Wingload BSR take 2

[rhino 0]

The bytch has spoken

[craddock 0]

I have read proposals without exceptions. An S&TA signing a jumper off would be hard to get if you traveled all over a region to jump. Might not be a problem with some S&TA if you jumped there all the time and new them real well. My S&TA though we were all nuts. He flew a 170ish
What the hell is a "Mad Skill" ? Do I know you Lisa? Or do you attempt to insult everyone who feels different than you. No need to answer that.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[sducoach 0]

James 4:8

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I have read proposals without exceptions.

Every proposal I've seen here has an out for those who want it.

Quote

An S&TA signing a jumper off would be hard to get if you traveled all over a region to jump.

If you could travel all over a region jumping then it wouldn't be an issue to travel for training, right?

Quote

My S&TA though we were all nuts. He flew a 170ish

For any of the proposals I've read to work, the people charged with doing the more advanced training and evaluating would need to be experienced at what they are teaching/evaluating.

Quote

Or do you attempt to insult everyone who feels different than you. No need to answer that.

If I wanted to insult you I'd be far more obvious about it. As I said in the other thread, sorry if I'm coming off harsh but I don't understand how anyone who cares about skydiving and skydivers could not want to reduce the number of ambulances that visit the dropzone.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Ok Ron, now your reaching, first Patrick didnt die from a hook turn, neither did Rob, so what point are you
trying to make here. I guess i'm a little slow today and didnt get it.

Nope my point is that even the BEST..And I do think that these were the best...still die.

Most people think they are not going to get hurt/killed...If it can happen to the BEST...It can happen to anyone.

Ron

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

Will try and not argue with you Ron. You put words in peoples mouth. When did I say I thought I was that
good? or that gifted? I said something about being way ahead of the curve. Perhaps I worded it wrong. I
was thinking the curve was someones progression through the canopies. something?

Quote

I very much doubt as far ahead of the learning curve as I was,I could have found an S&TA to
put his name behind me.

Your words...not mine. Almost everyone thinks they are the special, gifted one. If you were that good, and I don't know you might be. You would have no problem getting someone to sign you off.

Ron

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[craddock 0]

Quote

. sorry if I'm coming off harsh but I don't understand how anyone who cares about skydiving and skydivers could not want to reduce the number of ambulances that visit the dropzone.

Once again Lisa, if you are reffering to my feelings on this I don't know where you get off saying this.
You do not know my entire feelings on this yet act as though you do and cut and paste to make it look as though I am arguing against the whole proposal.

Why

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[craddock 0]

Love that cut and paste Ron.

I was trying to say that a progressed faster than average in canopy flight. Faster than would be allowed by the proposals without waivers. I have not even read all the proposals yet. I was backing up someone elses statement I think(it is hard to tell what anynone said with all the cut and paste.

You turn my words that into me saying I am gifted or special. I would never say that. Mabey I studied harder? Mabey I was lucky? Mabey I am an E.T.
What gives you the right to decide how I feel about myself based on how you decide to interperate what I meant to be a statement of fact.

Quote

If you were that good, and I don't know you might be. You would have no problem getting someone to sign you off.

Really? Lisa just said the following "For any of the proposals I've read to work, the people charged with doing the more advanced training and evaluating would need to be experienced at what they are teaching/evaluating."

So if I lived in northern Wisconsin I would look in a Data base to find out where the closest evaluater is? Would there be one in the midwest? How hard would this rating be? It may not be hard to get signed off Ron. But it may be expensive if there is travel involved. That could make it very hard.








I have never said I was against making changes. I never said nothing needs to be done.
Why the need to

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I have not even read all the proposals yet

Why not? Would take less time than you've put into your posts so far on this subject and after reading them you might find that you agree with one of them, or maybe even have a proposal of your own to offer.

Quote

So if I lived in northern Wisconsin I would look in a Data base to find out where the closest evaluater is? Would there be one in the midwest? How hard would this rating be? It may not be hard to get signed off Ron. But it may be expensive if there is travel involved. That could make it very hard.

Go back and read what's been proposed so far - by billvon, by hooknswoop and by geronimo (who, btw, is a member of the USPA S&T committee). The goal of each proposal is to make canopy control training beyond the A license available to everyone, everywhere.

Sure, it's going to take awhile to get qualified people on every dz in the US. So yes, at first anyway, some jumpers will have to travel to get the training or be evaluated. If they can afford to buy a new canopy, why would it be hard for them to get to training or an evaluator?

[Ron 7]

Quote

I was trying to say that a progressed faster than average in canopy flight. Faster than would be allowed by
the proposals without waivers

So you could do it with the waivers, or a class.

Quote

I have not even read all the proposals yet.

Then why don't you before you enter a conversation?

Quote

You turn my words that into me saying I am gifted or special. I would never say that.

You did just that...You said you progressed faster than the norm...What the hell else could that mean? For what its worth I am not the only one to point this out.

Quote

What gives you the right to decide how I feel about myself based on how you decide to interperate what I
meant to be a statement of fact.

nothing...but when your "statement of fact" is stinking of ego..and you will not even admit that it sounded ego filled...well, what do you want?

You claimed to be better than the norm...OK maybe you are

I pointed out that almost everyone thinks they are above avg...You claimed I was slamming you

I also pointed out that the very best have also died/gotten fucked up...Again I must be slamming you.

You said I got you all wrong...
How could I when you said that you progressed faster than the norm?

Quote

Really? Lisa just said the following "For any of the proposals I've read to work, the people charged with
doing the more advanced training and evaluating would need to be experienced at what they are
teaching/evaluating."

Yep for some but for mine (Which if you read before jumping into the frey) I wanted people to be able to qualify for the PRO rating on the canopy they have now before they are allowed to downsize...Its not perfect, but ANY S&TA can tell if you landed in a circle and stood it up.

And if you don't have the quality people there to be able to decide if you are safe...then you don't have the quality of people to teach you how to fly that tiny canopy...And that means that you are doing it all on your own...Exactly what we are trying to prevent.

Quote

So if I lived in northern Wisconsin I would look in a Data base to find out where the closest evaluater is?
Would there be one in the midwest? How hard would this rating be? It may not be hard to get signed off
Ron. But it may be expensive if there is travel involved. That could make it very hard.

Then maybe you don't want it bad enough? You don't want to have to EARN the right to do as you please by showing skills and good judgment?

And if there is the need...then the process will happen. Maybe YOU could be the one that gives this classes...And sign people off?

Ron

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[craddock 0]

Quote

Then why don't you before you enter a conversation?

There are hundreds of posts. Everyone had there own idea. Even there own ideas kept changing. Have we now all agreed upon on proposal. Is it ready for a vote? Which one should I read Ron. I have probabley read it it in some form or another. I have read plenty from you ,Bill Von , many many others. I just don't think I have read everyones idea

Quote

You did just that...You said you progressed faster than the norm...What the hell else could that mean? For what its worth I am not the only one to point this out.

As your cut and paste left out again, It could mean I was lucky, could mean I studied harder, mabey I am crazy, an ET, the devil? But since you say I am gifted Ron, that must be it. I'll stick with that
Thank You.

Quote

nothing...but when your "statement of fact" is stinking of ego..and you will not even admit that it sounded ego filled...well, what do you want?

For you to quit cross posting. My statement of fact was amended to " I transitioned down faster than is normal. Is that better?" My point was only made to illustrate why I was agreeing with someone. I thought my experience was relevent. As far as you thinking it sounded ego filled leads me to think you have your own ego problems.

Quote

You claimed to be better than the norm...OK maybe you are

No, you did that. I simply stated that I started flying small canopies faster than the norm. Does that make me better? interesting.

Quote

How could I when you said that you progressed faster than the norm?

not exactly what I said, but anyway

Quote

Yep for some but for mine (Which if you read before jumping into the frey) I wanted people to be able to qualify for the PRO rating on the canopy they have now before they are allowed to downsize...Its not perfect, but ANY S&TA can tell if you landed in a circle and stood it up.

I read yours Ron. of course you assume I did not because I made one comment about not reading all of them. Hell yours was one of the first.
.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

The more I think about Billvon's wingloading and license type BSR proposal (with the ability to exceed the allowable wingloading with additional training and testing), the more I find myself accepting it if it was to come into effect. God knows it's not perfect (education and testing will not be equal in various regions of the country), but it helps bring more meaning to the various licensing levels and thus make some people strive to achieve a higher license level. And of course it will help prevent some people from flying a canopy which they are not ready for.

Now does this mean I'm turning into a canopy nazi? Nah ... I still have evil thoughts in my head concerning demoing some slightly smaller canopies this summer. I've already demoed a Sabre2 150 and a Saffire 149 (both loaded at about 1.5:1 when I wear my camera and yes I did do full altitude hop n' pops the first few jumps). I did pretty well under those wings (mind you I only made five jumps on them). But I really would like to demo a Crossfire2 149 and a Samurai 150 and barring a loss of income (getting fired for spending too much time on DZ.COM) and not getting injured this summer, I do see myself having 400-500 jumps under my belt by the time the fall rolls around (and the higher density altitude conditions here in CO come down making flying a smaller canopy easier).

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[rhino 0]

As long as I don't have to upsize go for it... lol



Rhino

[Hooknswoop 19]

Bill Von's proposal:

Quote

A license - 1 psf max
B license - 1.1 psf max
C license - 1.3 psf max
D license - no limit

This doesn't allow as much of a progression as the Brian Germain plan but does link the loadings to demonstrated skills.

Zenister had an objection that it should really be under the control of the S+TA, and should not be mandatory for absolutely everyone. So we make it the most waiverable of BSR's (type S) such that it can be waived by any S+TA or I/E. This still keeps the 30 jump wonders off Stiletto 97's, but gives newer jumpers TWO options to get out of the restriction - take a canopy control course or get the S+TA to waiver them. Since the S+TA is required to maintain a record that he waivered them, he will likely want to make sure that the jumper can actually land the canopy before putting his name on the waiver.

And we also incorporate my original thing about being able to get out of these requirements completely by taking a canopy control course. What the requirements are for that are still up in the air, but Derek took a good swipe at it before. A reasonable progression would be:

-at first can be run by any I, and students must demonstrate a list of canopy skills. It will be like AFF; there will be a set of TLO's, and if you can complete them all in one jump, great. If not, it might take more.

-once there is a CI rating in place, they can hold the courses and/or sign off people for higher loadings.

Finally, we grandfather everyone with a small canopy for a year, so no one will be forced to sell their Stiletto and buy a PD230.

I think Bill has a great proposal.

The only thing I would change is decrease the 'gestation' period from 1 year to 30 days to prevent a possible rush to buy a new canopy before the BSR goes into effect.

The main objection to the proposed BSR seems to be "Not enough supporting data to base the BSR on." We will probably never have the data, nor the funding to study the problem. Let's assume that those of us with the opinion that lower experienced jumpers are jumping to high of wing loadings are wrong. The BSR, as proposed, will, eventually, affect all skydivers. The target of the BSR is all skydivers. We simply can't miss. It will not limit skydivers that are not in over their heads with their canopy. It will increase canopy control training and education. It will bring attention to the problem. There is no perfect solution.

Allowing Darwinism to weed out those that fly too high of performance canopies is simply a stupid idea, as much as I would like to agree.

Gear dealers and manufacturer's can try to prevent someone room buying a canopy they shouldn't but if the buyer can "talk the talk" they will get the canopy.

Making canopy control training and education available is only half the battle. If it isn't required, some of the skydivers that really need it, won't get it.

Is there really a downside to the proposed BSR?

Bill Booth said:

Quote

Gear is already 10 times safer than the jumpers using it. It's how people use gear that kills them.

WE can either do nothing and sit back and watch as more and more skydivers needlessly hammer in, or we can do something about it. Given our available resources, our collective experience, and lack of alternatives, I believe the proposed BSR is the best route. It WILL make a positive difference.

Hook

[markbaur 0]

Quote

The main objection to the proposed BSR seems to be "Not enough supporting data to base the BSR on." We will probably never have the data, nor the funding to study the problem.

Here is the text of a letter published in Parachutist a few years ago:

"I am compelled to bring to light what I consider to be the most serious safety problem facing the sport parachuting community today.

"Over the past few years, out-of-sight main pilot chute extraction devices have become increasingly popular... I refer, of course, to the various devices known as 'puds,' 'bunny tails,' and other behind-the-back pilot chute deployment systems.

"First, let me state that I feel hand-deployed pilot chutes were one of the most significant safety advancements to ever assist the sport of parachuting... I also feel that locating a hand-deployed pilot chute in an out-of-sight location has got to be the most positive step backwards that this sport has ever suffered. Simply put, my contention is this: If you cannot see your deployment device, it is in the wrong place. And, as nearly as I can tell, if jump stories are any indication, a flurry of 'bunny tail in tow' malfunctions has been occuring since the inception of these sorts of devices.

"Personally, I am no longer satisfied that malfunctions involving loss of the bunny tail, 'can't get the bunny tail out of the rubber band,' 'can't find my pilot chute behind my back,' 'I lost the velcro toggle attached to my pilot chute,' etc. etc. are isolated incidents. I believe these incidents must be occuring on a daily basis throughout the country. I also feel that the time has arrived for USPA and the sport parachuting community as a whole to consider the relative advantages and disadvantages of such a deployment system.

"The sport of parachuting is horribly unforgiving for those who make a sequence of mistakes. By locating your main pilot chute in an area not visible or easily accessible, you are increasing the chances of beginning the first step of the chain of sequences which leads to a fatality -- getting low and wasting time."

The writer was a the operator of a well-known US DZ at the time.

How about a BSR?

Mark

[Hooknswoop 19]

The writer wasn't suggesting a BSR, only " I also feel that the time has arrived for USPA and the sport parachuting community as a whole to consider the relative advantages and disadvantages of such a deployment system." We have done exactly that here on DZ.com in several threads. Understanding the differences and advantages/disadvantages of the pull-out vs. throw-out is important and needed addressing. Most jumpers prefer the throw-out over the pull-out.

As for the writer's concern over "can't find my pilot chute behind my back", that is still the cause of total malfunctions today, although not "occurring on a daily basis throughout the country" as the writer believed. Of course we don't have any hard numbers regarding the number of jumps made with a BOC or pull-out and the number of reserve rides caused by a floating pud or because the jumper was unable to visually locate their handle. I have seen several reserve rides because of hard pulls and at least one that I can think of from a floating pud. None of these resulted in injuries or fatalities, nor do I believe it to be a problem worthy of a BSR. Based on that same experience, from either witnessing or reading about inexperienced jumpers flying highly loaded canopies resulting in injuries and fatalities, I believe the proposed wing loading BSR is a good idea.

Based on your experience, would you agree that a BSR mandating main handles be able to be located visually isn't a good idea? That is what we have, our experiences, collectively as a group, that we can use to decide if such a BSR is necessary or not.

I wonder what the writer's opinion would have been had they had access to a web site such as DZ.com or was able to travel to many DZ's on weekends instead of running their DZ? The writer identified a problem that they felt should be looked at more closely and a solution found. How many injuries and fatalities were caused in the years preceding their letter by BOC's and/or pull-out systems?

I think being isolated at one DZ can skew a person's perception of the magnitude of a safety issue. The people proposing and supporting a wing load/education/training BSR aren't handicapped by only experiencing one DZ. We have been to numerous DZ's, plus we have the advantage of web sites, such as this one to draw our experience from.

I don't think I can ever convince someone that a wing loading/education/training BSR is necessary simply by saying, "in my experience….." The only way for someone to be convinced is to witness the number of incidents I have, share in my experiences, look into the eyes of an injured jumper that obviously has two broken femurs say, "I can't feel my legs", and know that the reason they aren't screaming in agony is because their neck is broken. To listen as jumpers blame their poor landing on others, on the wind, on anything besides their inability to safely control and land their canopy. To say out loud to a jumper flying downwind at low altitude, "don't turn, don't turn!", knowing they can't hear you, then feel your stomach drop as you see them pull a toggle all the way down.

We tell people all the time, "slow down, take the time to learn you current canopy". And they don't listen. They don't have to listen. They don't know what they don't know, yet. Lets' skip them having a 'wake-up' call before they realize they don't know it all yet, and never will. Let's give them a chance to learn what they need to know before they hammer in and never get the chance to learn. Let's give them the guidance and training they need to survive. Let's let them make the mistakes that would injure or kill them on a small canopy on a larger canopy first. The "A" license training that is available at some DZ's is tremendously better than when I learned on ripcords and round reserves. I wouldn't even pack the reserve of the container I learned to skydive on today. The canopy training information is available, let's give new skydivers the advantage of this improved information, all the way through their "D" license so they don't make the same mistakes we did. We can do a better job than we are, don't we owe it to future skydivers to give them the best opportunity we can?

People are flying perfectly functional canopies into the ground. It isn't the gear's fault. We need to fix it. If the proposed VSR isn't the solution, I don't have an alternative. I do believe it would work, but I am open to suggestions.

Hook

[sducoach 0]

Hook,
I believe you and Bill are on the right track and we do need an attempt to stop this trend. As I said before my fear is we either "educate or regulate" which will be force fed by an attorney.

I would like to see the wing loading Bill recommended slightly higher for students and "A" licensed pilots simply because a canopy that is to lightly loaded will not provide the response and performance that allows the necessary feedback for the pilot to develop the correct canopy skills.

A few years ago we started "sizing" canopies to students and even set them up in smaller containers to prevent the big boys from taking a smaller canopy. Changing from an all 230SF student rigs to a 260SF to 175SF student rigs improved the canopy skills of most all students. Combined with a real canopy control class it works well.

Consider this, a poll of all USPA DZ's to chart what equipment is being used by students i.e. wing loadings and how many are utilizing the ISP. Compare the programs with approximate ( you will not get real numbers) injuries and see if we have a relationship. Crunch the numbers and then build a proposal around Brian's and Bill's programs.

But..........................
let me sell my 107 first! Wish I had that 150 Spectre back............................

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I believe you and Bill are on the right track and we do need an attempt to stop this trend. As I said before my fear is we either "educate or regulate" which will be force fed by an attorney.

Positive feedback! Woohoo!

There is one DZ that doesn't allow anyone over 1.5:1, and only that high after you have 500 jumps........Instead of using a system of progressive downsizing and education, they simply capped the wing loading. I don't want to see that happen across the country. They saw an obvious problem and applied a simple solution. I can't argue that it won't work, but it definitely takes away from the sport for some and is very unfair.

Quote

I would like to see the wing loading Bill recommended slightly higher for students and "A" licensed pilots simply because a canopy that is to lightly loaded will not provide the response and performance that allows the necessary feedback for the pilot to develop the correct canopy skills.

I don't have any major objections to increasing the wing loading limitations slightly, but increasing the limitations will result in less 'additional' canopy education/training. By keeping the limitations where they are, more people will want to exceed them and either demonstrate the ability or receive additional training/education that they would receive if the limitations were raised. I don't believe the goal of the BSR is to limit wing loading, unless the person cannot handle the higher wing loading and should be limited. I believe the purpose of the BSR is to make additional canopy education/training mandatory to all except those that downsize conservatively, and even they will receive more training as they earn each successive license.

Quote

A few years ago we started "sizing" canopies to students and even set them up in smaller containers to prevent the big boys from taking a smaller canopy. Changing from an all 230SF student rigs to a 260SF to 175SF student rigs improved the canopy skills of most all students. Combined with a real canopy control class it works well.

I agree completely. I believe putting a 110 pound female student under a 288 Manta in a J7 is a bad idea. A slightly lower wing loading than a 170 pound jumper is a good idea though, would want to put her under a 135.

Quote

Consider this, a poll of all USPA DZ's to chart what equipment is being used by students i.e. wing loadings and how many are utilizing the ISP. Compare the programs with approximate ( you will not get real numbers) injuries and see if we have a relationship. Crunch the numbers and then build a proposal around Brian's and Bill's programs.

I can't even get tandem manufactures and the USPA to respond to a questionnaire about tandem certifications and legalities. Most DZO's wouldn't take the time to answer such a questionnaire. If there isn't any "$$$", in it for them, they won't bother.

Hook

[sducoach 0]

Quote

There is one DZ that doesn't allow anyone over 1.5:1, and only that high after you have 500 jumps........Instead of using a system of progressive downsizing and education, they simply capped the wing loading. I don't want to see that happen across the country. They saw an obvious problem and applied a simple solution. I can't argue that it won't work, but it definitely takes away from the sport for some and is very unfair.

What DZ?

Quote

I can't even get tandem manufactures and the USPA to respond to a questionnaire about tandem certifications and legalities. Most DZO's wouldn't take the time to answer such a questionnaire. If there isn't any "$$$", in it for them, they won't bother.

And there my friend is the problem. Manufacturers will not want to "limit their markets". It's a small industry anyway and more and more pieces of the pie are being cut up.

Why not try a poll for S&TA's and DZO's and see what you get.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

What DZ?

http://www.skydivekansas.com/policy_lic.htm

Quote

And there my friend is the problem. Manufacturers will not want to "limit their markets". It's a small industry anyway and more and more pieces of the pie are being cut up.

I don't think they will sell less canopies. I think they will sell more. If someone downsizes slower, then they buy more canopies. If someone doesn't get hurt, they continue to buy canopies that they wouldn't buy if they were unable to continue jumping as the result of an injury.

Quote

Why not try a poll for S&TA's and DZO's and see what you get.

I have neither the resources, nor the time, but USPA does. They would also likely have a better response rate coming form USPA.

Or do you mean a poll, here on DZ.com?

Hook

[sducoach 0]

James 4:8

[konradptr 0]

Damn, I am glad that I would be "allowed" to be grandfathered in, and have to say that I am glad that the poll results were indicating the majority to NO.

Glad your not at my DZ...

------------------------------------------
Getting banned isn't that bad......

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Damn, I am glad that I would be "allowed" to be grandfathered in, and have to say that I am glad that the poll results were indicating the majority to NO.

Glad your not at my DZ...

Why? If you weren't grandfathered in and had to demonstrate that you are capable of flying your current canopy, could you?

Hook

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Hook,
I believe you and Bill are on the right track and we do need an attempt to stop this trend. As I said before my fear is we either "educate or regulate" which will be force fed by an attorney.

I would like to see the wing loading Bill recommended slightly higher for students and "A" licensed pilots simply because a canopy that is to lightly loaded will not provide the response and performance that allows the necessary feedback for the pilot to develop the correct canopy skills.

A few years ago we started "sizing" canopies to students and even set them up in smaller containers to prevent the big boys from taking a smaller canopy. Changing from an all 230SF student rigs to a 260SF to 175SF student rigs improved the canopy skills of most all students. Combined with a real canopy control class it works well.

Consider this, a poll of all USPA DZ's to chart what equipment is being used by students i.e. wing loadings and how many are utilizing the ISP. Compare the programs with approximate ( you will not get real numbers) injuries and see if we have a relationship. Crunch the numbers and then build a proposal around Brian's and Bill's programs.

But..........................
let me sell my 107 first! Wish I had that 150 Spectre back............................

Blues,

J.E.

I think this is the crux of the problem. Bad canopy habits are ingrained from jump #1 when students are put out on huge canopies and learn to bury toggles in order to turn, and learn that flaring just consists of pulling both toggles all the way down.

A few dozen jumps like this and it becomes muscle memory - which is what is recalled in that panic situation 300 jumps later when that kid BillVon is always talking about runs out in front of you, but now you have a smaller, faster sport canopy.

IMO, it's best not to build that muscle memory in the first place.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sducoach 0]

I think you are close on this. Your "frame of reference" is what I'm speaking of. The control inputs are/will be the same on just about any canopy. The difference is the reaction time to the input and the recovery time due to the input. If you are at a base point of flying a Stiletto 120 and move to the Spectre 150, things seem slow. Turn that around and........... ouch!

After a day of jumping the 107 and I strap on the 135 is "feels" so very slow. But spend the day on the 135 and go back to the 107 and, yahoo!



Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8