GA Accidents-Fuel

fuellevel · June 22, 2016

Fundamental Attribution Error - Leads us to our own supposed conclusions without knowing the full story. The canned "The lack of preflight and in flight planning led to " is really not very helpful from a root cause position.

I have a great example instances where the above was written by the NTSB, and I know that the pilot planned and observed (in front of his friends) and still ran out of fuel. If we use your example and we blame this pilot. What do we blame him for;

Lack of Planning - No - He meticulously planned every flight - observed (He was a dean at a aeronautical learning institute)
Lack of Awareness - No The pilot told his wife how much he would land with - prior to departure and during flight) This was by his friends account a pilot's pilot.
Lack of Pre-flight - No This pilot was observed to stick the tank and confirm the amount added) Pilots hanging around on a Saturday
Adverse winds- No He had left his computations in a notebook which included expected conditions - that he planned for
Watch - Yes he had one of those too

So what did this pilot do to end up in a tree 4 miles from the runway threshold -

He was safely within the VFR range of his flight - 30 minutes more than his destination

He can't say, because his injuries blocked memory of the flight

So if this true scenario - happened to one pilot - how many more. More importantly what was the cause of this crash and others very much like it

Yeah - I get the kick the tires and light the fires - run out of fuel. - How many of those - How many succumbed to stupid pilot tricks

We don't really have an answer to either question.

Fundamental Attribution Error leads to lot's of opinion - unsupported by fact.

I want us to really take a very close look at this issue vs spitballing opinion

fuellevel · June 22, 2016

Attorney - No

I see fuel quantity equipment like today's box removed from "AIRWORTHY AIRCRAFT"

This equipment specified and installed by Piper in 1962, was last flown a week ago.

This equipment is not functional in any way - i.e. unless the gauge was INOP in a similar broken and symbiotic manner.

If you flew a 1948 Cessna 140 and you hadn't overhauled the engine. Would you expect issues on your next flight, I would.

And doesn't the 140/120 have sight tubes - I thought the later 140's went to the newfangled electrical instruments to prevent fuel spilling on pilots in a crash.

If you have fuel quantity system that has not been calibrated, let alone repaired / overhauled in the last 20 years let alone 55 - is it still "airworthy"

Yes it makes sense to fix broken or non-functional equipment on your aircraft - that seems to be the idea most pilots subscribe to,

What is it about GA fuel quantity that takes a pass on this good idea,

Why did it take this long for this box, or yesterdays' box or the day before last

How bad does fuel indication have to be before it is fixed?

TWinter · June 22, 2016

Just now, fuellevel said:

Attorney - No

I see fuel quantity equipment like today's box removed from "AIRWORTHY AIRCRAFT"

This equipment specified and installed by Piper in 1962, was last flown a week ago.

This equipment is not functional in any way - i.e. unless the gauge was INOP in a similar broken and symbiotic manner.

If you flew a 1948 Cessna 140 and you hadn't overhauled the engine. Would you expect issues on your next flight, I would.

And doesn't the 140/120 have sight tubes - I thought the later 140's went to the newfangled electrical instruments to prevent fuel spilling on pilots in a crash.

If you have fuel quantity system that has not been calibrated, let alone repaired / overhauled in the last 20 years let alone 55 - is it still "airworthy"

Yes it makes sense to fix broken or non-functional equipment on your aircraft - that seems to be the idea most pilots subscribe to,

What is it about GA fuel quantity that takes a pass on this good idea,

Why did it take this long for this box, or yesterdays' box or the day before last

How bad does fuel indication have to be before it is fixed?

I think you have taken this way beyond the original post..Looking at your prior posts etc obviously one of your areas of expertise is in fuel sending units and probably much more.. My comment was a general blanket comment. These pilots did not have a electrical fire, failed mechanical components, or catastrophic atmospheric conditions...they just ran out of gas.

I plan my flight, I know the route, I know I can fly 3.5 hrs on full tanks. I know at the end of 3.5 hrs I need gas. If the flight is 4.5 hrs..I need to stop and get gas. It's very simple. Your impressive reports, calculations and conclusions are fine. I'm a simple guy making a simple statement. With 52 gallons you can't make a flight requiring 53 gallons without falling out of the sky.

-Tom

GeorgePerry · June 22, 2016

I think we can all agree that having accurate fuel gauges in GA aircraft is overdue and needed regardless of why an engine stops from fuel exhaustion. This is part of the larger effort AOPA is working on to streamline the approval process for the design, manufacture and installation of a host of safety enhancing equipment. Accurate fuel measuring equipment being part of that larger effort...

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/june/14/aopa-seeks-aircraft-modernization-policy

http://download.aopa.org/advocacy/6_7_16_Huerta_FAA.pdf?_ga=1.95458460.149185873.1464911000

**DXB** · June 22, 2016

1 hour ago, fuellevel said:

Tom - Here is your histogram of flight time and Fuel Exhaustion and Starvation

Call BS all you want - I have the data to support what I said.

I can give you one of this years ATP GA Fuel incident examples http://fox59.com/2016/02/27/carmel-pilot-lands-plane-on-i-65-median-after-experiencing-mechanical-difficulty/ Delta Pilot 10,000 hrs.

I conjecture that this poorly presented scatter plot (i.e. unlabeled axes, no legend, no explanation) represents the flight hours for pilots who had NTSB-recorded fuel exhaustion accidents over some period of time. If so, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that far fewer individual accidents involved high time pilots. There is no denominator, so nothing can be concluded regarding risk of such accidents for segment of the pilot population stratified by hours. Nor can anything be said from this data regarding how training level, aircraft equipment, or any other factor are associated risk of fuel exhaustion accidents.

Someone actually applying high level concepts like fundamental attribution error to guide rigorous analysis of this problem and offer unbiased, rational conclusions would not see a need to throw out such tangentially relevant data or single Fox News anecdotes to support their points. You have offered no real evidence to support a very bold and counter-intuitive assertion that pilot errors are not root causes of most fuel exhaustion accidents- i.e. they would not have been easily preventable by simply following well known best practices. In absence of such evidence, the suggestion that requiring more accurate gauges (which are undoubtedly valuable) should be emphasized over education and promotion of individual responsibility strikes me as irresponsible. Perhaps a more complete disclosure of your conflict of interest in this area is also warranted.

Tom · June 22, 2016

1 hour ago, fuellevel said:

Tom - Here is your histogram of flight time and Fuel Exhaustion and Starvation

Call BS all you want - I have the data to support what I said.

I can give you one of this years ATP GA Fuel incident examples http://fox59.com/2016/02/27/carmel-pilot-lands-plane-on-i-65-median-after-experiencing-mechanical-difficulty/ Delta Pilot 10,000 hrs.

You cried attribution bias but then in response provided a selection and confirmation-biased argument with an anecdote. Intellectually dishonest. Curious to know how much money you stand to make if everyone was required to buy your product.

I don't know about everyone else, but the few times I've flown on vapors I did so because of my being an idiot, not having anything to do with the fidelity of the fuel monitoring. Had I crashed and ended up on your ambiguous histogram, you would have been guilty of attribution bias in including me in your data. And I strongly suspect I'm not the only idiot out there. who has flown on vapors not having anything to do with the fuel quantity monitoring system.

So in what percentage of the accidents did pilots crash because of trusting the gauges or not dipping the tanks appropriately? What is the hazard of trusting the world's most reliable fuel monitoring system? More precisely, how many new accidents would occur because of reliance on the world's most reliable fuel monitoring system?

fuellevel · June 22, 2016

Yes George - we are working with both the FAA Small Aircraft Directorate and Seattle ACO to get an AML STC for our TSO fuel sender solution

I assume the press release is for another solution that I will hear about at OSH.

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

Sorry for the lack of chart clarity on the Histogram

Months and year along the X axis - Y axis lines are at 5000 hr intervals up to 25,000 hrs

The chart was derived from extractable FAA accident data on the ASIAS, where pilot qualification, experience was noted.

Note that 1/3 of this information was missing If I remember.

My present push is to have a meeting with John Delissi at the NTSB and work to get better investigative work on these accidents.

It appears from my reviews that critical information is missing from some but not all fuel related incidents and that limits anybody's ability to come to a rational conclusion.

I know the fundamental - If you can't measure it - you can't manage it -

So I do know more than most as this is my business and that is the fundamental rule - you will be expert in these systems like it or not

But I have difficulty make any supportable claims - Other than Transportation Safety boards over the world have petitioned the FAA for better fuel quantity indication or an AD for various aircraft . To my knowledge those have gone unheeded, George would actually know better. . I also know that Australia found 100% of all aircraft suffering fuel starvation exhaustion had bad fuel level indication and they made calibration at a 4 year interval mandatory, due in part from inaction on the FAA. All of the Australia stuff is documented and searchable.

They, the Aussies actually rationalized that it was't a design fault, so no need for an AD, but rather a lack of maintenance, so it was added similar to the pitot static recheck

Since a lot of pilot buzz is we need more training - when nobody has done a qualitative study on things like "Get there itis" or how many pilots don't check their fuel. I sat in a restaurant and counted zero over two weekends for fun last fall.

My point is that you can't blame anyone or anything - because in my opinion we have not taken any time to really evaluate this issue.

I am in a very unique position to see piles of un airworthy fuel quantity crap arrive daily and I have to ask the question

Bad fuel level indication ---- Bad fuel management Could they somehow be related.

I didn't get into this little corner of the aviation business riding a white horse to save pilots

I simply respond to a Cirrus request of "Do you think you can design a better fuel quantity system"

Now placed in this position - every day I get to shake my head and say to myself - you have got to be kidding me.

kris_adams · June 22, 2016

We have 2 threads going on the same topic so I'm pretty much saying the same thing:. I could literally cover up my on board fuel gauges. I use a combination of my JPI730 (one of the best investments IMO) and visual inspection of the tank to determine level. I'm usually +/-0.5 gallons at most when I refuel.

Get a fuel totalizer and you'll know what fuel is on your plane. AFter flying with one for 7 years I can't imagine flying without one. It is the first thing I'd add to a new plane.

Kris

(simple pilot with no horse in this race )

**Skates97** · June 22, 2016

I find it ridiculous to say "not the pilots fault." The theme these days is one of not accepting responsibility for anything.

How long have people been flying? Why are they not all dead in multiple craters across the country since it could be said that the vast majority don't have anything resembling accurate fuel monitoring systems in their planes?

The bottom line is it is the pilots responsibility, even if that means being aware that your gauges are not 100% accurate. All of my vehicles have monitors that tell me what my range is. Do I trust that when it says I have 150 miles left that I can make it to the next gas station that is 140 miles away? Nope, because I know it is dependent upon how fast I'm driving, if it's uphill or downhill, if I am driving into the wind or with it, you get the picture. In 30 years of driving I have never once run out of gas because I don't take the chance of letting my car get all the way down to empty.Heck, I even had a car one time that the fuel gauge didn't work in it at all. I knew how much the tank held, about what my average mileage was, set the trip odometer, and filled up before I got close to empty, down around 1/4 tank. If pilots took the same approach, and many do, to not push the envelope with their fuel, I would venture that they wouldn't run out.

Andy95W · June 22, 2016

10 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

I nearly ran out of gas one time, over 45 years ago. It made such an impression on me that I very much doubt I've ever landed with less than 10 gallons on board since that day I put 50.2 in a 52 usable system.

1992, put 39.4 gallons in a 40 gallon usable system. At night. Learned 3 lessons:

1.) don't trust the 10,000 hour King Air pilot in the passenger seat

2.) PIC means what it says. No excuses.

3.) never land with less than 1hour of fuel remaining.

There but for the grace of God go I.

**Hank** · June 22, 2016

No fuel gage I've ever seen in any land, water or air vehicle is accurate down to the single gallon level. When I stick my tanks (unless full to the cap), I know that for instance I have 17 gal in the right tank (capacity is 26 gal). A nice, accurate gage would show just over halfway between 1/2 and 3/4. So how long will that last me at 9 gph? If a full tank is 2:30, it's 1:15 plus some, total unknown. I'd rather know 17 gal will almost 2:00, call it 1:53. If that's all my gas, I'll fill up before departure (but would rather have both tanks functional unless going somewhere to fix the other tank), or plan to land in an hour to top off.

So no, I reject your theory that running out of gas is due to faulty indicators. It's because the pilot didn't check and know how much fuel was in the plane before departure; didn't monitor the time aloft on a given tank; didn't lean the mixture properly; headwinds were stronger than forecast and the pilot opted to push on to the original destination instead of stopping for fuel; or something similar related to pilot action or inaction and not to the fuel gage. Even the simple cork and wire floats on Cubs have been know to jam, lord knows the cork-on-a-spiral-wire on an old riding mower of mine was next to worthless.

Andy95W · June 22, 2016

I agree with Hank. Blaming inaccurate fuel gauges for running out of gas is a gutless excuse. With the possible exception of a fuel leak, everything is the PIC's responsibility. We double and triple check everything else we do. Relying solely on the fuel gauge is a cop-out.

Edited June 22, 2016 by N1395W

Smiles201 · June 22, 2016

I was a victim of beginner ignorance. Learned to fly at high altitude. First plane, brand P. Flight plan 10 gallons an hour. Fifty gallons in the tank. Land after four hours. Easy. First trip to Oshkosh, twenty years ago, flying at altitude 2000 feet lower than my home base. You know where this is going. After four hours it dawns on me that my fuel guage is lower than I have seen before, "can that be true" and I realize I have been burning over 12 gallons an hour! Landed on fumes. Live and learn. Could have ended differently.

**Hank** · June 22, 2016

Kris, I could also continue to fly safely without any fuel gage. I stick my tanks before departure, but not when leaving the restaurant after lunch (I ensure enough fuel for the roundtrip before starting, or I gas up at lunch). So much for the accuracy of your observation, fuellevel.

Starting with a known quantity, I know my fuel burn and use the nice, fat clock in the middle of my yoke to change tanks. It's not even digital, I don't need to write down or remember any numbers. There's a pair of settable, non-moving red hands that I simply overlap over the white timekeeping hands after engine start. Every time they overlap, I change tanks. Two and a half hours to empty on one side including climb to altitude; a little longer in the other tank. This still gives me a safety margin as 27 gal would be three hours, but I have 26 per side.

In all of my vehicles, I've run out of gas exactly once, in college in the 80s; I drove into the country to help a friend, who was supposed to pay me so I could buy gas at a nearby station to get home. He ran errands, met friends and called to say he wasn't coming back, I had no money and made it about two miles.

Running out of gas is simply operator error, but accepting responsibility for one's actions and their consequences has somehow become unacceptable behavior. It ain't Mooney's or Lycoming's or whoever built my gas gage's or the IA who signed off my last annual's fault. If I'm flying, it's my fault.

If you make a better gage, good for you. Hope you sell a pot full. But they won't reduce the running-out-of-fuel accident rate, because: the pilot can still not check it; it won't give exact number of minutes to empty; if it has a settable quantity, it will be set wrong at some point; or one of several other possible types of misuse specific to the gage, it's operation and the User Interface (I don't know anything about your new, improved gas gage, so I can't predict it's misuses very well).

"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool." And aviation certainly has it's share of fools, just read the accident reports. Some even manage the same accident type for very similar reasons more than once . . . .

Edited June 22, 2016 by Hank

fuellevel · June 22, 2016

OMG - Fuel Indication is so bad in aviation that it is a movie ICON

Top Gun, Madagascar, Flight of the Phoenix .............

Every movie pilot taps his fuel gauge - bad fuel indication is written in the Aviation Bill of Rights

(there is no such thing I am aware of - Maybe the AOPA )

I never blamed bad fuel gauges for running out of fuel

Every pilot that lands off field and is in the news is another nail in the coffin of GA -

That is my opinion

I blame bad fuel gauges for their inability to warn. Actually a failure to warn.

(1) Airspeed indicator. That is only inaccurate at approach speeds
(2) Altimeter. That is 200 or 300 ft off

(3) Magnetic direction indicator. Only accurate at "zero degrees".

(4) Tachometer for each engine. I don't trust it - never reads correctly - I labeled it INOP

(5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system. "this one either"

(7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine. "you get the idea"

or worse something in your aircraft that isn't trusted or misleading.

(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank.

Well it is Number 9 - so yes ignore it as well

Bad Fuel Indication performance in every Failure Mode Effects Analysis for every transportation mode leads to fuel starvation

Believe me this is especially true of aviation

Blame fuel gauges - so yes actually in aircraft engineering we do

That is why we are sucessful @ OEM

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

Pilots -you be the judge

but as you were inculcated in a culture that was taught to ignore fuel gauges

I don't know if culturally - you would be able to see it or ever accept it

-----------

I have the next generation -

In the business sense -

A marketing plan to tell pilots to purchase something they were told to ignore

Really a non starter

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

fuellevel · June 22, 2016

Granted- Flying alone, always with full tanks, keeping a proper reserve on landing - 10 gallons. It is very likely that you won't run out of fuel, just using a stopwatch

But - I have examples in the record of people who do. I have examples of people who don't trust any fuel level except full and still somehow ran out of fuel flying overgross to insure adequate fuel supply.

I don't have a good answer for those, they are outliers, but they do exist.

Abdication of personal responsibility - not my banner advertisement - Reap what you sow

Abdication of my responsibility to produce a product that works in the application it was intended - Not in our vocabulary

Most of the accidents, when working the flight plan from the accident site back (most aircraft have burned unusable as well as usable) and you are 50 to 100 miles short of the destination (departure airport as we are working backwards). No required reserve - 1 hour of flight beyond any rational decision point.

A recent one very similar in flight plan above, had a fuel gauge with an oblong float that stuck upright - leading this unfortunate pilot to believe somehow that magic had happened in his fuel tank and he still had 10 gallons onboard. The plane hit turbulence and the oblong floats righted themselves (my opinion, supported by intimate knowledge of the fuel quantity system and the pirep) and the aircraft as if on cue lost all power as both gauges indicated zero fuel (less than zero fuel actually as all unusable had been burned up as well)

Misleading fuel quantity information - bad

A pilot that flies 1 hour past his stated decision point - hopeless

Edited June 22, 2016 by fuellevel

fuellevel · June 22, 2016

Hank

We can discern a fuel level increase of 0,02 of an inch of vertical rise. We can do this repeatedly in any temperature

and under electrical duress. I have the TSO and the submitted documentation to prove it.

Yes we are better than any fuel quantity system you ever drove, boated or flown.

Thanks for pointing it out

Marauder · June 22, 2016

I'm a simpleton. I don't use my fuel gauge in my Jeep. I know I can go safely 240 miles on a full tank and not run out of gas. When it hits 240 miles, me looks for gas. I apply the same logic to flying, except I use time.

I hate arguing with a guy who is here to sell fuel senders. BTW -- I have never ran a car out of gas -- okay, I'm lying. I ignored the big E and the red light. I thought for sure I had another 4 ounces.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

**DXB** · June 22, 2016

49 minutes ago, fuellevel said:

Hank

We can discern a fuel level increase of 0,02 of an inch of vertical rise. We can do this repeatedly in any temperature

and under electrical duress. I have the TSO and the submitted documentation to prove it.

Yes we are better than any fuel quantity system you ever drove, boated or flown.

Thanks for pointing it out

No question that highly accurate gauges are a worthy goal that would provide a safety margin largely absent in the GA fleet. After installing these things in my plane, it will then be up to me not to behave in a way that destroys these added margins based on the confidence they provide. We all know this can happen with any valuable safety technology - fuel totalizers, chutes, whatever.

So don't come on this forum with a narrow, self-serving agenda and spout drivel about how the root cause of fuel starvation in GA is not pilot error but rather our crappy fuel gauges. And then try to cloak this patent nonsense with terms like "attribution error." Assuming you have a good product, you owe your financial backers and the GA community better communication than this.

**DXB** · June 22, 2016

38 minutes ago, fuellevel said:

Dismissing somebody who has been an integral part of the Mooney community for 30 years - bad juju Marauder

Thinly veiled threats in response to your viewpoint not being embraced don't exactly seem to serve your cause either. It's a hobby community, not the mafia.

Shame on you.

fuellevel · June 22, 2016

OK - I spent this long life happily in aviation - so one of my jobs in high school was line service

I put in whatever the pilot / owner told me to put in - I prided myself on it so 3 or 4 gallons over placarded value was a struggle but do-able.

The best pilots asked "what did it take" - and then they and I re-opened the cap and looked.

I did tabs and kept close eye on the value above tabs - recorded it.

Most pilots filled full - despite what I observed as an over gross situation.

I accepted it as a challenge to be correct

If I was told that I was wrong - I cheerfully added more.............Always More

-----------

Our system on OEM aircraft will tell you when it is time to change tanks.

I unfortunately made a realization, early on in those formative years, that even pilots are human.

Please let me know if that assessment has changed.

Tom · June 22, 2016

WARNINGS
1. NEVER RELY SOLELY ON ANY FUEL INDICATION INSTRUMENT FOR THE DETERMINATION OF AVAILABLE FUEL.
2. WHEN USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PHYSICAL INSPECTION, DETERMINATION OF AVAILABLE FUEL PLUS NECESSARY FLIGHT DURATION AND CONDITION CALCULATIONS, A FUEL LEVEL INSTRUMENT BECOMES A VALUABLE COCKPIT RESOURCE.

https://nebula.wsimg.com/eda94b4fa871ff56471110dd006606fa?AccessKeyId=ED5892C3F1066DF7973B&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

The above warnings come from STC'd Cirrus install manual. No change from 1947 when pilots were taught to monitor fueling, inspect tanks after fueling, calculate for the flight, and don't rely on the fuel gauge.

**Hank** · June 22, 2016

Nobody is saying that better fuel gages are a bad idea.

what we ARE saying, and what you refuse to hear, is that better gages won't stop idiots from running out of gas.

Just look at the side of the road. Most late vintage cars will tell you the "distance to empty" right there on the dash. Within the last week, I saw someone on the side of the road, pouring gas into their late model car, because it ran out . . . The same thing will happen in an airplane, too. Why? Not because of the gage, because of the numbskull at the yoke.

your new gage may sense a change of 0.02" of fuel level in the tank (that's good), but how do I, sitting in the cockpit, know how much fuel is left in the tank? Does your display have great enough precision to show a change of 0.02" in a way that I can tell? I dunno, but it bet not. I dip my tanks to know exactly what's in there, not an approximate value on a tiny gage, because approximations just aren't accurate.

regardless of what's on the panel, the responsibility lies with the pilot. Not the airplane manufacturer. Not the engine manufacturer. Not the gage maker. Not the refiner, or the distributor or the lineman or the FBO. It's called Personal Responsibility, and it's almost extinct in this country.

please make better equipment! Just stop the patronizing BS that it will have an effect on the accident rate. I don't dislike your new gage, I dislike the way you are talking down to all of us. Grow up, please.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Hank

**Jerry 5TJ** · June 22, 2016

Indicators I rarely use in flight (and what I replace it with)

whiskey compass (solid state remote magnetic sensor)

flap indicator (switch positions & viewing wing)

fuel gauges (fuel flow totalizer and air data computer)

volt meter (audible fault voice annunciator)

All these gauges work in my Ovation but they are supplemented or replaced by improved sensors.

I do not think I need a more accurate compass, higher resolution voltmeter, or more fuel gauge information as none of those would improve safety of flight. At least not in my airplane.

Best wishes on your improved fuel sensors and gauges; I've flown too many GA planes with useless fuel gauges, and I'd rather not do so again.

Bob_Belville · June 22, 2016

1 minute ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Indicators I rarely use in flight (and what I replace it with)

whiskey compass (solid state remote magnetic sensor)

flap indicator (switch positions & viewing wing)

fuel gauges (fuel flow totalizer and air data computer)

volt meter (audible fault voice annunciator)

All these gauges work in my Ovation but they are supplemented or replaced by improved sensors.

I do not think I need a more accurate compass, higher resolution voltmeter, or more fuel gauge information as none of those would improve safety of flight. At least not in my airplane.

Best wishes on your improved fuel sensors and gauges; I've flown too many GA planes with useless fuel gauges, and I'd rather not do so again.

Agree but one quibble: the JPI 930 displays digital voltage. Mine was showing it was 13.3 @ cruise vs. the desired 13.9. So we tweaked the pot in the VR and got line voltage back up to 13.9 which should improve battery life and help the starter a little. Without the JPI I don't think I'd have noticed the VR needed to be set higher.

Sign In

GA Accidents-Fuel

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hank

DonMuncy

Skates97

Posted Images

Members Online

Important Information