Whats going wrong in Recreational Aviation lately?

[Captain]

Few of us are as good as we think we are so if we try to be better we might actually end up as good as we thought we were.David

The good thing is that it gets better as you age ............. because I can assure all you young punks that you'll find that the older you get the better you were.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Guest sypkens]

I don't think the answer is more and more rules and regs, although they do have a place. It really comes down to attitude and in flying that means airmanship. Few of us are as good as we think we are so if we try to be better we might actually end up as good as we thought we were.David

David I could not have said it any better! I have seen some very dubious maneuvers by some of my fellow aviators that I would not comtemplate doing let alone think about taking a passenger with me and doing it. Admittedly I dont practice the things i should as often as I should and my flying might be even boring for some - I am flying a drifter after all, but at the end of the day , I would rather come home and know I still enjoyed the flight.

 

A friend of mine living in South Africa (that kicked off my flying after going up in a trike with him) summed it up by saying it is just not worth it. And if you think about it, is it really?

 

And Captain, I must be getting old because I look at the "punks" hanging out in the city and all I want to do, is do a Sam Kekovich in the lamb ad and pull up their pants.:devil:

 

 

[Captain]

I'm sure forum members will have heard this before but .......... the most dangerous thing you can hear in an aircraft while in the copilot's seat, is when the pilot says "Watch this" just before he commences a manoeuvre.

 

It seems to me that there may have been quite a few copilots hearing something like that lately, both RAA & GA, just before things went pear shaped.

 

 

[vk3auu]

Perhaps Poteroo and Brentc might have pointed at one of the problems. It may be to do with the inability of pilots to safely complete engine out landings into hostile terrain without causing themselves too much damage. They may be forgetting to apply the first instruction that should be applied in an emergency.

 

FLY THE PLANE

 

 

 

and in this case, fly the plane right to the ground and aim for the least bad obstacle. For instance, up in the top end of the Northern Territory, new chums were told, "Aim between two trees". That way you expected to leave the wings containing the fuel behind and the result would be milder deceleration. Forget about trying to save the plane.

 

Of course, none of this should happen if we observe the rule of always looking for places to land as we fly across the countryside, but with the advent of the more reliable four stroke motors, this seems to have been forgotten. However, it also seems that quite a few fatal landing accidents also happen in comparatively good country, so some pilots may have forgotten to fly the plane because they have been distracted or panic set in. That is why we should practice engine out landings onto good airstrips so that if the time comes for the real thing, we don't get caught trying to do something for which we are incompetent.

 

David

 

 

[Guest floatHigh]

I think it's essential to periodically go back to basics (with an instructor) to refresh your skills, and unlearn any bad habits.

 

I also think it's essential to practice those skills which are reqired in any emergency, such as PFL (practice forced landings), incipient spin recovery etc..

 

Years ago I used to fly gliders, and whenever I had spare time or excess height, I used to practice whatever came to mind.

 

Hopefully and in due course, I will do the same in powered aircraft. :)

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't really want to do long cross country flights, but i do enjoy having a half hour bash around the sky, so most of my time is spent practicing anything from steep climbing turns, stalls and anything else that I fancy. Slow flight I find to be good fun, 45kts at 1700rpm and everything feels loose and sloppy. of course all landings are power off from turning base , except for the odd occasion when I stuff up and have to apply a bit of power to keep the long grass from getting stuck in the brake levers.

 

Much more interesting than droning along over a slowly changing landscape.

 

 

[Yendor]

There have been at least 6 deaths in this last financial year in RA-Aus that I can think of from my short term memory. I'd say that was a problem. I highlighted some of those in my covert post earlier. I'd say that there is a problem that indeed needs strategic action.

It's actually twice as bad as that if reports in this forum are accurate. My count is 13 fatalities in the last 6 months.

 

18 Nov 06 1 fatality Jabiru Parkes NSW

 

20 Nov 06 1 fatality Drifter Walcha NSW

 

07 Jan 07 2 fatalities Sting Goulburn NSW

 

23 Feb 07 2 fatalities RV-4 Melbourne VIC

 

07 Apr 07 1 fatality Sapphire Cohuna VIC

 

19 Apr 07 2 fatalities Allegro Sunshine Coast QLD

 

20 May 07 2 fatalities Pegasus Townsville QLD

 

17 Jun 07 2 fatalities Pulsar Caloundra QLD

 

These 13 deaths provide more than sufficient justification for a major (and probably independent) review of RAAus activities as a precursor to the change in strategic thinking suggested by brentc.

 

 

[Yenn]

What caused these fatal crashes and are they all RAAus responsibility.

 

Vans aircraft quote the AUW of the RV4 as 1500 lbs and I would like to know how it was RAAus registered with 2 POB, it must have run out of fuel.

 

Bear in mind that the maw weight of RAAus is 1200lbs for non amphibian a/c.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Nah Ian, the RV4 wasn't actually rec registered. The report was released recently. From memory it was 70 kg over MTOW and 140kg's over MTOW for Aero's so it was doomed from the start. From the report it seems that even a 'simple' stall turn went wrong. That being said a stall turn can be very dangerout instead.

 

BUT still, even 11 is bad.

 

 

[bushpilot]

I don't really want to do long cross country flights, but i do enjoy having a half hour bash around the sky, so most of my time is spent practicing anything from steep climbing turns, stalls and anything else that I fancy. Slow flight I find to be good fun, 45kts at 1700rpm and everything feels loose and sloppy. of course all landings are power off from turning base , except for the odd occasion when I stuff up and have to apply a bit of power to keep the long grass from getting stuck in the brake levers.Much more interesting than droning along over a slowly changing landscape.

I have to agree with this; having had a PPL since 1975 (but not kept current in last 15 years) I enjoy nothing more than stoogin around at relatively low altitude in the trike, with my trusty Nikon always at the ready, to snap anything interesting that comes into view.. Cant beat the unobstructed view out of a 'bare' Redback.

 

Having said that, my aim is to also own a quickish 3-axis - STOL with cabin heater!

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

 

 

[Guest Decca]

Human Factors

 

It’s easy to see that you’re all hoping for a golden age of fatality-free Ultralight flying. It will only happen when every pilot is as professional as you guys who have contributed to this thread, trying to find answers to the perplexing problem raised by Rocko.

 

You could add another post to this thread, from our Operations Manager, Lee Ungermann. But you can read it from P.8 of June’s RAA mag. You only need read the second column. One of the few times I’m sticking my neck out is now, in saying that those who believe the message is NOT for them won’t be interested in reading it. The message will go straight over the top of their head anyway.

 

I’m not saying that the recent statistics were an “accident” going somewhere to happen. The PIC may have made his first & last mistake.

 

We all make mistakes & a few of you have been brave enough to report on your own bad experiences. I’m no Angel, in fact was recently involved in a near miss, which I’ll relate to you soon.

 

There’s a heck of a lot in Human Performance & Limitations (biology really), Human Factors & Resource Management, and I’m wondering what you guys & gals were taught during your flight training & ground schools. Also what you remember of Human Factors, and how you believe it has taught you the discipline to be constantly safety conscious. At the moment I’m spending 3hrs/week for 14 weeks doing a BAK course following the “Day VFR syllabus”, (Section 3 Theory Training). It will be interesting to see what is taught on Human Factors. Enough - the hour is late.

 

Hope all you lucky people at CH enjoyed a fabulous weekend.

 

Regards, Decca.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Decca,

 

I'm with you that this is about human factors (HF). But now I'm going to stick my neck out. First some basics then some food for thought.

 

1. Just to be clear, I think that HF is really important BUT the question is what is HF?
    
    
   
2. What is taught as HF at a basic level is pretty useless. How the middle ear works, fatigue, dehydration...that stuff barely makes it for me - it's mildly important but it's physiology of flight not HF in the form that we need;
    
    
   
3. Now for a definition. I'm not saying this is the best or exhaustive but it gets us started: " Human factors in aviation are involved with the study of human's capabilities, limitations, and behaviours and the integration of that knowledge into the system we design for them with the goals of enhancing safety, performance, and the general well-being of the operators of the system. (Koonce, 1979)."
    
    
   
4. For me HF is about meta-operation. If you think about stick and rudder as the operation then HF is to do with the meta-operation - it operates in the domain that is about managing the whole process of flight and the interaction with other elements of the cockpit system, the traffic system, the airspace system etc. I am talking here about human activity systems not about hard technical systems.
    
    
   
5. I would contend that outside of the airlines none of us has received any coherent and effective HF development. Almost all of us will have received input in a piece-meal but non-integrated way;
    
    
   
6. Simply receiving "training" in HF doesn't even get us to the starting line. More important is the integration of skills, knowledge and attitudes into a coherent action framework - a set of behaviours. Then we must renew, enhance and reinforce that integrated framework by ongoing input and reinforcement.
    
    
   
7. I continue to see really good demonstrations of, for instance CRM (a subset of HF) but this is demonstrated behaviour from others rather than a coherent process of instruction and development.
    
    
   
8. We are exactly nowhere on the scale of doing something effective about HF in our movement. My review of the GPPP which I understand is the proposed framework for developing HF leaves me with little hope, reinforced by the comments of those who have attended the pilot courses. This view is reinforced by people who, unlike me, have very, very serious HF credentials.
    
   

 

There you are, go for your life on that:;)3:. Before you start I am aware that I have simply reinforced the problem without articulating a strategy to improve matters. Perhaps more on that later.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[bushpilot]

And to add to the neck sticking out tendency here - I'm reading all this feedback and wondering if the administrators of our sport - and aviation more generally, could now be thinking that their having allowed the more relaxed rules, applied to our category, was misjudged in the first instance; and the more rigorous requirements applied to GA licencing should have been adhered to.

 

There is, after all, quite a step in knowledge required and judgement to be applied to operate safely in say a Jabiru over my trike; the former is capable of exposing the PIC to all the challenges of operating in the same environment as any VH aircraft. On top of that the PIC can do much of the maintenance, and even modifications, themselves...

 

Chris

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

And to add to the neck sticking out tendency here - I'm reading all this feedback and wondering if the administrators of our sport - and aviation more generally, could now be thinking that their having allowed the more relaxed rules, applied to our category, was misjudged in the first instance; and the more rigorous requirements applied to GA licencing should have been adhered to.There is, after all, quite a step in knowledge required and judgement to be applied to operate safely in say a Jabiru over my trike; the former is capable of exposing the PIC to all the challenges of operating in the same environment as any VH aircraft. On top of that the PIC can do much of the maintenance, and even modifications, themselves...

 

Chris

G'day Chris,

 

I don't think it's our regulations that are the issue here - GA in my view has the same HF issues. The issue is that HF/CRM is really only well developed in the airline industry - the heavy airline industry. If, for instance, you read the Lockhart River report it is pretty obvious that CRM was not in action in that cockpit. As I understand it there was no requirement for CRM training for those guys either. The point is that we need to focus really good resource into supporting and nurturing a fairly large up-skill/up-attitude/up-behaviour in this area.

 

This is not a regulation question - put simply you can't regulate for behaviour. It's a much bigger question than that.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I had an incident on the weekend that I felt was related to this discussion and I'm wondering how it could have been avoided.

 

I would have first said it wasn't life threatening, however technically it was.

 

It was my intention to perform a Leak-Down test on my Jabiru 6 cylinder. We set up the leak-down tester to 80 PSI. One set of plugs were removed and leads removed. Testing began and I was assisted by a qualified automotive mechanic with 25+ years of experience. He specifically warned me about the danger of the propellor moving when compressed air is applied to the cylinder. We restrained the prop and completed the testing whilst taking the utmost in care to not let the prop turn.

 

When finished, I suggested that we stand clear of the prop and see 'what might happen' when it's not restrained. We tested and pretty much nothing happened, it barely spun around at all. So whilst we would continue to operate the way we were, we knew that we weren't going to lose an arm or leg if we weren't holding it tight enough.

 

About to pack up, when my mechanic says it would be nice to test another engine to see if the guage is accurate. My engine has 430 hours, so we bought over another 6 cylinder with less than 100 hourst from brand new. We set it up and start testing. The owner of the aircraft is also assisting and learning. We test the first cylinder and the result were extremely bad and far worse than my results.

 

Some nearby pilots come over and hear what's going on and are wondering why the result is so bad. They start to look at the engine, touch things, talk to the mechanic who is operating the air supply and make things a little claustrophobic. The second cylinder is about to be tested. The owner holds the propellor and I see him holding it firmly. I'm holding it too. I let go and start to walk around to view the results of the test for that cylinder when I am smacked next to my eye with extreme force from the propellor tip. I proceed to place pressure onto the wound and look up at the owner who was holding. He's sporting a bloodied injury next to his left eye (identical to mine). He was holding the propellor in a way in which he was expecting it to revolve in the normal engine motion, anticlockwise. When the piston left top-dead-centre, it fired with great force in a clockwise direction, smacked me in the head on the upwards stroke, then smacked his head on the downwards stroke.

 

What just happened? A chain of events occurred and a near tragic result occurred. We could have both lost an eye.

 

This relates to other accidents, including flying ones and shows how a chain of events unfold to end in an undesired result.

 

- We set out to complete a leak-down test

 

- We carefully execute the test and take necessary precautions

 

- We complete the test successfully

 

- A change takes place when another test is to be performed

 

- A third person is added to the mix who wasn't trained in the procedure

 

- Extra people come over and distract us from the operation

 

- Two serious and near tragic injuries occur as a result

 

People, ALWAYS treat a propellor as LIVE.

 

ALWAYS take precautions in what you do when flying OR on the ground in the hangar.

 

Day 1

 

[ATTACH]2387[/ATTACH]

 

Day 2

 

[ATTACH]2386[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

Brent that's an eye opener (so to speak mate) but it truly is and truly could have been much worse. Even checks like checking there are chocks in place and that the throttle is not fully advanced, brake is on prior to a start because props almost certainly bite really well once they start running at you. Just ask the poor bloke that was recently bitter by his Edge. Hope he has recovered well.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Mike, as usual, puts in very cogent posts. But Bushpilot is making valid comment as well!

 

As I see it the issue here is not going to be just Human Factors – it is going to be the easiest way out on the part of the Regulator plus Pollies covering bums in an election year.

 

If 13 RAAus pilots have died in six months then that is horrible just by itself. Human Factors may indeed be the key but it is an intangible key where solutions do not yet exist in our particular environment. What is far easier for the Regulator to get hold off as a quick response is bundle the new Rec Flying movement back into GA and under GA stricture.

 

Whether actual causes are pilot error, operational training, personal attitude or whatever – what stands out clearly is the following. Quite a few of these accidents have an airworthiness element in them, even if that was pilot attitude induced. Enforcing the existing GA airworthiness control stricture would be relatively easy to do and would be most palatable to the average guy in the public “Something obvious is being done†and “these irresponsible people are being put back into a system that is known to workâ€Â. That would get rid off all the perceived problems.

 

This has been my concern all along – taking a very simple sector in aviation and propel it into aircraft, some of which have far more sophistication than what you find on most GA flying school flight lines, put those aircraft into our “original AUF†control environment and then you bust the system wide open!

 

How? I yet again repeat what I have been repeatedly saying – (take a realistic example). There are two Whiz Bangs Mk IV and they are identical. One is registered in RAAus and one in GA. The GA registered aircraft is under almost total control of the LAME system and several levels of LAME license may be required to service it’s systems and avionics so that it can fly legally.

 

The other aircraft is owned by the local greengrocer who, entirely because he has just been awarded an RAAus Pilot Certificate by training on a Drifter, is also automatically awarded the right to service, maintain, repair and even fully rebuild what may be a composite, monocoque structured aircraft packed with systems and advanced avionics – with no training or demonstration of knowledge/ability.

 

Does that parallel make any reasonable or believable sense at all? Why should GA have those expensive strictures, or alternatively, what is so magic about us that we do not need them?

 

That is our big weak link and Airworthiness is the easiest one to use against us irrespective of actual causes. We can be closed down very quickly and very easily and in the face of so many fatalities does that path not seem likely?

 

It happened before in 1985 when HORSCOTS sorted out the appalling death and injury toll and we got ANO 95.25 and AUF as a result! Do you seriously think we will get a second chance? Particularly when the RAAus response is not even forward management planning on sorting out airworthiness at user level, let alone ANY training in that area. The response is, as it has always been – there are the freedoms, if you cannot do the work then get someone who can to do it for you – your responsibility! In Operations the only signs are a new Ops Manual, that is based on entirely “your responsibility to sort outâ€Â! Ops manuals do not give guidance on how to do it in practical terms!

 

This is where we come full circle to Human Factors! Give people freedoms and put responsibility for those freedoms in their hands and you get a human response. That may be simply confidence that “I can do it†with no training or knowledge, or “cannot afford anyone else to do it and it does not look too difficult and a coat of paint will hide itâ€Â, to “there is no surveillance so I will do aerobatics, fly at night, in cloud etcâ€Â, or “I will fly my aircraft out of weight limits because that is just regulation crap and it flys OK anywayâ€Â

 

13 deaths is a tiny proportion of our membership of several thousand but those deaths can be our movement’s death also in the face of public opinion! Do the same again in the next six months and do you really think it will be ignored?

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest Rocko]

Thats exactly right, Tony

 

It's the "knee jerk fix it fast" reaction I'm really concerned about.

 

Forget everything else...the quick fix bandage solution by a politician looking for public support will overwhelm common sense every time.

 

A classic example is whats happened with PWC's (Jetskis). Because of a minority of idiots, strict regulations have been slapped on every other user. It's especially ludicrous, since a lot of these regs are based on "environmental" grounds. Take, as an example, the fact that PWC's cannot ride through marine reserves at more than 6 knots, but a very large boat, with a bloody great prop hanging behind it spinning like a scythe, can go through as fast as they like. I can't say I've ever heard of a dead turtle or dugong with jet ski marks on it, but there seem to be an awful lot with prop slices. When you consider it's scientific fact that the damage a propeller driven boat to marine life and sea grasses is far more damaging, it's stupid. But they're stupid rules put down by pollies who don't actually know the real facts from their arses, but instead curtail ALL PWC riders by listening to what public opinion says, after some dumbarses make idiots of themselves on PWC's, and get in the limelight. Regardless on how accurate it is.

 

Public opinion clearly suggests "flying ultralights is dangerous." We have the turkeys in the media to thank for that image! So, if the government is forced to act, what do you think they'll do? Pander to the general population, most likely!

 

And not being rude, but I doubt very much they'll take it out on the GA portion of the industry, regardless of how many GA planes stack it. The aviation industry is identical in that respect to the aviation industry. The GA "boat builders" avoid the penalties, but the "jetski riders" AKA, the recreational aviators, are going to cop it!

 

A very small minority of aviators ARE going to ruin this for everyone, if something isn't done about it. Don't kid yourself.

 

And it's a damn sight harder to get a stupid rule reversed, than avoiding it in the first place!

 

At the very least, as an association, we need to start making some political noise to the fact that we're onto the problem, and working on a solution, whatever it is decided that solution may be. DO I have a solution? Nope. Thats why I put up this post, for some practical ideas. But we'd better be serious about doing something, otherwise, the solution we don't want will be shoved down our throats until we gag to death on it.

 

Scotty

 

 

[Yenn]

I really cannot see how we can find a solution to the problem without knowing it's causes.

 

Since my last post we have heard that one was not RAAus and was over max weight and it inferred that aerobatics were involved. Now what happened to the others?

 

One other thing CRM and all the other fine sounding training ideas seem to dissolve into un intelligible twaddle. What is "meta"? How about a bit of plain English, because I am not going to pull out the dictionary to read something I am not in tune with. My example here is not the only unusual word and not intended to single out any person on this forum.

 

 

[Guest Redair]

More thoughts

 

After reading the latest round of postings, I must say that I am becoming as concerned as Rocko, regarding knee-jerk reactions.

 

Let's please not go down the road of making ultralight flying financialy out of the reach of most people, by imposing GA type regulations. As I said before, I would be all for an additional subject to be added to the ultralight flying syllabus, namely a formal mechanical course. I for one would be happy to take it, despite being a qualified motor mechanic, and I'm sure many others would too, if it would take the limelight off the ultralight arena.

 

Redair.

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

Let's please not go down the road of making ultralight flying financialy out of the reach of most people, by imposing GA type regulations

Hear hear. The more of a stink that's kicked up, the more likely this is. In saying this, if you know of an unsafe aviator within your club/group, contact the RAA about them. You may just save their lives.

 

 

[Yenn]

brentc. Why do a leak down test on a Jab engine. We all knowthere is a possibility of the prop moving, but by doing an ordinary compression test, the operators know when the prop will move and there is room to stand behind the prop or if you have a tester like mine you can leave it on top of the engine and stand well clear. I fail to see what more you can find out from a leak down than intelligent use of a compression tester, but I am willing to learn as I have never conducted a leak down test.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I should probably post this in Jab section - if you wish to reply, reply to my rebuild thread that I'm posting later tonight. However, this is still relevant to this thread regarding proper maintenance.

 

The leakdown tester tests for leaking exhaust and inlet valves as well as blow-by. You put the air into it at 80 PSI and listen in the exhausts and or inlet for air noise. The gauge then tells you the amount of leakage you get. In my case, it gives a percentage, with say 80+ being good, 60+ being ok, then less than that too low.

 

The Jab engine manual calls for compression testing with leak-down testing as an alternate to be conducted at 100 hourly intervals. From memory, in GA it is a legal requirement. On Saturday we (my mechanic and I) potentially saved the life of one or more Recreational Aviators as we performed a leak-down test on an engine that had 100 hours on the tacho. This aviator was next weekend planning to perform a lengthy over-water flight and had absolutely no idea that his engine was potentially about to fail @ less than 100 hours total from new. We figured that it didn't have long left and may have failed at any time. As for the cause, well I'll be posting on that later.

 

So would the failure of this engine been pilot error or mechanical failure? Lets say that it was 102 hours and it failed. If the pilot / owner hadn't done a leakdown test as per the engine manual at 100 hours, it becomes pilot error given that he performs his own maintenance. Food for thought.

 

From the manual:

 

PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL TEST (Leak downPRESSURE down)

 

 

 

This is a much better test for condition of rings, bore, head sealing and valve (than a compression test). Engine in warm to hot condition. This is the normal test used in aviation requiring specific equipment for the job. Pressure input of 80 PSI; a second gauge reads the differential when supplying 80 PSI. This is done with piston on TDC on the firing stroke. Prop needs to be restrained. The differential cut off is 80/60. Problems can be better identified eg.

 

 

 

BLOW BY (CRANKCASE VENT) - RINGS, BORE SEAL

 

 

 

LEAKING FROM CARBY - INTAKE VALVE SEAL

 

 

 

LEAKING FROM EXHAUST - EXHAUST VALVE SEAL

 

 

 

HEAD LEAK - HEAD GASKET OR HEAD TO CYLINDER SEAL

 

 

 

Correction work can then be carried out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

One other thing CRM and all the other fine sounding training ideas seem to dissolve into un intelligible twaddle. What is "meta"? How about a bit of plain English, because I am not going to pull out the dictionary to read something I am not in tune with. My example here is not the only unusual word and not intended to single out any person on this forum.

Hi Ian,

 

are you grumpy this evening?:big_grin:

 

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's "...un intelligible twaddle..". Why not just say "I don't understand this"?

 

I didn't set out to confuse and for doing so I apologise.

 

If you're interested "meta" is bit of a difficult thing to explain but in my view worth working on. A meta analysis is an analysis of another analysis. So for example if I were to gather together the analyses of a great heap of accidents and then analyse those analyses for patterns that would be a meta-analysis.

 

So the circumstances that I used it in were about the operation of flying. Strictly flying for us is about using the stick and rudder, throttle etc to fly the plane. The point I was trying to make is that that isn't where the issues arise. Until we put ourselves into a "meta" (sorry) position - like someone looking in from the outside - we don't effect change. Put another way the meta operation (also called the second order operation) is about the management of the primary operation. That is where we need to put our effort. The way I was taught this stuff is that meta-thinking is about thinking about thinking about something!!! Hang in there it is actually quite useful.

 

:;)3: I'm not sure that I've made it any easier....I'll try and go and think about a better way to explain this. Suffice to say it wasn't meant to obfuscate the issue. Back to my world of unintelligible twaddle for another sojourn.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[BigPete]

Obfuscate? -

 

now where's that dictionary gone? :;)3:

 

regards