X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:01:35 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-da0-f54.google.com ([209.85.210.54] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.5) with ESMTPS id 6268419 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 May 2013 14:16:33 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.210.54; envelope-from=keith.smith@gmail.com Received: by mail-da0-f54.google.com with SMTP id z17so593231dal.27 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 11:15:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.176.133 with SMTP id ci5mr30369599pbc.21.1368468957158; Mon, 13 May 2013 11:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.50.194 with HTTP; Mon, 13 May 2013 11:15:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 14:15:57 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: challenging flight with the LNC2 yesterday From: Keith Smith X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd6b21013e4cf04dc9d821b --047d7bd6b21013e4cf04dc9d821b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Colyn, No offense taken. I've given this a great deal of thought (and have already put considerable time and money to fix the autopilot) already. "circumstances create workload that exceeds pilot capability" is spot on. This last flight was an absolute cakewalk compared to one I had last year which really did take me to my workload limit (see this forum post for info, http://forums.pilotedge.net/viewtopic.php?f=3D18&t=3D1681, but it's a flight that' I've posted on the LML before, including the MP3 recording). It also became a scenario for the PilotWorkShops IFR Mastery Series. I do plan on upgrading my weather capability (it's a small investment to get a Stratus, which will provide ADS-B weather) and if circumstances permit, I would like to have the autopilot. However, down low, in the soup and the bumps, I am far more comfortable hand flying than with an autopilot for three reasons: 1) I worry about what happens if the autopilot doesn't do a perfect job and I'm off doing something else because George is flying. In other words, it's going to be tough to relinquish control and focus on other tasks without allowing myself to become to engrossed in those other tasks 2) if there is a performance issue, I become aware of it within a couple of seconds when hand flying. With George flying, and a reduced scan, I might not find out about it until the onset of a stall (extreme case, but you get the idea). 3) this is a point I'm adding to the list having finished writing the rest of my piece. I tried to reconcile the fact that I do coupled approaches in the sim, but not in real life. When I really think hard about, I simply don't trust the a/p configuration I have right now. If I did have an a/p that I could trust, then, during an approach in smooth conditions, I could see myself relinquishing control, and that being a good thing. It would affect my scan..I wouldn't use the workload reduction to do other things, I would simply maintain the scan throughout the approach, and little else. Overall, I agree, it would reduce overall workload. Anyway, back to the original message,... The few times I have engaged the A/P on long XC legs, I find myself less engaged than when I'm hand flying. Case in point, just west of Washington DC, I routinely get soft, subtle 300-500fpm updrafts and downdrafts. I know about them right away when flying by hand, and it's valuable information. My strategy has been to maximize my workload capability through simulation with online ATC, and to ensure that regardless of how busy it's getting, to never stop flying the plane. On that 'triple diversion' flight posted above, the reason it took me so long to brief the approach at TEB was largely because I was allocating a healthy amount of time and brain power to flying the plane, managing fuel, etc. I chipped away at the task of pulling up the approach plate for the ILS RWY 19 at TEB, along with getting that confounded ATIS (don't even get me started on what a chore that is when New York Approach is belting along at full throttle because they're running combined sectors at night). Adding a second pilot is a complete non-starter. I read that as a proposed solution quite often and just shake my head. I can't think of anything less practical for these long trips, and as such, making it a goal, or even coming to rely on it as a safety feature is a non-starter for me. The upgraded weather capability, agreed, I should and will do it. The auto-pilot...I plan on doing it when I can, but probably still won't use it in the circumstances that others would elect to us it. I'm more likely to use it in VMC on a long leg to enjoy the view a bit more. Another way to look at the autopilot issue is that not having one that I can bet my life on has lead me to become completely self-reliant on hand flying skills...and I am completely comfortable with that at this point. Take those who have the luxury of having bullet-proof auto pilots. Are they routinely practicing hand flying their approaches in a variety of weather conditions? It's hard to generalize, of course, but of the population of pilots, I have to imagine there are some that have become so reliant upon the auto pilot that, practically speaking, they're really not comfortable doing it by hand because the perceived workload is just too high, and their proficiency at doing it by hand just might not be there (I do tons of coupled approaches in my sim, btw, and the thought process is a completely different animal). Hence, the autopilot becomes a "must have" before launching IFR. That's not an attack on their potential abilities, it's just a theory that I have about where their proficiency might be (again, for SOME pilots, not all, there will always be exceptions). I hand fly all approaches in real world (for now). I hand fly maybe 50% of my approaches in the sim, and use varying levels of automation for the remaining 50% down to various points along the approach (I try to expose myself to as many circumstances as possible). Please know that I'm not hand flying them to test myself or prove any points, I am just comfortable relying on that skill set AND I don't have a real alternative right now, nor is it an urgent priority to change that (but it IS on the list). On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Colyn Case wrote= : > Somebody is going to call me not a "real" pilot but in the interest of > getting from 99.995% safe to 99.999% safe (see my article this month) I'l= l > say anyway that I personally won't launch IFR without: > > functioning xm weather > fully functioning auto-pilot > > accident stats say that adding a second pilot dramatically improves > safety. If you don't have that, auto-pilot is the next best thing. > > "single pilot IFR is almost an emergency. the first thing that goes > wrong after that IS an emergency." > > > > Colyn > > On May 12, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Keith Smith wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > The heading hold isn't reliable and the alt hold eventually gets into a > PIO after a few minutes, especially if you try to transmit on the radio. > I've gotten used to doing 3 1/2hr legs without it at this point. I engag= e > it for brief periods if I need to reorganize the cockpit or eat lunch. > > Keith > > > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:38 PM, James Collins wrote: > >> What happened To your auto pilot. I know you had one. Nice report. I've >> also seen some of your trips on YouTube always great. >> >> From Jim Collins iPad >> >> >> On May 1, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Robert R Pastusek >> wrote: >> >> Keith, >> Very nice report. Did you notice that with the weather conditions you >> experienced, you normally pick up ice at/very near the cloud tops? I=92v= e >> noticed this to be true over a rather surprising range of OATs=85 Lesson= for >> me has been, don=92t dawdle in and out of the tops=85**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Bob**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] >> *On Behalf Of *Keith Smith >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:58 PM >> *To:* lml@lancaironline.net >> *Subject:* [LML] challenging flight with the LNC2 yesterday**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Flew the LNC2 to Kentucky today for the condition inspection. This was a >> tricky flight. I briefed the weather in some detail the night before to = get >> a feel for tops (9-12k along the route of flight), convective activity >> (none), likelihood of icing (possible above 9k), winds (hairy at 30kt >> headwind initially, then 5-10kt later on). >> >> Verified the weather this morning, then set off from N07-K24. Cleared >> route was "upon entering controlled airspace, direct Chatham NDB, vector= s >> LANNA V30 ETX V39 MRB ESL V4 HVQ AZQ LOZ, direct." >> >> Picked up the clearance via phone, told the controller I could depart >> VFR, he was happy to hear it, so off I went. This complicated things >> slightly as I now needed to talk to Caldwell tower (KCDW) immediately af= ter >> departure since my route of flight would take me through their airspace. >> The challenge would be to talk to them and get a freq change to NY Appro= ach >> before butting up against the next Delta, which was Morristown (KMMU). >> Caldwell cut me loose as I was passing abeam the tower, so I checked in >> with NY Approach who quickly identified me, got me onto a 180 heading an= d >> climbed me to 7000. Once they had me above the Newark arrival stream, th= ey >> turned me west towards SBJ (not on the original plan, but easily added t= o >> the flight plan and backed up with the VOR receiver a few seconds after >> that). >> >> I spent the next 2 hours or so not being able to see a darned thing, >> which is pretty tiring when you're hand flying. The workload was absolut= ely >> relentless between wind shifts, updrafts and downdrafts, monitoring outs= ide >> air temps, turning the ram air on and off when going in and out of preci= p, >> and monitoring inlet air temperature (carb temp), employing carb heat, e= tc. >> I cannot stress the importance of having a carb temp gauge in non-fuel >> injected aircraft that flies IFR. >> >> The first 2/3 of the flight generally took place at around 8000ft, almos= t >> entirely in stratus clouds with light to moderate precip and a smooth ri= de. >> It's hard to explain or recall the sights and sounds of the trip, but he= re >> are the 3 most memorable parts: >> 1) Keeping close track of temps at 8k, 9k and then 10k, eventually >> hitting ice at 10k, dropping back down to 9k and watching the ice go "bu= h >> bye"....twice. >> >> 2) Getting tired of being in IMC and in and out of performance-robbing >> clouds, I had a pretty good feeling that if I could get on top, life wou= ld >> be a lot better. I was able to get the climb from 8-10k but the controll= er >> said it would be a few moments before he could get me higher. The OAT wa= s >> dropping, and I knew I had a very, very narrow window to get this climb >> done, or I was going to have to drop back down and try again later, or n= ot >> at all). Just as the first crystals of ice start forming on the canopy, = I >> receive the climb to 11k. By then, the speed has wound up a bit, and I h= ave >> the ability to trade it for a quick zoom to 11k where I can sense by the >> change in lighting that I should pretty much be on top. Sure enough, at >> about 10,800, with 115kias (ie, just about out of gas in the zoom), I po= p >> out on top, the OAT immediately shoots up to +6C and the ice quickly >> disappears. I have nothing but blue skies above, and every cloud I can s= ee >> out to the horizon is below me. Success. I let the speed wind up, carb h= eat >> off, ram air on and off we go in 'go fast' mode at last, free of the >> shackles of IMC. It was a calculated risk, and it paid off. My workload >> went down to near 0 for the next hour as I enjoyed the view. As it happe= ns, >> the tops eventually dropped down to around 7k, but I stayed at 11k as th= e >> fuel burn was lower in any case and the winds were pretty light by that >> point. >> >> 3) best descent phase I think I've ever had...continuous descent from 11= k >> down to 3600ft for the IAF, except for one level off at 6k to bleed off >> some speed prior to entering the tops again, in case the ride wasn't as >> smooth. Shot RNAV RWY 17 approach at around 180kias because I knew it wo= uld >> be VMC below 3k and I was planning on doing a low approach to greet my >> friend at the field anyway. Broke out, got 500ft below the clouds while >> remaining on the approach, canceled IFR. Spotted what I thought was the >> field, but the angle didn't quite right. It was close, but not quite. I = was >> on the final approach course, but the airport looked slightly off center >> and the runway was about 20 degrees off. I double checked the plate to s= ee >> how the final approach course related to the runway orientation and note= d >> it was straight in. I looked more closely outside and noticed the airpor= t >> dead ahead, about 1.5nm away. I left the power where it was, pitched dow= n a >> little more and savored the 215kias low approach that followed. Slow pul= lup >> at the end (actually, at that speed, it was more a case of releasing som= e >> of the pressure on the stick, allowing the plane to do what it wanted to= do >> which was climb). 700ft into the climb (a few seconds later), start the >> crosswind turn, power to 12" and set myself the challenge of not touchin= g >> that again since the winds were practically dead, making for a very >> predictable pattern. Gear...flaps, base, more flaps, what an amazing vie= w. >> Turned a 1/4 mile final (tight pattern today), one more GUMP check and a >> nice touchdown to end a truly interesting flight. >> >> What struck me after landing was that this was a really challenging >> flight, not because of stick & rudder, but because of the thought proces= s >> and decision making a long the way. I could've absolutely stayed at 4-6k >> the whole way, been miserable, flown slowly and gotten there in one piec= e, >> but took a calculated risk to get on top and then reaped the rewards wit= h a >> much reduced workload. >> >> It also occurred to me that flying by reference to instruments for 2 >> hours straight was tiring, but not especially difficult. I can definitel= y >> credit the simulator with having helped with that task. I fly a couple o= f >> times a week (enroute and approaches) and never feel rusty when getting = in >> the airplane, even if I haven't flown in IMC for 4-5 months. >> >> If you're thinking about getting an instrument rating but haven't done >> it...you're missing out on whole new world of sights, sounds, utility, >> challenges and fun. Do it!**** >> >> Keith Smith**** >> >> > > --047d7bd6b21013e4cf04dc9d821b Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Colyn,

No offense taken. I've= given this a great deal of thought (and have already put considerable time= and money to fix the autopilot) already.

"circumsta= nces create workload that exceeds pilot capability" is spot on. This l= ast flight was an absolute cakewalk compared to one I had last year which r= eally did take me to my workload limit (see this forum post for info,=A0http://forums.pilotedge.net/viewtopic.php?f=3D18&t=3D1681, but i= t's a flight that' I've posted on the LML before, including the= MP3 recording). It also became a scenario for the PilotWorkShops IFR Maste= ry Series.

I do plan on upgrading my weather capabilit= y (it's a small investment to get a Stratus, which will provide ADS-B w= eather) and if circumstances permit, I would like to have the autopilot. Ho= wever, down low, in the soup and the bumps, I am far more comfortable hand = flying than with an autopilot for three reasons:
1) I worry about what happens if the autopilot doesn't do a = perfect job and I'm off doing something else because George is flying. = In other words, it's going to be tough to relinquish control and focus = on other tasks without allowing myself to become to engrossed in those othe= r tasks

2) if there is a performance issue, I becom= e aware of it within a couple of seconds when hand flying. With George flyi= ng, and a reduced scan, I might not find out about it until the onset of a = stall (extreme case, but you get the idea).

3) this is a point I'm adding to the li= st having finished writing the rest of my piece. I tried to reconcile the f= act that I do coupled approaches in the sim, but not in real life. When I r= eally think hard about, I simply don't trust the a/p configuration I ha= ve right now. If I did have an a/p that I could trust, then, during an appr= oach in smooth conditions, I could see myself relinquishing control, and th= at being a good thing. It would affect my scan..I wouldn't use the work= load reduction to do other things, I would simply maintain the scan through= out the approach, and little else. Overall, I agree, it would reduce overal= l workload. =A0Anyway, back to the original message,...


The few times I have e= ngaged the A/P on long XC legs, I find myself less engaged than when I'= m hand flying. Case in point, just west of Washington DC, I routinely get s= oft, subtle 300-500fpm updrafts and downdrafts. I know about them right awa= y when flying by hand, and it's valuable information.

My strategy has been to maximize my workloa= d capability through simulation with online ATC, and to ensure that regardl= ess of how busy it's getting, to never stop flying the plane. On that &= #39;triple diversion' flight posted above, the reason it took me so lon= g to brief the approach at TEB was largely because I was allocating a healt= hy amount of time and brain power to flying the plane, managing fuel, etc. = I chipped away at the task of pulling up the approach plate for the ILS RWY= 19 at TEB, along with getting that confounded ATIS (don't even get me = started on what a chore that is when New York Approach is belting along at = full throttle because they're running combined sectors at night).

Adding a second pilot is a complete non-sta= rter. I read that as a proposed solution quite often and just shake my head= . I can't think of anything less practical for these long trips, and as= such, making it a goal, or even coming to rely on it as a safety feature i= s a non-starter for me. The upgraded weather capability, agreed, I should a= nd will do it. The auto-pilot...I plan on doing it when I can, but probably= still won't use it in the circumstances that others would elect to us = it. I'm more likely to use it in VMC on a long leg to enjoy the view a = bit more.

Another way to look at the autopilot issue = is that not having one that I can bet my life on has lead me to become comp= letely self-reliant on hand flying skills...and I am completely comfortable= with that at this point. Take those who have the luxury of having bullet-p= roof auto pilots. Are they routinely practicing hand flying their approache= s in a variety of weather conditions? It's hard to generalize, of cours= e, but of the population of pilots, I have to imagine there are some that h= ave become so reliant upon the auto pilot that, practically speaking, they&= #39;re really not comfortable doing it by hand because the perceived worklo= ad is just too high, and their proficiency at doing it by hand just might n= ot be there (I do tons of coupled approaches in my sim, btw, and the though= t process is a completely different animal). Hence, the autopilot becomes a= "must have" before launching IFR. That's not an attack on th= eir potential abilities, it's just a theory that I have about where the= ir proficiency might be (again, for SOME pilots, not all, there will always= be exceptions).

I hand fly all approaches in real world (fo= r now). I hand fly maybe 50% of my approaches in the sim, and use varying l= evels of automation for the remaining 50% down to various points along the = approach (I try to expose myself to as many circumstances as possible). Ple= ase know that I'm not hand flying them to test myself or prove any poin= ts, I am just comfortable relying on that skill set AND I don't have a = real alternative right now, nor is it an urgent priority to change that (bu= t it IS on the list).



On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Colyn Case <colyncase= @earthlink.net> wrote:
Somebody= is going to call me not a "real" pilot but in the interest of ge= tting from 99.995% safe to 99.999% safe (see my article this month) I'l= l say anyway that I personally won't launch IFR without:

functioning xm weather
fully functioning auto-pilot

accident stats say that adding a second pilot dramatic= ally improves safety. =A0 If you don't have that, auto-pilot is the nex= t best thing.

"single pilot IFR is almost an emergency. =A0 =A0t= he first thing that goes wrong after that IS an emergency."
=



Colyn

On May 12, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Keith Smith wrote:
Hi Jim,

The heading hold isn't reliable a= nd the alt hold eventually gets into a PIO after a few minutes, especially = if you try to transmit on the radio. I've gotten used to doing 3 1/2hr = legs without it at this point.=A0 I engage it for brief periods if I need t= o reorganize the cockpit or eat lunch.

Keith


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:38 PM, James Collins <jcollins@snet.n= et> wrote:
What happened To your= auto pilot. I know you had one. Nice report. I've also seen some of yo= ur trips on YouTube always great.

From Jim Collins iPad=A0


On May = 1, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Robert R Pastusek <rpastusek@htii.com> wrote:

Keith,
Very nice report. Did you notice that with the weather conditions you exper= ienced, you normally pick up ice at/very near the cloud tops? I=92ve notice= d this to be true over a rather surprising range of OATs=85 Lesson for me h= as been, don=92t dawdle in and out of the tops=85

=A0

Bob

=A0<= /p>

From: Lanca= ir Mailing List [m= ailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Keith Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:58 PM
To: lml@l= ancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] challenging flight with the LNC2 yesterday<= /u>

=A0

Flew the LNC2 to= Kentucky today for the condition inspection. This was a tricky flight. I b= riefed the weather in some detail the night before to get a feel for tops (= 9-12k along the route of flight), convective activity (none), likelihood of icing (possible above 9k), winds (hairy at = 30kt headwind initially, then 5-10kt later on).

Verified the weather this morning, then set off from N07-K24. Cleared route= was "upon entering controlled airspace, direct Chatham NDB, vectors L= ANNA V30 ETX V39 MRB ESL V4 HVQ AZQ LOZ, direct."

Picked up the clearance via phone, told the controller I could depart VFR, = he was happy to hear it, so off I went. This complicated things slightly as= I now needed to talk to Caldwell tower (KCDW) immediately after departure = since my route of flight would take me through their airspace. The challenge would be to talk to them and get = a freq change to NY Approach before butting up against the next Delta, whic= h was Morristown (KMMU). Caldwell cut me loose as I was passing abeam the t= ower, so I checked in with NY Approach who quickly identified me, got me onto a 180 heading and climbed me to 700= 0. Once they had me above the Newark arrival stream, they turned me west to= wards SBJ (not on the original plan, but easily added to the flight plan an= d backed up with the VOR receiver a few seconds after that).

I spent the next 2 hours or so not being able to see a darned thing, which = is pretty tiring when you're hand flying. The workload was absolutely r= elentless between wind shifts, updrafts and downdrafts, monitoring outside = air temps, turning the ram air on and off when going in and out of precip, and monitoring inlet air temperature = (carb temp), employing carb heat, etc. I cannot stress the importance of ha= ving a carb temp gauge in non-fuel injected aircraft that flies IFR.

The first 2/3 of the flight generally took place at around 8000ft, almost e= ntirely in stratus clouds with light to moderate precip and a smooth ride. = It's hard to explain or recall the sights and sounds of the trip, but h= ere are the 3 most memorable parts:
1) Keeping close track of temps at 8k, 9k and then 10k, eventually hitting = ice at 10k, dropping back down to 9k and watching the ice go "buh bye&= quot;....twice.

2) Getting tired of being in IMC and in and out of performance-robbing clou= ds, I had a pretty good feeling that if I could get on top, life would be a= lot better. I was able to get the climb from 8-10k but the controller said= it would be a few moments before he could get me higher. The OAT was dropping, and I knew I had a very, ver= y narrow window to get this climb done, or I was going to have to drop back= down and try again later, or not at all). Just as the first crystals of ic= e start forming on the canopy, I receive the climb to 11k. By then, the speed has wound up a bit, and I hav= e the ability to trade it for a quick zoom to 11k where I can sense by the = change in lighting that I should pretty much be on top. Sure enough, at abo= ut 10,800, with 115kias (ie, just about out of gas in the zoom), I pop out on top, the OAT immediately shoot= s up to +6C and the ice quickly disappears. I have nothing but blue skies a= bove, and every cloud I can see out to the horizon is below me. Success. I = let the speed wind up, carb heat off, ram air on and off we go in 'go fast' mode at last, free of t= he shackles of IMC. It was a calculated risk, and it paid off. My workload = went down to near 0 for the next hour as I enjoyed the view. As it happens,= the tops eventually dropped down to around 7k, but I stayed at 11k as the fuel burn was lower in any case and the win= ds were pretty light by that point.

3) best descent phase I think I've ever had...continuous descent from 1= 1k down to 3600ft for the IAF, except for one level off at 6k to bleed off = some speed prior to entering the tops again, in case the ride wasn't as= smooth. Shot RNAV RWY 17 approach at around 180kias because I knew it would be VMC below 3k and I was planning on doin= g a low approach to greet my friend at the field anyway. Broke out, got 500= ft below the clouds while remaining on the approach, canceled IFR. Spotted = what I thought was the field, but the angle didn't quite right. It was close, but not quite. I was on th= e final approach course, but the airport looked slightly off center and the= runway was about 20 degrees off. I double checked the plate to see how the= final approach course related to the runway orientation and noted it was straight in. I looked more closely out= side and noticed the airport dead ahead, about 1.5nm away. I left the power= where it was, pitched down a little more and savored the 215kias low appro= ach that followed. Slow pullup at the end (actually, at that speed, it was more a case of releasing some of = the pressure on the stick, allowing the plane to do what it wanted to do wh= ich was climb). 700ft into the climb (a few seconds later), start the cross= wind turn, power to 12" and set myself the challenge of not touching that again since the winds were pract= ically dead, making for a very predictable pattern. Gear...flaps, base, mor= e flaps, what an amazing view. Turned a 1/4 mile final (tight pattern today= ), one more GUMP check and a nice touchdown to end a truly interesting flight.

What struck me after landing was that this was a really challenging flight,= not because of stick & rudder, but because of the thought process and = decision making a long the way. I could've absolutely stayed at 4-6k th= e whole way, been miserable, flown slowly and gotten there in one piece, but took a calculated risk to get on top an= d then reaped the rewards with a much reduced workload.

It also occurred to me that flying by reference to instruments for 2 hours = straight was tiring, but not especially difficult. I can definitely credit = the simulator with having helped with that task. I fly a couple of times a = week (enroute and approaches) and never feel rusty when getting in the airplane, even if I haven't flown= in IMC for 4-5 months.

If you're thinking about getting an instrument rating but haven't d= one it...you're missing out on whole new world of sights, sounds, utili= ty, challenges and fun. Do it!

Keith Smith




--047d7bd6b21013e4cf04dc9d821b--