Mid - Air @ Caboolture
This is very sad.
I hope the investigation recommends the use of a discrete CTAFrequency. I’ve only flown into YCAB about a dozen times, but it’s difficult to build a situational awareness of the traffic disposition. Lots of over transmissions between aircraft at YCDR, an Aerodrome with a similar sounding name, and similar runway layout, complicated by aircraft using conflicting traffic patterns. In fact, the last time I flew into YCAB, with a loaded 11 circuit, SPA taxied out and departed off 06. It certainly raised my eyebrows. Whenever I go in there I tell my passengers to keep their eyes peeled 👀
I hope the investigation recommends the use of a discrete CTAFrequency. I’ve only flown into YCAB about a dozen times, but it’s difficult to build a situational awareness of the traffic disposition. Lots of over transmissions between aircraft at YCDR, an Aerodrome with a similar sounding name, and similar runway layout, complicated by aircraft using conflicting traffic patterns. In fact, the last time I flew into YCAB, with a loaded 11 circuit, SPA taxied out and departed off 06. It certainly raised my eyebrows. Whenever I go in there I tell my passengers to keep their eyes peeled 👀
Thanks 43inches @ #99: 
He's right y'know.
Here outwestdownunda: Road Traffic Code 2000 - [05-m0-01].pdf (legislation.wa.gov.au)
95. Right of way in roundabout
A driver entering a roundabout must give way to a vehicle that is within the roundabout. Points: 3 Modified penalty: 3 PU [Regulation 95 amended: SL 2020/253 r. 28.]
He's right y'know.
Here outwestdownunda: Road Traffic Code 2000 - [05-m0-01].pdf (legislation.wa.gov.au)
95. Right of way in roundabout
A driver entering a roundabout must give way to a vehicle that is within the roundabout. Points: 3 Modified penalty: 3 PU [Regulation 95 amended: SL 2020/253 r. 28.]
The following users liked this post:
Rex Havoc. Here we have an accident at Caboolture which at this stage appears to have been the result of two aircraft using crossing runways at the same time. 2 people have lost their lives. And you say I am an idiot for failing a pilot who put his aircraft onto finals in direct opposition to another aircraft on finals to a crossing runway???? 2 aircraft on crossing runways and 2 are dead. I see, in my aircraft, one of my pilots put him and me in conflict with another aeroplane with very real possibility of collision. 2 have just died because of this scenario and I am supposedly an idiot for failing a pilot with no SA and zero airmanship. You're right I should ignore that. You really are dumber than you look
The following 3 users liked this post by rodney rude:
Rex Havoc. Here we have an accident at Caboolture which at this stage appears to have been the result of two aircraft using crossing runways at the same time. 2 people have lost their lives. And you say I am an idiot for failing a pilot who put his aircraft onto finals in direct opposition to another aircraft on finals to a crossing runway???? 2 aircraft on crossing runways and 2 are dead. I see, in my aircraft, one of my pilots put him and me in conflict with another aeroplane with very real possibility of collision. 2 have just died because of this scenario and I am supposedly an idiot for failing a pilot with no SA and zero airmanship. You're right I should ignore that. You really are dumber than you look
The candidate made a critical error that could have resulted in an accident on a flight test - fail! There is no if’s or buts end of story on a flight test.
Please don’t criticise Flight Examiners who make tough decisions to fail candidates, they are the last line of defence in an attempt to improve flight standards!
And we wonder why some freshly minted CPL holders front up for jobs interviews and get punted on a flight check with a Chief Pilot. I’ve seen some CPL holders who should never have been issued a PPL, let alone a CPL. Sadly there’s at least one of them who is now dead, he died in a plane crash.
They slip through the cracks.
The following users liked this post:
I hope the investigation recommends the use of a discrete CTAFrequency
This is second hand information, but I believe that there was considerable chatter on 125.85 at the time.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread drift. A contributor here reminded me of the parachute ops at Caboolture, where the airfield was used as the DZ. What a farce that was. Whoever authorised that should have been sacked.
Now almost the same thing is happening at Caloundra. Parachutists are being dropped into the circuit area, or next to it. An accident waiting to happen. Its a disgrace.
Now almost the same thing is happening at Caloundra. Parachutists are being dropped into the circuit area, or next to it. An accident waiting to happen. Its a disgrace.
I too have failed pilots on checks for lack of SA. One was on his final command check, with a F/O in the RHS and me in the jumpseat. He had got through every stage without any great distinction, but seemed ready, otherwise he would not have been there. Anyway, after landing on 24 at Perth, just ahead of another jet on fairly short final for 21, he wanted to turn into the intersection. Of course I over rode that in no uncertain terms! After another six months in the RHS, his SA was much improved.
Apologies for drift, and in no way implying that either pilot in this tragedy lacked SA, but I am with Rodney on this.
Rex Havoc. Here we have an accident at Caboolture which at this stage appears to have been the result of two aircraft using crossing runways at the same time. 2 people have lost their lives. And you say I am an idiot for failing a pilot who put his aircraft onto finals in direct opposition to another aircraft on finals to a crossing runway???? 2 aircraft on crossing runways and 2 are dead. I see, in my aircraft, one of my pilots put him and me in conflict with another aeroplane with very real possibility of collision. 2 have just died because of this scenario and I am supposedly an idiot for failing a pilot with no SA and zero airmanship. You're right I should ignore that. You really are dumber than you look
Apologies for drift, and in no way implying that either pilot in this tragedy lacked SA, but I am with Rodney on this.
It's like roundabouts on the road. A lot of drivers have no clue on the actual, very simple rule for right of way on a roundabout, and that is whoever is on the roundabout has right of way, anyone entering the roundabout has to give way to vehicles already on the roundabout (at the point of entry). None of this give way to the right or anything else, simply who's on first wins. Now that being said, you can enter and pass in front of another vehicle if you are not going to impede their travel, that is create a collision risk or simply force them to deviate or slow down, so on a large roundabout you are quite legal to enter while another vehicle is on it as long as you have not impeded them, they just have right of way. Once you are all on the intersection, the over riding rule which says basically you must avoid a crash applies, so you can not use your right of way knowingly to create a collision or push somebody off the road.
So coming back to the aviation equivalent in the circuit pattern, the rules are there to promote who has right of way, and should be applied. Those using the most into wind have right of way, those landing have right of way over others taxiing or taking off and lower aircraft to land wins (except if you create this situation after the fact by diving). There is also specified separation requirements for continuing a landing or commencing a take-off to be satisfied. Then there's gliders, have right of way over powered aircraft, aircraft in distress have right of way and so on...
But it all goes out the window if you see a dangerous situation developing in that you must take action to avoid that situation, by law. If in doubt wait, stay clear and clarify what is happening.
If there's an aircraft taking off (rolling) with tail wind on 18 and i'm established on final for 36, into wind, I'm not going to 'assert' right of way and continue to land. My obligation to operate an aircraft safely (by law) compels me to take avoiding action as early as possible to diffuse a dangerous situation.
Also part of the reason for having a rule to be 'established' on final by a specific point is to give traffic on the ground sufficient lookout time to spot arriving aircraft, tight descending turns onto very close final will reduce the opportunity for sighting and reduce the ability for departing/taxiing aircraft to sight you. Apart from the obvious flight safety issues of stable approach and stall spin issues turning low and slow that is.
So coming back to the aviation equivalent in the circuit pattern, the rules are there to promote who has right of way, and should be applied. Those using the most into wind have right of way, those landing have right of way over others taxiing or taking off and lower aircraft to land wins (except if you create this situation after the fact by diving). There is also specified separation requirements for continuing a landing or commencing a take-off to be satisfied. Then there's gliders, have right of way over powered aircraft, aircraft in distress have right of way and so on...
But it all goes out the window if you see a dangerous situation developing in that you must take action to avoid that situation, by law. If in doubt wait, stay clear and clarify what is happening.
If there's an aircraft taking off (rolling) with tail wind on 18 and i'm established on final for 36, into wind, I'm not going to 'assert' right of way and continue to land. My obligation to operate an aircraft safely (by law) compels me to take avoiding action as early as possible to diffuse a dangerous situation.
Also part of the reason for having a rule to be 'established' on final by a specific point is to give traffic on the ground sufficient lookout time to spot arriving aircraft, tight descending turns onto very close final will reduce the opportunity for sighting and reduce the ability for departing/taxiing aircraft to sight you. Apart from the obvious flight safety issues of stable approach and stall spin issues turning low and slow that is.
I dont recall seeing any gliders per-se but remember seeing a Pawnee. Instructor was handling all radios and talking to the Pawnee who was using Rwy 36. I was coming short final into Rwy 10, and will be landing well short of the intersection of Rwy 36. No problem I thought. Then I hear the instructor requesting Pawnee to delay his take-off for a while in case I had to do a go-around. Good thinking .. I never thought about that scenario. Now on hindsight a great call and a great learning lesson especially if that indeed this was what caused the collision at Caboolture.
The following users liked this post:
Again this is provided with no context, was the tow plane in distress for some reason (partial power loss etc.). How do you know he was not on CTAF? How do you know your radio was working properly (wrong frequency selected, wrong radio-set selected out, your volume turned down). Were you on a straight in approach?
The old patronising tone eh, try to be civil. That particular aerodrome is certified and has an AFRU, we were in touch with other aircraft on the same frequency and no, we were not doing a straight in approach. The tug was no comms and cut in front of us on short final. Had they been using the radio and we were aware they were in the circuit I would have been happy to let them go No 1 but they had chosen not to use the radio at a certified aerodrome so we had no way of knowing thier position or intentions. This was not at YBEV, it was at another aerodrome. YBEV ops are always very professional, give you a heads up on glider traffic when you do the inbound call and now there is no confusion about the frequencies that there was in the days of Perth Centre.
However, a single CTAF that included Northam, York, Beverley and White Gum would be safer than having the current "venn diagram" overlapping for the 10nm radius of each, with three out of the four having different frequencies.
The old patronising tone eh, try to be civil. That particular aerodrome is certified and has an AFRU, we were in touch with other aircraft on the same frequency and no, we were not doing a straight in approach. The tug was no comms and cut in front of us on short final. Had they been using the radio and we were aware they were in the circuit I would have been happy to let them go No 1 but they had chosen not to use the radio at a certified aerodrome so we had no way of knowing thier position or intentions. This was not at YBEV, it was at another aerodrome. YBEV ops are always very professional, give you a heads up on glider traffic when you do the inbound call and now there is no confusion about the frequencies that there was in the days of Perth Centre.
However, a single CTAF that included Northam, York, Beverley and White Gum would be safer than having the current "venn diagram" overlapping for the 10nm radius of each, with three out of the four having different frequencies.
agreed mate, these tug and glider operators have zero care for any rules
You mean like when they have run out of lift and must land soon after?
HOOSTEN
Do you actually have a pilot licence? I can hear you yelling at the screen.
Do you actually have a pilot licence? I can hear you yelling at the screen.
There is no such thing as an active runway at a non controlled field.
You have suggested the Pawnee was using the "non active" runway and hence has caused conflict with the jab on "the active". What makes the Jab's runway "the active"? If it was quiet, no other aircraft flying, and the Pawnee was going up and down for hours accepting a crosswind on 06 for convenience - (totally legal and allowable) , was 06 "the active" and he was being within guidelines, or despite him being the only one there, is the more into wind runway "the active" and he was being negligent?
If we further that - if he was using 06 with a cross or even tailwind for 3 hours and then the Jab taxis out for just one takeoff on 29, is all of a sudden 29 now "the active" and now all of a sudden the Pawnee pilot is a clown and negligent, unprofessional? No, of course he is not. There is a preferred runway for you, but not an active.
I know who the tug pilot is. This person is clearly not a clown. The people who run these shows and perpetually use the excuse that 'the glider pilot has to pay the tug for every minute it's airborne' is the clownshow here because it causes the very problems that occur at every aerodrome. You may want to defend this sort of crap, but two people dead, that justifiable is it?
Its called airmanship mate. If the error has occurred because of the scenario posted earlier, the hold short issue, then consider this. I failed a guy on a check because we were on finals to one runway and a student on finals to a crossing runway. The student said she would land and hold short. My guy continued. I told him to go round and failed him. He was p!ssed off because he said it was all sorted. I then pointed out that nshe is a student, and like any pilot could, what if she flares late, bounces her landing, bounce, bounce, bounce, suddenly she is halfway down the runway and no braking has occured. Whoops, couldn't hold short. She can NOT guarantee a hold short or not going round.
Accepting someone else at a non controlled field saying they will hold short could get you in huge grief. Just because the lightie driver says he will hold short means nothing. Play it safe and wait until he HAS held short. YOU must be the professional who recognises and seperates the conflict. Do not blindly trust well intentioned inexperienced pilots.
DM would call me an acquaintance perhaps, went on a few (motor) bike rides with the fellow. He showed more airmanship on his left hand little finger, finger nail than you lot who are quite clearly prepared to accept two deaths as part of normal ops. Accept deaths to allow clownshows to do whatever they want, wherever they want.
Quote: "The old patronising tone eh, try to be civil."
In no way was I meant to be patronising, gosh. I would dare say I am being quite civil compared to some of the bile expressed in this thread. OK I might have called someone a nasty troll in this thread, but I believe that was justified.
Clare Prop, you provided the context in your subsequent post, thanks, there is now better understanding of what you experienced.
I was raising possibilities due to your lack of detail in your previous post about your tug scare, because your presentation seemed very one-sided (four-legs good, two legs bad).
"However, a single CTAF that included Northam, York, Beverley and White Gum would be safer than having the current "venn diagram" overlapping for the 10nm radius of each, with three out of the four having different frequencies."
Curious, logic doesn't quite work, by that argument, YPPH, YPJT and YPEA should be on the same frequency too.
At YBEV, because it is a busy airfield with much local flying devoted to training, I would rather not know what is going on in YBUN when trying to instruct or conduct a passenger flight. (I am also sure that YBUN doesn’t want to hear YBEV CCT calls). The one reason YBEV went to CTAF was to declutter the air waves from York and White Gum radio traffic.
It could be construed that is a patronising argument that aviators cannot manage frequency changes.
As a tow pilot (meaning PPL too) and glider pilot, I am acutely aware of congested circuit ops and the potential for mid-airs. Tow planes just don't drop in on the live side down wind as suggested, aerobatic descents are frowned upon, and descents are managed to prevent shock cooling of the engine. Yes tow planes do rapid descent by the nature of their ops and usually in a way to least cause any conflict, that is why there is a double cross on the charts.
Fundamental rules of the air is that power gives way to gliders and gliders to balloons. That is just the way it is and makes common sense. Powered aircraft have a power lever (or similar combination of levers) at their disposal for when needed, when they don't work, you become a glider (and people will give way to you too).
The moral panic generated by this thread with regards to glider ops and tow plane operations is astounding.
I wonder how many of the nay sayers have actually been up in a glider?
Before condemning, why not walk in the shoes of the other?
PS: Lastly, I would never be condescending, that is where I would talk down to someone.
In no way was I meant to be patronising, gosh. I would dare say I am being quite civil compared to some of the bile expressed in this thread. OK I might have called someone a nasty troll in this thread, but I believe that was justified.
Clare Prop, you provided the context in your subsequent post, thanks, there is now better understanding of what you experienced.
I was raising possibilities due to your lack of detail in your previous post about your tug scare, because your presentation seemed very one-sided (four-legs good, two legs bad).
"However, a single CTAF that included Northam, York, Beverley and White Gum would be safer than having the current "venn diagram" overlapping for the 10nm radius of each, with three out of the four having different frequencies."
Curious, logic doesn't quite work, by that argument, YPPH, YPJT and YPEA should be on the same frequency too.
At YBEV, because it is a busy airfield with much local flying devoted to training, I would rather not know what is going on in YBUN when trying to instruct or conduct a passenger flight. (I am also sure that YBUN doesn’t want to hear YBEV CCT calls). The one reason YBEV went to CTAF was to declutter the air waves from York and White Gum radio traffic.
It could be construed that is a patronising argument that aviators cannot manage frequency changes.
As a tow pilot (meaning PPL too) and glider pilot, I am acutely aware of congested circuit ops and the potential for mid-airs. Tow planes just don't drop in on the live side down wind as suggested, aerobatic descents are frowned upon, and descents are managed to prevent shock cooling of the engine. Yes tow planes do rapid descent by the nature of their ops and usually in a way to least cause any conflict, that is why there is a double cross on the charts.
Fundamental rules of the air is that power gives way to gliders and gliders to balloons. That is just the way it is and makes common sense. Powered aircraft have a power lever (or similar combination of levers) at their disposal for when needed, when they don't work, you become a glider (and people will give way to you too).
The moral panic generated by this thread with regards to glider ops and tow plane operations is astounding.
I wonder how many of the nay sayers have actually been up in a glider?
Before condemning, why not walk in the shoes of the other?
PS: Lastly, I would never be condescending, that is where I would talk down to someone.
Last edited by MALT68; 31st Jul 2023 at 14:21. Reason: Typo in opening paragraph.
The following users liked this post:
You seem to have a very personal, possibly irrational, emotional investment here which is clouding your judgement regarding the accident.
Clouding my judgement? Yeah, probably in some areas, mainly the language I use. Not runway ops though.
Rodney Rude (lives up to his name)
No need to say that I am dumber than I look,
I said it was a thread drift. The fact of the matter is, (one which you get so worked up about is) Your man in the cockpit was not doin something illegal. Yes it was not sound airmanship, which you could have debriefed him on. You would have made a typical trainer at EK proud. "I failed you Bloggs because you should have diverted to x in my opinion and not continued on to y". Pathetic.
The Caboolture accident has not been investigated yet. For many years, there have been many many many airports in Australia, which have crossing runways and operations with LAHSO type ops. Not illegal. YIFL is one such place. Crop dusters are taking off and landing on whatever runway they want all the time, and same with the meat bombers.
You don't have to remind me that 2 people have lost their lives, Dave was a good friend of mine. It was not the same scenario are you described in your "check" case, as both you and your "student" were on approach to land, Dave was taking off, and the Pawnee was landing, I believe. The thread drift case I was referring to, was that I don't believe your failing of the poor candidate that day was correct.
So my point still stands you sanctimonious pr..k.
Rex Havoc. Here we have an accident at Caboolture which at this stage appears to have been the result of two aircraft using crossing runways at the same time. 2 people have lost their lives. And you say I am an idiot for failing a pilot who put his aircraft onto finals in direct opposition to another aircraft on finals to a crossing runway???? 2 aircraft on crossing runways and 2 are dead. I see, in my aircraft, one of my pilots put him and me in conflict with another aeroplane with very real possibility of collision. 2 have just died because of this scenario and I am supposedly an idiot for failing a pilot with no SA and zero airmanship. You're right I should ignore that. You really are dumber than you look
I said it was a thread drift. The fact of the matter is, (one which you get so worked up about is) Your man in the cockpit was not doin something illegal. Yes it was not sound airmanship, which you could have debriefed him on. You would have made a typical trainer at EK proud. "I failed you Bloggs because you should have diverted to x in my opinion and not continued on to y". Pathetic.
The Caboolture accident has not been investigated yet. For many years, there have been many many many airports in Australia, which have crossing runways and operations with LAHSO type ops. Not illegal. YIFL is one such place. Crop dusters are taking off and landing on whatever runway they want all the time, and same with the meat bombers.
You don't have to remind me that 2 people have lost their lives, Dave was a good friend of mine. It was not the same scenario are you described in your "check" case, as both you and your "student" were on approach to land, Dave was taking off, and the Pawnee was landing, I believe. The thread drift case I was referring to, was that I don't believe your failing of the poor candidate that day was correct.
So my point still stands you sanctimonious pr..k.
The following users liked this post:
Malt 68,
Bunbury is on 127.0 which it shares with Busselton and Capel and had done for some time before YBEV changed to 126.85. If this was part of the reasoning to change the frequency then it seems odd - as was the decision to do it in between update cycles. It's all very well to say people should read the NOTAMs but a lot of people don't, and certainly don't expect a new CTAF to appear half way through a cycle, so if situational awareness was the issue then why not do it when the new docs came out?
If you fly from YNTM to YBEV, within that 30 nm there are three different frequencies that overlap within the 10nm radii of Northam 124.2, York and White Gum 126.7 and Beverley 126.85; so there are areas where more than one frequency is correct and to some extent is open to interpretation, if you draw 10nm radius circles around them you get a venn diagram. This could lead to a breakdown in situational awareness due to two aircraft in close proximity and possibly climbing/descending/on reciprocal headings/staying clear of gliders being on different frequencies. I think it would be safer if it worked on the same principle as the Bunbury/Busselton/Capel or Murrayfield/Serpentine model. The analogy of Jandakot/Perth/Pearce doesn't stand up because they are controlled aerodromes so it would be ludicrous to have them all on the same frequency.
Fully aware of how glider ops work, rights of way and what a double cross means, thanks. Hence my surprise to see a tug plane in radio silence at a certified aerodrome doing a steep turn onto final at 300 feet on final to cut in front of my aircraft at 400 feet. My point is that people should communicate and if the pilot had an operational reason to do this then all they needed to do was say so and I would have far preferred to go around and let them make number one than have to do a collision avoidance manoevre at low level.
My point all along is that see and avoid is a lot easier if you are in radio communication.
Bunbury is on 127.0 which it shares with Busselton and Capel and had done for some time before YBEV changed to 126.85. If this was part of the reasoning to change the frequency then it seems odd - as was the decision to do it in between update cycles. It's all very well to say people should read the NOTAMs but a lot of people don't, and certainly don't expect a new CTAF to appear half way through a cycle, so if situational awareness was the issue then why not do it when the new docs came out?
If you fly from YNTM to YBEV, within that 30 nm there are three different frequencies that overlap within the 10nm radii of Northam 124.2, York and White Gum 126.7 and Beverley 126.85; so there are areas where more than one frequency is correct and to some extent is open to interpretation, if you draw 10nm radius circles around them you get a venn diagram. This could lead to a breakdown in situational awareness due to two aircraft in close proximity and possibly climbing/descending/on reciprocal headings/staying clear of gliders being on different frequencies. I think it would be safer if it worked on the same principle as the Bunbury/Busselton/Capel or Murrayfield/Serpentine model. The analogy of Jandakot/Perth/Pearce doesn't stand up because they are controlled aerodromes so it would be ludicrous to have them all on the same frequency.
Fully aware of how glider ops work, rights of way and what a double cross means, thanks. Hence my surprise to see a tug plane in radio silence at a certified aerodrome doing a steep turn onto final at 300 feet on final to cut in front of my aircraft at 400 feet. My point is that people should communicate and if the pilot had an operational reason to do this then all they needed to do was say so and I would have far preferred to go around and let them make number one than have to do a collision avoidance manoevre at low level.
My point all along is that see and avoid is a lot easier if you are in radio communication.
I too have failed pilots on checks for lack of SA. One was on his final command check, with a F/O in the RHS and me in the jumpseat. He had got through every stage without any great distinction, but seemed ready, otherwise he would not have been there. Anyway, after landing on 24 at Perth, just ahead of another jet on fairly short final for 21, he wanted to turn into the intersection. Of course I over rode that in no uncertain terms! After another six months in the RHS, his SA was much improved.
Apologies for drift, and in no way implying that either pilot in this tragedy lacked SA, but I am with Rodney on this.
I too have failed pilots on checks for lack of SA. One was on his final command check, with a F/O in the RHS and me in the jumpseat. He had got through every stage without any great distinction, but seemed ready, otherwise he would not have been there. Anyway, after landing on 24 at Perth, just ahead of another jet on fairly short final for 21, he wanted to turn into the intersection. Of course I over rode that in no uncertain terms! After another six months in the RHS, his SA was much improved.
Apologies for drift, and in no way implying that either pilot in this tragedy lacked SA, but I am with Rodney on this.
The following 2 users liked this post by Clare Prop:
Clare Prop,
Once again, yours was a different scenario to what RUDE had.
Mach- You and Rude are examples was Australian aviation is a joke overseas.
I'm not aware of the intricacies of that runway. What was the problem with his decision? Was it illegal? Did it contravene SOPSs? Why was it unsafe? So you delayed him by 6 months. You are Rude are a fine match.
Once again, yours was a different scenario to what RUDE had.
Mach- You and Rude are examples was Australian aviation is a joke overseas.
Anyway, after landing on 24 at Perth, just ahead of another jet on fairly short final for 21, he wanted to turn into the intersection. Of course I over rode that in no uncertain terms!
I think Mach is talking about a pilot who landed on one runway (24) and thought it would be ok to turn onto another runway (21/03), or maybe do a U turn at the intersection or perhaps mistook that other runway for a taxiway, after landing.
At a controlled aerodrome.
With an aircraft on final for 21.
If I had been in the back in that situation, I would be glad Mach was in the front…
At a controlled aerodrome.
With an aircraft on final for 21.
If I had been in the back in that situation, I would be glad Mach was in the front…
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 31st Jul 2023 at 22:15.
The following users liked this post: