February 02, 2025, 01:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819439
You don\x92t put a descending aircraft in the path of a level aircraft with 100-150\x92 vertical separation.
That is insane.
The CRJ likely wasn\x92t flying VNAV vertical guidance as it\x92s an LNAV only MDA for 33 and they were coming out of a left base to final turn flying visually on a 3 degree PAPI.
Which means they\x92re hand flying and no one can guarantee they won\x92t be slightly slow to slightly fast or slightly high or slightly low.
\x93Three red on the PAPI correcting\x94
0.01 on the altimeter is 25\x92, that\x92s already 10%
Plus inherent altimeter inaccuracy,
For a shorter taxi or one departure.
Its madness.
That is insane.
The CRJ likely wasn\x92t flying VNAV vertical guidance as it\x92s an LNAV only MDA for 33 and they were coming out of a left base to final turn flying visually on a 3 degree PAPI.
Which means they\x92re hand flying and no one can guarantee they won\x92t be slightly slow to slightly fast or slightly high or slightly low.
\x93Three red on the PAPI correcting\x94
0.01 on the altimeter is 25\x92, that\x92s already 10%
Plus inherent altimeter inaccuracy,
For a shorter taxi or one departure.
Its madness.
Subjects
CRJ
Separation (ALL)
Vertical Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 01:59:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819443
A red collision alert was flashing at this point on the controllers screen, the instruction should\x92ve been for the CRJ to go around, not wasting time on the helicopter pilots.
Secondly, why shouldn\x92t we criticise the controller? Imho his actions need to be criticised. Not the individual but the environment, procedures and training he operated in. The mission of ATC is to prevent exactly this from happening and they failed in their mission.
Secondly, why shouldn\x92t we criticise the controller? Imho his actions need to be criticised. Not the individual but the environment, procedures and training he operated in. The mission of ATC is to prevent exactly this from happening and they failed in their mission.
It would happen all the time with visual separation. It\x92s nothing like the RA must-follow-without-question alert. Issuing a go around would often be the exact wrong thing to do.
In this case the controller was aware they were close.
The accepted procedures look like quite likely the culprit here. They seem to allow a single mistake (misidentifying visual traffic) to become catastrophic.
The controller\x85 he\x92s required to use the accepted procedures. If the procedure after safety analysis is to allow helicopters to visually separate from jets, he can\x92t just say not on his shift. He can double check of course, and imho that\x92s what his \x93still got \x91em in sight\x94 call was about, since it clearly concerned him.
Anyway my point about not criticizing him was just that my post was not intended that way. I don\x92t have access to listen to the full conversation. If you do, then go ahead.
And certainly the environment/procedures/etc are all in question here.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 02:28:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819459
Dozens of posts back, I asked the question that many recent posts have been keying on... if everyone was where they were supposed to be, they would have passed one over the other with 150 feet of separation! In what world is that OK?
Subjects
Separation (ALL)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 03:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819475
It almost seems backwards to me. Late runway changes should only be applied in quiet environments, allowing plenty of room for manoeuvring without separation issues. The same for visual separation, where only one or two aircraft in the area make misidentification of traffic an improbability. Unfortunately the reverse is true. The busier and more congested the airspace, the more likely these procedures are to be used. From a risk identification and management perspective, I just don't see how operating like this can ever have been deemed acceptable.
Again though, it's used because it's the only way to squeeze an extra 1% out of an over burdened system. And worst of all, everyone involved, from pilots to ATC, think they're the worlds best for making it "work".
Last edited by gretzky99; 2nd February 2025 at 03:24 .
Subjects
ATC
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 03:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819477
If the Army pilots mistook another aircraft for the CRJ they were warned of at least three times, can someone look at the radar and explain which aircraft they thought was the CRJ? I see none they could have possible been watching instead. Considering the distance from one warning to the next and the Army pilot's assurance of seeing the CRJ both times, I don't see how any light on the ground could have been their focus either.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Radar
Separation (ALL)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 03:04:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819478
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
IFR
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 03:16:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819484
I agree completely.
It almost seems backwards to me. Late runway changes should only be applied in quiet environments, allowing plenty of room for manoeuvring without separation issues. The same for visual separation, where only one or two aircraft in the area make misidentification of traffic an improbability. Unfortunately the reverse is true. The busier and more congested the airspace, the more likely these procedures are to be used. From a risk identification and management perspective, I just don't see how operating like this can ever have been deemed acceptable.
Again though, it's used because it's the only way to squeeze an extra 1% out of an over burdened system. And worse of all, everyone involved, from pilots to ATC, think they're the worlds best for making it "work".
It almost seems backwards to me. Late runway changes should only be applied in quiet environments, allowing plenty of room for manoeuvring without separation issues. The same for visual separation, where only one or two aircraft in the area make misidentification of traffic an improbability. Unfortunately the reverse is true. The busier and more congested the airspace, the more likely these procedures are to be used. From a risk identification and management perspective, I just don't see how operating like this can ever have been deemed acceptable.
Again though, it's used because it's the only way to squeeze an extra 1% out of an over burdened system. And worse of all, everyone involved, from pilots to ATC, think they're the worlds best for making it "work".
All that said, the plan for DCA, particularly the helicopter ops, were hazardous in the extreme. The Route 4/33 operations is just plain dangerous, nothing less. The politics of DCA are going to drive a band-aid fix is my prediction. Visual separation won\x92t go away. FAA will get crucified over manning. DCA may lose some significant service, if we closed 33 permanently. If I read the NOTAM correctly, closing 4 and 33, the pain will become known, interestingly, I read elsewhere that the helicopter altitudes were raised to 200\x92 in 2023 due to noise complaints.
Subjects
ATC
DCA
FAA
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 03:18:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819485
FAA Order JO 7110.65AA - Air Traffic Control
7.9.4 SEPARATIONa. Standard IFR services to IFR aircraft.
b. VFR aircraft must be separated from VFR/IFR aircraft/ helicopter/rotorcraft that weigh more than 19,000 pounds and turbojets by no less than:
1. 1 \xbd miles separation, or
2. 500 feet vertical separation, or
3. Visual separation, as specified in paragraph 7-2-1 , Visual Separation, paragraph 7-4-2 , Vectors for Visual Approach, and paragraph 7-6-7 , Sequencing.
7.2.1 VISUAL SEPARATION
a.2. Pilot-applied visual separation.
(a) Maintain communication with at least one of the aircraft involved and ensure there is an ability to communicate with the other aircraft.
(b) The pilot sees another aircraft and is instructed to maintain visual separation from the aircraft as follows
(1) Tell the pilot about the other aircraft. Include position, direction, type, and, unless it is obvious, the other aircraft's intention.
(2) Obtain acknowledgment from the pilot that the other aircraft is in sight.
(3) Instruct the pilot to maintain visual separation from that aircraft.
Subjects
FAA
IFR
Separation (ALL)
VFR
Vertical Separation
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 03:23:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819488
Of course. So lets assume the readings to be at the outside of the envelope to the benefit of both aircraft, ie, CRJ at 350 (325 +/- 25 as stated by NTSB), and 200 +/- 75 for the helicopter, so 125. That's 225 feet of vertical-only separation. Is that considered acceptable? If not, why did ATC allow it?
The procedures allowed the controller to hand responsibility for separation to the helo pilot, once the helo was instructed to pass behind an aircraft which the helo said it had identified (twice I think?). However, it seems that the helo identified the wrong aircraft. That's hardly surprising when it's night, there's lots of stationary and moving lights around, and one of the apparently stationary lights is in fact bolted to an aircraft with which you're on a collision course.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
NTSB
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Separation (ALL)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 03:31:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819492
I was reading the reaction of some posters, almost certainly Americans, to the Lufthansa SFO incident where they refused a visual approach, on the thread for that incident on this forum and some other aviation forums:
You really cannot expect to operate into a busy US airport with that sort of restriction.
Lufthansa and all their daughter airlines still uses SOPs born in the 60s, it's godawful.
This whole thing is just ignorant on the part of LH. The SFO ATC is busy and can\x92t baby these unnecessary special requests
I get the no visual approaches at night policy but the no visual separation from other aircraft at night is asinine. Keeping visual from other a/c is easier at night cause of all the blinky stuff.
The answer is if Lufthansa are unable to comply with local procedures then SFO should initiate an approach ban on operators who cannot comply or withdraw their operating permit.
There does seem to be a bit of a \x93we do things differently over here because we\x92re (quote/unquote) better pilots\x94 attitude. Maybe this will be a wake up call, but given the reluctance to change culture I doubt it.
You really cannot expect to operate into a busy US airport with that sort of restriction.
Lufthansa and all their daughter airlines still uses SOPs born in the 60s, it's godawful.
This whole thing is just ignorant on the part of LH. The SFO ATC is busy and can\x92t baby these unnecessary special requests
I get the no visual approaches at night policy but the no visual separation from other aircraft at night is asinine. Keeping visual from other a/c is easier at night cause of all the blinky stuff.
The answer is if Lufthansa are unable to comply with local procedures then SFO should initiate an approach ban on operators who cannot comply or withdraw their operating permit.
There does seem to be a bit of a \x93we do things differently over here because we\x92re (quote/unquote) better pilots\x94 attitude. Maybe this will be a wake up call, but given the reluctance to change culture I doubt it.
However this incident is crossing or converging traffic
People outside aviation, such as Donald Trump as quoted, don't understand that the helicopter is not looking straight ahead at the airliner in the centre of its view for several seconds. Other people think that the other moving across the field of view should make it easier to notice.
But neither is true. One possibility that represents a collision risk is the one a bit out to one side that keeps the same relative direction in the view of the other, just getting bigger
From pictures I found, this helicopter type seems to have four vertical bars in the frame of the front screen, two at the edges, two nearer the middle. So it might be possible for a collision risk aircraft to be hidden behind one of these for some time
Subjects
ATC
President Donald Trump
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 03:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819493
I’m not in job of defending the US system, but there needs to be some perspective. The US airspace operates about 40%-50% of all global aviation. Only half of daily flights are air carrier. For lot of reasons outside this discussion, air carriers are the default transport, trains and buses are a tiny fraction of long distance transport. Apply EASA aviation standards and the US network would grind to halt or create huge gaps in service. We’ve gone 16 years without a fatal US carrier major accident, which isn’t different than the rest of the world, especially when the US has a 50% share. Our economy would suffer greatly and passengers revolt at what would required.
All that said, the plan for DCA, particularly the helicopter ops, were hazardous in the extreme. The Route 4/33 operations is just plain dangerous, nothing less. The politics of DCA are going to drive a band-aid fix is my prediction. Visual separation won’t go away. FAA will get crucified over manning. DCA may lose some significant service, if we closed 33 permanently. If I read the NOTAM correctly, closing 4 and 33, the pain will become known, interestingly, I read elsewhere that the helicopter altitudes were raised to 200’ in 2023 due to noise complaints.
All that said, the plan for DCA, particularly the helicopter ops, were hazardous in the extreme. The Route 4/33 operations is just plain dangerous, nothing less. The politics of DCA are going to drive a band-aid fix is my prediction. Visual separation won’t go away. FAA will get crucified over manning. DCA may lose some significant service, if we closed 33 permanently. If I read the NOTAM correctly, closing 4 and 33, the pain will become known, interestingly, I read elsewhere that the helicopter altitudes were raised to 200’ in 2023 due to noise complaints.
And yes, trying to do EU IFR for everything all the time would create some epic traffic jams.
* IMHO they need the dedicated helicopter controller on at ALL times the helicopters are flying and they need to be held for crossing traffic. They also all need ADS-B, no private pilot that wasn't totally skint would be running around with the lack of situational awareness the helos seem to have in an area like that.
Subjects
ADSB (All)
ATC
DCA
FAA
IFR
Separation (ALL)
Situational Awareness
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 05:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819528
7.2.1 VISUAL SEPARATION
a.2. Pilot-applied visual separation.
(a) Maintain communication with at least one of the aircraft involved and ensure there is an ability to communicate with the other aircraft.
(b) The pilot sees another aircraft and is instructed to maintain visual separation from the aircraft as follows
(1) Tell the pilot about the other aircraft. Include position, direction, type, and, unless it is obvious, the other aircraft's intention.
(2) Obtain acknowledgment from the pilot that the other aircraft is in sight.
(3) Instruct the pilot to maintain visual separation from that aircraft.
a.2. Pilot-applied visual separation.
(a) Maintain communication with at least one of the aircraft involved and ensure there is an ability to communicate with the other aircraft.
(b) The pilot sees another aircraft and is instructed to maintain visual separation from the aircraft as follows
(1) Tell the pilot about the other aircraft. Include position, direction, type, and, unless it is obvious, the other aircraft's intention.
(2) Obtain acknowledgment from the pilot that the other aircraft is in sight.
(3) Instruct the pilot to maintain visual separation from that aircraft.
So that means this collision occurred entirely within all established protocls?
These aircraft crashed, as per the system specifications.
So the system is, to put it plainly...FUBAR?
That's not good.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 05:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819530
That\x92s the kind of information that the NTSB will discover from interviews.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
DCA
NTSB
Separation (ALL)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 06:03:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819532
Well, that's interesting. You seem to be saying that "the system" worked as designed? FDR notes immediately before your reply:
Did ATC do all of that? Having listened to the ATC comms (including the UHF) a few times, I believe they did, for the most part? They mentioned CRJ (of what use is mentioning the type at night, I have no idea, but they did), they mentioned where it was and where it was headed, and they received two acknowledgments...
So that means this collision occurred entirely within all established protocls?
These aircraft crashed, as per the system specifications.
So the system is, to put it plainly...FUBAR?
That's not good.
Did ATC do all of that? Having listened to the ATC comms (including the UHF) a few times, I believe they did, for the most part? They mentioned CRJ (of what use is mentioning the type at night, I have no idea, but they did), they mentioned where it was and where it was headed, and they received two acknowledgments...
So that means this collision occurred entirely within all established protocls?
These aircraft crashed, as per the system specifications.
So the system is, to put it plainly...FUBAR?
That's not good.
The procedures effectively abdicate separation responsibility to a single point of failure, where failure is not unlikely and, as a consequence of the airspace design, failure results in high probabilities of collision.
The difficulties of identifying a specific aircraft, at night, in a background of stationary and moving lights, when moving objects on a collision course will always appear stationary to each other, are well known, as are the probabilities of mis-identification. The airspace design 'squeezes' inbound aircraft and transiting helicopters to practicality the same altitude, when instrument and other tolerances are taken into consideration.
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Separation (ALL)
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 06:15:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819534
As a system ' - at night - I think it's crazy. But that's the system.
Subjects
ATC
Blackhawk (H-60)
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Separation (ALL)
Vertical Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 06:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819535
The procedures effectively abdicate separation responsibility to a single point of failure, where failure is not unlikely and, as a consequence of the airspace design, failure results in high probabilities of collision.
The difficulties of identifying a specific aircraft, at night, in a background of stationary and moving lights, when moving objects on a collision course will always appear stationary to each other, are well known, as are the probabilities of mis-identification. The airspace design 'squeezes' inbound aircraft and transiting helicopters to practicality the same altitude, when instrument and other tolerances are taken into consideration.
The difficulties of identifying a specific aircraft, at night, in a background of stationary and moving lights, when moving objects on a collision course will always appear stationary to each other, are well known, as are the probabilities of mis-identification. The airspace design 'squeezes' inbound aircraft and transiting helicopters to practicality the same altitude, when instrument and other tolerances are taken into consideration.
Subjects
FAA
NTSB
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 07:39:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819561
ATC did do what he is "supposed" to do. The Blackhawk was told to "pass behind". Nothing to do with vertical separation. It's a form of separation. That's how it works. Thousands of times every day, all over the place.
As a system ' - at night - I think it's crazy. But that's the system.
As a system ' - at night - I think it's crazy. But that's the system.
Subjects
ATC
Blackhawk (H-60)
Pass Behind
Pass Behind (All)
Separation (ALL)
Vertical Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 09:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819621
And yes, trying to do EU IFR for everything all the time would create some epic traffic jams
Now , is delegating visual separation to an Helicopter ,at night ,( with pilots wearing NGV ) on an aircraft cleared off the ILS doing a circle visual NPA at 500 ft with 4 eyes most probably locked on the PAPI something safe ? with a 150- Ft margin of error designed on the chart ? But it is how the system was built and local controllers trained on doing this , since years. Normalization of Deviance.
I wish good luck to the NTSB and the FAA is trying to reverse this .
Subjects
FAA
IFR
Land and Hold Short
NTSB
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 10:30:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819666
Apply EASA aviation standards and the US network would grind to halt or create huge gaps in service ... Our economy would suffer greatly and passengers revolt at what would required.
... The politics of DCA are going to drive a band-aid fix is my prediction. Visual separation won\x92t go away. FAA will get crucified over manning. DCA may lose some significant service, if we closed 33 permanently.
... The politics of DCA are going to drive a band-aid fix is my prediction. Visual separation won\x92t go away. FAA will get crucified over manning. DCA may lose some significant service, if we closed 33 permanently.
[I think of the Austin investigation, which did not even mention, let alone question the practice of issuing runway clearances to multiple aircraft at the same time, which IMHO is the root cause of most of the recent near misses.]
Last edited by Easy Street; 2nd February 2025 at 10:50 .
Subjects
ATC
Close Calls
DCA
FAA
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
February 02, 2025, 10:36:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819671
What should have been the vertical separation? I'm just a lowly PPL holder, but I imagine if the CRJ was at 325 feet, even a ceiling of 200 feet is too high for the helicopter.
Not just from a collision perspective, but a wake turbulance issue.
And maybe more importantly, what should have been the horizontal separation? Surely it should have been at least 500 feet after the passing CRJ (not based on air law, just common sense). Clearly there was no horizontal or vertical separation in the end, but just how far off minimums was the helicopter? Seems nearly impossible to be that far off the expected flight path.
Not just from a collision perspective, but a wake turbulance issue.
And maybe more importantly, what should have been the horizontal separation? Surely it should have been at least 500 feet after the passing CRJ (not based on air law, just common sense). Clearly there was no horizontal or vertical separation in the end, but just how far off minimums was the helicopter? Seems nearly impossible to be that far off the expected flight path.
Dozens of posts back, I asked the question that many recent posts have been keying on... if everyone was where they were supposed to be, they would have passed one over the other with 150 feet of separation! In what world is that OK?
Can all these non-aviation pundits here please get it into their heads that just because the helilane has a cieling of 200ft and the glideslope is 325 or whatever it does not imply that helos can, would or might EVER be allowed to pass 125 ft under an aircraft on finals nor would any sane helo pilot (there are some!) do so. That would be insane, as surely this common sense you speak of should tell you? What's a lateral 500ft got to do with air law or anything else, ever? You're muddling completely unconnected and irrelevant matters. Have you not read/heard the ATC transcripts? Helos are not given clearance to and cannot cross until landing traffic is clear (as this helo one was told) - ie until it has passed unless the incoming is sufficiently far away for there to be no possible confliction.
How far off minimums (actually a maximum)? - you've already answered that question yourself. 125ft.
The insanity of this routing procedure is that in the event of an accidental horizontal incursion into the track of an inboud as happened here there is in theory only 125 ft of vertical clearance to prevent a disaster which is nowhere near enough of a safety margin. That route should have been, imho, at least 5-800ft or more above two dots up on the glideslope.
Once again, helicopters never, never ever come to a free air hover for separation purposes - this is a ridiculous concept for numerous reasons that are too long to go into here, and would be downright dangerous at night over a black hole at 200ft. They slow and orbit if they have to, maybe slow right down if wind direction and speed allows, but never hover.
I know not everyone here is experienced on helos but if so could they please refrain from speculating on operating procedures? All this guff about altimeter accuracy is completely irrelevant and has created a huge amount of unnecessaty noise. The aircraft was flying a visual sight-picture approach where an altimeter barely features at all and helos at low level, especially at night and over water do not use the baro altimeter. They exclusively refer to rad-alt.
Finally, all those who think a visual self-positioning clearance as employed in this case behind crossing traffic is somehow hazardous are completely incorrect. Once again, at Heathrow the helilane crosses 27 L and R thresholds at (iirc)1000ft. The only clearances given as you approach the boundary is to the effect of 'cross NOW (directly) over the threshold', 'hold (at a VRP clear N/S of the threshold)' or, having confirmed and read back landing traffic visual and identified the formula is repeated, 'after the landing traffic 2 miles cross behind'. It's perfectly safe as as it isn't done at the same height as the airliner but with a large vertcal clearance too.
btw, does Marine One fly this route?
Last edited by meleagertoo; 2nd February 2025 at 11:41 .
Subjects
ATC
CRJ
Hover
Separation (ALL)
Vertical Separation
Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.