Concorde Deadly design error finally led to the end of the program

[@MetalTeamster]

Great vid as always. I read enjoyed John Hutchinson’s version of the 4590 crash. Air France apparently don’t like him, they want the narrative of “ they ran over FOD “ , nothing could have been done. I would imagine you are aware of the details of the extra luggage putting them weight wise aft of center biased , they had the transfer pumps switched on during takeoff, so somewhere around 100 or more gpm pushing fuel forward from tank eleven , which certainly must have had an effect to the ruptured fuel tank , the flight engineer shutting down the engine that threw the fire alarm un commanded , the drag created by the landing gear spacers that maintenance had failed to reinstall after servicing , the failure for the reheats to be switched to contingency power , the large quantity of taxi fuel ordered , the fact that Capt Marty had ordered the fuel tanks in the wings to be filled beyond auto shutoff so when the fod hit, there was likely no extra space due to the transfer pumps being on, the arcing of the brake fan wires….. they took off with a slight tailwind as reported by Hutch. A lot of bad decisions prior to hitting the FOD.

[@ronrogers]

Yes, was aware of those factors. I was attempting to keep things fairly simple and just concentrate on the major details of the accident. It is always a trade off in these videos of basic issues vs getting very complex and losing people with too much detail. Always a balancing act.

[@MetalTeamster]

@@ronrogers and your vids are amazing, so , understood and concurring

[@karlchilders5420]

@ronrogers you know what though Ron, the way YOU explain things keeps the dilettante in the mix. They can follow along because your knowledge combined with your outstanding instructional tone makes learning from you a snap. I bet your students did well at UPT and beyond.

[@stephenmajor5498]

I have to go with your explanation of the events of this tragic day. It sounds much more detailed than anything that came out of France.

[@PetesGuide]

Which of the several videos of him on the crash do you recommend?

[@GlutenEruption]

Great episode! I highly recommend anyone who hasn't already watch the aircrew interview channel's interviews with BA Concorde pilot John Hutchinson, especially the one on the crash. Great insights and a terrific storyteller.

[@mazdaman0075]

John was also FO on BOAC 712 (Boeing 707) in 1968 which lost an engine on takeoff from Heathrow (the #2 engine subsequently physically detached from the aircraft) but made a miraculous return landing. Sadly the ongoing fire after landing claimed 5 lives including flight attendant Barbara Jane Harrison who was awarded the George Cross posthumously for bravery, for going back into the burning aircraft in an attempt to save a disabled woman and an eight year old girl.

[@GlutenEruption]

@@mazdaman0075 wow, I never knew that!

[@christopherblack3102]

Ron, as a side note. My Dad retired from the Air Force in 1980 and went to work for Vought in Grand Prairie, TX. Vought wouldn’t let families visit the facilities because of secret programs. I didn’t find out until a few years ago that Vought was making sub-assemblies for the B-2 Bomber back then. Dad kept that secret for decades 🤣

[@bobcfi1306]

Very thoughtful analysis. Thank you

[@ronrogers]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@daffyduk77]

fascinating, great knowledgeable perspective, excellent laid-back communication style, & *NO STUPID MUSIC* - ticks all the boxes thanks

[@ronrogers]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@ronrogers]

By the way, that is funny....you are not the first to mention not liking music to the videos. I too find it annoying and unnecessary!

[@daffyduk77]

@@ronrogers It's possibly an old person thing. Every young person these days has to have headphones on, even when they're showering, eating, jogging, the lot. And the music's absolute drivel these days

[@SmokinGoodd420]

Love watching your content Ron! Hit the nail right on the head💚

[@ronrogers]

Thanks for sharing!!

[@Jeff-tb9kp]

Very interesting. did not know about all the other incidents other than the one at IAD. Appreciate your self control keeping us out of the physics' weeds.

[@sithticklefingers7255]

Telling a pilot he can’t reveal who he works for is one thing, but not allowing him to reveal that he’s a pilot is the ultimate test of conviction. He must’ve looked like that aneurysm kid at social functions!

[@rlsmith6904]

Great video. One of my all time favorites. I especially liked Ron Rogers’ summary of world history in one line: Without airplanes we’d all be walking everywhere naked.

[@GlutenEruption]

Some of the other big factors of the crash included the fact that they were a several thousand pounds over the max takeoff weight, the CG was aft of limits, the main bogeys were missing a spacer that kept the tires tracking properly, the FE shut down an engine still producing thrust without warning the crew and against established engine fire on takeoff procedures, and the fuel was dumping out of a tank fully forward of the CG, meaning the CG kept moving further and further aft until it overcame the elevator authority leading to a violent pitch up into a stall and fell.

[@ronrogers]

Yes, was aware of those factors. I was attempting to keep things fairly simple and just concentrate on the major details of the accident. It is always a trade off in these videos of basic issues vs getting very complex and losing people with too much detail. Always a balancing act.

[@jefferyrichards3165]

👍Greetings Sir, I have read the B-58 Hustler had several instances of main landing gear tires/wheel assemblies coming apart during take-off and puncturing the fuel tanks, almost identical to what happen to the Concord. I would imagine secrecy at the time prevented this information from being reported to the general aviation community as well as the designers of Concord.

[@chrisito245]

Interesting note of history is the redesigned version of this plane after the accident, BA did the first test flight on September 11, 2001.

[@jmchinch]

Awesome to hear a test-pilots take on this ..thanks

[@ronrogers]

Glad you liked it!

[@brianmee5398]

In the mid ‘80s we lived in Germantown MD. Whenever anyone heard the distinctive sound of a Concorde on approach to IAD they would shout “Concorde!” and all would run outside to see it.

[@FSXairpilot]

That's crazy that they had the tire blowing off so many times before and yet they didn't do much about it. Its tragic, I remember in a documentary some lady or ladies were saving for a long time to fly on the Concorde and they ended up in this accident. I hope these supersonic planes make a comeback and make above subsonic speeds accessible to more that just military pilots. One crazy fact about this accident plane is that it was the same plane that was used to film the 1979 Airport Movie, in that movie the plane also ended up crash landing.

[@schanche1965]

Not mentioned in the commentary was that Concorde had the highest take-off and landing speed of any airliner, ever. It also had the highest tyre pressure of any airliner, ever. Michelin did an incredible job of making and testing the highly technical tyres for the aircraft and we're far in advance of anything Goodyear or Firestone could make. There were other factors at play in the Air France Concorde disaster, politically Air France was being groomed for public sale and an all Airbus fleet was desired and as such France were reluctant to help with the redesign and kevlar strengthening of the fuel tank skins, also the French operated Concordes were very marginal on fuel range which mentioned in the event of a tyre chunk hitting the underside, the over-filled fuel tanks would suffer a bigger hydraulic shock via the incompatible fuel and any damage would be much worse. There were also maintenance errors involving main landing gear wheel spacers being omitted which had already caused the aircraft to vear left of runway centre towards a 747 presidential flight waiting to join the main runway. The piece of DC10 junk left on the runway was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

[@CapitalismSuxx]

There was a ton of bad decisions made from Air France for a long time before this. British Airways flew the Concorde way better imho. That particular day the AF4590 was knowingly overloaded with both fuel and luggage, for one thing. It wasn't just "a piece of debris" it was an entire chain of stupidity before that debris entered the chat.

[@daayoungs4326]

The mishap Concode, interestingly was used in the movie, “Airport ‘79.” You haven’t lived until you’ve seen George Kennedy hanging his arm out the cockpit window shooting a flare gun at Mach 2. 😂

[@ryanlittleton5615]

Interesting side note about the Concorde involved F-BTSC, she was actually the the very same aircraft used in the Airport '79 movie.

[@andycorbett3052]

Hi Ron, An interesting and very informative video. I had no idea about the forces involved when the tyre fragment hit the fuel tank. The issue with tires exploding was a ticking time bomb that was going to end in disaster at some point, and it is a shame that the corrective measures that were eventually put in place had not been implemented earlier. Now what I'm about to say is based upon my recollections of a documentary that uncovered additional issues with the preparation of that concord for flight that may have had a material impact whether the accident would have happed at all. That said my brain is getting on a bit, so this account may not be 100% accurate. Prior to the crash, Concord underwent maintenance on its under carriage which involved the removal of the wheels on the side which eventually exploded. It alleged that when the undercarriage was reassembled, the maintenance crew omitted to fit a large spacer between the wheels (I think). During the initial stage of take off, the plane was seen to swerve across the runway, and nearly collided with a Fire tender that was waiting to the left hand side of the runway. The Fire crew later reported that the plane did in fact swerve, early in the take off and that the fire started when the plane was in close proximity to them suggesting that the debris from the continental flight was on the far left hand side of the runway near where the fire crew were waiting, i.e. a fair distance down the runway, and at a point where Concord would have been travelling at high speed. I believe that there were skid marks on the runway which confirmed the swerve early in its take off. I believe that the French investigators report, acknowledged the omission of the spacer but stated it played no part in the accident!!! The fire crews observation did not align with the conclusions that the investigators had drawn, and so were simply left out of their report, which stated that the cause of the crash was solely down to the plane running over the debris, thereby making Continental liable, and not the Air France maintenance team The above came from a UK documentary that I watched over a decade ago, and I have no way of verifying the accuracy of the reporting.

[@Absaalookemensch]

Speed kills and increased speed leads to higher death risks. The current development path of commercial aircraft is relatively efficient and safe.

[@PetesGuide]

Photo at 8:05 is flipped L to R!

[@petervandolah5322]

Watch Captain John Hutchinson's video on this tragedy ... He flew Concorde for 15 years for BA ... There were many more factors than one detached metal strip and undealt with issues regarding tires ... But I digress ...

[@fjp3305]

Very good and interesting video

[@ronrogers]

Thanks!

[@panam747]

It was a blast to fly on!

[@ronrogers]

I bet!

[@frank_av8tor]

If memory serves, tyre pressure was also much higher than other aircraft, making any failure that much more violent, add that to the increased speed and it's easy to see just how much more hazardous a tyre failure on Concorde was versus sub-sonic transport airplanes. Thanks for the great review!

[@ronrogers]

Yes, you are correct!

[@gregculverwell]

I am speaking from Oldham memories, but as far more as I know the problem with tyres was solved by Michelin when they developed a new 'zero growth' tyre which did not fly apart if it failed. Also they added a kind of a shield on the landing gear which prevented large chunks of shrapnel hitting the wing. What eventually killed the concorde was the avionics - it was all analog and unique to that aircraft - unobtainable. It didn't believe that it could ever have been profitable after the 1973 in crisis given it's normal a petite format fuel.

[@manowaari]

Concorde is always the most coolest passenger airplane to discuss. If you have some information regarding BA/AF and Braniff joint operation. From Washington - DFW. I belive Concordes were renamed with sticker N-tail numbers, flown with Braniff staff and only were flown subsonic.

[@ronrogers]

I do not have any information on the Braniff operation but I agree, that would be very interesting!

[@jimw1615]

This process of fixing the problem after it fails has been around "forever". We, as humans, don't demand any better process - rarely have.

[@regionalflyer]

One of my PC-12 instructors was one of the Continental flight crew. I don't remember if it was he, or other people he worked with started calling him the Concorde killer

[@PetesGuide]

I was notified of a comment by Miles Monroe that I can’t find now. Miles, can you repost it?

[@ronrogers]

I saw it too but can't find it either. Don't know why that happens unless he deleted it??

[@PetesGuide]

@@ronrogers Either he deleted it, or it’s in your spam folder waiting for you to release it. If he put a url (like to the video in question) in the comment, that might trigger it going into the spam folder. Maybe check your channel dashboard?

[@ronrogers]

Checked all those right away but nothing there.

[@karlchilders5420]

I do not think that accident would've happened on the BA concorde, though Ron. The way BA did their maintenance, they'd have never allowed that jet to clear the hangar to the gate without having that gear trunion alignment part in place. Also, they wouldn't have had it over max gross. BA had issues with tire problems, yes, but this particular incident had that part missing, which the other incidents did *not* have. The plane was skidding left even prior to rotation due to that. I think that was the largest contributing factor to this being a fatal accident vs. a sev-A non-fatal event. What do you think, Ron?

[@mazdaman0075]

Precisely, they only ran over the titanium strip because of the gear issue causing them to veer left. Over max takeoff weight. Air Chance strikes again.

[@CapitalismSuxx]

Yes, the infamous chain of events started WAY before AF4590 ran over that piece of DC-10!

[@martentrudeau6948]

Interesting, a beautiful and wonderful plane that wasn't fully designed and developed. The engineers did their best, but it still needed more time and money to develop and improve it before going into service. The airplane designers were constrained by time and money, it's the way the world is. Flying Concorde would have been like playing Russian roulette. Great video from a real expert pilot.

[@ronrogers]

Thanks!

[@warped-sliderule]

In air transport it's not easy to find the "sweet spot" -- they tried big (747, DC-10, A380), tried fast (various SST's), etc. Now they are trying different "green" designs. But with going green, they won't be in the technological wake of military innovations (as with big/fast). So the future should be interesting, challenging, and hopefully not as deadly...

[@CapitalismSuxx]

I would protest the deadly design error. BA never had an issue and although tyres blowing off happened to them too, they never had something THIS catastrophic. Sadly they never thought of reinforcing the tanks (they put in Kevlar, but then 9-11 happened and nothing was ever the same) until this crash though. The engine layout was thoroughly considered and with the specs the engineers had to oblige, I don't see any other possible engine layout. The aircraft was designed for a particular amount of speed and they had to carry as many people as possible while also being pressurised. The wing and fuselage had to be very finely tailor made and this left very limited options for engine placement. Concorde had a special engine divider though, since this was regarded as a problem already at its conception, so they installed a firewall to somewhat prohibit the fire spreading. The firewall actually worked ok during the AF4590 sequence, the FO was the one to shut down the working engine nr 1 so they were totally aft CoG and with only two engines on the right side working, being overloaded, they crashed. It would be awesome to go through the fuel tank system in the Concorde - that was a true engineering marvel!

[@iwanebbing2642]

Can you call it a 'design deficiency' when it takes a shotty repair on an other aircraft to bring it to light?

[@ronrogers]

The design had been having problems for a while. This incident was just the final straw.

[@MrShaneSunshine]

Still the safest plane in history I believe (officially).

[@TheTransporter007]

Concorde with an e. ‼

[@davidduganne5939]

Concord is a grape

[@stephenmajor5498]

Nice work but you have the propensity to take the longest route for the shortest of distances using the greatest amount of time in the least allowable segment. Obviously, it's contagious but unavoidable. Thanks and see you next video 😊.

[@ronrogers]

Funny....in this post especially, I purposely left out a bunch of details (others mentioned in posts) just to keep it concise.

[@johannesbols57]

I find it ironic that French authorities besmirched Continental Airlines for the piece of debris on the runway and actually sought legal action when absolutely nothing was done about the French ground crew who improperly closed the cargo door on THY 981, causing it to crash w/everybody aboard killed. The reason given for improperly closing the door was that the instructions to close it were not in French.

[@CapitalismSuxx]

Dude, how about the McD-Douglas people who knew they needed to re-design that door to make sure it latched, French or not? It was a total failure from McD-D. They knew. They shook hands with FAA to fix it and then gave zero fucks until the French tragedy. Instead they tried to blame it on the French dude - when it was their own rush to release that made this inferior design pass. See also American Airlines flight 96.

[@johannesbols57]

@@CapitalismSuxx They tried to blame it on the French dude and France tried to blame the Concorde crash on Continental Airlines. You're right about MD's rush to get the aircraft into service.

[@twentyrothmans7308]

I gather that it was a loss leader for BA, at least. I don't know about AF. I'd have flown on it once - just because - but sometimes they were substituted with a 747 if the aircraft went tech. I'm not wealthy enough to have taken that risk.

[@gzk6nk]

It was only a loss leader while BA was nationalised. Once privatised, Lord King (chairman) made it profitable - very profitable mainly by putting fares up to what the market would bear. It made a fortune for BA after that.

[@twentyrothmans7308]

@@gzk6nk Thank you for that correction.

[@jamiesuejeffery]

Good morning Ron! I hope you have a great day. The Concord is like many Christian cathedrals around the world. St. Patrick's in NYC probably doesn't turn a profit. The National Cathedral in D.C. probably doesn't turn a profit. The Cathedral of Notre Dame definitely has not turned a profit since the catastrophic fire. They exist for many reasons, one of them is national pride. I was lucky enough to retire as a simple parish pastor who struggled to replace a worn out roof. Anyway great video!

[@jcheck6]

So, tell us how you as a parish pastor became interested in aviation....curious.

[@jamiesuejeffery]

@@jcheck6 Well...this is pretty simple, really. When I was a young boy, I helped my parents build the house I grew up in: from foundation and well to 2.5 story eves. There was nothing we could not do. My first airplane was a wire guided gas engine airplane that when I stood in the middle of the circle, I could control it while making myself dizzy. After I crashed that enough times, I got a gas powered radio controlled airplane. I then proceeded to crash that several times. Then, my father and I, after getting tired of swinging hammers and pounding nails, built a computer (Heathkit H-88, later upgraded to a Heathkit H089 with dual 5.25' SSSD drives that could be unmounted and flipped over for a DSDD 5.25 drive.) Our first modem was a 300 baud modem connected to Comp-U-Serve. Without my parent's knowledge, I would let that modem connect to the non yet existing internet all night long downloading assembler programs to run on that computer. I never had a typing class, but I can touch type as fast as anyone. Fast forward...high school (Did I mention this all took place before I was a teenager?) ...band, girls, short skirts...band geek, I got beat up, didn't get any girls, church, church camp, pretty girls, got to first base. Jesus, undergraduate in social work, graduate school, masters of divinity, masters of art in Christian education. Parish ministry in The United Methodist Church, a couple of assignments in some small parishes and a couple of appointments on the conference staff as a director of this or that on camp and retreat ministries. All of a sudden, I was flying overnight, leaving my wife and kid at home, and knew how to work the frequent flyer program due to help from two of my mentors. I would fly Alaska/Horizon from Boise to Seattle, then the shuttle from Seattle to Portland, then grab a plane to Bend, or Madras...sometimes it was just a day flight there and back again (First Class Lounges are very nice!). So while I never went to flight school (being a parish pastor is a job for the poor) one of my mentors did have his general aviation license and he and his buddy got caught in the fog in the Columbia River canyon and got disoriented and ended up flying upside down. He never took the controls again. As a passenger, I have enough in the air time to tell exactly what the 737 should be doing and the sounds it should be making. One time I was on a 767 from Kansas City to Portland and right after takeoff, the right engine exploded (I assume it was a bird strike). It scared the shorts off of me, but being a frequent flyer, I knew we were ok. Wow though, to see all of the fire trucks lined up on the side of the runway while we landed safe, and sat for a good 90 minutes while the inspection was being completed. So that is the short story, and why I am fascinated with airplanes and also have earned my Amature Extra ticket, all the way from novice! 73, KB7QOD. -- I neither contest nor log, but you can hear me on CW and phone usually on 40 meters.

[@jcheck6]

@@jamiesuejeffery Thanks! Very impressive! I too started with control line flying and also had Heathkit radio control planes. Interesting about your engine failure experience. In my 52 years of 16,000+ hrs of flying, have never had an engine failure.

[@jamiesuejeffery]

@@jcheck6 I don't know much. I was sitting in the back. The 767 has very similar noises to the the 737. They both have the screws coming up and coming down for the flaps. The engines spin up and then the throttle is pulled back for stabilized flight. We were on takeoff and all of a sudden, the right engine (number 2?) had a very large concussion. It took a couple of minutes, but the pilots shut down that engine and after running some checklists, announced to us in the cabin, that we were returning to Kansas City. They must have called MAYDAY because we turned nearly immediately and landed safely with all the red trucks waiting. We eventually taxied to a gate and were left stranded overnight (but all alive, and no one hurt.) It honestly scared me. I'm sure the pilots had to change their shorts. But then, that is why they practice this in the simulator.

[@mumblbeebee6546]

Is there some so far untold history between you and BA? You did not mention the name once without stopping, I think 😜

[@tommynikon2283]

HOW this aircraft was ALLOWED to continue flying is beyond me. Its HISTORY is proof enough…

[@AltronT]

Wow so what saying is actually the Concorde was a safer aircraft than the 737 Max.

[@ronrogers]

Very good point!

[@StephenLuke]

RIP To the passengers and crew of Air France Flight 4590 and the four people on the ground

[@csours]

It's crass to say, but I wonder how the lack of profit of this program affected safety.

[@GlutenEruption]

That's actually a common misconception. Concorde was only unprofitable in the very early years when ticket prices were low. When Jack Lowe was put on the program, he decided to survey the passengers (most of whom never actually made their own reservations) how much they THOUGHT their tickets cost, and they all estimated thousands of pounds higher than they were changing. So he raised prices to match and from that point on Concorde was actually very profitable. According to Lowe, Concorde made well over half a billion pounds for BA through its life - during the last 6 months of operation alone they even made $50 million in profits, even with the lower pax numbers after 9/11 and after factoring the expenses of the modifications after the crash. It was sadly more a case of an aging airframe that were going to require more and more maintenance and airbus wanting to end support and production of spares, post 9/11 downsizing, and the fear of another accident happening during a normal scheduled flight when the plane is full of its typical 100+ fantastically rich, famous and powerful clients including politicians, titans of industry, businessmen, sports/music/acting legends, etc. and the impact that would have on the company,

[@calvinnickel9995]

@GlutenEruption A lack of profit absolutely affected safety. Not in operation, but in inherent design flaws.

[@GlutenEruption]

@@calvinnickel9995 that's very true- it definitely was extremely UN-profitable for airbus and its predecessor, plus the UK and French governments. The fact that only 14 were built (and they were sold for £1 each) meant that there was a lot of resistance to upgrading the design, continuing to manufacture spares, and providing support from the beginning and that only increased as time went on.

[@johnfriend240]

So brought down by a Greasy10...

[@schanche1965]

Yet more American sour grapes 🍇 over Concorde. Scientists at NASA once admitted it was much easier to design and build a rocket to take man to the moon and back than it was to design and build an airliner that could repeatedly carry 100+ passengers supersonically back and forth over The Atlantic.

[@ronrogers]

Don't get me wrong, I admire the Concorde. Boeing tried to build an SST and it never got anywhere. Only the Europeans had a successful aircraft. Certainly can't dispute that. Designs that are ahead of their time often do not have a good history. But someone has to make the effort!

[@schanche1965]

The only reason Concorde 'succeeded' at all was the contract between Britain and France was written in such a way that if one nation wanted to pull out of the project, they would have to bere the full development costs as a penalty, Britain could not have done it without France and vice-versa, in the end 14 operational Concordes went into service and only 1 was lost in 30 years

[@theleastofpilgrims3379]

@@schanche1965 Also if either airline (AF or BA) retired Concorde, the other was obliged to do so as well. While British Airways consistently made money off of Concorde, Air France did not, since the demand for extremely high speed travel to Europe was more focused on LHR, and especially after this disaster and 9/11, Air France experienced unacceptable losses. Had it been up to BA, the Concorde probably would have remained in service another five years (but the crash of the investment banks in 2008 would have killed it I think). This is a shame as it was a beautiful aircraft, too expensive for mere mortals like myself. And what killed SSTs more generally was the sonic boom problem, which would have limited them to overseas routes and also routes over the most desolate wastelands, and these are few and far between, since even in rural Wyoming or the interior of Alaska there are residents who do not want their peace and quiet disturbed by sonic booms. This is why it is particularly sad that market conditions and/or unimaginative MD management killed the Boeing Sonic Cruiser (and also another ahead of its time aircraft, the Convair CV-990A, which was even faster than the CV-880 with which it shared a good safety record, was not economically feasible even in the 1960s, whereas the CV-880s belonging to Delta and TWA held out until the oil shortages of the 1970s). Convair really excelled at building beautiful aircraft, if you look at the CV-990A or the B-58 Hustler, or even the 240/340/440 Metropolitan (some of which were upgraded with turboprops and remained in service with the regional “Express” “Eagle” and “Connection” brands of the major airlines into the late 1980s).

[@theleastofpilgrims3379]

@@ronrogersa number of British aircraft were sadly ahead of their time. The DeHavilland Comet, Vickers VC-10, the HS Trident (which had autoland like the L1011 and allegedly inspired the 727, although I think the 727 was obviously a superior aircraft in other respects), the Vickers Vanguard (which deserved the sales that went to the L188 Electra I would argue), the BAe ATP, the Bristol Britannia, and several elegant designs that never even entered service, such as the Bristol Brabazon

[@rogerrees9845]

Another informative presentation.....I knew about the Paris disaster but I wasn't aware of the previous tyre disintegration history....I is shameful that the British and French Governments didn't ground their Concord/e until this had been resolved.... When they did attempt to resolve it are Paris by spending millions of pounds putting resealabl on rubber linings in the fuel tanks it was far to late...Roger...Pembrokeshire. Uu