[SamKellner]

[Bill Cummings]

Bob,

(Cliff launching.)

Before we arrive at the S.O.P., notice of proposed rule making, stage for the US Hawks concerning, “Hook in Check,” please consider this:

I prefer a different method of hook in check than the “Lift and Tug.”

Tell me if my thinking on this is wrong from a physics point of view.

I think that having my shoulders (fulcrum) as high up the down tubes as I can get them gives me more mechanical advantage keeping my glider’s nose down, in case of a gust, than having my shoulders lower on the down tubes. (During the lift and tug.)

For that reason I instead prefer putting my foot on the base tube doing a genuflect forward until my hang strap “tugs.” Then pick it up and launch.

I feel I have greater handling control (roll and pitch) over my glider this way.

As a side note I prefer to do my hang check on the last level spot closest to the ramp as I can get to reduce the time on cliff’s edge while hooked in. At Dry Canyon this happens to be in the dead air rotor 20’ behind and slightly up hill from the start of the ramp. What are your thoughts Bob?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Hi Bill,

I suspect that initially, the US Hawks will adopt the USHPA standards as they are. There are several reasons to do so:

1. As Tad points out, the USHPA standards are generally sufficient, and the problem has been more with their implementation than their written word.
   
2. It will be helpful to have equivalent ratings based on equivalent standards for the convenience of our members.
   
3. It will be helpful to have equivalent site ratings for the convenience of our local clubs.
   
4. It will be helpful to have equivalent (possibly identical) standards to make it easier to procure insurance coverage.

Having said all that, if we feel we can improve on any standard, then that's something that we should work to do. It would help our ability to get insurance (our biggest stumbling block) if we can show that we're even more safety conscious than USHPA.

Our goal is to give all hang gliding pilots a choice. So we should make it easy to move between the two organizations. I expect that we will honor all existing USHPA ratings as well as all future USHPA ratings. That's the current plan.

I hope that helps to answer your question Bill. Thanks for asking!!

P.S. With regard to your launch question, I've also found that it can be difficult to use the "lift and tug" in high winds or other situations where control of the glider is difficult. Maybe that's more of a self-critique of my own launch skills than anything else, but it's what I've experienced.

[TadEareckson]

Bob,

I'll tell you how.

No, you're telling me how five years ago Christian MAY HAVE misinterpreted or misrepresented Joe's take on the issue.

I just talked with Joe, and he said that hang checks do have limited usefulness in protecting against hook-in failures...

1. And tennis balls have limited usefulness in protecting against Grizzly attacks - but usually they just get them more pissed off.

2. Likewise the more valuable divers and crews consider the hang check to be in protecting against hook-in failures the more likely someone is to hit the rocks.

...and that their value in that regard decreases with the time between the hang check and the launch (he's absolutely correct here).

1977/08/19
Dick Stark
50
Wills Wing SST 100 B
Fraley Mountain, Washington

Hooked in, then unhooked to adjust an instrument, forgot to hook in again. Stark apparently hung on all the way to impact several minutes later.

1. What's a safe delay period? Five minutes like they do at Packsaddle? Two minutes? Thirty seconds?

2. What if the hang check the launcher remembered doing thirty seconds ago was actually done last weekend?

3. Was fifteen seconds OK if the hang checker popped out of his harness 'cause he missed his leg loops?

He also said that doing a hang check the moment before launch...

YOU CAN'T DO A HANG CHECK THE MOMENT BEFORE LAUNCH. You hafta rotate upright and pick up and trim the glider. I can do a dozen hook-in checks and get off the ramp in the time it takes a hang checker to get back on his feet and in position.

...was just as good as a hook-in check at launch...

1. Does it require no more time, effort, assistance?

2. Does it catch you leg loops?

3. Oh goodie! If it's just as good then we don't hafta do the hated hook-in check!

4. Oh goodie! Now we don't hafta LOOK for people to do hated hook-in checks 'cause they probably just did hang checks!

...but that a hang check can catch things that a hook-in check might not (like a hang strap routed around a down tube, as just one example).

1. Does it catch your leg loops?

2. And it will catch a hang strap routed around a downtube better than a walk-through?

3. Did the hang check catch this misrouted harness main?

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=22608

So your claim that hang checks aren't needed by pilots who use the same glider/harness combination is invalidated right there.

Still haven't heard anything besides clearance that anyone can't check better, faster, and easier standing up.

Well then, I guess you were "totally" wrong.

Read carefully. I TOTALLY AGREE that it's TOTALLY FALSE that the hang check has *NO VALUE* (mathematically ZERO) with regard to hook-in statistics. The hang check has the same sort of effect on foot launching that 130 pound Greenspot weak links and Wallaby and Bailey releases have on aerotowing safety - and it definitely ain't zero.

As Joe pointed out, if the hang check is done immediately before launch, it's just as good as a hook-in check.

1. Does it bring the pilot in compliance with USHGA regulations?

2. Does it catch the leg loops?

3. Is there any possible way it can be conducted within two seconds of launch?

4. Is there any possible way it can become incorporated as a muscle memory component of the launch sequence?

5. If the pilot has to wait thirty seconds for a good cycle is he going to go down for another hang check before he launches?

6. Will a hang check at the back of the ramp train the crew to check the suspension the moment before commitment?

In fact, I don't know of anyone who argues against that statement.

Zack - 2010/11/10

We discussed FTHI at the meeting tonight. From my perspective, this seemed to be the consensus:

- We need to help each other more.
- There is no difference between a hang check and a hook-in check.
- Checking your connection status five minutes before you launch is no less acceptable than two seconds (and five minutes probably qualifies as 'just prior' for USHPA's ratings).
- It is preposterous to suggest that hang checks are dangerous.
- The Aussie method is one way to prevent FTHI.

Those there can add to or correct this recap as necessary.

Show me a video of someone foot launching who believes in that statement enough to actually implement it himself.

How many people do you know who insist that their fellow flyers comply with it?

Name ONE Aussie Methodist who agrees with that statement.

Actually, Tad, I don't even understand what you're arguing about...

Keep reading.

...and coming up with solutions.

The solution was there and on the books over thirty years ago. But we're still killing people in the midsts of large crowds of USHGA rated pilots who've never heard of it before and are rabidly hostile to the very idea of implementing it.

You're taking pot-shots at people you don't know (like Rob McKenzie) without checking any facts.

His own statement is consistent with the fact that so far we don't have a shred of evidence that he's ever complied with the regulation or required it of any of his students.

You're misquoting people (like Joe Greblo)...

bulls***. I copied and pasted EXACTLY what Christian said with respect to Joe and never made the slightest pretense of presenting that information in any other manner.

...without going to the source and just asking him.

Anything stopping him from engaging in one of these discussions?

As far as I can see, you're just wasting our time here.

OK, I'll call off my goons and tell them to stop forcing people to read everything I write.

I will do my best to discuss any topic with the members of this forum, but there's a lot of other work that I have to do as well.

How much of it is more important than trying to keep the next Kunio Yoshimura from getting smashed on the slope in front of the wife and kids?

Thanks again for all your good points.

You're welcome.

Bill,

Tell me if my thinking on this is wrong from a physics point of view.

I think that having my shoulders (fulcrum) as high up the down tubes as I can get them gives me more mechanical advantage keeping my glider's nose down, in case of a gust, than having my shoulders lower on the down tubes. (During the lift and tug.)

From a physics point of view...

1. Do you always launch in conditions in which gusts are a safety issue?

2. Can you define a gust in which having the suspension tight will be unacceptably dangerous but having it loose with the glider down on your shoulders will be perfectly safe?

3. Assuming you can, are the conditions you fly in so marginal that you don't have the odd two second window in which it's safe to let the glider come up?

4. Isn't roll control a much more critical issue than pitch?

5. Is the edge of a cliff a great place to be hooked into a glider in conditions in which control may be an issue without adequate wire crew?

6. Doesn't adequate wire crew render any real or imagined difference in slack versus tight suspension control totally irrelevant?

7. Have you ever heard a survivor of a blown cliff launch or a witness of a fatal one remark that the day would've gone so much better if only the glider had been down on his shoulders rather than up and loading the suspension?

8. Doesn't it seem a bit odd that Rob Kells who used lift and tug for every foot launch of his entire hang gliding career died of prostate cancer rather than blunt force trauma?

9. Betchya I can name a lot more people who died within seconds of launch because they started with slack suspension than you can name who were scratched, scraped, or bruised because they launched with it tight.

Then pick it up and launch.

Immediately?

I feel I have greater handling control (roll and pitch) over my glider this way.

But you're not SURE that you actually DO have greater handling control (roll and pitch) over your glider this way. So either:

a) you haven't even given tight suspension a shot; or

b) there isn't enough difference to really tell.

As a side note I prefer to do my hang check on the last level spot closest to the ramp as I can get to reduce the time on cliff's edge while hooked in.

Still haven't heard what information you're getting from that that Rob Kells and I missed out on all those years.

Bob,

Having said all that, if we feel we can improve on any standard, then that's something that we should work to do. It would help our ability to get insurance (our biggest stumbling block) if we can show that we're even more safety conscious than USHPA.

If we wanna keep the ambulances, choppers, and recovery crews away from the sites as much as possible we need to get BRUTAL on hook-in checks and towing standards and...

Jim Rooney - 2011/06/12

Most common HG injury... spiral fracture of the humerus.

...land on wheels as much as possible and...

flyin_canuck - 2011/03/01

Nothing creates carnage like declaring a spot landing contest.

...eliminate spot landing requirements and outlaw spot landing contests.

With regard to your launch question, I've also found that it can be difficult to use the "lift and tug" in high winds or other situations where control of the glider is difficult. Maybe that's more of a self-critique of my own launch skills than anything else, but it's what I've experienced.

I'm not understanding this.

1. I find it difficult NOT to do a lift and tug in high winds.

2. If I watch a launch ramp in high winds EVERYBODY's launching with tight suspension. In light or dead air NOBODY is lifting and tugging.

3. If control is difficult you should probably be using crew and if you're using crew control and tightening suspension are total non issues.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Tad, your comments ("What's a safe delay period?", for example) reveal that you don't understand the concept of safety. Safety is not a true/false quantity. Nothing in hang gliding - or in life - is "safe" without further qualification. Everything is "more safe" or "less safe" than something else. So thirty seconds is "more safe" than two minutes which is "less safe" than 5 minutes. A lift and tug is very safe in light wind conditions, but it can be difficult or even dangerous in other conditions. At some point, there's a trade-off where doing a visual hook-in check 30 seconds ago and concentrating on the launch is safer than trying to incorporate a "lift and tug" into the launch.

Now I'm not opposed to being convinced otherwise, but it's going to take more than you saying so over and over and over.

3. Oh goodie! If it's just as good then we don't hafta do the hated hook-in check!

You lose more credibility on this one Tad. I never said that. Joe Greblo never said that. Joe Greblo always teaches a hook-in check - even at the beach. But you're not arguing for doing hook-in checks (because we all agree with that). You're arguing against hang checks. I'm sorry, but the two are NOT mutually exclusive. It's as if you're trying to eliminate the use seat belts in favor of air bags. Why not have both?

The only answer you can give against having both is based on the notion that a person who's already done a hang check is less likely to do a proper hook-in check. And I will agree with you that someone who's done a hang check MAY be less likely to do a proper hook-in check. So over a population of pilots, there's a non-zero loss in safety attributable to that human factor.

But you're forgetting that "human factors" work both ways. There is also a non-zero probability that someone who "claims" they always do a hook-in check or a "lift and tug" may not always do those things. In those cases, a hang check provides an additional degree of safety. You're also forgetting that hang checks catch failure modes that hook-in checks can miss (as Joe noted). So if we're trying to prevent the largest number of unhooked launches, then we really need to make a numerical assessment of all of those human factors. I haven't seen you do that yet. If you want to do that in this topic, I think that's a worthy goal. But it has to be a rigorous mathematical model that accounts for all of the failure modes - including human factors. If we can really do that well, then that might be a significant contribution to the safety of the sport.

As far as I can see, you're just wasting our time here.

OK, I'll call off my goons and tell them to stop forcing people to read everything I write.

Great. That'll save me several hours a day. Thanks!!      

But I would like to read your mathematical description of the FTHI problem. I'll even be happy to work with you to build it. But I don't want to keep reading page after page of anecdotal evidence sprinkled with your opinions. Didn't you say that opinions have no place in aviation? So let's do the math. Please start by presenting your best crack at an FTHI model both with and without a hang check. Until then (or until you bring the goons back), I'll be mostly working on other problems. But I'll check in from time to time to see how the model is going.

Fair enough?

[TadEareckson]

Tad, your comments ("What's a safe delay period?", for example) reveal that you don't understand the concept of safety.

I think I've broken enough in the way of aluminum tubing, fiberglass, and bone and spent enough time in trees, stretchers, and emergency rooms and on front pages of newspapers to make total nonsense of that statement.

Everything is "more safe" or "less safe" than something else.

Some things are so incredibly safe that it's ridiculous to add an asterisk after calling them TOTALLY safe because the odds of getting nailed by an asteroid are significantly greater. It's REALLY HARD to have something bad happen to a passenger on a level and trim Ridgely tandem glider after it's down to two feet over the runway in dead evening air about to roll in on the wheels.

So thirty seconds is "more safe" than two minutes which is "less safe" than 5 minutes.

GENERALLY speaking, yeah. Just sayin' that one can be just as dead two minutes or thirty seconds after doing or thinking he did a hang check as he can after five or fifteen minutes - so one should adjust his thinking and procedures accordingly.

A lift and tug is very safe in light wind conditions, but it can be difficult or even dangerous in other conditions.

1. A lift and tug is a relative pain in the a** in light wind conditions 'cause the pilot - versus Mother Nature - has gotta do the lifting.

2. I, for one, feel a few hundred times safer on a slope with the air blasting in at twenty-five with a person on each sidewire than I do with it trickling in at three and when I have no need for crew. I think the statistics would probably indicate that that's more than a feeling and holds true for all qualified pilots.

3. I STILL have yet to hear a single instance of a lift and tug having negative consequences.

At some point, there's a trade-off where doing a visual hook-in check 30 seconds ago and concentrating on the launch is safer than trying to incorporate a "lift and tug" into the launch.

Cite a SINGLE incident which supports that statement or, failing that, gimme a hypothetical situation.

I never said that. Joe Greblo never said that.

I didn't say you or Joe did. But I 73 percent guarantee you that this is how 99 percent of the people (idiots) who fly hang gliders will respond to that statement.

And I will agree with you that someone who's done a hang check MAY be less likely to do a proper hook-in check.

MAY? Thirty years of hang gliding history has shown us that the hang check WILL drive the hook-in check almost completely off the map.

Whenever pilots are given a choice between a solid versus crap procedure or piece of equipment they'll go for the crap every time:

hang / hook-in check
bent / straight pin
velcroed on / built in
standup / rolled in
hit the spot / hit the field

In those cases, a hang check provides an additional degree of safety (along with the fact that it catches additional failure modes as Joe noted).

1. A hang check is a PREFLIGHT procedure, a hook-in check is a launch sequence procedure.

JBBenson - 2009/01/25

I get what Tad is saying, but it took some translation:

HANG-CHECK is part of the preflight, to verify that all the harness lines etc. are straight.

HOOK-IN-CHECK is to verify connection to the glider five seconds before takeoff.

They are separate actions, neither interchangeable nor meant to replace one another. They are not two ways to do the same thing.

2. I'm STILL waiting to hear what - other than clearance - a hang check catches that a walk-through doesn't.

I haven't seen you do that yet.

What happened to "U", "H", and "N"?

But I don't want to keep reading page after page of anecdotal evidence sprinkled with your opinions.

Then skip this next part.

1. I have ZERO evidence of a regular hook-in checker ever being hurt.

2. There are TONS of regular and conscientious hang checkers who have been killed.

3. I know of ZERO incidents of people who have done a hook-in check launching unhooked.

4. People who have launched unhooked after doing hang checks are a dime a dozen.

OK, you can come back now.

Please start by presenting your best crack at an FTHI model both with and without a hang check.

Try this for the time being...

When we put include a piece or equipment or procedure in our aviation package there needs to be a justification for it - otherwise it's weight, drag, dangerous complexity, and distraction.

Backup suspension, locking carabiner, quick link between the harness suspension and parachute bridle, weak link as used in aerotowing, and hang check used for anything beyond checking clearance WHEN NECESSARY are monuments to hang gliding culture stupidity.

The hang check pulls in and wastes a lot of time, energy, and personnel resources at or near showtime that could and should be allocated to much better advantage.

I don't think that there's any question whatsoever that five seconds before Bill Priday ran off the ramp at Whitwell - 2005 Tennessee Tree Toppers Team Challenge, Day One, Launch One - there were three or four a**holes holding noses so other a**holes could do hang checks in the setup area.

If JUST ONE of those a**holes had been positioned twenty-five yards away at launch looking to see that people were doing hook-in checks or JUST LOOKING TO SEE THAT THEY WERE HOOKED IN everybody would've had a fun day flying instead of being overwhelmed by shock, grief, and depression and having to make phone calls to family members.

He also said that doing a hang check the moment before launch was just as good as a hook-in check at launch, but that a hang check can catch things that a hook-in check might not (like a hang strap routed around a down tube, as just one example).

A hang check is "just as good as" - nay, BETTER THAN - a hook-in check two seconds before launch. So WHY EVEN BOTHER with a hook-in check?

I'm afraid I was way more impressed with the Joe Greblo Christian was talking about than the one with whom you were just talking.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Tad, for a guy who says opinions have no place in aviation, you don't seem to offer anything but opinions (yours and others). I'm not against opinions, but then we have to include all opinions ... not just yours.

I think I've broken enough in the way of aluminum tubing, fiberglass, and bone and spent enough time in trees, stretchers, and emergency rooms and on front pages of newspapers to make total nonsense of that statement.

No comment.

3. I STILL have yet to hear a single instance of a lift and tug having negative consequences.

At some point, there's a trade-off where doing a visual hook-in check 30 seconds ago and concentrating on the launch is safer than trying to incorporate a "lift and tug" into the launch.

Cite a SINGLE incident which supports that statement or, failing that, gimme a hypothetical situation.

I was flipped over on launch when I was a hang 2. I had my hands full (obviously more than full) just trying to control the glider ... let alone attempting to let it just "lift and tug" without pulling me off my feet. Earlier this year I was flying at Torrey when I witnessed a friend of mine get blown over on launch (broken bones ... healing nicely as I've heard). That was while he was doing his level best to just control the glider. Do you want to add more tricks for people to perform on a tricky launch?

JBBenson - 2009/01/25

I get what Tad is saying, but it took some translation:

HANG-CHECK is part of the preflight, to verify that all the harness lines etc. are straight.

HOOK-IN-CHECK is to verify connection to the glider five seconds before takeoff.

They are separate actions, neither interchangeable nor meant to replace one another. They are not two ways to do the same thing.

Thanks for that quote, Tad. But did you read it all the way through? Check those last two sentences one more time. JBBenson is one of Joe Greblo's students, and he's saying exactly what Joe has taught us. How can you use that quote in an argument where you're trying to eliminate hang checks?

I haven't seen you do that yet.

What happened to "U", "H", and "N"?

I'm waiting for you to stop posting opinions and anecdotes. I'm waiting for you to join me in trying to flesh out that model. Are you ready yet?

Please start by presenting your best crack at an FTHI model both with and without a hang check.

Try this for the time being...

Unfortunately, you just followed that with more opinions and anecdotes. That's not the "science" you claim to support.

I'm afraid I was way more impressed with the Joe Greblo Christian was talking about than the one with whom you were just talking.

That's because you wanted to see what you wanted to see. That's the problem with offering opinions and anecdotes. There's an unlimited supply of both and neither actually do the math.

Now do you want to explore building a model of this problem or not? If you do, then let's focus on that - no more opinions or anecdotes. If you don't, then I'm not going to be reading your posts on this topic with much attention. I'm not saying that as an insult, but just to let you know that I've got other things that I have to do.

Please let me know either way. Thanks.

[TadEareckson]

I'm not against opinions, but then we have to include all opinions ... not just yours.

Let's say I AM just stating opinions. I can support them with EVIDENCE. Messieurs Pagen and Bryden have expressed this crap:

Weak links have greatly improved the safety of towing over the years.

Weak links very clearly will provide protection from excessive angles of attack, high bank turns and the like for this form of towing.

as fact. Where's the EVIDENCE?

I was flipped over on launch when I was a hang 2. I had my hands full (obviously more than full) just trying to control the glider ... let alone attempting to let it just "lift and tug" without pulling me off my feet.

1. So you WERE flipped over while you WERE NOT letting the glider lift and tug.

2. So you're ASSUMING that you'd have been MORE flipped over if you HAD allowed the glider to lift and tug.

3. Lesson learned: It's OK to be clipped into a glider in twenty gusting thirty with no one on your wires as long as you don't attempt a hook-in check.

Earlier this year I was flying at Torrey when I witnessed a friend of mine get blown over on launch (broken bones ... healing nicely as I've heard). That was while he was doing his level best to just control the glider.

See above. Substitute inadequate crew and/or twenty-five gusting thirty-five if necessary.

Do you want to add more tricks for people to perform on a tricky launch?

No. I wanna subtract wind and/or add crew and a few ounces of common sense.

This is very reminiscent of the crap at the 2005 Worlds surrounding Robin Strid's fatal lockout. The total morons running that show supplied moderately dangerous launch dollies which motivated Robin to foot launch and allowed him to go up with an INSANELY dangerous piece o' crap Quallaby release in an INSANELY dangerous configuration.

It so happened that he was using a (perfectly appropriate) 1.4 G weak link when his glider locked out, his release locked up, and he slammed in. But an analysis of the video by the investigator showed that tension was never much beyond normal, about two thirds of a G - tops.

So naturally they reacted by forcing everyone to fly with insanely light weak links. But they couldn't get gliders into the air with them. So they used elastic towlines in a certifiably insane scheme to try to keep the weak links - which they wanted to break - from breaking.

They also grounded the release - but only for about a half an hour or so 'cause that's the release everybody had and wanted to use.

Also reminiscent of the 1990 Hobbs Hang Gliding Festival after Eric Aasletten was towed into a dust devil with the release lanyard on his wrist: rocket, auto release, whipstall. Response: No tandem rides for the remainder of the meet.

...and he's saying exactly what Joe has taught us.

That's not what you're saying Joe's saying now:

He also said that doing a hang check the moment before launch was just as good as a hook-in check at launch...

How can you use that quote in an argument where you're trying to eliminate hang checks?

Easy. I'm just using it to refute what you're saying Joe's saying now. I'm using it to say that - consistent with USHGA regulations - a hang check DOES NOT EVER qualify for the definition of a hook-in check.

HANG-CHECK is part of the preflight, to verify that all the harness lines etc. are straight.

And I'm waiting for somebody to tell me why one can't verify that all the harness lines etc. are straight perfectly well while standing up.

Are you ready yet?

I answered your question at the end of that post. There's nothing stopping you from continuing with the model. But I would advise you not to get too attached to it.

That's not the "science" you claim to support.

Was there anything false or illogical about any of my comments?

That's because you wanted to see what you wanted to see.

No, that's because THIS statement:

To him, a hang check is part of the preflight and has no value in confirming that you are hooked in at the moment of launch.

is a reasonable step in the right direction towards THESE statements:

The hang check is more the problem than the solution.

It subverts the pilot's responsibility to perform a hook-in check.

..and THIS take:

He also said that doing a hang check the moment before launch was just as good as a hook-in check at launch...

is a U-turn back into the Dark Ages.

Now do you want to explore building a model of this problem or not?

You build the model but make it a good one. My hammer's ready and I'm pretty good at knocking things down with very light taps in just the right places.

I'm not saying that as an insult, but just to let you know that I've got other things that I have to do.

Maybe somebody else will start answering my questions and addressing the issues and take the heat off you for a while.

[TadEareckson]

Question...

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=18876

Joe's RIGHT THERE while OSCAR's doing all those hook-in checkless launches.

Joe's RIGHT THERE while OSCAR's doing that unhooked hook-in checkless launch and crash.

How come OSCAR still hasn't even HEARD of a hook-in check until Helen tries to clue him in on Post 12?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Now do you want to explore building a model of this problem or not?

You build the model but make it a good one. My hammer's ready and I'm pretty good at knocking things down with very light taps in just the right places.

We'll either build it together, or it's not high enough on my priorities to bother. I am fairly confident that a hang check + hook in check will be statistically safer than either one alone. So I don't feel compelled to do that for myself given the other projects on my plate (like increasing the Hawks' visibility). It could be a fun and instructive project, and I'll be happy to do it if you want to participate. But if you don't, then I'm inclined to put it on the back burner until I take care of other tasks. Please let me know either way.

Thanks.