Boston92 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 7 Posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2113 times:
While on approach into SBA (Santa Barbara, CA) in one of Skywest's (USA) Brasilias, there were sustained winds of 35 MPH, and gusts between 50 and 75 MPH. Now if you have ever flown into SBA, you know the approach is already hairy enough without severe winds:
We were being tossed around pretty hard and the I could tell the pilots were not trying for a smooth landing, the just wanted to get down. Anyways, we were up pretty high, and most likely coming in a bit fast. I fly this route all the time, and know exactly when we usually touch down...well we flew past that...and the captain, then flared the a/c more than I ever remember before, but that did not work (hence why I thought we were coming in a bit fast). He then flared again hard, and we hit even harder, full stopping power, and then it was over. Now the normal touchdown area is about 1500 feet off the end of the DT, and we actually touched down a good 2000 feet past that. The runway is only 6052 feet long. Now on the 2nd flare, if we had not touched down, what would the chances be to go-around? Would any pilot ever risk overrunning? At these wind speeds, would a go-around be normal? What are the normal circumstances for a go-around with respect to not having enough runway?
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4719 posts, RR: 25 Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2090 times:
Quoting Boston92 (Thread starter): there were sustained winds of 35 MPH, and gusts between 50 and 75 MPH.
Curious how you know that for a fact if you were in the aircraft and not on the flight deck?
Quoting Boston92 (Thread starter): and the captain, then flared the a/c more than I ever remember before, but that did not work (hence why I thought we were coming in a bit fast). He then flared again hard, and we hit even harder, full stopping power, and then it was over
Respectfully, hate to question but how do you know the Captain was flying the aircraft? Full stopping power, sounds very harsh, full stopping power, what is that?
Quoting Boston92 (Thread starter): Now the normal touchdown area is about 1500 feet off the end of the DT
The actual touchdown zone is defined as the first 3,000' of the landing runway....so what is the DT? Forgive me for being not informed.
It would be nice to not have such high drama on a landing which was successful! Questions yes, but drama of the exact winds, and who was flying the aircraft in this suspected faster than normal approach, then the full stopping power, oh my! Anyone else have the same thoughts?
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
Boston92 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2087 times:
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 1): Curious how you know that for a fact if you were in the aircraft and not on the flight deck?
It is really not too hard to know the wind speed. You don't need to be in the cockpit.
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 1): Respectfully, hate to question but how do you know the Captain was flying the aircraft? Full stopping power, sounds very harsh, full stopping power, what is that?
Fine...excuse my unproffesional lingo...but again...it is easy to find out if the captain was flying..., and by "full stopping power", I just mean that the pilots were not taking there time bringing the a/c to a stop.
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 1): The actual touchdown zone is defined as the first 3,000' of the landing runway
Really??? And if the runway is 3200 feet long???
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 1): It would be nice to not have such high drama on a landing which was successful! Questions yes, but drama of the exact winds, and who was flying the aircraft in this suspected faster than normal approach, then the full stopping power, oh my! Anyone else have the same thoughts?
It was not nearly as dramatic as you percieved it to be...a little out of the ordinary...sure, a little scary for a few of the pax...sure...it just put some questions in my mind...that is all...it really was a normal landing other than the fact that the captain (who was flying) had to flare twice.
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3410 posts, RR: 50 Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2060 times:
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 1): Anyone else have the same thoughts?
Yes, same exact thoughts. Just not worth the effort to write what you did... at least normally not worth the effort.
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 2): It was not nearly as dramatic as you percieved it to be...
Yet that is how dramatic you WROTE it to be. If you are not in pain from the seat belt, you have not experienced "full stopping power"... not even close to it.
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 2): a little out of the ordinary...sure, a little scary for a few of the pax...sure...it just put some questions in my mind...that is all...it really was a normal landing other than the fact that the captain (who was flying) had to flare twice.
So IOW, we can eliminate EVERYTHING you wrote and just deal with the fact the Captain (did you actually ask the pilots who was flying?) had to flare twice as being the only unusual thing in the flight? Gee, not anywhere close to what you originally wrote.
Uh... did the plane touchdown on the first flare (you never specified)? And if so, how "hard" was that touchdown?
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 2): It is really not too hard to know the wind speed. You don't need to be in the cockpit.
If you are going to state specific speeds, then YES, you need to have been in the cockpit to SEE the instruments to know what the pilots were actually dealing with.
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 2): it is easy to find out if the captain was flying
Only one way... to ask the pilots.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
Nicely spoken guys! And I totally agree! And imagine 75MPH wind: then the brasilia doesnt need ANY runway to take off, the wind is sufficient already
Maybe he thought that the captain was flying because it was so windy, but thats wrong! I did such approaches as well and I am "only" the First Officer and we are still all alive
The wind speed, well maybe he heard it from the news what it was... But what is was exactly during the approach you need to be IN the cockpit (flight deck)...
The Thoughts of the pilots?! Well, I always think during such wind: damnit, I should've stayed at home on my couch HAHA!
Well, its our job to bring down those aircrafts with passengers (or freight) as safely as possible! and if it is not possible: GO AROUND and head to your alternate airport!
And to answer your question: we pilots SHOULD not risk to overrun the runway! you can always go around until the thrust reverser are in action! Well, that counts for jet engines! Once the thrust reverser is activated you have to stop! if not: just hit the throttles and up we go again...
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4719 posts, RR: 25 Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2006 times:
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 2): It is really not too hard to know the wind speed. You don't need to be in the cockpit.
What did you do, lick your finger and stick it out the window?
Seriously, there is no possible way for you as a passenger to know what the wind was upon landing....only a guess.
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 3): Just not worth the effort to write what you did... at least normally not worth the effort
I was in a writing mood, doesn't happen often but couldn't resist myself!!
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 2): And if the runway is 3200 feet long???
Then the runway is 3,200' long.
Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 4): Nicely spoken guys! And I totally agree!
Thank you Sir.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4719 posts, RR: 25 Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1989 times:
Boston92 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1989 times:
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 3): Uh... did the plane touchdown on the first flare
No
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 3): Yet that is how dramatic you WROTE it to be.
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 3): If you are not in pain from the seat belt, you have not experienced "full stopping power"... not even close to it.
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 3): So IOW, we can eliminate EVERYTHING you wrote and just deal with the fact the Captain (did you actually ask the pilots who was flying?) had to flare twice as being the only unusual thing in the flight? Gee, not anywhere close to what you originally wrote.
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 3): nothing "hairy" about that approach at all.
Does it really matter? I spoke with the captain and first officer and f/a after the flight as I was the last one off. The only thing he did not mention was the wind speeds. No one has actually answered my questions yet, just questioned everything I wrote... There was a severe wind warning for the city and coast that entire night with the winds I mentioned earlier. There was a SIGMET for most of the southern CA coast...but none of that really matters...just answer the questions mentioned at the end of the post.
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
WILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, RR: 78 Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1981 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 4): And to answer your question: we pilots SHOULD not risk to overrun the runway! you can always go around until the thrust reverser are in action! Well, that counts for jet engines! Once the thrust reverser is activated you have to stop! if not: just hit the throttles and up we go again...
Goldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5437 posts, RR: 12 Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1975 times:
When the runway stops looking like a suitable length to stop, then going around would be called for.
The Brasilia doesn't need very much room to stop once it's on the ground. Case in point: at LAX, we touched down on the aiming points on 25R, and were off the runway at Golf, roughly 1200 feet away.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
Bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1954 times:
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 8): Does it really matter? I spoke with the captain and first officer and f/a after the flight as I was the last one off. The only thing he did not mention was the wind speeds.
What did the pilot say?
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 8): none of that really matters...just answer the questions mentioned at the end of the post.
Well, one of your questions was regarding wind speed. It just seems unlikely anyone is going to be landing at 75mph (hurricane force) gusts ... let alone a Brasilia. The airport would probably be closed and abandoned.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
WILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, RR: 78 Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1948 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 4): And imagine 75MPH wind: then the brasilia doesnt need ANY runway to take off, the wind is sufficient already Big grin
Quoting Bond007 (Reply 11): It just seems unlikely anyone is going to be landing at 75mph (hurricane force) gusts ... let alone a Brasilia. The airport would probably be closed and abandoned.
Yeah, 75MPH?! Would be better to stay home with that wind...
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3410 posts, RR: 50 Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1934 times:
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 8): Quoting AAR90 (Reply 3):
Uh... did the plane touchdown on the first flare
Yes. You create the illusion of a signficicantly scary event, then when questioned about it you claim:
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 2): It was not nearly as dramatic as you percieved it to be...a little out of the ordinary...sure, a little scary for a few of the pax...sure...it just put some questions in my mind...that is all...it really was a normal landing other than the fact that the captain (who was flying) had to flare twice.
So what is the TRUTH? Was it a scary approach or not? Was it dangerous (as you originally made it out to be) or not? And the "hairy enough" approach you reference is an extremely simple 1800 foot descent over 6 MILES (196 feet/mile or approx. 393 feet/minute at 120 knot approach speed) STRAIGHT AHEAD (no turning) over open water and gets no lower than 910 feet above the runway. If you define that (a less than normal 3-degree glidepath over open space) as "hairy enough" please do not attempt to describe approaches to SNA, SAN, IAD and virtually EVERY other airport in the country.
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 8): There was a severe wind warning for the city and coast that entire night with the winds I mentioned earlier.
So now you know why those who actually must USE the FORECAST weather affectionately call those who TRY to forecast the weather... "weather guessers." For all we know (those of us who were not in the cockpit of your flight) the ACTUAL weather encountered could have been clear skies and calm winds. FORECAST wind is just that... a FORECAST.
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 8): just answer the questions mentioned at the end of the post.
The answers are so obvious one would think the application of common sense would suffice. But what the heck...I'm bored too.
No. IF the ACTUAL wind reported at the airport was what was FORECAST, then AA policy REQUIRES the pilot to not attempt the approach to begin with. Hint: strong suspicion SkyWest policy is the same so you probably didn't experience anything close to the wind you think you did.
Quoting Boston92 (Thread starter): What are the normal circumstances for a go-around with respect to not having enough runway?
Whenever the pilots think they can not make a safe landing, a go-around should be performed.
In its most basic form, driving an airplane is very much like driving a car. You look, evaluate and make decisions. The only difference being that everything in an airplane happens in three dimensions, happens a whole lot quicker, and the consequenses of a poor decision are a whole lot worse.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
WILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, RR: 78 Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1929 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 13): driving an airplane is very much like driving a car. You look, evaluate and make decisions. The only difference being that everything in an airplane happens in three dimensions, happens a whole lot quicker, and the consequenses of a poor decision are a whole lot worse.
BoeingOnFinal From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 476 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1895 times:
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 13): driving an airplane is very much like driving a car.
Indeed, but when you eventually stop DRIVING the aircraft, and start flying it, it will be quite different.
Sorry, you were busting his chops so much that I had to get you back somehow, and this is the only way I knew how.
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 2): Really??? And if the runway is 3200 feet long???
Touch down zone is the first 3000 feet from the threshold or half the runway, whichever is less (at least that is the lighting requirements of Cat II and III runways).
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3082 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1826 times:
Another interesting thing, if the winds were really 75mph as you state, was it a crosswind or a headwind? Wind socks are standing straight out at about 15-20kts so I'm trying to figure out what would tell you this wind speed.
I'm interested as I know no aircraft with a max demonstrated crosswind component of more than about 35kts. And in most cases, unlike in part 91 it is a part 121 limitation because it's listed in that carrier's ops spec.
Boston92 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1815 times:
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 13): So what is the TRUTH? Was it a scary approach or not? Was it dangerous (as you originally made it out to be) or not? And the "hairy enough" approach you reference is an extremely simple 1800 foot descent over 6 MILES (196 feet/mile or approx. 393 feet/minute at 120 knot approach speed) STRAIGHT AHEAD (no turning) over open water and gets no lower than 910 feet above the runway. If you define that (a less than normal 3-degree glidepath over open space) as "hairy enough" please do not attempt to describe approaches to SNA, SAN, IAD and virtually EVERY other airport in the country.
I don't believe the approach to 25 is "straight ahead". Did you even look at the approach? And no, it was not scary. When I spoke with the crew, it was just a friendly conversation more about how our days went than that specific approach.
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 13): FORECAST wind is just that... a FORECAST.
Not when it already has happened.
Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 17): Another interesting thing, if the winds were really 75mph
I never said the winds were 75 MPH, I said the winds were sustained at 30-35 MPH, with with a "few gusts reaching hurricane force" throughout the day... That figure came from the county so most likely was not around the airport...but the 30-35 MPH winds were at the airport within 20 minutes of when I was there.
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 13): No. IF the ACTUAL wind reported at the airport was what was FORECAST, then AA policy REQUIRES the pilot to not attempt the approach to begin with
You guys are getting too stuck on the 75 MPH number which was the max gust in the county. The winds were 35 MPH. Now to answer my question, would it be normal to go around at these (35) wind speeds.
You guys are also getting way to stuck what actually happened on my flight. Fine, I do not know if the winds were 31 or 32 MPH, maybe they were 29 or 33. Now fine, what I wrote in the start may sound a bit dramatic, but it really wasn't...just get over it. The winds were 30-35 MPH, made for an approach that was a bit harder than normal, and thats it.
All I want to know is how often wind is sole reason for a missed approach.
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
SevenHeavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1126 posts, RR: 10 Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1815 times:
Quoting Boston92 (Thread starter): The runway is only 6052 feet long. Now on the 2nd flare, if we had not touched down, what would the chances be to go-around?
There would still be adequate time to initiate a go-around. A prop will spool up very quickly, particularly under these conditions. I am going to humour you and accept your wind speed "estimates", was the wind down the runway? If your description is accurate I suspect not. However if they were "down the runway this would make a safe climb away even easier
Again, what was the wind direction? Sustained winds of 30mph (kts??) down the runway are actually helpful. A 30mph/kt direct crosswind would be over the limit for this aircraft ( can't say I know exactly what it is for this type however)
I think its safe to say that 75 "mph" would probably close the airport, gusting or otherwise.
Quoting Boston92 (Thread starter): What are the normal circumstances for a go-around with respect to not having enough runway?
If they were normal circumstances you wouldn't need a go-around . It Depends on the aircraft type, weight, runway length. etc.etc. This situation was really no big deal. There was more than enough runway for this type of aircraft. What you don't say is how much runway was left when you taxied off but i am sure that there was never any danger that you were anywhere close to not being able to stop in time. The flight deck crew get paid to make those judgement calls based on their experience and they (almost ) never get it wrong.
I hope this answers your questions. If you hadn't got the hint already you might want to stick to the facts a little more. I have humoured you and responded based on the parameters you gave but you will get better answers from far more qualified guys than me if you lose some of the drama in future and only post what you know to be correct- just some friendly advice.
Futureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2561 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1807 times:
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 18): Now to answer my question, would it be normal to go around at these (35) wind speeds.
Not necessarily. A go around isn't based on wind speed, but if the approach somehow was botched/became unsafe, you would probably see a go around. Hell, I was up in a 172RG today in 25mph winds, and didn't have to go around. It was sporty, but do-able. In gusty conditions, you may be more likely to experience/see a go around because it would be easier for an approach to go to hell, particularly when you are lower to the ground and there is less and less tolerance for error and room to recover.
Boston92 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1804 times:
From here on, lets just say I was lying about the 75 MPH winds (For all intent and purpose). The winds were 30-35 MPH. Also here is an actual Brasilia on apprach for SBA showing that it is not "straight in".
Tornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1804 times:
With a date/time of this flight we could pull the archived METAR's to at least get a closer estimate of the winds. If the weather was as severe as you claim, there would be a higher likelihood of "SPECI" obs in between the normal hourly obs to narrow it down even better. Somehow I doubt the winds were anywhere near 75, but I've landed a Cherokee 140 in 28G38kt so your 35kt sustained isn't THAT big of a deal.
Boston92 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 7 Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1799 times:
Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 22): Somehow I doubt the winds were anywhere near 75
So do I. When I originally posted the 75 number, it was not meant to be a basis of the winds at the aiport. The airport winds were 30-35 MPH as I said originally...forget the 75 number.
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
Boston92 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 7 Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1793 times:
There was a SIGMET for this time, that's all I can find.
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
25 Tornado82: Myth busted... 2030 local on Nov 11th would be 0430zulu on the 12th. KSBA 120353Z 05006KT 10SM CLR 18/06 A2991 RMK AO2 SLP127 T01780061= KSBA 120453Z
26 Boston92: There was a wind advisory issued (a.k.a winds greater than 35 MPH).
27 AAR90: Yes I looked at the approach. In fact, I've flown it many times. It IS a straight ahead APPROACH with a visual turn for landing. VERY SIMPLE. MUCH EA
28 Tornado82: I'm well aware of the criteria for wind advisories. I also know how to decode METAR's. That's quite the interesting terrain out that way... as someon
30 Boston92: Also, there were winds of 60 MPH (CONFIRMED) on NOV 11 between 6:00pm and 9:00pm over the Montecito Hills which is on the approach. From the National
31 Tornado82: Winds somewhere out on the approach wouldn't have caused your "double flare" incident. If anything a wind that strong on your approach probably would
32 AAR90: Relax. Someone is trying to find justification for the original bad information. The approach is OVER WATER. "...Montecito Hills which is on the appr
33 Onetogo: I thought you had been asking about go-arounds up until this point. You do realize that a missed approach and a go-around are two entirely different
35 Boston92: Regardless, there were wind advisories and warnings from San Diego to Palm Springs to Point Conception all over the weekend, not to mention a SIGMET
36 Boston92: Both are similar...but I guess since it was not full IFR and 25 does not have an ILS, you can't really perform a missed approach...but I am sure you
37 IAHFLYR: I really hate to pick, but what the heck is this supposed to mean The weather is either IMC or VMC at the airport.....unless by "full IFR" you really
38 FutureUALpilot: A missed approach is when an instrument approach cannot be completed for any reason. A go around is a rejected/balked landing, either VFR or IFR. Sam
39 Boston92: Once again, I am sorry for not being techical enough. The weather of said flight was clear. The ILS 7 was not needed and we landed on the visual 25.
40 IAHFLYR: How about not saying incorrect, just confusing term of "full IFR"!
41 CosmicCruiser: I know what you mean I was being just a little amused at your "two entirely different things" quote. I'm remembering numerous times in the sim after
43 FutureUALpilot: Sounds like good times in the soup! Gotta love flying.
44 AAR90: Based upon what ACCURATE, RELIABLE, VERIFIABLE data collection? How much real world EXPERIENCE do you have estimating wind from an airplane window fl
45 2H4: ...And with that, I believe AAR90 has officially put the smack in the down and locked position. 2H4
46 Boston92: You have to realize that I am smart enough to know that you are so much smarter than me (in this field). You are a Check Airman for American Airlines
47 AAR90: Deleting all the rubbish and answering your basic question (a 5 second Google search for SIGMET): NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE INSTRUCTION 10-810 b. Sign
48 Pilotpip: All a SIGMET does is let you know that conditions that could be of hazard to aircraft operations could exist in an area. Basically it can be for somet
49 LASOctoberB6: Sometimes, you can't always trust what you find up on Google, so asking here with people who have more legit knowledge does wonders.
50 AAR90: True, which is why I included the source. The NWS issues SIGMETs so their definition is about as "legit" as you can get.
51 IAHFLYR: I appreciate the Check Airfolks in the world, my best friend in the industry is also a Check Airmen in the B733, B735, B737, B738, & B739 fleet......
52 Bond007: Boy, I bet the poor guy wishes he never mentioned those 'winds' .... 50 posts ago Jimbo[Edited 2007-11-15 23:05:55]
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, 
From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 476 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1126 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
