its own financial incentive to participate now we have a different situation where the district court has really offered no reason it's not the wrong reason it's no reason and when you look at th risking the vessels and having them deviating dispassion a scene that's just the same amount of money they want to may do in their daily business so it's logically flawed more importantly in terms of why it's a clear views if you look at the explicit that when you look at granite which is really the bible some of the words and what's a fair or they do not benedict does not allow does not even mention that that's a permissible reason deviate from usual blackwall standards  expertise and salvage are equipped for salvage it happens upon a situation where there's a vessel in distress and the storm or impeached or something like that and renders the services in that situation  so there is no logical basis and there's no legal basis that supports the reasoning of the district court and fashion in the war that's half half the amount of any other word in the history of and i believe this and certainly there do not appear to be any facts that would warrant a substantial deviation from the norm that the prior ninth circuit panel expressed which is two thirds or sixty six percent of th normal or and thirdly in the event of the district court is unable to specify such facts or to provide the reasoning that would justify the substantial deviation from the norm then for this court to instruct the district opportunity on dream and to put forward whatever facts and whatever evidence they wish to put forward to answer the questions that were posed by the ninth circuit on the first appeal now i want to read to the court  portions of the ninth circuit appeal which i think are important because what the nice circuit in the first of all talk about what should be considered by by the district court about the risk to the starving vassal i have this in front of me i'm sure where you're from can you give me a little help i can read and i have this is what i received from the ny service i don't have a page number but what that was that that's at ten eighty eight ten eighty nine award so three separate times in the opinion the ninth circuit states that there has to be shot some showing of risk to the vessel to be entitled to some portion of the award  who heard the evidence he conducted the two day trial and he felt that the greatest risk was to the crew members and not those of us along here i think that probably is right that is to say i don't i do not think that the salvage and vessel was in serious danger i do think that in the bite of a line these crewmembers had to be in the by the line to do the salvage operation but my point is is that judgment government was faced with the responsibility of apportioning the award between the vessel honor and these crew perform in fighting this way through pounding rough weather to even get there and then arrive on the scene and black all factors are not only the degree of risk there's there's that degree of risk to the vessel owners equipment vessel lines everything but also upon arrival the degree of skill exhibited not only by the crew but by the best owners representatives and the reason why nobody was killed maimed injured and th maneuver the best close together so all of these risks would be minimized and also these men all been trained on this precise salvage retrieval year on how to use it haul it out rig it use it safely which