Matronics Email Lists Forum Index Matronics Email Lists
BBS Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
 
 Get Email Distribution Too!Get Email Distribution Too!    FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

medical

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:38 pm    Post subject: medical Reply with quote

There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year
requirement is just additional noise. As I read it, the 'drivers
license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME
to your private doctor. I mean four pages of questions? Sheesh.
So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online
education part and four years later you need to see your doctor. I
don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but
it appears so. I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the
mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when
their funding comes up again.
Linn
On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote:
Quote:


I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any
value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some
Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow
their directive. As it is now a medical is not valid for more than
three years. The ten year time frame is a contradiction.

Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical
events. One of them died at the controls. Would a ten year old
medical have predicted these events. A one year old medical didn't.

I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out
and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a
sponsor.

>


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
philperry9



Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Posts: 248

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:17 pm    Post subject: medical Reply with quote

That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm intended) passed.

EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is that nothing has changed for us.

What has changed? Our AME network has had money taken out of their pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket. We have had aviation related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of aviation.

However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted from experienced hands to inexperienced hands.

This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two lobbying groups.

I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons. 1) As soon as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates.

This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed. I'm glad others are catching on now. We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon.

Sent from my iPhone

Quote:
On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> wrote:




There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise. As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor. I mean four pages of questions? Sheesh.
So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor. I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so. I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again.
Linn


> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote:
>
>
> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive. As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years. The ten year time frame is a contradiction.
>
> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events. One of them died at the controls. Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events. A one year old medical didn't.
>
> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>






- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kelly McMullen



Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1039
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:40 pm    Post subject: medical Reply with quote

The entire medical requirement has been nothing but public eyewash from day 1. There simply is not medical technology that will predict with any reliability that a pilot will have an incapacitating event. There was zero onset to my having an incapacitating kidney stone. Once the initial pain subsided, I did not have a single subsequent incapacitating pain, but was grounded for 9 months until the stone disappeared from the X-ray tests. None of the non-invasive cardiovascular tests predicts when you might have stroke or heart attack, although they may indicate a higher probability.

It is continued political theater that is in the new standard. It is totally immaterial that my wife hasn't had a medical for 35 yrs, because she did not seek one. She can still fly the plane, but doesn't want the risk or hassle of getting one again. She could get in an LSA plane and fly it today. What is so different between a Luscombe or a C-140, besides a few pounds?

-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com (philperry9(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
Quote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com (philperry9(at)gmail.com)>

That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm intended) passed.

EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is that nothing has changed for us.

What has changed?  Our AME network has had money taken out of their pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket.  We have had aviation related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of aviation.

However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted from experienced hands to inexperienced hands.

This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two lobbying groups.

I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons.   1) As soon as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates.

This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed.   I'm glad others are catching on now.  We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com (flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com)> wrote:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com (flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com)>
>
>
> There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise.  As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor.  I mean four pages of questions?  Sheesh.
> So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor.  I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so.  I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again.
> Linn
>
>
>> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote:
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net (lyleap(at)centurylink.net)>
>>
>> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive.  As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years.  The ten year time frame is a contradiction.
>>
>> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events.  One of them died at the controls.  Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events.  A one year old medical didn't.
>>
>> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

====================================
-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
====================================
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
====================================
b Site -
          -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================







- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
amekler



Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:41 pm    Post subject: medical Reply with quote

Philip,
As an ame I could not agree with you more
I do aviation medicals on the side and if the class 3s go to the PCPs it may be not worth continuing
PCPs know so little about aviation medicine
The cost of flying isn't because of the cost of medicals
Alan

Sent from my iPhone

Quote:
On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> wrote:



That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm intended) passed.

EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is that nothing has changed for us.

What has changed? Our AME network has had money taken out of their pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket. We have had aviation related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of aviation.

However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted from experienced hands to inexperienced hands.

This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two lobbying groups.

I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons. 1) As soon as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates.

This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed. I'm glad others are catching on now. We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise. As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor. I mean four pages of questions? Sheesh.
> So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor. I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so. I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again.
> Linn
>
>
>> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote:
>>
>>
>> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive. As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years. The ten year time frame is a contradiction.
>>
>> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events. One of them died at the controls. Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events. A one year old medical didn't.
>>
>> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>






- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tim Olson



Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2633

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:52 pm    Post subject: medical Reply with quote

I hate to say it but I kind of feel the same way. I do agree with both or all of the perspectives that have commented so far. Everyone who's replied has had a good point. I do agree with Philip in his support of the AME. My AME is a pilot, with the same concerns as all of us have when it comes to himself. He wants reasonable measures too. He likes to help people be healthy and goes to bat to keep people that should be allowed to fly, flying. So I really would like to see them still be around. But, I do think improvements can be made and in some cases the rules should be tweaked. It's a very tough call on what to do. I don't know that Phils point #2 will happen, but it's at least a possibility.

For that matter, I feel the same way about the 100LL replacement. My local airport where I took my Checkride for Commercial was a test site for one of the new products. They found it caused some issues with their engines...not sure which version of fuel. But i certainly want to see change that is positive, not negative, whenever something changes.

Tim

Quote:
On Jan 12, 2017, at 6:16 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> wrote:



That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm intended) passed.

EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is that nothing has changed for us.

What has changed? Our AME network has had money taken out of their pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket. We have had aviation related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of aviation.

However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted from experienced hands to inexperienced hands.

This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two lobbying groups.

I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons. 1) As soon as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates.

This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed. I'm glad others are catching on now. We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise. As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor. I mean four pages of questions? Sheesh.
> So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor. I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so. I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again.
> Linn
>
>
>> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote:
>>
>>
>> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive. As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years. The ten year time frame is a contradiction.
>>
>> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events. One of them died at the controls. Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events. A one year old medical didn't.
>>
>> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>






- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
flyboy(at)gmail.com
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:45 pm    Post subject: medical Reply with quote

I completely disagree. I think that the medical reform is one of the
only worthwhile things EAA and AOPA have accomplished lately. It's
important to a lot of their members, and I think they accomplished a lot
in terms of addressing the needless bureaucracy of the system designed
for airline pilots on folks who want to fly an RV. Now, does it go far
enough? Nope, I think there's lots of room for improvement, but I think
it's a great first step.

You're right, some of the AMEs only approved for 3rd class medicals may
well stop doing it. But the docs approved to do 1st class medicals for
airline pilots that need them every 6 months aren't going anywhere.
That's the bulk of the money doing exams, and I'm sure that the guy I
used to use in Denver who, every time I went, had 10 airline pilots in
the waiting room isn't going to mind terribly that the GA crowd doesn't
need him anymore.

I think the system does a good (albeit inefficient) job of protecting
paying passengers on airlines, and nothing is changing. Sure, airline
pilots are regularly incapacitated and every so often one dies at the
controls, but I think we've got a pretty good balance of minimizing that
while making it extraordinarily unlikely that both pilots will be
incapacitated simultaneously.

On 01/12/2017 05:16 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:
Quote:


That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm intended) passed.

EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is that nothing has changed for us.

What has changed? Our AME network has had money taken out of their pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket. We have had aviation related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of aviation.

However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted from experienced hands to inexperienced hands.

This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two lobbying groups.

I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons. 1) As soon as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates.

This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed. I'm glad others are catching on now. We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise. As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor. I mean four pages of questions? Sheesh.
> So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor. I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so. I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again.
> Linn
>> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote:
>>
>>
>> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive. As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years. The ten year time frame is a contradiction.
>>
>> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events. One of them died at the controls. Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events. A one year old medical didn't.
>>
>> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>






- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:29 pm    Post subject: medical Reply with quote

I don't want to get in a deep discussion, and I haven't read all of the replies, but I know several pilots who would be out of flying without this "reform." They will be flying sometime after May 1. More pilots in the air = better for GA IMHO. Will I keep getting my 2nd or 3rd class medical? We'll see which is easier. I'm not affected much by this, but I know people who are, and that's enough for me to be in favor of it.

Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
352-427-0285
jesse(at)saintaviation.com

Sent from my iPad


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
johngoodman



Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 518
Location: GA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:33 am    Post subject: Re: medical Reply with quote

Quote:
What is so different between a Luscombe or a C-140, besides a few pounds?


One engine versus four, and the Jetstar is probably not flying anymore.
John


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Kelly McMullen



Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1039
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:41 am    Post subject: medical Reply with quote

Right. Try Cessna C-140, Continental C-85 engine. For LSA some Luscombes qualify, the C-140 and C-150 do not.

-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:33 AM, johngoodman <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net (johngoodman(at)earthlink.net)> wrote:
Quote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net (johngoodman(at)earthlink.net)>


> What is so different between a Luscombe or a C-140, besides a few pounds?


One engine versus four, and the Jetstar is probably not flying anymore.
John

--------
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011




Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465038#465038






====================================
-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
====================================
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
====================================
b Site -
          -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================





- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johngoodman



Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 518
Location: GA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:40 pm    Post subject: Re: medical Reply with quote

Quote:
Right. Try Cessna C-140, Continental C-85 engine. For LSA some Luscombes qualify, the C-140 and C-150 do not.


Ooops! Sorry about that - I'm used to thinking heavy metal....


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group