Where has XH558 thread gone?

[GertrudetheMerciless]

Whether it would be worth the cost though I dont know, especially if she wouldn't be able to taxi any more after the move.

Not necessarily true if the right people were employed and given a rather sizeable chunk of money - probably far more than anyone would ever be willing to pay - to do it.

[richw_82]

Ever wonder why things are so reactive and why this topic stays current? There's not just overly talkative VTTST Trustee Steve reading it. There's a few others that hang around Delta Court too.

Steve seems a good politician type though, he tries to please everyone, tell you nothing but everything, keep order and toe the party line. But by making some bold assertions on here, Twitter, and Facebook - like the bits about CAA ferry flights, or not trying to buy Classic Air Force's whole fleet, or other projects the wanted to play with, and then getting handed the real answers - it reveals he's a bit of a talking head. Or possibly a self nominated fall guy. All his own opinions, yet when he gets it wrong no-one from the VTTST war cabinet tells him to shush...?

So.. I thought about taking my FOI request a bit further and starting banging in DSA's door a bit, or bugging the Charities Commission about what should be happening as they can get answers but also cause you real headaches*; but to be honest its a waste of time chaps. There's too many people sticking their oar in with what is VTTST for it to do whatever it is the public thinks it should do (operate a flying aeroplane..?). Trustees. Directors. Persons with significant control. Linked companies. PR outlets. 'Contractors'. That is assuming even if there are a couple of good ideas for XH558 in the mix, the few people that really are pushing all the buttons want things to happen; which by all accounts it seems not

The Vulcan Operating Company Ltd - Company number 03787161
Nature of business
99999 - Dormant Company

Vulcan to the Sky Trust - Company number 04478686
Nature of business
91030 - Operation of historical sites and buildings and similar visitor attractions

^ This being the bit thats legally allowed to make money, the Charity being the framework that makes it all happen.

Its not all about the Vulcan any more.

But whatever it actually is about now, if they don't start giving some tangible public benefit you can bet it won't be a viable charity for long, as building a big shed to put your toy in* kind of scrapes the border as an incidental benefit, not a public one. One particular measure of public benefit being "Where your charity’s charges are more than the poor can afford, you must run it in a way that makes more than minimal provision for the poor to benefit." I don't see many disadvantaged types getting up close during an engine run, do you?

The clock is most definitely ticking. Before long, someone will complain through proper channels and we'll have a fertiliser in the rotary dispenser incident for all concerned, including the nations most recently grounded old V-bomber. Because there is no plan B.

Regards

Rich

* - found out the hard way when our little Charity imploded, over far lesser arguments and complaints to the Charities Commission.

[IgnatiusJReilly]

Fair play to you rich_82 for persisting as long as you have.

It was completely beyond me how a charity with one, maybe two static airframes can justify such an opaque organisational structure with so many subtended companies, organisations and consultants.
Whilst a lot of focus is always placed on the line in the VTTS accounts as to how much is paid in salaries, without a forensic accounting background what isn't clear is how much of the operating expense is channelled to these 'related' companies. I can guess but that would probably be libellous!
Whatever the truth of the situation or the history, to anyone looking in, the overly complicated commercial organisation of the trust doesn't leave one with a warm fuzzy feeling.

I've looked into complaining about VTTS with the charity commission and their guidelines would suggest to me several areas in which there should be concern over the 'charitable status of this organisation. But the process is arduous and isn't going to be quick.
And to be honest up to now, I just haven't had the time...

[Dan O'Hagan]

Fair play to you rich_82 for persisting as long as you have.

It was completely beyond me how a charity with one, maybe two static airframes can justify such an opaque organisational structure with so many subtended companies, organisations and consultants.
Whilst a lot of focus is always placed on the line in the VTTS accounts as to how much is paid in salaries, without a forensic accounting background what isn't clear is how much of the operating expense is channelled to these 'related' companies. I can guess but that would probably be libellous!
Whatever the truth of the situation or the history, to anyone looking in, the overly complicated commercial organisation of the trust doesn't leave one with a warm fuzzy feeling.

I've looked into complaining about VTTS with the charity commission and their guidelines would suggest to me several areas in which there should be concern over the 'charitable status of this organisation. But the process is arduous and isn't going to be quick.
And to be honest up to now, I just haven't had the time...

To be honest, an investigation by the Charities Commission wouldn't be a bad thing. To the letter of the law, I'm sure VTTS comply with all they have to, but an investigation might at least force more transparency from the Trust and throw light on the moral question of whether anyone should still be drawing a penny from an ever-dwindling pot, and how much money has been used to pay expenses and consultants since October 2015, compared to what's been spent on the upkeep of the three aircraft in their, and I use the term loosely, care.

[MiG_Eater]

I think this is the point that answers MicrolightDriver's question. The alternative is to use the money and infrastructure that already exists to get XH558 out of Doncaster any which way. The alternative is the inevitable scrap of the aircraft, or - at best - a nice looking Vulcan languishing in a place where next to no-one can see it.

[pbeardmore]

In some cases you will be unable to comply with your legal duties if you don’t follow the good practice. For example:
Your legal duty It’s vital that you
Act in your charity’s best interests Deal with conflicts of interest
Manage your charity’s resources responsibly Implement appropriate financial controls
Manage risks
Act with reasonable care and skill

Take appropriate advice when you need to, for example when buying or selling land, or investing (in some cases this is a legal requirement)

Ensure your charity is carrying out its purposes for the public benefit

You and your co-trustees must make sure that the charity is carrying out the purposes for which it is set up, and no other purpose. This means you should:

ensure you understand the charity’s purposes as set out in its governing document
plan what your charity will do, and what you want it to achieve
be able to explain how all of the charity’s activities are intended to further or support its purposes
understand how the charity benefits the public by carrying out its purposes

Spending charity funds on the wrong purposes is a very serious matter; in some cases trustees may have to reimburse the charity personally.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... need-to-do

[ericbee123]

Off the wall. But if money was no object, could you strip out the engines, take off the undercarriage, unscrew and remove everything that is easily dismantled and re-attached and get it down to a weight that is capable to be carried by helicopter ?

I would pay to watch that get transported underslung !!

A Mil-26 can take 28tons. An empty Vulcan is 35tons. How much would a stripped Vulcan weigh?

Not been drinking - for a change

[Dan O'Hagan]

In some cases you will be unable to comply with your legal duties if you don’t follow the good practice. For example:
Your legal duty It’s vital that you
Act in your charity’s best interests Deal with conflicts of interest
Manage your charity’s resources responsibly Keeping full-time staff on when the aeroplane would never, ever fly again

Implement appropriate financial controls
Manage risks
Act with reasonable care and skill Like removing silica bags, or employing aircrew who won't roll the aeroplane contrary to it's Permit To Fly weeks after the most publicised airshow crash in the UK since 1952

Take appropriate advice when you need to, for example when buying or selling land, or investing (in some cases this is a legal requirement)Like when buying, without public consultation, a Canberra that hadn't flown in nearly a decade, when another near-airworthy example was available

Ensure your charity is carrying out its purposes for the public benefit What benefit to the public is an aircraft under lock and key and inaccessible to the public outdoors at Doncaster?

You and your co-trustees must make sure that the charity is carrying out the purposes for which it is set up, and no other purpose. This means you should:

ensure you understand the charity’s purposes as set out in its governing document
plan what your charity will do, and what you want it to achieve
be able to explain how all of the charity’s activities are intended to further or support its purposes
understand how the charity benefits the public by carrying out its purposes

Spending charity funds on the wrong purposes is a very serious matter; in some cases trustees may have to reimburse the charity personally.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... need-to-do

[Dan O'Hagan]

In some cases you will be unable to comply with your legal duties if you don’t follow the good practice. For example:
Your legal duty It’s vital that you
Act in your charity’s best interests Doncaster? Really? Deal with conflicts of interest
Manage your charity’s resources responsibly Keeping full-time staff on when the aeroplane would never, ever fly again

Implement appropriate financial controls
Manage risks
Act with reasonable care and skill Like removing silica bags, or employing aircrew who won't roll the aeroplane contrary to its Permit To Fly weeks after the most publicised airshow crash in the UK since 1952

Take appropriate advice when you need to, for example when buying or selling land, or investing (in some cases this is a legal requirement)Like when buying, without public consultation, a Canberra that hadn't flown in nearly a decade, when another near-airworthy example was available. And taking on the care of a private owner's Swift, again with no public consultation.

Ensure your charity is carrying out its purposes for the public benefit What benefit to the public is an aircraft under lock and key and inaccessible to the public outdoors at Doncaster?

You and your co-trustees must make sure that the charity is carrying out the purposes for which it is set up, and no other purpose. This means you should:

ensure you understand the charity’s purposes as set out in its governing document
plan what your charity will do, and what you want it to achieve
be able to explain how all of the charity’s activities are intended to further or support its purposes
understand how the charity benefits the public by carrying out its purposes

Spending charity funds on the wrong purposes is a very serious matter; in some cases trustees may have to reimburse the charity personally.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... need-to-do

[MiG_Eater]

Agree with all of the above Dan, except the comment about the roll. You and I know that this manoeuvre was virtually entirely free of risk.

[Dan O'Hagan]

You and I know that this manoeuvre was virtually entirely free of risk.

Yes, but at a time when vintage jet aerobatics were specifically banned by the CAA, days after Shoreham? An appalling lack of judgement by those in whom VTTS had put their faith, and the public's safety.

[MiG_Eater]

OK, I accept that. I just feel very very touchy whenever anyone invokes Shoreham as a reason not to do something with classic jets. I take your point in the way it was intended, but a press-trawler may easily misrepresent something on these forums. The Vulcan is dead, the classic jet scene is dormant and the more people talk about Shoreham in any terms other than that it was pure pilot error and nothing to do with the type of aircraft the longer it may stay so.

Nevertheless, once again, I accept your point.

[Marathon Milkshake]

XH558’s scrapping isn’t inevitable, so both of your questions are fundamentally flawed. Still, I’ll try and put my massive ego to one side and understand where you’re coming from.

So if the trustees are completely responsible for the current situation why is nothing seemingly been done to save 558 from the enevitable scrapping?

The key is the word ‘seemingly’, which is as frustrating to us as I imagine it is for you. We’ve explained the plan, which is to construct a viable, long term home for the aircraft under cover. In this endeavour, VTTST are dealing with the airport and other interested parties on a commercial in confidence basis, as anyone else would need to. As a trustee, I’m satisfied that progress that is being made and that the plan remains viable. Not being able to report on that or share fully with our supporters in real time is unfortunate, but hopefully the end justifies the means.

and why dont all of you resign from the board so that others can save 558 from the enevitable scrapping?

I can only speak for myself. I am content that the current board of trustees has the correct mix of skills, competencies and contacts to deliver on this plan. I believe that I play a worthwhile role on the board, although that is for others to comment on. I also very much do not wish to walk away without seeing the project through. None of which is to say that individual members or indeed the whole board could not be replaced, but in my opinion you would need a similar mix.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

[Marathon Milkshake]

You and I know that this manoeuvre was virtually entirely free of risk.

In aviation there is nothing free from risk. That so called manoeurvre is just another nail in the coffin of 558. It does not in anyway gain trust at all.

[XR219]

[i] Act with reasonable care and skill like .... employing aircrew who won't roll the aeroplane contrary to it's Permit To Fly weeks after the most publicised airshow crash in the UK since 1952

On that specific point then, can you elaborate as to what policy the Trust should have adopted in terms of employing aircrew? On the flight in question, as is well known one of the pilots was a chief test pilot of an aerospace OEM and a CAA DAE, while the other was a long haul airline first officer and held a valid DA. I propose that their competencies and experience would have passed the threshold set by a reasonable person charged with recruiting a Vulcan display crew. By extension, the decision to do so would have been unlikely to raise alarm bells for those charged with oversight of the Trust.

[Dan O'Hagan]

[i] Act with reasonable care and skill like .... employing aircrew who won't roll the aeroplane contrary to it's Permit To Fly weeks after the most publicised airshow crash in the UK since 1952

On that specific point then, can you elaborate as to what policy the Trust should have adopted in terms of employing aircrew? On the flight in question, as is well known one of the pilots was a chief test pilot of an aerospace OEM and a CAA DAE, while the other was a long haul airline first officer and held a valid DA. I propose that their competencies and experience would have passed the threshold set by a reasonable person charged with recruiting a Vulcan display crew. By extension, the decision to do so would have been unlikely to raise alarm bells for those charged with oversight of the Trust.

It speaks very poorly for the standards of workplace discipline if employees felt able to flaunt the rules in that manner, especially at that critical time in the weeks immediately after Shoreham. Likewise the hangar practices that saw a silica gel bag left in the intake - how and why, and by whom (the identity of the person responsible on the day has, to my knowledge, yet to make it into the public arena) was such a mistake made? The polar opposite of "reasonable care and skill" in anybody's language.

[Gonzo230]

Dan, have you ever worked in a safety critical environment?

[Dan O'Hagan]

Dan, have you ever worked in a safety critical environment?

And that has to do with XH558 and VTTS how, exactly?

[XR219]

Dan,

As you well know, the 'care and skill' is referring to the performance of the Trustees. Once again, could you explain what they should have done differently in the case that you identify, of employing the specific aircrew involved in the flight of Oct 4th 2015?

[IgnatiusJReilly]

In some cases you will be unable to comply with your legal duties if you don’t follow the good practice. For example:
Your legal duty It’s vital that you
....
[i]Ensure your charity is carrying out its purposes for the public benefit

You and your co-trustees must make sure that the charity is carrying out the purposes for which it is set up, and no other purpose. This means you should:

ensure you understand the charity’s purposes as set out in its governing document
plan what your charity will do, and what you want it to achieve
be able to explain how all of the charity’s activities are intended to further or support its purposes
understand how the charity benefits the public by carrying out its purposes

Spending charity funds on the wrong purposes is a very serious matter; in some cases trustees may have to reimburse the charity personally.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... need-to-do

Lots of the other points raised are valid and deserve some thought, but surely, the minute XH558 was ejected from hangar 3, the clock should have started ticking with regards Ensure your charity is carrying out its purposes for the public benefit
Charging north of 100quid, per Adult (only), a couple of times a qtr does not in any conscience fulfil the above criteria.

To my mind, the trustees should now be very seriously asking the executive what their immediate plan is now to restore public access to the aircraft.
If there is no confidence in a clear, actionable, path to achieving the resumption of public access, then at the very least, the trusties should be implementing a plan of action that reduces immediately, the cost base of the charity until access can be restored.
They can't to my mind run the charity purely to raise money to pay the salaries of back office employees whilst the public is denied access to the airframe.

Steve Liddle - I think whether or not an employee went rogue and rolled this airframe is a bit of a diversion... The above point is a very serious one and yet not addressed by the trustees as far as I can see. Are you / they going to do something about this?
I feel that the time has passed now when inaction can be excused by telling us that 'negotiations are going on behind closed doors'. It may have been a reasonable response when XH558 first left hangar 3, but this has been going on for far too long now without any progress being made.

[Xm657]

In this case, no such proposal or organisation exists - you'd be voting for a 'change' without any notion of the consequences, and those consequences could be catastrophic for XH558. Safe ground to turn round and jeer something along the lines of 'Yeah but it couldn't be any worse!'... but it could be worse, a lot worse. If someone doesn't care about the aircraft it might be a risk they're happy to take. Maybe some people don't even see it as a risk at all.

Really? What difference would it make if VTTS didn't exist right now? Its the generosity of the airport giving free parking that is keeping her from the scrap man and volunteers who are servicing her and running her engines. The VTTS just seems to be a job creation scheme for a bunch of people raising money to earn a dishonest living off the back of 558s diminishing fame. All they are achieving is raising money to pay their own wages, 558 gets nothing out of it. Ok if these paid employees do convince a developer to build a hangar and they can someone get enough people to visit to pay the rent maybe they are justified, but I don't see why a volunteer group would have any less success in this than the current employees who appear to be failing miserably anyway. I believe 558 would be better served now by a volunteer group like 655maps or VRT, this organisation could be formed as an evolution of VTTS , renamed, simplified aims about simply preserving 558 etc. They already have plenty of volunteers, they just need to rid themselves of these paid hangars on that are adding no value at all. I suppose the problem would be another £200K would be needed to pay their redundancy though.

[XR219]

Ever wonder why things are so reactive and why this topic stays current? There's not just overly talkative VTTST Trustee Steve reading it. There's a few others that hang around Delta Court too.

Steve seems a good politician type though, he tries to please everyone, tell you nothing but everything, keep order and toe the party line. But by making some bold assertions on here, Twitter, and Facebook - like the bits about CAA ferry flights, or not trying to buy Classic Air Force's whole fleet, or other projects the wanted to play with, and then getting handed the real answers - it reveals he's a bit of a talking head. Or possibly a self nominated fall guy. All his own opinions, yet when he gets it wrong no-one from the VTTST war cabinet tells him to shush...?
.

Honestly, I've spent all day attempting not to react to this, but you've got me.

I actually think that I've explained things as clearly as I can, within the constraints in which I am legally bound to work. What I do find confusing is what you think is in it for me in not telling all that I can? It would be much simpler, but sadly would not move things on very far as trust was lost (and contracts possibly breached) with organisations we are working with. I can't believe this is difficult to grasp, given your background. The fact that you do not think dealings should be confidential does not mean that agreements can be breached.

CAA/Ferry Flights: I have said consistently that discussions were had with the CAA on this topic. The outcome was an understanding that it was not worth pursuing. Do you think you've found something else?

Classic Airforce: I vaguely remember a discussion with you about this, but I can't find it. Was it on the old thread? Anyway, as I recall you told me that VTTST has asked about the Nimrod when onsite at Coventry, which I said was news to me. But them I wouldn't know the contents of every chat between an employee and third party would I? The main point is that purchase of any or all of the classic airforce would have been subject to board level approval. What actually happened is that we were approached about the fleet by the owner and offered exceptional terms. We said we'd do some thinking and due diligence, but subsequently the offer was withdrawn. Do you have a different view of what happened?

What are the other things that I've got wrong?

Finally, if you find me overly talkative, the simplest solution is for me to say nothing at in the future.

[UKTopgun]

[i] Act with reasonable care and skill like .... employing aircrew who won't roll the aeroplane contrary to it's Permit To Fly weeks after the most publicised airshow crash in the UK since 1952

On that specific point then, can you elaborate as to what policy the Trust should have adopted in terms of employing aircrew? On the flight in question, as is well known one of the pilots was a chief test pilot of an aerospace OEM and a CAA DAE, while the other was a long haul airline first officer and held a valid DA. I propose that their competencies and experience would have passed the threshold set by a reasonable person charged with recruiting a Vulcan display crew. By extension, the decision to do so would have been unlikely to raise alarm bells for those charged with oversight of the Trust.

It speaks very poorly for the standards of workplace discipline if employees felt able to flaunt the rules in that manner, especially at that critical time in the weeks immediately after Shoreham. Likewise the hangar practices that saw a silica gel bag left in the intake - how and why, and by whom (the identity of the person responsible on the day has, to my knowledge, yet to make it into the public arena) was such a mistake made? The polar opposite of "reasonable care and skill" in anybody's language.

Surely you mean 'flout the rules' Daniel?

[richw_82]

Honestly, I've spent all day attempting not to react to this, but you've got me.

Good, that means I've got your attention.

I actually think that I've explained things as clearly as I can, within the constraints in which I am legally bound to work. What I do find confusing is what you think is in it for me in not telling all that I can? It would be much simpler, but sadly would not move things on very far as trust was lost (and contracts possibly breached) with organisations we are working with. I can't believe this is difficult to grasp, given your background. The fact that you do not think dealings should be confidential does not mean that agreements can be breached.

See, this is the problem. No-one's asking for minute detail, or commercial in confidence stuff, they just want a genuine feeling that something can and will be done. Hiding behind words is the skill of a politician, and usually a way to basically say "I don't know" without sounding or feeling foolish.

CAA/Ferry Flights: I have said consistently that discussions were had with the CAA on this topic. The outcome was an understanding that it was not worth pursuing. Do you think you've found something else?

CAA said after an FOI request, that no you didn't...

Classic Airforce: I vaguely remember a discussion with you about this, but I can't find it. Was it on the old thread? Anyway, as I recall you told me that VTTST has asked about the Nimrod when onsite at Coventry, which I said was news to me. But them I wouldn't know the contents of every chat between an employee and third party would I? The main point is that purchase of any or all of the classic airforce would have been subject to board level approval. What actually happened is that we were approached about the fleet by the owner and offered exceptional terms. We said we'd do some thinking and due diligence, but subsequently the offer was withdrawn. Do you have a different view of what happened?

Very much so, it was on Facebook. You flat out denied that VTTST had tried to buy the whole fleet and not just Canberra, something which I pointed out wasn't the case. You also denied that VTTST had gone sniffing around our Nimrod. I can't publically prove one, but you'll find me in the e-mail chain for both if you go digging.

What are the other things that I've got wrong?

There's a few, but to bring them to light I'd hurt other projects I actually still care about.

Finally, if you find me overly talkative, the simplest solution is for me to say nothing at in the future.

Oh, really? Sorry, you don't get to take the bat and ball and go home just yet. We're not done.

[richw_82]

So, to carry on from my last post -

Here's why you don't get to run off Steve.

Here is what VTTST have told the Charities Commission they will do, and provide significant public benefit from - a public including the disabled and the previously mentioned poor/disadvantaged. How are these objects now being met? This isn't something you can dismiss as commercial in confidence.

(1) TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT AVRO VULCAN XH558 AND RETURN HER TO FULL WORKING ORDER FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND TO DEMONSTRATE AND DISPLAY HER TO THE PUBLIC AND TO CONSERVE AND RETURN TO FULL WORKING ORDER OTHER AIRCRAFT AND ENGINEERING ARTEFACTS IN GENERAL WHICH ARE OF SIGNIFICANT HERITAGE INTEREST AND TO MAINTAIN SUCH IN A PURPOSE-BUILT FACILITY.

As we're told the aircraft's extended stay at the sewage treatment works isn't detrimental, and that by carrying out engine ground runs it is kept in full working order - there's no real public benefit to a purpose built facility. It doesn't really alter the way the charity works, just whether its main asset is indoors or outdoors. Its capital works and not very charitable.

If however the purpose built facility is a necessity (though is it, we're constantly told XH558 can and will survive outdoors as most Vulcans did through their service career etc...?) then by not planning forward, they're not preserving, or protecting the aircraft properly.

(2) TO ADVANCE THE EDUCATION OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN AVRO VULCAN XH558, IN AVIATION AND ENGINEERING HERITAGE, IN ITS ASSOCIATED PROVENANCE, HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT AND IN THE STRATEGY OF DETERRENCE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF BRITISH HERITAGE, AND HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE.

Fair enough. How exactly is this being done, now that the world has to go to Doncaster, in small groups? The recent 'presenting' of other museums that generally have been presenting themselves for longer than VTTST has been in existence must be part of this. But what public benefit can they claim - given that most museums are also charities, and claiming public benefit from their activities for themselves? Where is the educational merit for VTTST - as its not anything they have created to advance the education of the public; given it already was doing so?

What is actually getting delivered and counted for by VTTST as a beneficial purpose?

(3) TO ADVANCE EDUCATION OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN AVRO VULCAN XH588 AND OTHER AIRCRAFT AND ENGINEERING ARTEFACTS IN GENERAL OF SIGNIFICANT HERITAGE INTEREST, IN THEIR DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGIES, OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES; FOR THE BENEFIT OF BRITISH HERITAGE, AND TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND CONSERVATION, BY PROVIDING ACCESS TO ENGINEERING DEMONSTRATIONS AND PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES.

Yeah? Where? Has anyone seen anything covering the in depth (at an educational level) anything covering the design, engineering and technologies of 1950's jet technology? Or other heritage aircraft? In fact, didn't this particular charitable object depart out the door with the Spirit of Doncaster?

VTTST is essentially fundraising to support itself, and as mentioned above, it all feels a bit against the spirit of things.



If you feel like getting some decent and clear answers to address the above, go where you have to, get them, and come back. I want detail though, so don't make it up off the top of your head or try to bluff it out as I will go out and verify what you tell me. If you don't feel like doing so on here as it can be a bit of a harsh spotlight, I have no issue with sending a recorded letter to each of the 8 listed trustees and any directors/significant persons.

Here starts "Step 1". Attempt to make contact with a Trustee.

One way or another mate, you will answer.


All yours.

Rich