Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?

Old 31st Oct 2012, 08:03
  #461 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
LB# 519 - Kharon; you are assuming she is talking to anyone
Bloody good point; I can think of a couple or three where the AFAP have advised a crew member to stay 'stumb'. But Cream Puff can probably best advise (or one of the legal eagles) how long can that last?, if everyone gets determined....Hell of a system where there needs to be advised silence lest we incriminate ourselves. The burden of proof etc.

There seems to be some deep, important issues in this one case alone and it looks as though it's not the stroll in the park envisioned by 'the safety authorities'.
Kharon is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2012, 06:24
  #462 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Poll results

G'day and thank you to participants from Belgium, China, Indonesia, Ireland, New Zealand, Qatar and the UAE.

0530 UTC results.

Q1) 92.7% Yes – 2.0% - Option – 5.3% No.

Q2) 96.7% Yes – 0.7% -Option- 2.6% No.

Q3) 77.5% Yes – 13.9% -Option – 8.6% No.

Q4) 74.3% Yes – 15.8-% Option – 9.9% No.

Q5) 83.6% Yes – 3.3% -Option – 13.2% No.

Tomorrow is the last day of this poll, if you wish to join in.

We have isolated some fairly pathetic attempts to 'tweek' the results, we can adjust the data base to isolate those. So final results Friday afternoon 1645 ESST.

P6. (AKA Ping ping).

Last edited by PAIN_NET; 1st Nov 2012 at 06:27.
PAIN_NET is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 00:13
  #463 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Jaba

"Gadrver, if memory serves me correctly you take a line of...was not like that... But refuse to offer a detailed plausible alternative.

Quite happy to be proven wrong, but it needs to be a convincing argument. We are all keen to hear what you know."

Hi Jaba,
A lot of the of the posts here are fairly accurate.....for a change.
It's taken a while but finally some commonsense is being posted here rather that usual drivel posted by malcontents and individuals with a professional axe to grind.
The state of Aviation regulation in this country is 2nd rate and has been from the early 90s.
Unfortunately, in a typical Australian way, most bitch and whine about the situation however do NOTHING to change things, until now.
If you'd been at the RAAA conference in QLD or any other aviation industry meeting over the last 12 months or so, you'd be able to meet with the clowns running the circus, always entertaining in a 'waiting for the train wreck scene" kinda way.
There's more to come on this , be in no doubt.
For the record, Dom may have made a blue however, like all professional aviators, is only as good as the system that he operates in. He and Zoe were let down in a horrific fashion by their employer and by the regulatory authorities. Could of been any one of us given the same situation.
The next few weeks will prove interesting to say the least.
As I alluded to in previous posts, before making slanderous and amateur remarks on a publicly visible social website in regards to your fellow aviators boys and girls, check your facts first and not rely on gossip and half baked theories sprouted by morons out on the FBO tarmac at Sydney or Brisbane (if I had a dollar for everyone I've heard in the last couple of years)...you may come up with egg firmly planted in face!
Maybe there's hope for the existence of PPRuNe D&G as a positive indicator of the professionalism of Australias aviators after all!!
Can live in hope I suppose.
[End of self righteous rant!]

...and Jaba, to answer your query...lots!

GADRIVR is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 02:14
  #464 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
RAAA.

GADvr # 522 -If you'd been at the RAAA conference in QLD or any other aviation industry meeting over the last 12 months or so, you'd be able to meet with the clowns running the circus, always entertaining in a 'waiting for the train wreck scene" kinda way. There's more to come on this , be in no doubt.
Glad you brought up the RAAA conference; very little information coming out of that. I hear some of the speeches made were not as 'diplomatic' as they could be, but rather more robust than is usual. Confirm, deny or take the fifth?
Kharon is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 06:33
  #465 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Poll last day.

The data base has finished doing it's stuff early; the results. Seasonally adjusted:-

1) 92.6% Yes.

2) 96.9% Yes.

3) 91.2% Yes.

4) 87.6% Yes.

5) 82.1% Yes.

Thank you all again.

P4 a.k.a. (Ping ping).
PAIN_NET is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 07:40
  #466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 56
Posts: 864
Would not the 'silence' have been negated by recovery of the CVR and FDR? Be REAL interesting to hear what was on those - oh wait, apparently the cost of recovery (two scuba divers with a screwdriver for twenty minutes) made it unviable.... so a USV was sent down instead.
Jamair is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 08:40
  #467 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Fawcett's Official e-mail!

Remember this bit from the play "Pelgate" Act 5 Scene 4. Setting the scene: This was one of those "GOTCHA" moments where the Heff had been dangling the proverbial pineapple in front of Big Mack's eyes then along came Senator Fawcett who asked this:
Senator FAWCETT: I have got an email here from a fairly senior person within CASA saying: 'Our FOI perforation seems to be evenly split about the need or not to mandatorily divert from an alternate from the last possible diversion if the destination weather falls below the alternate minima. 'It goes on to talk about a range of things to do with that. That is followed up by another email—fairly senior again within CASA—on 20 March 2010, which says: 'I am happy with the path you are taking. My point is and you are addressing it that, as a result of reliance on the AIP, the Aeronautical Information Publication, which has no head of power and contains much that we need to revisit anyway, there is one group of pilots that have one view which leads to a mandatory diversion, and another group with the opposite view. Putting aside the practicalities, both groups believe that they are legally correct'—
and this is talking about FOIs—senior flying people within CASA. 'If we find ourselves in an AAT or a court, we once again could look a bit foolish if we, the regulator, find ourselves in a position where we have to say that there are two conflicting views, one of which has to be wrong, and we have done nothing to rectify that over the years—very untidy.'
What that says to me is that you have written the paragraph here aimed at Mr James which indicates that this body of knowledge and training should enable him to make the right decision in every circumstance, putting aside the fact of fuel planning and all the rest of it—and I understand that. The fact is, within CASA, 50 per cent of your FOIs disagreed with the other 50 per cent over what the legal interpretation of that was.
And here's what the Senator was referring to...by the way it's official everyone at Fort Fumble is 'Official', oh almost forgot and the plebs are 'Officers'.




In regards to 'looking a bit foolish' in the AAT or court I'd have to say it wouldn't be the first time but they still manage to bamboozle the Judiciary with pony pooh and witch doctory!



Quite obviously the 'loop' didn't extend to Big Mack's pa console...Q/ So which little piggy left the muddy trotter prints all over the director's foyer and pa's console??
Sarcs is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 09:56
  #468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,879
GADRIVR

Almost 12 months to the day, post 14 on page one I think you are referring.

You have got to be kidding me.

- He departed underfuelled - refer Jamairs post, and regardless of whether or not there was an exemption, he still did not carry prudent fuel. TRUE IT SEEMS
- He could have diverted to New Cal after he received WX advising that he was now below the alternate minima. Had he been departing that point in space with that WX it would have required an alternate or suitable holding fuel. He had neither the fuel nor the brains to divert. TRUE
- He arrived with WX that was even worse still, and knowing he was low on fuel he never declared it or an emergency. TRUE
- He flew several VOR approaches which are not runway aligned by a mile or two from memory and require a circle to land. TRUE
- After a couple of them he tried yet again. TRUE
- He had a F/O that was not endorsed on GPS approaches, yet he was, but they never tried one. The RNAV for RWY 11 IS RUNWAY ALIGNED. TRUE
- He could have had the the FO call the numbers for distance and height to the SNFWM and flown a 3 degree profile watching the Radar Alt which it should have had, and flown the RNAV as a sudo ILS, and landed the thing on the runway. Might have been hard work and scary but should work. TRUE
- Some folk will argue "but that is descending below the MDA why would I be encouraging busting the minima, well he went well below the minima when he crashed it on the water . TRUE

Bloody lucky of the highest order that anyone lived, let alone the patient. Lucky the bloke who spotted them stopped where he did, by rights he had no reason to belive he should have. TRUE

So......poor planning, poor in flight monitoring, poor decission making in the cruise and poor decission making once it all turned to sh!t . TRUE or so it would seem

So show me one area of this guys flight operation where you can honestly cut him some slack? Maybe commercial pressure prior to departure?TRUE If so then he should have diverted in the first instance, and that extra cost would have shoved it right up the ar$e of the company for being so stingy. Of course he did sink a perfectly servicable jet on the bottom of the sea in return.

I too think the ATSB will be getting all manner of requests to distort the facts to minimise the arse covering required for the obvious.VERY TRUE in particular Pel Air and CASA
I am not sure why you are singling me out over Jamair morno Forkie and others, but hey I am vocal so happy to take your wrath too. I have said already, I feel for the guy, he had poor culture from the start, this is PA's fault, he had flown this way many times before and gotten away with it, PA again, CASA had poor oversight and poor compliance by education. He had poor hotel, sleep communications, but at the end of the day as PIC he was the final link in the chain, with knowledge, authority and the brains to stop the holes in the swiss cheese from lining up. Maybe you are Dominic? Probably not, but even if you were, I think most folk would agree that the PIC made a bunch of bad decisions, given a crappy hand that he was dealt, and even still he pushed on. And then failed to make some resourceful decisions like trying other options. Running low on fuel doing VOR's that don't work?

The definition of stupidity is to keep doing what you are doing expecting a different result. A VOR 04 or RNAV on any other would have been straight down the runway not a kilometre misaligned. He could have made a scary but illegal landing, even covered it up, and not had a crash. Maybe the good of this is his crash will affect change.

So as you say, he may have made a blue, and the system he was part of was very much an equal part, I have gone out on a limb and said before if I were to guess the blame portions, 20% CASA, 40% Pelair and 40% PIC. You are quite correct, it was not 100% Dominic, I agree, but he had 100% of the opportunity to stop the BS when he awoke from his hotel room.

Thanks for your rant, I do mean that, I think in a way we are mostly agreeing unless I missed something.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 10:25
  #469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 109
I think most folk would agree that the PIC made a bunch of bad decisions, given a crappy hand that he was dealt, and even still he pushed on. And then failed to make some resourceful decisions like trying other options. Running low on fuel doing VOR's that don't work?

The definition of stupidity is to keep doing what you are doing expecting a different result. A VOR 04 or RNAV on any other would have been straight down the runway not a kilometre misaligned. He could have made a scary but illegal landing, even covered it up, and not had a crash. Maybe the good of this is his crash will affect change.So as you say, he may have made a blue, and the system he was part of was very much an equal part,
I have gone out on a limb and said before if I were to guess the blame portions, 20% CASA, 40% Pelair and 40% PIC. You are quite correct, it was not 100% Dominic, I agree, but he had 100% of the opportunity to stop the BS when he awoke from his hotel room.
Dunno about most folk but I couldn't have put it better myself Jaba (although I did have a go on this thread). I do accept however that the report is defective in a lot of areas but if you apply the substitution test would a different crew have achieved the same result?

Last edited by Lookleft; 2nd Nov 2012 at 10:28.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 10:51
  #470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Jaba,
Just reread my post and realised it seemed aimed at you.... not the intent and when I get in front of a decent keyboard I'll adjust it in an appropriate fashion.
Cheers,
Drivr
GADRIVR is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 11:51
  #471 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 56
Posts: 1,437
Smoking hole, blackhole, a#shole......

Good work SARCS. I have one question however - "Does this mean that the legendary Blackhole, TRIM, does actually work and files can be retrieved?
gobbledock is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 12:15
  #472 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
gobbles there are some real pearlers in this lot if you care to look (hint check the additional information section, it's like a who's who of pony pooh): Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia

By the way check out the insipid submission from Pelair it's almost like their saying..."Phew we dodged a bullet with that one!"
Sarcs is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 22:39
  #473 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Hansard - better than Google?

Jamair# 525 - Would not the 'silence' have been negated by recovery of the CVR and FDR? Be REAL interesting to hear what was on those - oh wait, apparently the cost of recovery (two scuba divers with a screwdriver for twenty minutes) made it unviable.... so a USV was sent down instead.
Hansard pages 65 – 69 inclusive – Cherry picked and my paragraph spacing, edited to my bold..

CHAIR: Mr Dolan, who made the decision not to recover the black box?

Mr Dolan: I did, Senator.

Senator XENOPHON: There is a briefing note on points for consideration in relation to ATSB recovery of aircraft flight recorders for the Westwind aircraft, VH-NGA—and it goes through various things. It talks about an overview of flight crew, recovery options, issues, risks, decision points, the costs and the benefits.

It talks about the ATSB's reputation of being seen as acting seriously when appropriate and fulfilling its share of the commitment associated with the considerable costs of installing and maintaining black boxes. It said 'present indications show a likelihood of strong safety measures in both normal and abnormal flight conditions based on existing data'.

Then it talked about the benefits and costs, risks and ATSB's reputation for being relevant on risks. It says, 'Next year's budget was reduced because of this year's underspend. We cannot assess the accuracy of the pilot's perceptions.' Following the EMT, it advised the approved deployment of the investigation team in Norfolk Island to conduct a search for the aircraft using a ping locator.

They also approved funding of up to $20,000 to recover the recorders and were open to discussions on further expenditure if required. So there clearly was a detailed discussion. The conclusion early on seemed to be to recover the cockpit voice recorder, but it was not recovered. We are all mystified—or I am. I think my colleagues are also mystified as to why we did not recover it.

Mr Dolan: At the initial stages, we understood the aircraft was in comparatively shallow water and that access to the recorders would be reasonably achievable by a diver or other mechanisms without too much difficulty.

That brief was to convince me to make the necessary allocation of resources to retrieve the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder. Upon investigation, it became clear that the depth at which the aircraft was in the water, its location at a remote island, Norfolk Island, and the work health and safety standards applying to diving to those depths meant that there would have been a substantial cost of recovery.

The requirement was effectively that there be a decompression chamber, none of which was available on Norfolk Island, for the full time of the retrieval because of the depth at which the divers would be operating. When we got a reasonable and first approximation assessment of that, in the knowledge that, from our point of view, the key information we had about flight decision making would not have been recorded on the cockpit voice recorder which only had a two-hour time on it—

Senator XENOPHON: So let us not labour the point. That was an earlier assessment and subsequent assessment said that it was going to cost a lot more?

Mr Dolan: Correct.

CHAIR: Even though someone offered to do it for $500.

Senator EDWARDS: Is that right?

CHAIR: Yes.

Senator XENOPHON: But it would not have been on, on health and safety. Chair, to be fair to the ATSB, there is no way—

Mr Dolan: I would be unable to countenance that in terms of my responsibility.

CHAIR: As for your occupational health and safety background I am not allowed to climb up on my bloody bulk tanker, which I have been climbing on for 40 years, to put a hose in the top of it because it is not safe to climb up the side on a ladder on a fuel tank.

Mr Dolan: Falls from heights are a substantial cause of injury—

CHAIR: Yes, mate, but I have been doing it for 50 years and everyone else has been doing it. But there you go. All right and okay and we are grateful for your evidence.
From a little earlier: -

CHAIR: We may go into camera on that. You know I have never sent an email in my life, and it is quite evident every day why you should not.

There is an email here from a senior CASA official to senior CASA officers in which they talk about this matter. They get to you in this email: 'The ATSB are apparently'—this is the division of opinion which we got out of them this morning—'inclined to a mandated solution for a range of in-flight decision-making issues and are likely to press that line. Clearly, you may be heading to a difference of opinion here.' Are you?

Mr Dolan: As I was discussing earlier, we specified what we saw at the early stages of the investigation as a potentially critical issue. We drew it to the attention of CASA, and CASA considered it and responded that, having had regard to what we had drawn to their attention, they preferred an outcome which addressed the issue through training and procedural information rather than a regulatory mandate
.

I notice the NTSB decided in the St Croix ditching that the aircraft had four hours and 35 minutes of fuel available and ran out after four hours 34 minutes. They decided that the last hour of the flight was the 'important' bit. Hmmm.

Last edited by Kharon; 2nd Nov 2012 at 22:55. Reason: Formatting and font should be a universal standard - that's why.
Kharon is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2012, 23:38
  #474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,879
There are plenty of professional salvage divers in this country more than capable of doing that task.

I know two of them, one was best man at our wedding!

I bet there are pro diving guys on Norfolk who could do it for not much more than $500 also.

The senator should just whip out his credit card and make it happen, turn up on Dolans doorstep with them......after having had the NTSB retrieve the data. Can't trust the ATSB not to screw it up!
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2012, 00:21
  #475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 186
I was told the other day that the chief pilot that oversaw this debacle is now with CASA. I nearly fell on the floor. Anyone know if this actually true.
Rudder is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2012, 00:34
  #476 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 2,364
If you are talking about JW, it most certainly is true.
Horatio Leafblower is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2012, 01:52
  #477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 186
CASA never cease to amaze me.

A person who should have set the tone and standards and has demonstrated he cant, I assume is now running around and judging other operators. I suppose you could argue that he at least knows what an operator should not do... what he did!

Why on earth would CASA open themselves to having their own judgement questioned like this.
Rudder is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2012, 02:16
  #478 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Pride and Prejudice.

Anyone read it? – that Mr. Whickham features a lot; I reckon Heffernan has the hots for both Chambers and Whickham. Easily made sacrifices on the CASA chess board, but will that satisfy the blood lust of the "Chair". Blood and fur everywhere I hope.

Hansard page 33 on

CHAIR: The evidence we have received is that the person who did that was not actually qualified to do it. Is that wrong?

Mr McCormick: That the CASA officer was not qualified to investigate? That would be incorrect.

Senator STERLE: That is not what we took, Chair. I think you wanted to take your questions to the chief pilot.

CHAIR: Yes, I will come to the chief pilot. Regarding the man who did the audit at Bankstown, what is his name?

Mr McCormick: There were 16—

CHAIR: But there would have been someone—

Mr McCormick: inspectors put on that audit. The lead was Mr Roger Chambers, who was the acting manager at Bankstown.

CHAIR: What is his role now, at this minute?

Mr McCormick: He is the acting manager of the Sydney office—the combined office of Mascot and Bankstown.

CHAIR: When did he conclude that audit?

Mr McCormick: It is on the actual audit itself. It says 8 January 2009; it should say 8 January 2010.

CHAIR: The commencement date and the finishing date are probably what we are after.

Mr McCormick: It completed on 8 January 2010.

CHAIR: And started?
Mr McCormick: It started on 26 November and ran on site from 26 November 2009 to 15 December 2009.

CHAIR: And when did Mr Wickham come on board CASA?

Senator NASH: Sorry to interrupt, but can you read out those dates again?

Mr McCormick: The audit dates on site were 26 November 2009 to 15 December 2009.

CHAIR: When did graciously Mr Wickham, who was mentioned as having, as chief pilot of Pel-Air, responsibility for some of the things that the CASA audit came up with, actually switch over to CASA? The man at the back of the room is intrigued by this.

Mr McCormick: 28 February 2011.

CHAIR: So how long after?

Mr McCormick: That is two years.

Senator XENOPHON: No, a year. It's a bit over a year.

Mr McCormick: Sorry, a bit over. It was January 2010. He came on board 28 February 2011 and he was quarantined from any activities with Pel-Air for 12 months since his employment

CHAIR: Don't take the bait! Shouldn't he have borne, as the chief pilot, some of the responsibilities for the shortcomings found by the CASA audit and the suitability of these types of aircraft to fly that sort of mission? Surely it has got to get cleared and you have got to get busy, but you cannot just walk away and say, 'I work for CASA now. Shit, I got out of that.'

Mr McCormick: I do not know whether Mr Wickham has walked away. I am saying that what we have here is a case of the chief pilot. I agree the chief pilot is responsible. He is the chief pilot—that is why he has got the title.

Say a chief pilot said, 'Fly from A to B,' and the pilot who was going to do the trip worked out how much fuel he needed and it exceeded the amount of fuel he could fit on the aeroplane—assuming he actually worked out how much fuel he needed rather than guessed it—so he said, 'No, I can't do A to B.' In that situation, every single chief pilot in Australia—and I will say this without even canvassing them—would say, 'Well, then, you have to go via somewhere else and get fuel.'

Senator NASH: Are you saying the chief pilot does not have a responsibility to initially know that information, that the chief pilot does not have a responsibility, which is what the chair is asking, to know the capability of the aircraft in those circumstances?

Senator STERLE: Sure. That makes sense. There is a view with some on the committee that, while some of Pel-Air's operations certainly were not up to the expectations of CASA, Mr Wickham was the chief pilot at the time of the ditching and now he is off, and it looks like he has been congratulated, rewarded or promoted—not within CASA. Who takes ultimate responsibility? It seems to be a buck-passing, which is from the information we have received today.
If any of the PAIN mob are monitoring today, how about use that 'share' thingummy, wuzzit, to put up a Hansard download for the troops; save a lot of copy and paste time. Just give 'em a page number then. I know, knitting, right.

Last edited by Kharon; 3rd Nov 2012 at 02:20. Reason: Not bolded - Lunch is ready - Snags yum yum.
Kharon is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2012, 02:19
  #479 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 606
Rudder asked:

Why on earth would CASA open themselves to having their own judgement questioned like this.
The most logical answer Rudder seems to be that the arrogant clowns who are presently in charge of CASA didn't think that they'd ever be called on to explain what happened.

CASA judgement, or innocent bureaucratic blunder? Whatever, both are oxymorons.
SIUYA is offline  
Old 3rd Nov 2012, 02:33
  #480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Noblesse oblige

This link : Hansard – Norfolk ditching should work.

P7 – a.k.a. T.O.M. (don't ask).

Here's a bit of RAF humour that somehow seems appropriate.

Look at this carefully............it is brilliant, and a true example of British Humour!!
The British government has scrapped the Harrier fleet and on their farewell formation flypast over the houses of Parliament they gave the government a message.
Lean back a bit from your computer monitor and squint. Seriously.. push your chair back a couple of feet. My hats off to lad that was leading this.


Last edited by PAIN_NET; 3rd Nov 2012 at 03:25.
PAIN_NET is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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