Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc. The place for discussion of issues related to corporate, Ag and GA aviation. If you're a professional pilot and don't fly for the airlines then try here.

Seneca V Crash

Old 12th May 2012, 12:52
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If I had been the owner of that beautiful aircraft I would be livid.
He is!! And understandably so. The cost to the insurers was $150k and the owner lost his aeroplane for twelve months, so taking that in accout, the devaluation of the aircraft when it is sold due to history in the log books of a crash and increased insurance premiums the owner estimates that this accident has cost him a further $50k in consequential losses.

The SAR teams did not ask for passports or examine licences for proof of identity - all they were interested in was that there were no casulties.

Weaver later provided details of the pilot in his report.

Its worth noting that this has not been finished and the reason for this post and the thread is to help warn others until the matter is concluded.
goldeneaglepilot is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 13:06
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GEP

I added a bit to my post between your posting?
Surely the SAR people would have known who they rescued and who was on the aircraft?
The insurance would have discovered that! I am not aware whether there was one pilot or two?
If one then there is no dispute who was in command and fairly straightforward to check their licences, medicals claimed hours etc over what was supplied for the Ferry quote.
Do SAR make an insurance claim for such an event for their costs? In which case the figure would be much higher.
I am sure Ws younger brother is posting in another thread but this was total idiot flying.
Yes an accident damage history will have a severe impact on value even if the repair is well done.

Pace

Last edited by Pace; 12th May 2012 at 13:17.
Pace is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 15:25
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely the SAR people would have known who they rescued and who was on the aircraft?
The insurance would have discovered that! I am not aware whether there was one pilot or two?
If one then there is no dispute who was in command and fairly straightforward to check their licences, medicals claimed hours etc over what was supplied for the Ferry quote.
There were two pilots aboard. Weaver gave the name but identities were not confirmed by documentary proof by SAR.

Weaver filled in the flight plan claiming he was the captain. After the crash he claimed the other pilot was.

Weaver only held a single IR at the date of the crash. The route demanded a multi IR to be legal.

The insurers stipulated that Weaver was the pilot insured for the journey, prior to the crash they and the company who employed Weaver had missed that his IR was for single engine aircraft only.

This was in no way the owners fault, he had contracted another ferry company to do the ferry flight. They had sub contracted the job to Weaver.

I have no doubt that the insurers will seek recompense for Weavers actions. At the very best it was (on his part) stupidity, at worst intentional fraud. A criminal trial will be needed to let a Judge and Jury decide.

Weaver diid not report the crash.

Last edited by goldeneaglepilot; 12th May 2012 at 15:26.
goldeneaglepilot is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 16:16
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GEP

That is an amazing account on a number of points. Firstly on the limited jet ferries I have been involved with copies of all licences medicals etc were checked first for approval.
Second that there was a crash and two people were rescued but no one knows who they rescued?
Thirdly that an insurance company would pay out on a pilot who was not licensed or qualified to fly the aircraft.
Fourth that having paid out and discovered this chain of errors that the insurance company are not suing someone for the return of the money they have paid probably a source where there is money to get back.
Fifth that the authorities have not become involved ie the FAA?
Tempo volo as the saying goes.

Something does not add up?
Pace is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 16:17
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The insurance company is most likely not going to bother, the claim has been settled with the owner. For them to pursue any claim against Weaver would mean quite a few people having to admit their own shortcomings and lack of due dilligence in allowing Weaver to get away with it in the first place.

The insurance company must be fully aware that holding Weaver to account is not going to get them anywhere and just cost them money that they have no hope in ever recovering.
cldrvr is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 16:24
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pace, simple.

Weaver was not the PIC when it came to the insurance company, the owner or the ferry company, he had nominated another individual who met all the requirements.

As the other person was the PIC, he had no duty to notify the FAA, the only tenuous link there is, is Weaver's name on the flightplan, all the other paperwork had the other individual on it so as far as the owner, FAA and insurance company was concerned all was legal.

All Weaver has to say to any involved here was that "his office" made a minor mistake on filing the flightplan.
cldrvr is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 16:54
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Perhaps if we go back to the start of the thread - Truth Prevails is the ferry company the subcontract it to Weaver. They talk of how much it cost them to sort out.

Weaver IS NOT off the hook on this one (yet)

cldrvr,

We certainly didn't Pay peanuts, but we did get monkeys.

We were unaware of the "friend" being a 13000hr retired Airline captain at the time that that we were asked if we objected to the " friend" going along for the experience ( had it of been disclosed that he was a 13000hr pilot you are damn sure the question " Why does a more experienced pilot want to be your passenger " would have been asked ) I wonder what would have happened if we had said " No you can't take anyone along "
I can tell you the answer: RW would have still took the 13000hr pilot along regardless.
The request from RW was " I have a pilot friend who would like to make the trip with me, any objections ? " Our response was " No that is fine by us, but he mustn't fly the plane as P1 or be our financial responsibility"

The ferrying industry is very cut throat and we believe RW got a fair slice of the market because he was known to be undercutting other peoples quotes, now we will confirm that we gave RW £6000.00 of our company funds to ferry the Seneca on a job that was to earn us £7839.50
Needless to say with the ferry flight not being completed, our payment was not in full from the client.
As Rob required £6000 to complete the job it looked like our company might make £1839.50 ( though we always expect that extras could be billed afterwards, so our profit could have been less ) Believe me the money outlay of this ferry flight ran into many thousands of pounds

The insurance did finally pay out after much wrangling,this is still ongoing and there are still discusions on this subject and the insurers are a German aviation insurance company, they accepted RW on the same documentation as we had.

Truth Prevails.
goldeneaglepilot is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 17:03
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cldrvr

In that case that one is probably dead in the water.
I could imagine that W would do flights pretending to be the commander while infact using someone more experienced to hold his hand.
I still find it hard to know what went through their minds having an aircraft which when you lean back gives you an increasing time to dry tanks.
An economy cruise setting would give them a TAS and time to dry tanks and the forecast winds a pretty good idea of a groundspeed as well as an accurate ground speed en route from the nav fitted.
It is not rocket science to take a worst scenario and make sure your well covered on fuel.
Sounds like both where a couple of plonkers as for a 13000 hr pilot allowing himself to be lured into a Russian Roulette flight what went through his mind?
Who actually made the descisions enroute. W or Mr 13000? CrazyGEP

As I was accused of knowing W or being somehow connected or associated with him and having my hands soiled as it was put in the other thread!!!
As a Seneca Five expert with over 2500 hrs on the aircraft who was also a demonstrator for Anglo American the main Piper Agents that used to be!!! I am surprised if that connection with Weaver was ever true which it was not that I was not the number 1 choice to have done that ferry with him.

The Seneca five crash was inexcusable for any half reasonable pilot!!!
What a load of rubbish the other Weaver thread SOMETIMES kicks out!


Pace

Last edited by Pace; 12th May 2012 at 20:45.
Pace is offline  
Old 14th May 2012, 17:37
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pace,

I appreciate your experience with the Seneca, may I ask you to do the calculations for the journey and publish your findings here - we all know that the flight failed, but it would be good to see the calculations done by a pilot such as you with as much experience on type.

The route filed by Weaver was CYYR-LOACH-59N50W-DIRECT (BGBW)

The Weather was forcast as: (quoted from official accident report)

The following weather forecasts were issued by the meteorological office in Kangarlussuaq (BGSF) Greenland the
14. April 2008 were available to the commander:
Cl. 0300 TAF 140300Z 140312 08022KT BGBW 9999 BKN100 TEMPO 0309 08030G40KT
BECMG 0911 08030G40KT TEMPO 1112 08040G50KT.
Cl. 0700 TAF 140700Z 140716 08025KT BGBW 9999 SCT100 BKN150 TEMPO 0716 08030G40KT.
Cl. 1000 TAF BGBW141000Z 141019 08030KT 9999 SCT040 BKN100 TEMPO 1019 08042G55KT BKN040.
Cl. 1300 TAF 141300Z 141319 08030KT BGBW 9999 SCT040 BKN100 TEMPO 1319 08042G55KT BKN040.
Cl. 1300 AMD TAF AMD 141600Z 141619 08045G58KT 9999 BKN120.

METAR Weather Observations were made at intervals of one hour broadcast from BGBW.

METAR, released from BGBW, 14 April 2008, contained the following wind information:
Cl. 0750 08029KT.
Cl. 0850 08026KT.
Cl. 0950 07039G49KT .
Cl. 1050 08029G42KT .
Cl. 1350 08041G54KT .
Weaver had sent an email to the owner of the ferry company that he had contracted to do the work for before the accident:

From: rob weaver <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Subject: CYYR direct BGGH
To: [email protected]


Peter,

The Seneca is burning about 20US gallons per hour at 13,000ft with the engines leaned, it takes about 20gallons to get upto 13,000ft from engine start, taxi and climb.

I was hoping to be in Iceland later today, please see the below weather report and the winds, this was unexpected to be as bad as this, and sadly as you know its not cheap being grounded in Goose, I hope to be airborne again tomorrow. (Note Greenland is closed Sunday so I want to get to Iceland tommorow to avoid further costs to you/your client)

Routing will now be CYYR Direct BGGH to save time and money for both of us. (700nm in distance)

I have net access at the overpriced hotel so please feel free to drop me a e-mail back, note that I have no cell phone signal.

The trip up yesterday was more or less IFR all the way shortly after leaving KLEW with the ceilings at 14,000ft down to about 5,000ft with moderate icing and turbulence, but nothing of a problem.

Hope to hear from you later,

Rob
Weavers flight plan was filed to BGBW NOT BGGH before the crash.

To help I also quote below a little from the official transcript of the communications as the Search and Rescue operation happened:

1431 N344SE declaring miminum fuel to CYQX – Requesting priority approach to BGBW.

1440 (RQS-N344SE-CYYR-BGBW) - Data not available.


1443 (POS-N344SE-59N050W/1426 DES F070 BGBW/1605-
RLA VIA BAW217)



1448 (POS-BAW217-ADZ THAT N344SE HAS BGBW WX INFO AND BGSF FREQ 121.3)


1451 SPL RECEIVED FROM CZQXZQZX:
(SPL-N344SE-CYYR-BGBW
-E/0530 P/002 R/E S/PM J/LV

D/01 006 C/YELLOW
A/WHITE BLUE
C/WEAVER OPR/SKY FERRY)


1453 N344SE on BGGL frequency 121.300 MHz. Advices fuel remaining 1:21 hours, estimates BGBW in 1:15 hours.


1457 N344SE request QNH in in.hg. Delivered A29.56.


1506 N344SE: 29 gallons of fuel left.


1511 N344SE: Position 59 51,73N 048 39,91W – 122.6 NM from BGBW.


1515 N344SE: Request rescue helo. RCC advices that rescue helicopter is preparing for departure.


1518 N344SE: Groundspeed down to 82 kts, descending to 3.000 ft.


1520 N344SE: Have land in sight, groundspeed 76 kts, maintaining 4.600 ft for now.


1523 N344SE at position 60 03,11N 048 12,39W.


1530 N344SE at position 60 09,70N 047 56,63W.


1534 Rescue Helicopter GRL5200 (OYHIA) with doctor onboard airborne from BGJH.


1535 RCC request N344SE to activate ELT if possible. ELT is manually activated by pilot.


1536 N344SE at position 60 17,05N 047 39,10W.


1537 RCC relay position at time 1536 to rescue helicopter OYHIA.


1539 RCC advices N344SE of the departure and routing of OYHIA.


SAR Case Name/No: N344SE


Type: PA34 Callsign: N344SEReg: N344SE Pob:2


Dato: 14 APR 08Emergency Phase: ALERFa/DETRESFANature of Distress:Fuel starvation


TID ( UTC) ACTION:


1541 RCC relayed details on N344SE to OYHIA.


1546 N344SE two fiords in sight. Pilot requests advice on which fiord to choose. OYHIA advices that Bredefjord will be the best routing in the prevailing wind conditions.


1547 N344SE is 62 NM almost due west of BGBW. OYHIA is 45 NM from BGBW.


1548 N344SE: We might be able to make it to BGBW.


1551 N344SE: Groundspeed increased to 135 kts, just about to enter the fiord. OYHIA is circling overhead Simiutaq at 1.000 ft.


1552 N344SE 52,9 NM from BGBW at 4.600 ft.


1553 N344SE at position 60 40,44N 046 49,49W.


1553 Visual contact between N344SE and OYHIA.


1554 N344SE advices that fuel emergency light is now illuminated.


1555 FIC delivers BGBW altimeter setting 29.50 to N344SE and QNH 999 HPa to OYHIA.


1556 N344SE: It is going to be really close!


1600 N344SE: We have to land in terrain. Position 60 53,24N 046 24,60W.


1603 N344SE declaring MAYDAY – fuel exhausted.


1610 GRL5201: 6 NM and 2 min from LKP.


1611 FIC delivers details on aircraft N344SE to GRL5201.


1612 GRL5201 at position 60 55N 046 12W.


1613 BGNS HIS advices that the aircraft has performed a forced landing on a field 500 metres from BGNS heliport.


1613 Information from BGNS relayed to GRL5201 and OYHIA.


1615 OYHIA has the aircraft in sight.


1617 GRL5201 arriving at site. Advices that crew from N344SE are okay.


1620 EKCH SUPV advised.

Last edited by goldeneaglepilot; 14th May 2012 at 17:44.
goldeneaglepilot is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 07:09
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
interesting thread !

beyond fulltime on a cheyenne III since 4 years i freelance on a seneca for a small german company and from the informations givene here something is odd.

first- our flightplanner gives for CYYR-BGBW a distance of 785NM .

the longest flight i ever managed nonstop with the seneca was about 650 NM and 4:30hours to land with not more than 45min fuel on board. 785NM with headwinds has to go wrong even with correct leaning- the result is no suprize .

the seneca burns ~20gal per engine/h in climb and you can squeeze her down to about 10-11 gallons/engine in cruise leaned. ( turbocharged continental TSIO360 ) trying to lean further gives no result since the manifold pressure will start to fall and so also the speed- so you will not get out more range out of her doing this . the TAS with 10-11 gal/eng will be in FL100-110 about 160kt TAS .

roberts email about cruise fuel flow is roughly realistic,but to get to 13000feet she will burn a little more than he claims. and the distance is simply to far for a seneca - since she will do not make more than 160 knots true when leaned down to 10gal/eng.

the next thing is : at 1506 he reports 29gal on board ( being in cruise) and at 1603 the engines stop. so in an hour he burned 14.5gal/engine which is not even leaned to the limit.

and he seemed to start a shallow descend and finally had to level off at low altitudes with miles still to go.

the TSIO continentals have an altitude compensating fuel injection system which increases fuel flow with lower altitude by itself without you touching the condition lever. simultany the seneca has a significant tendency to drop in TAS at low altitudes- so he should stay high as long as possible .

the last thing : making 160 TAS results in nearly 5 hours with no wind , so at altitude he did not even had a hard headwind.

it seems that nobody had experience on a seneca and they simply made a mistake what you can expect from this plane and what not.

best regards !
aerobat77 is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 09:59
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
it's worth bearing in mind that in terms of 'insurance fraud' defined as a false representation made in order to obtain benefit or gain, weaver made false representation for benefit/gain for this piece of business, he was also the named insured pilot in command, yet has publicly denied being PIC of the aircraft.

he also claimed a thrown cylinder as the cause, despite no post incident damage being found.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 16:50
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GEP

The Seneca Five is a very different animal to its earlier brothers. The Engines are turbocharged, intercooled and wastegated.
The main differences are the engines can fly max continuous rather than limited.
Climb rate can be 1500 fpm initially but even at 18K 800-900 fpm is common!
We did a test at Anglo American for a customer who was unsure whether to go for a pressurised Piper Mirage or the Seneca Five and in the climbing stakes the five beat the Mirage up to 20K.
I ended up being his pilot on a brand new Seneca five for 5 years which included 50 trips in one year to west Ireland single pilot in summer and winter and at night hence his choice of the twin.

TAS at 20K is in excess of 200 kts while down at 10K around the 170 Kt mark.
But obviously at those heights your looking at using the plumbed in oxygen.
29 ins man and 2400rpm equated to 75% to 80% pwr and 26 USG per hour with around 170 KTS TAS.
The tanks hold 123 USG so at those settings your good for around 650 NM with climb considered and an hour reserve.
Power back and you can look at 20 to 22 USG and 150 kts TAS so with climb increasing range to around 720 nm.
Add in a headwind and its not rocket science.
Add in shoddy leaning?
For me its a fly for 4 hrs and land aeroplane

A wing and a prayer?

I feel sorry for the owner as even with a good repair its still an aircraft with an accident History.
With so many on the market who will buy one with an accident history unless you give it away?

Pace

Last edited by Pace; 15th May 2012 at 18:05.
Pace is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 17:05
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looks like the flight was doomed from the start, why the heck did this reputable, experienced ferry company that subcontracted to Weaver not pick up any of the red flags here???

13,0000 hour guy as pax.
No way that 750nM was possible
Different guy on insurance papers after the crash.


I go back to my original post from way back here in the thread, the ferry company that did the subcontracting were either dumber then a box of rocks, complacent or worse.


This could have so easily been avoided had the orignial ferry company done 1 minute worth of work instead of getting excited over making a cut without lifting a finger.
cldrvr is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 19:28
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
reputable, experienced ferry company that subcontracted to Weaver not pick up any of the red flags here
By his own admission, not so experienced - Weaver fooled them.

I do agree, it would appear that Weaver did do the flight fraudulantly - he lied to obtain the business, due to his lies it cost both the insurers, the company that sub contracted the work to him and the owner a lot of money.
goldeneaglepilot is offline  
Old 15th May 2012, 20:12
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 682
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
why the heck did this reputable, experienced ferry company that subcontracted to Weaver not pick up any of the red flags here???
Maybe not such an experienced, reputable ferry company himself. His website also makes claims that reality can not back up

WE FERRY & DELIVER AIRCRAFT WORLDWIDE and all of our ferry pilots have a minimum of 1000 hours cross country Ferry / Delivery experience. NO TIME BUILDERS ! All of our pilots have a 100% accident & damage free history
One can only assume that this industry is full of such Weaver-alikes.
Dan Dare is online now  
Old 16th May 2012, 05:07
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Posts: 4,273
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
From earlier posts, even the insurance company missed something. FAA instrument ratings don't - on the face of it - state multi or single. It just says 'Instrument rating'. **Elsewhere** on the licence is where the limitations are specified. A quick glance can have you thinking that the pilot isn't limited to SE only.
Tinstaafl is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 05:17
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dan Dare

I do not think that the Ferry industry is unique in making over bloated claims and not broadcasting their disasters.
I am surprised that having given the work to a third party that they did not ask for and see copies of licences, medicals proof of hours etc and to have got approval from the insurance company for specific pilot/s.
They both look like amateur cowboy outfits.
The few ferries I have been involved in have been in expensive machinery and I have had to supply proof of all my licences and hours.
Those were then kept on record.

Pace

Last edited by Pace; 16th May 2012 at 05:22.
Pace is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 06:29
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pace,

it kind of comes across that you are apportioning the responsibility of the Seneca V fuel exhaustion not to Weaver, but to the ferry company that assigned the work to weaver.

they have already put their hands up and admitted that they dropped the ball and took weaver's representations at 'face value'.

fair enough, they admitted they were not as stringent as they could have been and have since adjusted their internal processes.

notwithstanding, that does not exempt weaver, he willingly and knowingly presented that he had the qualifications to undertake the work with the complicit knowledge that he was not capable of doing so.

further, as the named insured PIC he was responsible for fuel planning.

by his complicit actions to gain work that he knew he was not in the position to undertake, he, by presentation of his 'credentials' and acceptance of the work sought personal gain by misrepresenting his capabilities.

further, as PIC he was responsible for the fuel management, which he mis-managed and left someone's aircraft with a big bill and a damage history affecting its asset value.

weaver publicly denied he was PIC on the aircraft, despite being the only named insured PIC, so there alone he put the aircraft into a situation outside of the insurance policy, he also publicly claimed that the cause of the incident was due to a thrown cylinder [sic].

please don't try to paint weaver as an innocent party, he is a liar and fraud and is nothing more than an accident looking for somewhere to happen who frankly doesn't care who may kill, the damage he causes, who pays for it, nor does he care for the regulations that govern aircraft operations and the privileges of a license.

Last edited by stuckgear; 16th May 2012 at 06:36.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 07:35
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's 6 and two threes.

The elephant in the room is the damning email from weaver trying to mitigate any, further costs to the contracting ferry company to gain favour and probably more work.

To save time and money for both of us..
This is a classic case of pressonitus, in this case trying to impress

You have an inexperienced CPL doing an Atlantic crossing, he shouldn't have been put there and he shouldn't have allowed himself to be there.

And don't be suggesting Pace is sticking up for Weaver, you'll be getting GEP all hot under the collar and that's not how I read it.

Errors of judgment in all cases, if the aircraft had belonged to the contracting company I'm guessing they would have looked at him a little more closely....
G-SPOTs Lost is offline  
Old 16th May 2012, 09:00
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Stuck gear
How on earth can you by any shape of imagination read my posts as supportive to Weaver ?
This was total incompetence flown by a fool !

Pace
Pace is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.