FAA and Owner Maintenance

[Colonel Sanders]

I don't quite understand this notion in aviation to cheap out on maintenance and avoid paperwork as much as possible

You don't "get it". The next time I am faced with paying $500
for a part with green tag, and $5 for a part with no green tag
that are otherwise identical, will you shoot me the $495?

Plus you entirely missed the point that a lot of maintenance
has been legislated out of existence in Canada, and isn't available
at any price.

Aircraft around here that get damaged, sit for months while
they wrangle with paper, for repairs that we used to do in a
day, decades ago, before you got into the business.

EDIT -- Here's a favorite part of mine:

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/i ... ckkey=9409

$3000 (no typo, THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS) for a switch.

And here's the non-certified version:

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/i ... warner.php

$90.

Now, do you see a difference between $3000 and $90? Can
you write me a cheque for the difference every time I want to
buy one?

[iflyforpie]

I just put in a nearly $300 50A circuit breaker in a 1957 172 that was certified. I could have gone down to the local autoparts store and got the same part with the same part number for a tenth of the cost... but my interpretation of the CARs on parts substitution says that the failure of this part would affect flight safety... not quite like installing a 4509 on a Day-VFR aircraft.

It is worthy to note that I had to replace that circuit breaker because the owner was complaining that the breaker kept blowing... a certified AME in a certified shop installed a 50A alternator on an STC without changing the CB or wiring as the STC said..... is owner maintenance worse than that?

For those of you concerned with the lack of paperwork... really? How many certified parts have you seen fail mere hours after installation? I've seen lots... especially as like I said earlier many are 1960s technology and were never that good in the first place.

For people skimping out on maintenance.... again, has an aircraft being certified ever stopped them? Aircraft maintenance is the responsibility of the aircraft owner... I don't piss off aircraft owners by doing expensive maintenance they don't specifically ask for on certified aircraft like so many AMEs do... I simply write in the logbook what is outstanding or needs attention and if they feel it is safe to fly they can go ahead and fly it.

You can be sure that no aircraft just because it has a nice piece of paper that say 'CERTIFICATE OF AIRWORTHINESS' is immune to an owner with a toolbox installing tractor parts on it... and with TC stretched thinner than Celine Dion you can be sure the only enforcement action will be after an accident they can attribute to unapproved maintenance.

Considering how many light aircraft meet their demise because of weather and pilot error... the maintenance aspect of it is almost a non-issue.

[Colonel Sanders]

It's worse than that. Due to the headache and overhead
and legal liability associated with certified parts, it's entirely
possible that some parts will cease production, grounding
certified aircraft completely.

A few years back, I recall that almost happening to aircraft
carburetors and parts. No one wanted to touch them - volume
was too low, liability insurance could not be obtained, production
shut down. 1920's technology

I know some people think that more paper is always better
paper, but you'd better realize that there is always a cost to
all of that paperwork, which is always passed on. And when
the price gets too high, certified aircraft stop flying entirely.

[AirFrame]

The FAA has used Canadian data to conclude that O-M is a safe, and indeed safer model for operation of private GA aircraft.

Read the document again. Specifically, see Page 331, the little "*" at the bottom of the page, and the note at the top of the table right above it.

The note above the table says that the *accident data* came from the EAA. The * says that the *number of aircraft flying* came from Transport Canada. So NO accident data came from Canadian sources. This matches with my research, through the TSB. The TSB does not track whether an aircraft incident includes an O-M aircraft or not. At least, employees I know who work for the TSB have looked themselves, and asked others, and have not been able to procure this data.

That's not necessarily a reason to believe the EAA data is completely suspect, but I would certainly take it with a larger grain of salt than the FAA has. I'm not sure how the EAA can be sure of the data when our own accident investigators aren't.

In April I pulled together the data from the available sources to compile a history of O-M aircraft. I still say that making decisions based on 2% of the fleet of Canadian aircraft (as of April, I haven't checked today's numbers) is a risky proposition.

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=88159#p816601

All of this being said, I don't see much difference between an O-M aircraft and an A-B aircraft, as far as flying it into the US is concerned. If the FAA allows one, they should allow the other.

[Heliian]

Again, the accident rate data from the report only reflects the number of a/c vs. the number of accidents, a complete bullshit statistic.

Let's see the accident rate data for the number of accidents vs. the hours flown on type. They don't want that to be shown because I'm pretty sure that the rates would be much higher for this OM class.

remember COPA, AOPA, EAA are all after their own interests.

[ruddersup?]

Being an AME, all I want is retractable gear in the O/M category, and specifically amphibious floats. I know that the SeaBee and the Mooney have this privilege, obviously somebody knows how to lobby. Bloody amateur built is allowed retractable and amphibs, what's the big issue?
How about "some" special privileges as long as it is owned by an AME? Working our whole life for next to nothing deserves some reward.

[kamikaze]

Well for O-M, remember the point is to allow your average owner to do maintenance, so they aimed to keep for older simpler aircraft, and went for the lower common denominator ... frustrating for you, but it makes sense.

I don't get why they put an age restriction if the FAA proposal though ... They call it Private Non-Commercial. One could have an aircraft to put in there even brand new! If I buy myself a brand new 172, why couldn't I put it in there?

At this point I'm mostly wondering whether TC would alter it's O-M category to match the FAA proposed one ... or at least be "compatible" with it. And would existing O-M aircraft be moved into this new category somehow? Or would they keep the existing O-M and add a new one?

[photofly]

Being an AME, all I want is retractable gear in the O/M category, and specifically amphibious floats. I know that the SeaBee and the Mooney have this privilege, obviously somebody knows how to lobby. Bloody amateur built is allowed retractable and amphibs, what's the big issue?
How about "some" special privileges as long as it is owned by an AME? Working our whole life for next to nothing deserves some reward.

I'd take the opposite tack: AMEs should be forbidden to work on or sign releases for their own aircraft, because (according to some here) if you haven't paid big bucks to someone for the maintenance and the paperwork to accompany it, it must have been shoddy substandard work.

[AirFrame]

Let's see the accident rate data for the number of accidents vs. the hours flown on type. They don't want that to be shown because I'm pretty sure that the rates would be much higher for this OM class.

That would require collecting data on number of hours flown on type, something i'm not sure they do. And you'd still have to rely on EAA's accident collection data, which may or may not be correct.

There's a relatively small number of them flying, and nobody knows what the accident rates that are attributable to the aircraft being in the Owner Maintenance category really are. O-M pilots can kill themselves flying VFR into towering cumulogranite just as easily as A-B or Certified owners. Someone has given the FAA a full shovel of BS in that report.

[ruddersup?]

There must be some legal issues when they allow O/M. When someone unqualified does work on the aircraft, maybe there is no liability on the manufacturer. The big boys must love O/M. Lawyers hate it, lol.

Thinking more about O/M. What about weight and balance? Conceivably the aircraft could develop an additional 100 lb. useful load deliberate or not. Who is responsible for this, i.e. calibrated scales, etc? Hell I thought my scales were good. The more I think about this the more problem I have with the whole issue of O/M. Only AME's should be allowed O/M we are pure as the driven snow, lol.

[Justjohn]

There must be some legal issues when they allow O/M. When someone unqualified does work on the aircraft, maybe there is no liability on the manufacturer. The big boys must love O/M. Lawyers hate it, lol.

Thinking more about O/M. What about weight and balance? Conceivably the aircraft could develop an additional 100 lb. useful load deliberate or not. Who is responsible for this, i.e. calibrated scales, etc? Hell I thought my scales were good. The more I think about this the more problem I have with the whole issue of O/M. Only AME's should be allowed O/M we are pure as the driven snow, lol.

In my opinion this is the wrong way to look at it. An O/M aircraft is no longer the Piper or Cessna or what have you that it resembles with Maint done on the cheap. That is a legal fact. Think of it as an Amateur Built with a starting point in the Certified Realm. So it has had the proper engineering and flight testing done in the first place. Many thousands of proper, aviation grade labour and materials have already gone into it.

If you wouldn't get in a Kitfox or an RV or whatever, Then stay outa these airplanes too. But the Colonel is right, for some airplanes, maint can't be purchased at a reasonable or even ANY price.

O/M airplanes are conspicuously identified as being in the O/M category. You can't get in one without knowing it. If an owner has worked to defeat the system and misrepresents the airplane, .. well ... he or she is also likely to be the same person putting undocumented tractor parts on the airplane too.

Frankly, most ppl should prob'ly stay outa little airplanes that aren't part of a commercial air service anyway. Unless you're willing to invest some time and effort in learning about what exactly you are getting into .. and just how covered are you by insurance, you really don't know what you're getting into.

These are my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to disagree.

[ruddersup?]

JJ, not sure what you are exactly saying there. You encourage O/M on one hand and then with the other warn people not to get in them. I've been at this "game" for over 50 years and involved with commercial ops and private servicing of aircraft, both fixed and rotary. I'm no expert by any shot but I have seen a lot of owners, perhaps hundreds. There might be only a handfull that I
"might" consider competent to clean the plugs and change the oil. Waving a carrot in front of them IMHO might be luring them into something way over their heads. Sure there is a learning curve but oh the risk. When an aircraft comes in for an annual with a list of snags with trouble shooting done then I feel this owner is getting a handle on the mechanics of the aircraft.
I know of someone who has much more mechanical ability than I do and when I saw how he modified his type certified aircraft door hinges with household door hinges I had to take a step back and decide not to touch his aircraft ever. Is this what we are getting into? As much I would like to join the O/M gang myself, I really have a problem opening it up to everyone who asks.
Should there be some sort of written or oral exam to challenge a request for O/M? I say again, there is more to this than first meets the eye. Everyone here seems to be for it with hardly a single argument against it, seems to me the negatives have received no thought or it's all about the money and setting safety aside. The pocket book has won big time, hell everyone should own an aircraft and everyone should be able to fly to Europe for $200 return.
Is this a vent?

[kamikaze]

The ongoing incorrect presumption that I keep hearing is that because an aircraft in the O-M category, this MUST mean that the owner does all the work, and that he MUST be incompetent. This is simply not true.

Just like all AMEs are not mechanical gods, not all owners are complete idiots either.

I can assure you if I go O-M, my AME will keep on doing much of what he's doing now ...

Another to look at it is that if you think O-M is bad and dangerous, then you must think that of all experimentals, amateur-built, etc. also ... if you do, good at least you're consistent.

In the end, we're all entitled to take the risks we want ...

[Justjohn]

Yeah, that sounds like a rant.

I would be one of the hundreds that wouldn't be competent to change the oil etc. I am dangerous with a wrench. I can however, employ competent ppl and see work done well, and to standard. I do nothing more complicated than inflating a tire.

I have said this before. Some certified maint can't be bought at any price. I live in a small town far from a major center. There are several active 703, 704, and 705 operators on the field. There are no small aircraft maint organizations here. I cannot, at any price, get maint done to my airplane here or within 200 NM of home. But I can get an AME from one of those organizations to come out and do the work. Even guide me in ordering parts. He won't sign for anything tho. It would put him in conflict with his employer.

As for ppl staying out of little airplanes that they aren't familiar with, I am very risk adverse. What I see passing for airworthy amongst some private owners is not safe in my opinion. But they have all the paperwork done up nice and legal. Who is safe ? I make sure to find out before I fly. TC is absent from the scene. The general public is not informed enough to make safe decisions about little airplanes and therefore should stay with commercial operators.

Again, these are just my thoughts. Your mileage may vary.

[Colonel Sanders]

we're all entitled to take the risks we want

Yes, and as it has been pointed out before, at least
90% of the risk involved in being in a private aircraft
is caused by pilot screwups, not by mechanical.

Really, how often do wings and propellers depart
aircraft in flight? It does happen, but less than 1%
of accidents are caused by big pieces coming off.

More often, pilots crash them during takeoff or landing.
Or pilots run them out of fuel. Or pilots crash them at
night, or in bad weather. Same old, same old.

[AirFrame]

O/M airplanes are conspicuously identified as being in the O/M category.

I disagree. To John Q. Public who might go flying with you some day, your O/M Cessna looks just like any other Cessna. It even says "Cessna" on the side so it was clearly built by a factory and must be safe, right?

The passenger warning only needs to be visible during passenger entry. For most O/M owners (and A-B owners these days too) that means the placard gets placed on a door jamb, or canopy rail, that is hidden when the door is closed. Open for entry, and yes you can see it if you think to look. But closed nobody would be the wiser.

The regs could be met with a loud contrasting warning label on the outside of the cockpit door, but on the airplanes i've seen, it's never been done.

[Justjohn]

Well then you haven't seen one yet that complies with the reg plane and simple. And the folks who are doing that are misrepresenting the airplane.

The O/M category reg spells out what must be printed in both English and French and requires a short paragraph in both languages. This is not simply the word Experimental or in this case O/M that could be hidden in a door jamb. The required wording is as follows:


WARNING
SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF AIRWORTHINESS - OWNER-MAINTENANCE
THIS AIRCRAFT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS

AVIS
CERTIFICAT SPÉCIAL DE NAVIGABILITÉ - MAINTENANCE PAR LE PROPRIÉTAIRE
CET AÉRONEF N’EST PAS CONFORME AUX NORMES DE NAVIGABILITÉ
INTERNATIONALES RECONNUES


On my airplane it is roughly a foot square. Also it is required to be on the outside of the airplane clearly visible before you enter. In addition you are required to have a briefing as to what this means. Note, those are the regulatory requirements. That is so your passengers are properly informed.

I would suggest that the ones you have seen are not in compliance ... it also reinforces my thoughts of most ppl staying out of little airplanes that they are unfamiliar with.

Anything beyond this I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Cheers,
JJ

[PilotDAR]

Just John writes the truth, and my O-M aircraft, and it's operation, similarly meet the requirements. In cases when I might be deciding to send my wife flying, my decision would be 99% the skills of the pilot, and 1% warning placards on the side. And, if the pilot is the owner of the plane with the placard on the side, my opinion goes way up, that pilot cares about what they are doing!

Consider the wording of: THIS AIRCRAFT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS

the "standards" being referred to are those of an "ICAO" licensed maintainer signing it out following inspection. To comply with the standard, the aircraft has to comply with all if it. The O-M sidesteps the part about the ICAO AME signing it out. Those words do not say that the aircraft is defective, or substandard - they could be better, because of the freedom to maintain them better! That could make the more safe. Recall the original statistics gathered by Transport Canada, and presented by the FAA.

So, on the subject of the FAA, please recall the theme of my thread: The FAA seems to be about to completely pass Transport Canada in enabling freedom of maintenance of private GA aircraft. Doing so will instantly turn a huge number of Canadian standard C of A GA aircraft into comparatively highly over regulated aircraft, which cannot take advantage of new, simplified and economical products which will flow from the US. Owners of these aircraft are going to be left be the side of the road even if they still do wish to have an AME/AMO maintain them "the original way", unless TC is asked to keep step with the FAA - and the FAA seems to be doing this in part because of the Canadian experience!

[AirFrame]

Well then you haven't seen one yet that complies with the reg plane and simple. And the folks who are doing that are misrepresenting the airplane.

Standard 507.03(6)(b):

(b) Each aircraft in respect of which a Special C of A - Owner-maintenance is in effect, is marked on the side of the fuselage, in a position that is readily visible to persons entering the aircraft, in letters at least 10 mm (3/8 in.) high and of a colour contrasting with the background, with a placard containing the following statement:

The door frame *is* on the side of the fuselage. It *is* visible to persons entering the aircraft. There is no requirement that it be visible if you're just standing next to the plane *not* entering it. When made with letters no more than 3/8" high, it can be written in a single line 2 feet long (or even shorter, if you go to a narrow font). There is no requirement for the text to be seven separate lines, nor is a font specified.

The passenger marking requirement has been hashed out for more than 20 years on Amateur-Built Aircraft, which carry a very similar marking requirement. Recently, however, on Amateur-Built Aircraft the requirement was made even less restrictive with the Exemption that was issued to allow foreign-registered A-B aircraft to be imported. The exemption removes the requirement for 3/8" letter height, which means the decal can be as small as you like... Provided that it is still "legible". Mine is very legible, even from the passenger seat, with the canopy open. But the label is only 1.5 inches by 4 inches in size. Totally legal and blessed by the inspectors.

Regardless, it means nothing. Nobody reads the markings anyway.

[AirFrame]

Those words do not say that the aircraft is defective, or substandard - they could be better, because of the freedom to maintain them better! That could make the more safe. Recall the original statistics gathered by Transport Canada, and presented by the FAA.

You missed my earlier post... The statistics were gathered by the EAA, not Transport Canada. The EAA wants greater freedoms, and can easily skew statistics when there is NO CANADIAN DATA to contradict them. The TSB does not track when an accident aircraft is in the O-M category.

I agree... An O-M aircraft could be better maintained than a certified aircraft. On average? I doubt it's happening. I'd bet that on average, O-M aircraft are maintained just as well as certified aircraft, but at a much lower cost to the owner. That's good for the owners, bad for the AME's who aren't getting the work anymore. As it currently only represents a loss of 2% of the private fleet from the AME's pool of customers, the effect is probably not significant.

[Justjohn]

Well then you haven't seen one yet that complies with the reg plane and simple. And the folks who are doing that are misrepresenting the airplane.

Standard 507.03(6)(b):

(b) Each aircraft in respect of which a Special C of A - Owner-maintenance is in effect, is marked on the side of the fuselage, in a position that is readily visible to persons entering the aircraft, in letters at least 10 mm (3/8 in.) high and of a colour contrasting with the background, with a placard containing the following statement:

The door frame *is* on the side of the fuselage. It *is* visible to persons entering the aircraft. There is no requirement that it be visible if you're just standing next to the plane *not* entering it. When made with letters no more than 3/8" high, it can be written in a single line 2 feet long (or even shorter, if you go to a narrow font). There is no requirement for the text to be seven separate lines, nor is a font specified.

The passenger marking requirement has been hashed out for more than 20 years on Amateur-Built Aircraft, which carry a very similar marking requirement. Recently, however, on Amateur-Built Aircraft the requirement was made even less restrictive with the Exemption that was issued to allow foreign-registered A-B aircraft to be imported. The exemption removes the requirement for 3/8" letter height, which means the decal can be as small as you like... Provided that it is still "legible". Mine is very legible, even from the passenger seat, with the canopy open. But the label is only 1.5 inches by 4 inches in size. Totally legal and blessed by the inspectors.

Regardless, it means nothing. Nobody reads the markings anyway.

Well, you've decided it means nothing. What kind of operator are you?

Regardless, in addition to the placard, which is about the size and shape of a typical FOR SALE sign on the ones I've seen, the special C of A has a list of operating conditions. The one most relevant to this discussion is as follows:

c, The pilot-in-command shall brief the passenger(s) with respect to the meaning of the placard, emergency procedures, and items unique to the aircraft;

Please note that this is not a standard passenger briefing, but a specific briefing in regards to the placard and what it means. The letter and intent of the reg is so that nobody is getting into an owner maint airplane without being aware of it. The airplane is no longer the Piper or Cessna it resembles. It is something different.

Is it possible to defeat the intent of the reg? Of course. In your world O/M aircraft and pilots are clearly devil dogs unleashed on the unsuspecting public.

As pilots we have many opportunities to be in less than full compliance. The one I most often see at work is a current medical. Another is the requirement for 5 takeoff and landings at night for night flying. These are serious infractions. Would the public even notice? My point being that the CARS can be violated if the intent of the pilot/operator is to violate them. As Airframe points out, operators and pilots may be actively working to defeat the CARS.

Is the O/M category for everybody? Probably not. Certainly not for some. However O/M aircraft are supported by the regs. I see them as a blend between true certified aircraft and a homebuilt/experimental.

Cheers,
JJ

[ruddersup?]

Be sure to explain the placard to your grandson before he gets in the aircraft so he can decide to go or not. Hey Gramps what does that placard mean?
And don't worry about those newly painted ailerons you put on last night while you taxi out for takeoff. They probably don't have to be balanced. RIP.
What? No one told him they had to be balanced he should have known this, he maintains his own aircraft and must have been trained to do so.

Now you can say the same about Amateur Built but I think the owners/builders are more tuned in to what they have or will be getting into. A "homebuilt" just tends to perk your ears up a bit more than when you view an O/M Cessna 150.
You mention homebuilt to me and a red flag goes up, who, what, where, when, and you want to take me for a flight, thanks for the offer.

Maybe I'm wet behind the ears and not keeping up with progress but I can't imagine what things will be like 20 years down the road.
There will be hundreds, no thousands, no tens of thousands of aircraft with "unknown" history, caveat emptor. Is this going to help aiviation? Damn, I can buy a Cessna 172 for $500 now. One thing for sure, there shouldn't be trace of an AME shop anymore but a hell of a lot of pickup trucks, old pickups.

Try again guys, you haven't convinced me so far. Where are the negatives? The stats say it is safer than type certified, hahahaha. You can't be serious? Stats can be manipulated to ones benefit, ask my accountant. If you believe this, then I'm unable to have a discussion on the merits of O/M with you. Be like trying to challenge a priest on religion.

[PilotDAR]

The stats I read, which as they appear in an FAA document, I take as credible, suggest to me that deficient maintenance was not the cause of many GA accidents at all, and slightly fewer for O-M aircraft. It results in an inconclusive outcome, other than to say, no evidence was presented which suggest that O-M aircraft are less safe than standard C of A aircraft.

Pilots, on the other hand would not be expected to be more or less safe, because of the maintenance basis, though the reference in the FAA document suggests that they may be, simply for more currency, resulting from more flying.

I own one standard C of A aircraft, and one O-M. I'm not here to sell the merits of either system over the other - they're different, and intended to be so. I am, however, trying to rally Canadian owners to support and promote an evolution in Canada, which will keep Canada in pace with the FAA in terms of regulatory structure affecting these aircraft. Doing this, will assure our continued supply of parts, and expand it, while reducing prices on some. These parts will not be manufactured for C of A aircraft (well, at that price, anyway). If you want the more expensive parts, go ahead, they'll still be available, but you might not have to use them. You can still have an AME do the work if you like. The AME can even do the maintenance if you like, that does not have to change, because the maintenance basis is changed. All that changes is who signs for it.

This thread wasn't planned to be about placard font size, and passenger briefings. It was intended to present a discussion about keeping step with the FAA regulatory changes, so as to not suffer under a distinct system, and have to buy higher priced parts.

[ruddersup?]

PilotDAR, I would say you are clued in to the "system". Now look in your crystal ball and see what aviation, in particular, aircraft will be like 20 years from now. Should the average person be comfortable buying an aircraft that has been O/M for 20 years. Will there be any aircraft manufacturing companies still going? Will everyone have an aircraft that is worthless but that doesn't matter because they can maintain it for $500/yr or less. Now we are getting somewhere, right? The expression, one in every garage, will be the word of the day and garages everywhere will be full of old hacked up aircraft. However this won't be a total waste because there will be cheap cheap parts for sale off these O/M aircraft for type certified aircraft that their buddies have. Hell that is going on now so I guess what's the big deal?

Okay the Americans adopt their new policy (and I agree we are forced to keep up somehow) and I want to import one of their aircraft. What happens next? Will it be possible? Will it have to be inspected, and by whom, Transport, RAA, no one? Why do I complicate the who issue?


Maybe forget this whole rant.

[kamikaze]

You can figure out the stats ... Look at TSB reports, or TC incident data, and then look at the CCAR, which does show you the "Basis for registration" and you can build up the numbers. I presume this is what the EAA did. I also presume O-M aircraft also fill out AAIRs, which means that if everyone with the relevant data was to share it and put it together, you should be able to get better numbers based on flight hours.

The FAA proposal mentions the concept of a "repairman's certificate" required for their category. I'd *gladly* take that kind of a course if it existed in Canada ("Required" or not). Right now it's full AME or nothing. Something "in between" would be great, O-M or otherwise for that matter ... many owners know too little about their machine.

The FAA is supposed to be in direct contact with many other regulators, including TC, EASA, and others, and coordinating all this ... so I certainly expect to see TC follow suit (especially since we actually *already* have the O-M category, which means the change would not be as drastic for us).

As for the balancing of control surfaces, you remind me of an RV that crashed around Smith Falls (The Colonel knows this case quite well), it was ultimately found that the paint job and surface balancing was the problem (The rudder I think it was) ... I know about surface balancing, I don't know why he didn't ... but that was his risk to take.

I think more in depth aircraft mechanical knowledge will be "democratized" by the suggested rules ... Overall, more people will know a lot more, discussions will occur far more often, more information will be shared, etc. which can only help ... information is power ...