Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Does Or Can Boeing Reassign Previous Cust ID's?  
User currently offlinejetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7410 posts, RR: 50
Posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4425 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Can or has Boeing recycled customer suffixes used by long-gone airlines for present day airlines? Such as 62 for PNA or 47 for Western?


Made from jets!
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4407 times:

I don't see why not its for their internal use only.

User currently offlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2350 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4296 times:

Although this maybe a bit "off topic", I always wondered if Air-India ever decided to purchase 737-700's and we'd see a 737-737....


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineKLASM83 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4243 times:

Quoting SXDFC (Reply 2):
Although this maybe a bit "off topic", I always wondered if Air-India ever decided to purchase 737-700's and we'd see a 737-737..

I want to become CEO of Air India just to do that, now   .


Perhaps if a new customer asks, their airplanes could be assigned that customer code. Would be cool to see 777-301's flying around. I wonder if Boeing would be willing to do that-perhaps that question combined with big enough order ought to convince someone.



Don't you want to hang out and waste your life with us?
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5661 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4117 times:

Quoting jetjack74 (Thread starter):
Can or has Boeing recycled customer suffixes used by long-gone airlines for present day airlines

I don't really know, but one problem I see if Boeing did this would be in certifiying the airframe. For example, QF's B744s are not certified, in Australia, as B747-400s, they are certified as B747-438s. This would, at the least, be a paperwork nusience.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinebrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1644 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4091 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 4):
QF's B744s are not certified, in Australia, as B747-400s, they are certified as B747-438s

Gemuser, how does that work with the 744's that QF bought off MH (I think it was) or the 767s originally from BA? Does QF have to certify them independently?



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5661 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4060 times:

Quoting brenintw (Reply 5):
Gemuser, how does that work with the 744's that QF bought off MH (I think it was) or the 767s originally from BA? Does QF have to certify them independently?

Keeping in mind that the info in this reply could be out of date, basically yes. When they leased the B767-336s it would have been a first of type certification. Having said that it would only involve the differances between the 336 & the 338, which are pretty minor, and the extra work in certification would have been very minor for an outfit like QF. Thats why I called it a paperwork nusience.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3797 times:

Quoting brenintw (Reply 5):
Gemuser, how does that work with the 744's that QF bought off MH (I think it was) or the 767s originally from BA? Does QF have to certify them independently?

No.

The major types are individually certified, not the specific customer models, ie, Boeing will have to certify the 787 with GE engines and with RR engines. The airlines don't certify aircraft the manfactures do.


User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3947 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3638 times:

Quoting jetjack74 (Thread starter):
Can or has Boeing recycled customer suffixes used by long-gone airlines for present day airlines? Such as 62 for PNA or 47 for Western?

It's likely it will happen, but it will be a long time in the future. They started off with 2 digits originally, then the codes became alpha-numerical when those ran out, and now new customer codes are 2 letters. They're currently in the K_/L_ series so still a way to go yet before they run out, although they are going through them fairly rapidly with all the BBJ customers each having their own assignment.

 


User currently offlinepetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3369 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3469 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 4):
in Australia, as B747-400s, they are certified as B747-438s. This would, at the least, be a paperwork nuisance.

It's the same in the Netherlands. That's why KLM's B737 NGs are listed under Transavia's K2 code (B737-7K2, -8K2, -9K2) instead of KLM's 06 code (B747-406 etc). Transavia was the first to order the NG B737 and therefor the planes where certified with Transavia's code.



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5661 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3462 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 7):
No.

The major types are individually certified, not the specific customer models, ie, Boeing will have to certify the 787 with GE engines and with RR engines. The airlines don't certify aircraft the manfactures do.

You didn't read reply 4 properly! It said "in Australia", where the B747-400 was indeed certified as a B747-438 & the B767-300 as a B767-338. The second hand aircraft also had to be certified as per reply 8.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3359 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 10):
You didn't read reply 4 properly! It said "in Australia", where the B747-400 was indeed certified as a B747-438 & the B767-300 as a B767-338. The second hand aircraft also had to be certified as per reply 8.

I read it, but CASA "Advisoty Circular" AC 21-30(2) Dated March 2009, titled "Type Acceptance Certificates for Imported Aircraft" states: Aircraft certified in reconized countries are granted automatic type certificates. Therefore, since the United States is reconized country the 747-400's FAA issued TCDS is all that is required obtain Type Certification in Australia.

The 747 TCDS (A20WE) lists the serial numbers of all the 747-400's, and only those serials listed as 747-438 can be certified as 747-438's. If QF obtains a 747 from another operator it would be certified using their original customer code not QF's.

Examples:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe M Hill


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © BravoAlpha



Ex-Malaysian and ex-Asiana.

The customer codes are as built not as operated.


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5661 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3320 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 11):
I read it, but CASA "Advisoty Circular" AC 21-30(2) Dated March 2009, titled "Type Acceptance Certificates for Imported Aircraft" states:

As I said in reply4, I could be out of date!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinekalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3284 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 4):

I don't really know, but one problem I see if Boeing did this would be in certifiying the airframe. For example, QF's B744s are not certified, in Australia, as B747-400s, they are certified as B747-438s. This would, at the least, be a paperwork nusience.

I wonder how would that work, if airline (for whatever reason) would end up ordering same model with 2 different engine options. Not a good idea for commonality reasons, but still possible.
Would planes with different engines still fall under same certificate then?


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9101 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3231 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 4):
For example, QF's B744s are not certified, in Australia, as B747-400s, they are certified as B747-438s. This would, at the least, be a paperwork nusience.

That is not correct, CASA does not issue a type certificate for foreign manufactured aircraft like the 747, they issue type acceptance certificates. Type Certification requires the ability to assess that a manufacturers design complies with the relevant design regulations, I doubt that CASA has that ability these days for an aircraft like the 747. It would also require the issue of a production certificate.

e.g. http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...in/casadata/cota/download/a076.pdf

Quoting gemuser (Reply 10):
You didn't read reply 4 properly! It said "in Australia", where the B747-400 was indeed certified as a B747-438 & the B767-300 as a B767-338. The second hand aircraft also had to be certified as per reply 8.

Not correct see above, the CASA 747 type certification basis is the FAA TCDS A20WE.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 11):
I read it, but CASA "Advisoty Circular" AC 21-30(2) Dated March 2009, titled "Type Acceptance Certificates for Imported Aircraft" states: Aircraft certified in reconized countries are granted automatic type certificates. Therefore, since the United States is reconized country the 747-400's FAA issued TCDS is all that is required obtain Type Certification in Australia.

Kind of true, regardless of is the aircraft comes from one of the recognised countries (Canada, USA, Germany, France, and Netherlands from memory) CASA does not need to do an audit on the CAA of that country.

Regardless of where the aircraft comes from, the very fist of type still needs to go through the CASA first of type process, which paves the way for following aircraft of the same type to be added to the Australian register. CASA delegates (i.e. private individuals, employees of airlines and maintenance organisation, and people within CASA who hold the correct delegation can do subsequent aircraft joining the register), but first of type like the first 787 must be done by CASA.

The Type Acceptance process between CASA and foreign CAAs is accepting the not only the design certification oversight by the local CAA, it is also accepting the manufacturing oversight.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3179 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 14):
Kind of true, regardless of is the aircraft comes from one of the recognised countries (Canada, USA, Germany, France, and Netherlands from memory) CASA does not need to do an audit on the CAA of that country.

Regardless of where the aircraft comes from, the very fist of type still needs to go through the CASA first of type process, which paves the way for following aircraft of the same type to be added to the Australian register. CASA delegates (i.e. private individuals, employees of airlines and maintenance organisation, and people within CASA who hold the correct delegation can do subsequent aircraft joining the register), but first of type like the first 787 must be done by CASA.

The Type Acceptance process between CASA and foreign CAAs is accepting the not only the design certification oversight by the local CAA, it is also accepting the manufacturing oversight.

I agree, but it is all paperwork shuffle, no actual flying.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9101 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3159 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 15):
I agree, but it is all paperwork shuffle, no actual flying.

Not sure about that, I know the first of type requires someone form CASA to not only hold the type maintenance authority, but also to be type rated. My recollection is that the aircraft will need a maintenance inspection prior to the issue of the CASA certificate of airworthiness, that process is not just a "paperwork shuffle". You should be able to find the CoA delegates handbook on the CASA website if you are interested.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2090 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3150 times:

When Air Europe acquired a couple of BA's original 757s before delivery (BA was joint launch customer with EA with 19 aircraft) it took delivery of them as 757-236s. Subsequent new build 757s for Air Europe were all delivered as 757-236s because the airline had the type certified with the CAA as the 757-236. Air Europe's Boeing customer code ws S3 (and it took delivery of new 737-3S3 and 737-4S3 aircraft with that code).

I suppose at some point Boeing might look at re-issuing customer codes. Some were never even used, i.e. 18 was the customer code for BEA but it never bought any Boeing aircraft. After the BOAC/BEA merger BA kept the BOAC customer code of 36.

Off the top of my head, quite a few numerical codes would be available for reallocation: -

01 Piedmont (taken over by USAir)
05 Braathans (taken over by SAS - could be reused by SAS Norway?)
11 Wardair (taken over by Canadian Airlines)
14 PSA (taken over by USAir)
17 Canadian Pacific (merged with Pacific Western - see 75)
18 BEA (merged with BOAC, and kept airline's customer code of 36, but 18 code was never used!)
21 Pan Am (bankrupt)
25 Eastern (bankrupt)
27 Braniff (bankrupt)
31 TWA (taken over by AA)
35 National (taken over by Pan Am)
45 Seaboard World Airlines (merged with Flying Tiger Line)
47 Western (taken over by DL)
49 Flying Tiger Line (taken over by FedEx)
51 Northwest (taken over by DL)
54 Mohawk Airlines (taken over by Allegheny - later USAir)
65 British Eagle (bankrupt)
75 Pacific Western (later Canadian Airlines after the CP merger)
76 Australian Airlines (taken over by QF)
77 Ansett Australia (bankrupt)
89 Japan Air System (taken over by JAL)
95 Northeast Airlines (taken over by DL)
97 Aloha (bankrupt)
99 British Caledonian (taken over by BA)



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3077 times:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 17):
Off the top of my head, quite a few numerical codes would be available for reallocation: -

It would be a mistake to reallocate codes. The codes are a very useful way to track the history of a Boeing aircraft. If codes of defunct carriers were reassigned it would make it difficult to identify the original customer which is now very easy.

[Edited 2010-05-03 21:26:34]

User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2952 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 16):
Not sure about that, I know the first of type requires someone form CASA to not only hold the type maintenance authority, but also to be type rated. My recollection is that the aircraft will need a maintenance inspection prior to the issue of the CASA certificate of airworthiness, that process is not just a "paperwork shuffle". You should be able to find the CoA delegates handbook on the CASA website if you are interested.

You may be correct about an "Airworthiness Certification" but the not for a "Type Acceptance Certification". Two completly different doucments.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9101 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2884 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 19):
You may be correct about an "Airworthiness Certification" but the not for a "Type Acceptance Certification". Two completly different doucments.

Not the way they are done by CASA. CASA will only do a Foreign Type Acceptance Certificate if it part of the issue of a CoA for a new type not previously operated on the Australian register, of if the operator wished to bring the type in using a different export CoA.


If no operator goes through the CoA process, CASA will not issue a Foreign Type Acceptance Certificate (e.g. A340). If the aircraft type is not on the register, more than likely CASA would not have either the maintenance or flight ops people qualified on type, CASA will maintain someone within the organisation until such time as they type no longer has a valid certificate of registration. For some types, CASA uses industry delegates as the justification for keeping the qualification may not be there.

I know for example when the A330 and A380 were introduced to the Australian register has CASA Flight Operations Inspectors (FOIs) from the Sydney Airline field office went to France to do the ground school and simulator sessions to get type endorsed. They even did some time in the aircraft. I know one of those FOIs was previously type rated with experience on type from another airline.

The exception to this is if the export CoA was issued by another recognised CAA, for example a Bae-146
Type acceptance based up UK CAA
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...in/casadata/cota/download/a105.pdf
Type acceptance based upon FAA
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...in/casadata/cota/download/a027.pdf

Depending on the basis that the aircrafts CoA is issued, they may have different maximum passenger counts, performance limits, and equipment requirements as the recognised CAAs that CASA uses for the issue of foreign type acceptance certificates do not have harmonised regulations.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinevhqpa From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 1469 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2805 times:

No need to reassign existing codes for a while. Since the introduction of alphanumeric codes in 1969 Boeing has skipped a lot of combination's recently they skipped from KZ to ZB! I supposed these will be used up first starting from B8 before existing codes from carriers no longer with us are reissued.

Interestingly Air New Zealand has both -19 and -F1 assigned to them although the latter was never used. I can only assume TEAL showed interest in a Boeing product was assigned -F1 but never actually ordered anything. After they were amalgamated with NAC they took on NAC's -19 code.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 4):

Ahh thank you..... that would explain why the last 3 737-400 QF ordered in 1995 retained TN's customer code of -76 instead of Qantas's -38 that one has bugged me for years.

And also why in 2001 Qantas persuaded Boeing into changing the 737-823's AA didn't take up (AA interior and all) into 737-838's.



Vhqpa.



"There you go ladies and gentleman we're through Mach 1 the speed of sound no bumps no bangs... CONCORDE"
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2705 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):
It would be a mistake to reallocate codes. The codes are a very useful way to track the history of a Boeing aircraft. If codes of defunct carriers were reassigned it would make it difficult to identify the original customer which is now very easy.

You'll have to explain why that's actually useful. I'm sure anyone who needs to care for real can look up the serial number and find the entire ownership history of each aircraft in a heartbeat. And who really cares who owned it first?

In any event, Boeing has plenty of codes (there are 1296 possibilities, assuming there are no dis-allowed combinations like zero-oh), so there's probably no urgency to reuse any. And even if they did reuse codes, there are a bunch that have been unused in so long that it's likely that no aircraft purchased by the assigned airline are actually still in service. 54, Mohawk, ceased to exist in 1972, for example - I don't know what they bought from Boeing, but it's at least 38 years old now.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15743 posts, RR: 27
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 22):

Well the use is that one can at least get some insight about what options a plane has at a glance. Many aircraft classified ads I've seen include the customer code.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25311 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2645 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 22):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 18):
It would be a mistake to reallocate codes. The codes are a very useful way to track the history of a Boeing aircraft. If codes of defunct carriers were reassigned it would make it difficult to identify the original customer which is now very easy.

You'll have to explain why that's actually useful. I'm sure anyone who needs to care for real can look up the serial number and find the entire ownership history of each aircraft in a heartbeat. And who really cares who owned it first?

Many peopole are interested in aircraft history and it's just so much easier when you see something like 747-121 to immediately recognize that it's an ex-Pan Am aircraft than if all you see is 747-100 and the serial/line numbers which then requires a lot of research in production lists. Why complicate things if there's no need? Boieng has been using that system for more than 50 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


25 tdscanuck : Unfortunately for a.net, what's interesting to the public has pretty much zero bearing on what the OEM's actually do. Anyone who needs to know the hi
26 FlyCaledonian : Yet if Being suddenly reallocated the 21 customer code, and we saw Airline X operating 787-821 and 737-721 aircraft, I don't think anyone would assum
27 Viscount724 : I still see no need to do what you are suggesting? What do you see as the advantage in reallocating previous customer codes? While many original cust
28 FX1816 : The next question is, "Why would Boeing care if a certain code helps make identifying an aircraft's history easier??"" Also as FlyCaledonian stated:
29 BMI727 : True, but at the same time, what do they gain by reusing codes when they don't need to?
30 Viscount724 : It can also be useful for operators. For example, small carriers operating used aircraft can easily identify other aircraft built for the same origin
31 Post contains images Irish251 : While I agree that the present system is useful for research and some other practical purposes, Boeing is amost the only manufacturer to have such a
32 FX1816 : Nothing, I was just making a point. Ok but it's not painted on the aircraft, ie BOEING 747-121, it would be BOEING 747 or BOEING 747-100. So how woul
33 Post contains images vv701 : It happens. Look at the engines of these two 777-236s. One has 'RR' on it, the other 'GE': This works most but not all of the time. Here are two 757-
34 474218 : Both aircraft were built to the British Airways -236 configuration. Since Air Europa did not own the airframe the leasing company (in this case Citib
35 Post contains links and images United960 : View Large View MediumPhoto © Burger Collection The question of particular aircraft changing identities always puzzled me. I understand that Qantas w
36 Post contains images vv701 : No. There is no such thing as a BA specification. Pictured in Reply 33 are two Boring 777 236s. They both have the designation '36'. Equally clearly
37 FX1816 : Aren't the BA 772's with the GE Engines the -A variant and not the ER??? If so that might explain why. I agree though that the Boeing model number an
38 FlyCaledonian : The G-ZZZ* aircraft were the 'A' model. They are the non-ER variant fitted with GE90 engines. Five were delivered. The G-VII* aircraft were the 'B' m
39 Panman : And G-RAES? PanMan
40 FlyCaledonian : G-RAES would have been G-VIII, but as VIII is the roman numeral for 8 (VII being 7) it gained its special registration.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Can Boeing Make The 777 Competitive With The A350? posted Sun Nov 18 2007 08:49:16 by Stitch
AirAsiaX To Buy 50 Airbus A350s Or 50 Boeing 787s posted Wed Oct 31 2007 23:03:38 by Victor009
Can Boeing Add More Test Pilots (to Hasten Cert)? posted Tue Sep 11 2007 16:34:36 by Bringiton
Does TSA Recognize This As 'govt Issued ID' posted Sun May 20 2007 21:50:01 by Lincoln
Why Can't Boeing & Airbus Find New VLA Customers? posted Tue May 8 2007 19:03:03 by Stitch
Can Someone Please Help Me ID this Plane posted Thu Apr 19 2007 00:54:54 by A380US
FI: A380 Crisis: Can Boeing Exploit A380 Delays? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 18:31:12 by Leelaw
Can Boeing Ever Replace The 757? posted Mon Aug 28 2006 23:10:24 by KSUpilot
Can Boeing Preempt A350RN With B777 Announcement? posted Fri Jun 2 2006 21:41:02 by Baron95
Does The 707th Boeing 707 Still Exist? posted Mon Feb 27 2006 22:31:04 by ImperialEagle