|
Froma regular pax point of view I can only commend the attide of the crew and the airline . Assuming two pilots as is normal to JFK and one has impaired vision suddenly i would prefer a return to LHR to heading off intot he unknown with JFK winter weather and a dozen other unopredicatble possibilities with only one pilot comfortable with what they can actually see. Quite astonished at the few critical psots and opinions .
It does seem odd about the 'penetration into the cockpit froma ground based laser assuming the plane is climbing in spite of SE England population density there are alot of uninhabiited areas west of LHR quite heavily wooded too and if the laser is coloured it may have just caught the unfiortunate pilots attention and the automatic 'look at the light response' caused the problem . Also that is an area where aaircraft on Compton depatures turn further to the west than the inital track from Heathrow and that could mean it waqs in a bit of a right bank whan it happened which could explain how the pilot saw it in the first place. i would have thought/hoped there had been enough publicity about the dangers of this to stop even hardened idiots doing it but it seems sadly not. |
It's not close to slander at all. What G0uli said was definitely slander! Trust me, I'm a lawyer. Trust me, I'm no lawyer :) |
pax b
It might not even need bank. It does seem odd about the 'penetration into the cockpit froma ground based laser assuming the plane is climbing the automatic 'look at the light response' |
I'm curious that no passengers were affected in this incident, nor apparently in other incidences.
Either the beam was narrow and tracked the cockpit area with very high precision or the passengers, whose view was not obscured by the wing, were not looking out the window nor drawn to the surface of the window being illuminated. The narrower the beam the more precision or luck needed to keep the beam from illuminating the passenger cabin. Mickjoebill |
There is something not right about these incidents. The sort of hand-held lasers that you can buy in the middle east just should not cause the sort of incidents we are seeing.
These videos are of helicopters over Tarir square. They flew or hovered repeatedly over the crowd for extended periods and had literally thousands of lasers directed at them including green and blue lasers. They did not lose the ability to see despite repeated exposure at a range far closer than the airliner hits. This mass laser exposure is commonly directed at politicians and public speakers in many parts of the world also. I worry that this might be something more serious? |
As an ex-pilot and a more frequent SLF, I have experienced being laser scanned sitting in seat 3a from a source in the North Bracknell area. I can tell you that even knowing the risks, I was attempting to shield my eyes, while trying to identify the location between scans. In my case while not painful, I experienced a slight green "aura" for a few seconds afterwards.
I can verify that from a pilot's perspective, you would be incapacitated in the full meaning of the word, until vision was regained. There is also an element of disorientation for the duration of the experience. I am sure that many SLF's must have experienced the effects of L%s%rs and tried to report it without success. (It's not something that airlines would want to publicise.) imagegear |
It does seem that it was something more than a 'hobby' l@ser gun here. Of course the pilot was totally correct (and responsible) in his actions.
FF P.S. not all lapsed PPLs are w@nkers. In my case I have reached an age where my own knowledge is unlimited and my opinions always totally correct ;) |
From July 2012
The eye damage that a JetBlue pilot suffered after two green laser beams were reportedly shined into a New York-bound airplane flying at 5,000 feet this week happens because the lens of the eye focuses light onto the retina, and the heat energy is enough to burn the eye, expert say. When light enters the eye, it is focused by the lens on the retina at the back of the eye, explained Dr. Neil Bressler, an ophthalmologist at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. The damage happens when the focused light is too strong or lasts for too long, and heats the part of the retina that contains pigment, or color. "That pigment absorbs the light just like dark clothing, and just like dark clothing radiates, it radiates heat," Bressler said. The heat can burn the eye and permanently damage the retina. If the laser light is brief or weak, it may not produce the same heat or long-lasting damage, but instead could create a small after-image, which is a bright spot that prevents normal vision. This is similar to what happens when you stare at a bright light for too long — you continue to see a bright spot for a few seconds after looking away, because "it takes the retina time to recover, to be able to see again," Bressler said. But the thermal damage could also cause a permanent blank spot, he said, which is impossible to treat and would require retina replacement, he said. That type of damage is very rare, however, and Bressler said that he had mainly seen it in people who've been in industrial accidents. Light from lasers maintains its energy even over long distances. The extent of the eye damage that occurs depends on the strength of the laser, the distance from the laser and length of exposure. Last year, lasers above a certain strength were outlawed in the U.S. in an attempt to limit this kind of harm. In the case of the JetBlue pilot, officials with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Aviation Administration said they are searching for the person who shined the lasers into the plane’s cockpit, according to news reports. The plane landed safely. Pass it on: Lasers damage the eye by heating up the retina, and can cause permanent damage. Lasers Can Cause Permanent Eye Damage | Retina Damage |
MATELO
None of that is new. We know that eyes focus light, that is why we don't look at the sun yet sun does not burn our skin unless we sit in direct sunlight for an extended time. What that does not say is how come lasers are blinding pilots? There are a million lasers in the hands of idiot kids all over the world shining them at each other all the time, yet the worlds casualty departments are not overrun by blind kids, or even kids with itchy eyes etc. |
Always wondered what triggered the nighttime blind closing frenzy guess I've just.found out why..
I can only add that my comtempt is split evenly between those who carry out these wanton acts and those who would second guess the flightcrews decisions.. |
Wiggy, yes, I know all that. What I was commenting on was the poster's apparent belief that an airline would nip back to base from well into a sector solely, repeat solely, to collect a pilot to replace a crew member on the next flight from the destination. Of course it's mandatory to divert/RTB if a member of the flight deck operating crew is incapacitated or likely to become so during a flight. At least I have always believed it is.
|
It would seem our er `friend`is more used to Jet Blast..in the middle of the night he probably thought he still was :}
On a serious note I hope the injured First Officer makes a swift recovery and gets back to work. The Captain was utterly professional and did everything right imho..As a human being, damn the inconvenience, getting someone medical attention is far more important..He has reinforced safety first and done his company proud :D |
As a human being, damn the inconvenience, getting someone medical attention is far more important.. |
Tourist
None of that is new. Just highlighting the apparent similarities for those who didn't know. |
Professional flight crew make decisions based on compliance with corporate policies and international safety standards. If company policy dictates that an aircraft should land if a pilot has been dazzled by a laser, then that is what the crew need to do.
If the circumstances of this incident are as has been reported then several things don't make sense. The aircraft was roughly a mile above the ground and allowing for the beam direction to enter the cockpit through a side window at a reasonable angle, the ground location would need to be a couple of miles to the side of the aircraft. Lasers capable of causing eye damage while being focused on the cockpit area of a rapidly moving aircraft at a range of three or more miles are not consumer items bought off the internet. The pilots apparently did not immediately report the incident to Heathrow or a UK based air traffic control. Having declared an emegency, the aircraft dumped fuel and flew back to Heathrow rather than land at Shannon where the pilot could have received more immediate medical assistance. I was under the impression that larger aircraft carried two pilots so that in event of one pilot becoming incapacitated, the other would be capable of flying the aircraft to its destination, albeit with a reduced level of safety. Modern aircraft are complex, but we are frequently told that the pilots only hand fly aircraft at take off and landing. It isn't as if this flight would have been hand flown across the Atlantic by a single pilot. I wasn't there on board the aircraft, so whatever decisions the flight crew made were right for them, at the time. The aircraft landed safely and the passengers were uninjured. Ultra high powered lasers used for cutting materials operate outside the human visual range, so are unlikely to have featured in this incident. Visual spectrum lasers with powers of up to 50 watts are used in arena stage shows and outdoor displays. One of these would certainly cause a distraction if pointed in your direction and would be visible for many miles. These are rather expensive and unlikely to be in private ownership. Anyone legally possessing such a device would be unlikely to deliberately target an aircraft with it in my opinion. Such an act would be tantamount to an act of war and there is a Geneva Convention banning the use of lasers to blind enemy combatants (and presumably civilians). Hopefully the culprit will be swiftly located and dealt with in an appropriate manner. The reporting also suggests that the aircraft was deliberately targetted and didn't just happen to fly through a fixed beam being used for display or star location purposes. Such a fixed beam would only have caused a brief flash in the cockpit and would have been unlikely to have caused the disruption it did. So making this most likely a deliberate act. The crew took the decisions they did in the light of their circumstances at the time and it all ended safely, so they deserve congratulations for that. I sincerely hope that the affected pilot recovers swiftly from the effects of this incident and that it has no affect on his medical status to fly. With the benefit of hindsight, you can be right all the time. :rolleyes: :ugh: |
@Digitalis
Just to let you know that the captain of that flight is a past moderator of this forum and has read this thread |
If a beam is pointed at the aircraft, how should the pilot react?
What is the best way for the pilot to avoid eye damage? Move the head, look elsewhere, how quick of a reaction is needed? Is there a recommended procedure? By day, or night time? Thanks, |
I was under the impression that larger aircraft carried two pilots so that in event of one pilot becoming incapacitated, the other would be capable of flying the aircraft to its destination...... Sorry but if you think it would have been OK to carry on over the Atlantic you've got a very simplistic view of what goes on the flight deck. Hypothetically lets say you're minutes into a 6-7 hour sector and you've gone from 2 up front to 1, you've not even begun to scratch the surface of the all the routine issues/clearances that need a double check by a second pilot, such as level changes/speed changes/ the Atlantic route clearance /onward route clearance at the far end... and at the other end the fun and games going into JFK. Chuck in any other odd ball en-route (technical problem/passenger problem) and you would be really up against it. Could you do it mechanically - probably. Would the authorities approve? No. Would it be sensible? IMHO No. .... |
I was under the impression that larger aircraft carried two pilots so that in event of one pilot becoming incapacitated, the other would be capable of flying the aircraft to its destination, albeit with a reduced level of safety. Modern aircraft are complex, but we are frequently told that the pilots only hand fly aircraft at take off and landing. It isn't as if this flight would have been hand flown across the Atlantic by a single pilot. Indeed they can, however, I suspect this is more to do with "seeking medical attention" for the affected person, rather than flying "solo" across the pond. |
This thread is a tad on the silly side - if you feel that your ability to operate the aircraft safely has been compromised then you ARE incapacitated and your only option (in the absence of a spare crew) is to land as soon as is safely possible.
There is obviously room for interpretation; the degree of incapacitation, the probability of the condition worsening and such things as familiarity with the chosen airfield are among the factors to consider along with the urgency of obtaining medical treatment. Continueing a long haul flight is NOT an option. |
G0ULI
If that was intended to be an apology, then it was certainly required. Whether a consequence of naivety or arrogance or both, it is astonishing that a "lapsed PPL", who has previously conceded (when challenged in the Rotorheads forum) that he is "a fixed wing pilot of very limited experience", should not only have challenged an airline Captain's decision to turn back but go on to describe it very offensively as "an hysterical overreaction" and "gross incompetence on behalf of the flight crew." Your attitude, posted previously, is that such incidents have been: "sensationalised by the press and exaggerated by the victims in many instances." Why bother to read PPRuNe if you aren't prepared to learn? Phileas The written word is "libel", it is the spoken word that is "slander". I hope that, in addition to the error you spotted, Bull Trust me I'm a lawyer Gate from Australia was referring to English law. Australia abolished the distinction between slander and libel more than 10 years ago. ;) . |
Having had a normal laser shone into my eyes for a fraction of a second I can say it was a horrible experience and the effect lasted hours.
Though in UK the power is supposed to be limited to 1mW, it does not take long to find very high power lasers with burning capability online. I think the decision to turn back was wise. |
Banned in Australia 8 years ago
After similar problems in Australia lasers with power >1mW were basically banned.
|
GOULI
I wasn't there on board the aircraft, so whatever decisions the flight crew made were right for them, at the time. The aircraft landed safely and the passengers were uninjured. This is an hysterical overreaction considering that the aircraft was already out past the west coast of Eire before turning back. I'm sure the pilot that was blinded by the l@ser may have felt some discomfort and eye irritation, but dumping thousands of pounds worth of fuel into the environment and inconveniencing hundreds of passengers strikes me as gross incompetence on behalf of the flight crew. |
I'm no airline pilot but have the greatest respect for those of you who are and have to make these decisions quickly. Going on from what Wiggy says, I remember an AAIB report from a few years ago involving a flight en route from the States to the UK. Shortly after takeoff the first officer felt unwell with a headache and talk a tablet out of his pocket (thinking it was parcetomol) only find out soon after that it was Co-proximol type drug which made him ill. The captain decided to press on and then almost landed on the worng runway at EGKK due to a late runway change and the presure of work on him that it caused. For those interested it was June 1997
AAIB Bulletin No: 6/97 Ref: EW/G96/12/1 Category: 1.1 |
DIGITALIS
Please check your PMs.
|
purely from a passengers point of view, if I knew that just after take off, with 7 odd hours of flight ahead, one of the pilots was unwell/injured/incapacitated, I would be more than happy for us to return to the safety of the departure airport, for everyone's safety.
If nothing unforeseen goes wrong then I am sure the remaining pilot could get us there, but that's the trouble with the unforeseen. Is it any different in safety terms to a twin engine aircraft loosing an engine on take off? You wouldn't carry on over the Atlantic, even though it could probably get there. (I know this one has 4) |
Sallyann1234 et al
It is a shame that having an opinion has upset so many people. Of course the pilots took the most reasonable and safest course of action in the light of their company policy, international regulations and for the safety of the aircraft and passengers. Sitting safely on the ground, the actions they took did not make sense to me, but I now see the reasoning behind it. I meant no personal insult to the flight crew but was trying to make a point about having moved into a culture where every incident in flight is now seen as a potential major safety issue. Perhaps it is for the best that we have moved on from the press on regardless attitudes of the past. I have used lasers on a regular basis since the late 1960s, so I am very aware of the dangers they pose and the injuries they can cause. Retinal damage from a laser is instant and irreversible. Because the beam is focused by the lens in the eye, generally the retinal damage is restricted to a few cells, but repeated exposure will cause significant deterioration in vision. When only a small area of the retina is affected, the body compensates for the damage and apparently normal vision is restored although the damage remains. The same mechanism allows us to ignore the blind spot where the retinal nerves enter the eye for most tasks. As stated above I acknowledge that the flight crew acted in accordance with procedures and I accept that my knowledge was lacking in this respect. Hopefully this incident will lead to an improvement in flight safety through the culprit being found and prosecuted to the full extent of the law as a deterrent to other idiots who think lighting up an aircraft at night is a fun thing to do. |
Tourist (#46), I don't think you can draw conclusions from the Egypt experience - that crew may well have been using laser goggles or glasses, but we don't know.
The majority of laser devices are Class 1/low power and will not do damage unless there is prolonged exposure. The problem comes with the devices that are either not as advertised or actually deliver the claimed power output. Any laser capable of bursting a balloon or lighting a match (a common sales claim) is capable of producing irreparable eye damage; what sort of damage will depend on whether you look directly at the beam or it enters your eye at an 'off-boresight' angle. There have been plenty of incidents of eye damage to children, not all of it serious but not all of it reported or treated either. It also depends where in the world you live. A&E is not full of laser casualties, true, but that is not the same as knowing there are no casualties. According to one report I read (from an NHS consultant), there were 9 youngsters in Sheffield with life-changing eye injuries in 2013 alone. There will be more. In the meantime we need to stop people having a go at aircraft. Googles and dyes in windscreens are just about OK as defences but some of them alter depth perception, some make elements of PFDs hard to read, and all of them notch out chunks of the red and green wavelengths. LEDs have tighter radiant bandwidth and are becoming much more common because they are brighter and cheaper to run than conventional incandescent lamps, but the downside is less spectrum to spill around the notched wavelengths produced by goggles/glasses. The next step needs to be having lasers added to the offensive weapons list, which would give police officers the stop and search powers they need to tackle this problem. |
Wicked Lasers | Blue, Red, Green Laser Pointers
Just to show what can be purchased around the world and these aren't the worst by a long way. Just look in the tech market of Shanghai for some of the 'under the counter' stuff. :ugh: As far as 'decision making' goes any flight crew incapacitation requires a diversion. The time frame and decision making processes will obviously vary with the extent of the injury etc. The MINIMUM number of crew for operation of a trans atlantic passenger jet is two. Any reduction below the minimum requires an emergency declaration and a diversion. If that diversion is back to the departure airfield then so be it. To continue over the pond with below minimum crew would be illegal as well as not a bit stupid. If the crew member felt that their ability to carry out their assigned tasks as PF or PM had been degraded by the incident, irrespective of the time frame, severity or damage, then the aircraft is operating below minimum crew and the absolutely correct command decisions were taken. It's very easy to hypothesize when you are not conversant with the rules and regs of the ANO but perhaps it would be best not to wrap that lack of knowledge up in an arm chair warrior irrelevant post. :E Just my thoughts |
Quick notes from a retired pilot:
See Richard Feynman's report on looking at the first atomic explosion. He was confident he could look right at it through a lorry wind-shield. This confidence came from knowing about photons converting their energy to and fro as they pass glass molecules. However, he ended up throwing himself on the floor of the cab with a huge mauve blotch on his vision. Despite what we learn in physics, there seems to be no doubt eyes can be damaged from light that has passed through glass. Why? 100 yeas or so ago scientist learned roughly how the retina worked. Only recently have we learned that the layer on the front surface of the retina, thought to be an evolutionary mistake, is a breathtakingly complex neural mechanism. The point being here is the separation of blue (higher frequency) light and the more readily used red and green. The way in which the eye might be affected is not only based on the energy, but the fact that, that colour energy is treated rather differently. This activity in the front surface may well be likened to the brain's neural processing and it's not difficult to imagine just how distressing an attack on that mechanism could be even before the rods and cones are affected. We have to consider the psychology of the crew-member's reaction to a disruption in their sight. Sitting here a few days ago after retinal eye surgery, I can tell you there were times when I felt like tearing the patch off in moments of sheer panic. You'd have to be insensitive to the point of stupidity not to be asking yourself if your sight would return, or if you'd been permanently blinded. To carry on, making decisions, the right decisions in this case, all while these things are rolling around in the back of your mind takes a lot of guts. It happens also that I spent a lot of time writing about Classical Migraine on the medical forum. I learned a great deal about the fear in aircrew of sudden patches of blindness. When you think about it, a large aircraft with perhaps just four tiny tissue-thin organs as the only contact with its systems and the outside world has always has been incredibly vulnerable. There is no room in this industry for mischievous or even malicious disruption of these vital surfaces. There's no need I'm sure, to extrapolate to the worst scenario. |
GOULI,
Stating an opinion without having all the facts is worthless. I think you should apologise and accept that you crossed the line. If you listen to the ATC / VS25B Pan transmission, you will hear that they did indeed report the incident to ATC at the time! := |
Not just planes
Hi All,
I had a recent experience driving on a motorway in France. We had just come of an evening Eurotunnel and there was a coach with students who had been on the same shuttle. There is a stretch just east of Dunkerque with long lines of sight (3km+). I was about 900m behind the coach when someone in the back seat started lasing the cars. Having read the threads on here I knew what was coming and was able to use the sun visor to block the direct line of sight betwen myself and the coach while still being able to see the road immediately ahead enough to brake. The expereince was not so much a constant light, but more a strafing so bright light when the laser hit something in the car and then darkness as the firer's hand shook. We were lucky that it was late and the road wasn't that busy and I had the prior information. If it had come as a surprise I would have struggled. EG |
I am just stunned that numerous people here feel that this crew could have carried on over the Atlantic . Even in summer with benign weather and going to a less manic place than JFK it would be foolish . In winter across the N Atlantic -possible diversions to places like Gander and Bangor Maine under feet of snow plus the JFK ATC environment which basically sounds like a tobacco auction it is insanity.
to illustrate why this sort of incident must always be handled like this crew people should reflect on the incident a good few years ago of a BA 747 -100 I think flying Bahrain to london- .Three crew as an FE on board. One crew member ill pretty much at the start of trip and another who became ill en route. Experience captain carried on to LHR - approach went awry with aircraft well of centre line and having to do a very late visual go around. This ended with prosecution of the respected captain and his subsequent suicide and I am very sure the airline SOPS were changed to emphasise that a crew is a minimum and one can certainly never willing go below 2 fully fit and functioning crew members . One pilot flying on his own is emergency only situations with no alternative like sudden medical capacitation or the BA skipper who got sucked out of the window. |
G0uli
I meant no personal insult to the flight crew an hysterical overreaction gross incompetence :rolleyes: Pax B I am just stunned that numerous people here feel that this crew could have carried on over the Atlantic . |
G0ULI, what a presumptuous and inappropriate comment to make.
From the CAA ALERSA page... "If you have experienced one or more of the following after a laser beam exposure please consult an eye specialist: Eye problems – swelling, pain, itching, watering, discharge, dryness or redness of the eye. Visual disturbance – blurring, black spot, trouble reading, loss of peripheral vision, oaters, halos, poor night vision, sensitivity to light. These symptoms may not appear until hours after the incident and may not be related directly to laser exposure but could reflect other eye issues perhaps not previously noticed." I fully support the crew's right to exercise the decision they see fit. You don't know what was going on with the pilots eye sight, and you don't know that the laser wasn't high powered. Having been targeted by a laser in the past, not on a commercial flight, but when flying friends at night in a piston twin, it affected my vision for quite some time that night. I ended up converting to IFR and putting the screens up because having avoided the area for around 30 minutes it started again as soon as we reached the same area, which unfortunately was not really avoidable without diverting to somewhere much further away. I had to get the tower to turn up the HIALS to their max brightness and it was still a challenge to identify the airfield until much closer, such was the disturbance to my vision. I sure as hell wouldn't want to endure several hours across the Atlantic like that, even if there was another crew member to relieve me. I'd rather be safely on the ground so I could see an eye specialist as soon as possible if things got worse. Eyes are exceptionally delicate things, and one thing to consider is that cabin pressure can have all sorts of affects on the eyes following injury to it. A friend of mine in the forces suffered ocular trauma from debris blast, an IED went off a several hundred metres away and he got blasted with stones etc... apart from the damage to his eye he was fine aside from minor cuts and scrapes, as were the rest of the guys fortunately. But he was advised not to fly for 6 months due to increased pressure in the eye, and that any change to external pressure (i.e. a high cabin altitude, or scuba diving) could severely increase his risk of developing glaucoma, and blindness. Now I don't know what kind of damage a laser can do regarding intraocular pressure, but I sure as **** am not going to risk my eyesight by continuing a flight for several hours at high altitude if I am having problems with my eye(s) following a laser attack. |
The medical/technical discussion is interesting, but with reference to the crew's actions, can I just quote what used to be the written instruction to captains of the tea-clippers and such. "Appointed as Master, under God, for this voyage". Captain's decision - end of story.
|
Lasers should be classed as "offensive weapons" and banned in the UK - Balpa
A bit over the top?
|
GOULI
in your exceptionally misguided first post on this thread you waffled on about eye angles and distances etc. associated with being lasered from the front. I was lasered recently at 7000' near MAN. From the side. Just a thought. Try it. Thinking that is. As an aside, ATC and the police made a great job of it and actually caught the fool concerned. He was using a powerful and therefore illegal laser bought on t'interweb. All went well as the police were very keen to see the cretin done and properly. The UK judiciary had other ideas and as he'd had a difficult childhood or some such bolleaux he was just told not to be naughty any more. I was off work for a week and the eye specialist I saw was very clear that I'd been lucky as a side on hit is very bad news. Seems my natural reaction to turn to the light was in fact a bit of luck. It'd be altogether better if it was stamped on long ago of course. IMHO this and clowns with drones are the biggest latent safety threat we face today. |
Mark in CA
'Banned in the UK' will be hard to achieve and will not happen, but having laser pointers classified as offensive weapons will make a big difference and is certainly not over the top. That would give police the right to stop and search somebody for possession - at the moment they can't do that even if they reasonably believe the individual to have been responsible for an attack, which makes prosecution a tad difficult at times. Banning high-power lasers (rather than all lasers) is a different question. There is work going on in Europe that may lead to high-power devices being banned in the EC - always assuming we are still part of it! - and the existing legislation in the UK supposedly limits pointers to 1mW. That becomes pretty meaningless when you can import via the internet or pick them up from the street vendors on your travels. The other issue, as mentioned earlier, is that power output is often different from the declared spec. At least with a few simple changes to the law we might be able to make a difference. We might even prevent a few life-changing injuries on the way. We know from BALPA surveys that attacks are under-reported, possibly by a third, and that only takes account of UK operators. The overseas operators (50% of the commercial traffic) are supposed to report to their own NAAs. If we don't report all attacks we get in the UK, why should we expect others to report all attacks here as well? 2015 figures are likely to reveal 1800+ attacks, and if we apply a margin for overseas operators and UK under-reporting, we could actually be looking at 3500-4000 events (crimes) per year. New Zealand managed to make a serious reduction in its attack rates via a combination of restrictions on power and carriage rules, and an increase in penalties. If it worked for them, it should work for us. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.