Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-31-2015, 09:51 PM   #41
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
The human mind and a computer are exactly the same. They process one thing at a time based on what they have been taught, what they have learned along the way, and the information they are being given. The only difference (so far) is the capacity.

As I said, John, it's not a situation you're ever going to have to deal with, nor will you most likely ever see it. But if you could talk to the people we talk to here who are actively working on these concepts and for whom it is their very real vision of the future, you would soon see that fully automated commercial flight is not only a goal, but it is an achievable goal. Not by your view of things, but your view of things will eventually become extinct. That is not an insult, it's simply generational and evolutionary reality.

I have no idea what general aviation will become. It would not surprise me if it eventually disappears entirely. The commercial pilots it produces will no longer be needed, for one thing. And look what the little toy quad-copters have done in just a couple of years. If it's going up in the air that people want, they can do with an out-of-the-box toy today.

When I worked at times supporting the Hawaii Five-O crew (the original show, not the current one) the rig they used in Hawaii for aerials was a Cessna 206 or a helicopter with a Tyler mount to support the 35mm film camera and a Dynalens to stabilize the image. This rig was huge, heavy, cumbersome and cost several hundred thousand dollars (not including the plane or the helicopter).

It was the standard of the industry and if you'd told those crews that someday you'd be able to buy a little plastic quad copter and HD camera for a few thousand dollars and it would do a better job than their monster 35mm film camera/Tyler Mount/Dynalens/helicopter rig they'd have called you a nutcase and laughed you off the lot.

We've recently been working with some absolutely brilliant grad students from universities like Purdue, Georgia Tech, BYU, and others. They are designing and building planes (including the world's largest to-date 3D printed plane which actually isn't all that large) as their capstone projects sponsored by companies like Boeing and others.

They are totally enamored of flight and designing and building airplanes. This program has been going on for some years now and a lot of the graduates have been hired by us and other aerospace companies.

They absolutely light up when you talk to them about what can be done with aircraft and how efficient they can be made and so on. But they have no interest in becoming pilots. We've asked them about that and their view is that's an old-fashioned thing to be doing so why waste time doing it? Instead, they are looking for ways to create flight without the necessity of having to learn to operate the machine.

It's an easy thing to nay say and if I didn't have the job I have at the company I have it at I'd be sounding exactly like you. Fully-automated flight will never happen, I'd be saying, and I'd list all the same reasons you have listed, and I'd firmly believe them.

But I don't feel that way anymore. It's on its way, with undeniable economic, environmental, and safety motivations behind it.

It's being done to a degree now. We (Boeing) have a surveillance drone that has been used by the military in the Middle East conflicts for some years now. Unlike the big Predators, this thing is not "flown" by anyone other than itself. It's told where to go and conduct surveillance, it's launched, it conducts the flight all on its own for up to a fair number of hours, it can make some fairly basic decisions while it's doing it, and when it's done it comes back. It can be commanded to go somewhere else partway through the flight and it breaks off and goes there. It actually cannot be hand-flown but instead is "told" what to do through it's command system.

Now, compared to fully-automated, totally self-sustaining flight in which the aircraft makes all the same kinds of decisions a human crew would make, this thing is really crude. But it works, works reliably, and has been doing so now for a number of years. And every upgrade it gets makes it even "smarter."

By the way, the flying car worked just fine as far as the machine goes. But a market never developed for it. Why? Because the "driver" would have had to learn to fly and that's involved and expensive and "everyman" was not very interested. And you're right--- the vision of people flying around by the millions and crashing into each other is laughable. Hell, they can't even do it very well on the ground in two dimensions, let alone in the air in three dimensions. But that doesn't mean the concept won't work. It means THAT concept won't work. The solution--- remove the people from the control of the machines.

If you can create a personal transportation device that flies, is safe, and that the user doesn't have to learn to fly but only has to learn to turn it on and tell it where to go, THAT will have a market.

You don't have to be intelligent to fly. Birds have been flying far better than we do for a bazillion years. You just have to learn to do the right things at the right time. If you make a machine that will do the right things at the right time, you immediately eliminate all the unpredictable variables that make humans absolutely crappy at doing stuff that has to be done right the first time.

Machines--- computers if you will--- don't get all moody and decide to glide-bomb the plane they're flying along with everyone in it into the side of a mountain because they're feeling especially sorry for themselves that day, for example.

I fully understand and appreciate where you're coming from, John. In the world we live in right now, that is the logical view to take, no question. But in 50 or 100 years or whatever, the world will be nothing like the world we live in right now, at least technologically.

And the people who are designing and building and operating the planes of that world will look at the planes of this world and the people who operated them in the same way that a twelve year old kid today with a new quad copter and HD camera would regard that that Hawaii Five-O aerial crew from the 1970s with its massive film camera and stabilizing system and full-size helicopter and all those expensive (and fallible) people it took to operate and support it.

That twelve year old kid would probably say, when shown a photo of that rig, "Those guys were frickin' nuts to do it like that." And he'd run off and launch his little quad copter and shoot aerial shots that the Hawaii Five-O crew could not have conceived as even being possible to do.

Finally, speaking of flying cars and the desire to move around more quickly, even that desire is going away fairly quickly in terms of work. One of the things that's pretty mind-blowing to watch is the way engineers are starting to work. Instead of engineer A doing something, it gets passed to engineer B, who does something and then passes it on to engineer C, and so on--- the current linear way of doing this kind of work--- all these people are working simultaneously on the same thing at the same time on the same 3D CAD system.

So while one person is working on a piece of the structure the electrical engineer who has to run a cable through that piece of the structure is right there working out with the structures person how best to do what needs to be done.

But what's cool is that--- thanks to global connectivity--- none of these people need to be in the same place to do this. I've watched engineers in one city working with engineers in another city who are in turn working with engineers in another country, all of them talking together, looking at the same CAD display, all in real time and working on the design simultaneously.

The bottom line? Design tasks that used to take weeks or even months are being done in days. And you can bring together any kind of collaboration team you need. You want a computational fluid dynamics whiz from India (they lead the world in that technology) and an aero guy from Seattle, no problem. The time zone thing notwithstanding, you can get them together working on a design or specific aspect of a design together on the same display in real time. And because you are putting together collaborative teams with a totally diverse makeup, you get better decisions and better designs.

As the baby boomers are walking out the door of this company with their retirement packages shaking their heads in skepticism the millennials and younger generations are coming in the door and rubbing their hands with glee and saying, okay, NOW the cool stuff is going to start happening.

It's an absolutely fascinating transition to watch.

And... even though neither one of us will probably be around for me to be able to tell you "I told you so," fully automated, safe air transportation will not only be a reality, but people eventually will not even be able to fathom how it could have been done any other way.
__________________
Advertisement

Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2015, 10:51 PM   #42
Guru
 
City: Hotel, CA
Country: Fried
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,328
Enjoy your pilotless plane and ridiculous anecdotes regarding the odd suicidal dipstick. Sorting out procedure (nobody alone in the cockpit) can solve that. A computer will never have a humans survival instinct.
__________________

__________________
Craig

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled - Mark Twain
CPseudonym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2015, 11:42 PM   #43
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPseudonym View Post
A computer will never have a humans survival instinct.
Sure it can. It simply has to be taught to have it. Survival instinct is just evaluation and decisions motivated by fear. You can tell a computer what situations and things to be "afraid" of and then how to evaluate them and let it make decisions about them based on everything it has learned.

You can teach a computer to be afraid of being in a plane diving toward the ground and then teach it how to prevent the plane from doing it if it finds itself in one. Programmable survival instinct.

I love all this "x will never have" or "x will never happen" stuff, as though anyone actually knows. All you know is what you know now. Which compared what will be known 20 or 50 or 100 years from now, isn't all that much actually. Just as what was known 100 years ago is but a fraction of what is known today.

You can take a stab at predicting things, of course. I recall reading about early requirements based on the assumed extreme danger of horseless carriages that required a human to walk in front of them with a red flag or something to warn other people one was coming. Be interesting to know what an interstate would look like today if that rule had survived, right?

I've never learned if the flag thing is true or just another urban myth but given the fear most humans have of change and the unknown I can certainly believe it's true.

I wouldn't get in a pilotless plane today (although most of the time during a flight the planes we're flying on today are flying around with no need for the flight crew other than filling out forms) because I know the technology has a long way to go.

But I am convinced the technology will get there, and from what I see here at this company it will get here faster than most people today can envision.

If I was one of the young people joining the company today, I have no doubt that while automated flight may not have become totally commonplace by the time I was ready to retire, it would have been proven to be as safe as flying on a plane today with a human crew if not safer having had the human variable removed, and it would be well on its way to becoming the norm.

This is not because I'm smart and educated enough to figure out how to do it, but because I am seeing and meeting more and more people coming into this company who are. And I have to assume the same can be said of Airbus and the rest of the air transportation industry.

The list of absolute beliefs proven wrong is pretty long: the sun goes around the earth, the earth is flat, it's impossible to create a ship that operates under the water, it's impossible for a human to breathe under the water, it's impossible for man to fly, it's impossible/impractical to make a plane out of composites (remember when Lear seemed to have proven this one), it's impossible to fly higher than x, it's impossible to go to the moon, it's impossible to make a self-driving car, and on and on and on.

I was just a little kid when this one was going around, but remember comic strip detective Dick Tracy's "impossible" two-way wrist radio? Might be nice to let Apple know they're on the wrong track.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 02:16 AM   #44
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,633
Marin, do you have any computer programming experience??? And also, just because these enlightened individuals that you have the honor of working with says it is so....does not make it so. I am open minded. But for you to say IT WILL HAPPEN is a bit arrogant. It might happen. And I am willing to bet I am more right than you are. That we will see a quantum shift in the way we transport ourselves before we see a pilotless airplane carrying hundreds of pax. And I can prove my point just like you prove yours....past history of what was as it compares to what is now.
__________________
Prairie 29...Perkins 4236...Sold
Mainship Pilot 30...Yanmar 4LHA-STP...Sold
Carver 356...T-Cummins 330B
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 11:30 AM   #45
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
The people I'm talking about are at a level with computers so far above the average person's understanding they are in essence out of sight. The things they are doing now are almost incomprehensible. My job is to gain enough understanding of their projects to covey the essence of what they are doing to people like our program directors, executives, and board of directors so they can make smart decisions about where the company is going to go.

So I don't pretend to actually understand how or why what these engineers are doing works or will work. But I do get to learn what their projects will accomplish and why they will be beneficial, which is what I communicate to the very non-technical people who need to understand the implication of what's being done. Which is why I have no doubt whatsoever that fully automated air transportation is not an "if" but is simply a "when."

It's not an arrogant statement, it's simply conveying the direction the industry is going by virtue of my exposure to what is being done to accomplish this goal.

As i said earlier the biggest hurdle is not the technology, it's passenger acceptance. For example one of the things being looked at very intently right now is how do you keep three or four hundred passengers from feeling claustrophobic inside a large blended wing aircraft. That is almost a bigger challenge than the design of the aircraft itself.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 11:37 AM   #46
Guru
 
City: Hotel, CA
Country: Fried
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baker View Post
Marin, do you have any computer programming experience???

No but he shot a corporate promo video about some guys who think they do once or twice.
__________________
Craig

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled - Mark Twain
CPseudonym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 12:19 PM   #47
Guru
 
Ski in NC's Avatar
 
City: Wilmington, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Louisa
Vessel Model: Custom Built 38
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,890
I think automation will continue to increase in the cockpit. That trend will continue. But to put hundreds of people's lives in the hands of automation without any human backup I think is a stretch. Electrical and software glitches happen. And the consequences of such a failure could be 100% fatal for hundreds of souls.

Could it happen in the future? Sure. But the machines are no where near reliable enough now. Systems still fail.
Ski in NC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 12:28 PM   #48
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPseudonym View Post
No but he shot a corporate promo video about some guys who think they do once or twice.
Now that's about the most ignorant statement I've ever seen on this forum to date. When your job is to learn what the people who are developing, designing, manufacturing, testing and using our products are doing and then interpret and convey this information to the people in this company who are making the decisions about where this conpany is going, to assume that I and the people in my organization don't know and understand what's happening in this industry is a really stupid assumption.

We have an ad agency to do the fluff promo stuff. I and my fellow producers are paid very high six-figure salaries for our ability to understand what our engineers and technical people are doing and interpret it for our decision makers who for the most part are not technical people or aren't anymore, or in the case of the board of directors are not even very familiar with the workings of the air transportation industry.

If youve ever listened to a design engineer or an aerodynamicist or a computational fluid dynamics engineer or a passenger psychology expert or a software designer or a tooling engineer explain what they are doing it becomes instantly apparent why companies like this need people like us.

We also work with our customers around the world, talking to everyone from the CEOs, CFOs and COOs of airlines to passenger sevice directors to line pilots, cabin crew members, maintenance managers and line mechanics about our products and services, what's good and what's bad, and then put that information in a form that can be used for all sorts of things, from marketing to product improvement to simply keeping our employees all over the country and the world informed of what the company and its customers are doing.

Shot a corporate promo once or twice. That should be the dictionary definition of a totally clueless assumption.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 12:41 PM   #49
Guru
 
City: Hotel, CA
Country: Fried
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,328
I'm still not impressed with your programming knowledge. Your salary is irrelevant.
__________________
Craig

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled - Mark Twain
CPseudonym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 01:14 PM   #50
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski in NC View Post

Could it happen in the future? Sure. But the machines are no where near reliable enough now. Systems still fail.
Nobody's denying that. In fact to do so would be the height of ignorance. That's why air transportation automation is in development, not deployment. And it's got a long ways to go. Like I said, i expect most people on this forum will be dead or close to it before it becones a full fledged reality.

Most aircraft accidents are caused, directly or indirectly, by one or more human failures somewhere along the line. And the unfortunate trend, particularly in the regions of the world that are experiencing the fastest growth in air transportation, is that this is going to get worse, not better. Actually IS getting worse; it's happening now.

Eventually it will be safer and less risky to fly on a fully automated plane than one under the control of humans. The issue will not be technology but passender acceptance. Even if fully automated air transportation became a reality right now, with statistics proving that it was safer and less risky then flying on a plane with human pilots, very few people would buy tickets as demonstrated by the denial and distrust expressed in this thread. I probably wouldn't buy a ticket.

But attitudes change with each generation. Most of the people on this forum grew up with rotary phones or maybe touch dial phones. The generations on their way now grew up with smart phones. To the baby boomers and even to a degree the genX an Y folks have an inherent distrust of technology. They think it's cool and they use as much of it as they can grasp, but the inherent distrust is always there.

But from the ncoming generations on, technology will not be viewed with distrust but as a friend.

The McDonalds on the Champs de Lycée in Paris has a normal order counter, but it recently installed an "internet" order counter. It's not really on the internet but it acts lime it is. When we were in there last September there were the usual lines at the order counter. What was interesting to see were the distrustful glances or comments from the adult customers as they walked past the internet order station to the regular counter. But the kids and young teens entering the place went straight to the internet stations.

I have since read that part of the psychology behind this is the desire among younger people to prefer communicating via technology rather than direct human contact.

These younger folks are going to grow up but they will do so without the inherent distrust of technology held by most of today's adults and seniors. I'm starting to see this at Boeing now. And THESE are the people to whom fully automated transportation-- on the ground, in the air, wherever-- will be acceptd as absolutly normal and not something to be feared.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 01:22 PM   #51
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPseudonym View Post
I'm still not impressed with your programming knowledge. Your salary is irrelevant.
Again, you fail to understand. I'm not a computer programer by any stretch of the imagination. What I am very, very good at is getting people like software engineers to explain what they are doing and then conveying that to non- technical people so they can understand what the software developers are doing. Not HOW they are doing it, but what they are doing and why, and how what they are doing can be applied in our company and industry. It's called communications.

As you haven't a clue what these people are doing on these projects it might be smart to not make assumptions about things you know nothing about. That, however, is of course your choice.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 01:27 PM   #52
Guru
 
Northern Spy's Avatar
 
City: Powell River, BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Northern Spy
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 26
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,673
I have been around automation for many years and have interfaced with process and automation engineers.

I'd be willing to bet that fully autonomous automation will come to non life threatening systems first. It really hasn't. Multi variate processing has a hard time determining whether outliers are real or not.

I would grant that an automated cargo plane/drone could exist at some time in the future, but doubt that any organization could justify any risk matrix to allow passenger flight for many, many years.
Northern Spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 01:48 PM   #53
Guru
 
City: Hotel, CA
Country: Fried
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Spy View Post
I have been around automation for many years and have interfaced with process and automation engineers.

I'd be willing to bet that fully autonomous automation will come to non life threatening systems first. It really hasn't. Multi variate processing has a hard time determining whether outliers are real or not.

I would grant that an automated cargo plane/drone could exist at some time in the future, but doubt that any organization could justify any risk matrix to allow passenger flight for many, many years.

The above well covers my experience as well as thoughts on the matter.

Marin, you are no doubt good at getting folks to open up and interview well, the problem is software engineers tend to overestimate their capabilities by a large factor. I could bore you to death with a laundry list of crap I have been told by software engineers is less than five years out. The same ones still say the same things are only five years out and genuinely believe it, still doesn't mean it's BS. I can imagine these same types are full of more hot air in a corporate environment.

Like NS I work hand in hand with programming engineers who are not capable of making autonomous non life threatening systems. Volunteering to beta test a passenger plane is not in my future.
__________________
Craig

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled - Mark Twain
CPseudonym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 02:25 PM   #54
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,534
Sure glad those Apollo folks didn't have to wait for their auto pilot to save their buts!

People invent solutions , machines just plod on.
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 04:31 PM   #55
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPseudonym View Post
Volunteering to beta test a passenger plane is not in my future.
No worries. You won't be one of the ones they'll ask.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 04:38 PM   #56
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Spy View Post
....but doubt that any organization could justify any risk matrix to allow passenger flight for many, many years.
I don't think anyone in the industry would disagree with that. As is usual with these things, people hear about something that's in development and assume it's going to be rolled ed out tomorrow. Then they get all upset and panic and stuff and start screaming, "It won't work, it won't work."

I've not heard anyone here give a date or even a timetable. The only thing one hears is that it will eventually happen and the industry is working toward that end. How long it takes will be how long it takes.

The only difference between the developers and the nay sayers is the developers know it can work and will work. The nay sayers don't believe it. As they won't won't be in the picture all that much longer they carry less and less weight in the discussion.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 05:08 PM   #57
Guru
 
Northern Spy's Avatar
 
City: Powell River, BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Northern Spy
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 26
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,673
I agree. Just because it can be accomplished, doesn't mean it will.

I think once the popular culture of gaiaism dies off and we realize that we are going to survive climate change, the next big scary thing for mankind to remonstrate and shake our tiny fists against is "the rise of machines".

I can't see people buying into autonomous control, even if it is logical and/or safer.
Northern Spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 05:11 PM   #58
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post

People invent solutions , machines just plod on.
Correct. And most of the time the solutions the people come up are---- machines. And as air crews become less and less competent globally and the manufacturers put more and more automation into the planes to thwart this incompetence and mistakes, it becomes a shorter and shorter step to simply removing the people altogether.

It's being developed all over the place, not just aircraft. You can get just as dead in a failed elevator as in a failed plane. But there aren't many fatalities in elevators and nobody on the planet thinks twice before stepping into one.

You can also get just as dead in a car. What's the death rate in human-driven cars compared to planes? It's a tired argument, but the point is not the numbers but that nobody bats an eye at a car wreck unless one is directly affected by it. That's because we've had over a century of people getting dead in cars so there's nothing special about it anymore. And vehicular automation is already being tested on the road.

Plane crashes are still viewed as major big catastrophic events, where the reality is that one plane crash with full fatalities is the equivalent of less than 300 fatal car crashes assuming more than one person killed in some of the cars. What's the difference? Dead is dead. Only the perceived drama is different.

If the risk of an accident can be reduced by a major factor of God only know what by getting the people the hell off the flight deck, seems like a great deal to me. Because stepping onto a plane today carries an every-increasing risk. The Air France plane, the 777 at SFO, the Malaysian planes, the glide-bomb flight into the Alps shows that to be true. As I said before, I don't worry about the planes anymore. What worries me when I get on a flight-- any flight anywhere--- is the crew up front. The more I learn about the safety statistics in air transportation today, the less and less I trust the flight crews.

Last year I produced a video about avoiding runway excursions--- running a plane off the end or sides of a runway, usually during a landing. Before I was given this assignment I didn't know much of anything about this subject. One of the first things I learned is that it's become one of the top causes of accidents worldwide and is responsible for a large share of aircraft accident fatalities.

The video is being shown to every airline pilot on the planet--- RyanAir recently had all 3000 of their pilots view it--- and it is proving to be so effective that Airbus asked for a copy and is using it with their customers. The point being that after producing this video and learning a hell of a lot about the subject, I don't trust aircrews, particularly in certain parts of the world, as far a I can spit. This project made it every obvious to me that the sooner humans can be removed from the control loop in an airplane the better, at lest with regards to this particular aspect of flight.

But..... it will be a long time coming and a lot of people are going to die before it becomes a viable and safe reality.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 05:19 PM   #59
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Spy View Post

I can't see people buying into autonomous control, even if it is logical and/or safer.
I can't see today's people buying into it. But the generations down the road a bit? Absolutely. Their leading edge are the ones who are currently developing it.

The good news is that the young people coming into this company today aren't listening to the nay sayers. The other good news is the company is encouraging the new folks to take risks, think of things this company has never done before, things that will totally change the company and the industry, and pursue them full bore. That last is an almost direct quote from someone very high up in the management of this place.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2015, 08:12 PM   #60
Guru
 
Wayfarer's Avatar
 
City: Oneida Lake, NY
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Radio Flyer
Vessel Model: Wilderness Systems Aspire 105
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 784
https://youtu.be/rLCej27ot4w

It's happening!
__________________

__________________
Dave
Just be nice to each other, dammit.
Wayfarer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012