Jump Pilot training/ratings. Read post below FIRST.

[gale 0]

Interesting topic. I must say that where I jump I feel the aircrafts and jump pilots are safe. The dzo who handles these areas seems to do a really good job. But I was wondering if you (or anyone) knew what the statistics are like in Canada for jump plane operations. I know we don't have the numbers you do, obviously, but I was just wondering what our statistics and regulations are like compared to our southern neighbours. Anyone?

Gale

I'm drowning...so come inside
Welcome to my...dirty mind

[kallend 1,621]

Chris,

1. I don't think the "average" skydiver has any way of determining whether or not jump planes are being maintained and operated correctly. Hence I doubt that peer pressure is at all effective. FAA mandated annual and 100 hr inspections exert some control over maintenance, but operations?? I have a PPL, but I don't know if a turbine is being operated within limits and with adequate (legal) fuel even if I'm sitting in the right seat.

2. I suggest that the process for checking out a glider tug pilot is a better model than a tailwheel checkout. I'll explain if asked.

[freefallin14 0]

I believe that the training should be done in house. A person with a commercial pilots license should be able to know whether or not they are prepared to fly jumpers or not. They should know to ask questions, and to not make obvious bad decisions. I would not care whether or not a person had told me it was ok to run an engine over the CHT redline, I'm not doing it. Lycoming or Continental put that redline there for a purpose. And especially now with Chris' website, there are resources to find answers to questions. How can we possibly have the FAA take care of this? Would it require a checkride with an evaluator who has never flown a jump plane? Would it require a signoff like a tailwheel, high performance, complex? If so, who will give the sign off? As a CFI, putting my name in some jump pilots logbook saying they are competent enough to fly loads day after day in all types of conditions would make me extremely nervous. How can I know in a few hour checkout they will be ok? When you fly with a student day after day you can tell when they are ready for things like checkrides, solos, etc. I think in house training, with the former pilot, is the way to go. I also think the FAA will never get involved with it. That is of course unless jump planes start falling out of the sky.

Bret

[Dutchboy 0]

Seems like I've been in this discussion before (can you say diverdriver.com?).

As an active CFI I don't know if I would want the liability of signing off somebody for a jump pilot endorsement. Suddenly I'm responsible if anything ever happens while that pilot is flying jumpers.

Since everyone is using analogies. How about this. What do I need to tow a glider? I don't need an endorsement from a CFI, just some experience. I'm responsible for the safety of someone else, but the FAA doesn't really regulate this activity.

The thought of the USPA getting involved with this scares me. Perhaps a Jump Pilot Information Manual or something similar would be cool, but they have no business "licensing" pilots.

[GAskygirl 31]

There have been a lot of good points made here. Here's my two cents (OK, maybe four or five):

While we can hope that commercial pilots should know enough to ask when they are uncertain about some aspect of flying a plane or skydivers (as has been stated here), that's just not always going to be the case, as has been proven over and over. That's like saying that trained skydivers will know better than to do something stupid under canopy or in a new discipline without asking a more experienced jumper's, or instructor's, advice first. You can hope for common sense, but you can't expect it as a given in 100% of ANY population.

No regulation at all doesn't just allow some pilots to fall through the cracks, it opens up the floor so that there are no cracks at all and no safety net. Have you noticed how many respondents to this thread have said that training at their home DZ seems to be pretty good, but they guess they've gotten lucky with good people? Should you depend on luck to give you a good jump pilot? We can lament those cases where a pilot wasn't trained well enough in type or with jumpers and blindly hope that things get better, or we can do something about it.

Regulation, while it might make a lot of skydivers feel better, would be a big hassle and expense, and signoffs without proven skills could easily happen in some places, negating the effectiveness of the program.

I think that the best solution possible under the circumstances is further education in a very strongly recommended (preferably by USPA and/or the FAA), but not mandatory, format. Hopefully the non-mandatory nature would soothe concerns about liability.

Perhaps USPA could work with current jump pilots to hammer out a list of things pilots should know BEFORE that first load with the DZO to be allowed to fly jumpers, and a list of maneuvers they should be able to perform before being permitted to fly skydivers. This might be much like Billvon's list of maneuvers a skydiver should be able to perform under his current canopy before downsizing. Any additional maneuvers for type-specific concerns could be appended to this.

I guess what I'm saying is that we should be more concerned about jump pilot training and demonstrated skill as an industry based the "preventableness" of previous incidents, and in order to do something about the situation the tools for improving things need to be there. A DZO who isn't a pilot might not be able to train a new pilot to do these maneuvers if the old pilot isn't around, but he could point to a maneuvers list and ask the pilot to demonstrate skill in the maneuvers in an empty plane before being asked to fly jumpers. If the pilot doesn't know how to do one of these specific maneuvers, he should work with a more experienced pilot in type to learn how, and not fly jumpers until he can. Business concerns about not being able to fly jumpers until this occurs are certainly valid, but I guess I think about it this way--business gets a lot worse if this new pilot crashes a full plane in a preventable situation.

The vast majority of the pilots out there flying skydivers right now could easily do the maneuvers that would be required on such a list. It would be my *hope* that a jump pilot who looked at this list and realized he didn't know how to do something on it would think about how this maneuver could come in handy, and seek out instruction on it. And perhaps a pilot considering flying jumpers could check out this list and get himself trained in these maneuvers before even approaching a DZ.

This kind of system would rely heavily on personal responsibility for training, as does the current non-system, but at least there would be a standard set of skills we could expect pilots to have before flying jump planes. One of the biggest advantages of a system in which such a list was widely used might be an attitude of more attention to pilot capability, not the cavalier attitude of "Oh, it'll be fine" that you see all over the place.

I'm not trying to cut down our self-regulatory sport, which I dearly love--just hoping to cut down on preventable accidents. Nor am I trying to say that we need to keep an eye on those sneaky good-for-nothing pilots , just that we often take too casual an attitude towards our own safety and perhaps a setup like this could help us help ourselves.

Here are some steps in the right direction:
http://www.diverdriver.com/Training/training.htm
http://www.diverdriver.com/Training/Syllabus/syllabus.htm

Again, just my two cents--fire away.

---

Blue Skies!
-=Christy=-
D-21464

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Chris,

1. I don't think the "average" skydiver has any way of determining whether or not jump planes are being maintained and operated correctly. Hence I doubt that peer pressure is at all effective. FAA mandated annual and 100 hr inspections exert some control over maintenance, but operations?? I have a PPL, but I don't know if a turbine is being operated within limits and with adequate (legal) fuel even if I'm sitting in the right seat.

2. I suggest that the process for checking out a glider tug pilot is a better model than a tailwheel checkout. I'll explain if asked.

To everyone: Thank you so much for this thread. I appreciate everyone's input. What excellent posts. Even though you may not agree with things I've proposed, your responses have been thought out and meaningful.

John, post away. I think it's a good comparison.

Chris

[gale 0]

OK, so I'm going to reply to my own post. I just happen to be really well aquainted with a former jump pilot and he answered a few questions. For those of you who might be wondering, our system is this:

Each business has a Check pilot certified by NavCanada (I think that's what it's called, there's a few aviation certification bodies in Canada, I get confused) The CSPA has input as to what a jump pilot has to be able to do to get checked out.

Then that Check pilot is certified to certify other pilots. (Each business also has a Cheif Pilot and a Safety Officer)

So for example, a dzo who is a pilot is certified by NavCanada and then he checks out all the pilots who fly jumpers for him. (Oh, and by the way, the dzo I'm thinking of also makes every jumper pilot take the first jump course and do at least one jump. It gives them a sense of respect for the sport I think)

The impression my pilot friend gave me is that there seem to be a lot of easily preventable jump plane incidents in the US that don't happen in Canada. Maybe ours is a system worth considering?

Gale

I'm drowning...so come inside
Welcome to my...dirty mind

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Chris,



2. I suggest that the process for checking out a glider tug pilot is a better model than a tailwheel checkout. I'll explain if asked.

To everyone: Thank you so much for this thread. I appreciate everyone's input. What excellent posts. Even though you may not agree with things I've proposed, your responses have been thought out and meaningful.

John, post away. I think it's a good comparison.

Chris

OK.

Flying a taildragger is not an "unusual" activity for the plane. It was designed as a taildragger (in almost all cases) and designed to be flown as such. Agreed, it's trickier than a tri-gear. The pilot can practice without endangering anyone besides him/herself and the CFI giving the instruction.

OTOH, flying a glider tug is a specialized activity, where the behavior of another party (the glider pilot) can have a major effect on safety and performance. Almost no planes are designed to be operated as glider tugs. You can't practice solo or just with the CFI along, you have to have a glider back there too, with its pilot at risk if you perform poorly. Glider towing operational profiles are similar to jump operations: up and down, up and down, all day long. Similar fuelling issues.

IMO, jump plane operations are similar: almost no planes are designed to be operated as such. You can't practice effectively unless you have jumpers on board, and they are at risk if the pilot performs poorly. Conversely, the behavior of the jumpers affects the safety of the flight so the pilot must be prepared to deal with this. Up and down, all day long.

Glider towing is governed by FAR 61.69

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

One problem I can see with rating pilots is that DZs themselves would be resistant to it.

The good ones won't. And if yours does, it's a pretty good sign it's not a 'good one'.

Two Chicago area DZ's actually send their pilots for flight simulator time in Toronto. Do you have any idea how expensive that is? (hint:www.cae.com) Aerohio, where I spent a year, I'd be very surprised if they objected. Partly because they lost a pilot last winter to his own poor decisions, Tim and Sherry also have a reputation for running a profesional DZ. It's not just the big DZ's that would support this, either. When I started jumping in upstate NY, the DZ would try their best to bring in aircraft from the above-mentioned Chicago area DZ's, or Aerohio. Failing that, they'd fly their 182 with the same grey-haired jump-pilot who'd been flying jumpers since the early 1960's. They had other comercialy rated pilots who could fly, they just wouldn't let them.

What am I saying? Wether small, medium, or large - through mostly luck I've never made home a DZ that takes their pilot training and certification lightly. While I won't speak for them, I would be very surprised if any of these DZ's objected to tighter licencing for jump pilots, it'd just make their jobs easier.

Their are dropzones out there who take the safety of their planes and pilots very seriously. If you're not at one, you might wonder what makes your DZ any different?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[MarkM 0]

Quote

Quote

One problem I can see with rating pilots is that DZs themselves would be resistant to it.

The good ones won't. And if yours does, it's a pretty good sign it's not a 'good one'.

No it isn't. Were the DZs that opposed the new coach ratings bad DZs?

And coach ratings wouldn't impact a DZ's business anywhere near as much as pilot ratings could.

That's great that Chicago area DZs send their pilots to Toronto for flight simulator time. Not every dropzone has those kind of finances.

Some dropzones are 1, maybe 2 C182's, are open only a couple days a week and rotate part time local pilots.

If pilot ratings were time consuming to get or involved a lot of travel, it could very well put them out of business.

[MarkM 0]

Quote

To everyone: Thank you so much for this thread. I appreciate everyone's input. What excellent posts. Even though you may not agree with things I've proposed, your responses have been thought out and meaningful.

John, post away. I think it's a good comparison.

Chris

Is there any reason this has to be done via the USPA or FAA? Couldn't it be a private voluntary rating?

Research what skills you and other good pilots think are needed, what extra risks are involved with jump planes, create a syllabus and start holding camps for pilots that are serious about flying jump planes. Those that attend and pass the tests get their certificate that they can use to show any DZ that they're serious about jump safety.

A lot of rating programs probably start off that way. Some school starts up to fill in a need, gets a rep, then becomes the standard.

[markbaur 0]

Quote

I suggest that the process for checking out a glider tug pilot is a better model than a tailwheel checkout.

The issues involved may be similar, but the FAR requirement for a tug check-out is just three tows, actual or simulated, plus some ground training. I'm with diverdriver -- whoever does the checkout needs to be more thorough than the minimum required by regulation.

Mark

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Quote

To everyone: Thank you so much for this thread. I appreciate everyone's input. What excellent posts. Even though you may not agree with things I've proposed, your responses have been thought out and meaningful.

John, post away. I think it's a good comparison.

Chris

Is there any reason this has to be done via the USPA or FAA? Couldn't it be a private voluntary rating?

Research what skills you and other good pilots think are needed, what extra risks are involved with jump planes, create a syllabus and start holding camps for pilots that are serious about flying jump planes. Those that attend and pass the tests get their certificate that they can use to show any DZ that they're serious about jump safety.

A lot of rating programs probably start off that way. Some school starts up to fill in a need, gets a rep, then becomes the standard.

Good suggestion about starting our own "certification" school. Maybe first they could get a break on their insurance if the syllabus was recognized by the insurance companies. The whole idea is to increase the awareness of jump pilot safety EVEN IF you fly at a 1 horse DZ. This is not BIG DZ bashing LITTLE DZ. I've flown full time at Cessna DZs too. But if it works in Canada it might work here. Something to think about.

Chris

[Beachbum 0]

Great topic ... have a few questions, then opinion/idea time ...

When you mention accident #'s relative to air time comparing skydiving operations to other operations ... is that really a fair comparison? It seems to me that:

1) skydiving operations involve many more takeoffs/landings per flight hour, and from what I understand (not a pilot) that is the most dangerous time in each flight???
2) having people getting out of the plane a pilot is flying is in itself dangerous to both the plane/pilot (and everyone else still aboard) for many reasons which I know you are WAY more aware of/knowledgeable about than I am, such as premie deployments, jumper strikes on control surfaces, etc.

Keeping that train of thought in mind, are the accident #'s really that bad?

I (as I'm sure any jumper) would like to think that pilot training is the least of his worries when riding up to altitude. I would certainly favor some sort of training program for jump pilots. But I also agree with many of the posts that mention the various problems with instituting such a program. One way might be as (think it was Mark?) suggested .. a more public method, such as possibly a jump pilot's association (perhaps under the USPA wing?) which could assist in this. I think the idea someone mentioned about you, and other very experienced jump pilots putting together a program is very doable. I also expect that ya'll are quite capable of determining the level of someone's expertise (I recognize that it can't be based solely on flight hours) to be able to elect, appoint, or whatever ... "training officers" or whatever you may decide to call them across the country so that there are enough available TO train/certify willing pilots. I also agree that for smaller dz's any REQUIRED training could present difficulties, and that many dz's could fight hard against it. A way to help alleviate this might be to make it something that IS USPA associated, but not mandatory. Then a dz could use it as an additional safety attraction, much as saying they are a USPA dz ... "We fly only USPA rated jump pilots" or some such.

I know that several posters on here are jump pilots, but don't have a feel for how many .. those who are .. would you be willing to participate in a program such as this? I feel you would be doing a great service to skydiving as a whole!

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Great topic ... have a few questions, then opinion/idea time ...

When you mention accident #'s relative to air time comparing skydiving operations to other operations ... is that really a fair comparison? It seems to me that:

1) skydiving operations involve many more takeoffs/landings per flight hour, and from what I understand (not a pilot) that is the most dangerous time in each flight???
2) having people getting out of the plane a pilot is flying is in itself dangerous to both the plane/pilot (and everyone else still aboard) for many reasons which I know you are WAY more aware of/knowledgeable about than I am, such as premie deployments, jumper strikes on control surfaces, etc.

Keeping that train of thought in mind, are the accident #'s really that bad?

I (as I'm sure any jumper) would like to think that pilot training is the least of his worries when riding up to altitude. I would certainly favor some sort of training program for jump pilots. But I also agree with many of the posts that mention the various problems with instituting such a program. One way might be as (think it was Mark?) suggested .. a more public method, such as possibly a jump pilot's association (perhaps under the USPA wing?) which could assist in this. I think the idea someone mentioned about you, and other very experienced jump pilots putting together a program is very doable. I also expect that ya'll are quite capable of determining the level of someone's expertise (I recognize that it can't be based solely on flight hours) to be able to elect, appoint, or whatever ... "training officers" or whatever you may decide to call them across the country so that there are enough available TO train/certify willing pilots. I also agree that for smaller dz's any REQUIRED training could present difficulties, and that many dz's could fight hard against it. A way to help alleviate this might be to make it something that IS USPA associated, but not mandatory. Then a dz could use it as an additional safety attraction, much as saying they are a USPA dz ... "We fly only USPA rated jump pilots" or some such.

I know that several posters on here are jump pilots, but don't have a feel for how many .. those who are .. would you be willing to participate in a program such as this? I feel you would be doing a great service to skydiving as a whole!

I haven't been jumping all that long (1,101 jumps). In that time I have been:

1. in a jump plane that flew into a cloud on a 2-plane formation load and lost sight of the lead plane. I was outside on the floater bar at the time and it was pretty damn scary.

2. in a jump plane that ran off the side of the runway.

3. in a jump plane that stalled and dropped its left wing on jump run with floaters out (incipient spin). That was also pretty scary.

All of these are pilot error and endanger the jumpers. In every case the pilot held a commercial MEL certificate.

None of these should happen with a **properly** qualified pilot on board.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

When you mention accident #'s relative to air time comparing skydiving operations to other operations ... is that really a fair comparison? It seems to me that:

1) skydiving operations involve many more takeoffs/landings per flight hour, and from what I understand (not a pilot) that is the most dangerous time in each flight???
2) having people getting out of the plane a pilot is flying is in itself dangerous to both the plane/pilot (and everyone else still aboard) for many reasons which I know you are WAY more aware of/knowledgeable about than I am, such as premie deployments, jumper strikes on control surfaces, etc.

Keeping that train of thought in mind, are the accident #'s really that bad?

That is the debate. But also look at ab initio flight training. The NTSB does track the number of accidents per 100K of flying for Flight Instruction. They are also a high cycle (maybe even higher cycle) operation that jump planes. They go out and do circuit after circuit without climbing to altitude. I don't remember a training flight that I went on as a student that didn't have at least 3-5 landings on it. Most flights were 2 hours or less. So, that would be about the same cycle rate per hour average as a jump plane (2 to 3 per hour). Flight Instruction flights have a LOWER accident rate than General Aviation. Why? Well, in articles just comparing Instruction flights with other GA it is said that having a professional pilot (commercial rating with extra training in teaching students) enhances the safety of the flight. They are doing the "critical phases of flight" more often than other GA. So, we have commercially rated pilots too yet we do not compare even close. So, I feel that we do have a problem in our industry.

There is no breakdown for Jump Plane landings. So I can't really compare them. But if you take a look at these reports for jump plane accidents you will see that many are preventable. People clamour for more training on canopy flight when jumpers hook into the ground. But they are oddly silent when a jump plane crashes off the field out of gas. Why is this seen as acceptable? A pilot uses 3,000 feet of runway to accelerate a 182 (way out of normal), has 2,000 feet remaining, has an elevator problem and continues the takeoff? It never should have gone 3,000 feet down the runway in the first place. Something is seriously lacking here. So what is it? That's the question. Lack of standardized training and testing and recurrent training is what I'm saying is the problem for the industry. Certainly, a pilot should be expected to refuel before running out of gas. Or computing enough fuel for a ferry flight. Yet, we keep repeating the same accidents. Why? The information is out there. Why are some pilots not getting it? I'm concerned about my brothers and sisters at small DZs that may not get the information. I'm concerned about my fellow jumpers at large DZs that treat their large aircraft like old ragged out 182s. I worry about my friends getting into overloaded and out of balance aircraft.

A 10,000 hour pilot can run out of gas just like a 250 hour pilot. How do we convince the industry to use their knowledge and stay safe? Well, that's what we are working for. Always, every day.

I encourage anyone that wants to provide content or modifications for my site www.DiverDriver.com to submit them to me or contact me about what they can provide. I want it to be a clearing house of information that can be used free of charge for ever. Knowledge is power. Thank for your input.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[Beachbum 0]

Quote

People clamour for more training on canopy flight when jumpers hook into the ground. But they are oddly silent when a jump plane crashes off the field out of gas. Why is this seen as acceptable? A pilot uses 3,000 feet of runway to accelerate a 182 (way out of normal), has 2,000 feet remaining, has an elevator problem and continues the takeoff? It never should have gone 3,000 feet down the runway in the first place. Something is seriously lacking
here. So what is it?

My guess would be that most jumpers are like me, and know little about aviation procedures/responsibilities. Until reading your post, I could not have told you if it was the pilot, or who, that is responsible for ensuring sufficient fuel for a jump flight. At the dz I go to most frequently, I have observed several different (non pilots) fueling the plane between flights. Jumpers DO have some knowledge about canopy flight, so can feel like they have something to say .. most likely know little about the airplanes, so are silent .. ??
I agree that training would be the correct response, and I think this discussion has brought up some great possibilities. If you or anyone else wants to organize a program, I'll sure lobby my dzo to get his pilots involved.

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[howardwhite 3]

"ab initio "

Ooh, perfect score on my Latin SATs. Or is that also something else lawyers would know?

I'm not sure the death of Mark Blevins, Otter pilot at AerOhio, who died in a non-skydiving Caravan crash, is relevant. But anyway, I sense in responses that insurance may be a good tool for encouraging some kind of performance expectations. The people who fly AerOhio Otters (and other from the same group) have been through training with DeHavilland trained pilots.

HW

[riggerrob 558]

Jump pilot manuals were published during the 1980s by both CSPA and BPA.
Perhaps they should be re-printed with updates on GPS and tandems.
Small, part-time DZs will always moan about the high cost and inconvenience of pilot training, whereas large DZs tend to see their airplanes as investments and see pilot training as protecting their investments.
Some DZ or flying school should be able to turn a profit training new jump pilots, the trick is to make it convenient. As for the cost, remember that many insurance companies offer reduced rates for pilots who attend refresher training on a regular basis.
Perhaps the first step is for our pilots is to attend the 2003 PIA Symposium. PIA usually hosts a few lectures on aircraft operating procedures and aircraft maintenance. Perhaps that would be a good time and place for jump pilots from around the world to compare operating procedures and start compiling a list of best practices.

I have seen jump pilot check-outs on three different levels in Canada.
Back in the good old days, CSPA only required a private pilot license and 1000 hours pilot in command time. I rented a Cessna 172, ferried it to the DZ and promptly began hauling skydivers. My only training consisted of reading a jump pilots' handbook published by CSPA and the Cessna 172 operating handbook. It helped that I had 300 jumps and was a jumpmaster.
My second check out consisted of a ground briefing on constant speed propellers (Cessna 182) followed by a check ride with the clubs' chief pilot.
The third time through I am still struggling with the commercial pilot written exam, and accumulating a total of 300 hours pilot in command time. Then I still need a day's ground school and a check ride with the chief pilot/airplane owner.

The final factor is pilot maturity. No amount of training or check rides will prevent buzz jobs if a pilot is immature.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

"ab initio "

Ooh, perfect score on my Latin SATs. Or is that also something else lawyers would know?


HW

Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditiones habes.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

I'm not sure the death of Mark Blevins, Otter pilot at AerOhio, who died in a non-skydiving Caravan crash, is relevant. HW

I don't believe I mentioned Mark at all in this thread. I think Andyman was the one who brought him up.

Ab Initio is initial pilot training from Zero hours.

Chris

[howardwhite 3]

You didn't mention Mark Blevins, and I apologize for responding to two message in one.

Hadn't heard the term ab intitio in that context. Learn something new every year.

HW

[howardwhite 3]

" the 2003 PIA Symposium. PIA usually hosts a few lectures on aircraft operating procedures and aircraft maintenance"

That would be cool if it appeared to be happening, but the only thing I see on the schedule is a one hour session (repeated once) on NTSB jump plane accidents by Ron Price, who appears to be an NTSB accident inspector with some special expertise on choppers. Perhaps it is not too late to see if more can be added.

Out of curiosity, does anyone think it makes any difference if the pilot is a jumper (no, not one who made one tandem)?

HW

[riggerrob 558]

My experience has been that a jumpmaster - with one hundred hours pilot in command - is a vastly superior jump-pilot than most ex-military jet jockeys who have thousands of hours, but no skydiving experience.
By the same logic, you would not hire a city-slicker pilot to dust crops or hire a land-lubber to spot fish.

[tspillers 0]

We have it pretty well. The airplane owner is a jumper/jump pilot, etc. He trains the pilot with how we want things done. I am also a pilot and can reinforce and guide his experince since I am on most of the loads (182 DZ).

I do not like the idea of the FAA regulating the training because different DZ's and planes have very different procedures. Most instructors are not familiar with skydiving operations and would provide little education and experience.

I am not totally useless, I can be used as a bad example.