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

He stepped on the Rudder and redefined Va

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

He stepped on the Rudder and redefined Va

Old 29th Sep 2013, 20:42
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 46
Posts: 352
Cannot say anything for commercial jet aircraft and will readily stand corrected as always, but apart from the (AFAIK rather controversial) "falling leaf", I cannot think of any manoeuvre with oscillating hard rudder inputs. And frankly, even if at speeds well below Va in the spamcans I sometimes fly (let's say at 80-90 KIAS), the idea of giving several alternating full rudder inputs just feels wrong and abusive.
Armchairflyer is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2013, 21:40
  #102 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Earth
Age: 45
Posts: 152
BBK or anyone with Bus experience....

In a bus, can a pilot at say a 200kts, aerodynamic forces be damned, step on a rudder to full stop, and the resulting action in the tail is that the rudder slammed hard over would result in a resulting bang or resonance in the fusilage because the rudder slammed over that hard on the vertical stab?

IF that is the case, that would answer something.
Teldorserious is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2013, 21:57
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 802
Mr. Teldorserious:

May I ask that you clear up something that is bothering me? Am I reading your posts correctly by understanding that when you started flying you were trained, and trained well, but were never trained, at any point in your career, to NOT apply full rudder in either direction – and specifically were NOT trained to never move any flight control from its hard-stop in one direction to its hard-stop in the opposite direction as fast as you are able? Further, am I understanding you to say that it is because of this absence of training in this specific area, you have determined independently that it must be permissible to apply full flight control input, for any flight control, to its mechanical or aerodynamic limits, in either direction, and then to rapidly move that control in the opposite direction to the opposite mechanical or aerodynamic limits? Or are you saying that you were specifically trained, and if not trained, at least told, that moving this control to one of its directional limits and then rapidly moving that control to the opposite limit, was an acceptable behavior in whatever airplane you were currently training to fly?

I ask this specifically in light of the fact that the AA587 accident airplane FDR readouts clearly show that this is precisely what the F/O did. And in light of your answers to my questions above, we might be able to discern that you are convinced that the accident resulted from inappropriate actions by that F/O or you are convinced that the accident resulted from operating an airplane that was built and certificated in accordance with grossly inadequate standards.

Thanks in advance for your clarifications.

Last edited by AirRabbit; 29th Sep 2013 at 21:59.
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2013, 22:26
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Am I to understand that you have never gone to the mechanical stop in any plane? Did someone tell you never to go to the mechanical stops or from mechanical stop to mechanical stop during your control checks?

Am I to understand that you have never landed in a crosswind which required full control to the stop in order to maintain control?

Am I to understand you were told you could not go to the mechanical stop ?

I've been saying over and over that there are certain planes that have limiters (mechanical or lock outs) and that they are well covered in POH and in FAA examinations. I've mentioned placcards till I was blue in the face.

BUT THE FREAKING A 300 didn't have that now did it? Anyplace in the A300 manual from the 1990s that said: DO NOT USE FULL CONTROL THROW OF ANY CONTROLS STOP TO STOP?

IF SOMETHING IS OBVIOUS, does it need saying...YES...and if something is not obvious it really needs saying.


In one transport jet I flew, we could not take off unless the rudder limiter light was working properly and if it failed in flight we had a MANDATORY MEMORY ITEM of which speeds to use full or less rudder.

DID THE A300 have that ? I doubt it.

Maybe the designers assumed something about the A300

and when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME

nope, don't blame the copilot...there may be dozens of men to blame, but he didn't have a placcard, or a POH limitation, or hours of lecture and examination.


But I will say this...when I first saw the A300, many years ago, the first thing I THOUGHT TO MYSELF WAS...GOSH THAT TAIL SECTION LOOKS WEAK.

But you see, that is just what I saw and didn't have a POH, placcard, or a lecture to tell me anything.


you don't have a second chance at a first impression.
flarepilot is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2013, 22:53
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,385
And, of course, teaching pilots the way to control an airplane throughout the entire envelope is entirely appropriate – and had that been accomplished, this might not have happened.
Could be true but I still don't see how "Don't ever rapidly cycle any flight control on any aeroplane under any circumstances" is envelope dependent. IMHO it is far more basic than teaching the pilots how to recover from the corners of the envelope.

However, I tend to believe that at least to the same level of satisfaction you have for the training that currently exists, I believe it is uncommon to see encounters with wing-tip vortices that are handled the way this pilot did the second time.
While I'm far from being satisfied with the level of training that currently exists, I do resent the attempts to draw the syllabus even further along the wrong way. Of course it is uncommon to see wake vortices handled the way it happened on AA587, most folks use wheel/stick to roll the aeroplane. That rudder is to be used to induce roll only when wheel is not enough should be basic airmanship which lead us to...

Also, I believe you are jumping on the Advanced Maneuver Training that the airline was using.
...my opinion that the biggest problem with AAAMTP was the third "A" - advanced. I'm not suggesting that program was problematic by itself. That flying folks lacking some basic understanding are quite capable of misapplying potential life saving action and turning it into lethal one was clearly demonstrated. I really don't know whether it's better to tailor the program to dumbest common denominator and have nothing advanced in syllabus lest it be misunderstood or insist on higher selection and training criteria so every pilot can get to grips with advanced concepts.

In ideal world choice would be easy.

That is still in use in the UK? It is expressively forbidden in Germany for the last 20 years or so.
Could be no one was killed in UK through getting way too much yaw at too low speed on a winch... yet.

As we learnt it from AA587 wrong practices were accepted from the community of pilots.
Wrong theories, not practices. Until AA587 no one tried to put "whatever I do with controls below Va won't kill me" to test so misunderstandings about Va were widespread but didn't increase the death toll until that fateful day.

We know that in critical situation our brain is regressing to what we learn first.
Well then pilots mustn't have brains because in critical situations they mostly apply what they have learnt last.

What you have well learnt in initial formation is for ever.
So if it's wrong, one is doomed? Fortunately it doesn't work like that in real life. It can be forgotten, rejected , expanded upon or whatever. It is likely to influence one but is far from being set in stone.

It is important to give effect to accident reports like AA587 in pedagogy.
Too complicated for beginners and totally unnecessary to go through whole of it. "Don't cycle your anything and don't pick the wing with the rudder if there's enough aileron" would suffice.

I am of the generation that had it drilled into them BY THE FAA in its approved methods that structural failure wouldn't occur below certain speeds with full control throw.
Heck, I could pump up my number of posts just by repeating "People with scant understanding of dynamic stability should not be overly assertive around here" ad nauseam.

OF COURSE, who would buy an airplane that has a placcard or POH statement like: IF YOU SCREW WITH THE RUDDER THE PLANE WILL< REPEAT WILL< FALL APARt and KILL EVERYONE.
Today everyone in the airliner market is compelled by law to buy such contraptions. Not with the exact wording but close enough.

can't anyone conceive that the wake was bad enough to start a whole cycle of events that ended up showing the weakness of this plane?
Just those who haven't a) read the report b) understood the report c)both.

I am reminded that there was a dissenting opinion from an NTSB member about the probable cause
And I'll copy-paste the relevant part it for you once again:

Originally Posted by NTSB
To elevate the characteristics of the A300-600 rudder system in the hierarchy of contributing factors ignores the fact that this system had not been an issue in some 16 million hours of testing and operator experience—until the AAMP trained pilot flew it.
The lesson is that Airbus made a crappy tail that couldn't be inspected for fatigue, and it did fall apart under conditions that many of us have exceeded in other aircraft, by orders of magnitude, every day in turbulance, upset recoveries, and normal training regimens.
Just plain lie.

I see the problem...you don't understand that thousands of properly certificated FAA approved pilots did NOT KNOW THAT STOMPING ON THE RUDDER would cause the plane to fall apart.
That indeed was a problem... fixed now.

I'm pretty sure all Boeing AFMs have that same statement.
Airbus, ATR and Bombardier too.

BTW how come that chinese 747 that stalled and only recovered feet from the briney off NW america all those years ago not serve as an example to all plane makers in getting it right on the drawing board and making them Boeing tough?
If it stalled nearer the TOC than TOD, outcome would be pretty different.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 00:06
  #106 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Earth
Age: 45
Posts: 152
How about a hypothetical conversation with an Airbus test pilot -

'Did you slam the rudder back and forth when testing the bus?'
'Yes, that's what test pilots do'
'Do you do it at different speeds'
'Yes, that's what test pilots do'
'How did you determine Va'
'We flew to the limits of mathematical fatigue to see if the math was right, examined the structure. Adjusted the numbers, butressed up the airframe if needed, that's what test pilots and engineers do'
'Do you think a left, right, then left application of rudder would take the tail off'
'If it did, then all the Airbus test pilots would be dead or better skydivers.'
'So what is the problem then?'
'Fatigued structure, bad engineering, a bad landing? Went through severe turbulance too many times, bad manufacuring that day, they put that tail on the day before Christmas. Temp issues with carbon fibre, the alumimum condensed moisture in there, maybe it's like the Alaska jack screw deal, mechanics signed the tail inspections off with out getting on a ladder, hydraulics too strong calibrated incorrect, slamming stops, terrorism, it did happen with an engine out...two failures at the same time...what are the odds of that?'
'so do you think the pilots screwed up?'
'Well what do you think an airline pilot could do departing on climbout, standard engine out procedure in a big whale that I couldn't do with an empty plane, both of us in parachutes over a test area trying to break the plane?'
Teldorserious is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 00:26
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
hey clandistino

you quoted the ntsb and the 16 million flight hours stuff


tell me, how many flight hours did the boeing 737 have before the rudder hardover that caused the crash near pittsburgh, pa?

I never respected people who quote other people in their replies...

the substance of PPRuNe is pilot experience...i'd much rather hear a narrative of what you have observed in flying instead of pasting quotes and commenting upon them


hey teldorserious...isn't it funny how all the people defending the bus might not have been old enough to hold an atp when the accident happened?
flarepilot is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 00:26
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 2
A lot of talk about Va but in reality....who knows what their Va is on the airliner they fly. On the one I fly, it is a continuously changing number and it has been the same on the last several that I have flown. Vb is memorized of course in knots and mach and it is less than Va for my type.

I'm sure someone will pipe up and scold me for not having all the Va speeds memorized but I suspect that there is a high percentage of competent pilots in airliners that are the same.

Try asking your other flight crewmember at a particular altitude what their present Va is and see if they know, In fact, I will ask right now to all, what is your Va at 5,000 feet ASL at max landing weight.
JammedStab is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 00:36
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,332
SSG 3.7

Give it up, the Airbus experimental test crews did not such "slamming" of the flight controls because they are professionals, not frustrated "free lancers" with a CE-500 rating, th certification criteria requires not such "slamming" because to do so is very hazardous. Not FAR 25 certified plane cn stand rapid, full throw control reversals. Neither can many military planes. The C-5 tail was subject to very elevated fatigue levels due to air refueling training missions; a BUFF lost its rudder in mountain wave; a KC-135 was nearly torn apart after a wake encounter during Desert Storm. If you fly like you write, I don't want to be near you. Please submit NOTAM prior to flight.

GF

Last edited by galaxy flyer; 30th Sep 2013 at 00:37.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 00:37
  #110 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Earth
Age: 45
Posts: 152
Flare - Probably more suprising is how many have been flying airliners since the Wright Bros and just believe everything they were told.

But to your point, I got into it years ago with a guy at a CFII renewal. He's telling me he's a pilot at United...telling me that they got an 'illegal' IFR clearance and such, that's why they blew an altitude or flew through some restricted area or some nonsense.

Ofcourse I ask why they accepted the clearance and flew it, ect...and he got flustered...argumentative...

Well later on, a guy pulled me off to the side and said 'yeah, don't worry about that guy...he got 'in' with United by writing manuals for them, as a way to get a pilot job, he's got 800 hours...now.'

Now this is before the internet, so there is just no way to know who we are talking to here and what their experience level is. I just know if I you and I were ferrying a BUS, hit turbulance, flew under Va...what are we supposed to do, leave our feet on the floor? What if we had an upset, stall recovery, windsheer....sorry no rudders for you...

Galaxy - Picture yourself in that 747 at Bagram, the plane rolls one way and all you got is rudder, then it rolls the other...oops...can't push the rudder the other way to save the flight...because Airbus says you can't? Do you realize with your logic, you would be dead in that scenario? I guarantee after all your blather under that scenario your rudder would look like a humming bird outside my window unless you truly were a robot kool aid drinker more interested in saving the tail then saving the plane. Well who knows if you get into a stall you will have time to pull out your sops manual or call dispatch for advice. Maybe we can put a time machine in your plane, to create some temporal distortion bubble around your plane, so you can sit there, pushing the rudder one way...nope that didn't work...hit stop, count to ten, yep...ok, NOW I can hit the other rudder, see if that works....because you know...Airbus told us not to wiggle the rudder too much.

Last edited by Teldorserious; 30th Sep 2013 at 00:58.
Teldorserious is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 00:40
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,332
I hope you don't use the rudders in turbulence, at least, in a jet. Sideslip is a no-no in swept wings. Read your D.P. Davies Handling the Big Jets.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 01:05
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 802
Wow! So much for civility, eh? Geeze … and we’ve never been introduced, either. OK.

Originally Posted by flarepilot
Am I to understand that you have never gone to the mechanical stop in any plane? Did someone tell you never to go to the mechanical stops or from mechanical stop to mechanical stop during your control checks?
Just for clarification … “going to the mechanical stop” is not the problem … going from one mechanical stop to the opposite mechanical stop during pre-flight control checks is not the problem … it’s during flight, after having reached a mechanical stop in one direction, THEN rapidly going to the opposite mechanical stop, and then reversing that to the original mechanical stop, over and over and over … that is what presents not only a problem, but a significant problem.

Originally Posted by flarepilot
Am I to understand that you have never landed in a crosswind which required full control to the stop in order to maintain control?
No, please do not understand that … and while I’m not sure what brought you to ask … but you should know that if I ever attempted to land in a crosswind that would require full control to the stop and then full control to the opposite stop and then full control to the opposite stop … and continue … I’d never again drink that much before I went to sleep … those kinds of nightmares are not worth it.

Originally Posted by flarepilot
Am I to understand you were told you could not go to the mechanical stop ?
Am I going out on a limb here by thinking that you’re describing going to the mechanical stop while airborne – with the presumption that you believe that certainly no one would ever expect their student’s to read and understand the regulations under which the airplane they’ll be flying was certificated? Well, on every airplane I’ve ever flown operationally, someone, someplace, made sure that I understood that there would be minimal times when full control application would EVER be required – in any axis – and it doesn’t take the proverbial “rocket scientist” to understand the regulations under which airplanes are certificated. I even included in an earlier post, the specific language contained in the US regulation (§ 25.351 Yaw maneuver conditions, for your reference) - where it clearly describes returning the control application to NEUTRAL after application to the control stop limit. Am I to understand you’ve never read the rules used to certify the airplanes you’ve flown? And, before you ask, yes, I’ve flown a lot of different airplane types (more than I care to list here – no brag – just a lot of work) and the A300-600 is NOT one of them … in fact, my experience on Airbus equipment is limited to the A320 and A330 – and then only a few trips around the pattern and some “up and away” flight control tests in each. But, by that time, I really don’t recall if I was specifically reminded as to how to handle the control application – as it wasn’t really necessary.

Oh, by the way … does everyone require a note someplace or a placard installed for all of the actions that we are NOT to undertake? Are there “Do not eat the contents” statements on Laundry Detergent, or automotive oil, or gasoline?

Originally Posted by flarepilot
I've been saying over and over that there are certain planes that have limiters (mechanical or lock outs) and that they are well covered in POH and in FAA examinations. I've mentioned placcards till I was blue in the face.
BUT THE FREAKING A 300 didn't have that now did it? Anyplace in the A300 manual from the 1990s that said: DO NOT USE FULL CONTROL THROW OF ANY CONTROLS STOP TO STOP?
IF SOMETHING IS OBVIOUS, does it need saying...YES...and if something is not obvious it really needs saying.
As long as we’re swapping questions … are you saying that you’ve never read or if you read you don’t understand the regulations under which the airplane you’re flying today was constructed and certificated?

Also, are there are any placards on the airplane you currently fly that tell you what the maximum aileron control limits are … or the elevator limits. What about maximum gear lowering speed? … or maximum flap extension speed? … or anything like that? No? Would you feel comfortable in kicking the rudder on your airplane from stop to stop to stop to stop … Or, perhaps you could enlighten us as to the kind of questions asked of you by the FAA for the airplane you’re currently flying that ensures them that you understand what, if any, limits there are for your airplane? And by the “all CAPS” comment, I would guess that all of the airplanes you’ve flown had placards or notes in the Flight Manual telling you what NOT to do? How about flying the airplane upside down? Is that in your manual? No? How often to you do that?

Originally Posted by flarepilot
In one transport jet I flew, we could not take off unless the rudder limiter light was working properly and if it failed in flight we had a MANDATORY MEMORY ITEM of which speeds to use full or less rudder.
DID THE A300 have that ? I doubt it.
Really? What speed were you supposed to hold if you wanted to use less than full rudder?

Originally Posted by flarepilot
Maybe the designers assumed something about the A300
and when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME.
Well, IF the A300 designers assumed something about the A300, they failed in their attempt when they were thinking of my involvement – so … please feel free to speak for yourself on that topic.

Originally Posted by flarepilot
But I will say this...when I first saw the A300, many years ago, the first thing I THOUGHT TO MYSELF WAS...GOSH THAT TAIL SECTION LOOKS WEAK.
But you see, that is just what I saw and didn't have a POH, placcard, or a lecture to tell me anything.
Is that right? Really? Perhaps you could consider going to work for one of the major airplane manufacturers … in that they wouldn’t have to go through all their research, testing, and any re-design issues … they could simply ask you.

Originally Posted by flarepilot
you don't have a second chance at a first impression.
Again … really? What about a first chance at a second impression … or is that overly deep?
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 01:14
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
Just fly like you were taught over 30 years ago. In the last dozen years button pushing seems to be the new way. AF447 is an example of how well that works. As far as rudder usage in wake turbulence it is a roll problem, not yaw so the AA FO probably used very little rudder no matter what that captain said. The NTSB doesn't always tell the truth.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 01:16
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 802
Originally Posted by Teldoreserious
How about a hypothetical conversation with an Airbus test pilot
The only test pilot that would qualify to be involved with the hypothetical conversation you propose would be ones that have been drawn on multiple-layers of photographic film and speak in a tone reminiscent of Donald Duck. Beyond that, a written response certainly isn’t warranted!
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 01:20
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
Yes, I know the rudder deflections on FDR but as I said recently my friend had uncomanded out of control deflections and they were not touching the rudders in their A300.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 01:31
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 802
Originally Posted by bubbers44
Just fly like you were taught over 30 years ago. In the last dozen years button pushing seems to be the new way. AF447 is an example of how well that works. As far as rudder usage in wake turbulence it is a roll problem, not yaw so the AA FO probably used very little rudder no matter what that captain said. The NTSB doesn't always tell the truth.
I’ve known members of the NTSB and their technical staffs for more than 3 decades now, and they’ve always provided the material (for anyone to read) from which they’ve drawn the conclusions they publish. I do recognize that there are times when their conclusions seem to ignore some of the materials they include in their official reports – and I cannot (nor do I intend to) explain those kinds of shortcomings. However, in this specific case, the FDR is pretty clear that either the Captain or the F/O in the cockpit managed to repeatedly displace both the rudder pedals and the aileron control to (and in some cases it would seem, beyond) the mechanical limits. The A300-600 does not have reversible controls – meaning that if you move the aileron or the rudder surface on the airplane – there is NO movement of the respective cockpit controller. But this airplane DOES record the cockpit controller movements – all three axes, and the rudder pedal movement corresponds exactly with the rudder surface displacement. And to avoid repeating myself (see my previous posts) there is little doubt that someone in the cockpit made 7 aileron reversals and 5 rudder reversals within that 7-second time frame. There is nothing on the CVR to indicate that the Captain was assuming control of the airplane – and, in fact, after the first wing vortex encounter (which, the F/O handled quite professionally and correctly, by the way) the Captain asked the F/O if he had encountered a “bit of turbulence” and it was the Captain on the radios after the initial application of power for takeoff.
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 01:39
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 802
Originally Posted by bubbers44
Yes, I know the rudder deflections on FDR but as I said recently my friend had uncomanded out of control deflections and they were not touching the rudders in their A300.
My question would be – how did they know that the rudder was being deflected? Unless Airbus has changed the control philosophy to one of reversible controls – displacing the rudder surface will not affect the positioning of the rudder pedals in the cockpit. If the pedals in the cockpit were being deflected, again presuming Airbus has not gone to reversible controls on this airplane, must be due to some anomaly in the rudder “feel” system. Of course that isn’t good and should be noted and repaired. In the accident airplane both the rudder surface AND the rudder pedals were deflected – meaning that one of the cockpit occupants must have been “on” the rudder pedals and commanded the rudder surface position.
AirRabbit is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 01:49
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
Whatever! That is what happened.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 01:57
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
Maybe out of control yawing would give you a clue rudder movement is involved. Rudder pedals are not the same as rudder surfaces as you know.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 01:59
  #120 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Earth
Age: 45
Posts: 152
Reminds of Bonanza V tails coming off at Vne...but the speeds were so high as to create a flutter, oscilation. Ofcourse that was a mechanical problem, blamed on pilots going to to fast, but ofcourse everyone has the tail mod now, surprise surprise. So ofcourse, Beech wasn't to blame, but you haven't had a V tail come off since. Surprise surprise.

I think it was the Meridian that had the tail come off in turbulence, everyone said the A/P did a pitch over, exceeded Vne causing the tail to come off. They have an A/P check, reduced Va for turbulance and forced the pilots to go to school to fly this tricky plane and how to handle it. They did a tail mod too...surprise surprise.

So the Airbus tail comes off...did they buttress and mod the tail or didn't they? Why fix something that aint broken?

Rabbit by your own post you mentioned that your NTSB guys show you the real deal but offical findings are different, for reasons you can't fathom. It's called politics and economics.
Teldorserious is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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