The Terrorist Within: GOP policies in the 21st Century.

Was it incompetence or malevolence? Stupidity or evil?

Both?

It could be malevolent incompetence.

The concept is called "work to rule" in labor-union circles. Since many public-employee unions can't strike, the paradoxical tactic is to obey every single picayune management diktat and thus bring things to a halt in an entirely positive way that can't be criticized.

That's the theory, anyway.

We found bad wiring and saved your life. How can we possible be criticized?

I'm with Crust and Randy Paul. Malevolence and incompetence are correlated, not mutually exclusive.

Was it incompetence or malevolence? Stupidity or evil?

At this point, who gives a damn? Bush is nine months, three days, 21 hours, and 53 minutes from leaving office. We know that he and his cronies have done great evil that wasn't mere incompetence.

If some minor stuff like this was mere incompetence, it hardly matters.

There was simply no reason to ground all those planes over a minor problem with the wiring bundles.

The rules are the rules. Violating the rules requires a penalty. If we do not impose the penalty, they will continue to violate the rules which cannot be allowed. Pretty sad you are now basically telling people it's OK to violate the rules.

The airlines broke the rules, and therefore they were properly punished. Consumers have the opportunity to further punish the idiot American Airlines by not buying airline tickets from them anymore and make sure they stop breaking the rules. The rules are the rules. Will American Airlines finally get the message about following the rules?

What a characture of itself this Administration has become. It has greatly lifted the old observation to new heights - Repulicans complain about how government doesn't work, then get elected, and then go on to prove their point by incompetently carrying out governmental policies they know nothing about except for their baggage of complaints they carry around with them. The current Republicans in office now want us to carry their baggage for them. Vote Death to the Republican Party in '08! -Kevo

Evil!

Was it incompetence or malevolence? Stupidity or evil?

Both, naturally - it's called stevil.

Tobias - and Kevin - are off base on this one. Those planes absolutely should have been grounded. Specs are "specifications" not "suggestions" and these are not guesses about what will happen - they know what will happen. The wires are bound every inch because protecting the insulation around the wires is paramount. The insulation cracks and you have electricity lose and no way to control it and a spark is all it takes. Hell yes, the planes should have been grounded. Seeing as how there are no minor midair accidents.

Incompetence? malevolence? stupidity? evil?
Aren't you describing modern day Repub ideaology?

Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malevolence.

I agree with BGRS that the planes should have been grounded until they passed inspection.

I don't know whose fault it is, the FAA did put out an order. AA initially failed to follow through. The brouhaha over some inspectors being tight with airlines occurred. The FAA then said to all airlines - hey, did you follow our orders. Some airlines had, or were in the process of. AA hadn't, they had done substandard checks. Don't forget that while some airlines had to cancel a few flights, they sure didn't have to go through what AA did. Meaning that they were essentially up to date, and AA wasn't.

Stupidity!

How about this one:

Let's make people really hate government--that way they won't vote Democratic. Yeah, we'll convince people that government IS the problem. Hmm, how about if we ground thousands of flights? Yeah, that's the ticket!

No idea whether large-scale grounding was necessary in this instance from a safety point of view. However I imagine all the airlines, including AA, will pay closer attention to FAA requirements in future.

I'll also speculate that we may see this same scenario played out repeatedly in the coming few years as lax GOP leadership in these regulatory agencies gets replaced with real oversight.

One can be certain of one thing, however: if one of these planes had been destroyed in an accident caused by ignoring, for time, these issues with the wiring, Tobias and Drum would be front and center lambasting the Bush FAA for not grounding these planes until the problem was fixed.

Speaking as someone who used to do aircraft maintenance, I've got to agree with Blue Girl and Weenie. Some specs might seem like chickenshit, but they're there for a reason. If a wiring bundle fails in your car, that's one thing. If it fails at 36,000 feet, that's another.

Consider the effectiveness of the FAA since shrub took office, no wait, consider the effectiveness of every segment of government since the root took office...you get what you elected...the sad thing is that 28% of Americans still have their nose where the sun don't shine on the repub administration.

An improper wiring bundle certainly could cause a midair fire.

Was this an unreasonable reaction or a reasonable one. I don't know.

How do you?

This does not been the Administration is not incompetently malevolent and stupdly evil.

OT, but beyond funny...On the right-wing blogosphere noticables, like Ann Althouse:

STUPID/EVIL RATIO: 80/20

WHAT TO EXPECT: Something—a news photo, a quote, a gum wrapper on the sidewalk—will annoy her and she'll go to McCain, especially if he runs with Romney. ("I think they look great together. They seem to loosen each other up.")

Thersites - have you been at the bottle already? A little early isn't it. Your brain/typing hand connection is a bit off.

Was it incompetence or malevolence? Stupidity or evil? Your call.

Why the "or"? Haven't we learned enough that with this regime it's always incompetent, malevolent, stupid evil?

Shuddup and bring me another beer, will ya, babe?

>"If it fails at 36,000 feet, that's another [matter]."

Yup, it's 5 miles to the nearest tow truck... 5 miles straight down.

First the airlines need to follow what the FAA says - absolutely.

Second the FAA could have said 'check this and fix it at your convenience' or 'fix this within X days' or 'fix this now.'

I don't know how Andrew Tobias could state for certain that this fix could have waited for 90 days. I'm not going to second-guess the FAA regarding an engineering and safety issue. What do the experts say?

Most likely AA deserved to be grounded... as several have pointed out specs are not to be ignored.

When Alaska Airlines Flt 261 crashed, it had a jackscrew assembly that was worn down about 40 thousands of an inch... right around the limit for replacement. May seem like not much wear to worry about, but it was enough to destroy the plane.

Best not to take chances. Best to ground the planes until they meet specs.

Kevin -- You're a great blogger, but not such a good engineer. Why would you characterize a flaw that could cause fires or prevent proper operation of landing gear as "minor"? American Airlines decided it would be cheaper to ignore the FAA directive and put its customers at risk. And the FAA looked the other way (at least until the public looked at them). I'd be willing to bet some accountant ran the numbers. Probably an ex-Pinto accountant.

I, too, have some experience with aircraft maintenance, including spot-tying wire bundles in all parts, albeit a lot of years ago. The thing I noted in a recent story was that the spec called for ties to be spaced one inch apart. Some of them were an inch and quarter or an inch and a half apart. I agree, they should've been fixed, but unless there's more to the story than we've been told, I can't imagine a scenario that would make such a minor deviation an *imminent* threat to safety. Wire bundles that have been properly tied at 1-1/2 inch intervals are absolutely NOT flopping around.

Now, the mandated inspection for fuselage cracks (Southwest and others) in the 737 is another matter entirely.

Does this bear any relation to the whole inspection fiasco Southwest had?

`Why would you characterize a flaw that could cause fires or prevent proper operation of landing gear as "minor"?'

Because it allows him to bash Bush and Republicans, of course. Mere facts do not matter.

The worrisome/amusing thing is that people keep on coming here and pretending not to understand this.

a: The worrisome/amusing thing is that

Kevin reads his commenters and, if he's contradicted will update his post to say "I've been contradicted."

Over at NRO they read their commenters and, um...oh, I forgot. They don't have comments over there.

people...pretend not to understand this.

Never ascribe to anything else that which can be explained by human stupidity.

On Sept 5, 2006, the FAA issued Airworthiness Directive 2006-15-15, which required the inspection, and in some cases the sleeving, of some auxiliary hydraulic pump wiring. The airlines were given 18 months to comply. American did it promptly, but apparently did a half-ass job. Maybe even did the job inadequately twice, it's not clear. So now the 18 months is up, and the FAA decides they're going to be tough guys, since they've been criticized lately for being too cozy with the airlines. Instead of fining AA and giving them another week or two to get the job done right, which would seem reasonable given that the original directive allowed 18 months, the planes are grounded until the directive is complied with. Fair enough that the airline should be punished for cutting corners, but what the hell is the point of screwing all those passengers? The planes were considered safe enough to keep flying for 18 months after the directive was issued, so why not allow AA another month to get the job done right? By all appearances, it's a case of a government agency being rigid, and petty, and heedless of the consequences of their over-reactions. Or maybe just covering their asses. It's events like this that get people so down on governmental regulation.

"The rules are the rules. Violating the rules requires a penalty. If we do not impose the penalty, they will continue to violate the rules which cannot be allowed. Pretty sad you are now basically telling people it's OK to violate the rules." - Al

Al! You're sounding positively like a liberal! Obey the rules? What a quaint thought coming from a Bushie!

I want to hear Norman's opinions on how the "market model" would take care of this little problem the airlines have, instead of the FAA's socialist meddling :-)

The rules are the rules. Violating the rules requires a penalty. If we do not impose the penalty, they will continue to violate the rules which cannot be allowed.--Al

Al endorses impeachment of Bush & Cheney!

Without knowing anything about airplane maintenance or engineering, I'd certainly rather have the FAA err on the side of caution. Which is to say, I'd rather be inconvenienced for a day or two than dead.

The EE reading over my shoulder says that if it wasn't important there would not be a specific piece of equipment called a "stray voltage test set."

But seriously, some of you aircraft experts are either too hard on Kevin or too soft on the FAA. If the original problem was such that the FAA gave airlines 18 months to fix it, it ought not to be an imminent threat to te safety of the aircraft. If this is an imminent threat to the safety of the aircraft, then FAA dicked around with it waaaay too long.

jccw hit the nail on the head, proving Kevin's point. This "dangerous problem" has existed since 2005! The AD was issued the end of 2006, with compliance required by Mar 2008. The abrupt cancellation of thousands of flights was completely without warrant, other than to "work to the rule" as others have pointed out.

c.

jccw,

Did Airworthiness Directive 2006-15-15 state what would happen if it was not complied with?

In other words was AA warned about getting grounded or was this a big surprise to them?

I think this matters a big deal in understanding all that happened.

For example we're all happy with Bush's No Child left a Dime because we've been told in advance if the schools can't get the special ed kids to read at grade level the school will be marked 'failed' and ultimately shut down.

c.

The abrupt cancellation of thousands of flights was completely without warrant, other than to "work to the rule" as others have pointed out.

Exactly. Black and white pass/fail rules should only be applied to schools, never to businesses!

Deadlines are for schools, not corporations or the military!

c. said "The AD was issued the end of 2006, with compliance required by Mar 2008. The abrupt cancellation..."

Two observations:
1. Since when is September 15, 2006 considered "the end of 2006"?
2. Only a Republican would call cancellation after an 18-month notice "abrupt".

Was it incompetence or malevolence? Stupidity or evil? Yes, just like the Bush administration....

And there hasn't been a plane crash since we grounded all those flights, has there. So phttthththht!

As Al (!) said, rules are rules. 18 months is plenty of time to either argue with them or to comply. As with any other requirement, when non-compliance reaches a certain point, one must be "abrupt".

The hostile attitude the Bush administration has taken toward regulation seems to be ending, along with his disgraceful time in office. As a frequent flyer, I'm grateful.

I assume you have your own jet planes to go with your jet skis, Norman? Hope they're well-maintained so the FAA will keep the respectful distance you deserve :-)

I think everyone is missing the main point here, which is that Malicious Obedience is a great name for a band.

I predict that at least three college punk bands have already changed their name as of this posting.

And there hasn't been a plane crash since we grounded all those flights, has there. So phttthththht!

Posted by: Zit on April 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM

I think Zit should win this thread.

From The Desk Of Cazart's Mom:

"…one of my friends returned from a trip and was about to land... when the man across the isle from her called to the attendant. He was holding his cup of beer toward her and said…”excuse me, but a mouse just dropped from the ceiling and landed in my beer and it is still alive!” The attendant looked at the cup and said “don’t hand it to me”…everyone was hysterical in the front of the plane. The man sitting next to him said I thought it was a leaf falling from the ceiling…. My friend was thinking “what was the mouse chewing on in the roof area…wiring, etc.?"

Not true, Kevin. Tin-foil hatters aside, it was an electrical short, possibly from a wiring bundle, that ignited the fuel tank vapors that blew up TWA Flight 800.

Blue Girl: a specific piece of equipment called a "stray voltage test set."
AKA a junior NCO in wet shoes.

Oh, and the fact that 15 of 19 original American "fixes" the FAA inspected were themselves faulty says something, too.

You ought to read some airline blogs, not Tobias. Living in Dallas myself, I've read plenty about, and blogged plenty about, this situation.

I’ve got10 posts and counting about this issue, and a couple about related American financial issues.

Suffice it to say, beyond this, if you thought summer 2007 was crappy for flying,, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Let's imagine that you are an employee charged with disposing some hazardous materials. Let's further suppose that the government inspector comes in and says, "Oh, don't worry too much about those, it's a $5 fine, no big deal", taking them to the disposal site is really expensive and your boss says, "Oh, just pay the fine."

Then, there's an accident with the materials, and people get hurt. Who's going to be blamed, you, your boss, or the inspector? If you guessed you, move ahead two squares. Even though your boss, and the inspector both failed you, you're going to be the one left out to dry.

There's such a thing as enforcing a rule in such a way as to see it obeyed. Conveying seriousness and energy for 18 months is far more effective than grounding airplanes after the fact.

Did the FAA chief regulator have a sit-down with AA a month ago telling him how serious this shit was? Did he even write a letter, that wasn't just pro-forma? I don't really know.

Damned drugs! I had pulled up the Wikipedia on Flight 800 back at the beginning of the thread, intending to make the same point Gadfly just made, and then forgot why I opened the damned tab to begin with.

All of the above...(plus they have something behind the door)

>>"If it fails at 36,000 feet, that's another [matter]."

>Yup, it's 5 miles to the nearest tow truck... 5 miles straight down.

Provided that tow truck is driving over Vail Pass. Otherwise you've got another mile to go.

Kevin has pulled a fast one on the above thread about Megan McArdle. He has closed the comments. Albeit a smart move, I was hoping to declare that the pie flavor for this week is strawberry/rhubarb.

No pie until you've taken your meds!

Thersites (aka nurse ratched) - my response to you is the first comment in the thread on the healthcare plan (2 above).

My understanding is the airlines had 18 months to follow the directive. AA had to ground planes to complete the inspections in March. In April, 9 planes were ramp checked by the FAA and all 9 failed - hence grounding the fleet again in April.

About the disappearing comments above about Megan McArdle, what are you afraid of exactly?

"The only question left — as usual — is: Was it incompetence or malevolence? Stupidity or evil? Your call."

Yes.

> Specs are "specifications" not "suggestions"
> and these are not guesses about what will
> happen - they know what will happen.

Airworthyness Directives (ADs) are not specifications - they are changes to in-service production configurations that the manufacturer, the FAA, or both have determined are necessary. They typically carry time spans. The time span for the wiring bundle AD, which I believe was issued by the FAA overriding an original Boeing-generated AD, was 24 months. Are you seriously suggesting that the probability of a wiring bundle bursting into flame (something that hasn't actually happened) rises drastically between 24 and 26 months?

Cranky

> Kevin -- You're a great blogger, but not
> such a good engineer. Why would you '
> characterize a flaw that could cause fires
> or prevent proper operation of landing gear as
> "minor"?

I have some seriously bad news for you dude: your typical airliner is flying around with a dozen or so such problems ("issues" in corporspeak) waiting for the next maintenance interval to be fixed ("addressed"). Those maintenance intervals can range from 1 day to 5 year.

When you develop the perfect, flawless machine let us know.

Cranky

i am concluding that most don't really want to know of the conspiracies that have shaped, are shaping, will be shaping their life, the lives of their family and friends.

but in a very real sense, we are living on a planet governed by conspiracies. some very antithetical to our safe conduct.

for instance, some of you know that over the last two weeks the air transport industry has been radically disrupted by some faa-instigated "wiring" inspection of MD80's[AA, DL,and a few others].

by and large, as it has been reported in the press, the disruption has been labeled a "record-keeping" problem.

but, i am pretty certain that it is more than that. here is my analysis of the situation, that i provided to a travel guru, who had concluded that it was a tempest in a teapot.

QUOTE:

here is a wikipedia bit on kapton......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapton

problems with kapton were reported in aviation week & space technology well over a decade ago.

i became aware of the kapton issue because my manufacturing firm was considering its usage as an insulator for critical ic engine ignition wiring for hazardous locations.

after investigating the kapton issues in the aircraft industry, and having dupont waffle egregiously on the subject, we determined it was unsuitable for any wiring that could be subjected to chafing, vibration, etc.

it is my guess that the faa may have wanted all kapton-insulated wiring replaced, but that the air transport industry whined that they could not afford to do that[that may have been a true statement - rewiring any current commercial aircraft would require virtually a complete disassembly of the aircraft].

so, the faa, an airline industry lackey, backed off and may have established a wiring support/routine inspection FAR. and even to that, the airlines said "f*ck it!".

the reason for the very close wiring loom support brackets would have been because the faa knew that any bit of kapton-insulated cabling with any play, any chance for chafing, had a pronounced and well-documented tendency to arc & spark[possibly causing an in-air fire].

does that put you in the picture?

it is my conclusion that there is a conspiracy to prevent this kapton-insulation problem from becoming public knowledge.because it might shut down the air transport industry.

Having worked on MD-80 series aircraft I recall that the hydraulic aux pump uses DC current is rated at about 20 amps with a circuit breaker in the cockpit. The fuel tank in these planes runs from wingtip to wingtip. The center of the wing, over the wheel wells, is also a part of that fuel tank. As I recall the aux pump was not bolted to the fuel tank but is installed on the keel beam [structural divider between wheel wells] I dont recall any fuel vents in the wheel well so the possibility of fire isnt very great.

AD's [airworthiness directives] are drawn up by engineers and the problem seems to be that the directives were accomplished and were inspected by AA inspectors. The FAA can be a stickler for details and apparently the clamp placement wasnt as the AD drawings. [clamp facing wrong direction, too far spaced apart, shielding not of correct length [usually shrink wrap] cannon plug not correctly safetied etc]

Sure, there is quite a bit of wind turbulence in the wheel wells during take and landing [120-160 knots worth] that would shake the wires The general rule for clamps is every 12 inches.

Overall I would say AA's inspection and maintenance dept [which some may have been contracted out] is at fault as other carriers with MD-80 series havent had this problem.

jccw's comments were mostly correct. However, IIRC, the FAA did not order the grounding of the fleet. Rather AA would have had to pay a hefty fine if it had not grounded the planes when they did, & AA chose to ground them as the lesser of 2 evils.

Sorry I have no link - read this earlier today or yesterday & don't remember where.

well, jet, you got it inaccurately.

there were other operators of md80's who were subjected to this inspection regime. delta, alaska, midwest, to name but a few.

and it may not be that the insulation failure would cause a fire. it might be something as gruesome as gear not deploying on approach.

lastly, i wonder if anyone has investigated "put" options on amr prior to the onset of this inspection regime.

the last time that "put" options, of any significance, were taken out on amr was on 10/09/01. as you may recall, for reasons unrevealed, those entities who took out those monstrous "puts" have never been identified.

though i think there was a "safety" issue involving "kapton" insulation, perhaps it was just another rockefeller[bushit]"put" play.

only a real investigation could uncover this level of criminality. and since the rockefellers control the congress, the executive, the judiciary, i doubt that will be occurring.

but, you should recognize that there may have been more involved in this amr inspection than has been reported in the rockefeller-controlled msm.

so it goes.

AlbertChampion, either take off or put back on your tinfoil hat.

Jet, you're right; it's an AA deal above, all, though as I note on by blog, there's at least one whistleblower still out there, and at least two airlines still in regulators' headlights. Think about that one, too, Kevin.

AlbertChampion, also, there's no conspiracy. Your own Wiki link says most kapton has been replaced already on avionics wiring.

And, if this really were a conspiracy, wouldn't the "Rockefeller MSM" have already deleted the Wiki post?

You're not allowed to post here any more until you go back to the bar ditch where your brain rolled out the side of your head, and find it back.

kapton insulated wiring has not been replaced in commercial aircraft.

military aircraft, state-owned, aircraft, yes.

because that could be done with your tax dollars.

you are a silly teat.

and, of course, you silly teat, you distorted the wiki commentary.

it didn't say that all kapton-insulated wiring had been replaced, it only said that some aircraft had kapton-insulated wiring replaced.

as of 2000, most military aircraft still had not been subjected to a kapton-insulation replacement. despite the NASA investigation, the USAF attempted to deny that kapton was a problem. and resisted any "rewiring" program[though i think that one was half-heartedly promulgated].

perhaps as of today, kapton-insulated wiring has finally been replaced in the USAF, USN aircraft.

as concerns non-military aircraft, i am not aware of any comprehensive program to replace kapton-insulated wiring. if you know of such a program, and know of its degree of completion, please post that information.

until you can do that, i think that we should consider you the man with sawdust for brains.

steverino gets all upset because of the wiki cite.

look, i only used the wiki cite to illustrate that the kapton issue had escaped into the mainstream. that it was no longer an issue so esoteric that it was confined to the aviation community.

if you care to track the problems with kapton, and it hasn't been expunged from the awst archives, that is the only technical resource.

otherwise, you are going to have to question individuals involved in military/commercial aviation. and hope that they will talk.

oddly, enough, the amr pilots have been talking. they have challenged the amr management's efforts to characterize this issue as a "tempest in a teapot"

a well-disguised shill for the airlines, hoe brancatelli, attempts to describe the amr pilots' commentaries on these wiring deficiencies, as exploiting this situation as a part of their efforts to gain higher wages.

i don't buy hoe's explanation. if i were a pilot of an amr md80 and knew first-hand of the wiring problems, knowing that the deficiencies exposed me ,and my passengers, my crewmates, to potentially life-threatening events, i am certain that i would want those deficiencies remedied.

let us not forget, the individuals who fly these birds blew the whistle and wanted these deficiencies ameliorated.

got it steve?

The silence from Bushco on the airline grounding was odd. Bush is so very concerned on the effects on the economy.... I am surprised he did not issue some type of over-ride.

Gerard J. Arpey, CEO, American Airlines.
Political contributions, 2007:

Sen. Durbin, Richard J. (D-Ill.) (Incumbent, Senate)
FRIENDS OF DICK DURBIN COMMITTEE $1000

Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. (D-N.Y.) (Incumbent, 6th District)
MEEKS FOR CONGRESS $750

Rep. Boren, Dan (D-Okla.) (Incumbent, 2nd District)
BOREN FOR CONGRESS 2008 $500

Rep. Barton, Joe L. (R-Texas) (Incumbent, 6th District)
CONGRESSMAN JOE BARTON COMMITTEE, THE $2300

Seems to be keeping his contributions nice and balanced. Tried to do the search on the American Airlines PAC, but you need a subscription on CQ MoneyLine.

To throw a total monkey wrench into the conversation, it's plausible that American Airlines wanted those planes grounded.

In recent years most of the major airlines--except American--have gone through bankruptcy proceedings which have allowed them to renegotiate their union contracts, adjust their pensions and relieve themselves of a great deal of debt. United, Continental, America West, US Airways, Delta, Northwest and probably others have emerged from bankruptcy leaner, more efficient and more profitable.

One could imagine that American Airlines executives have been wondering "how can I get me some of that?" even if they're not allowed to say such things aloud.

Then, out of the blue, the FAA cancels thousands of flights! Quelle Horreur! Even if the hit from the grounded flights doesn't force them to bankruptcy, the fall off in ticket sales may.

And they'll undergo bankruptcy, lay off debt (and probably people and their pensions), and be none too sad about it.

Under this scenario, the FAA not only was beholden to the airline industry, but still is.

Cazart,

.. when the man across the isle from her called to the attendant.

Well geez, wouldn't Gilligan expect mice on the island? I mean there are no snakes to eat the mice. I think Gilligan needs a lecture from the Professor.

TW Andrews,

leaner, more efficient and more profitable.

As you point out "leaner, more efficient and more profitable" is business-speak for lower paid workers with fewer benefits. Because as we all know workers are the fat in the muscle that slows all businesses down.

Joel:
"When Alaska Airlines Flt 261 crashed, it had a jackscrew assembly that was worn down about 40 thousands of an inch... right around the limit for replacement. May seem like not much wear to worry about, but it was enough to destroy the plane."
That's like saying a telephone pole caused a car crash.
What really happened was that the jackscrew had not been lubricated...gross, criminal and fatal negligence. Remove the drain plug from your car's crankcase...it doesn't matter whether the engine has 250,000 miles or is fresh off the showroom floor, it has seconds to live.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10

_urlsvip.txt;10;10