0
catfishhunter

Letter from the Head of the FAA (May Parachutist)

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Why?



Because a GOOD tetrahedron (gotta google THAT!) is better.
It is cheap and simple to build, it can be automated - hell, if you want you can build in a computer and a weather station making it react to ahead of time set parameters (wind exceeding so many knots for such and such duration) but a piece of board on a discarded wheel + half a rear axis MANDATES a landing direction from opening to landing - so there's at least one factor eliminated like for competition training cameraflyers that want to practice their downwind skillz before anyone else has set the pattern. I - for one - have seen a bunch of skydivers land in the 'wrong' direction, when you think of reducing speed @ touchdown as preliminary goal. Ain't scared, proud or shy but not knowing WHO the first man down will be, how can I trust him to choose the correct direction? Like: beforehand?

Automation is the future in decision making. :)


So how are a Tetrahedron and FMD mutually exclusive? A proper tetra indicates wind direction. An FMD plan should include the idea that those that think it's fun to set Intentional downwinders get policed and asked to stay on the ground or do hop and pops.

On anther note tetras suck. Someone always gets the idea to tie them down in light winds and then forgets to untie them. What's wrong with a wind sock?
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So, even with a dedicated swoop pond, you are laying the blame on the swooper who was in the right place vs the non-swooper who wasn't?



Yep. Because physics still dictates that no matter size of parachute, type of turn, or level of experience, the low man ALWAYS has right of way.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

So, even with a dedicated swoop pond, you are laying the blame on the swooper who was in the right place vs the non-swooper who wasn't?



Yep. Because physics still dictates that no matter size of parachute, type of turn, or level of experience, the low man ALWAYS has right of way.



Which is why (presumably in addition to the desire to avoid instant death) the swooper did the right thing and aborted his swoop.
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Was this over the pond?

If it was I'm assuming a ground witness, the student, and the student's instructor had a sit down to go over what changes should be made to their holding pattern and landing pattern to be more predictable.



Student was a fair ways north of the pond with winds from the north. Students should not be on the west side of the runway.

Yes, the military student, his military instructor, and myself all had a brief convo.
The student wasn't where he should have been, but that's not the point. Students happen. A lot.
Focusing on the student? No wonder we're having problems with HP landings.



I didn't say yell at the student, I didn't say focus on the student and forget the swooper, I said sit down with the student.

I've made quite a few high performance approaches and landings at the swoop pond at Elsinore. I've also aborted (usually happens on, or in some cases even before, my downwind leg) countless times because someone was haplessly flying over the approaches to the pond. None of these people have been students. Respect for separation of landing areas and flying predictable patterns needs to be learned and understood by everyone. The earlier in a person's career we drill this into their heads the better.

As I'm sure you know, by the way, flying where it sounds like this student was flying isn't just dangerous in terms of canopy collisions at the swoop pond. At student canopy altitudes that poses a danger to your wingsuit corridors as well.

/edited to add: I apologize for the confusion, I'm apparently not having a very good day for written communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

not enough details yet on turn heights for the others including the recon one Austrailia)



You seem to only here or see what you want to. In Australia they collided at a reported 30 m or around 300 ft. And the jumper that died was doing a speed inducing turn when they hit.

Quote

that they did clear their airspace prior but with the old style of turn they did and the heights it's initiated, (toggle spiral and low riser hook respectively) there was not even an option to alter or abort.



How do you know what style of turn they were using unless you were there? They had a lot more time and experience than you do, maybe they had learned some of the same things you are so proud of knowing.



The way to determine turn type:
Did they use (or normally use) toggles or risers?
What type of canopy and at what wingloading?
What size turn did they do?
What height did they initiate it?
How far into the turn was the impact?

To carve turn HP canopies with higher wingloadings, you have to start much higher.

Quote


Quote

There is absolutely NO REASON for anyone to do spiral and/or low toggle/riser hooks for landing. Not only are they far more dangerous for themselves and others they are also extremely inefficient as far as swoop distance. These types of landings are the ones that need to be separated far more than someone doing a modern carve turn.




This is such a self serving statement that it is almost sounds like a joke. Your arguments are really starting to get old and your refusal to admit when you are wrong says a lot about what kind of person you are. You could be the poster boy for the “entitlement generation”.

Sparky




Replace talking about turn type above with the 45 degree exit separation practice people used to use. We determined it was not only inaccurate and dangerous but have devised several better ways to calculate proper exit separation. Despite that, there are some that still think it works and try to use it. It's the same concept.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By noon there were tandems in the same area for several loads.

In any event...students may find themselves anywhere. Does it happen often? Certainly not. Is it acceptable? Surely not. Is it immediately correctable? No. You're going to have to wait til they land before any corrective training occurs.

Yeah...he was in the wingsuit corridor, which is why I deployed where/when I did (south of the dairy vs over the warehouses)
Winds were around 35mph @ 5000, and apparently he wanted to stay west of the runway. He ran his base leg over the glider runway to the west, and landed in the brush due west of 29L.
His thought process was sound, even if his actions weren't.
MFF students are taught slightly differently than AFFs are. _Generally_...they're better trained for patterns than AFF students are.
IMO, the vidiot is 100% in the wrong here. Weird winds affected everyone. A crosswind swoop might have seemed like a fun idea at the time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

IMO, the vidiot is 100% in the wrong here



Of course he is. The point that everyone is missing is that the more experienced jumper on the more manuverable canopy is responsible for handling that canopy properly in any circumstance. Be it bailing right after you initiate your turn, or 50 ft off the deck doing 75mph, if you put yourself out there as being able to 'handle' that canopy, then you better be able to 'handle' it in any circumstance.

I don't care if it's a student, or a guy with 50 jump, or just some dumb asshole, people make mistakes, if you're good enough to fly the hot canopy, part of that includes being good enough to take care of yourself, and everyone else out there.

The simple fact is, if you intend to do something that differs greatly from what everyone else is doing, it's your job to make sure it's at nobody elses risk. Who cares where they are, what they're doing there, or where they're supposed to be, the others persons error would not effect you if you were flying a canopy at a similar speed. When you fly a much faster canopy, it is your responsibility to account for everyone esle, no matter how wrong they may be.

The whole thread is absurd. Fucking Bolas with his 'modern carve' argument, like that makes a difference to anything, going twice as fast as everyone esle is twice as fast, regardless of how you get there. 'Modern carve'? Really? Any idea why modern swoopers go 3x as far as toggle whippers? Because their turns get them up to a higher speed. Whatever 'safety advantage' you think you gained by swooping 'modern' style, you lost when you doubled the ultimate speed of your swoop. It's a zero sum gain, get used to it, and stop sounding like a tool who thinks that he's better than most. You're not. I don't even know you, and I can say you're not.

Everyone else who won't get off the swooping in the pattern gig, are you afraid of actual progress or what? The swooping is the easy part to fix. Yes, a percentage of canopy collisions are caused by swoopers hitting non-swoopers, and we could eliminate them 100% by not mixing swoopers and non-swoopers. Look at the manifest for any load. If there is one jumper who is not intending to swoop, nobody is. Done, MOVE ON.

How about the rest of the canopy collisions, the ones not invovling swooping in any way? How do we fix those? We can't just eliminate the problem like the swooping deal, this one is going to take some real thought, planning, and hard work. Any interest in moving forward and trying to find a way to keep the non-swoopers from flying into each other? How do we re-train the current crop of jumpers? How do we train the upcoming students to produce licensed jumpers who won't need re-training? How do we get EVERYONE on board with this?

These are the real and productive questions that we should be focusing on, not bickering about swooping and what it can, and cannot, be compared to. It's the least of our problems, both in the actual scope of the problem, and quite frankly the scope of the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The whole thread is absurd. Fucking Bolas with his 'modern carve' argument, like that makes a difference to anything, going twice as fast as everyone esle is twice as fast, regardless of how you get there. 'Modern carve'? Really? Any idea why modern swoopers go 3x as far as toggle whippers? Because their turns get them up to a higher speed. Whatever 'safety advantage' you think you gained by swooping 'modern' style, you lost when you doubled the ultimate speed of your swoop. It's a zero sum gain, get used to it, and stop sounding like a tool who thinks that he's better than most. You're not. I don't even know you, and I can say you're not.



So you see no additional safety element gained by doing a longer turn from a higher altitude which grants more options for corrections/aborts over a low toggle/riser hook? :o

The avoided situation DSE mentioned that just happened at Elsinore would suggest otherwise. :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The whole thread is absurd. Fucking Bolas with his 'modern carve' argument, like that makes a difference to anything, going twice as fast as everyone esle is twice as fast, regardless of how you get there. 'Modern carve'? Really? Any idea why modern swoopers go 3x as far as toggle whippers? Because their turns get them up to a higher speed. Whatever 'safety advantage' you think you gained by swooping 'modern' style, you lost when you doubled the ultimate speed of your swoop. It's a zero sum gain, get used to it, and stop sounding like a tool who thinks that he's better than most. You're not. I don't even know you, and I can say you're not.



So you see no additional safety element gained by doing a longer turn from a higher altitude which grants more options for corrections/aborts over a low toggle/riser hook? :o

The avoided situation DSE mentioned that just happened at Elsinore would suggest otherwise. :|



Do you see any advantage to anyone other than yourself to you going faster in the pattern than people around you?










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


The avoided situation DSE mentioned that just happened at Elsinore would suggest otherwise. :|



I saw it as dumb luck combined with experience/skill. How do you view it?


I view it as had he been doing a toggle spiral, or a low toggle/riser hook we'd have had another collision. :|

Hopefully the swooper had practiced aborts prior to this. if so: experience/skill mostly.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

The whole thread is absurd. Fucking Bolas with his 'modern carve' argument, like that makes a difference to anything, going twice as fast as everyone esle is twice as fast, regardless of how you get there. 'Modern carve'? Really? Any idea why modern swoopers go 3x as far as toggle whippers? Because their turns get them up to a higher speed. Whatever 'safety advantage' you think you gained by swooping 'modern' style, you lost when you doubled the ultimate speed of your swoop. It's a zero sum gain, get used to it, and stop sounding like a tool who thinks that he's better than most. You're not. I don't even know you, and I can say you're not.



So you see no additional safety element gained by doing a longer turn from a higher altitude which grants more options for corrections/aborts over a low toggle/riser hook? :o

The avoided situation DSE mentioned that just happened at Elsinore would suggest otherwise. :|



Do you see any advantage to anyone other than yourself to you going faster in the pattern than people around you?


Who said anything about being in the pattern? I'm talking about with time or space separation.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So how are a Tetrahedron and FMD mutually exclusive?


In terms of an enforceable RULE they are, even if they point in the same direction. Then again, pointing in the same direction is what they would do, +99% of the time.

The argument of the thing being tied down, or not well maintained or broken is not valid. If a DZ is big enough for traffic problems caused by different landing directions and they have a tetrahedron, they'd better also have a system in place to make sure it isn't tied down and is in working order once jumping starts. Just like your pilot is supposed to kick the tires and walk around the plane- removing those red flags.

If you want people to fly predictable patterns those patterns should be completely clear for everyone involved from the very first moment they can see the target area from under canopy.

Of course, having a tetrahedron does not exclude severe and gruesome punishment for any 'mad skilz' type that thinks 270s through the pattern are cool, if well executed...

Remember that the longest swoops are usually seen on days with little or no wind where there's the biggest chance of first man down to chose other directions than the novices / intermediates that follow him on bigger canopies would expect and may be comfortable with...

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


People were safely landing canopies long before there was a PD Factory Team and the majority continues to do so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No they were not.



Sorry....YES they were....


Quote

I'd be willing to bet there were more canopy collisions and near misses in the past



You'd be WRONG again.....


Quote

The lack of landing pattern discipline and bad behaviors are not new,



Yes they are, if you call the last 20 years since the advent of HP canopies "new". It wasn't till HP canopies came along that landing pattern discipline really went out the window.

To anyone who has been around for a while, that is clear. But you don't want to believe them....


Quote

it's just the speeds have changed.



True, and people haven't adapted to them.....except on a very limited basis....hence the ongoing problem.....
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The whole thread is absurd. Fucking Bolas with his 'modern carve' argument, like that makes a difference to anything, going twice as fast as everyone esle is twice as fast, regardless of how you get there. 'Modern carve'? Really? Any idea why modern swoopers go 3x as far as toggle whippers? Because their turns get them up to a higher speed. Whatever 'safety advantage' you think you gained by swooping 'modern' style, you lost when you doubled the ultimate speed of your swoop. It's a zero sum gain, get used to it, and stop sounding like a tool who thinks that he's better than most. You're not. I don't even know you, and I can say you're not.



So you see no additional safety element gained by doing a longer turn from a higher altitude which grants more options for corrections/aborts over a low toggle/riser hook? :o

The avoided situation DSE mentioned that just happened at Elsinore would suggest otherwise. :|



Do you see any advantage to anyone other than yourself to you going faster in the pattern than people around you?


Who said anything about being in the pattern? I'm talking about with time or space separation.



I'm talking about carving turns in the pattern...someone doing a speed inducing turn with other canopies in the air with them.

Do you see any advantage to doing a speed inducing turn, carving or otherwise with other people in the air doing their downwind, base or final?

Time and space separation safety is flawed , humans make mistakes and sometimes don't SEE traffic...that's not the question, it's not even debatable.

My TWO questions to you are:

Do you see any advantage to your doing a speed inducing turn with other canopies present.

Do you see ANY possibility, EVER... of you compromising the safety of another jumper who has not yet landed, by your doing such a turn?


Don't dodge the two questions Bolas, they are simple yes or no's.










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It all goes back to teaching and learning the fundamentals of PILOTING -- not canopy piloting but PILOTING -- because we are now flying non-powered aircraft that have more more in common with airplanes and gliders than they do with "parachutes" yet we keep training people as if everyone in the sport was still jumping rounds.



Robin,

A good post and you made some very good points. My question is what do we do now? It will take sometime for the training methods to spool up and make a difference. In the mean time people are dying.

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


So you see no additional safety element gained by doing a longer turn from a higher altitude which grants more options for corrections/aborts over a low toggle/riser hook? :o

The avoided situation DSE mentioned that just happened at Elsinore would suggest otherwise. :|

A longer carving turn covers more ground so you are more likely to wander into someone elses airspace unknowingly. A longer turn means a longer period of time since you cleared your airspace. A faster turn will not cover as much ground so provided you have cleared your airspace properly you will be pretty much turning on the spot, however less chance to abort during the turn.
It's 6 and two 3's.
The type of turn doesn't dictate if there is a canopy collision it's the pilot, both are just as likely to result in a canopy collision if the pilot is not aware.

Anyone jumping high performance parachutes should have the skills to do so.
Simple rules
Know how many canopies should be in the air (not very hard to do). If you cannot account for any don't swoop, be extra cautious.
If there is someone in the airspace lower than you (not necessarily just below) don't start turn even if you think you will be nowhere near them.

If you can't do both of these things then learn, it's good practice even if not swooping and just for the average jumper.

All of this on top of being extra cautious, people jumping these canopies should have the skill to do this.

Bolas- not having a go at you just using what you said as an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recently met up with an old friend and we were discussing canopy collisions etc. About 10 years ago he competed in the world championships with a 4 way team, and a number of teams refused to jump with them. At first he was really upset as he didn't believe that they were "dangerous". However after a chat he learn't alot and changed his habbits. It turned out that as we were a small dz and a little behind the times we never had a "pattern" and it was simply a case of lack of knowledge.

It goes to show that peer pressure works, but also in some cases people simply do not have the same training or background. Hopefully this shows that you don't always need to ban people to secure change.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The student wasn't where he should have been, but that's not the point



I disagree. There's little point to separating landing areas if people are going to say "it's ok,". No, it's not ok.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it's not GOING to happen, of course it is, people make mistakes. But it's definitely not ok and should be treated just as seriously as a knuckle head swooping in the regular pattern.



So if it had been a (any) jumper after a reserve ride, would your opinion also in that case be 'treat seriously'?

The reason I am asking is that yes I do agree that the separated landing areas for HP/non-HP should be respected but as long as flying the canopy is not powered flight, there can be several occasions in which the pilot can not (or does not have skills to) always be in a correct/agreed location in 3D-space and time.

- Petri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So you see no additional safety element gained by doing a longer turn from a higher altitude which grants more options for corrections/aborts over a low toggle/riser hook?



You just don't listen, do you?

A lower, smaller turn would have had the swooper starting lower, much closer to same altitude as other jumpers in the pattern, allowing then to integrate in to the traffic better. A lower, smaller turn would have resulted in a less speed differential between the two jumpers, increasing reaction time. A lower, smaller turn would have encompassed a shorter duration and less degress of rotation, both reducing the opportunity for a collision.

Your bigger turn might give you more options for an abort, but it also has you floating around twice as high as other jumpers in the area. It also results in higher speeds, reducing your time to react to problems. It also uses multiple rotations, increasing your opportunities to run into someone.

It's a zero sum gain, just deal with it. For every step 'forward' you think your 'modern carve' takes, it takes a proportionate step back. It's no better or worse.

Toggle whippers coined the phrase 'femur' back in the day because that's what happened. You snapped a femur (or two) when you screwed up. Bigger, higher turns have reduced the number of 'femurs', but increased the number of outright deaths. Yes, you have more room for error with a higher turn, but you reach a much higher ultimate speed, so if you do blow it, it's way worse than a 'femur'.

Get off you high horse. I don't evem know why you think you should even be on a high horse. Everyone loses their traffic scan mid turn. The whole point of the swoop is to wind up the canopy with energy and then release it at just the right time, all while not over-doing it and going in, or under-doing it and air-balling. At some point, right as your canopy is really picking up speed, you have to focus on 'the gates'. Even if you don't have any gates, you have to pay attention to where you're going, not to outlying areas, the same areas where an errent jumper will be coming from if they wander into your path.

The majority of 'close calls' I had with the ground were when something off my line caught my attention. Unexpected movement in my periphery caused me to look away for a split second allowing my canopy to dip below the 'glide slope', and by the time I returned my attention to my line and realized I was low, it took more 'dig' than I was happy with to recover. The lesson is that when you get the canopy moving, you have to watch where you're going. You can no longer be watching for everyone else because you yourself are accelerating towards the ground. It turns into your own personal 'me time'.

On a standard approach, 'me time' starts about 2 seconds before the flare. If you're flying a stabilized final, and are 10 seconds from the flare, you can look away for 8 seconds and not have a problem. Take that concept to swooping, once your down on the deck, flying paralell with the ground you can look around with no problem, with the reason being that you're flight is now stabilzed in terms of descent rate, and decellerating in terms of airspeed. Few things can go wrong, those factors are reducing aling with your airspeed.

Go back in time 8 seconds, and you're diving hard at the ground a picking up speed. You cannot look around, account for others, or use any one of your 'many outs'. Like it or not, at some point you become comitted to what you are doing, and lose the ability to account for others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A lower, smaller turn would have had the swooper starting lower, much closer to same altitude as other jumpers in the pattern,



I didn't say larger turns are safer for others. I said longer turns.
Ex: a 270 started at 300 feet vs. one started at 600+ feet.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Time and space separation safety is flawed , humans make mistakes and sometimes don't SEE traffic...that's not the question, it's not even debatable.



If it's so flawed, why did the USPA create rules for it and even go so far as adding it to the DZs renewal?

There has only been ONE low collision (sadly a single fatality) where two jumpers aiming for different landing areas collided. The landing areas being right next to each other was likely a contributing factor as well.

All of the other collisions have occured where jumpers were landing in the same landing area: so not space, and definitely not time.

Quote


My TWO questions to you are:

Do you see any advantage to your doing a speed inducing turn with other canopies present.

Do you see ANY possibility, EVER... of you compromising the safety of another jumper who has not yet landed, by your doing such a turn?


Don't dodge the two questions Bolas, they are simple yes or no's.



They're also extremely loaded. :P

Do you see any advantage to your doing a skydive with other jumpers present?

Do we really want to establish the precedent of not compromising the safety of another jumper EVER? :(
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>So you see no additional safety element gained by doing a longer turn
>from a higher altitude which grants more options for corrections/aborts
>over a low toggle/riser hook?

There is definitely a safety advantage - and that's an excellent option when you are swooping on your own pass, You just don't get to risk other people's lives doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It all goes back to teaching and learning the fundamentals of PILOTING -- not canopy piloting but PILOTING -- because we are now flying non-powered aircraft that have more more in common with airplanes and gliders than they do with "parachutes" yet we keep training people as if everyone in the sport was still jumping rounds.



Robin,

A good post and you made some very good points. My question is what do we do now? It will take sometime for the training methods to spool up and make a difference. In the mean time people are dying.

Sparky


Start emphasizing right-of-way right away:

Lower-slower-less-maneuverable always has right-of-way over higher-faster-more-maneuverable, and if you are higher/faster/more maneuverable it is YOUR responsibility to be the one that avoids, PERIOD, no ifs, ands, buts or other excuses.

This is the heart of aviation traffic management and it needs to be adopted for all parachuting traffic management.

We do not need to do this top-down, either, by changing the USPA ISP or creating a ROW BSR (amazing that there isn't one already, eh?). This can be done immediately by each and every drop zone -- as soon as its DZO and/or S&TAs have the vision and will to do it.

Doing it would be fairly easy technically: Print up or otherwise post the basic knowledge so that people can be educated about it, discuss it in morning staff briefings (this can be especially effective because it's the staffers who are often most guilty of ROW infractions), and otherwise just get the word out on:

* what ROW is
* how it is applied
*what the penalties are for violations (you know, other than DEATH or grievous bodily harm)

The penalty provision for violating right-of-way is a critical factor here -- and again, should be established by each DZ rather than USPA. Let the sport lead, not its bureaucracy. Off the top of my head, I'd say ROW infractions need to be dealt with the same way as automotive traffic infractions: fines first, followed by suspensions (AKA as grounding).

I think a one-jump-ticket fine would be a good first-offense penalty. Second offense, two jump tickets (or three or four). Third offense -- or ANY offense that results in a collision or an injury do the ROW violation -- grounding for anywhere from the rest of the day to whatever.

Again, do this at the local level, not the system level. That solves two problems:

1. It happens faster, so benefits can accrue more quickly (i.e., less blood and broken bones and funerals)

2. The local solutions serve as beta testing for whatever ROW policy/BSR might be adopted systemwide by USPA.

B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0