Traffic Pattern Entry

[gereed75]

ahh the debate goes on

For those who know how to use it and make it work, the break is the safest and best way to enter a traffic pattern IMHO. It allows complete vision of all aircraft in the pattern, those on downwind, base, final, upwind, taking off, even those in the break ahead ofyou. And more importantly it is an efficient way to take interval on them all in a safe and orderly fashion.

I see the overhead entry or upwind to downwind turn (not necessaryily done at midfield) as a slightly toned down FAA sanctionable, nearly as good, alternative.

Smokey and Hawkeye, I commend your persistance in selling it and your descriptions are accurate and well versed, but it is a hard sell for the unitiated and largely untrained.

There is no doubt that it gets tons of aircraft into a pattern safely, efficiently and all with good interval, without conflicts, even when everyone is not doing it. But it will remain a source of angst and consternation to those not doing it.

Besides, properly executed it looks snappy, and therefore it serves the old Naval Aviation adage - "I'd rather die than look bad!"

 

[REHughes]

Oh Canada

I just disagree and will never turn upwind at TPA for spacing.

What do you do after you lift away from a touch'n'go or a missed approach/waveoff and want to stay in the pattern for another go? I would presume that you motor upwind until it is clear for you to turn to downwind. Seems functionally similar.

An area that we have not heard much about in this thread is the rationale for the Canadian/COPA recommendation to make the midfield crosswind entry the default standard entry procedure at uncontrolled fields. How has that change been received and have any problems resulted from its institution?

Kevin Horton and other Canadian RV'ers, are you out there? Your opinions and experiences would be much appreciated.

After spending way too much time thinking about and writing on this thread, if I were King, I would mandate a 45 degree entry to the Upwind Leg at midfield as a reasonable solution (partly to satisfy the requirement for an 'expected' entry point, in the way that the present 45 line does).

 

[az_gila]

Interesting comment...

For those who know how to use it and make it work, the break is the safest and best way to enter a traffic pattern IMHO. It allows complete vision of all aircraft in the pattern, those on downwind, base, final, upwind, taking off, even those in the break ahead ofyou. And more importantly it is an efficient way to take interval on them all in a safe and orderly fashion.

........

- "I'd rather die than look bad!"

...but it's from your viewpoint only, not from the expectation of where the other planes in the pattern should expect traffic....

Flying in Canada last year, I found the the mid-field cross entry to be very effective, but only because it is the Canadian standard. Again, this is a case where standards help...

 

[prkaye]

When I took my training I was taught four main acceptable approaches, depending on my arrival direction and depending on traffic already in the circuit (we canucks call the pattern the "circuit").

1) join the downwind at the far end along a path parallel (in-line) with the downwind

2) join the downwind further along, coming in to the downwind from 45 degrees

3) straight-in arrival to final

4) descend on upwind side, cross over mid-field 500 feet above circuit height, descending to join mid downwind at circuit height.

I very often use (4), mainly because (as Gil said above) it's sort of a standard here in Canada. Of course, not everyone follows standards... I once was flying to Peterborough and some bozo in an amphib was flying at the same time as me from the same airport. He considered himself older and more seasoned, and so was giving me advice on the radio the whole time. He couldn't hold a heading for starters. When we got to Peterborough he looked to be setting up for an approach on the wrong side of the airport. When I asked him his intentions, he suggested I follow him in, as he descended and flew anti-parallel (directly opposite direction) to the downwind leg, on the CIRCUIT SIDE! THere was no other traffic, but his appraoch was to set-up for a head-on collision with downwind traffic. When he got to the far end of the field he did a 180 back onto downwind. It made no sense to me at all, and appeared quite dangerous. Needless to say, I declined his offer to follow him in and indicated that I would descend on the upwind side. When I landed and refuelled, I looked for him so I could let him have a piece of my mind, but he had already left.

 

[RV8iator]

...but it's from your viewpoint only, not from the expectation of where the other planes in the pattern should expect traffic....

Flying in Canada last year, I found the the mid-field cross entry to be very effective, but only because it is the Canadian standard. Again, this is a case where standards help...

Gil,
I agree that the overhead is not the standard pattern entry, but because it does provide great visibility, situation awareness and flexibility to adjust spaceing for other traffic, I find that it melds with rectangular pattern traffic very safely and easily. Plus it allows me to get lots of airplanes on the ground and out of the busy pattern in a hurry. I don't expect you to use the overhead pattern as you seem to have many problems with it, but I hope you will be open minded enough to accept that it is a legal pattern entry that serves a specific purpose in a safe manner.
I participated in the 37-ship formation at Oshkosh last year. We recovered via the overhead pattern. I can only imagine the chaos if we had tried to enter individually on the 45! Is that what you want?

 

[Ironflight]

Gil,
I agree that the overhead is not the standard pattern entry, but because it does provide great visibility, situation awareness and flexibility to adjust spaceing for other traffic, I find that it melds with rectangular pattern traffic very safely and easily. Plus it allows me to get lots of airplanes on the ground and out of the busy pattern in a hurry. I don't expect you to use the overhead pattern as you seem to have many problems with it, but I hope you will be open minded enough to accept that it is a legal pattern entry that serves a specific purpose in a safe manner.
I participated in the 37-ship formation at Oshkosh last year. We recovered via the overhead pattern. I can only imagine the chaos if we had tried to enter individually on the 45! Is that what you want?

OK Jerry, I am not going to try to change your mind, in fact, I rarely try to change anyone's mind on the internet - it's pretty much impossible. But I will put data out there for people to consider. On your first point, I have seen near-mid-airs because an overhead break arrival was used at a bad time when there were other people in th pattern (that didn't know what it was), and it scattered airplanes everywhere. You can argue that it is ALWAYS safest - I will tell you that I have observed it NOT to be on several occasions.

The 37 ship at Oshkosh? Absolutely amazing - and it has no relevance to this discussion whatsoever, because that was in controlled, sanitized airspace, set aside expressly for the formation's use. Under those conditions, the break is exactly what you describe - the quickest way to get a lot of airplanes on the ground at once. But note that it is UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS.

I have said this many times before, but people miss the point. The military designed the formation overhead break to do all the things you say - but military aviation, by default, is ALWAYS OPERATING IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT (i.e. with a Control Tower of some sort). You can't automatically transport this maneuver to an uncontrolled environment and get the same results.

Imagine a GA pilot stumbling in to the military world - he'd look pretty silly to the experienced pilots not knowing the way things are done. The same thing works the other way. You have to learn to operate in the environment in which you find yourself - not the one that you want to be in, or used to be in.

Paul

 

[Sam Buchanan]

OK Jerry, I am not going to try to change your mind, in fact, I rarely try to change anyone's mind on the internet - it's pretty much impossible. But I will put data out there for people to consider. On your first point, I have seen near-mid-airs because an overhead break arrival was used at a bad time when there were other people in th pattern (that didn't know what it was), and it scattered airplanes everywhere. You can argue that it is ALWAYS safest - I will tell you that I have observed it NOT to be on several occasions.

The 37 ship at Oshkosh? Absolutely amazing - and it has no relevance to this discussion whatsoever, because that was in controlled, sanitized airspace, set aside expressly for the formation's use. Under those conditions, the break is exactly what you describe - the quickest way to get a lot of airplanes on the ground at once. But note that it is UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS.

I have said this many times before, but people miss the point. The military designed the formation overhead break to do all the things you say - but military aviation, by default, is ALWAYS OPERATING IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT (i.e. with a Control Tower of some sort). You can't automatically transport this maneuver to an uncontrolled environment and get the same results.

Imagine a GA pilot stumbling in to the military world - he'd look pretty silly to the experienced pilots not knowing the way things are done. The same thing works the other way. You have to learn to operate in the environment in which you find yourself - not the one that you want to be in, or used to be in.

Paul

That post is a keeper!

 

[L.Adamson]

That post is a keeper!

I agree! I live under an uncontrolled airport pattern. In the normal course of things, I do want most aircraft to arrive on the 45 to downwind. I'm fine with bizjets & some larger turbo props doing straight ins. While I always fly a 45 to this airport, I don't all the time. We have a mountain airport, where it's preferred to fly over the airport & join the downwind because of the terrain. A few others that we often fly too, we'll do straight ins, and right turn bases just because of a complete lack of traffic and convience.

However, if a 37 ship mass of planes ends up landing at the airport over my house, then I'd prefer they announce it quite a ways out, and let everyone else clear the area while they land military style. I wouldn't want to see or listen on the scanner, while planes try to mix it using both methods. I've seen enough close calls already!

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[Scorch]

This discussion seems to be between two distinct camps:

(1) Those who came up through the civilian ranks, were not taught the overhead break, and disapprove of its use at civilian airports, and

(2) Those who are current or ex-military who have always done the overhead break and think it works just fine in the civilian environment.

My question:

Are there any civilian background guys out there who have been converted, and now think the break is acceptable?

And conversely: are there any military guys out there who think the overhead break has no place in the civilian world?

And why? Or why not?

 

[Ron Lee]

Ross, I trained civilian but in the last few years have adopted the overhead approach for some cases. I use others as well depending upon the situation.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

This discussion seems to be between two distinct camps:

(1) Those who came up through the civilian ranks, were not taught the overhead break, and disapprove of its use at civilian airports, and

(2) Those who are current or ex-military who have always done the overhead break and think it works just fine in the civilian environment.

My question:

Are there any civilian background guys out there who have been converted, and now think the break is acceptable?

And conversely: are there any military guys out there who think the overhead break has no place in the civilian world?

And why? Or why not?

I came up through the civilian process, learned the overhead break approach, and don't have a problem with it at an untowered airport if the pattern is clear of other traffic.

This morning we flew to a busy breakfast at an untowered airport, my flight of two RVs arrived on downwind (45 entry) just behind a flight of three RVs, with more "civilian" aircraft behind us. If someone had come blasting into that pattern with a flight conducting overhead breaks it would have been total chaos.

Around here a flight of Yaks doing an overhead approach on a busy breakfast morning results in a bunch of folks rolling their eyes at the "military wannabes". We know the Yaks can fly a conventional pattern because they do it when they don't think anybody is watching........

 

[RV8iator]

I came up through the civilian process, learned the overhead break approach, and don't have a problem with it at an untowered airport if the pattern is clear of other traffic.

I think that pretty well sums it up. There is a time and place for the overhead and once again, common sense prevails.

I don't think any of us who use the overhead think it is appropriate all the time and conversly, if it is safe to use, feel free.

I certainly enter 45 or crosswind most of the time, but if I'm monitoring 10 or 15 miles out and hear or see no other traffic, then the overhead is in my bag of tricks.

Good discussion from both camps.

I think the one thing we all agree on is fly safe.

 

[RV6_flyer]

This discussion seems to be between two distinct camps:

(1) Those who came up through the civilian ranks, were not taught the overhead break, and disapprove of its use at civilian airports, and

(2) Those who are current or ex-military who have always done the overhead break and think it works just fine in the civilian environment.

My question:

Are there any civilian background guys out there who have been converted, and now think the break is acceptable?

And conversely: are there any military guys out there who think the overhead break has no place in the civilian world?

And why? Or why not?

I am one of the civilian guys since I got my license 28-years ago. I learned the overhead 14-years ago. I like the overhead better than any other entry. I do not go out of my way to do the overhead but will if that it the easiest arrival and it does not conflict with other traffic at an non-towered airport. With two radios that can both monitor the standby frequency, I can hear what is going on 10-minutes out.

Why: As the military pilots have said, it is most efficient and the safest way to get an aircraft on the ground. If there were an engine failure at any point starting at the break, a landing on the runway is guaranteed.

An RV does not have any problems slowing down in the break to end up flying the downwind at the same speed as a spam can that is already in the pattern. The RV has excellent visibility to see the NORDO traffic on downwind and pitchout (break) so as to be on downwind behind the spam can at spam can speeds. The option always remains to climb above the pattern and circle around to the 45 entry. Only once in 14-years as a civilian doing the overhead at non-towered airports has the overhead not worked for me. (I could not get behind the aircraft on downwind without cutting off the one on the 45. The one on the 45 was far enough out but close enough in that I could not develop the spacing I wanted.) I overflew the runway at pattern altitude and circled around to the 45.

 

[aerolite]

Phil,

I was taught that this is not an acceptable entry in Canada but feel free to double check.

Steve


2) join the downwind further along, coming in to the downwind from 45 degrees

 

[prkaye]

Steve, you might be right... it's been quite a while since ground school. I almost exclusively use (4) anyway, although come straight-in final occassionally on a x-country if the destination is quiet and my arrival heading is lined-up roughly with the runway. I've never done the 45-degree business, but I thought I recall seeing a diagram of it in the FTM. Could be mistaken though.

 

[apkp777]

Score

I have been thinking a lot about this and trying to quantify the different pattern entries is not easy. But here's my attempt. Feel free to disagree and do your own.

Score 1-5 on each of the following criteria: (added) 1=Poor, 2=Less than Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=Ideal

1. Predictability (others knowing what your doing)
2. Visibility (your ability to see others at ALL times)
3. Visibility (others seeing you at ALL times)
4. Spacing (ability to adjust if necessary to enter in sequence)

45 Degree to downwind 1=5, 2=2, 3=5, 4=4 Total Score= 16
Mid Field Crosswind 1=3, 2=2, 3=4, 4=3 Total Score= 12
Straight-in 1=4, 2=4, 3=3, 4=4 Total Score= 15
Overhead Break 1=1, 2=5, 3=2, 4=5 Total Score= 13
Base Entry 1=3, 2=3, 3=3, 4=4 Total Score= 13
Extended Downwind Entry 1=5, 2=4, 3=2, 4=5 Total Score= 16

Though not in my original poll options, the straight-in to the downwind fairs okay, but departing traffic on the 45 degree upwind, make it an unwise choice. Straight-in is not bad, but 45 to the downwind is best.

 

[sprucemoose]

Overhead Break 1=1, 2=5, 3=2, 4=5 Total Score= 13

Since you invited us to disagree, I'm going to do just that.

One of the oft-voiced criticisms of the overhead is that "nobody other than military trained pilots know what that is." I think this is hogwash. When I was a student pilot 20 years ago, I knew what an overhead break was, because I read about it in the AIM while studying. Not to mention having seen the maneuver hundreds of times at airshows. I will submit to you that, of the actively flying GA pilot population, around 50% have at least a layman's understanding of the concept. 50% being the mid-point, I'd rate it a 3 in predictability.

At the same time, the overhead break maneuver keeps the plane(s) very tight in to the runway environment. Even for our hypothetical pilot who hears the radio call for an overhead and has no clue what that is, a plane on a tight mid-field downwind is much easier to spot than one that is 3 miles out on a 45, or on a 1 1/2 mile downwind or a 2 mile final (common B-52 pattern positions.) So, I would rate visibility (others seeing you) at a 4.

 

[apkp777]

Overhead Break 1=1, 2=5, 3=2, 4=5 Total Score= 13

Since you invited us to disagree, I'm going to do just that.

One of the oft-voiced criticisms of the overhead is that "nobody other than military trained pilots know what that is." I think this is hogwash. When I was a student pilot 20 years ago, I knew what an overhead break was, because I read about it in the AIM while studying. Not to mention having seen the maneuver hundreds of times at airshows. I will submit to you that, of the actively flying GA pilot population, around 50% have at least a layman's understanding of the concept. 50% being the mid-point, I'd rate it a 3 in predictability.

At the same time, the overhead break maneuver keeps the plane(s) very tight in to the runway environment. Even for our hypothetical pilot who hears the radio call for an overhead and has no clue what that is, a plane on a tight mid-field downwind is much easier to spot than one that is 3 miles out on a 45, or on a 1 1/2 mile downwind or a 2 mile final (common B-52 pattern positions.) So, I would rate visibility (others seeing you) at a 4.

I think lot's of people have seen an overhead break, but do not know how one is flown. I couldn't describe how to do one to you 3 weeks ago and I have been flying for 24 years and am a CFI.

However, even if I am the only one in the dark related to the procedure, at best I could give it a "2" for predictability and because you mask the down wind when coming around 180, I'd drop your score to a "3" for "seeing others". Still gives you a score of 13 which is on par with the Straight-In approach.

I have to admit that I haven't done an Overhead approach and would like someone to show me how to do one (another reason for you and I to fly together again). I am certainly willing to change my assessment.

Still if my ratings say anything, they say that since there is a possible of 20 pts and the best approach can only give you 15 or 16 pts, we're really stuck in the 75-80% range for the best approaches. There's no wonder the traffic pattern can produce so many problems. And why full concentration and diligence are essential for everyone operating there.

 

[David-aviator]

A premise of the overhead approach is to minimize being a target for enemy ground fire. To that end, making the approach at high speed at about 400' on initial and pulling up in a chandelle to down wind provides the least target.

I don't recommend it, of course, but it is a cool maneuver in any RV - local traffic permitting.

The closest FAA tower at KSUS does authorize the overhead approach, traffic permitting. Some days they even volunteer offer it when they hear a call sign with RV.

 

[apkp777]

I made a mistake on my Overhead approach scoring.

Here's a corrected score 1=2, 2=3, 3=3, 4=5 Total Score= 13

Reasoning, okay I'll give predictability a 2 (up from a 1), visibility gets dropped to a 3 because on the break you will mask the downwind as you do with the mid-field cross wind and the 45 entry. Still total score is 13 (IMO).

 

[REHughes]

Spacing

Score 1-5 on each of the following criteria: (added) 1=Poor, 2=Less than Average, 3=Average, 4=Above Average, 5=Ideal

1. Predictability (others knowing what your doing)
2. Visibility (your ability to see others at ALL times)
3. Visibility (others seeing you at ALL times)
4. Spacing (ability to adjust if necessary to enter in sequence)

45 Degree to downwind 1=5, 2=2, 3=5, 4=4 Total Score= 16
Mid Field Crosswind 1=3, 2=2, 3=4, 4=3 Total Score= 12
Straight-in 1=4, 2=4, 3=3, 4=4 Total Score= 15
Overhead Break 1=1, 2=5, 3=2, 4=5 Total Score= 13
Base Entry 1=3, 2=3, 3=3, 4=4 Total Score= 13
Extended Downwind Entry 1=5, 2=4, 3=2, 4=5 Total Score= 16

In looking at your ratings, I can only assume that your notion of "spacing" is very different than mine. I define spacing as 'the ability to take interval on an aircraft already established in the pattern.' The 45, Straight In, Base Entry, and Extended Downwind Entries have essentially NO ability to set interval once you are established on them, other than perhaps changing speed or 'treading air' with S-turns. The Overhead, and the Crosswind (when traffic results in a turn to the Upwind), both allow you to precisely set your interval with another airplane by varying the timing of your turn to downwind.

In regard to visibility concerns, any turn crosswind, whether from the Overhead or just turning to the downwind after a touch-n-go, must be done with great care, and lowering the wing in mid turn to scan for conflicts should be done routinely.

 

[bkthomps]

where does the AIM state a straight-in approach is acceptable?

 

[David-aviator]

where does the AIM state a straight-in approach is acceptable?

AIM Section 5-4-26

 

[RV8R999]

The AIM provides guidance not approval.

 

[RV8R999]

If I was worried about enemy ground fire in the break I'd be much more worried about the same enemy ground fire I'm gonna get when taxing back and while I run to the bunker.

Interesting idea quantifying the types of entries but honestly doesn't each entry have pros and cons completely dependent upon circumstances? Predictability, Visibility, Spacing, etc.. are meaningless if you are the only aircraft in the pattern or the most important factors if the pattern is full.

The break is great for rapid and efficient recovery during VMC in that it keeps all the birds close.

 

[apkp777]

where does the AIM state a straight-in approach is acceptable?

http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGADVISORYCIRCULAR.NSF/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa08.pdf

Here's a good one to read: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=23&ved=0CCIQFjACOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faa.gov%2Fabout%2Foffice_org%2Ffield_offices%2Ffsdo%2Forl%2Flocal_more%2Fmedia%2Fppt%2Fnontwrapt.ppt&ei=iXl9TNLvPIP6lwe5o4HtCw&usg=AFQjCNGiCZFSCQTUHes-6WstH92k7h4X7Q&sig2=x_Yjuo98VvtNcW3JAPgurA

 

[az_gila]

Not quite - again --

AIM Section 5-4-26

5-4-26. Overhead Approach Maneuver

a. Pilots operating in accordance with an IFR flight plan in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) may request ATC authorization for an overhead maneuver. An overhead maneuver is not an instrument approach procedure. Overhead maneuver patterns are developed at airports where aircraft have an operational need to conduct the maneuver. An aircraft conducting an overhead maneuver is considered to be VFR and the IFR flight plan is cancelled when the aircraft reaches the initial point on the initial approach portion of the maneuver. (See FIG 5-4-30.) The existence of a standard overhead maneuver pattern does not eliminate the possible requirement for an aircraft to conform to conventional rectangular patterns if an overhead maneuver cannot be approved. Aircraft operating to an airport without a functioning control tower must initiate cancellation of an IFR flight plan prior to executing the overhead maneuver. Cancellation of the IFR flight plan must be accomplished after crossing the landing threshold on the initial portion of the maneuver or after landing. Controllers may authorize an overhead maneuver and issue the following to arriving aircraft:

This is for ATC control and places where a overhead pattern exists (usually Class D airports). It also seems to require an ATC authorization

 

[SHIPCHIEF]

I don't get it.
45 degree entry gets everyone on the same page near the runway....they just meet from all directions to collide at the entry point for the 45.
THAT WAY YOU CRASH SOME DISTANCE FROM THE AIRFIELD RIGHT??
I'm risk averse. I fly fast, but as safe as I can.
I do straight in approaches, traffic permitting. I'm not out to gain logbook time, I actually want to get somewhere.
I do cross field approaches to safely get on the other side of a field where the pattern is.
I fly the 45 if I'm appraoching from the pattern side, but I don't feel good about it. I've heard quite a few radio altercations at the 45 entry, seems scary to me.
I announce my position and intent early and often, after listening for traffic, and stay vigilent the whole way in.
I don't want to hurt or inconvenience anyone. I try no to be annoying.

 

[RV7Guy]

Variables

As Gary noted, it really depends on the airport and your location. As an example, when I fly to/from work both airports have a 17/35 orientation. 17 is the predominate for both. My home airpark pattern is left traffic for 17 and I arrive home from the West. My work airport is right traffic for 17 and I arrive from the East. Therefore, both require a mid field cross over to enter the downwind.

I've been doing this for years and it is safe and efficient process. Communication and visual diligence is critical during the occasional busy times.

 

[n5lp]

45 entry

I tend to use the 45 entry when things set up for it because the FAA suggests it. I am uneasy though since according to the FAA the 45 entry is absolutely illegal (left turns only).

 

[highflight42x]

overhead entry

The 360-break (overhead entry) will indeed screw up the pattern if done poorly by the flight lead (as mentioned in an earlier post). But the technique for doing it correctly is pretty simple:

You call 2-mile initial for overhead break, "traffic permitting"; you call final at pattern altitude, crossing the base leg 500' above it; you watch the downwind for singles, then call the break if it's clear; if it's not, you take the flight around the long way, skirting the singles-pattern, staying out of everyone's way.

If you do it right, everyone gets a little airshow and has a good time, and you get your flight-of-four down and out of everyone's way faster. Do it wrong and you look like an idiot and mess up everyone's pattern.

So let's do it right and have fun.

- Steven

 

[SHIPCHIEF]

The Canadian Entry seems the safest.
If I Understand it correctly, you fly across, mid field at pattern altitude and turn left to downwind.
You inspect the runway, check the wind sock, are visible to all traffic, and can see all traffic, including the guy heading straight at you because he intended to land the other way. All traffic will be in the front quadrant of view.
We are pretty close to Canada, here in Washington, yet few know about the Canadian 'Circuit Entry'.
A Transport Canada spokesman is usually at the Arlington Fly In to brief aviators on how to fly into Canada. It's worth every second.

 

[rzbill]

I use the entry that is appropriate to the approach direction and airport environment involved. Most variations are in the toolbox. I have not practiced overheads (can you do that in in a rental?) so they are not in my toolbox today but probably will be in the box in the future.

I have no plans to use the midfield vertical plummet from 2K AGL to a finishing spot landing approach.

 

[Toobuilder]

Ooops! Back from the dead...

Just realized this thread has been resurrected from the dead and I have already voted... I removed my latest response (good thing it matched my post from a year ago!)