Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Take Off/climb Sequence Of Movie "Flight"  
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6534 posts, RR: 9
Posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6192 times:

Hi, I'm surprised there is no thread about this movie. The most commonly discussed part on the internet is the crash, but it's too "aerobatic" to warrant discussion here in my opinion, however I'm interested by what happens during the initial climb through clouds, rain, turbulence, and how the captain disregards the heading and altitude given by the controller, overspeeds the aircraft, and generally hand-flies the thing in conditions where loss of situational awareness is very easily attained.

What are your thoughts ?


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6184 times:

My thoughts are that it is Hollywood, and for being Hollywood it is surprisingly realistic, meaning not very much...

Hand flying is not a problem as I see it. Any pilot with an instrument rating, let alone an ATP/ATPL, should have few issues maintaining situational awareness in that situation (aircraft control is another matter). The flight instruments are shown to be working the whole time. The autopilot, especially in a somewhat older aircraft like the MD-80, would probably do much worse than the fleshbag pilot in such conditions. The fact that he does the wrong thing (overspeeds instead of slowing down to maneuvering speed) is of course a problem. Dramatic license...

I have issues with him talking to the controllers at all while flying the aircraft in an emergency situation. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. The division of labor in the cockpit is very bad. The radio comms are awful. The fact that he tries to thread the needle between two thunderstorm cells is just terrible. But the one thing that really bugged me was how at "rotate" he grabbed the yoke and yanked.

Having said that, it illustrates the kind of person he is, and that is what the movie is about. It is not a movie about aviation. Aviation is incidental to it. Even with all the technical inaccuracies, I thought the movie was fantastic. It really shows how substance abuse can destroy a person, and it really shows what kind of personality issues can and do occur.


On a side note, I was in flight school in Kissimmee when I saw this movie. I went with another student. The line "That's a pocket of smooth air, squatting right over Kissimmee" made us cheer!

[Edited 2013-02-20 06:20:13]

[Edited 2013-02-20 06:22:00]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6152 times:

never saw it and probably because it is a movie. Very few movies are even close to being accurate. Jimmy Stewart was one of the very few actor/pilots that maintained as much accuracy as possible. eg. Spirit Of St. Louis, Strategic Air Command

User currently offlineSlcpilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 581 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6139 times:

As most others have properly noted, this is NOT a movie about aviation, but rather a movie about addiction. Any 121 crew member could tear it apart. Another example of Hollywood comes from the ATC transmissions where they say "THIS is National 191" (sorry, I forgot the the carrier name). You don't hear broadcasts starting with "This", but I'm willing to give Hollywood a bye to make it more understandable for the average viewer.

I bought the notion of the conflicted hero, even if the substance abuse at the scale depicted most likely doesn't happen today. It might have happened like this in the 60s and 70s with less oversight.

Cheers!

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlineMrCazzy From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6095 times:

When a couple of my friends and I were watching this we were pointing out the problems with it. Kind of funny when a bunch of pilots watch a movie about flying

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9510 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5940 times:

First off, I agree that the movie is about addiction and not flying.

For me, the producers left a giant plot hole in the movie. The captain and investigating board clearly state that it was a mechanical problem with the plane and not pilot error. The whole premise is that despite the drug induced state that the captain was in, he did a remarkable job. However, he oversped the airplane in what he called severe turbulence. Doing so will put excess stress on the airplane and could have caused the jackscrew to fail.

I know I am reading too far into this, but exceeding the placarded speeds in severe turbulence could cause the jackscrew to fail. So while the movie blames the plane and indicates the pilot was a hero and did nothing wrong, in reality overspeeding the airplane in turbulence could cause structural failure. I was waiting at the end of the movie for someone to bring it up, but they never did. It was an unresolved plot hole for me.

I was laughing hysterically at the whole disaster sequence. Dumping fuel on an MD80 was just comical and having the manual override be so far away that the flight attendant had to pull it. If such a handle did exist, the airplane design engineers would have been smart enough to put it close enough so that the pilot could reach it! Only in the movies is the handle/switch/lever that could save everyone’s lives just out of reach of the actor. No engineer is stupid enough to actually do that.

Oh well, it is just a movie about drug addiction.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5853 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 5):
For me, the producers left a giant plot hole in the movie. The captain and investigating board clearly state that it was a mechanical problem with the plane and not pilot error. The whole premise is that despite the drug induced state that the captain was in, he did a remarkable job. However, he oversped the airplane in what he called severe turbulence. Doing so will put excess stress on the airplane and could have caused the jackscrew to fail.

Agreed. But the objective was to make it interesting for the mainstream viewer. It's all a backdrop for his addiction and its consequences.

Thing is, Flight was more realistic than the vast majority of movies with airplanes in them. Remember "Top Gun", "Air Force One", "Starflight", "Airport" and its steadily declining sequels?

There are some good movies with planes in them. "Memphis Belle" comes to mind. I'd lump Flight in there as well. Overlooking the technical inaccuracies for a moment, the depiction of crew life (apart from actual CRM) is not so terribly off. It shows something the public rarely sees, the less than glamorous side with weird layover times, and the fact that for them the aircraft is a workplace.

Quoting MrCazzy (Reply 4):
When a couple of my friends and I were watching this we were pointing out the problems with it. Kind of funny when a bunch of pilots watch a movie about flying

Quite. This is the problem with watching a movie or even a documentary on a subject you have expert knowledge about. There is simply no time to cover the subject in enough depth to be realistic, and even if there were, the mainstream viewer would not understand the nuances involved.


Books are much better. For example I am finally reading "Fate is the Hunter". It really captures the pilot psyche and I highly recommend it. But only for people actually interested in aviation.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2821 posts, RR: 45
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5782 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 2):
never saw it and probably because it is a movie.

Agreed; ditto.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
The autopilot, especially in a somewhat older aircraft like the MD-80, would probably do much worse than the fleshbag pilot in such conditions.

You base this critique of the MD-80 A/P on what exactly? It's not the best A/P I have ever used (A-320; L-1011) but it does a very good job and definitely is strongly recommended when dealing with complex navigation and weather. It is particularly helpful to SA and PM duties.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5716 times:

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 7):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
The autopilot, especially in a somewhat older aircraft like the MD-80, would probably do much worse than the fleshbag pilot in such conditions.

You base this critique of the MD-80 A/P on what exactly? It's not the best A/P I have ever used (A-320; L-1011) but it does a very good job and definitely is strongly recommended when dealing with complex navigation and weather. It is particularly helpful to SA and PM duties.

The complex navigation I am sure it could handle. However wouldn't the severe turbulence lead to disconnection if it couldn't stay on target?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3610 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5645 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):
Quite. This is the problem with watching a movie or even a documentary on a subject you have expert knowledge about. There is simply no time to cover the subject in enough depth to be realistic, and even if there were, the mainstream viewer would not understand the nuances involved.

You don't have to have "time" to do things realistically on film. I haven't seen the movie but just speaking generally, it would take no extra time at all to show a pilot using proper procedures in the time he's on screen - you just compress things with editing so that not everything needs to be shown.

I went to a pretty good film school (NYU) and I've been working in the industry off and on ever since (and on again right now) - I still remember in my very first class, the very first thing my professor taught us was that "film is a literal medium". In other words what you as a filmmaker put on screen is exactly what viewers are going to see; you can't rely on them to use their imagination to make real what you have faked. That's always stuck with me. If you are going to tell a story about mobsters, you can't show them passing around monopoly money. If you are going to tell a story about Kurt Cobain, you can't show him playing the wrong guitar. And if you are going to tell a story about a pilot, you can't show him using the wrong procedures. Well, you *can*, it's just that in all of these cases, your film won't appear to be very authentic.

Really good filmmakers take the time to research and learn their subject matter, at least to the point that it looks like they know what they're talking about. Or if they don't, they hire an expert who does. That's why most war movies have paid military consultants advising on real-world military procedures. I don't see why it should be different with aviation movies; aviation isn't somehow exempt from all this; we've maybe just gotten used to seeing aviation depicted poorly.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4381 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5642 times:

It's nonsense, just like the movie.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5553 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 9):
I don't see why it should be different with aviation movies; aviation isn't somehow exempt from all this; we've maybe just gotten used to seeing aviation depicted poorly.

Fair point. And great post spacecadet.

I find that Apollo 13 is a great movie that is both very faithful to the actual mechanics of spaceflight in the 60s, while still being riveting. The filmmakers went to ridiculous detail to make it true to history. It is worth noting, however, that they changed events here and there for the story.

Perhaps aviation is a bit of a special case. Most people in the west have flown and so they think they know the details of this rather intricate endeavor. I get asked a lot of questions, but I notice most people aren't really interested in the true answers. They just want their preconceptions validated.

By the way the Millennium Falcon made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.  



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSAAFNAV From South Africa, joined Mar 2010, 260 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5481 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11):

By the way the Millennium Falcon made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.

Yeah, so much for parsec being a unit of distance not time.
But if it sounds good in a movie, why not?



On-board Direction Consultant
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5454 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):
There are some good movies with planes in them. "Memphis Belle" comes to mind.

As much as I love the M.B. story the later movie was not considered very accurate by most. Sadly the old William Wyler footage from a M.B. mission was definitive. In the movie they had to wrap 25 missions into 1 1/2 hrs which didn't work.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 9):
Well, you *can*, it's just that in all of these cases, your film won't appear to be very authentic.

True but 99% of the people won't notice and won't care. That's sad but even my wife has told me not to point out the inaccuracies of aviation movies. I'm sure this holds true to police movies, doctor movies or lawyer movies. I heard from a reliable source that when they were making Castaway the director wanted the crew to throw their hands up and snap back as the plane hit the water. Our tech advisor (pilot) pointed out that when hitting something hard like water everything goes forward not backwards. He then said "ok on three everyone go forward"! It's only physics, sad sad sad.


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4392 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5421 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):
I am finally reading "Fate is the Hunter"

One of the best aviation books.
Should have a look at "Castles in the Sky", which reads like a thriller on one of the events he talked about in just a few pages of "Fate is..." It gives you a very nice iodea of Great North naviogation problems at a time when neither Loran or GPS were available. Funny that these trwo books made it into Hollywood, but alas, failed to bring the atmospheres... even with the Duke at his prime .
For history buffs, a series of books by Ray Rosenbaum "Falcons" /" Hawks" / "Eagles" / "Condors" portrays the USAF from Pearl Harbor to the cold war through the career of an officer, Ross Collier with some vivid cockpit actions. A very enjoyable read.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5410 times:

I remember reading "Fate" and loved it. When the movie came out I ran to see it and was so disappointed to find nothing associated to the book at all. Thanks again Hollywood.

User currently offlinetb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1576 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5387 times:

I went in knowing that the aviation side was gonna suck, which of course it did, but the rest of it wasn't too bad.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 6):
Books are much better. For example I am finally reading "Fate is the Hunter". It really captures the pilot psyche and I highly recommend it. But only for people actually interested in aviation.

My favorite book of all time!



Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2301 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5337 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 13):
True but 99% of the people won't notice and won't care. That's sad but even my wife has told me not to point out the inaccuracies of aviation movies. I'm sure this holds true to police movies, doctor movies or lawyer movies.

I have a friend who is retired from the NYPD (patrol, and later helicopter mechanic). When NYPD Blue premiered, he complained about how unrealistic it was. I told him nobody would watch an hour of cops sitting around filling out reports and eating donuts. I don't think he's forgiven me for that comment to this day. 



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5331 times:

moose135, well that is true and I know where your friend comes from too. It's very similar to some posters that hear of an abnormal situation and start jumping to all kinds of emergency situations and possibilities when in reality most alerts and abnormal indications are solved without much fanfare.

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8413 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5317 times:

The real problem with Flight was at the end, Denzel Washington didn't get the chair, surrounded by cheering people.

If you listen the early dialogue of the CVR, it is incriminating and he deserved a death penalty just for his reckless flying.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6534 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5260 times:

On the contrary I found a better end would be for him to lie till the end and continue with his flying drunk/high, letting us wonder about what will finally stop him. But Hollywood has to be moral.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5249 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 20):
But Hollywood has to be moral.

You must be kidding?? Hollywood? Not since '68


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9510 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5237 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
If you listen the early dialogue of the CVR, it is incriminating and he deserved a death penalty just for his reckless flying.

I doubt the producers of the movie know what a CVR is for. Apparently they think it is used for saying goodbye to your children during an imminent accident.

[Edited 2013-02-21 15:05:49]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 797 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5230 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 22):
I doubt the producers of the movie know what a CVR is for. Apparently they think it is used for saying goodbye to your children during an imminent accident.

It's overdone in movies, but it comes for the real life PSA182 that crashed in San Diego, when the FO said "Ma I love you" before they hit the ground.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineSenchingo From Germany, joined Oct 2010, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5214 times:

Movie was quite good, but as others stated before: It's kind of an aviation topic but actually about alcohol and/or drug abuse.

Thing is: Movies about very deep topics mostly are stuffed with Hollywood while not taking care about details. There are like SO many movies with aviation involved and i just keep shaking my head or even can't watch them 'till the end.
Examples:
Flightplan ("Did you build this aircraft mummy?" - "Yes, it's a 474")
Snakes on a plane (no words)
Air Force One (whole Lowerdeck is basically cabin and crew rest)
Con Air (don't get me started)

However, i could see a certain "good will" to make it look nice and at the same time bring in non-boring details. But as spacecadet said:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 9):
Really good filmmakers take the time to research and learn their subject matter, at least to the point that it looks like they know what they're talking about. Or if they don't, they hire an expert who does

I never understand why they never hire someone who knows what he's talking about.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 5):
Dumping fuel on an MD80 was just comical and having the manual override be so far away that the flight attendant had to pull it.

Didn't quite understand what she had to pull there, thanks for that one. At first i thought it was some kind of "manual gear override".

On a side note:
Aviator was a GREAT movie for me. Covering all kinds of areas of aviation, quite detailed, but also mixed with psychology and the trouble Mr. Hughes had to go through.


25 Starlionblue : Should have been more clear. I am aware it is not very accurate. But I still think it is a great movie. Also unlike most (even Flight which I enjoyed
26 CosmicCruiser : starlionblue, yeah the flying scenes were good, the Sally B based at Duxford was the Memphis Belle. it's still carries the logo on the right side and
27 Fabo : FWIW I dont think it was ever told what a Kessel run is, specifically. Maybe it does make sense as a distance measurement - for example, how long doe
28 Post contains links SAAFNAV : I agree with your point, but according to the Star Wars canon, the Kessel Run is a route of 18 parsecs. So in essence, he 'did a 100mi in 60mi'. http
29 XT6Wagon : In this case its intentional to avoid problems with trademarks. The Bond movie Casino Royale also modified a 747 and called it a Skyfleet S570 for pl
30 Starlionblue : That very plane can be seen in the background during Top Gear's track sessions. But I digress.
31 Polot : Because that costs money. You have to pay for a consultant. Filming takes longer (= more $$$) as more planning and rehearsal needs to be done. Not wo
32 Post contains links and images Starlionblue : Not only that. What's the point of hiring a consultant when you know you're going to have to ignore his advice in order to make the story work? Here'
33 CosmicCruiser : Ha! Ha! right. Just a couple of very silly moments I remember from movies. In The Battle of Britain, as good as it was for flying scenes, the Germans
34 Aesma : Personally it's computers that get me, and you don't have to be into computers to realize that only in movies/TV series computers do strange bip bip n
35 flymia : I just saw Flight last night. I liked the movie. Aviation was not as big as a part of the movie which is probably a good thing. To the movie the fligh
36 SAAFNAV : Yeah, these movies are so unrealistic. I mean, they hack an Alien Starship's computer, and not once does the computer ask if they want to update Adob
37 Starlionblue : Bleep bloop bleep! Hate that! Star Trek TNG was particularly bad. Another computer pet peeve of mine (I've worked with computers for 20 years) is whe
38 Fabo : Arent they in a different position in a 717? I thought they were overhead, like on MD-11.
39 Post contains images cjg225 : I am a major, major Star Wars geek, so I will try to keep this brief. lol The more or less "official" explanation is that, normally, craft have to tr
40 Starlionblue : Sure, but that's a retcon. In the original movie, no one had thought out the "logic".
41 Stabilator : As an enthusiast and a pilot. I refuse to watch this film. Its just so ridiculous. What pilot does drugs and drinks then decides "I'll do a barrel rol
42 cjg225 : But wasn't this based on the Alaska Air crash where the pilot actually did try to invert the aircraft to counteract the horizontal stabilizer's sever
43 Starlionblue : Minor spoilers below. . . . . . He doesn't "decide to do a barrel roll". After the failure of an engine and control issues, he finds that he does not
44 Post contains images SAAFNAV : Still more realistic than the crash scene in Flight! As far as I know, it's under the glare shield as on Dc-9. But still, not where the movie portray
45 Post contains images EA CO AS : I recently saw "Flight" courtesy of our cable provider's on-demand service. A few points: They actually managed to depict the same plane that took off
46 cjg225 : Certainly an interesting way to start the movie. lol
47 Post contains images Flighty : You know how they edit plane crashes out of in-flight movies (i.e. GoldenEye?) Yeah, something tells me Flight won't be shown at all. Never mind the d
48 cjg225 : It'll be shown on TransAmerican flights, probably...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Take Off/climb Sequence Of Movie "Flight"
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Trigger Of Take Off Config Warning 737 NG posted Tue Feb 14 2012 05:57:12 by smartt1982
Take Off Run Vs Altitude. Rule Of Thumb? posted Sat Feb 11 2012 16:41:57 by a380900
The Point Of Take-Off posted Mon Aug 15 2011 13:02:58 by nema
Flight Attendants Standing Up Take Off/landing posted Tue Jul 26 2011 23:40:21 by Jackbr
Take Off/landing Slots Change Of Use. posted Tue Jul 14 2009 09:04:55 by Readytotaxi
Take-off Runway Length Vs Length Of Runway posted Tue Feb 12 2008 15:02:13 by CRJ900
RPM Of Jet Engines During Take-off posted Fri Jun 9 2006 18:00:26 by MerlinIIIB
Climb Rate/take-off Performance For Widebodies posted Sat Sep 3 2005 01:01:31 by WunalaYann
Take-off Rolls And Rate Of Acceleration? posted Sat Nov 22 2003 22:13:28 by Wardialer
Cause Of Specific Sound At Take-off Of A-320? posted Mon Aug 18 2003 12:09:22 by OOPJV

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format