More informed thoughts on the Cirrus
Moderator
Thread Starter
More informed thoughts on the Cirrus
Thanks to the enormous generosity of jonzarno yesterday, I spent a little under an hour hour airborne in his SR22, and several more hours talking through the aeroplane and going through the training material that he had on the aeroplane.
Firstly the aeroplane - there's not a lot to cricitise about it. Putting my test pilot hat on for a few minutes:-
Stick fixed apparent longitudinal static stability: strong
Stick free apparent longitudinal static stability: near neutral in CR, slightly stronger in LD
Phugoid: hard to excite, damps out within 2 cyles
Longitudinal SPO: substantially deadbeat, non-intrusive
Pitch change with power: small
Pitch change with flaps: nose-up, small and easily managable
Physical ergonomics: Good view out, controls easily to hand, seat and harness had good adjustments. Coolie hat on the stick top gave good control of pitch and roll trims. Control forces significant but crisp and manageable.
Yaw change with power: significant, requiring moderate rudder inputs to keep the aeroplane in trim.
So, what could I criticise there? Well, the aeroplane would benefit from a yaw trimmer to deal with the significant pedal forces, and that would reduce pilot workload. I'd like to have seen greater stick displacements as the low stick free longstab made accurately resolving small changes in speed and height manually difficult.
Did these things make the aeroplane unsafe or difficult to fly? No, not particularly: they would bare improvement but there are many aeroplanes with long and good safety records that have worse deficiencies than this.
However, there were two aspects of the aeroplane that were particularly interesting.
Firstly it's fast - 160 knots cruise, 100 knots in the circuit, 80 knots on final (rough numbers). Whilst the handling was fine, it presents a significantly greater requirement to think ahead of the aeroplane.
Secondly, the aeroplane is substantially managed through a very impressive array of electronic systems. Flight data is presented through a data fused presentation, input through some more multi-function boxes. This was all rather complex, and in some parts contradictory - for example that the engine gauge presentation on the right hand screen went clockwise whilst the backup analogue instruments next to them were anticlockwise. Checklists were built into one of the screens, but without any ability to modify them for changes in operating procedure or locality.
The CAPS, by the way - it's there, and going through the training material, there really isn't anything there I could find saying "as soon as you're unhappy, pull the handle". There were many points where the advice was along the lines of "do this, do that, consider whether you should pull the handle", then do the following if you didn't". Engine failures were treated in that way for example - establish glide - pick field - position - decide if you're going to manage - if not pull handle - if you can land carry on and do so.
We also talked through the whole "pull early, pull often" phrase, which: going through the training material: basically meant that if the aircraft is out of control pull the handle before the aeroplane passes out of the safe operation envelope, and when any emergencies are going on, always go through the question of whether you should be using CAPS. Frankly, I can't fault any of that - it's pretty much the same as military training with regard to an ejector seat.
All of this is manageable, but required a level of understanding, training and preparedness that is far beyond baseline PPL pass standard, and that looks to me to be the fundamental problem behind the high fatal accident rate of the Cirrus.
The training that is *available* is impressive - whilst for presumably marketing reasons Cirrus are denying it is, basically the training packages look very like high-end CRM training. And rightly so. However, there's an obvious problem even there which is that this training is neither mandatory, nor assessed as it certainly would be in any professional operating environment.
JZ showed me data which indicated strongly that a disproportionately high proportion of Cirrus fatalities are with the 50%ish of pilots who don't engage with these training programmes. I imagine that's true, both because the pilots missing that training are, well, missing that training - but also they're the ones who probably don't think it's important.
So, my summarised opinions:-
- The aeroplane could be improved, but not much, and it's not unsafe.
- There is a significant mismatch between the skill levels required to *manage* this aircraft and the skill levels required to pass a PPL.
The relatively inexpensive (I was told US$750 for a 2 day inc. 4 flying hours course) and apparently very high quality training being offered with the Cirrus community is obviously trying to plug the gap, and full power to their collective elbows for doing so.
It strikes me that this is all just a very extreme example of a problem we all know about. The vanilla PPL is all about simple aeroplanes and instruments, yet virtually all PPLs then buy themselves some form of complex GPS device and try - without any appropriate training - to integrate that into their flying. The Cirrus is that problem on steroids and a standard PPL either needs to ignore a lot of the kit and just fly it like a PA28, or get a lot of additional training, to be as safe as they want to be. Part of that training is almost certainly not using the CAPS as an excuse for going into conditions that pilots wouldn't go without it.
Many thanks to jonzarno for making this post possible.
G
Firstly the aeroplane - there's not a lot to cricitise about it. Putting my test pilot hat on for a few minutes:-
Stick fixed apparent longitudinal static stability: strong
Stick free apparent longitudinal static stability: near neutral in CR, slightly stronger in LD
Phugoid: hard to excite, damps out within 2 cyles
Longitudinal SPO: substantially deadbeat, non-intrusive
Pitch change with power: small
Pitch change with flaps: nose-up, small and easily managable
Physical ergonomics: Good view out, controls easily to hand, seat and harness had good adjustments. Coolie hat on the stick top gave good control of pitch and roll trims. Control forces significant but crisp and manageable.
Yaw change with power: significant, requiring moderate rudder inputs to keep the aeroplane in trim.
So, what could I criticise there? Well, the aeroplane would benefit from a yaw trimmer to deal with the significant pedal forces, and that would reduce pilot workload. I'd like to have seen greater stick displacements as the low stick free longstab made accurately resolving small changes in speed and height manually difficult.
Did these things make the aeroplane unsafe or difficult to fly? No, not particularly: they would bare improvement but there are many aeroplanes with long and good safety records that have worse deficiencies than this.
However, there were two aspects of the aeroplane that were particularly interesting.
Firstly it's fast - 160 knots cruise, 100 knots in the circuit, 80 knots on final (rough numbers). Whilst the handling was fine, it presents a significantly greater requirement to think ahead of the aeroplane.
Secondly, the aeroplane is substantially managed through a very impressive array of electronic systems. Flight data is presented through a data fused presentation, input through some more multi-function boxes. This was all rather complex, and in some parts contradictory - for example that the engine gauge presentation on the right hand screen went clockwise whilst the backup analogue instruments next to them were anticlockwise. Checklists were built into one of the screens, but without any ability to modify them for changes in operating procedure or locality.
The CAPS, by the way - it's there, and going through the training material, there really isn't anything there I could find saying "as soon as you're unhappy, pull the handle". There were many points where the advice was along the lines of "do this, do that, consider whether you should pull the handle", then do the following if you didn't". Engine failures were treated in that way for example - establish glide - pick field - position - decide if you're going to manage - if not pull handle - if you can land carry on and do so.
We also talked through the whole "pull early, pull often" phrase, which: going through the training material: basically meant that if the aircraft is out of control pull the handle before the aeroplane passes out of the safe operation envelope, and when any emergencies are going on, always go through the question of whether you should be using CAPS. Frankly, I can't fault any of that - it's pretty much the same as military training with regard to an ejector seat.
All of this is manageable, but required a level of understanding, training and preparedness that is far beyond baseline PPL pass standard, and that looks to me to be the fundamental problem behind the high fatal accident rate of the Cirrus.
The training that is *available* is impressive - whilst for presumably marketing reasons Cirrus are denying it is, basically the training packages look very like high-end CRM training. And rightly so. However, there's an obvious problem even there which is that this training is neither mandatory, nor assessed as it certainly would be in any professional operating environment.
JZ showed me data which indicated strongly that a disproportionately high proportion of Cirrus fatalities are with the 50%ish of pilots who don't engage with these training programmes. I imagine that's true, both because the pilots missing that training are, well, missing that training - but also they're the ones who probably don't think it's important.
So, my summarised opinions:-
- The aeroplane could be improved, but not much, and it's not unsafe.
- There is a significant mismatch between the skill levels required to *manage* this aircraft and the skill levels required to pass a PPL.
The relatively inexpensive (I was told US$750 for a 2 day inc. 4 flying hours course) and apparently very high quality training being offered with the Cirrus community is obviously trying to plug the gap, and full power to their collective elbows for doing so.
It strikes me that this is all just a very extreme example of a problem we all know about. The vanilla PPL is all about simple aeroplanes and instruments, yet virtually all PPLs then buy themselves some form of complex GPS device and try - without any appropriate training - to integrate that into their flying. The Cirrus is that problem on steroids and a standard PPL either needs to ignore a lot of the kit and just fly it like a PA28, or get a lot of additional training, to be as safe as they want to be. Part of that training is almost certainly not using the CAPS as an excuse for going into conditions that pilots wouldn't go without it.
Many thanks to jonzarno for making this post possible.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 22nd Nov 2014 at 08:53.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for posting this. It was a pleasure to fly with you and I'd gladly do so again. I learned a lot from the flight and our subsequent conversation.
If I may, I would like to encourage anyone who flies or is considering a Cirrus as a minimum to join COPA. It is a terrific resource for all aspects of flying that, or any other, aircraft.
I would also strongly recommend anyone deciding to fly a Cirrus to please get proper transition training from a Cirrus Standardised Instructor (CSIP).
Better still, after doing that, come to a CPPP weekend.
If I may, I would like to encourage anyone who flies or is considering a Cirrus as a minimum to join COPA. It is a terrific resource for all aspects of flying that, or any other, aircraft.
I would also strongly recommend anyone deciding to fly a Cirrus to please get proper transition training from a Cirrus Standardised Instructor (CSIP).
Better still, after doing that, come to a CPPP weekend.
Most interesting and as an airline pilot who also flies an ultralight I would make the following observation. We all know there is a strong correlation between experience and currency on an aircraft and safety. On the plus side the cost of operating a Cirrus is such that pilots who operate one mostly should be able to pay for the necessary training and perhaps more importantly afford to fly it enough to keep current, which may not be the case with all light aircraft pilots. However.....
Manufacturers want to sell aircraft and one way to do this is to emphasize simplicity of operation. I am aware of marketing to non pilots suggesting they can learn on such an aircraft and then operate it more or less like a car. I have an image of a rather photogenic Hollywood star in her Cirrus reinforcing this impression. In good weather and with everything working that may be possible. But in the real world (combined perhaps with a bit of finger trouble) a complex aircraft like the Cirrus can get an inexperienced pilot into situations that can quickly become life threatening. Back to the original thread about ballistic recovery systems, such a pilot may well be better off pulling the chute than attempting the alternative.
Manufacturers want to sell aircraft and one way to do this is to emphasize simplicity of operation. I am aware of marketing to non pilots suggesting they can learn on such an aircraft and then operate it more or less like a car. I have an image of a rather photogenic Hollywood star in her Cirrus reinforcing this impression. In good weather and with everything working that may be possible. But in the real world (combined perhaps with a bit of finger trouble) a complex aircraft like the Cirrus can get an inexperienced pilot into situations that can quickly become life threatening. Back to the original thread about ballistic recovery systems, such a pilot may well be better off pulling the chute than attempting the alternative.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that was my thoughts as well when I flew it as well G.
Ie the machine itself was nothing special.
The speeds weren't an issue due to be used to 260knts TAS, 160 knts in the circuit and 140 knots in procedures and final stage of approach.
It was the pilot machine interface and system knowledge which is really required to fly it safely. In quite a few ways its way more complicated than my work machine. And that's a dual crew aircraft. Its even above the TP caravans in complexity.
Personally I think things would improve it required a type rating.
Ie the machine itself was nothing special.
The speeds weren't an issue due to be used to 260knts TAS, 160 knts in the circuit and 140 knots in procedures and final stage of approach.
It was the pilot machine interface and system knowledge which is really required to fly it safely. In quite a few ways its way more complicated than my work machine. And that's a dual crew aircraft. Its even above the TP caravans in complexity.
Personally I think things would improve it required a type rating.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A small correction:
When I told GTE that the electronic check lists can't be edited, which is the case on my G2, I didn't realise that on the newer Garmin Perspective system fitted to most G3s and the new G5, they can be.
When I told GTE that the electronic check lists can't be edited, which is the case on my G2, I didn't realise that on the newer Garmin Perspective system fitted to most G3s and the new G5, they can be.
Thanks for posting that Genghis. It matches my thoughts on the Cirrus too. I got the impression that the controls were optimised for autopilot use, and trying manually to hold a constant altitude in a steep turn was quite difficult due to the lack of mechanical advantage on the sidestick, which required a heavy stick force, with very small movements giving large changes in pitch attitude..
MJ: 
Please don't go putting ideas like that in the minds of EASA!
We've had this unnecessary type rating thing already with the Malibu.
MJ
Personally I think things would improve it required a type rating
Please don't go putting ideas like that in the minds of EASA!We've had this unnecessary type rating thing already with the Malibu.
MJ
Last edited by Mach Jump; 22nd Nov 2014 at 14:33.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Montana
Age: 62
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have owned two Cirrus before the Eclipse jet.
If you fly them only as a VFR fun sightseeing platform, it is no different from many other low wing single engine planes. It is actually simpler:
- No carb heat
- Automatic prop control (no blue knob)
- Fixed gear
---
It has some features that increase the survivability in case of mishaps:
- Reinforced cell around the occupants
- no yoke in fron of your sternum or face
- airbags
- airframe parachute.
So, if you are a low time pilot, and you fly it with good energy management (like you should do any plane) and VFR just for fun, it is a fantastic and easy machine!
--------
Now, you want to use it as a professional transportation machine, with cross country missions and hard schedule?
Well... Then it does not really matter what you fly... You better be on top of your game.... But the Cirrus does give you a lot of tools that, if you know how to use them, make your life much easier...
Two comments on some of the above posts:
- I don't think the fatal accident rate is now worse in Cirrus than in the rest of GA (typing on iPad and not able to double check)
- We fly the Eclipse both single pilot and as a crew of two. I do believe that in any plane, IF CRM IS WELL DEFINED, and processes and procedures are agreed upon, the risk is lower with two pilots BUT, please, there is absolutely no justification to even hint that the Cirrus would require a crew of two!!!!
If you fly them only as a VFR fun sightseeing platform, it is no different from many other low wing single engine planes. It is actually simpler:
- No carb heat
- Automatic prop control (no blue knob)
- Fixed gear
---
It has some features that increase the survivability in case of mishaps:
- Reinforced cell around the occupants
- no yoke in fron of your sternum or face
- airbags
- airframe parachute.
So, if you are a low time pilot, and you fly it with good energy management (like you should do any plane) and VFR just for fun, it is a fantastic and easy machine!
--------
Now, you want to use it as a professional transportation machine, with cross country missions and hard schedule?
Well... Then it does not really matter what you fly... You better be on top of your game.... But the Cirrus does give you a lot of tools that, if you know how to use them, make your life much easier...
Two comments on some of the above posts:
- I don't think the fatal accident rate is now worse in Cirrus than in the rest of GA (typing on iPad and not able to double check)
- We fly the Eclipse both single pilot and as a crew of two. I do believe that in any plane, IF CRM IS WELL DEFINED, and processes and procedures are agreed upon, the risk is lower with two pilots BUT, please, there is absolutely no justification to even hint that the Cirrus would require a crew of two!!!!
Moderator
Thread Starter
One note I didn't post was also that the aeroplane had neutral spiral stability, which would support your assertion of optimisation for A/P or at-least IFR use.
G
G
JZ showed me data which indicated strongly that a disproportionately high proportion of Cirrus fatalities are with the 50%ish of pilots who don't engage with these training programmes. I imagine that's true, both because the pilots missing that training are, well, missing that training - but also they're the ones who probably don't think it's important.
So, my summarised opinions:-
- The aeroplane could be improved, but not much, and it's not unsafe.
- There is a significant mismatch between the skill levels required to *manage* this aircraft and the skill levels required to pass a PPL.
The relatively inexpensive (I was told US$750 for a 2 day inc. 4 flying hours course) and apparently very high quality training being offered with the Cirrus community is obviously trying to plug the gap, and full power to their collective elbows for doing so.
It strikes me that this is all just a very extreme example of a problem we all know about. The vanilla PPL is all about simple aeroplanes and instruments, yet virtually all PPLs then buy themselves some form of complex GPS device and try - without any appropriate training - to integrate that into their flying. The Cirrus is that problem on steroids and a standard PPL either needs to ignore a lot of the kit and just fly it like a PA28, or get a lot of additional training, to be as safe as they want to be. Part of that training is almost certainly not using the CAPS as an excuse for going into conditions that pilots wouldn't go without it.
G
So, my summarised opinions:-
- The aeroplane could be improved, but not much, and it's not unsafe.
- There is a significant mismatch between the skill levels required to *manage* this aircraft and the skill levels required to pass a PPL.
The relatively inexpensive (I was told US$750 for a 2 day inc. 4 flying hours course) and apparently very high quality training being offered with the Cirrus community is obviously trying to plug the gap, and full power to their collective elbows for doing so.
It strikes me that this is all just a very extreme example of a problem we all know about. The vanilla PPL is all about simple aeroplanes and instruments, yet virtually all PPLs then buy themselves some form of complex GPS device and try - without any appropriate training - to integrate that into their flying. The Cirrus is that problem on steroids and a standard PPL either needs to ignore a lot of the kit and just fly it like a PA28, or get a lot of additional training, to be as safe as they want to be. Part of that training is almost certainly not using the CAPS as an excuse for going into conditions that pilots wouldn't go without it.
G
Personally I think that there is a huge need for something between the PPL skills test and a type rating. Initial and recurrent training for high performance technologically advanced aircraft is not optional. I think the regulators should simply mandate completing the existing Cirrus course and annual recurrent training in order to be eligible to fly a Cirrus.
so it is cracking for talent limited gimps that can't pole an aircraft?
I can imagine a situation where, during a turbulent encounter in IMC, the autopilot drops out, leaving an inexperienced pilot in an unexpected and demanding situation.
EASA already requires appropriate 'familiarisation training' when moving between types within a class, and, in some cases, it may be appropriate for an experienced pilot to simlpy study the POH of a new type similar to those already flown.
It has to be recognised however, that when moving to a significantly more demanding type, even an experienced pilot needs to seriously consider what level of formal training is appropriate for that type.
I think that the problem with the Cirrus was that, other than the sophisticated avionics, it wasn't initially recognised as more demanding than, for instance, a Piper Dakota. It was, after all just another fixed gear single, said to have new stall/spin resistant aerodynamic features, and the ultimate 'comfort' of the CAPS. It was easy for people to think that they were getting 'something for nothing' in terms of high performance without any downside.
Unfortunately, we seem to have to keep re-learning this lesson with each new generation of high performance singles. After all, we now fly Commanches, Bonanzas, and more recently, Malibus perfectly safely, yet these were the SR22s of their times.
MJ
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those that come to flying in midlife, like me, (I began at 50) keep it simple, please! (I just replaced my old microwave with the identical model, NO complications, just a knob to turn for time, and another knob to set for power.) The same really applies to the middle aged learning curve, most IT technology can be a struggle.
So if you throw enough money at it, can you buy safety in an aeroplane?
Actually, no. Too many variables. Weather, judgement, experience, practice, currency, innate cowardice inspiring caution, and enough strength of character to avoid showing off. To say nothing of diminishing physical and mental ability the older you get.
In other words, if you have earned enough money to buy a Cirrus, will you be safe? Err....
Thanks for your analysis, Genghis. Respect.
So if you throw enough money at it, can you buy safety in an aeroplane?
Actually, no. Too many variables. Weather, judgement, experience, practice, currency, innate cowardice inspiring caution, and enough strength of character to avoid showing off. To say nothing of diminishing physical and mental ability the older you get.
In other words, if you have earned enough money to buy a Cirrus, will you be safe? Err....
Thanks for your analysis, Genghis. Respect.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, for this 50+guy, make things as complex and changing as you can. I love to learn. I love change and new stuff. The thinking that something is bad just because it is different from what one is used to is not at all for me.
So a pilot license is a license for continued learning? Duh!
So a pilot license is a license for continued learning? Duh!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At 52 I got my basic PPL, at 54 an IMCR, at 62 a full IR and at 67 I happily fly a Trinidad all over the place in all sorts of conditions. It's all about procedures and checklists coupled with practice.
BTW I'm not interested in flying taildraggers etc. as far as I'm concerned an aeroplane is basically a touring car with wings
BTW I'm not interested in flying taildraggers etc. as far as I'm concerned an aeroplane is basically a touring car with wings
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Jock
No No No!
Don't give those desk bound pen pushers at EASA a chance to introduce a type rating for an SEP.
The result would be far more inital cost, this would reduce the take up rate and so pushing up the cost even further.
It has already been proven that the reduction in GA flying due to the extra expence of EASA has increased to accident rate due to lack of pilot currentcy, why encourage EASA to just create more jobs for the boys in Cologne ?
The best way is for the Cirrus agent to bring the factory safety program over to Europe, this will come an a moderate price and bring experience from the biggest Cirrus market, Let EASA approve the program to make it a type rating and they will demand changes that are irrelavent and are based on there own preconseptions about the aircraft and charge you the earth to make the training worse.
My message is simple, let the Cirrus factory control the training, they know the aircraft best.
Don't give those desk bound pen pushers at EASA a chance to introduce a type rating for an SEP.
The result would be far more inital cost, this would reduce the take up rate and so pushing up the cost even further.
It has already been proven that the reduction in GA flying due to the extra expence of EASA has increased to accident rate due to lack of pilot currentcy, why encourage EASA to just create more jobs for the boys in Cologne ?
The best way is for the Cirrus agent to bring the factory safety program over to Europe, this will come an a moderate price and bring experience from the biggest Cirrus market, Let EASA approve the program to make it a type rating and they will demand changes that are irrelavent and are based on there own preconseptions about the aircraft and charge you the earth to make the training worse.
My message is simple, let the Cirrus factory control the training, they know the aircraft best.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion ... I did some hours on a SR22 and although it is a nice fast little bastard, I wouldn't buy one. My very personal points: First thing, it is too expensive to use as a VFR fun tool. Second, you need too much training experience to really handle it safely under manual conditions.
Yes, I enjoy the Cirrus and it is a great plane when taken to light IFR flights, just replacing old Mom by a modern small airliner. BUT, to afford one for myself I would have to work much more and I am unsure wether the more work will consume so much time that I will be out of the safety regime for training, simply because I run out of training experience due to high money making work load.
Further on, I love to fly manually and the Cirrus isn't really made for that. The controls are too responsive and small - my5cents. It is made to get in and out of airfields, then switch to video game autopilot and eat IFR miles. I believe it is not suitable for the family fun flyer either. If your mission profile is half commercial and you have to get in and out under IFR, it is - as the Corvalis - a really nice modern option (if you like the video game airliner style cockpit, I don't).
Yes, I enjoy the Cirrus and it is a great plane when taken to light IFR flights, just replacing old Mom by a modern small airliner. BUT, to afford one for myself I would have to work much more and I am unsure wether the more work will consume so much time that I will be out of the safety regime for training, simply because I run out of training experience due to high money making work load.
Further on, I love to fly manually and the Cirrus isn't really made for that. The controls are too responsive and small - my5cents. It is made to get in and out of airfields, then switch to video game autopilot and eat IFR miles. I believe it is not suitable for the family fun flyer either. If your mission profile is half commercial and you have to get in and out under IFR, it is - as the Corvalis - a really nice modern option (if you like the video game airliner style cockpit, I don't).
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best way is for the Cirrus agent to bring the factory safety program over to Europe
The Cirrus Pilot Proficiency Programme (CPPP) that I reviewed in some detail with Genghis is actually designed and provided by COPA and is available in Europe where there are usually two per year.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: with bosun Blue Sky and the jenny haniver "Hot Stuff"
Posts: 106
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis, please would you define the acronyms in your first post for me?
Cheers
Capn Bugsmasher
P.S. Thanks for writing it and sharing it with us! Sustaining food for thought.
Cheers
Capn Bugsmasher
P.S. Thanks for writing it and sharing it with us! Sustaining food for thought.