quite reasonable. Just make sure that you don't throw the brat at more than 200 mph
Regs,
The other Gordon
02-09-2004, 02:56 PM
#21
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
Gordon,
this has been the procedure in the past, and a very frustrating one.... typically rules are presented to the safety committee, the safety committee may or may not discuss parts of the rules with those presenting them. They inturn take the rules and incorporate them into "their" proposal to the EC. this is where things get fuzzy. the safety committee may or may not have even given the TRC a chance to respond to the 200 mph rule. i would imagine 50% of the original rules were "wordsmithed" somewhere along the way by the SC or EC i salute the trc not only for their work but the patience they had to maintain in working this through the system.
this has been the procedure in the past, and a very frustrating one.... typically rules are presented to the safety committee, the safety committee may or may not discuss parts of the rules with those presenting them. They inturn take the rules and incorporate them into "their" proposal to the EC. this is where things get fuzzy. the safety committee may or may not have even given the TRC a chance to respond to the 200 mph rule. i would imagine 50% of the original rules were "wordsmithed" somewhere along the way by the SC or EC i salute the trc not only for their work but the patience they had to maintain in working this through the system.
02-09-2004, 03:36 PM
#23
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Alpharetta, GA,
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
I stand corrected that the TRC did not include the limit in their recommendations, but nevertheless it was the TRC who decided on behalf of all turbine pilots that it was okay to impose this limit in order to push though things like higher thrust allowances. Consequently, since the TRC decided on my behalf that accepting a 200 mph limit was fine, I do still consider them to be jointly responsible for the limit being put in place.
I stand corrected that the TRC did not include the limit in their recommendations, but nevertheless it was the TRC who decided on behalf of all turbine pilots that it was okay to impose this limit in order to push though things like higher thrust allowances. Consequently, since the TRC decided on my behalf that accepting a 200 mph limit was fine, I do still consider them to be jointly responsible for the limit being put in place.
I don't think that your comment about the TRC "deciding on my behalf" is quite fair. At the time that this all occurred we were fully engaged fending off the speed limiter requirement. The TRC never "decided on behalf of all turbine pilots that it was ok to impose a speed limit" as you asserted. The speed limit was moot with the huge speed limiter problem at hand. The TRC did not have any say-so on the 200mph speed limit. The AMA is free to enact whatever regulations that it wishes and did not need the TRC's agreement. The TRC didn't have the right or opportunity to agree or disagree with it. We simply opted not to fight it given what was at stake along with the other battle (manditory speed limiter requirement) that we were engaged in. After all, it would probably have been impossible to convince the AMA to both discard the speed limiter AND the 200mph speed limit. It was quite hard enough achieving what we accomplished.
Pat Fernandez's comments are appropriate and it would be very difficult to get regulations like this enacted without someone finding issues with some piece of the new rules. Also, I think that these rules will continue to be revised periodically as we find better ways to regulate ourselves to make this hobby more safe AND more fun.
Gordon (The other one)
02-09-2004, 03:41 PM
#24
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
ORIGINAL: Gordon Mc
Nope - I anticipated that line of reasoning already, and that is why I very clearly spelled out in my post that 250 would be my personal input if I was asked what I thought might be enough, but that if I was being asked as a representative of the jet community (rather than as an individual), then I would ask for input from all pilots and add 10% to the highest.
Try reading it again...
Gordon
ORIGINAL: mr_matt
So you have finally gotten to the YOUR limit, 250 mph. Well this is arbitrary, cause I can ASSURE you there are people who have flown over this speed many times, so you would be arbitrarily discrminating against them...same thing you are pinging the TRC for. No different, just a higher limit.
So you have finally gotten to the YOUR limit, 250 mph. Well this is arbitrary, cause I can ASSURE you there are people who have flown over this speed many times, so you would be arbitrarily discrminating against them...same thing you are pinging the TRC for. No different, just a higher limit.
Try reading it again...
Gordon
Of course 250 KIAS is about equal to 278 mph(Indicated AS) so no real big thing, yet there is a limit out there for flight below 10, 000' MSL. Just something to think about as some of you will eventually search for the 300 mph. Just wondering????[:-]
02-09-2004, 04:35 PM
#25
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: New Turbine Rules Pass
ORIGINAL: Gordon_Dickens
Hi Gordon,
I don't think that your comment about the TRC "deciding on my behalf" is quite fair. At the time that this all occurred we were fully engaged fending off the speed limiter requirement. The TRC never "decided on behalf of all turbine pilots that it was ok to impose a speed limit" as you asserted.
Hi Gordon,
I don't think that your comment about the TRC "deciding on my behalf" is quite fair. At the time that this all occurred we were fully engaged fending off the speed limiter requirement. The TRC never "decided on behalf of all turbine pilots that it was ok to impose a speed limit" as you asserted.
Now, going back to the assumpion that there was in fact a decision .. it is quite clear that the TRC decision is quite a popular one, because there were definitely some improvements in the rules (even if those improvements came at the expense of others), so I'll live with it - that's part and parcel of having a semi-democratic process. I guess the big difference is that I'd just prefer to be the guy who is willing to stand up and say "this doesn't seem right - why does this rule exist, why was it agreed to ?" etc., rather than be one of those people who advocate paying lip service and pretending to obey the rules in order to make the AMA "go away"... and there have been plenty of those recently - people saying things like "Don't fight the speed limit - just go with the flow and then ignore the limit - after all, no-one will be policing it!".
Regardless, thanks for taking the time to discuss this in a professional manner. It is always good to be able to have a debate without it degenerating into personal attacks (as so often happens with topics like this).
Later,
Gordon