Slow Flight Down the Runway = Too Close to Trees

M

Matthew Rogers

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
1,325
Display Name
Display name:
Matt R
Alternate Title - Go-around practice is a good idea, but it can also be dangerous.

So I had my first bad decision. I feel like it is a good decision to admit this mistake. Get it off my chest. Nobody else at the airport saw me, but one person was there in a hanger.

25 hr student pilot. Comfortable in the plane, doing well, but I guess a bit too confident and certainly not experienced yet.

Aimed for three landings in a quick flight in my 1/3 ownwership 1966 C150F. 19 Gal fuel, 170 pound pilot, 9 pound flight bag in back. Density altitude 2300' and humid from nearby storms. Wet but hard grass, cut yesterday.

First two landings were great. The wet grass made for soft and short landings, takeoffs were not very long either. Used 10 degrees flaps on one and 0 on the other.

Third pass I wanted to try a technique I had seen to help with runway alignment - slow flight down the runway. The problem is that our runway is not very long (2700') and I guess I kept it low too long. I had 25 degrees of flaps, pushed full power and did not gain speed very fast. Raised the flaps to 20, but forgot to remove the carb heat. The plane stayed close to the ground and my airspeed was not going much higher than 50 indicated, even in ground effect. Could be that I got up too high and got out of ground effect too early. As the trees came closer and closer, I resisted the urge to pull back and just kept it flying hoping to gain the altitude to clear in time.

So what I did wrong was try something new without easing into the maneuver. I could have made a pass at 30 feet to start to see how the climb out would be like and then go lower the next time around. I also forgot to immediately take off carb heat. Anytime that I know I could be going around, I will also only have 10 degrees of flaps max. And I have to practice over my go around flow check many more times to make sure that carb heat is off and flaps go to 20 ASAP.

With the soft ground and longer run out to the trees, I also could have dumped the plane onto the ground and skidded/broke my nose gear/rolled into the trees resulting in a damaged plane, ego, and maybe some injuries, but less than if I hit to tops of some 50 foot trees - or failed to control the plane in extreme slow flight and did a deadly stall-spin into the ground. I estimate that I pushed full power about halfway down the runway, which would have been plenty of time to stop before hitting the trees too hard.

What I did right - kept flying the plane the entire time. No turns except slight movements to try to aim for the lowest tree. Pitched for Vx and held it there. Did not freak out and executed a nice pattern to follow and soft landing back to my parking space.

So I will be back flying tomorrow or Monday. I made a mistake. I will leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, as a student, you should be trying new stuff with your instructor, not by yourself. I did the slow flight over the runway thing with my instructor. 5000 foot runway, 100 feet wide, no trees at the end, it's a great exercise, but better with an instructor to keep you from screwing up.
 
Good evaluating your errors. Great sharing them.

Re-evaluate your mistake. Get with an instructor.

As an outsider, the root cause (the only thing you did wrong) was experimenting with something you saw or read about without an instructor. I grab an instructor or more experienced pilot when I want to experiment. That’s how we learn more and survive.
 
I totally agree. The only part that would have made it worse is putting two people in a 150 in the summer and you will certainly have a hard time getting back in the air at all.

In reality it was nothing more than a go-around that was started too late and too dirty. So really not much new, but really drives home the importance of training when to go around and when to try to land the plane in the remaining runway. What tips would you have for determining between the two options? When do you abort a go-around, choosing between a bad (skidding off the runway) and worse option (hitting the trees)?
 
Better than losing my marbles....

How many marbles do I actually have? Do we all start with 42?
 
Which will hurt less.

40 kts on the ground ahead (hard to admit defeat, ain’t it?)

Or

Airborne at least Vx or Vy hitting something and then dropping. (You won’t know the other option was better it until it’s too late).

Hit stuff slower.
 
As long as you fill up your bucket of experience before your bucket of luck runs out, you’re good to go. :)
 
Bet that scared the shiza out of ya!!! Low and slow will get you killed. Glad you made it and remained calm, at least is sounded like it. 25 hours is not a lot of time to be playing though...not being judgemental at all but curious if this was a “saw it on” YouTube moment. I have a feeling there’s a lot of I saw on YouTube flying out there that is going to getnppl in trouble. I’d this was one of those moments it would be a teachable moment
 
Two times I scared the shiz out of myself. Both times taking off. One was taking a friend for his first flight. He weighed 250 pounds. I didnt factor that and tried to horse it off before it wanted to fly. Almost killed is both. The other time was practicing landings and did a taxi back and left 40 degrees of flaps in and off I went, plane wouldn’t fly and I horses it off again. Almost killed myself. I don’t do that shiz anymore. Learn the first time, it took me twice.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
I totally agree. The only part that would have made it worse is putting two people in a 150 in the summer and you will certainly have a hard time getting back in the air at all.

In reality it was nothing more than a go-around that was started too late and too dirty. So really not much new, but really drives home the importance of training when to go around and when to try to land the plane in the remaining runway. What tips would you have for determining between the two options? When do you abort a go-around, choosing between a bad (skidding off the runway) and worse option (hitting the trees)?
Click to expand...

So here is my take on this, instructor absence aside. I think a little more fore thought about this type of thing would have helped you tremendously. It sounds like you just went for it with out considering things like run way length, trees, obstacles, and a plan if things ended up like they did. I think had you gone through those things before hand, you would have gone somewhere else with a wider margin for error.

As far as aborting the landing, it depends on the situation. If you arrive at the threshold at 50 feet, hot and the runway is 1,700 feet long, go around. Where as if the runway is 10,000 feet long, then give it a try or go around, what ever you are comfortable with. But in your example above, those trees should have been on your mind before you even started. Working on that I think will make you a great pilot in the long run. You handled a crappy situation pretty well after you got yourself there. Work on the not getting yourself there part and you'll be fine. That's what I try to do.
 
Whew! I’d be a nervous wreck being a CFI ;)

We’ve all done dumb stuff before, but as Paul said, it’s really not smart to try new maneuvers without a CFI. Count this as one of your ‘get out of jail free’ passes!

Fly safe!
 
It is almost as hard putting yourself out there on the internet and accepting all the comments that come in. It could be interesting to see if this section of the forum could be anonymous like the NASA reporting system.

Just like Mike Smith said, it really was the flaps the killed the climb rate. Even 20 degrees in the 150 is way too much.

The good thing about learning and training at a small grass strip is that every other airport is sooo much better. My first landings were at Kobelt (N45) and it is narrow, short, and tall trees on all sides. 2700’ I know know to be too short for a go around in the summer unless I bail early on and have the plane configured ASAP.

My instructor once said “go around” when he meant go around on the taxiway back to take off again. I immediately pushed full power and rotated like a good 5 hour student. Luckily that was at KMGJ and it was 3500’ with no trees ahead.

I will have to go down to Stewart where there is an ANG base and use their 11,000’ runway for any future practice. They recently landed an A380 when the NYC area was closed for weather.
 
You can post as a ghost on the lesson learnt section of the forum. Anyway, it takes guts to come here and admit and you did it, you made a mistake and you know it’s a mistake. I am more worried about people who makes a mistake and thinks they didn’t. Try new stuff with CFI on board, you are paying him to save your bacon .

On a diff note, student pilot cannot perform preventative maintenance, you need at least PPL for that, that’s what I remember anyway from the regs, I will admit haven’t touched or seen AIM in a while
 
Matthew Rogers said:
I am sure that I was right at 38-42 mph IAS. I held the speed right there on the edge and by the grace of my wings, the plane cleared the trees with a few inches at least to spare.
Click to expand...

That is waaaaaaaayyyyy too slow. Read about the back side of the power curve (also known as the region of reverse command). No matter how bad you want to climb, the nose needs to be held low enough to allow the airspeed to increase before the airplane can climb. That might be a 0º pitch attitude. In addition, the 150 is an underpowered airplane particularly at high density altitude, and might struggle to climb even just a couple knots below Vx, and will also struggle to climb with any flaps at all. That's why the short-field takeoff for a 150 calls for no flaps.

I see people make this mistake during poorly executed go-arounds on a regular basis in the 150, it's always in the summertime (and to a lesser extent the 152 which has 10 more horsepower). They apply power, raise the nose to what they think is the correct climb attitude, but with the airspeed stagnant or decreasing. We hover all the way down the runway at 10-20 feet until I intervene, lower the nose, wait until the airspeed comes up, and then climb (I've also found that students get tunnel vision during this sequence of events and no amount of verbal coaching seems to help, I usually have to physically take control).

Matthew Rogers said:
Pitched for Vx and held it there.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you were probably significantly below Vx, and had too much flaps. This is the crux of the problem.
 
Don’t worry about putting yourself out there Matthew. Yes, sometime it gets sideways, but two good things come of it. One is, people will learn something from it, the number of people who read as opposed to those who post is a much larger number. Second, you learn who the pedantic azzhatz are and you can judge their input accordingly. Keep posting, keep flying, but for goodness sake get your instructor up with you when you try new stuff.
 
Yeah, there is another co-owner of the plane who had his license. But that topic has also been discussed in detail and there are differing opinions on who can add/change oil. Ramp workers add oil and don’t have a PPL. Students can add a quart of oil if it is low.
 
Last edited:
DMspilot,
Those were indicated airspeeds. The calibrated airspeed is much higher at the low range. The same reason why the IAS sometimes goes to zero close to stall even when still at 45-50 mph true. I noted the difference between the CAS and IAS in my post. The stall speeds from my POH are in CAS but obviously we fly by IAS.

But you are correct that the urge to pull up is hard to ignore. I will have to take my instructor up and do some more extreme slow flight in the few MPH between Vx and stall with different flaps and power. Why do the 1966 150s have a 52 mph Vx and the later models have a 62 mph Vx? 52 is very close to stall.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Yeah, there is another co-owner of the plane who had his license. But that topic has also been discussed in detail and there are differing opinions on who can add/change oil. Ramp workers add oil and don’t have a PPL. Students can add a quart of oil if it is low. The plane has a quick oil drain and no filter, so if you don’t remove the oil screen (something that people seems to do either every oil change or just once a year) the the oil change does not even require tools and is nothing more than adding oil to an empty sump. I won’t claim to be an expert on the subject, but I am at least the owner of the plane so that helps a little as far as the regs go.

Imagine a situation where the quick oil drain was opened accidentally when checking something under the cowling and the oil drained out, could you not then close the quick drain add the missing oil back into the sump before flying? Would you need an AP to do that for you?
Click to expand...

As per FAA, yes, if your intention is to change oil. Never heard of accidentally opening the quick drain during preflight either. And never heard of ramp guys adding oil either, when I was training, CFI added it or I did under his supervision. That was adding oil, not changing oil.

Adding a quart of oil if it’s low is a diff story and changing oil is another. Changing oil should also include changing the oil filter and cutting it open to see if you see some metal, else you just added a quart of old oil in a batch of new oil.

Regs doesn’t have to make sense .

Question for the community, can owner operator do preventative mx without license? Too lazy to look up regs
 
This 150 has no filter, just an oil screen that is only required to be checked at annual. But it is a pain that all the regs have these grey areas.
 
There was a thread in another topic recently about whether pilots are better now than they were 50 years ago. I submit that they are better now, overall, and this is a big part of why.

"This" not being barely missing trees on a late go-around; rather, "this" being the existence of the Internet and many forums like this which allow other pilots (especially but not exclusively students) to read about your experience and think about something they may not have thought about before. Then maybe something about that comes back when they recognize a similar situation developing. 50 years ago almost every pilot would be re-inventing that wheel, perhaps to their detriment.

Obviously not everyone will read, and not everyone will consider what they read, and not everything available to be read is even right---but some is, and that's enough to be a significant win even if the formal training itself is the same (which is a different question; see other thread).
 
I scared myself once as a student pilot in a Cessna 150 as well. I did a touch and go but failed to reset the flaps from 40 degrees. Fortunately I was on a 5,000 runway with over a mile of open pasture off the end. Even then those trees were coming awfully close as I was trouble shooting my issue and saw the barn doors hanging out in the breeze out of my peripheral vision.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
DMspilot,
Those were indicated airspeeds. The calibrated airspeed is much higher at the low range. The same reason why the IAS sometimes goes to zero close to stall even when still at 45-50 mph true. I noted the difference between the CAS and IAS in my post. The stall speeds from my POH are in CAS but obviously we fly by IAS.
Click to expand...

No, 38-42 is WAY TOO SLOW in ANY unit.

I don't happen to have a 1966 C150 POH, but I did find a '64 and a '67, and the blurb on climb speed is identical in both:

"If an obstruction dictates the use of a steep climb angle, the best angle-of-climb speed should be used with flaps up and full throttle. These speeds vary from 52 MPH and sea level to 60 MPH at 10,000 ft."​

If your POH says to use a best-angle-of-climb speed of 52, that's the speed you use. That's what you see on the airspeed indicator. You don't take the recommended climb speed, and then do a conversion, and then use that speed; that would be silly.

In fact, older airspeed indicators already "indicate" in calibrated airspeed. So you don't do any conversions at all in order to know what speeds you should be flying the airplane at. They changed this in the 70s, probably for a couple reasons—it was confusing, and didn't allow the use of commodity airspeed indicators.

You're still a 20-hour student pilot and don't know what you don't know. You haven't learned your lesson yet.
 
Just something to check - the difference you mention between indicated air speed and calibrated airspeed (10 mph) at those low speeds sounds way off. Maybe 2 or 3 mph difference, but 10 mph just sounds too far out of whack.

I think you did a good job of keeping that nose down until the last possible minute. This kind of judgement, in stressful situations, speaks volumes about your ability to become a good pilot. It's also a great learning experience for you - and since you posted about it - for others.

The ability to be open and honest about mistakes is another indicator of what it takes to become a good pilot.
 
dmspilot said:
No, 38-42 is WAY TOO SLOW in ANY unit.

I don't happen to have a 1966 C150 POH, but I did find a '64 and a '67, and the blurb on climb speed is identical in both:

"If an obstruction dictates the use of a steep climb angle, the best angle-of-climb speed should be used with flaps up and full throttle. These speeds vary from 52 MPH and sea level to 60 MPH at 10,000 ft."​

If your POH says to use a best-angle-of-climb speed of 52, that's the speed you use. That's what you see on the airspeed indicator. You don't take the recommended climb speed, and then do a conversion, and then use that speed; that would be silly.

In fact, older airspeed indicators already "indicate" in calibrated airspeed. So you don't do any conversions at all in order to know what speeds you should be flying the airplane at. They changed this in the 70s, probably for a couple reasons—it was confusing, and didn't allow the use of commodity airspeed indicators.

You're still a 20-hour student pilot and don't know what you don't know. You haven't learned your lesson yet.
Click to expand...

dmspilot, can you explain why the POH has a chart converting Indicated Airspeed to Calibrated Airspeeds if the ASI reads as Indicated=Calibrated in the plane? How would you get a different Indicated Airspeed to even use the chart to convert if the ASI reads in Calibrated already?

I am going to start a new thread on this in Flight Following because it is getting confusing. I totally agree that the plane should not be flying at 40mph TRUE, but it was my interpretation that the ASI was reading in IAS. It is entirely possible that the ASI was replaced in the 52 years of this plane's life. That could create a situation where the ASI reads IAS, but the POH values are in CAS.

I looked up the recording of my flight on FlyQ. I used the aerial photo overlay to look at position during this period of the flight and according to the GPS, my lowest speed was 54 MPH Ground Speed and averaged about 57 MPH over the period that I was trying to climb out over the trees. On further recall, when I talked to someone at the airport, they said the wind could have shifted to give me a 5 MPH tailwind, so subtract that out and I get close to the Vx speed of 52 MPH True/Calibrated. But the Indicated Airspeed was definitely below 50 on that climb.

This does not explain why the older 150s have Vx speeds of 52 MPH (with CAS=IAS) and the later models have Vx speeds of 64-65 MPH. Looking at the conversion charts for IAS to CAS, the newer models have much less variation (only 3 kts max) than the older models. But my 150F has the same form factor as the later models, same wing, tail, elevators, engine, yet will have a Vx of 10 MPH different?
 
A 25 hour student doing slow flight close to the ground? Not a good plan. A 25 hour student pilot does not have the skills to fly low and slow.
 
Stewartb, This was not slow flight at a low AGL, but slow flight 3 feet off the runway surface. As in the case that a gust drifted you off the centerline and you needed some more time to side slip it back on centerline before touching down, or just like many have to do at Oshkosh where you are down at runway surface, but cant touch down until the yellow dot and have to fly for 1000 feet until you get there. Obviously the runway ended up being too short and the trees a bit too tall, but I was not flying down low and slow over some houses or a field.

Here is a link to the 1967 and 1968 and 1969 and 1977 C150s

https://www.kevincfi.com/files/pdf/manuals/Cessna/Cessna 150-152/1967-C150G-Owners-Manual.pdf
http://jasonblair.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Cessna-150-1968-POH.pdf
http://jasonblair.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Cessna-150-1969-POH.pdf
https://www.cpaviation.com/images/downloads/CESSNA_150_POH.pdf

The Vx speed for 66-67 are 52 MPH, this changes to 57 MPH in the 1968 and a further increase to 64 MPH in the 1969. There are very minor airframe changes from 1967 to 1968 - just some strut fairings. There are no airframe changes from 1968-1969.

All three years have the same tables for IAS to CAS correction and the same table for stall speeds. None of the POH have any mention of the fact that the ASI reads in CAS as opposed to IAS. Can anyone explain why?
 
If it’s so simple and safe why did you almost hit trees at the end of a half mile long runway? Because you don’t have the skills. Your failure to do a balked landing properly demonstrates it. I hope your instructor sets you straight on that point.
 
Stewart,

Nothing is perfectly safe. My local DPE just had a fatal crash during a BFR with a 700 hour CPL/ASEL/ASES/AMEL pilot. Crashed their 7AC on climb out. NTSB report indicates that there were no obvious failures of the plane. Does that mean that what they were doing was dangerous or not?

I would have to disagree that I "failed to do a balked landing" since I made it over the trees. I would rather have had 30 feet of air under my tires instead of 3, but failure in this case means a mouthful of leaves. But I do agree that I could have done many things differently and would rather never be in the same situation again. Hopefully, neither I, nor anyone else on this forum will be.

I am not saying that I am perfect. Why don't you help me out and post some detailed and honest accounts of your failures when learning to fly so I can learn from your mistakes? Think about all the students that send their instructors into inadvertent spins. Unless you are perfect and have never had any close calls, bad decisions, or mistakes :rolleyes:
 
Based on your posts, it sounds like you have the potential to be a very good pilot. But, I don’t see that you are acknowledging your exhibition of one or more of the 5 hazardous attitudes during this flight, which concerns me. Your biggest mistake was getting into this situation in the first place, and you don’t seem to understand that yet.
 
dmspilot said:
No, 38-42 is WAY TOO SLOW in ANY unit.

I don't happen to have a 1966 C150 POH, but I did find a '64 and a '67, and the blurb on climb speed is identical in both:

"If an obstruction dictates the use of a steep climb angle, the best angle-of-climb speed should be used with flaps up and full throttle. These speeds vary from 52 MPH and sea level to 60 MPH at 10,000 ft."​

If your POH says to use a best-angle-of-climb speed of 52, that's the speed you use. That's what you see on the airspeed indicator. You don't take the recommended climb speed, and then do a conversion, and then use that speed; that would be silly.

In fact, older airspeed indicators already "indicate" in calibrated airspeed. So you don't do any conversions at all in order to know what speeds you should be flying the airplane at. They changed this in the 70s, probably for a couple reasons—it was confusing, and didn't allow the use of commodity airspeed indicators.

You're still a 20-hour student pilot and don't know what you don't know. You haven't learned your lesson yet.
Click to expand...

dmspilot, can you explain why the POH has a chart converting Indicated Airspeed to Calibrated Airspeeds if the ASI reads as Indicated=Calibrated in the plane? How would you get a different Indicated airspeed to even use the chart to convert if the ASI reads in Calibrated already?

I am going to start a new thread on this in Flight Following because it is getting confusing. I totally agree that the plane should not be flying at 40mph TRUE, but it was my interpretation that the ASI was reading in IAS.

I looked up the recording of my flight on FlyQ. I used the aerial photo overlay to look at position during this period of the flight and according to the GPS, my lowest speed was 54 MPH Ground Speed and averaged about 57 MPH over the period that I was trying to climb out over the trees. On further recall, when I talked to someone at the airport, they said the wind could have shifted to give me a 5 MPH tailwind, so subtract that out and I get close to the Vx speed of 52 MPH True/Calibrated. But the Indicated Airspeed was definitely below 50 on that climb. It is entirely possible that the ASI was replaced in the 52 years of this plane's life. That could create a situation where the ASI reads IAS, but the POH values are in CAS.

This does not explain why the older 150s have Vx speeds of 52
 
Salty,
I am happy to discuss that so I can learn.

I did get myself into this situation. It was a planned action, so no impulsivity. I did not go against any regs or rules, so I don’t feel like it was anti-authority. Certainly not resignation, so that leaves invulnerability and macho.

Invulnerability is a contender as before this flight I did feel like I was in good control of the plane and my actions. I do not feel invulnerable anymore, but I know that we all forget those close calls as time passes and slip backwards. So maybe I’ll have to put a little reminder in the plane for each close call so that I can see it each time I fly. Like a little paper leaf for this one. That will remind me to take precautions with every action to stay far away and above obstacles.

Macho - I was not showing off for anyone, not trying to prove to anyone that I was better than I actually am. Except perhaps myself. I do like to be very skilled at everything I do so perhaps I was showing off for myself. But I went into this as a training exercise, not for show boating, or lack of time.

Please let me know if you think that Macho played a larger role so that I can think about that factor. My takeaway is that Invulnerability caused this close call.
 
Matthew, good on you for posting this so that you and others can learn.

One thing to take away from this is that maneuvers close to the ground are among the most dangerous if not executed perfectly. As others have said, trying anything new in that category should generally be done with an instructor first. That goes for 200 (or more) hour pilots as well as 20 hour student pilots.

I once put myself in a similar situation to yours, and it was at several hundred hours, probably 700 or 800. I wasn't trying a new maneuver, but the outcome was not too different. It was on a dinner run to a nearby field with a 2500 foot runway with 800 foot displaced thresholds at both ends, due to tall trees. Because of this it is very important there to hit your target airspeed on final: 1.3 Vso plus or minus a couple of knots. Too slow and you're going to touch down before the threshold, too fast and you're not going to be able to slow down soon enough to land safely. Gusty winds make things even harder once you add in a safety factor. That day the winds were pretty gusty. I hovered in ground effect, trying to bleed off the airspeed and hoping for a let-up in the wind to touch down. I did touch down once, but a gust send me back into the air.

Long story short, I kept at it a little too long. When I finally firewalled the throttle, the trees were coming up fast. I had only 20 degrees of flaps in, and tried to retract to 10 once I had a positive rate of climb. In my plane, the flaps control has detents every 10 degrees, but this time for whatever reason I missed the detent for 10 degrees and accidentally dumped all my flaps at once, which made me lose too much lift. Now I really was headed for a collision with the trees! Fortunately I realized what had happened in time and added back the 10 of flaps. I was still sure I was going to at least scrape an upper branch, but I cleared the trees, probably with only inches to spare like yourself.

That was one of the top two or three scariest moments I've ever had in an airplane.

My main takeaway was to reinforce the need for a go-around point whenever landing, especially on a short runway. I had one picked out but let myself pass it up without executing a go-around, an almost fatal mistake. Never again.

Secondarily, to always keep my hand on the flaps lever when retracting flaps during a go-around until I am sure that it has stopped at the detent. Sometimes I would quickly move the lever up and pull it against the notch, but sometimes that doesn't work and the lever springs back out, continuing its upward travel. Always be careful with this! (Your 150 might not have detents, in which case you have to stop the flaps manually, IIRC.)

Your takeaway? Aside from the above, probably that 2700 feet is too short a runway to be doing the low pass/hold the centerline exercise. You will pass your go-around point before you're able to get any meaningful practice time in on that skill. And definitely pick a go-around point, especially when landing on that or any short-ish runway, after which you will execute the go around with no hesitation unless all three wheels are firmly on the ground at that point. Talk to your instructor about where that point should be, but it is usually about halfway down the runway.
 
With 20 hours, IMO you shouldn't be doing anything you haven’t already done with an instructor until he feels you are proficient at it to do on your own.

And you can be “macho” without anyone around. Proving something to yourself counts.
 
Last edited:
In a Cessna 150, flaps are for training only. There is no reason to use them, except in an emergency to get into a field that you can't depart.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top