Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Capt Descends Below Minimums - What Would You Do?  
User currently offlineGordonsmall From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2001, 2236 posts, RR: 20
Posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13505 times:

Hi Guys,

This topic has come up on other aviation forums lately and in the past, but there never seems to be a solid answer as to what the best course of action is - and since it's apparently a popular interview question I think it deserves another airing.

So ......

You're on approach and the captain is pilot flying, the weather is poor (gusting winds, rain etc) and as you call minimums the runway still isn't in sight, but the captain continues to descend, and ignores you're repeated calls to go-around .... so what's your plan now bearing in mind that if you're minimums were 200' that with a descent rate of 700-800 fpm you've got less than 10 seconds from your first call before terra firma starts re-arranging your facial features?

Do you let the captain continue on his merry way hoping that he'll pull it off, or do you try to wrestle control of the aircraft from him creating a possibly equal or more dangerous situation?

Any thoughts from current F/O's, captains, aspiring/student pilots?


Statistically, people who have had the most birthdays tend to live the longest.
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13491 times:

thats a good one, for sure not "wrestle control" from anyone.
but on airbus i'd press the red control override on the sidestick and initiate go around with clear vocal announcements to the captain

User currently offlineKYIPpilot From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1383 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13419 times:

If he has repeatedly ignored your go around comments, I guess I would yell my plane and go full throttle and do a go around to avert a potential crash and to save the lives of everyone onboard.

I am intersted to hear what the airline pilots would do, beause I'm sure there must be reprocussions for doing that w/o the captain saying ok.

"It starts when you're always afraid; You step out of line, the man come and take you away" -Buffalo Springfield
User currently offlineJetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13379 times:

Interesting question with no correct answer - the proper response would be "situational dependent". (I remember that I was asked a similar question on one of my airline interviews.) The bottom line is you don't let the captain kill you, whatever the potential ramifications. If you're junior and force a go around you'd better be prepared for the consequences. In my humble opinion, proper SOPs will cover situations like the one mentioned above. In our operation, we assume that if a crew member doesn't respond after 3 tries then he/she is to be considered unresponsive and the other crew member may take command.


User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4300 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 13360 times:

You can also call tower and say "Constipated 3281 is going missed"... that automatically cancels your landing clearance.

Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineMusang From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 920 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 13332 times:

Difficult one. You risk souring your relationship with the captain if you're right and he's wrong, and there's always the worry that you've had a brainfart (call the wrong minimum, I've seen that) and he's in the right.

Obviously though, if the FO is sure of his/her ground and the GA call is valid, don't worry about the consequences. In the heat of the moment though, I agree it would take a lot of guts.

I can't remember being on either side of that situation.

One bit of advice I picked up somewhere if a captain is deviating from SOPs is to address him/her firmly and clearly as "CAPTAIN........." followed by what you have to say. In this case - go around.

The use of a term other than what you've been calling him/her up to now
(a) gets their attention and (b) lets them know you mean business.

Assuming you survive the encounter, you could start the subsequent conversation (after you get to the gate and shut it down of course) with something like "...that put me in a difficult position, and I don't appreciate your forcing me to go along with your decision to ignore SOPs.."

It could be a lengthy chat, and you'll either end up enemies or, if he apologises, pals. He'll know never to pull that one on you again, and will respect your speaking up and not just sitting there. He/she also knows you feel so strongly about it you might turn him in if he does it again.

And if he does, I would!

But definitely be insistent, its one of the the non-handling pilot's jobs.

Regards - Musang

User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13232 times:

It's better to be unemployed than dead, obviously! Just think of the accident reports you've read where the F/O lets the Captain crash the plane. As Musang said, it's your job to challenge and take over if necessary.

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13226 times:

If the PIC doesn't respond it could be argued that you should suspect a case of subtle incapacitation, and CRM would dictate that you take over and go missed....

User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13221 times:

In the first place, the captain is in the wrong to continue the approach when the runway is not in sight by the minimums. But is it right to challenge and take control of the plane from him after he doesn't respond to your go around calls? I mean what comes to mind is the KE incident where the F/O was initiating the G/A I believe but the captain insists that the plane could be stopped. I mean if you are to challenge him, safety would be at of a higher risk isn't it?


Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlineWoodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1190 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 13146 times:

It depends....

Just my opinion on the matter...

FAR 91.175c does allow you to descend below minimums (DH/MDA) without the runway in sight in a normal Cat I ILS approach or a non-precision approach, not the special Cat II/III no DH ILS approaches. So the Capt may have his reasons for going below minimums.

But I do think the Captain does need to say something to let you know what is going on, so that you can assist. It's part of keeping the rest of the crew informed of what is going on. Otherwise you are kept in the dark watching the raw data, wondering what is going on. and leaving you in the position of wondering whether you need to take control, execute the go around, etc...

He may have the approach lights in sight, so he's allowed to continue the approach to 100ft above touchdown zone elevation. (or just continue down another 100ft if DH was 200ft.) By then you should have the runway lights in sight to meet the criteria to land. At 100ft altitude, you're only 900ft short of the runway threshold (or at 150kts, 7.6 seconds from touchdown) and should be well over the approach lights (even the cheap ones) which are flashing at you.

So as I see it, this is a CRM issue with the PF/Capt keeping his crew informed. Your announcement to the Capt that the aircraft is at DH and at minimums, is a challenge, that requires a reply. If there's no response, then you need to force a reply or take the appropriate action, but in this particular situation there's really not a lot of time to make a decision and execute it.

At least that's my answer. And I'm not saying that it's okay to go below minimums. I don't think there's very many times you'll be in a position that I described to go below minimums and be legal.


[Edited 2003-12-18 04:02:08]

Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6813 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13122 times:

I would like to think that this would NEVER ever happen in my airline, especially if the scenario raised by 'Gordonsmall' had me telling the Captain to go-around several times already. It is my responsibility to be a member of the crew and I have a responsibility to my passengers and crew as well as myself. I would assume the Captain was incapacitated, or at least unable to make rational decisions and take control of the aircraft.

As 'Mustang' has said, I would address the captain by his name (First name basis at our airline), and tell him firmly to go-around, and if he doesn't react, I will take control and fly the go-around myself. I also have a P1 rating on the 777 and although I may not be as experienced as the Captain, I damned well know when we should and should not be going around and if I felt we needed to go-around I would not hesitate in making that known, or doing it. Even on a gin clear day if either of us wants to go around, we do it. No questions asked, untill we are at a safe altitude and established in the missed approach procedure.

User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13106 times:

Cx flyboy,

Let's say the captain is the PF and you called for the go-around due to runway not in sight by minimums and he doesn't respond. Like you've said you would take control of the aircraft and initiate a go around. But what if the captain refuses? I mean he has his hands on the yoke and thrust levers and either one of you push the yoke to the extreme of each end wouldn't it be very dangerous?

But I guess these things don't realy happen.


Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlineFly727 From Mexico, joined Jul 2003, 1803 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13102 times:

Musang and OPNLguy have it right...

Remember the rule of three calls. If he doesn't seem to react to the mandatory "go-around" command then it is suspected that he is incapacitaded or blocked. It is the PM -pilot monitoring- (aka PNF o pilot non-flying) obligation to take control of the aircraft and initiate the missed approach procedure.

If I'd be the PNF, after giving the call outs and realizing the failure to missed or the break in the proper CRM/SOP environment I would clearly try to get his/her attention by saying something like "Don't!" or "We must go around!" in order to make him aware of the potential danger and to get them recorded in the CVR while simultaneously taking the control of the aircraft. Sounds very very hard to do but when it comes to safety we must we are all prone to develop any of the following hazardous attitudes:

- Macho. I can do it. Remember that taking chances is stupid.
- Impulsivity. Do something quickly!. Think first!.
- Antiauthority. Don't tell me!. Follow the rules, regs and instructions. They are usually right.
- Resignation. What's the use?. You're not helpless. You can make the difference!
- Invulnerability. It won't happen to me. It could happen to you!

Keep the blue side up
RM  Smile

There are no stupid questions... just stupid people!
User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13088 times:

I had a lecturer in college who was an ex- QANTAS pilot. He was rated as a F/O on the 767-300ER and S/O on the 747-400 and he once told us that in the above situation you would have to use the correct terminology. You would say something like "Captain you must listen", "Captain we must Go-around". If no response after 3 calls then he would initiate a go-around himself.

User currently offlineFly727 From Mexico, joined Jul 2003, 1803 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13074 times:

The 744 doesn't have a FE or SO station. Anyway., I completely agree with you. Proper terminology is better.

RM  Smile

There are no stupid questions... just stupid people!
User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6813 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13054 times:


Outside of the US, a Second Officer is the 4th crew member on a long haul flight, there as cruise pilot. It is the cheaper alternative to carrying 3 F/Os. The S/O can operate a control seat during the cruise, but not for takeoff or landing. Nothing to do with being a flight engineer.

Dragonair have SOs for their shorthaul operation, and they do sit in the control seat for takeoff and landing, but I believe they cannot be PF, or something like that. The Second Officer is just a name for a job the airline can create as they like. There is no industry standard as to what an SO is.

User currently offlineFritzi From United Arab Emirates, joined Jun 2001, 2763 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13032 times:

CX flyboy,

I remember that you used to be a SO for CXs 747-400s so you can then answer this.

Is it correct when I say that a SO would trained to be able to command land the aircraft in emergeny situations if one or several crew members would be incapable of flying. (ex: Fedex 705 hijacking attempt).

User currently offlineBroke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1325 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 12949 times:

This is a story that was related to me by a captain, who was one of the best pilots I have ever flown with.
At the time, he was a F/O on a DC-7B (long time ago) and they were making approach into Miami where you come down the Gulf coast and then go straight across the peninsula into MIA. The captain had a reputation for being very dogmatic and overpowering.
The captain was flying and as they approached MIA, he had yet to call for the landing gear to be extended. My friend and the F/E were exchanging glances on who would try to "bell the cat".
Finally, my friend suggested "Captain, do you want the gear?"
The captain responded, "I'll tell you when I want the G-- D--- gear!!". A pause and then, "Gear down!!"
With crew management training being more and more emphasized, cases like this are probably fewer and fewer, but they can still happen. Just don't get hurt or kill anyone because the possible reaction maybe intimidating.
Good luck and God bless.

User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 12911 times:

Friends -
Tough question to answer, but here is what we do when we fly "tight approaches" with visibility/ceiling at or near ILS minimums...
Monitored approach...
The PNF is handling the aircraft on autopilot during the approach, the autopilot is armed for autoland if permitted at that facility.
The PF is a "passenger" during the approach handled by the PNF using the autopilot. He announces 1,000 feet (above TDZE) then he announces "approaching minimums" 100 feet above minimums.
The PF at that time looks outside for runway lights etc. He said "approaching minimums" which means he is "still alive"...
Then at minimums -
If the PF says nothing, the PNF says "GO AROUND" and executes a go around/overshoot immediately, autothrottles have been "clicked" to the go around EPR, attitude goes to 10 then 15 degrees nose up. Standard procedures apply thereafter...
The monitored approach was fostered 25+ years ago by British Airways and Pan American... I introduced the procedure in Argentina. I understand that among other air carriers, United, Lufthansa have that procedure in their books.
With the monitored approach - there is no confusion for decision, the PNF handles the approach, and "intends" to go around at minimums, except if the PF says "LANDING - I GOT CONTROL" as he sees the runway environment. Once I flew a monitored approach, and busy looking for lights, I started to see lights and intended to say I was landing... result is, the F/O started a go around immediately... my mistake... I owed him a beer after landing...
Realize that sometimes you have been flying for 12 hours, and up since 16-18 hours ago... so George is a welcome help for approaches...
Happy contrails -  Smile
(s) Skipper

User currently offlineFrequentFlyKid From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 12831 times:

Skipper, that sounds like great procedure to use, however I still have a question. What if the PF says "I HAVE CONTROL," but the runway is not in sight? What's the procedure or recourse at this point?

User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6813 posts, RR: 55
Reply 20, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12820 times:


You are correct, the S/O still holds a valid licence, Aircraft Rating and Instrument Rating, and are fully capable of continuing with the flight and landing. It may not be the best descent profile for efficiency, or the smoothest landing, but they'll get it there safely.

User currently offlineMusang From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 920 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12647 times:

Everyone's leaning towards the concept of the FO initiating a go-around if the captain's incapacitated. If he's not obstructing the controls, and the FO can fly it without hindrance, consider the possibility of landing.

This will depend on a number of factors of course, but our company ruling is that if the Captain goes under on an autoland, the FO allows it to land. You know its going to land successfully, if something prevents it the system tells you, and then you have to go around.

Its considered an emergency, minutes may be vital for the Captain, and if the FO does go-around he's going to be incredibly busy setting up for the next approach, trying to get the cabin crew in (via all the security door procedures etc) to attend to the captain, request emergency cover for him on landing etc. etc. only to end up doing a solo approach pretty much as he was on the first attempt, ten minutes previously.

It just requires the FO to quickly adapt to the concept of an un-natural solo autoland, and the next consideration is deciding whether it can be safely driven to the gate IF its one of the aircraft without a FO's steering tiller.

Regards - Musang (no "t"!)

User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1621 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12615 times:

This is a very interesting question. Since I lost my job at SWISS I have been doing training at FlightSafety in Florida and have started to read the books on the selection and hiring processes at various US companies. I have read that exactly this question is a favorite.

At SWISS, the situation was such that we briefed each other and were making the other pilot aware that we might come out near minimums. On the Saab 2000 we were certified for Cat 2 and Cat 3a approaches. The Cat 2 was a monitored-coupled flown but the F/O. It was considered a silent approach, except for the callouts of altitudes and minimums. The callouts allowed the pilots to keep each other "in the loop" and to increase general situational awareness. The Cat 3a approach was hand-flown by the captain with the Head-up display and monitored by the F/O. Again, there were callouts and you could see if the pilot was doing something wrong.

I do not have the experience of the other airline pilots here, but I did get to fly for a semi-major airline for 2+ years and saw what goes on. Because we had some safety issues in the past few years, there has been a huge emphasis on CRM at SWISS. This includes very senior captains being very inclusive in the flying and communication process with junior F/Os like myself. Four eyes are better than two and most of the good captains I was fortunate enough to fly with would have said the same thing.

Now, as far as going below minimums? Well, I guess Jetguy said it correctly when he said that there is no right answer. It is "situationally dependent". But with proper CRM (communication) and proper following of SOP's it is hard to imagine this situation occuring. But it is obviously something to be taken seriously. But I must say that in my 2+ years I never saw a captain who, while making an approach in low visibility conditions, even come close to doing something stupid.

I hope that if I get hired here in the US I get on with a company with good SOP's and a good reputation for CRM. Working in that type of environment makes the job much nicer!!

User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12637 times:

Dear FrequentFlyKid -
I agree with your note -
In our situation with our 747s, all equipped for autoland, and we fly an ILS for more than 90% of our approaches... the only "bust" would be the regulations, since the airplanes are capable of landing safely - all is "automatic"... brakes, spoilers... except reversers...
I have a friend of mine who "had no choice" - flying a Tower Air 747-100 into Roma... his alternate was Milano, both went below minimums, and he was running out of fuel - and ideas... so he declared an emergency, and performed an autoland with an old 2 autopilot - no LRCU system... all was fine, it took 20 minutes for the "follow me" vehicle to locate the airplane on the runway...
To answer the question "what to do if your captain does not observe the minimums set for the approach" (in the USA) - I would say, the F/O to file a NASA report (violation of regulations) - this would protect him from any certificate action against him... then have a talk with that captain, and if necessary, the chief pilot, and even the FAA inspector in charge of that operation (POI)... with a copy of the NASA report in hand... I doubt that any "airline" would attempt to terminate his employment...
I have to say that in nearly 20,000 hours of airline flying, for over 30 years, I never had such situation of having a captain intentionally disregarding minimums. Yes, I can recall some approaches that were "tight" (mostly ILS) where the visibility or ceiling reported was quite questionable... i.e. having the runway lights all in view at DH, then. while in the flare, suddenly running into ground fog... too late to initiate a go-around...
Happy contrails  Smile
(s) Skipper

User currently offlineJawed From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 482 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11830 times:

Wasn't Swissair Flight 111 a case where the pilot was ignoring pleas from the First Officer to land ASAP?

25 David L : As I recall, that Captain insisted on following the SOP rather than ignoring it - not quite the same thing. Whether or not they should have cut short
26 L-188 : Depends, if you crash and die, you did the wrong thing by not doing anything, if you live you get canned for taking over from the captain.
27 BoeingOnFinal : Seeing this is an old thread, and many has answered, I'll take the opportunity to complicate the question even further: Example says that DH is 200 fe
28 FlyLKU : The Korean Air flight into the mountain at the end of the runway in Guam comes to mind. As I recall, the transcripts reveal the S/O the F/E and perha
29 TheGreatChecko : Chances are in that situation, you had the approach lights in sight by 200 feet anyways. But, if the captain if flying and elects to go below DH and
30 ThirtyEcho : Since both pilots, in the US, might be carrying firearms, the resolution is obvious. High Noon. I cannot imagine an airline Captain busting minimums d
31 ZKSUJ : Interesting questions. Many situations would call for different alternatives I'm sure. At Air NZ there is the 'Captain you must listen' Campaign as we
32 SB : If my memory serves the TSB had determined that even if the aircraft would have made the runway the result would probably have been a big bonfire off
33 CosmicCruiser : I agree; I've never seen it.
34 Mandala499 : Oh God... this sorts of DO happen... UNFORTUNATELY... And many go unreported, even if damage was caused... and too many get away with it! We call it
35 Post contains links PhilSquares : The KAL Guam accident was a little more comples than that. There was a loss of situational awareness caused by a whole list of factors. You might wan
36 CosmicCruiser : The post referred to going below mins without proper visual cues. this statement and the following paragraph was really examples of continuing an app
37 SlamClick : I think we could have a two-day conference on this. On the first day there would be only one session and the keynote speaker would say this: Then we'd
38 Amtrosie : Thank-you for offering your experience to this discussion SLAM. I have been waiting to hear your input. Your example is CLEARLY transferable to other
39 Mandala499 : Cosmic cruiser, That accident was the aircraft doing a non-prec ALREADY in landing config, he "stole the minima" and was visual with the runway a bit
40 CosmicCruiser : It sounded as another accident that I know of that was a non-prec app in VFR conditions and the jet was never stable and overshot the rnwy and ended
41 FlyLKU : I should have been more specific in suggesting that it was a contributing factor. Thanks for the link.
42 FlyLKU : Hey, this thread also reminded me about a human factors study I recall the FAA doing a number of years back regarding differences in the way men and w
43 Post contains images Bellerophon : Gordonsmall An interesting question, which frequently comes up on airline selection interviews, because it does tend to show an interviewer just how m
44 David L : That's what I thought until I realised that the thread had been revived from 2003. Unfortunately, it's still the case that "There is no such username
45 Post contains images Bellerophon : David L Ooops... you're right. I didn't spot the date of B747skipper's post! It is a pity he hasn't come back. Best regards Bellerophon
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Capt Descends Below Minimums - What Would You Do?
No username? Sign up now!

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!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

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

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Problem In The Cockpit - What Would You Do? posted Fri Jan 6 2006 22:02:10 by Julesmusician
What Would You Buy For A First Plane. posted Tue Aug 15 2006 20:22:34 by Airfoilsguy
ILS Situation/What Would You Have Done? posted Fri Dec 14 2001 05:17:26 by SophieMaltese
Pilots, What Aircraft Did/do You Train In? posted Thu Mar 23 2006 20:11:59 by Jamesbuk
What Do You Do With Your Old Jepps? posted Tue Sep 14 2004 00:43:39 by FSPilot747
What Would Happen If you opened a door in flight posted Sun Feb 29 2004 22:22:15 by Toxicmegacolon
Would You Fly On A Pulkovo TU-154? posted Tue Aug 22 2006 16:13:40 by Redcordes
What Would It Take Two Build A Double Deck Twinjet posted Sat May 13 2006 19:25:55 by 747400sp
What Can Pilots Do If All Engines Fail? posted Sun Apr 30 2006 13:33:25 by United Airline
Pilots- What Irritates You About ATC? posted Thu Jan 19 2006 18:36:32 by N766UA
What Would Happen If you opened a door in flight posted Sun Feb 29 2004 22:22:15 by Toxicmegacolon
How Would You Integrate An SLI? posted Thu Sep 29 2011 04:26:47 by bjorn14
What Would Give First? posted Mon Dec 13 2010 01:11:40 by faro
What Would Have Made The MD-90 Better? posted Sat Sep 18 2010 18:09:35 by c5load
What Would Happen If Reversers Deployed Inflight? posted Mon Apr 26 2010 09:09:48 by LHCVG

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format