|
RE: Supplement Code 550
The SAFETY PILOT decides how far the other person goes before they can't recover...VERY safe...NOT at all like getting stung by a bee or making a bad decision to fly through the sun The PIC is making that decision regardless if the FPV plane is 9lb or 11lb. The horrible idea that limiting the serverity of crashes with weight restrictions should be dropped in favor of limiting the frequency of crashes.... which they have done with requiring buddybox. YOU say the PIC aint gonna wait for the plane to be in really bad shape before taking over. Does that hold true for 11lb planes as well? If the PIC takes over before there is a sever situation, why care if the plane that doesnt crash is 9lb or 11lb. Can a PIC safely take over a 11lb plane? Of course, its done all the time. But now it seems we have to teach all the PICs out there to become worse at taking over if they guy they are buddying is wearing goggles. That is the gist of it. The PIC guys that can safely take over a 40% Yak now have to Inept Up a bunch to meet the new required unsafeness of taking over 11lb models of guys wearing goggles. What is the difference between a guy wearing goggles that just had the PIC take over the plane and a spectator in the parkinglot with his eyes closed ..... why, its nothing! Neither the spectator nor the goggleguy have any control of the plane once the PIC of the buddybox takes control back. The goggleguy can waggle the sticks all he wants and the spectator can send txts on his phone and neither will make the PIC any unsafer. In the simplest example of how 550 weight/speed limits make no sense: Is it safe for a guy under a buddybox to try to fly an 11lb plane with his eyes closed? 550 says YES as long the guy is not wearing FPV goggles. The PIC can safely take over other 11lb planes, but the PIC now has to lose the ability to take over 11lb planes depending if there is a FPV screen infront of the closed eyed guy. Tree falls in the forrest: 11lb plane, loaded & transmitting FPV Laptop at the pilot station displaying that FPV feed Buddybox PIC alone at pilot station, slave TX sitting on grass next to laptop. Is it unsafe and now verboten by 550 for the PIC to look LOS at that 11lb Telemetryplane and fly it as buddybox PIC when there is nobody watching the FPV feed and nobody holding the slave tx? If a FPV is on a screen and there is nobody there to watch it, is that unsafe? A chimpanzee picks up the slave TX but doesnt look at the FPV screen, thats safe because the PIC will take over if the chimp looks like he is getting in trouble (which I imagine will be a lot of the flight) But if an experienced pilot picks up the slave TX and accidently looks at the FPV screen for a half sec, Stop the pressed and shut down the club for violations! The PIC that can safely keep an 11 lb plane in the air with a chimp at the slave controls cannot safely do so with an experienced pilot on FPV slave control due to 550. "The SAFETY PILOT decides how far the other person goes before they can't recover...VERY safe...NOT at all like getting stung by a bee or making a bad decision to fly through the sun" Muncie disagrees, in 550. He can do that with an 11lb plane piloted by a chimp, or a blindman, or an empty slave tx, but he cant do it with an 11lb plane if the chimp or blindman is FPV. That PIC safety pilot has to sometimes stupid up and become dynamicly inept depending on if the blindman is wearing FPV goggles or not. In review: Buddybox good. Weight & speed limit bad. When you stop the planes from crashing, the weight dont matter. "The SAFETY PILOT decides how far the other person goes before they can't recover..." - why would that change if the slave tx involves FPV... but only those FPV over 10lb:eek:. |
RE: Supplement Code 550
KE: The point you're making is a very valid one. But, and there's always a but, the "committee" and the AMA decided to put a weight restriction in place for reasons which we may never agree. Perhaps they will see fit in the future to remove or raise them.
It's kind of like speed limits. Why 70MPH? Are you any safer hitting an 18 wheeler or a tree @ 65MPH or less safer @ 75 MPH? Folks who make rules and regulations love to impose limits. Why are those in an automobile required to wear a seatbelt yet in many states motorcycle riders do not even have to wear a helmet? The very same legislators, in the very same legislative session in Arkansas, removed the helmet law and enacted the seatbelt law. Go figure. Or follow the money. I would be more interested in the "committee." Who makes up the "committee" and how were they selected to be the mouthpiece of the general flying public and FPV folks in particular? Are there any FPV equipment reps on this committee? |
RE: Supplement Code 550
the "committee" and the AMA decided to put a weight restriction in place for reasons which we may never agree. Perhaps they will see fit in the future to remove or raise them. While the recurring theme of "Oh well, whats done is done so we all might as well give up" is popular with most AMA folks, I dont just give up because the other side declares the debate should not exist rather than provide valid points. When the org makes a rule that is bad, like the ole TailTouch situation, the membership can & should have it changed to meet the needs of the members, or at least common sense. To give up and just accept that slower planes are safer so arbitrary limits should exists would be inviting the 60mph limit all all planes including Turbines and Pylon.... cause it would be safer. For the premiss of general safety speed limit on 11lb Buddybox planes, what is the reason to have that limit only when FPV is involved? As is, the weight limit only on FPV makes no sense when it tries to use the concept of impaired piloting leads to more crashing, due to the unimpaired and general use of Buddybox eliminates that impaired piloting. That concept falls flat when we say the weight limit is just applying a metric of how impaired the buddyslave piloting is, but there is no such standard or weight limits based on slave piloting ability/impairment for buddyboxing... the Blind Chimp example. What is the dividing line of buddypilot ability to fly a 50lb plane? What level of slave piloting is required for a 90lb plane? The weight line has been drawn under the premiss of piloting impairment, but then they remove that assumption of impaired piloting with the use of the unimpaired and un-weight-restricted Buddy Master... which now has a weight restriction for FPV but not blind guys / chimps: What level of slave impairment other than FPV has a buddy weight restriction? 550 makes a OujiBoard on buddy is safer than an experienced guy using buddy fpv. HQ must listen to a lot of the Who, cause they have a deaf dumb blind pinball kid fly buddy without weight restrictions. I have asked how a buddy master can safely control an 11lb plane if the lil buddy is a chimp, but somehow not safely do it if that chimp puts on FPV. No FPV buddybox safe, FPV buddybox unsafe. What is the buddy master doing different? Simple question, why doesnt it get answered instead of trying to stop questions. What causes the buddy master to become unsafe when the blind chimp puts on FPV? ...uh, but only when the blind FPV chimp is flying an 11lb plane, cause buddybox is safe with blind FPV chimps with 9lb planes. |
RE: Supplement Code 550
ORIGINAL: Robotech I would be more interested in the "committee." Who makes up the "committee" and how were they selected to be the mouthpiece of the general flying public and FPV folks in particular? Are there any FPV equipment reps on this committee? http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...7#post10841817 |
RE: Supplement Code 550
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy That aint how an organiation of members, like a Member Org or Acedemy, should operate. AMA has gone from banning any sanctioned flight by model aircraft even equipped with FPV (whether it's actually used or not) to setting initial rules allowing such flights under AMA sanction and insurance at AMA chartered club fields. It seems to me that is a huge change. That change was brought about by 5 AMA members who are apparently deeply involved in FPV, who took the time to work with other FPV'ers to draft regulations that would be acceptable to both the flyers and AMA, took the recomendations to AMA and got them to change policy and publish guidelines. To me, that's a pretty remarkable thing to have accomplished. This group, working on it's own, has managed to put together guidlines acceptable to AMA, and gotten their "foot in the door" as far as FPV is concerned......a door that up to now was slammed in their face and deadbolted. And it's a door that can and will probably be opened further as AMA leadership becomes more familiar and comfortable with this new technology. You know how Horrace always rants about "get up and do it yourself"? That's exactly what these folks did. Not the way it should work? To the contrary......exactly the way it should work. Job well done, guys. |
RE: Supplement Code 550
ORIGINAL: Robotech KE: The point you're making is a very valid one. But, and there's always a but, the "committee" and the AMA decided to put a weight restriction in place for reasons which we may never agree. Perhaps they will see fit in the future to remove or raise them. //SNIP// I would be more interested in the "committee." Who makes up the "committee" and how were they selected to be the mouthpiece of the general flying public and FPV folks in particular? Are there any FPV equipment reps on this committee? AMA is now at the "Beginner" stage with this new technology. Even to this old crusty person, I feel that it is not a bad thing, especially when we - Modelers - are under the watchful eyes of certain groups that have to do with National Security. (If you don't believe it, take a look at Federal Rulemaking @ www.Regulations.gov and Docket No. TSA-2008-0021 which will just about wipe out many areas of private civil aviation, especially the War Bird group. [:-] ) If you read this quote from the AMA minutes of the above mentioned EC meeting, I think you might understand where and why the committee may well have chosen this route. As for myself, I believe it is definitely the prudent road to take. Now as Robotech alludes to, "Tomorrow is another day." Remember that one! ;) >>>>>>>>>> • FPV – The committee received a document re an amateur model FPV flying safety code; the document was compiled from discussions on RC Universe. Currently Item 10 in the Safety Code does not allow for FPV operation at a chartered club field, by an AMA member. The Safety Committee (with input from R. Hanson) established guidelines for FPV operations and recommends modifying the Safety Code to allow FPV operation. The President feels this would be an opportunity for AMA to work with people, possibly do some testing, using FPV under restricted terms. Following discussion document item 1. now reads “An FPV equipped model must be flown by two AMA members utilizing a buddy box system. The pilot in command must be on the primary transmitter, maintain visual contact and be prepared to assume control in the event of a problem.” Item 2. was amended to read “The operational range of the model is limited to the pilot in commands visual line of sight as defined in the Official AMA Safety Code (see RC item 10). MOTION X: Moved by J. Rice (VIII) and seconded by B. Brown (III) to approve the document titled FIRST PERSON VIEW (FPV) OPERATIONS – AMA MEMBERS AND AMA CHARTERED CLUB SITES as amended; and add it to the Supplemental section of the Safety Code and the PDF file listing. MOTION passed unanimously (Dist. VII VP out of room for vote) • Update – The Safety Committee has a subcommittee working on updates to the Experimental Aircraft document and expect to present it to Council at the January 2009 meeting. The cost for printing the large version of the Safety Code for clubs is approximately 8-9k. Further discussion re increase weight in experimental aircraft was tabled until completion of the ARC process and printing of the large versions of the S.C. should also be held off until completion of the ARC process. **************** Safety Committee (C) (1/88): Chair: Bob Underwood; Mission Statement: “To review new techniques, ideas, and guidelines that would affect the safety of our sport/hobby.” Committee Members: Jim Giffin, Dave Gee, Don Lowe, Ron Morgan, Terry Nitsch, Jim Rice, Walt Throne, Ilona Maine, Harry A Koch Co. (Insurance Representative) *************** Once AMA has a foot in the door, there will be more opportunity to progress further. Thinking now !!! Sitting in an air-conditioned room while watching the goggles and flying with just that model having to sweat!!! :) Or staying warm when the snow comes to you northern folks, and you're all cozy inside while shooting ski-landings ??? Final Thought: If the item was not a safe one and a good start, I seriously doubt that Underwood, Lowe, and/or Rice plus Hanson would have been voting for such. I use their names because I know these individuals fairly well. Patience here and a special thanks to "typicalaimster" because his work changed my mind from being AGAINST, when I initally heard of the item, to being FOR it. |
RE: Supplement Code 550
ORIGINAL: Hossfly <snip> Final Thought: If the item was not a safe one and a good start, I seriously doubt that Underwood, Lowe, and/or Rice plus Hanson would have been voting for such. I use their names because I know these individuals fairly well. Patience here and a special thanks to "typicalaimster" because his work changed my mind from being AGAINST, when I initally heard of the item, to being FOR it. I'm with you on this (tnx to typicalaimster), though I came at it from the other pole. I was for removing the restrictions on FPV since they were put in place during the reign of The Emperor Brown, and the only reservations I had about the supplement to the SC was the arbitrary weight restriction. After seeing TA's posts in this thread re why it is there, I understand the rationale and don't expect it is chiseled in stone. This is progress, it results from member initiative, and it is good that the EC is showing hopeful signs that it can again be responsive to that. Abel |
RE: Supplement Code 550
Bob
AMA has gone from banning any sanctioned flight by model aircraft even equipped with FPV (whether it's actually used or not) to setting initial rules allowing such flights under AMA sanction and insurance at AMA chartered club fields. It seems to me that is a huge change. We had the initial rule: Das est Verboten. Done deal back then with an initial kneejerk rule. But it is now that Future point you allude to, where the kneejerk reaction is supposed to be replaced with something sensible. Speaking of something sensible, STILL WAITING for the explanation- how a buddy master can safely control an 11lb plane if the lil buddy is a chimp, but somehow not safely do it if that chimp puts on FPV. No FPV buddybox safe, FPV buddybox unsafe. What is the buddy master doing different? Simple question, why doesnt it get answered instead of trying to stop questionings folks here talk of all the thought that went into this, could some of that refered thought get pasted in here to explain the rationale to my repeated question of unsafe Buddyboxing? Or maybe paraphrased to put sense to the silly buddybox weight limits |
RE: Supplement Code 550
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy Bob AMA has gone from banning any sanctioned flight by model aircraft even equipped with FPV (whether it's actually used or not) to setting initial rules allowing such flights under AMA sanction and insurance at AMA chartered club fields. It seems to me that is a huge change. We had the initial rule: Das est Verboten. Done deal back then with an initial kneejerk rule. But it is now that Future point you allude to, where the kneejerk reaction is supposed to be replaced with something sensible. Speaking of something sensible, STILL WAITING for the explanation- how a buddy master can safely control an 11lb plane if the lil buddy is a chimp, but somehow not safely do it if that chimp puts on FPV. No FPV buddybox safe, FPV buddybox unsafe. What is the buddy master doing different? Simple question, why doesnt it get answered instead of trying to stop questionings folks here talk of all the thought that went into this, could some of that refered thought get pasted in here to explain the rationale to my repeated question of unsafe Buddyboxing? Or maybe paraphrased to put sense to the silly buddybox weight limits Hoss and Abel said it's all good, SO CUT IT OUT already.:D But, if you do another one, use the "human spontaneous combustion" thingy again. That was funny:) |
RE: Supplement Code 550
What a great way to bring in new members! Who doesn't want to give FPV a go.
Frank |
RE: Supplement Code 550
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy folks here talk of all the thought that went into this, could some of that refered thought get pasted in here to explain the rationale to my repeated question of unsafe Buddyboxing? Or maybe paraphrased to put sense to the silly buddybox weight limits The 5 of us wanted the FPV guidelines accepted by the AMA the first time. We didn't want to waste community time, nor the AMA's time going back and forth trying to negotiate the impossible. As far as weight we took a [link=http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892862]community poll[/link] for 30 days and had people vote. We knew asking for unlimited weight wouldn't work. There was plenty of discussion on the subject. For example you can see a post by [link=http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10141644#post10141644]JettPilot and TVDude[/link] saying "There should be no additional weight limits placed on FPV" and "Your FPV guidelines are poorly thought out, you making them so restrictive implys that FPV is more dangerous than normal RC Flying".. In the end the public voted and that's what we submitted to the AMA. There is no smoke and mirrors behind what we submitted. The 5 of us listened to the community, compiled the information and submitted it. As far as the buddy box... Once again as I stated in [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8276179/anchors_8276179/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#]Post #16[/link] I was told by Muncie if we came to a compromise and allowed the buddy box rule, we had a very good chance of getting SC550 cleared by the end of the year. Our original document included the use of Spotters and limited the range of flight to VLOS, no buddy box. So it was basically the debate of accept SC550 with the buddy box in there, or walk away and throw everything the community worked on over the summer away. As I've stated before, I talked with Muncie and it was agreed we could look at cutting the cord later on down the road. If you want to know more information on WHY the buddy box was essential then I'd suggest you contact your DVP or someone that was at the meeting. In fact to [link=http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10408838#post10408838]quote Hossfly...[/link]quote Hossfly.. ORIGINAL: Hossfly 4. My BIG Fear: RC pilots are NOT trained for Situational Awareness and when they have goggles on they will never see anything but their model. In fact my experience dictates most are far too focused even without goggles. For the past 30 years so many young pilots are "instrument pilots" from day one. They don't know how to "Check Six" or what it means. Once the RC people start using these Video machines all the younger ones will want the same and never learn to be aware of the potential weapon they are trying to control. The task of the observer is to provide the pilot of the UAS with instructions to steer the UA clear of any potential collision with other traffic. Visual observer duties require the ability to maintain visual contact with the UA at all times while scanning the immediate environment for potential conflicting traffic. At no time will the visual observer permit the UA to operate outside their line-of-sight. This ensures that any required maneuvering information can be reliably provided to the PIC. • One pilot in command (PIC) must be designated at all times. • The PIC of an aircraft is directly responsible, and is the final authority of, the operation of that aircraft. • Pilots must not perform crew duties for more than one UAS at a time. • Pilots are not allowed to perform concurrent duties both as pilot and observer. |
RE: Supplement Code 550
ORIGINAL:Typicalaimster Well perhaps I wasn't clear in Post #9 and Post #16, so I'll try this again.. Wall...............head. You may now resume banging. :eek: |
RE: Supplement Code 550
TAimster
If you look at the UAS Guidance document the FAA put out carefully, we wouldnt pretend the AC91-57 400' limit didnt exist. AMA is happy to pretend the fed doesnt matter re AC91-57, why cowtao for this perceived fed problem. I agree with Bob. I keep saying the Buddy requirement makes sense and you keep telling me how we need the buddy requirement <head & wall syndrome> It is the nonsensical weight restrictions on the buddy that I have a problem with, and it appears you are saying you guys agree.... to the point that you believe the crummy rules we have now will be changed eventually to something that makes sense. But hey, if you guys want to celebrate bad rules getting instituted and debate the virtues you see in the bad rules with folks like me, ok You guys can keep telling me how great it is to get something that you know needs to be changed and I'll keep saying it needs to be changed Speaking of something sensible, STILL WAITING for the explanation- how a buddy master can safely control an 11lb plane if the lil buddy is a chimp, but somehow not safely do it if that chimp puts on FPV. No FPV buddybox safe, FPV buddybox unsafe. What is the buddy master doing different? Surely someone that actually supports that concept of buddyboxes needing weight limits could explain how that makes sense. |
RE: Supplement Code 550
Because AMA chartered flying sites and their rules are accountable to the insurance companies. I think it was said once before...the insurance company said they'd be okay with "trying this out" with planes 10 pounds and under...so here we are.
If you want to fly an FPV aircraft over 10 pounds, go ahead. Just do it somewhere other than an AMA chartered flying field. You then are solely responsible for your actions. |
RE: Supplement Code 550
ORIGINAL: FlyinTiger Because AMA chartered flying sites and their rules are accountable to the insurance companies. I think it was said once before...the insurance company said they'd be okay with "trying this out" with planes 10 pounds and under...so here we are. Ok, who goofed?; Maybe you know... why in the he!! would "the insurance company" have taken the position not to allow FPV in the first place? Who kicked that dog? Seems just another facet of our diverse hobby to me... |
RE: Supplement Code 550
As I posted much earlier in the thread, I expect the 10 lbs limit on UAV operations will be promulgated from the FAA. If you know its coming, might as well work it in now.
Brad |
RE: Supplement Code 550
ORIGINAL: bkdavy As I posted much earlier in the thread, I expect the 10 lbs limit on UAV operations will be promulgated from the FAA. If you know its coming, might as well work it in now. Brad Where did you get that info? And did you get that info before the pooch started to yelp? |
RE: Supplement Code 550
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy <snip> Speaking of something sensible, STILL WAITING for the explanation- how a buddy master can safely control an 11lb plane if the lil buddy is a chimp, but somehow not safely do it if that chimp puts on FPV. No FPV buddybox safe, FPV buddybox unsafe. What is the buddy master doing different? Surely someone that actually supports that concept of buddyboxes needing weight limits could explain how that makes sense. Lil buddy chimp can fly on the buddy box only once in lifetime (with FPV or not), unless he joins AMA. Find the guy that can explain how that makes sense and he can probably explain the weight limits too.:D Abel |
RE: Supplement Code 550
My statement about the 10 lbs limit is strictly an assumption. However, if you look at it, it stands to reason. First, Homeland Security is clearly worried about the threat of UAV carrying something deadly and being used for a terrorist weapon. Second, FAA is clearly worried about violations of airspace. The AOPA and AMA are working with both agencies, and have been for some time, to find a good way to preserve our hobby, and ensure regulations are not overly restrictive. Now, if we start putting together FPV planes in the 55 lbs category, people start getting worried about what makes up that 55 lbs. With a 10 lbs limit, we can easily make an FPV plane in the 90-120 size, but thats going to be about it. Even with good design, the max practical payload on a plane of this size is going to be 1-2 lbs. That means the destructive power of a weapon would be pretty limited.
Feds are humans and like nice round numbers. Therefore, it wouldn't surprise me to see the 10 lbs limit in whatever regulations do eventually come out as being the threshhold between regulated vs. unregulated UAVs. Brad |
RE: Supplement Code 550
ORIGINAL: bkdavy Feds are humans and like nice round numbers. Abel |
RE: Supplement Code 550
Brad You line of reasoning sounds plausible...easily bought by many, but can be the problem...Now before you get your hackles up, consider our biggest job is maintaining the distinction between hobbyist and terrorist...that is job one...the rest is immaterial... Look at it another way...no matter the restrictions we abide to, the terrorist will be unaffected and is irrelevant to him...we are the only ones affected... |
RE: Supplement Code 550
From my perspective, 10 lbs is more than adequate. I do the FPV with a 40 size SPAD weighing in fully loaded at about 6 lbs. The view through the camera looks the same whether its 6 lbs, 10 lbs, or even 55 lbs. I'm just happy the AMA now allows it at all.
Brad |
RE: Supplement Code 550
Good points. And I, for the most part agree! But a larger aircraft could make it more enjoyable for others. That's the point isn't it? enjoyment...for others as well? Larger aircraft have the benefit of being easier to fly...easier to see... Some of us do not have smaller aircraft in our fleet that could readily accept the equipment but the system could easily be put in their 144" Cubs. That would be even more safe.
|
RE: Supplement Code 550
The text below is from Hobby-Lobby's safety guidelines for their FPV system:
READ THE OWNER'S MANUAL COMPLETELY BEFORE ATTEMPTING ANY FPV FLIGHT. As with all RC flights, check your equipment carefully. Make sure your battery is fully charged and range check your radio equipment before EVERY flight. R/C control and wireless video CANNOT be on the same frequency, therefore 2.4 GHz radios will not work with Pilot View FPV 2400. If piloting with FPV, it is best to fly sitting down, especially when first learning. Due to the immersive nature of FPV flying, motion induced nausea can occur with some people, therefore it is better to sit than stand. ALWAYS fly FPV with a spotter who maintains visual, direct line-of-sight contact with the aircraft. The spotter should be connected via a buddy box, such that if a problem arises (ie: loss of video signal, disorientation, too far out of range, etc.) the spotter can immediately take control of the aircraft and land it safely. Some video "glitching" may be expected. This is due to the nature of 2.4 GHz RF transmissions, and can be due to "multi-path' conditions or antenna alignment changes during flight. These type "glitches" are usually very quick and result in the video image being distorted only momentarily. However, if severe or prolonged glitching occurs, LAND IMMEDIATELY. There may be a problem with the video system, or possibly external interference. In these cases, FPV flight SHOULD NOT BE ATTEMPTED until the cause of the interference can be resolved. This product is designed with a range consistent with a typical flying field. Never allow the RC airplane to leave visual range of the field. Fly in a safe area as you would any RC aircraft. This product is not designed for high-density public areas. Know your flying field! Pick out major visual references before takeoff which will help orient you in flight. Pilot View FPV 2400 has only 4 channels. Please post your channel number before flying. Never place your equipment closer than 30 feet to the nearest RC pilot flying a 2.4 GHz radio. Further separation might be required depending on particular field conditions. Pilot View FPV is designed for personal use only at an RC flying field. Any professional use is potentially subject to local regulations. FPV is a dynamic and growing part of our hobby - we recommend the FPV Safety Thread on RCGroups.com as a frequent place to visit to learn the latest about equipment and safe use of FPV technology. Return to PilotView FPV 2400 Updated 6/9/2008 Notice the cautions against using 2.4, and using the system around others using 2.4. Also, the part about "motion induced nausea". And the part about glitching. Don't know if all systems are like this, but I think "small steps", like AMA and the FPV group are taking are the smart way to go with this. |
RE: Supplement Code 550
ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf That's the point isn't it? enjoyment...for others as well? Some of us do not have smaller aircraft in our fleet that could readily accept the equipment but the system could easily be put in their 144" Cubs. http://vimeo.com/2676962 This was Filmed at a park near my place Pre-SC550. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:00 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.