Light Plane, Houston

An open discussion of aviation safety related issues.

Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8133
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Light Plane, Houston

Postby 3WE » Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:36 pm

...a number of 'angles' on this one.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/three-dead-c ... 38939.html

Eyewitness reports 'stall like final dive' from a higher altitude.

ATC reports the pilot was struggling to ID the correct runway at Hobby.

ATC also told them to go around (not really their job, but hey, advice is cheap).

I think the wx was pretty mundane.

I heard one parlour talk theory that maybe she was overwhelmed with it all while perhaps giving some continual back pressure... with inadequate SA on yoke tension and the speed-o-meter...

Still, that beeper thingy ought to help manage that sort of thing.

No CVR / VCR... final report may require some speculation.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby Gabriel » Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:46 am

The actual crash. Spin, no doubt.

http://www.infobae.com/america/eeuu/201 ... e-un-auto/

By the way, it was a Cirrus equipped with whole-frame parachute, and (reportedly) it fell from quite high.
So either the pilot didn't activate it for some reason, or it failed.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8133
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby 3WE » Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:52 am

Probably should mention that supposedly there were botched 3 landing attempts... potentially some incapacitation / CO?
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8133
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby 3WE » Sun Jun 12, 2016 12:17 pm

The actual crash. Spin, no doubt.

http://www.infobae.com/america/eeuu/201 ... e-un-auto/

By the way, it was a Cirrus, which struggles to recover from a spin, equipped with whole-frame parachute, and (reportedly) it fell from quite high.
So either the pilot didn't activate it for some reason, or it failed.
Fixed, for En La Sombra.

PS. Your link caused my computer to stall and crash.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby Gabriel » Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:40 pm

it was a Cirrus, which struggles to recover from a spin
Fixed, for En La Sombra.
Please explain the "struggles to recover" part.

Do you see nose down elevator and anti-rotation rudder in the shadow?

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby Gabriel » Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:40 pm

it was a Cirrus, which struggles to recover from a spin
Fixed, for En La Sombra.
Please explain the "struggles to recover" part.

Do you see nose-down elevator and anti-rotation rudder in the shadow?

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8133
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby 3WE » Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:00 pm

...Please explain the "struggles to recover" part...
1. I read this on some obscure aviation fora many times, so it must be true. Or maybe not...that's the trouble with ass-hat parlour talk and www.internet.com

2. A certain forumite with a username similar to En La Sombra stated many times that THE reason the Cirrus contains a BRC is that it does not meet traditional spin recovery requirements. While the BRS may have utility for other types of emergencies, the Cirrus has to have it since there are some relatively unrecoverable spin modes that you can apparently get into without too much effort.

...or so En La Sombra, and I think one or two others, said.

3. My word choice "struggles to recover" was just me trying to avoid absolute statements..."The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin at all never ever whatsoever." Perhaps if you jump right on the recovery, it does recover? (I dunno- just parlour talking).

Soooo...I'm just the Super BS Parlour Talker here, and you are The Hell Better Aeroengineer

Sooo...Either:

A. You weren't paying attention to a whole lot of Cirrus crash threads on a few different ass-hat discussion fora over a significant number of years.

OR

B. A Cirrus can recover reasonably well from a spin, and En La Sombra was wrong.

or something else so I'm not guilty of being a black and white thinker.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby Gabriel » Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:14 pm

...Please explain the "struggles to recover" part...
1. I read this on some obscure aviation fora many times, so it must be true. Or maybe not...that's the trouble with ass-hat parlour talk and http://www.internet.com

2. A certain forumite with a username similar to En La Sombra stated many times that THE reason the Cirrus contains a BRC is that it does not meet traditional spin recovery requirements. While the BRS may have utility for other types of emergencies, the Cirrus has to have it since there are some relatively unrecoverable spin modes that you can apparently get into without too much effort.

...or so En La Sombra, and I think one or two others, said.

3. My word choice "struggles to recover" was just me trying to avoid absolute statements..."The Cirrus cannot recover from a spin at all never ever whatsoever." Perhaps if you jump right on the recovery, it does recover? (I dunno- just parlour talking).

Soooo...I'm just the Super BS Parlour Talker here, and you are The Hell Better Aeroengineer

Sooo...Either:

A. You weren't paying attention to a whole lot of Cirrus crash threads on a few different ass-hat discussion fora over a significant number of years.

OR

B. A Cirrus can recover reasonably well from a spin, and En La Sombra was wrong.

or something else so I'm not guilty of being a black and white thinker.
Point made and taken. In the video you can see the spinning shadow of the airplane, so I thought you were referring to that shadow.

En la Sombra (which sounds more like "In the Shadow") was right. At least technically.

I've read Cirrus people saying that the SR 20/22 can recover from spin with traditional means.

However, during flight testing and certification they didn't run through the full spin matrix AS REQUIRED by the regulations, and they used the BRS in lieu of that requirement. So, even if it could recover from any spin (and I am not saying that it always can), it doesn't meet the traditional spin recovery requirements because it was not tested.

That's why the spin recovery procedure in the Cirrus manual is... pull the chute.

Now, to be clear, the FAR 23 requirement for spin recovery for normal category airplanes is not that it must recover from any spin, but from a range of spins entered in some specific conditions and where correct remedy action is started a small time after the upset. In particular, it does not require for the spin to be recoverable after 1.5 turns.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8133
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby 3WE » Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:16 pm

...it doesn't meet the traditional spin recovery requirements because it was not tested [& additional nuances]...
Noted.

Now, given that it's pretty easy to test, I'm going to parlour-ass-ume that (just like the one-autopilot go-around), there may be something more to the story than your black and white explanation...

...perhaps some arithmetic/modeling said that passing the test could be problematic (perhaps at certain weights/CG locations).

And, if I am under a nice big tree on a sunny day and speaking English, there's no significant difference if I say I'm In the shade of the tree or in the shadow of the tree..."shade" is probably the more common usage. And wide-brim hats (including sombreros) provide shade to ones face and neck.

I would also say that sitting in the shade of a tree on a warm afternoon is a great way to take it easy.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8133
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby 3WE » Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:22 pm

...and all the dissection aside, the question really isn't THAT the plane spun in, but why (how) would someone spin a perfectly good plane in severe daytime VMC...(although that question may have some similarities as to why someone would stall a perfectly good plane for 36,000 feet in night IMC).
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby Gabriel » Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:43 am

Now, given that it's pretty easy to test...
It is not easy to test. Spin must be tested power on, power off, flaps up, flaps down, forward CG, aft CG, minimum weight, max weight, high inertia (wing tanks full), low inertia (wing tanks minimum fuel), starting wings level, starting in a left bank, starting in a right bank, starting with pro-spin aileron, starting with anti-spin aileron, and I don;t remember what other variables.

Now do the combinatorial analysis...

Plus..., the airplane is modified with a spin parachute or with an expulsable door, or both.

Here you have a video of a session of the spin testing for the Piper Tomahawk. It is 24 minutes long, it is cut to remove the climb between each spin, there are dozens of spins performed, and it is just part of the spin matrix.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzFgqtPVCZ0
I'm going to parlour-ass-ume that (just like the one-autopilot go-around), there may be something more to the story than your black and white explanation...
I agree that there is more to that. I cannot believe that Cirrus simply decided to remove the spin testing part just to simplify the test program. Even if it is complicated. Or even that they didn't do that testing later, when they started to receive the heat. It would be a good marketing tool to be able to say "It is not true that we put the parachute because the plane cannot recover from spins. Look, here we gone through the full spin matrix and it recovered flawsly every time. In the manual you have both methods to recover. The traditional PARE one and the parachute".
And, if I am under a nice big tree on a sunny day and speaking English, there's no significant difference if I say I'm In the shade of the tree or in the shadow of the tree
Tell me that when the tree casts a shade. ;)
Last edited by Gabriel on Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby Gabriel » Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:44 am

Duplicated
Last edited by Gabriel on Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby Gabriel » Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:45 am

Triplicated
Last edited by Gabriel on Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby Gabriel » Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:45 am

Cuadruplicated

(I've been hitting the "replay" instead to the "edit" button...

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8133
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby 3WE » Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:26 am

...It is not easy to test. Spin must be tested power on, power off, flaps up, flaps down, forward CG, aft CG, minimum weight, max weight, high inertia (wing tanks full), low inertia (wing tanks minimum fuel), starting wings level, starting in a left bank, starting in a right bank, starting with pro-spin aileron, starting with anti-spin aileron, and I don;t remember what other variables.

Now do the combinatorial analysis...
Tough shit.

I get it that it's a lot of work, but most other single engine aircraft were spin tested and certified to be OK to recover from whatever the requirements are and offer their BRS as an option, not_a requirement.

...and hell, like it would really kill (pun not_intended) some test pilot to be paid to go have a little utility category fun with a light plane...

...And light aircraft get subjected to a lot of crap...like people who can't find runways, and make high approaches and can't monitor airspeed nor elevator position / back pressure...

...or me who hesitated a few too many seconds before returning to a good, healthy nose-up climb attitude while practicing power on stalls and had an inadvertent secondary stall...

...or the Don Moore dude who turned into a tail wind...

...but glad you concur that there may be a bit more to the story.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Rabbi O'Genius
Posts: 770
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:37 am
Location: Hauts de Seine

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby Rabbi O'Genius » Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:55 am

FAR 23...... does not require for the spin to be recoverable after 1.5 turns.
Wow, that sounds like very few seconds to realise what's going on and react before you have no guarantee of survival.
......never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. – John Donne

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby Gabriel » Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:45 am

FAR 23...... does not require for the spin to be recoverable after 1.5 turns.
Wow, that sounds like very few seconds to realise what's going on and react before you have no guarantee of survival.
Correction: Make that one turn or 3 seconds, whichever is greater.

§23.221 Spinning.
(a) Normal category airplanes. A single-engine, normal category airplane must be able to recover from a one-turn spin or a three-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn after initiation of the first control action for recovery

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby flyboy2548m » Mon Jun 13, 2016 9:24 pm

Listened to ATC comms with the pilot. The whole time she sounds totally calm and unmoved by the situation, while the controllers sound a little sloppy. I don't know if there was some training going on at the tower as well, I heard at least three separate controllers.

One easy trap to fall into in busy airspace is to let ATC fly your airplane for you. This is especially hazardous when flying single pilot. I counted at least 5 runway changes in a 7-minute period. The pilot kept going along with those changes. Not good. At some point a pilot has to remember the IC part of PIC and take command of the situation. I've said it before, there are some things pilots are afraid to say. Among them are "standby" and "unable". At some point you just gotta say "Look, I want runway X, figure out your traffic mess, and get back to me. If you want me to go hold somewhere while you figure your crap out, that's fine".

Finally, here's a link to an article written by that God of All Things Aviational Dick Collins.

http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dick ... us-pilots/
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby Gabriel » Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:45 am

Finally, here's a link to an article written by that God of All Things Aviational Dick Collins.

http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dick ... us-pilots/
So, cloudy day IFR wrecks are a big part of the Cirrus problem. So are low speed losses of control. Here the FAA also has bloody hands.

Normally a single-engine airplane has to be spun as part of the certification process. The Cirrus wasn’t. The FAA waived this requirement and accepted the airframe parachute as an alternate means of compliance. I kid you not, the spin recovery in a Cirrus is based on deploying the chute. That is the only way a pilot can recover from a spin in a Cirrus*.
Is Mr Collins assuming that a pilot that was performing poorly enough to inadvertently stall and spin the plane in the pattern in VFR would, in general, suddenly start performing great as to recover from such a spin at a non-negative altitude, provided that the plane had been certified fro traditional spin recovery? Is he kidding or drunk? Pilots don't die from patternspinitis while flying other planes that are certified for traditional spin recovery? And if pulling the chute is the way to recover from a pin in the Cirrus and the pilots are trained to do it... Why don't they do it? Do you mean that a pilot that was incapable to recover the spin by pulling the chute would be capable of doing it by pulling off a PARE trick?

*I wonder what is the source of that. How many spins in a Cirrus did Dick fail to recover with traditional means? Or how many test reports did he read about it? Oh, none, it was not tested, right...

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8133
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby 3WE » Tue Jun 14, 2016 12:15 pm

...And if pulling the chute is the way to recover from a pin in the Cirrus and the pilots are trained to do it... Why don't they do it?...
Because (Based on known instances of Cirrus chute deployment):

-You probably just kissed your $250,000 airplane good bye.
-You have a pretty good chance of getting hurt.
-You have a significant likelihood of dying
-There's gonna be paperwork and some visits with regulatory officials
-It's expensive to get the chute re-packed

...versus your typical other light plane where you nose over a bit, put in some corrective rudder, or maybe just let go of the controls...

Maybe it deviates from procedure, but if I got a little altitude, I'm gonna at least try.

...and by the way, in all of this is the inference that maybe it's a nasty ass-biting plane, that will require you to see beyond your pure logic that not tested does not necessarily mean unrecoverable...but again, why no test?
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8133
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby 3WE » Tue Jun 14, 2016 12:31 pm

...Listened to ATC comms with the pilot. The whole time she sounds totally calm and unmoved by the situation, while the controllers sound a little sloppy. I don't know if there was some training going on at the tower as well, I heard at least three separate controllers.

One easy trap to fall into in busy airspace is to let ATC fly your airplane for you...
I finally listened myself. (I had assumed the pilot was overwhelmed from the start, but indeed, she seems calm). And, yeah, the ATC performance seems a bit off...give her a place to hold until you get a bigger gap, the repeated reassignment, sequenced ahead, never mind, behind....

I also wonder if a slow light plane belongs at a "sort-of-a-single-runway*" airport with heavy airline traffic. I recall one of my instructors telling of a trip to Flyover International back in the TWA glory days and he described being vectored all over creation* but I assume a fairly straight forward final clearance to land when there was an opening...(of course, I made the post a couple months back when (somewhat ironically) they couldn't handle a Cessna 402 and a 737 with three parallel runways either)

On the other side of the coin- was the pilot falling short on being able to fly fast when asked? Was she the problem with her altitude management? I even wonder if she should have pushed one of her high approaches...so what if you don't touch down in the first third of an 8000 ft runway in a light plane?

...and unfortunately, the bottom line remains that even if ATC is totally screwing you over, you should ideally not get yourself into a near-vertical flat? spin with minimal lateral speed on a nice sunny day... :( (That being said, I am wondering if there could have been a wake turbulence encounter?)

(*HOU is not a "single-runway" airport, but the winds that day was cramming the vast majority of traffic onto a single runway and 35 didn't seem to offer too much in the way of added flexibility- the sequencing seemed pretty tight! Also, on my STL story, at that time they had Runways 17, 13-31 and 24 (with a LAHSO) as "small plane options", but apparently didn't want to mess with that scenario on that day.)
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby flyboy2548m » Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:36 pm

Is Mr Collins assuming that a pilot that was performing poorly enough to inadvertently stall and spin the plane in the pattern in VFR would, in general, suddenly start performing great as to recover from such a spin at a non-negative altitude, provided that the plane had been certified fro traditional spin recovery? Is he kidding or drunk? Pilots don't die from patternspinitis while flying other planes that are certified for traditional spin recovery? And if pulling the chute is the way to recover from a pin in the Cirrus and the pilots are trained to do it... Why don't they do it? Do you mean that a pilot that was incapable to recover the spin by pulling the chute would be capable of doing it by pulling off a PARE trick?

*I wonder what is the source of that. How many spins in a Cirrus did Dick fail to recover with traditional means? Or how many test reports did he read about it? Oh, none, it was not tested, right...
You see, Gabe, Dick Collins is a lot like an older, even more obnoxious version of you. He, too, knows a few things here and there and then extrapolates all that "knowledge" to everything else, including things he has (at best) fourth-hand knowledge of. But I digress...

In his however feeble defense, I think his point wasn't so much the spin issue, but, rather, that Cirri were sold as transportation airplanes to pilots not really prepared for transportation flying. I agree to an extent. Cirrus has always been a very marketing-driven company (though, in fairness, I don't know many planemakers that are not), and the sales pitch from the very beginning has been that these are airplanes that can actually take you somewhere beyond the proverbial $100 hamburger run. Back when I met Alan Klapmeyer in the early 2000s, I asked him how he felt about the possibility that many (if not most) of his target audience probably lacked the skills and proficiency to operate these "personal airliners" safely. His response was that Cirrus Design was dedicating and would continue to dedicate large resources to customer training (which they have). The problem is that you can't train an attitude. You can train skills, procedures, flows, but there is little you can do about a wrong mindset. Cirrus has done all they can to give pilots every tool to not get themselves and their airplanes into undesirable states.

Since Collins' article was written, the stats for Cirri have apparently improved quite a bit. Could it be that Cirrus pilots are finally starting to us all those tools?
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby Gabriel » Thu Jun 16, 2016 3:48 pm

In his however feeble defense, I think his point wasn't so much the spin issue, but, rather, that Cirri were sold as transportation airplanes to pilots not really prepared for transportation flying. I agree to an extent. Cirrus has always been a very marketing-driven company (though, in fairness, I don't know many planemakers that are not), and the sales pitch from the very beginning has been that these are airplanes that can actually take you somewhere beyond the proverbial $100 hamburger run. Back when I met Alan Klapmeyer in the early 2000s, I asked him how he felt about the possibility that many (if not most) of his target audience probably lacked the skills and proficiency to operate these "personal airliners" safely. His response was that Cirrus Design was dedicating and would continue to dedicate large resources to customer training (which they have). The problem is that you can't train an attitude. You can train skills, procedures, flows, but there is little you can do about a wrong mindset. Cirrus has done all they can to give pilots every tool to not get themselves and their airplanes into undesirable states.

Since Collins' article was written, the stats for Cirri have apparently improved quite a bit. Could it be that Cirrus pilots are finally starting to us all those tools?
I like your analysis and I agree with it.

I quoted a specific part of the article and commented on that specific part. For what it is worth (not much, I know), I strongly disagree with Dick that the fact that the Cirrus is not certified for traditional spin recovery is a significant factor in the death toll in spin accidents in the Cirrus. People who stalls and spins a plane in the pattern typically crash and die, do not recover. The method to recover the spin in the Cirrus is much more easy and doesn't need skills, and also can recover from the spin in less altitude. I believe that the reason why Cirrus pilot are (or were) dying in spin accidents is much more related to what you say, since the pilots should not be stalling the plane to begin with. Bonanza "Doctor Killer" sequel.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby flyboy2548m » Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:52 pm

I like your analysis and I agree with it.
You feeling OK?
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Light Plane, Houston

Postby Gabriel » Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:28 pm

I like your analysis and I agree with it.
You feeling OK?
Yes. Thanks for asking. And you?

It is not the first time that I agree with you, hopefully it will not be the last.
In fact, when we discuss aviation, many times I like your inputs. The problem is that many times the discussion is about personalities and attitudes (and I am not talking pitch and bank). Like the part that I removed when I quoted you.


Return to “Aviation Safety Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests