Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

The NAS, facts and fantasies

Old 17th Oct 2003, 07:49
  #181 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
G demo had the saabs from sydney fly north to the CG airspace and descend then track back south into the Northern Rives MBZ to avoid the last rediculous airspace review. I wonder if similar will occur. Imagine a QFA 767 maintaining F190 till 45 nm north of sydney to avoid E and then being frowned on for not making the STAR requirements.

I find it disturbing that when the VFR climb descent , PU an VT are forced upon all E airspace users if someone else decides to use them. The reply is usually ' well by using E you agree to these procedures'. I would think that if Qantas and Virgin did not agree, they should be quite within their rights to maintain levels above the airspace until they reach the IFR protection that they PAY for.

tobzalp is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2003, 08:34
  #182 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
Gaunty I don't know the individuals on the NASIG from Adam, so this is not aimed at anyone in particular, but you and I have been in this industry well long enough to know it holds more than it's fair share of highly 'qualified' yes men/idiots. I remain to be convinced that NAS is not a political process stemming from DS feeding Anderson a load of BS about saving vast amounts of money to get 'his' airspace reform up...yet again.

Any comparison with USNAS, from a safety mitigation pov, is disengenuous...we are NOT getting USNAS. While the US has 85% radar coverage to our minute coverage it will always remain a poor, retarded cousin.

If ignoring this FACT, and the early 70s FAA study that found maximum inclusion of all traffic to be the only way to safer skies, not to mention ATSBs reservation on See and Avoid, is not ignoring the inconveniant then I don't know what is!!

Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2003, 09:33
  #183 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Scenario from the Sim

Yesterday whilst 'learning' the new airspace, I already know the procedures...I was faced with this scenario, it was damn ugly.

A B744 was 2 miles in front of a PA31 1000 feet above, I told him to expect furhter descent in 1 minute, due to opening speed; PA31 was in cloud.

B744 says were clear of cloud now request VFR descent through the PA31.

Sure, go for it. Descend VFR to 8000 feet. traffic is... PA31 traffic is...

Now the rules say that the B747 is responsible for wake turbulance whilst doing this procedure...

What about the PA31, who would have got flipped on his lid...?

I don't have to apply wake sep, or even issue a warning...

This has nobs on it. My only solice is that a B744 probably won't ever do this but they might.

Bottle of Rum
SM4 Pirate is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2003, 10:45
  #184 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Awaiting the lifting of travel restrictions out of Oz so I can return to Japan for another stint of flying the Glider Tug, eating great Japanese food and, of course, continuing the never ending search for that bad bottle of Red
Age: 65
Posts: 2,571
AirNoServicesAustralia; By the time the bottle is empty the only thing smashed will be me!
My comment stems from the fact that there has been so much information/opinion/comment on this subject that I am somewhat bewildered!
However, the previous post by Chuckles whom is a Pilot I deeply respect, having known him from my time in PNG puts the whole thing into perspective.
If he has his doubts about the proposed changes then so do I!

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
Pinky the pilot is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2003, 19:45
  #185 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,926
SM4 Pirate,

It's a pity that Dick and his mates aren't introducing ICAO airspace, because an ICAO VMC Climb (or Descent) requires the approval of the other aircraft. So the PA31 would have had the right of veto. And interestingly, ICAO only permits VMC Climbs and Decsent at or below 10,000ft. So much for international standardisation.

I'm a fan of Mikes (well, I've been to lots of his presentations). Speaking from experience, all I'll say is, don't believe anything he said in the Oz.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2003, 09:33
  #186 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 21
Unhappy Max 250IAS in Class E

OK (edit to fix the bullsh!t) It's 250 BLW100 - had you thinking though!


Last edited by DickyBaby; 18th Oct 2003 at 10:40.
DickyBaby is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2003, 12:06
  #187 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 25
Chimbu - this goes further than that. This goes to a matter of guarantee of support or I will vie for a seat in your eletorate - with a high probability of success! Sickeningly true I suspect however such is democracy - or extortion! Or so the rumour goes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
KAPTAIN KREMIN is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2003, 16:30
  #188 (permalink)  
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Airspace Occurrences in MBZ and CTA

As well as Class E, radar and USNAS, there is the CTAF/MBZ argument. This has been put off for a few months while the rest of Class 2b gets pushed forward. However it's got a fundamental flaw in it which may have got a few people on the wrong foot as far as NAS goes.

I read the ATSB 2003 draft discussion paper on Airspace-Related Occurrences Involving Regular Public Transport and Charter Aircraft within Mandatory Broadcast Zones. I came away thinking that these CTAFs weren't too bad, and wondering what the fuss was about MBZs/CTAFs. Just maybe all this opposition to NAS was a storm in the teacup and driven by self-interest . . blah . . blah . blah.

I had inferred from the draft Discussion Paper (Appendix C) that the MBZs are LESS SAFE than CTAFs for RPT aircraft. It was only later that the error in statistics was pointed out to me. The text of the ATSB Discussion Paper carried various appropriate warnings as to the limitations of the approach used, but the pictures allowed the Discussion Paper to become misleading.

After I saw the error, I got stuck into some analysis about the relative safety of MBZs and CTAFs (that must make Walley2 happy – facts and figures at last – and they are even Australian facts and figures).

I found that the opposite is true when the statistics are done properly, and CTAFs may be up to twice as risky as MBZs. It is a significant concern because it misled me and seems to have misled others involved with airspace reform.

How is this so, I hear you ask? I re-analysed the raw ATSB occurrence data over the last 8 years to take into account the actual number of movements in MBZs and CTAFs. Started with data on actual RPT movements in WA into MBZs and into CTAFs from current timetables, and used this as a first approximation to estimate relative rates of airspace-related occurrences and airmisses. Then I had Dr Clark [another PhD] extend the analysis to cover all of Australia using AVSTAT data. Both of us found CTAFs more risky than MBZs.

The executive summary of Dr Clark's report is below, and the full report is available upon request to serious scholars – e-mail me – BIK needn't bother – give me a postal address because it's too big to e-mail. It has also been forwarded to ATSB as part of the requested commentary on their Discussion Paper. They have since replied "in order to remove possible confusion from around this issue, the Bureau has removed the Appendix from the Discussion Paper".

The objective of this analysis is to ascertain if there is any statistical difference in the rate of both airspace-related occurrences and airmisses between Common Traffic Advisory Frequency areas (CTAFs) and Mandatory Broadcast Zones (MBZs). The analysis is limited to Regular Public Traffic (RPT) aircraft.

The results of the analysis show that there is a significantly higher rate of both airspace-related occurrences and airmisses in CTAFs than in MBZs relative to the number of RPT movements.

Over the eight-year period 1994 to 2001, there was an average rate of 19.1 airspace-related occurrences per 100,000 RPT movements for CTAFs compared to 13.5 for MBZs. Similarly for airmisses the average rates for CTAFs and MBZs respectively were 8.4 and 4.8 incidents a year per 100,000 RPT movements.

These differences are significant at the 1 % level. In other words, there is only a one per cent chance that such a result is due to chance. Such a level of significance indicates there are significantly more incidents at CTAFs than at MBZs relative to the number of RPT aircraft movements. The level of airmisses at CTAFs, at an average rate of 8.4 incidents per year per 100,000 RPT aircraft movements, is 75% greater than for MBZs. Similarly, level of airspace-related occurrences in CTAFs, at 19.1 incidents per 100,000 RPT movements, is over 40% greater than for MBZs.

This significantly higher rate of incidents in CTAFs compared to MBZs is exacerbated by two facts. First, aerodromes operated as CTAFs have less RPT movements than aerodromes operated as MBZs. The median level of RPT movements at CTAF aerodromes is 2047 movements per year compared to 3741 movements per year at MBZ aerodromes. Thus on average aerodromes operating as CTAFs have only 55% of the RPT movements of aerodromes operating as MBZs (55% obtained from 2047 divided by 3741).

Secondly, across Australia, CTAFs carry much less traffic than MBZs. In detail, the average yearly volume of RPT movements in CTAFs (4.8% of total RPT movements) is much lower than the volume of RPT movements in MBZs (21.2% of total RPT movements). Thus despite the fact there are less RPT movements per aerodrome in CTAFs compared to MBZs, and despite the much lower yearly volume of RPT movements in CTAFs compared to MBZs, there is still a significantly higher incident rate in CTAFs.
OverRun is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2003, 17:49
  #189 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,839
There would be other factors that wouldn't be raw stats as well ie; I would postulate that the incident rate wouldn't be a straight line, it would be exponential. As the movement rate increases, you are going to get a non-constant increase in incidents. Also, what would be the average experience level of a pilot in an MBZ compared to a CTAF?

Either way, never let facts get in the way of a good NAS!
ferris is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2003, 09:15
  #190 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
lies, damn lies and statistics


There isn't enough detail in the 'analysis' posted here to determine if the initial assumptions are flawed. i.e. Which CTAFs vs which MBZs. What defines an 'incident'. What are the movement statistics, ie RPT vs Training, vs ultralight.

One of course would expect more 'incidents' during training, so these need to be carefully filtered.


Last edited by snarek; 20th Oct 2003 at 13:32.
snarek is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2003, 09:49
  #191 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Ho hum.

Seriously I am amazed that a person on a board of an allegedly large and influential organisation would behave in public in the manner that you do snarek. I myself am allowed to because i am one of the stupid job saving Air Traffic controllers that you and your Mob seem to think will be out of a job from all this. I myself am making money from it as I get 8% every time I have to train another of my workmates in this bizzo and as an aside am enjoying a line with no night shifts or late finishes to prepare the exercises. All of our internal safety case and Hazard log has been completed and there is not 1 I repeat not 1 airtraffic control job going.

You wonder why people attack AOPA. With idiots like yourself in open view of the greater industry, I am amazed that you have not self destructed from within (well the last board voted to have the recent election null and void and the new group disbanded though i guess..... That would incluse your little bum wouldn't it? Sounds very amateurish).

You strike me as one of the poor little unfortunate kids who was picked on at school. Previously in this thread (the merged ones) you have given us the "well I am taking my bat and ball and going home then if you are going to be like that" speech and now you tell us of this HOT hook up that will be answering questions. I can see your questions now "How can I get my ribena stain out of my Terry Towling hat because under NAS all the other pilots will see it as I fly past the Seeing and Avoiding?" and, "My flying jacket has pen holders for 4 pens on each shoulder. Under NAS, will I need a fifth?" and, "Hi, I fly a plane and because I am the only one in it I wear 4 bars on my shoulder, will i be allowed under NAS to wear 8 because I will be directly responsible for the lives of every other aircraft I fly through 'See and Avoid Stylez'?"

We are getting to business time with this lark. Please for the good of the future system, what ever it becomes, have a lie down and a Bex and I'll come get you when the adults are finished.



p.s. Here is a question then

What frequencies and where will a PJE aircraft call and broadcast on when dropping from F115 at Elderslie (NSW west of Maitland).
tobzalp is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2003, 10:51
  #192 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429

Last edited by snarek; 20th Oct 2003 at 13:35.
snarek is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2003, 12:45
  #193 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
see paragraph 3 line 2.

I know the answer, my 2 bob says the NASIG do not.

p.s. nice edit. Very typical. Bat, ball, home.

Last edited by tobzalp; 20th Oct 2003 at 21:37.
tobzalp is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2003, 19:55
  #194 (permalink)  
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
I too hate "lies, damn lies and statistics", but I didn't want to overload the original post with too much text.

As to details on the method - I used the same basic approach as ATSB. I was focusing on RPTs, because that is where the greatest concern lies. Clark and I looked at relative rates of airspace-related occurrences and airmisses for RPT aircraft in CTAFs and MBZs. The analysis was "all CTAFs in Australia that have had RPT movements in the last 8 years" and "all MBZs that have had RPT movements in the last 8 years". The lot. No carefully 'chosen sites'. No selective memories. We got the ATSB recorded airspace-related occurrence and airmiss data off their database (and well done to ATSB for maintaining this database).

Putting it simply, there are more RPT movements in MBZs than CTAFs in Australia, because MBZs tend to be used at busier airports and at many airports carrying RPT traffic (and ATSB mentioned this as well in their report). This was a concern to me when I first woke up to the issue because if an MBZ is busier than a CTAF, then it could easily have more airspace-related occurrences (or airmisses) without being more risky.

In practice, we found that almost all the RPT traffic in and out of aerodromes happens in MBZs. If there were 104 RPT airmisses in 8 years at MBZs (ATSB report Table 3) despite having lots of RPT traffic, and 41 RPT airmisses in CTAFs even though there was little RPT traffic, we suspected and then proved that it was the CTAFs which were more risky.

Finally, we are not "of NAS" nor salaried line pilots (despite various ATPL and CPL and PPL licences) nor management nor ATC nor AOPA nor members of any "large and influential" organisation. Neither for nor against. We've got no vested interest, and only got into this issue because I thought that something basic had been messed up and as a result people were taking decisions based on erroneous assumptions that could err to danger. I still worry about it.
OverRun is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2003, 20:20
  #195 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
snarek, bik et al

I am at the point now where I feel that if you knobs want to go and kill yourselves, fill your boots. I just feel sorry for the families of the unfortunate passengers, and the ATC who no doubt will get blamed because he was the only one "involved" who survived. Personally, next time I travel it will be to a capital city airport in a jet, or by bus. Good luck
Hempy is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2003, 20:48
  #196 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139,00.html

Is this responsible behaviour? Generating fear in the flying public with simplistic comparisons like "dodgem-car track"?

AIR traffic controllers have warned that new airspace maps to be issued in Tasmania today are missing vital radio frequency information pilots need to avoid mid-air collisions.

The Australian Air Traffic Control Association, Civil Air, says Tasmanian regional airspace, including that over Hobart, will be reduced to a "dodgem-car track" with aircraft using "see and avoid" procedures.

Civil Air president Ted Lang warned of "total confusion" over radio frequency boundaries with any aircraft able to fly across or directly at descending international and domestic traffic paths.'

He said the chaos would also affect Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, one of the world's busiest air corridors.

Despite assurances by Airservices Australia that the changes would be introduced safely, Mr Lang said the proposed system was an embarrassing and dangerous farce.

"Pilots will have no idea which frequencies apply to the boundaries of their airspace," he said.

"An aircraft on one frequency will never hear collision warnings of another aircraft on a different frequency.

"It is total guesswork and an undeniable threat to safety."

Mr Lang said despite Civil Air's criticism of the new air control systems, Federal Transport Minister John Anderson had refused to comment and had avoided meeting commercial pilots or controllers on the issue.

He said today's release of the maps was a lead-up to a relaxation of airspace rules to be introduced next month.

The National Airspace System (NAS) would allow light aircraft to operate below 3000 metres without radio or radar contact or notifying air traffic controllers.

The Federal Opposition called on Mr Anderson to delay releasing the new maps until the concerns were addressed.

Transport spokesman Martin Ferguson said: "This is the latest in a long line of serious concerns expressed about the NAS by professional pilots, air traffic controllers and airport owners that are being ignored by the Airspace Reform Group."

Airservices Australia, which manages civil air traffic, was unavailable for comment last night.
ugly is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2003, 21:22
  #197 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
The Latest 2 press releases...

Second pilot map missing all frequencies

All vital air traffic control airspace frequency information has been deleted from a second map issued to the bulk of Australia’s 30,000 pilots from today.

The Visual Navigation Chart, which is used by pilots flying in daylight, is missing all frequencies, excluding automatic weather information, across Australia.

Pilots crossing flight paths or in unfamiliar airspace will not know how to contact air traffic control or other aircraft. They will be unable to hear collision warnings of commercial aircraft who will be operating under “see and avoid” conditions.

Civil Air President Ted Lang said: “Without question this reinforces our stand that the new rules will allow any aircraft to fly across, or directly at, descending international and domestic traffic paths without talking to air traffic control. They won’t be able to contact us – or other aircraft – anyway.”

“We thought missing frequency boundaries on ERC (En-route chart low) maps was shocking, having no frequencies at all is beyond comprehension.

“It is as if air traffic control in Australia no longer exists. It has vanished overnight and light aircraft pilots are free to roam as they please. It will be anarchy in the airspace.”

“Normally visual flight rules (VFR) pilots – the majority of amateur flyers – have charts that include frequencies. All this vital information is missing despite assurances they would remain on the maps,” Mr Lang said.

This comes as the professional aviation industry reels from today’s decision by Airservices Australia and CASA to sign-off on the new air space system from 27 November.

Mr Lang said Transport Minister John Anderson had now signed the fatal blow for airspace safety in Australia.


Minister’s last chance to stop airspace chaos

Transport Minister John Anderson must today order a meeting of aviation bureaucrats in Canberra to pull the plug on the discredited and dangerous Australian airspace plan.

He must freeze the distribution of faulty airspace maps set to go to 30,000 pilots from this afternoon.

The Canberra meeting involves the heads of Airservices Australia and CASA to sign-off on the new airspace rules.

Civil Air President Ted Lang said the past 24 hours of alarm across Australia and increasing worldwide condemnation was a clear indication that the Minister must now finally take charge and dump the botched plan.

“Unless the Minister picks up the phone and orders a halt to the implementation frenzy, 30,000 pilots across Australia will be issued with maps that industry experts across the world say are a blueprint for disaster,” Mr Lang said.

“If he refuses, there will be chaos with holes in airspace safety big enough to drive a jumbo-jet through.”

“The Minister is at the point of no return. He must stop these changes before it is too late. Australia deserves the safest airways system in the world and these changes will reduce safety without any verifiable justification.”

Mr Lang said any suggestion opposition to the new airspace was an industrial issue was rubbish. “This is about safety. The new rules don’t threaten jobs. They threaten everyone who flies in Australia.”

Mr Lang said the Minister had repeatedly refused to meet.

“We can spell out the verifiable dangers in just a few minutes, however the safety of Australia’s airspace isn’t on the Minister’s radar,” he said.

Wasn't a huge fan of Ted Lang after the last certified agreement was put to the vote when it didn't meet most of the minimum requirements we had set out when we went out on strike, but I have to say that he has shown leadership and backbone on this issue and should be commended for it, unlike Mr Anderson, who has shown neither, and is just looking after his mates.

I know there will be the usual suspects here who want to fly for free and free of any restrictions, and see no problems with NAS for their day to day flying who will label Tad Langs press releases as scare mongering etc etc. but there are a lot of people paying for a service that they expect keeps them safe doing their daily work, and under the new system they will no longer get this protection.
AirNoServicesAustralia is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2003, 01:55
  #198 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156


QF is in negotiations re Aus-NZ thefore the ruling from on high is stay out of the NAS debate, though I believe they are very surprised and unhappy with lack of frequencies boundaries on Charts.

DJ in their expansion plans need Gov approvals and are also vulnerable to pressure.

NAS IG direct from CEO's mouth is an Implimentation group and does not have the staff or expertise to analysis the proposed changes.

CASA well Mick was eased out, therefore, the heat shield is down and middle management exposed to direct pressure from Ministerial Advisers who are without any aviation experience yet are calling the shots and instructing the preparation of regs etc before tight deadlines.

Already one more junoir CASA staff has been told to butt out

Even the AAA had one of its airport advisers removed as the airport he worked for had major matters before the fed gov.

Hopefully even NAS supporters will condemn this muzzling of major stakeholders and lack of time for discussion analysis and review.


BIK if you had 5 near misses in an a/p in 5 weeks what would you do. We did not do a "chicken little" we analysied the incidents as did CASA and decided on 30nm MBZ and CA/GRS cost equivalent to $1.35 per pax.
WALLEY2 is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2003, 04:54
  #199 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Personally, next time I travel it will be to a capital city airport in a jet, or by bus. Good luck
Unfortunately, the point is that your jet (be it a DJ B738, a Cathay B744 or whatever) will, on descent into Sydney, Hobart etc., be flying through Class E airspace. This will mean that there will be unidientified, unknown VFR aircraft, not on the ATC frequency, which will conflict with your jet.

Currently, the same jet would be in Class C airspace, in which it is positively separated from ALL traffic.

From November 27, your RPT flight will be significantly less safe, and the only thing standing between it and a mid-air collision will be BIK's "BS" Theory or 'see and avoid'.

For the heavy metal drivers out there, consider this:

On descent at 300KT IAS (GS 400KT+) with a ROD of 2000 fpm, do you really believe that your forward and downward visibility, combined with visual acuity and the time required to:[list=a][*]See the traffic[*]Identify the traffic as a collision risk[*]Assess the safest course of action[*]React, without placing your aircraft into conflict with other aircraft[/list=a] is relaible enough as the only method of keeping you alive?

Personally, I see nothing wrong with keeping you and your passengers alive in the way we do right now: full separation, with all traffic known to the controller.

A question for the NAS proponents who claim that VFR aircraft have been unduly delayed and penalised by the current sytem: "How many times has a controller's response of 'remain outside control area' led to an actual delay in your flight?" I have used this phrase on many occasions as a 'paper stop', while a clearance and separation was formulated. I cannot remember a single occasion on which a VFR aircraft has been required to hold outside CTA or alter its track in any way. In all cases, a clearance has been issued prior to the CTA boundary.

By the same token, I have frequently issued IFR aircraft with 'clearance limits' as a means of assuring separation. Never has one of these aircraft been required to hold at the clearance limit. On every occasion, an onwards clerance has been issued in good time, once the conflict has been resolved.

Citing the (frequent?)use of the phrase 'remain outside control area' as evidence of delays is disingenuous. a simpler solotion would be to just replace the phrase with something more innocuous, like 'stand by for clearance'.
Four Seven Eleven is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2003, 06:38
  #200 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Four Seven Eleven.

I suppose clearances depend on where you are.

In Cairns, despite VERY heavy traffic loads, I have never been denied a clearance. Clever ways are used to 'feed' me in and if I am flexible (like steep turns onto base for 12) then I am rarely delayed either.

However in Canberra, where there is often SFA traffic, I have been told 'remain OCTA' and then got grumpied at cos I did 'remain OCTA' by descending and popping up later on tower.

From that same approach, a friend who was having a horrendous day in the turbulence from westerlies was grumpied at for descending (getting blown down in sink) below C and then grumpied at again for popping up again (like biggest mobs of lift).

So, like the John and Martha show said, it's a culture thing

snarek is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.