Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

AF 447 Thread No. 8

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

AF 447 Thread No. 8

Old 20th May 2012, 23:25
  #841 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Once again if you lose airspeed and are in level flight flying fine why not just stay in level flight, make sure the thrust is reasonable, pull out the unreliable airspeed checklist and truck on. I wouldn't pull up for no reason just because IAS went away. Would you?
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 21st May 2012, 03:07
  #842 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by A33Zab
If he was following the guidance he would have released the SS and even pointed the nose down between (02:10:55) and (02:11:05) in HN39's graph instead he went back to 15 pitch°
He has released the sidestick, for less nose up, but to point the nose down (negative pitch), that won’t be the FD command if the goal is to reduce the V/S to a still positive 1500 fpm. What could have helped to point the nose down and let all the problems behind was for the PF to promptly request to his PNF to select a negative V/S on the FCU (probably at least minus 1000 fpm …), if his goal was to benefit from the FD directions of course, but for that, he would have had to realize first that the present vertical command was unrealistic.
CONF iture is offline  
Old 21st May 2012, 03:15
  #843 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by A33Zab
The 2 LAW/MODE you suggest is that referred to B. FBW? then you forgot to mention SECONDARY mode as degradation (i.a. no envelope protection) of the Normal Mode.
To be honest, I know little about the Boeing FBW.

No, my suggestion is simply the result of many years of observation. If you reduce the laws and the complexity, you end up with something more straight forward and simple for the pilot thinking. It means that for every single simulator session, a way or the other, the pilots will automatically be exposed to direct law with the necessity to manually trim if in manual flight (why AP could not be avail in direct law ?), and a clear thinking of what is available or not.

Is it such an handicap to fly direct law after all ?

You most probably know much more than me regarding the B. FBW, but what I can say is that up to now, and the triple 7 is flying for a while, I simply never ear about it – Something must be good.
CONF iture is offline  
Old 21st May 2012, 03:17
  #844 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by A33Zab
There is an simple and effective autotrim cancel 'feature'.... just hold the manual wheel.
You’re talking here as an engineer, not a guy who regularly seat in a simulator and has to deal with the amount of malfunctions and emergencies.
Also, I have never read in an official documentation that touching the wheel when autotrim was operative, was prohibited. But shame or not, as RF4 mentioned, interfering with the autotrim is not a procedure, nothing to encourage a pilot to do so.
CONF iture is offline  
Old 21st May 2012, 05:40
  #845 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Houston, I think we have a problem!

This really isn't news fresh off the presses, but the the incident mentioned in the thread "An other AF 447 avoided?" over in Rumours & News has resulted in a BEA report on the incident. For those English speakers who have not seen the BEA report, there is an repost of an informal translation by Simon Hradecky here: http://www.pprune.org/7199637-post311.html
Retired F-4 has already plucked out the salient facts and the implications are chilling.
http://www.pprune.org/7200167-post314.html

The thing that really gets me is this statement:
53 seconds after the upset began the aircraft reached its maximum altitude at 38,185 feet at a mach speed of 0.66.

The pilot flying realised at that point they were at 38,000 feet and queried the pilot not flying whether they weren't assigned to FL350.
The thing that helped save the day here is that the aircraft was still in Normal law.
The crew of AF447 was even more confused than these guys and were flying in Alt2.

In my day, I had to develop a mental mechanism to cruise at my assigned altitude. A part of my brain was continuously noting altitude and continuously striving to work out a strategy to "lock on" to the assigned altitude. This mechanism ran at a subconscious level. Not really very different than the effort to keep the wings level and nose at cruise attitude which also ran at the subconscious level.

It is clear that some pilots are losing this mental mechanism, or even worse, not developing it in the first place. There is only one way to keep this mechanism active, you must exercise it regularly.

Do we really just want to put another squawking computer nag in the cockpit just to declare this problem solved? Wouldn't it be better if we just insisted that pilots actually fly their aircraft for a percentage of the time aloft.

I've heard the explanation that the requirements of RVSM airspace preclude pilots from actually handling their aircraft. Maybe that should be reviewed. I could hold within 200 feet of assigned altitude while hand flying about 99.9% of the time, and the worst I ever saw was 300' off due to distractions, and this was in a single pilot fighter. Is that good enough for RVSM airspace?

A pilot should never be so mentally disengaged from the aircraft that it takes almost a minute for him to realize he is seriously off altitude. This was the initial piloting problem leading to the downfall of AF447.

Am I being unrealistic?
Machinbird is offline  
Old 21st May 2012, 15:55
  #846 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,126
Received 314 Likes on 202 Posts
Dozy:
You can have computers operating on single data sources in a fighter with a bang seat, because if everything goes to plaid the single human occupant can egress safely in mid-air. This doesn't work for airliners, so the only safe way to apply the technology is to check, cross-check and re-check.
it's not either / or. That same check/cross check is required even for fancy fighters. Also, most modern fighters, F-16 to present, have considerable redundancy built in, for both reliability reasons and the operational environment the planes will be in: likely something hits you that takes out a system, or degrades is. Not a lot of single point failure systems hitting production, and that's been true for a while.

HazelNuts39
"I've lost control"
Probably referring to roll rather than pitch?
As I look at MM43's chart, he's already been stalled for a bit (~32 seconds) before he realizes that he has lost the ability to control the aircraft, or at least he feels that way.

OCF (Out of Control Flight) is roughly defined as
"You make a control input and the aircraft doesn't do what it is supposed to do, or what you expect it to do."

At 32 seconds into being stalled, per mm43's graph/picture, the pilot says to his cabin mate "I've lost control" and finally acknowledges that he is in OCF. What doesn't get added up and understood is that he is in OCF, and he is OCF because the aircraft is stalled ... even though the warning that he is approaching stall (and also in stall) has sounded quite a bit in the last minute or so.

While I don't think he just means roll, roll is doubtless a problem for hims since the airfoil has been stalled for about half a minute.

Owain said it far more thoroughly, I was speaking from a pilot's point of view.

The line from Owain that gets me weeping ...
10. The only vestige of control left to him would have been a steady application of down elevator to reduce AoA, after which the other problems would disappear. Tragically this was the one option he did not try.
So: why didn't he know he was stalled?
That warning had been available as a cue.
Why didn't he believe it/
Why didn't PNF believe it?
If he was in fact trying to fly 15 deg nose up, on purpose, at that cruise altitude ... WHY?
I don't think he was just making up things to do for himself, he seems to have had the idea that "if I do this, my problem will be closer to solved."
Why did he believe that?
Provisional conclusion: training issue.

Dozy, and others:

When discussing degradation, maybe "gradual" might be a better way to think of it, than "graceful" ... since the odds of graceful performance decrase as degradation increases.

A pilot should never be so mentally disengaged from the aircraft that it takes almost a minute for him to realize he is seriously off altitude. This was the initial piloting problem leading to the downfall of AF447.
Am I being unrealistic?
No.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 21st May 2012, 16:06
  #847 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DozyWannabe (re: end of #802 & following):
I agree
We all should read the report about the Caracas A343 flight. Startle factor, very much more likely than this or that technical glitch not recorded on the FDR/CVR...

Machinbird (re : #845)
Having 100% "real" pilots is a nice thing. But is it achievable?
I think it's easier (and cheaper) to have an obligation to carry (and use) an A/P to this class of aircrafts, than to have a proficient crew.
In fact, it would be better to have both (as in the "part time manual flying" you evocated), but then the risk would be a manual "super pilot" out of a flight school not really up to what should be expected... this super pilot cannot hold his F/L within 200 or 300ft, but is cleared to fly in RVSM because his paper say he could.
It's far easier to assess if a "machine" works as intended or not, than to assess the proficiency (airmanship, SOP adherence...) of a human being.
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline  
Old 21st May 2012, 22:29
  #848 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 81
Posts: 1,609
Received 52 Likes on 15 Posts
I read Bubbers, 'bird, Retired, Okie et al and I, too, question the procedures.

The 'almost an AF447' thread shows what I see as a problem with the procedures, if not with the profiles the jets are flying. To wit, a fascination with overspeed. The reaction to pull up. But then, we see "what the hell are we doing climbing so far?".

Why are the jets flying so close to a mach limit?

Why is not the first step to get the throttles outta the damned "auto" mode?

Why not use same logic for the AoA probes as the pitot probes? If they all agree then keep using AoA "protection" ( how I hate that term).

Where's the PNF commenting about the sustained climb?

And at Doze.... if that's the control laws working "normally" and the standard procedures, then both need to be changed, IMHO.
gums is offline  
Old 21st May 2012, 23:11
  #849 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Hi,

The 'almost an AF447' thread shows what I see as a problem with the procedures, if not with the profiles the jets are flying. To wit, a fascination with overspeed. The reaction to pull up. But then, we see "what the hell are we doing climbing so far?".
Not deep technical (no drawing or PDF) but I think that the procedure in case of overspeed is the high speed protection come in force:
The AP will disconnect .. high speed protection come active ... as an interdiction to go down and a command to go up and return to normal flight command when end of overspeed
Note that the ATHR still active and will go to TOGA (and so add a little more up movement)
The AOA will increase .. and if too much ... the AOA protection will be activated .. this will give some down command to keep alpha prot and the altitude will decrease
The aircraft will find a balance and will remain in that position and altitude reached if pilot(s) do not touch anything IMHO
DW know certainly better

Last edited by jcjeant; 21st May 2012 at 23:15.
jcjeant is offline  
Old 22nd May 2012, 01:45
  #850 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AlphaZuluRomeo
Machinbird (re : #845)
Having 100% "real" pilots is a nice thing. But is it achievable?
In my opinion it is. We have enough time in the air to do all sorts of useful training. We just have to figure out how to accomplish the training given our operational constraints.
I think it's easier (and cheaper) to have an obligation to carry (and use) an A/P to this class of aircrafts, than to have a proficient crew.
In fact, it would be better to have both (as in the "part time manual flying" you evocated), but then the risk would be a manual "super pilot" out of a flight school not really up to what should be expected... this super pilot cannot hold his F/L within 200 or 300ft, but is cleared to fly in RVSM because his paper say he could.
It's far easier to assess if a "machine" works as intended or not, than to assess the proficiency (airmanship, SOP adherence...) of a human being.
AlphaZuluRomeo, I think this viewpoint will lead us down the slippery slope leading to no one in the cockpit and when the unthinkable happens, the MBAs will have already factored in the loss into their financial planning.

I am not sure why you are using the term "super pilot" except perhaps in a sarcastic vein. The expected level of altitude maintenance accuracy is achievable by properly trained pilots. Early in our advanced Naval pilot training sequence, my classmates and I could all hit this level of performance or we did not advance. Even if a new FO is a little shaky there are things that can be done that will allow him/her to build the necessary competence.

Let us think outside the box for a moment. Supposing we added in a manual flying training mode into our aircraft.

How did you learn to hold altitude? When you began to get a little off altitude, didn't your instructor cluck at you and if you continued to diverge, didn't he give the stick a nudge to put you back in the tolerance band. Why couldn't our aircraft with their sophisticated autopilots do something similar? No need to breech RVSM limits yet we can still get actual handling time and build a scan. Any pilot worth his salt hates having the stick nudged. When you get tired, you can let OTTO have the complete aircraft. Think of the potential to actually monitor a pilot's handling skill and to automatically record actual handling time! True, you won't get as much time to balance your checkbook or to read a magazine, but remember why you are sitting in the front seats!
Machinbird is offline  
Old 22nd May 2012, 05:43
  #851 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good pilots will be able to hand fly and stay at altitude just fine. Computer operator pilots won't. Unfortunately the latter are taking over right now. It is the future in aviation unfortunately. The Bob Hoover types who really know how to fly are scarce. It didn't use to be this way but it is now.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 22nd May 2012, 09:58
  #852 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 776
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
bubbers44
Good pilots will be able to hand fly and stay at altitude just fine. Computer operator pilots won't. Unfortunately the latter are taking over right now. It is the future in aviation unfortunately. The Bob Hoover types who really know how to fly are scarce. It didn't use to be this way but it is now.
you are right, straight and level flying and maintaining a specified flight level is not rocket science. It has been done before.

Our ferry flights to goose bay / Labrador and back lasted around 8 hours each. The KC135 or KC10 tanker aircraft did the navigation part, and 5 phantoms flew in formation along, when weather closed in even in close fingertip formation. Our autopilot was not useable that close to other aircraft, everything was manual flying including the 8 air-refueling phases. With O² masks on and orange juice self served with a straw. After a 7 hour flight i had to lead my wing man down to landing (he had complete com failure) in marginal weather conditions (rvr 1000 meters, ceiling at 200 feet, no ILS only PAR talkdown). No modern gadgets where available, no FDR and no copilot, just a weapon system operator in the backseat. All pilots of the wing could do that, thanks to lots of training we didn´t need to be skygod.

As often mentioned, it comes down to the will of the management to have trained pilots and not system monitors.

@Machinbird
I like your thinking out of the box, but doubt that the industry can look that far.
RetiredF4 is offline  
Old 22nd May 2012, 10:48
  #853 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Machinbird, I was indeed sarcastic.

I'm sure that having correctly trained pilots is achievable, in the sense that we know how to do that seriously. My concern is about economics for one part (all over the world), and "over there" second/third rank companies for the second part.
How do you assure that all crews are trained as they need to be?
How do you assure that all planes meet requirement criteria?
The latter is far easier to assess, even from a third party (other country...)

As said by bubbers44, because they are not so much needed (in normal ops), pure flying skills are seen as less essential by many (including some crews). With today's planes, a rookie crew can manage a normal flight "full auto" without wetting its pants. It's not good because, as we know, when **** hits the fan skills & training remain essential. But they do. That's why I prefer that those untrained crews stay in auto. Not that I will go in their plane (if I can avoid it) but because in RVSM, if such a crew screw it, it endanger its plane and other ones, even if those other ones have a perfectly trained crew.

Your idea of a plane helping the crew to gain certain competences, with instructor-like clues/help for keeping the assigned altitude manually is an interesting one

Last edited by AlphaZuluRomeo; 22nd May 2012 at 10:50.
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline  
Old 22nd May 2012, 11:22
  #854 (permalink)  
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,178
Received 92 Likes on 61 Posts
All pilots of the wing could do that ...

ah, but that was in an era when pilots saw the pleasure .. nay, even desired the skill ... of being able to fly .. well.

it comes down to the will of the management

indeed .. but, if most of us have no great trouble taking a chap of modest competence and, in the space of a longish sim session, get him to the stage where he can perform a blind landing to a stop and then, when vis is returned, observe that the aircraft is on the centreline ... surely it is not all that big an ask to desire that pilots might have such a basic level of stick and rudder skills ?

The same can be said of the I/F circuit and ILS recovery in CAT 1 or worse conditions with all pressure instruments having failed during the takeoff rotation into said critical weather conditions.

Yes, it is a cost .. but not an horrendous cost.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 22nd May 2012, 15:18
  #855 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wink

I'm not pilot and my uneducated perception about this tragedy is that if the pilot in question had fainted, probably everybody would still be alive. But I admit not reading the previous no doubt hundreds of excellent posts on this topic, so ..

Can someone please summarize the previous 854 posts in 1 or two sentences?

Thnx!

Last edited by keesje; 22nd May 2012 at 15:19.
keesje is offline  
Old 22nd May 2012, 15:34
  #856 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That's hilarious, keesje!

OK, I'll try:

These so-called pilots didn't know how to fly.

But probably the Airbus FBW is evil and succeeded in killing them.

OTOH, what're you, NUTS? Of course, the AB is perfect in every way!

No it isn't!

That is all. Did I leave anything out?
Organfreak is offline  
Old 22nd May 2012, 17:06
  #857 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Poway, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Orangefreak

Well summarized !
JLWSanDiego is offline  
Old 22nd May 2012, 17:18
  #858 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
keesje.
Very infrequently, though more times than acceptable, this type aircraft experiences rare circumstances, generally weather oriented, that cause it to drop out of autoflight (autopilot). In these circumstances, the pilot(s) are required to fly "manually", a more and more infrequent concept. The results can be loss of control, uncommanded excursions of flight path, and other disconcerting and unnecessary events.

Necessary competence on such occasions has been found wanting, and incidents and accidents have resulted. The maker of the aircraft, and the pilots, both have work to do.

And the regulators.
Lyman is offline  
Old 22nd May 2012, 17:24
  #859 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CONF iture
No, my suggestion is simply the result of many years of observation. If you reduce the laws and the complexity, you end up with something more straight forward and simple for the pilot thinking.
But in this case there was no apparent "confusion" over laws. The drop to Alternate was called by the PNF, but the PF either didn't notice or disregarded the call. At no point does the PF question why the aircraft is respnsing the way it is and at no point does he quesiton the fact that the aircraft is clearly not in a protected mode.

(why AP could not be avail in direct law ?)
Because the system works differently to other airliners. Traditional layouts have the AP designed with hard limits, whereas the Airbus design has those limits as part of the flight control logic. In any case, it's not a good idea to use AP when there is a pitot/static failure as the AP limits can take an aircraft right up to the edge of stall (see the Birgenair 757 case).

Is it such an handicap to fly direct law after all ?
It's more of a jump from Normal to Direct than it is via Alternate, that's for certain - and because autotrim is designed to replace manual trim by feel (because there's no backdrive), a systems failure in the middle of bad weather is not a good time to be made to do it for real.

You most probably know much more than me regarding the B. FBW, but what I can say is that up to now, and the triple 7 is flying for a while, I simply never ear about it – Something must be good.
A lot of lay folk (and indeed the press) are unaware that the T7 is in fact full FBW, because the fact was not publicised as widely when the T7 was launched. The T7 computers *did* come under a lot of scrutiny during the BA038 investigation - especially in the early days before the AAIB ruled them out as a contributing factor.

I've said this before, but the Boeing system is in fact more complex than Airbus's from an engineering standpoint because of the backdrive. In fact it would have been unwise to attempt backdrive on the A320 because of the immense amount of extra complexity involved - the almost decade-long gap between the A320 and B777 projects meant that the hardware could handle the extra load safely.

The most concise way of describing the difference in approach to protection is that the Boeing system significantly increases resistance to yoke movement when the safe limits are reached whereas the Airbus system simply holds the aircraft in the maximum commanded attitude deemed safe.

Comparing the systems statistically is difficult because the Airbus system is applied across the range where as the Boeing system was applied to only one model (two now that the B787 is in service).

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
it's not either / or. That same check/cross check is required even for fancy fighters. Also, most modern fighters, F-16 to present, have considerable redundancy built in, for both reliability reasons and the operational environment the planes will be in: likely something hits you that takes out a system, or degrades is. Not a lot of single point failure systems hitting production, and that's been true for a while.
Totally - I was referring to failure modes only. Because one can egress from a fighter in mid-air, a failure mode in which the system can regress to a single data feed if necessary is workable. In an airliner it's simply not reliable enough because there are more lives at stake, and they don't have banng seats.

When discussing degradation, maybe "gradual" might be a better way to think of it, than "graceful" ... since the odds of graceful performance decrase as degradation increases.
"Graceful degradation" is an engineering term that simply means that the system is designed to keep the remaining system components functioning in a way that can assist the operator, rather than dumping them in the cacky at the first hurdle. It has no bearing on the way the operator uses that system in a degraded state!

The myriad failure modes are grouped into "Laws" simply to aid understanding. In this case, Alternate Law exists to keep the aircraft handling as close to the way it does in Normal Law as it can, so that a pilot is not thrown into a situation where the aircraft is suddenly handling differently across all axes of movement. The pilots only need to remember one thing really - outside of Normal Laws the aircraft is effectively unprotected and needs to be treated as such. Which is not to say that it's not a good idea for pilots to understand the control laws - they should. But the only need-to-know golden rule is that out of Normal Law you need to be careful with manual control inputs.

Originally Posted by gums
Why are the jets flying so close to a mach limit?
Airliners do - it's in the nature of the beast.

Originally Posted by gums
Why is not the first step to get the throttles outta the damned "auto" mode?
That happens automatically - autothrust disengages with AP in this situation.

Why not use same logic for the AoA probes as the pitot probes? If they all agree then keep using AoA "protection" ( how I hate that term).
Because there's a worst case scenario failure mode where the failure is in the hardware logic rather than the sensors. If the aircraft is attitude-limited in an inappropriate way because of this then a situation can arise where the aircraft cannot be recovered.

And at Doze.... if that's the control laws working "normally" and the standard procedures, then both need to be changed, IMHO.
Trust me - no procedures were followed here, standard or otherwise. My personal feeling is that the PF was in the grip of a startle response at AP disconnect from which he never fully recovered. At no point does he talk about control laws and at no point does he acknowledge the information that is in front of him - he simply grabs the stick and starts heaving on it.

Originally Posted by jcjeant
The aircraft will find a balance and will remain in that position and altitude reached if pilot(s) do not touch anything IMHO
DW know certainly better
If the systems behaves as advertised it will stay within all limits up to the edge of that limit if the pilot tries to exceed them.

There are technical questions that need addressing - the Stall Warning design needs looking at, as well as a backup system that will disable and latch FD in the case of UAS where Normal Law is not recovered among other things. Similarly organisational issues - why the UAS procedure was not drilled into these pilots, why it was the norm that two pilots who had no high-altitude manual handling training or experience were in a position that cut safety margins a little too fine - again, among other things.

But the psychological/human factors investigation is where the heart of solving this accident lies and I'm loath to even try to unravel that.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 22nd May 2012, 17:33
  #860 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Snoop

@ keesje
Just read ! the best posts are at the beginning ! Start with thread 1... (3 short sentences)

@ AZR
Your cyniscism is out of acceptable limit.
Which is the price of your life, of your childrens' life, of the pilots' life ?

Last edited by roulishollandais; 22nd May 2012 at 17:36. Reason: add : "(3 sentences)", smilies
roulishollandais is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.