7 ms·

The inside story of Bombardier’s $4-billion gamble on a super quiet jet

121 points by uladzislau 13y ago

fidotron 13y ago
Argh, Bombardier make me angry! They're probably the main contender for showing how Canada still fails to understand the benefit of free market economics. The main problem here is all this stuff is essentially funded by things pulled out of the ground on the other side of the country, but rather than allowing the market to function you have a class of bureaucrats scratching each others backs in order to pass subsidies off to whoever bought them the best lunch last week or gave them a season ticket to the Canadiens. That isn't to say there isn't a market for this kind of thing, but if there was really a market Bombardier could have done it properly, even via the stock market. Too much Canadian business is built around exploiting whatever the government is chucking around that week rather than being sustainable.
- terryjsmith 13y ago
  Well Porter as an airline is likely making a big bet on this for their downtown airport in Toronto so there is definitely a use-case there. I'm not sure if this is a contingency plan on their campaign to get the runway extended and noise by-laws lifted, but it sure seems like they're hedging their bets on this. * Written from the downtown Toronto airport lounge.
  - fidotron 13y ago
    Yes, as they rightly observe the plane does have uses, but if it really had enough, with potential customers to prove it, then they would have been able to get the development cash on the open market. Gambling with other people's money is a lot easier than doing it with your own.
    - afreak 13y ago
      Speaking as a Canadian, I personally would rather funnel money into projects that keep Canadians employed. There is a rather difficult problem with competing against other larger nations in the west (especially our friendly neighbour) who too have large tax subsidies and grants. Canada exports most of its oil refinery to the United States so it can double dip on taxes. It as a result employs Americans in the refineries. Should we stop subsidizing American jobs then?
      - fidotron 13y ago
        The point is the government doesn't know where to best spend the money. Quite why it has so much to spend is the other question, especially in Quebec where there are other rather pressing needs. I don't think many Canadians realise just how many non-Canadian workers they are subsidising as a result of all of this. There is the official logic of training locals in skills that get imported alongside government incentives, however, what seems to happen is you get a mobile group of people that just follow the incentives around from province to province. One thing Bombardier do have in their favour is they are a local entity and the taxes on any profits do return to the system, so I can't fault them on that.
        afreak 13y ago
        Most Canadians are aware of how Bombardier gets a large amounts of subsidiaries. Subsidisation is a large part of the Canadian economy so if you were to ask any alert person here if Bombardier was getting subsidised, it would range from "probably" to "yes". I am not sure why you're angry unless you're Canadian yourself then I guess you're justified.
        fidotron 13y ago
        Subsidisation is a large part of the Canadian economy, primarily in provinces where the economy is a disaster area. They're not disaster areas that will be fixed by subsidisation; they're maintained and made worse by market distortions of this kind. I'm angry because Canada would be far better off as a whole without this, and the parasitic bureaucracy that sucks the life out of the non-subsidised parts of the system.
    - mbetter 13y ago
      There is no open market for developing airplanes. You might as well say that they should get their development capital from Rumpelstiltskin.
- sokoloff 13y ago
  Do you think that Airbus gets no subsidy? Boeing? Embraer? The aircraft market is global, and I can't fault Canada for supporting Bombardier in a manner similar to how their competition is subsidized.
  - fidotron 13y ago
    Whether other countries choose to subsidise development in a particular industry is irrelevant, and if they choose to essentially export their money then that's up to them. It's not like there aren't plenty of other things these people could be doing. If you reach the level of China style product dumping then you have a trade war situation and things are different, but that's not (quite) what is going on here, though if Boeing or Airbus gained a monopoly it would sure look like that. What is really happening is risks are socialised, profits (if any) are privatised.
    - dotcoma 13y ago
      What do you mean when you "if Boeing or Airbus gained a monopoly"? A duopoly isn't bad enough?
    - Volpe 13y ago
      > What is really happening is risks are socialised, profits (if any) are privatised. Well not quite, given companies pay tax too. Not only that, but large industries like Aerospace spend money on other stuff. I agree it's clumsy, but it isn't as simple as you put it. Seems to me with the level of subsidy Boeing/Airbus/Bombardier receive, why aren't they just nationalised.
      - Mikeb85 13y ago
        To add to this, aerospace companies contribute plenty to the economy, in jobs, scientific research - much more than most other corporations that are of a similar size. And speaking as a Canadian, it's nice that we still do have Bombardier, otherwise those jobs would simply go down south (probably the actual talent too). Canada needs to invest in industries other than resources... And of course Bombardier IS profitable (forward P/E of 9.71 on the stock).
- pbreit 13y ago
  Without subsidies, there would be no Bombardier. Is that what you would prefer? I'm not sure how it's irrelevant that competitors are receiving subsidies. If it's easier to build with other people's money, isn't that a prudent course?
- Amygaz 13y ago
  "understand the benefit of free market economics" I think this a case where free market economics would not have produced the sort of improvements and innovations that we see with this new model. You need a lot of stability do pull this of over a long period of time. Stock market doesn't allow that.
- gaadd33 13y ago
  Are there any airplane manufacturers that don't benefit from some form of government subsidies?
rurounijones 13y ago
Gearboxes in the Engines... I cannot quite figure out how that works since they are not driving an axle or anything... are they? Any aerospace engineers in the house? On plus side, if they work, more power to them. On the downside, sounds like a maintenance / reliability nightmare in the making. [EDIT] May be of use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geared_turbofan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geared_turbofan
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  The wikipedia article explains the deets, but basically yes, the turbine at the back of the engine is connected to the fan at the front of the engine, and the compressor and whatnot, and the gearbox somewhat decouples the speed of the former and the latter. It would be a bit of a shame if said gearbox fails in flight, of course.
  - ak217 13y ago
    Without knowing a lot about geared turbofans, it would be cool to have a gearbox bypass such that if the gearbox fails, the engine could stop, engage the bypass, and restart in an emergency mode that's less efficient but gets thrust.
    - beachstartup 13y ago
      i know nothing about turbofans, geared or not, but i would guess that any kind of 'failure' of a gearing system at jet engine speeds means the entire thing is exploding, not just failing over to a backup system.
- ak217 13y ago
  they are not driving an axle or anything... are they? They sure are, just not in the way internal combustion engines do. A turbofan is a turbine hooked up to a fan. The turbine does work by rotating a shaft, and the fan pushes extra air around it. All engines have the potential to be maintenance / reliability nightmares. Over time we've learned how to make engines more efficient and more complex without failing often. This is just the next step - in a couple of decades, most passenger jets will have gearboxes.
darylteo 13y ago
Shouldn't there always be a manual flying mechanism failsafe in the case of electrical failure? Fly-By-Wire doesn't seem very safe to me... in the same way I have doubts about Drive-By-Wire.
- lmm 13y ago
  Mechanical systems fail too. Cables can snap, gears can shear off, pedals can bend. As long as you require an appropriate level of redundancy, there's no reason an all-electronic plane should be any less safe.
  - Zancarius 13y ago
    As an illustration and to provide some sample evidence for lmm's comment (there's plenty more): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96 In both of these cases, rapid decompression from a failure of the cargo door caused parts of the floor to collapse and sever or restrict the mechanical cables leading to the aft control surfaces of the plane. Although the American Airlines pilots were able to land the plane safely (they still had some control), the Turkish Airlines pilots were not so lucky. Furthermore, even mechanical systems are assisted by hydraulics. Hydraulic systems can fail, usually through draining, leaving the flight uncontrollable. So to add to the comments by both lmm and leoedin, safety has no bearing on whether the aircraft is mechanically controlled or electronically. There are also deployable ram air turbines[1] that can provide a small amount of emergency backup power in the event of a total failure of all engines: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine
- testrun 13y ago
  Fly-by-wire is pretty established by now. The system is also made redundant for safety.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    It can even be safer than mechanical, if the savings on parts and maintenance allows a better class of component or more redundancy.
jcromartie 13y ago
Does reduced noise necessarily mean increased efficiency? Short of using heavy sound deadening material, I'd imagine that reducing the noise in an aircraft means saving a lot of that previously noisy energy for useful work.
- has2k1 13y ago
  Your inclinations seem right. There is a positive correlation between friction (viscosity) and noise, and also between friction and energy waste. It is in part from that connection that reducing noise would boost efficiency.
auctiontheory 13y ago
Large airliners are a big-money duopoly with a US incumbent. A single deal can make or break a project, or a company. I wonder how worried the Canadians are about industrial espionage by the NSA, as may have happened in Brazil and Germany.
- Tiktaalik 13y ago
  I assume Canada is spied on, but Canada also appears to be an active spyer. Leaked NSA documents have revealed that Canada has been participating in industrial related spying on Brazil. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/08/brazil-accuses-canada-spying-nsa-leaks http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/08/brazil-accuses-...
  - rmckayfleming 13y ago
    It's useful to note that Brazil is home to Bombardier's primary competitor, Embraer. The Canadian and Brazilian governments have both accused each other of subsidies in the aerospace market: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Aerospace_and_Embraer_S.A._government_subsidy_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Aerospace_and_Embrae...
memracom 13y ago
The former Soviet Union also has a lot of airports that are too close to the city centre to handle noisy passenger air traffic. So there is a huge market in countries like Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, all of which are spread out over great distances. In fact the ability to use a shorter than normal runway would make it possible for many of Siberia's towns to build an airport that could handle the Bombardier jets. And next door to Siberia is China which also has some considerable distances to deal with.
yread 13y ago
Hm seems still quite a bit noisier than airbus 350 (why isn't it mentioned even once in the article?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3AiGiJgf9Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3AiGiJgf9Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3SMaNrsaoI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3SMaNrsaoI But it's cool we got to see so many first flights this year! Here is some detail on why it is so quiet http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-a350-xwb-set-to-be-quietest-generation-of-airliner-as-manufacturer-improves-zero-splice-211641/ http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-a350-xwb-se...
- jsnell 13y ago
  It's not mentioned because the planes are so different that there is little point in comparing them? A350 is 3x larger, has 2x the range, and is 4x the price. Seems to me that the use cases they've been designed for have to be completely different, and one can in no way be substituted with the other.
  - adrianb 13y ago
    But the article does say that Airbus and Boeing each had a major project in recent years (A380 and 787) and they're unlikely to have anything major for the next decade. A350 sounds pretty major to me.
    - Xixi 13y ago
      I wonder if Boeing and Airbus will increase the pace of new plane releases... The A380 and B787 introductions were very rocky, with delays added to delays added to delays. On the other hand so far the testing of the A350 as been incredibly smooth. I know that it's too early to draw any conclusion, and that the A350 is still one year from EIS. But when you take into account the actual competence of making a new plane, and how quickly it can be lost, I wouldn't be surprised if the lesson learned is that it is more economical for Airbus and Boeing to release new planes more often...
      - iSnow 13y ago
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
I'll be interested in this when (ha) I hear that airlines are using that boosted efficiency to make coach seats more comfortable on the same profit margin, rather than continuing sardine-packing and pocketing the difference. Until then, it's entirely academic.
forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
Wow!! LCD user interface! Fly by wire! Carbon composite wings! Geared turbofan! We are talking about more than 20 years old technology here. We (in our company) programmed cockpit LCD like 12 years ago or so...
- gaadd33 13y ago
  That stuff isn't new in passenger airlines? I was under the impression (and seemingly the vast majority of media coverage) that the majority of it has been introduced in the past few years with the A380 and 787. Is that wrong? What company do you work for that was making LCD cockpits for passenger airliners?
Fundlab 13y ago
So much to be desired for design thinking; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFUWCyOHIM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFUWCyOHIM

121 points by uladzislau 13y ago

Argh, Bombardier make me angry! They're probably the main contender for showing how Canada still fails to understand the benefit of free market economics. The main problem here is all this stuff is essentially funded by things pulled out of the ground on the other side of the country, but rather than allowing the market to function you have a class of bureaucrats scratching each others backs in order to pass subsidies off to whoever bought them the best lunch last week or gave them a season ticket to the Canadiens. That isn't to say there isn't a market for this kind of thing, but if there was really a market Bombardier could have done it properly, even via the stock market. Too much Canadian business is built around exploiting whatever the government is chucking around that week rather than being sustainable.

terryjsmith 13y ago
Well Porter as an airline is likely making a big bet on this for their downtown airport in Toronto so there is definitely a use-case there. I'm not sure if this is a contingency plan on their campaign to get the runway extended and noise by-laws lifted, but it sure seems like they're hedging their bets on this. * Written from the downtown Toronto airport lounge.
- fidotron 13y ago
  Yes, as they rightly observe the plane does have uses, but if it really had enough, with potential customers to prove it, then they would have been able to get the development cash on the open market. Gambling with other people's money is a lot easier than doing it with your own.
  - afreak 13y ago
    Speaking as a Canadian, I personally would rather funnel money into projects that keep Canadians employed. There is a rather difficult problem with competing against other larger nations in the west (especially our friendly neighbour) who too have large tax subsidies and grants. Canada exports most of its oil refinery to the United States so it can double dip on taxes. It as a result employs Americans in the refineries. Should we stop subsidizing American jobs then?
    - fidotron 13y ago
      The point is the government doesn't know where to best spend the money. Quite why it has so much to spend is the other question, especially in Quebec where there are other rather pressing needs. I don't think many Canadians realise just how many non-Canadian workers they are subsidising as a result of all of this. There is the official logic of training locals in skills that get imported alongside government incentives, however, what seems to happen is you get a mobile group of people that just follow the incentives around from province to province. One thing Bombardier do have in their favour is they are a local entity and the taxes on any profits do return to the system, so I can't fault them on that.
      - afreak 13y ago
        Most Canadians are aware of how Bombardier gets a large amounts of subsidiaries. Subsidisation is a large part of the Canadian economy so if you were to ask any alert person here if Bombardier was getting subsidised, it would range from "probably" to "yes". I am not sure why you're angry unless you're Canadian yourself then I guess you're justified.
        fidotron 13y ago
        Subsidisation is a large part of the Canadian economy, primarily in provinces where the economy is a disaster area. They're not disaster areas that will be fixed by subsidisation; they're maintained and made worse by market distortions of this kind. I'm angry because Canada would be far better off as a whole without this, and the parasitic bureaucracy that sucks the life out of the non-subsidised parts of the system.
  - mbetter 13y ago
    There is no open market for developing airplanes. You might as well say that they should get their development capital from Rumpelstiltskin.
sokoloff 13y ago
Do you think that Airbus gets no subsidy? Boeing? Embraer? The aircraft market is global, and I can't fault Canada for supporting Bombardier in a manner similar to how their competition is subsidized.
- fidotron 13y ago
  Whether other countries choose to subsidise development in a particular industry is irrelevant, and if they choose to essentially export their money then that's up to them. It's not like there aren't plenty of other things these people could be doing. If you reach the level of China style product dumping then you have a trade war situation and things are different, but that's not (quite) what is going on here, though if Boeing or Airbus gained a monopoly it would sure look like that. What is really happening is risks are socialised, profits (if any) are privatised.
  - dotcoma 13y ago
    What do you mean when you "if Boeing or Airbus gained a monopoly"? A duopoly isn't bad enough?
  - Volpe 13y ago
    > What is really happening is risks are socialised, profits (if any) are privatised. Well not quite, given companies pay tax too. Not only that, but large industries like Aerospace spend money on other stuff. I agree it's clumsy, but it isn't as simple as you put it. Seems to me with the level of subsidy Boeing/Airbus/Bombardier receive, why aren't they just nationalised.
    - Mikeb85 13y ago
      To add to this, aerospace companies contribute plenty to the economy, in jobs, scientific research - much more than most other corporations that are of a similar size. And speaking as a Canadian, it's nice that we still do have Bombardier, otherwise those jobs would simply go down south (probably the actual talent too). Canada needs to invest in industries other than resources... And of course Bombardier IS profitable (forward P/E of 9.71 on the stock).
pbreit 13y ago
Without subsidies, there would be no Bombardier. Is that what you would prefer? I'm not sure how it's irrelevant that competitors are receiving subsidies. If it's easier to build with other people's money, isn't that a prudent course?
Amygaz 13y ago
"understand the benefit of free market economics" I think this a case where free market economics would not have produced the sort of improvements and innovations that we see with this new model. You need a lot of stability do pull this of over a long period of time. Stock market doesn't allow that.
gaadd33 13y ago
Are there any airplane manufacturers that don't benefit from some form of government subsidies?

rurounijones 13y ago

Gearboxes in the Engines... I cannot quite figure out how that works since they are not driving an axle or anything... are they? Any aerospace engineers in the house? On plus side, if they work, more power to them. On the downside, sounds like a maintenance / reliability nightmare in the making. [EDIT] May be of use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geared_turbofan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geared_turbofan

thrownaway2424 13y ago
The wikipedia article explains the deets, but basically yes, the turbine at the back of the engine is connected to the fan at the front of the engine, and the compressor and whatnot, and the gearbox somewhat decouples the speed of the former and the latter. It would be a bit of a shame if said gearbox fails in flight, of course.
- ak217 13y ago
  Without knowing a lot about geared turbofans, it would be cool to have a gearbox bypass such that if the gearbox fails, the engine could stop, engage the bypass, and restart in an emergency mode that's less efficient but gets thrust.
  - beachstartup 13y ago
    i know nothing about turbofans, geared or not, but i would guess that any kind of 'failure' of a gearing system at jet engine speeds means the entire thing is exploding, not just failing over to a backup system.
ak217 13y ago
they are not driving an axle or anything... are they? They sure are, just not in the way internal combustion engines do. A turbofan is a turbine hooked up to a fan. The turbine does work by rotating a shaft, and the fan pushes extra air around it. All engines have the potential to be maintenance / reliability nightmares. Over time we've learned how to make engines more efficient and more complex without failing often. This is just the next step - in a couple of decades, most passenger jets will have gearboxes.

darylteo 13y ago

Shouldn't there always be a manual flying mechanism failsafe in the case of electrical failure? Fly-By-Wire doesn't seem very safe to me... in the same way I have doubts about Drive-By-Wire.

lmm 13y ago
Mechanical systems fail too. Cables can snap, gears can shear off, pedals can bend. As long as you require an appropriate level of redundancy, there's no reason an all-electronic plane should be any less safe.
- Zancarius 13y ago
  As an illustration and to provide some sample evidence for lmm's comment (there's plenty more): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96 In both of these cases, rapid decompression from a failure of the cargo door caused parts of the floor to collapse and sever or restrict the mechanical cables leading to the aft control surfaces of the plane. Although the American Airlines pilots were able to land the plane safely (they still had some control), the Turkish Airlines pilots were not so lucky. Furthermore, even mechanical systems are assisted by hydraulics. Hydraulic systems can fail, usually through draining, leaving the flight uncontrollable. So to add to the comments by both lmm and leoedin, safety has no bearing on whether the aircraft is mechanically controlled or electronically. There are also deployable ram air turbines[1] that can provide a small amount of emergency backup power in the event of a total failure of all engines: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine
testrun 13y ago
Fly-by-wire is pretty established by now. The system is also made redundant for safety.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  It can even be safer than mechanical, if the savings on parts and maintenance allows a better class of component or more redundancy.

jcromartie 13y ago

Does reduced noise necessarily mean increased efficiency? Short of using heavy sound deadening material, I'd imagine that reducing the noise in an aircraft means saving a lot of that previously noisy energy for useful work.

has2k1 13y ago
Your inclinations seem right. There is a positive correlation between friction (viscosity) and noise, and also between friction and energy waste. It is in part from that connection that reducing noise would boost efficiency.

auctiontheory 13y ago

Large airliners are a big-money duopoly with a US incumbent. A single deal can make or break a project, or a company. I wonder how worried the Canadians are about industrial espionage by the NSA, as may have happened in Brazil and Germany.

Tiktaalik 13y ago
I assume Canada is spied on, but Canada also appears to be an active spyer. Leaked NSA documents have revealed that Canada has been participating in industrial related spying on Brazil. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/08/brazil-accuses-canada-spying-nsa-leaks http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/08/brazil-accuses-...
- rmckayfleming 13y ago
  It's useful to note that Brazil is home to Bombardier's primary competitor, Embraer. The Canadian and Brazilian governments have both accused each other of subsidies in the aerospace market: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Aerospace_and_Embraer_S.A._government_subsidy_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Aerospace_and_Embrae...

memracom 13y ago

The former Soviet Union also has a lot of airports that are too close to the city centre to handle noisy passenger air traffic. So there is a huge market in countries like Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, all of which are spread out over great distances. In fact the ability to use a shorter than normal runway would make it possible for many of Siberia's towns to build an airport that could handle the Bombardier jets. And next door to Siberia is China which also has some considerable distances to deal with.

yread 13y ago

Hm seems still quite a bit noisier than airbus 350 (why isn't it mentioned even once in the article?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3AiGiJgf9Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3AiGiJgf9Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3SMaNrsaoI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3SMaNrsaoI But it's cool we got to see so many first flights this year! Here is some detail on why it is so quiet http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-a350-xwb-set-to-be-quietest-generation-of-airliner-as-manufacturer-improves-zero-splice-211641/ http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-a350-xwb-se...

jsnell 13y ago
It's not mentioned because the planes are so different that there is little point in comparing them? A350 is 3x larger, has 2x the range, and is 4x the price. Seems to me that the use cases they've been designed for have to be completely different, and one can in no way be substituted with the other.
- adrianb 13y ago
  But the article does say that Airbus and Boeing each had a major project in recent years (A380 and 787) and they're unlikely to have anything major for the next decade. A350 sounds pretty major to me.
  - Xixi 13y ago
    I wonder if Boeing and Airbus will increase the pace of new plane releases... The A380 and B787 introductions were very rocky, with delays added to delays added to delays. On the other hand so far the testing of the A350 as been incredibly smooth. I know that it's too early to draw any conclusion, and that the A350 is still one year from EIS. But when you take into account the actual competence of making a new plane, and how quickly it can be lost, I wouldn't be surprised if the lesson learned is that it is more economical for Airbus and Boeing to release new planes more often...
    - iSnow 13y ago

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

I'll be interested in this when (ha) I hear that airlines are using that boosted efficiency to make coach seats more comfortable on the same profit margin, rather than continuing sardine-packing and pocketing the difference. Until then, it's entirely academic.

forgottenpaswrd 13y ago

Wow!! LCD user interface! Fly by wire! Carbon composite wings! Geared turbofan! We are talking about more than 20 years old technology here. We (in our company) programmed cockpit LCD like 12 years ago or so...

gaadd33 13y ago
That stuff isn't new in passenger airlines? I was under the impression (and seemingly the vast majority of media coverage) that the majority of it has been introduced in the past few years with the A380 and 787. Is that wrong? What company do you work for that was making LCD cockpits for passenger airliners?

Fundlab 13y ago

So much to be desired for design thinking; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFUWCyOHIM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFUWCyOHIM