another Cirrus engine failure. Another chute saves

wanttaja said:
In the past, I've run analyses of Cirrus accidents against Cessna 210s, Cessna 172s, and a combined set of Glasair and Lancairs. I haven't run comparisons against fleet size (yet), since the Cirrus is so much newer. When you have a plane that's in production for less 20 years, it's a lot more likely that the great majority of the planes are still actively flying. The FAA re-registration process affects this, but I'm still anticipating that more of the older designs are licensed but inactive. This, of course, would skew the results.

My standard analysis compares a set of accident causes to the TOTAL number of accidents of that type. In the process, I also compute how often accidents are precipitated by power failure (any type, including fuel exhaustion) and mechanical failure.

The Cirrus scores pretty well, in comparison to those three other types:

Percentage of accidents starting with power failure:
Cirrus: 13.0%
Cessna 210: 31.6%
Glasair/Lancairs: 30.4%
Cessna 172: 15.2%

Again, this includes cases of fuel exhaustion and starvation. This can be significant, as only 2.6% of Cirrus accidents involve either, a much lower percentage than the other sets (the Cessna 210 is 13.8%).

EXCLUDING Fuel Exhaustion and starvation:
Cirrus: 10.4%
Cessna 210: 18.1%
Glasair/Lancairs: 25.1%
Cessna 172: 8.8%

Percentage of accidents beginning with mechanical failure:
Cirrus: 16%
Cessna 210: 28.6%
Glasair/Lancair: 23.1%
Cessna 172: 7.2%

The number of Cirrus accidents and Glasair/Lancair accidents is close (231 vs. 247) and some interesting comparisons can be made. The Cirrus has 20 more "Pilot Miscontrol" accidents (118 vs. 98), which is interesting when you consider the belief that the two "hot" homebuilts are more challenging to fly. However, the median total time of the Cirrus pilots is less than half that of the Glasair/Lancair set (727 vs. 1700).

The cases of continued VFR into IFR conditions is almost identical, 11 cases Cirrus, 10 for Glasair/Lancair.

Engine failures blamed on mechanical issues is the same (13), but this does not include cases caused by faulty maintenance or by the builder.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Thanks, Ron. Great stuff.

And, of course, odd. I can't remember the last power failure of a C-210, but I can rattle off three Cirrus chute deployments after power loss.

Is that because there are so few 210s flying, compared to Cirri?
 
Dennis McKim said:
I appreciate the comparisons you document. Is there any way to document the number of accidents (total or by cause) per hours flown of various aircraft?
Click to expand...
All we have are estimates based on stacks of assumptions. The FAA does its annual survey and releases estimates of the hours flown in GA. This is broken down in broad categories...single engine 1-3 seats, single engine 4-8 seats, etc. Nothing by type.

Along the way, the FAA also estimates how many aircraft of each broad category is active. Homebuilts are around 60%, production-type is around 80%. From 2010 to 2013, when the FAA's re-registration effort removed about 20% of the homebuilts in the fleet, the "Active" percentage in the FAA's estimate rose by just two. So you can understand why I'm reluctant to use the FAA's estimates.

I actually *do* make my own estimates...but they're based on a rather flighty bit of assumptions themselves. I take the model year of the aircraft, the date of the accident, and the aircraft's total time to compute an average number of hours per year. Inaccurate for newer aircraft due to the integer nature of the model year, inaccurate for older airplanes due to years, even decades, that they might have stayed idle. And, of course, this is based only on aircraft that have accidents.

But...as long as everyone understands the process isn't too good:

Cirrus: 255 hrs/year
Cessna 210: 133 hrs/year
Glasair/Lancairs: 66 hours/year (pretty much in-family with the rest of the homebuilts)
Cessna 172: 280 hrs/year (note that these are used as trainers and rental birds)

Ron Wanttaja
 
Jay Honeck said:
Thanks, Ron. Great stuff.

And, of course, odd. I can't remember the last power failure of a C-210, but I can rattle off three Cirrus chute deployments after power loss.

Is that because there are so few 210s flying, compared to Cirri?
Click to expand...
Fleet size is roughly the same. As of January 2016, there were 4540 Cirruses registered, vs. 4109 Cessna 210s. Undoubtedly, a greater percentage of 210s are inactive, but there's no way to quanitize it.

And might I gently suggest that we in aviation community are more finely tuned to CAPS deployments than we are to "just" cases of engine failure? So it's not surprising if floating Cirri stick in our memories more than just another Cessna's forced landing. My figures show roughly the same rate of accidents due to engine mechanical failures on Cirrus vs. C-210s (5.6% vs. 6.5%).

Ron Wanttaja
 
pburger said:
A buddy of mine had an engine failure in a Cirrus a few years ago. The engine-driven fuel pump failed. Cirrus said it was the first such failure in their records (or at least that's what I seem to recall). When it happened, my buddy turned on the electric fuel pump, but no restart. IIRC, he found out later that the electric fuel pump will not supply enough fuel for the engine to run without the engine-driven pump. This was news to my friend. So much for redundancy. Oh well, it's got a chute :rolleyes:;).

By the way, he DID NOT deploy the parachute. He landed safely in a field with only minor damage to one of the wheelpants. The first question Cirrus asked him was, "why didn't you pull the handle?" In his situation, he had a very good field available, and there were power lines downwind of his position, so he chose to do what we all train to do, fly the airplane.
Click to expand...
See, that question creeps me out quite a bit. . .why would he pull the handle, with an obviously suitable field available? It sounds like a manufacturer covering their product liability butt. . .clearly, he made the right call, minor damage, no injury, versus destroying the airplane and risking injury. Sketchy, real sketchy. . .
 
Sundancer said:
See, that question creeps me out quite a bit. . .why would he pull the handle, with an obviously suitable field available? It sounds like a manufacturer covering their product liability butt. . .clearly, he made the right call, minor damage, no injury, versus destroying the airplane and risking injury. Sketchy, real sketchy. . .
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying. But considering the litigious nature of our society, I find that inclination on the part of that company to be rather rational, rather than sketchy. Not saying it's the right incentives, it's actually a perverse incentive imo, but it's rational behavior nonetheless to me.
 
Concur, rational it is. Just undercuts their credibility. "Always pull" is as bad as "Never pull".
 
Sundancer said:
See, that question creeps me out quite a bit. . .why would he pull the handle, with an obviously suitable field available? It sounds like a manufacturer covering their product liability butt. . .clearly, he made the right call, minor damage, no injury, versus destroying the airplane and risking injury. Sketchy, real sketchy. . .
Click to expand...
And if that "very good field" had been tall grass with abandoned concrete blocks, or a swamp, or the wind had been a bit different, or he'd been a bit lower, etc. etc. etc.

I posted a pretty detailed assessment of the Cirrus accident record a few months ago, but there's one point I'd like to repeat.

We don't know how many cases there are of successful, no-damage emergency landings after engine failures. If the accident doesn't meet the NTSB criteria, there's little record of the cases.

However, the NTSB records do reflect the cases where the forced landings weren't successful...from moderate damage, to full destruction. When I looked at accident rates for high performance aircraft, 40% of such cases resulted in at least one fatality aboard. Yet, if a Cirrus CAPS is deployed within the envelope, the survival rate is nearly 100%.

So: Your engine quits in a Cirrus, with your whole family aboard. MAYbe you can make that field. And if your skills and luck aren't quite with you today, there's a 40% chance that your wife, your son, your daughter is going to die. Or...you pull the handle, and everyone lives.

I'm not criticizing the decision of the guy who *didn't* pull; his choice paid off. But it all boils down to long-duration accident statistics.

Back when the Cirrus and CAPS came out, there were folks that predicted it wouldn't last. That insurance companies would eventually get tired of paying for new airplanes, and rack the rates so high that no one could afford it.

Hasn't happened, has it? Insurance companies would much rather buy someone a new airplane than pay out $10M to their estates in wrongful-death settlements.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Lycoming vs. Continental mostly. On most of the FI continental engines you don't turn on the pump unless you believe the engine driven one isn't working. The electric one flows too much usually.
 
flyingron said:
Lycoming vs. Continental mostly. On most of the FI continental engines you don't turn on the pump unless you believe the engine driven one isn't working. The electric one flows too much usually.
Click to expand...
this.....no fuel pump ops for normal take-off for TCM engines....
 
FastEddieB said:
Strongly recommend against the second part.

Wait until you're at cruise, then wait another 10 or 15 minutes, especially in hot weather. Simply no good reason to turn it off sooner.
Click to expand...
Okay. But why?
 
hot fuel has a history of doing bad things at altitude....so to prevent vapor in your fuel lines some recommend running the pump while "at" cruise.
 
FastEddieB said:
Every once in a while the engine will either surge or just quit when you kill the boost pump.

1,000' simply does not give a lot of time to troubleshoot.

Again, why the rush?
Click to expand...
just how I was taught. 500 feet, flaps up, touch the handle and note CAPS alt. 1000 ft, fuel pump off, bring the mixture to the top of the green arc. That was what I was taught and it seems every bit of it is debatable.
 
wanttaja said:
And if that "very good field" had been tall grass with abandoned concrete blocks, or a swamp, or the wind had been a bit different, or he'd been a bit lower, etc. etc. etc.

I posted a pretty detailed assessment of the Cirrus accident record a few months ago, but there's one point I'd like to repeat.

We don't know how many cases there are of successful, no-damage emergency landings after engine failures. If the accident doesn't meet the NTSB criteria, there's little record of the cases.

However, the NTSB records do reflect the cases where the forced landings weren't successful...from moderate damage, to full destruction. When I looked at accident rates for high performance aircraft, 40% of such cases resulted in at least one fatality aboard. Yet, if a Cirrus CAPS is deployed within the envelope, the survival rate is nearly 100%.

So: Your engine quits in a Cirrus, with your whole family aboard. MAYbe you can make that field. And if your skills and luck aren't quite with you today, there's a 40% chance that your wife, your son, your daughter is going to die. Or...you pull the handle, and everyone lives.

I'm not criticizing the decision of the guy who *didn't* pull; his choice paid off. But it all boils down to long-duration accident statistics.

Back when the Cirrus and CAPS came out, there were folks that predicted it wouldn't last. That insurance companies would eventually get tired of paying for new airplanes, and rack the rates so high that no one could afford it.

Hasn't happened, has it? Insurance companies would much rather buy someone a new airplane than pay out $10M to their estates in wrongful-death settlements.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
 
Hmmmm. . .40% of forced landings with enough damage to reach the NTSB threshold. Which this example wasn't. Not sure I wouldn't pull with family aboard, to be frank. But if, as in this case, the field looks good, I'd like to land, as opposed to drifting into whatever the breeze takes me to. As you say, not much to criticize in this case.

I understand this airplane has higher touchdown speeds, and less than optimal low speed handling, but it's not the space shuttle, either. Or a swept wing century series aerospace vehicle. It shouldn't take a lot if room to dissipate the energy. . .Again, VFR, day, with a flat spot in reach, and the airplane under control, I'm not sure I wouldn't rather land it. But not having been there, I can't honestly say for sure.

I do remain skeptical of the manufaturer's motives. . .
 
But back to the question...WHY are these engines failing shortly after departure?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Sundancer said:
I do remain skeptical of the manufaturer's motives. . .
Click to expand...
Don't know why, I think it's pretty obvious: The manufacturer wants to maximize profits, just like any company in the good 'ol USA. In Cirrus' case, they maximize profits by:

1. Reducing the likelihood of wrongful-death lawsuits,
2. Reducing the premiums for liability coverage
3. Gain goodwill and attract new customers
4. Sell replacement Cirruses

The CAPS supports all four items. For #3, every successful CAPS use means free publicity that emphasizes the Cirrus as a SAFE airplane. For every pilot who curses CAPS use as...well, unmanly...there are dozens of non-pilots who ask, "Why don't ALL small planes have those?" And some of those people might seriously considering getting a Cirrus, if they think it's safer.

#4... well, sure, some of those cases involve pilots who followed Cirrus' instructions and pulled the CAPS in circumstances that some here might dispute. But let me tell you of a deep, dark secret within the General Aviation industry:

You can't sell new airplanes to dead pilots (except in Chicago, maybe).

I'm sure that some pilots swear off flying after a CAPS use, but I bet most of those that decide to buy another airplane are very positively inclined towards Cirrus.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Jay Honeck said:
But back to the question...WHY are these engines failing shortly after departure?
Click to expand...
I took a quick look at the domestic Cirrus accidents this year. There are 16 domestic accidents in the NTSB online database, with the most recent being two weeks ago.

Six out of the 16 (38%) involve engine failures...which is a significant jump from my past results. But none were on departure. Five were in cruise, one on descent. The wreckage of another was found near the departure airport, so it's possible the engine quit during climb.

Ones that occurred since July 28th weren't in the NTSB database yet. Even so, there haven't really been any on departure prior to them.

Conventional wisdom says that engine failures are most likely to occur on departure, as that's when the engine is most heavily stressed.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Don't know why, I think it's pretty obvious: The manufacturer wants to maximize profits, just like any company in the good 'ol USA. In Cirrus' case, they maximize profits by:

1. Reducing the likelihood of wrongful-death lawsuits,
2. Reducing the premiums for liability coverage
3. Gain goodwill and attract new customers
4. Sell replacement Cirruses

The CAPS supports all four items. For #3, every successful CAPS use means free publicity that emphasizes the Cirrus as a SAFE airplane. For every pilot who curses CAPS use as...well, unmanly...there are dozens of non-pilots who ask, "Why don't ALL small planes have those?" And some of those people might seriously considering getting a Cirrus, if they think it's safer.

#4... well, sure, some of those cases involve pilots who followed Cirrus' instructions and pulled the CAPS in circumstances that some here might dispute. But let me tell you of a deep, dark secret within the General Aviation industry:

You can't sell new airplanes to dead pilots (except in Chicago, maybe).

I'm sure that some pilots swear off flying after a CAPS use, but I bet most of those that decide to buy another airplane are very positively inclined towards Cirrus.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I have a friend who had an Engine Out in a Cirrus and landed without a chute. He said he wanted a more reliable engine after that, so he bought a Turoprop Meridian.
 
Scott@KTYR said:
I have a friend who had an Engine Out in a Cirrus and landed without a chute. He said he wanted a more reliable engine after that, so he bought a Turoprop Meridian.
Click to expand...

Your friend has more resources than the typical Cirrus driver, then. You're talking about a huge increase in costs there. Meridian can be had for about $750K, but a Cirrus can be had for $175K. Cirrus can be flown for about $200/hour or so. Meridian is about to $500. They're just not comparable aircraft.
 
Ron, you've done an exceptional job of describing why a pilot should use the chute (or is it shoot) and I couldn't agree more.

To those suggesting they would prefer to land off airport vs. pull the chute, the only thing I can really say is you're putting yourself and your family/friends at far greater risk from a percentages standpoint. When pulled above 1000' AGL and under Vne speeds the chute has been 100% successful. In comparison to off airport landings and even dead stick airport landings the numbers are far worse.

I also counter the notion that you risk landing into something inhospitable under canopy as a reason to not pull. Reason being is there have been 69 CAPS saves and they've landed in all kinds of stuff (trees, swamps, water, power lines, etc) and the occupants have been able to egress successfully in every situation. As a pilot, you also have the option to plan your pull in situations where you're not at a critical altitude level. For example if I lose my engine cruising at 10,500 feet I can glide for several miles and it's pretty easy to identify if an airport is in range. If there's not an airport in range it's no different than planning out an off airport landing versus a CAPS pull location. You identify the winds, the terrain and try to find a good spot to set up. Then at 1500' AGL pop the chute and ride it into that big open field you set up for.

COPA has an excellent presentation that goes through multiple examples of two pilots faced with similar situations (both in a Cirrus). One chose to pull CAPS and lived and the other attempted to make the airport or land off airport and unfortunately perished. There is nothing that drives home the point more than seeing those real world comparisons.

As for me personally, I follow the Cirrus/COPA recommendations religiously when it comes to CAPS and brief myself and passengers prior to every flight. I've tried to think through every scenario ahead of time so I don't have to think about them as much in an emergency.
Engine out on takeoff:
0-500' AGL: Establish best glide and look for a place to land. Do not attempt impossible turn
500'-2000' AGL: CAPS immediately because you don't have time to think. Do not attempt return to airport. (this was the situation for the pilot in Des Moines I believe)
>2000' AGL: Consider CAPS immediately, but you've got a little more time so do engine out checklist and assess a return to airport feasibility, etc. 1500' is decision altitude for CAPS if airport is not 100% assured.

Engine Out Cruise flight:
Consider CAPS immediately, but likely to have time to run through checklists and determine if I can make an airport. If not, look for biggest open area for CAPS deployment. Decision altitude is 1500' AGL for CAPS immediately.
Even with airport in range I will constantly consider CAPS all the way to 1500' AGL. If I'm not in the key position at a field by 1500' AGL then I'm pulling.

Engine out in the pattern:
Similar to takeoff, , but between 500' - 2000' AGL I will CAPS immediately unless I'm in the key position with the runway assured. Sub 500', I establish best glide and land straight ahead.
 
Scott@KTYR said:
I have a friend who had an Engine Out in a Cirrus and landed without a chute. He said he wanted a more reliable engine after that, so he bought a Turoprop Meridian.
Click to expand...

Nice choice. A bit tone-deaf for our demographic but hey, hate the game am I right? :D

arnoha said:
Your friend has more resources than the typical Cirrus driver, then. You're talking about a huge increase in costs there. Meridian can be had for about $750K, but a Cirrus can be had for $175K. Cirrus can be flown for about $200/hour or so. Meridian is about to $500. They're just not comparable aircraft.
Click to expand...

Agreed. All he had to do is get a Lycoming. :D *ducks like dubya in an iraqi shoe store*
 
wanttaja said:
I took a quick look at the domestic Cirrus accidents this year. There are 16 domestic accidents in the NTSB online database, with the most recent being two weeks ago.

Six out of the 16 (38%) involve engine failures...which is a significant jump from my past results. But none were on departure. Five were in cruise, one on descent. The wreckage of another was found near the departure airport, so it's possible the engine quit during climb.

Ones that occurred since July 28th weren't in the NTSB database yet. Even so, there haven't really been any on departure prior to them.

Conventional wisdom says that engine failures are most likely to occur on departure, as that's when the engine is most heavily stressed.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Of the engines that lost power, any word on cause?
 
The parachute is covered by insurance, correct? So it isn't a financial decision up there whether to pull the chute I assume. Then if you pull the chute, the plane is totaled correct? Does your insurance buy you a new Cirrus, or a used one? How does that work? And what happens to your premium going forward?
 
Jay Honeck said:
But back to the question...WHY are these engines failing shortly after departure?
/QUOTE]

I had heard the scuttlebutt that this Cirris in Iowa was parked on the ramp for a few days. There was some very heavy rain over the course of those days, 8+ inches in Western WI. Seems plausible that some of this moisture made it into the fuel tanks/system. If the accident links line up, some moisture could remain even after a 'routine' sumping.

Where's 'Sump This' when we need him??
Click to expand...
 
Jay Honeck said:
Of the engines that lost power, any word on cause?
Click to expand...
Most are still in the Preliminary state, where the bare circumstances are reported. Those that have either the Factual or Probable Cause reports out are the "easy" ones, with Pilot Miscontrol issues.

Ron Wanttaja
 
orange said:
The parachute is covered by insurance, correct? So it isn't a financial decision up there whether to pull the chute I assume. Then if you pull the chute, the plane is totaled correct? Does your insurance buy you a new Cirrus, or a used one? How does that work? And what happens to your premium going forward?
Click to expand...
insurance doesn't buy you a plane, it cuts you a check.
 
At least the post crash fire indicates that some fuel was left...
 
orange said:
The parachute is covered by insurance, correct? So it isn't a financial decision up there whether to pull the chute I assume. Then if you pull the chute, the plane is totaled correct? Does your insurance buy you a new Cirrus, or a used one? How does that work? And what happens to your premium going forward?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's fully covered at the hull value. So basically the only reason to attempt an off airport landing is if you as PIC felt you had better odds of survival by doing so.
There have been several that have flown again post CAPS, but generally speaking the airplane will likely be totaled.
On the new or used, it's no different than any other insurance where you get the value of your plane in the event of it being totaled. If it's a 2015 Cirrus then you should get enough to buy another 2015 Cirrus. If it's a 2001 then the same. The number is based on the estimated hull value and what you insure it for as far as I understand it. To give you an idea on how much insurance companies appreciate CAPS, there are several that completely wave the deductible in the event of a CAPS pull.
 
wanttaja said:
Don't know why, I think it's pretty obvious: The manufacturer wants to maximize profits, just like any company in the good 'ol USA. In Cirrus' case, they maximize profits by:

1. Reducing the likelihood of wrongful-death lawsuits,
2. Reducing the premiums for liability coverage
3. Gain goodwill and attract new customers
4. Sell replacement Cirruses

The CAPS supports all four items. For #3, every successful CAPS use means free publicity that emphasizes the Cirrus as a SAFE airplane. For every pilot who curses CAPS use as...well, unmanly...there are dozens of non-pilots who ask, "Why don't ALL small planes have those?" And some of those people might seriously considering getting a Cirrus, if they think it's safer.

#4... well, sure, some of those cases involve pilots who followed Cirrus' instructions and pulled the CAPS in circumstances that some here might dispute. But let me tell you of a deep, dark secret within the General Aviation industry:

You can't sell new airplanes to dead pilots (except in Chicago, maybe).

I'm sure that some pilots swear off flying after a CAPS use, but I bet most of those that decide to buy another airplane are very positively inclined towards Cirrus.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Let me rephrase, bluntly; I meant to communicate that Cirrus would have you pull in every case, for their own ends, as you just so clearly enumerated. To ask a guy who had a successful forced landing, on what certanly had to be a good surface, "Why didn't you pull?" serves Cirrus, vice the customer. Or at least this customer, in this case. Sure, yeah, it's legitimate for Cirrus to look after their corporate interests. And even to couch their advice in terms of "safety" impact, vice their less altruistic motives.
 
Sundancer said:
Let me rephrase, bluntly; I meant to communicate that Cirrus would have you pull in every case, for their own ends, as you just so clearly enumerated. To ask a guy who had a successful forced landing, on what certanly had to be a good surface, "Why didn't you pull?" serves Cirrus, vice the customer. Or at least this customer, in this case. Sure, yeah, it's legitimate for Cirrus to look after their corporate interests. And even to couch their advice in terms of "safety" impact, vice their less altruistic motives.
Click to expand...

I think, liability-wise, Cirrus *can't* leave the decision open.

If they wrote the manual like "Deploy the CAPS, unless the pilot believes he/she can make a successful landing", then it doesn't help cover the company in a lawsuit. A lawyer will always claim if better guidance had been given, their client's husband would still be alive. I'm surprised no one has sued yet claiming the CAPS deployment should be automatic, vs. relying on the pilot's decision (from reading earlier postings, it sounds like the Cirrus has an "we're all gonna die" warning (envelope alert)).

Flying is risk management personified. Most decisions we make have a path that leads to disaster. Just because it *hasn't*, doesn't mean it can't, or that continuing the same way permanently assures safety. I'll point out a highly-publicized fatal accident from last year. The pilot had been performing a certain intersection takeoff for years, if not decades. But...on this flight...the engine quit at exactly the worst point. If it hadn't been an intersection takeoff, he'd have had more runway in front of him.

Back to the Cirrus case, *not* pulling the chute this time worked out well for the Cirrus pilot. This time. But if the aircraft manufacturer is writing a standard operating procedure, they need to protect themselves *every* time. Best way to do that is write that you *always* pull.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Scott@KTYR said:
I have a friend who had an Engine Out in a Cirrus and landed without a chute. He said he wanted a more reliable engine after that, so he bought a Turoprop Meridian.
Click to expand...

And when the PT-6 quits one day, he'll sorely miss his Cirrus! :D
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
insurance doesn't buy you a plane, it cuts you a check.
Click to expand...
Well, it writes a check for the stated value of the plane prior to the accident and if you've got a lender, it's usually made out to both of you. If you're lucky, it clears what you owe on the plane.
 
Jay Honeck said:
What are the failure rates of turbine vs piston engines?
Click to expand...
Never mind. Here ya go:

"Federal Aviation Administration studies indicate that piston engines in aircraft have a failure rate, on average, of one every 3,200 flight hours while turbine engines have a failure rate of one per 375,000 flight hours. Accordingly, for every turbine engine experiencing a failure, 117 piston engines will have failed."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top