Like Tree5Likes

Thread: NIST/UL Studies and PPA

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,182

    Default NIST/UL Studies and PPA

    Hijacked from a discussion on another website:

    Just wondering if anyone knows of any departments that have changed their policies on positive pressure attack after familiarizing themselves with the results of the studies.
    The results indicated that strong control of all ventilation is the best way to prevent ventilation induced flashover. PPA seems to contradict this entirely. PPA proponents say we have to find the seat of the fire via outside survey, which IMO, is not always possible to do accurately. Nor can we always accurately determine the extent of fire this way. On top of that, with modern construction and contents, the seat of the fire is not really in a single place. If we arrive to find a ventilation controlled fire (very common due to speed of modern fire development), there is heat and fuel (fire gases in smoke) all around us. It will light up as soon as air is added. This heat and fuel is not limited to the original fire area. It is anywhere in the building that is not protected by a closed door. Modern fires also develop a great deal of heat energy and pressure. If the fan is not strong enough or the exhaust opening is not big enough, PPA fails. How do we know if it will work or not? We don't. We have to try it and see what happens. This comes straight from the experts in the field of PPA. Trial and error is not a sound method on the fire ground. The environment is too volatile and the risks too high.
    All right, I got off track a little bit. I clearly don't endorse PPA, never have for reasons stated. But has anyone else changed their opinion of it?

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,978

    Default

    I've not been a fan of PPA for many reasons, many of which are related to being in the Northeast where we have a lot of balloon frame, people regulate their heating/cooling with windows and often close off sections of a home to minimize heating space. This on top of the standard reservations about increasing air flow into the building before fire control. But... In the past few years, much more research and better explanations have me at least considering some of the validity of my arguments. Without a doubt the UL/NIST studies at least on the surface would indicate that increasing air flow to the fire in an attempt to push the heat and smoke out would likely cause an even greater intensification than just opening the door?

    I'm interested to see the testing that looks at PPA with regard to some of the recent study conclusions. On one hand some of teh UL/NIST data shows the increase in internal building pressure due to heat from the fire, which explains why PPA may not have "pushed" fire into voids as many of us had anticipated. I suspect that the fan would prevent bi-directional flow out the entry point, but would require absolute control of the exhaust. Possibly the "cleaner" path to the seat would allow water on the fire quicker countering the increase in intensity from the air influx? I think I'd want to have a very small structure and nearly a guarantee we could be on the eat quick before trying this, though many places do this as a matter of routine already. Saw some video of LAFD (?) talking about closing the entry door, so that blows the PPA out there, though my understanding was that they were not a big proponents of PPA as many thought they were.

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    I think the cleaner path to the fire is what so many really like about PPA. But that doesn't necessarily translate to quicker knockdown. The advance may be quicker once started but it may start later, due to time spent gauging effectiveness of the fan. Plus, the guy setting up and monitoring fan could have been used to assist in stretching line. Seems like a wash, at best, to me as far as time factor. The time it takes to get a charged line from the entry door to the fire area in a typical house fire is just not that long. The line may need to be opened almost immediately upon entry in an open floor plan type house with fire in an unenclosed section. If it is taking a long time to get line in place, maybe the department's training time and energy would be better spent drilling on zero/low visibility line advance.

    As far as bi-directional flow back out through entry point, this is one of the key points targeted by proponents of PPA. They tell us we must monitor entry point for a period of time to ensure fan and exhaust point are working together properly to vent air. More wasted time, by the way. If not working properly, fan use must be discontinued or delayed until exhaust point is made larger. Way more wasted time. Some even suggest cutting wall area below window with chainsaw to accomplish this. Guess what I'm going to say? It has to do with time, which is not our friend at a working fire. While all of this is being done, the charged hoseline is still on the front lawn waiting for the go ahead. Then I'm supposed to believe that PPA allows faster advance and knockdown?

    Proponents of PPA can't seem to agree on the size of the exhaust point. I've seen anywhere from one half the size of the entry point to three times the size of the entry point. That's quite a range (factor of six). And why is entry point compared to exhaust point the important ratio? What about the size of the fire area, amount of smoke generated and the amount of heat energy created? Shouldn't those things factor into the formula? None of them can be quantified by an outside survey.

    Quite simply, IMO, the risk vs reward equation just doesn't hold up with PPA. Volatility of the fire environment being one of the main reasons. Another being the time factor. By the time a fan is set up and results evaluated, and possibly re-evaluated after enlarging the exhaust opening, the fire could have been knocked down with an aggressive interior attack.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,978

    Default

    We run into this a bit with a bordering FD who seem to get the fan in place pretty quick. All our guys get a little antsy when we hear the fan start. We used to carry fans as if they'd be primary tools (on the tailboard) but as you note, we never hand enough hands to put them in place early, as we focused on the stretch and search with limited crew. Thankfully too, as we had very limited training for the potential for harm vs. good that the fan can bring. Controlling outlets was always an issue with so many open windows or closed off second floors, leading me to believe that the only places that really took to PPA were where the houses relied oon central air HVAC systems minimizing the windows as a factor(Southeast and Southwest?).

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,710

    Default

    To me the danger from improper placement and use of PPV during PPA far outweigh the benefits that supporters always claim.

    My most common use of PPV? During live fire training I will use it to clear smoke and help the next training fire get going faster!! Of course shutting it off before the attack crew enters.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    We run into this a bit with a bordering FD who seem to get the fan in place pretty quick. All our guys get a little antsy when we hear the fan start. We used to carry fans as if they'd be primary tools (on the tailboard) but as you note, we never hand enough hands to put them in place early, as we focused on the stretch and search with limited crew. Thankfully too, as we had very limited training for the potential for harm vs. good that the fan can bring. Controlling outlets was always an issue with so many open windows or closed off second floors, leading me to believe that the only places that really took to PPA were where the houses relied oon central air HVAC systems minimizing the windows as a factor(Southeast and Southwest?).
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________

    Interior layout and status of interior doors are definite wild cards, IMO. I can't say that either factor would matter much because I just don't know. But I don't like not knowing.
    RFDACM02 likes this.

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    11

    Default

    What a joke of a thread.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEye View Post
    What a joke of a thread.
    What awesome and amazing insight. Thank you for adding so much to the topic and with such clarity.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    What awesome and amazing insight. Thank you for adding so much to the topic and with such clarity.


    You know how fire chiefs are, just have to let them crow

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEye View Post
    What a joke of a thread.
    Some day maybe you'll be lucky enough to be a firefighter. You'll need to understand stuff like this should that day come.

    Once again you are displaying the attitude that has probably contributed to your inability to land a job with one of the 20 departments you've tried over the past 8 years.
    FyredUp and RFDACM02 like this.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,710

    Default

    I was recently part of massive mutual aid and MABAS card fire in a warehouse portion of a cheese processing plant. The warehouse area was 2 stories tall and roughly 100 by 100 attached to the remainder of the plant. The fire involved bales of cardboard stacked 3 or 4 high burning, as well as only miscellaneous bagged and plastic bucketed supplies. At one point we had 4 handlines and 2 master streams inside the building working the fire, and the B side had 2 master streams working the fire. We knew we had to clear the smoke to find the heart of the fire so we set up 4 PPV fans working in 2 sets of series to try and clear the smoke. We achieved very little success because we simply could not move enough air to clear the smoke. A MABAS call was made to a department in Illinois that responded with a super fan, a PPV fan mounted on a F550 chassis with a separate engine to run it. When they arrived they set up on the D side and were moved all personnel from the building for safety. After about 10 or 15minutes of this thing running I was tasked by command to enter and check conditions. Another officer and I entered and the smoke was gone. I could see clearly the entire warehouse area and I was then very easy to assign crews as to where to attack the fire. I was asked whether we should turn the fan off while the crews were working and I said no, conditions are clear, heat is down, and the fire is not growing at a pace faster than we can handle. It was probably less than an hour later the majority of the fire was out and overhaul was getting started.

    In this case with a masonry constructed building, no crews endangered by the fan, with multiple crews, and adequate hoselines in place PPV/PPA worked. But again we new ALL the variable when the big fan was started. There was no guess work as to openings for inlets or outlets.

    This fire re-enforced for me the fact that there are times it is a good choice. But it did not change my mind about believing it is not always a choice at all.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Capnjack, your first paragraph says it all. "The guy setting up and monitoring the fan could have been used in stretching the line". All the new research and theories seem to agree that we need to get water on the modern fire faster than ever. We are already running with too few FFs even in the larger urban depts. IMO, That extra FF will accomplish a lot more chasing kinks or keeping the bow in the line than they will operating that fan. Also the fan is another step, and a mechanical device which has the potential (and likelyhood) to fail at the worst possible time.

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pa Wilds
    Posts
    606

    Default

    Pa. State Fire Academy has begun (December 2014) a roll-out of two new 3 hour Fire Dynamics Courses. Class is based upon the NIST, UL & FDNY tests as well as tests by Chicago & LA. My reaction to last evenings class covering the Fundamentals was... WOW, finally some scientific reasoning behind what I have been observing for the past 40+ years. A firm explanation as to why the new construction methods & materials including modern furnishings react the way they do in fires today. Review of older tactics & why they need to be changed to account for the changes in the fuel & construction in modern buildings. The fact that some of the hard learned tactics are still valid, but the I.C. must be taught what to look for and what to inspect for prior to the incident, so that tactics may be adjusted to fit the contents & the construction. If nothing else, for those who want and are able to learn new ideas and reasoning, there are going to be lots more judgment calls & changed methods/tactics that must be made as units are arriving on the scene. Attack points, ventilation (or not), Line size & location, entry or exterior attack based upon watching certain indicators... All this observation, anticipation, and attendant changes in tactics designed to protect firefighters will require a disciplined crew AND a well trained IC. Some of the things we were taught to do in the 1960's are being re-enforced by the test discoveries of today. Nice to see a scientific approach that supports actions under some circumstances, but also shows why that tactic in a different location is a recipe for disaster. While my comments do not specifically address PPA, the PPA is just another tool in the bigger picture of Incident Command and Tactics. Decisions, Decisions, Decisions; but don't you dare procrastinate or dally! Thinking on your feet and recognizing indicators will make or break this new coming era.
    fire5555 likes this.

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kuh shise View Post
    Pa. State Fire Academy has begun (December 2014) a roll-out of two new 3 hour Fire Dynamics Courses. Class is based upon the NIST, UL & FDNY tests as well as tests by Chicago & LA. My reaction to last evenings class covering the Fundamentals was... WOW, finally some scientific reasoning behind what I have been observing for the past 40+ years. A firm explanation as to why the new construction methods & materials including modern furnishings react the way they do in fires today. Review of older tactics & why they need to be changed to account for the changes in the fuel & construction in modern buildings. The fact that some of the hard learned tactics are still valid, but the I.C. must be taught what to look for and what to inspect for prior to the incident, so that tactics may be adjusted to fit the contents & the construction. If nothing else, for those who want and are able to learn new ideas and reasoning, there are going to be lots more judgment calls & changed methods/tactics that must be made as units are arriving on the scene. Attack points, ventilation (or not), Line size & location, entry or exterior attack based upon watching certain indicators... All this observation, anticipation, and attendant changes in tactics designed to protect firefighters will require a disciplined crew AND a well trained IC. Some of the things we were taught to do in the 1960's are being re-enforced by the test discoveries of today. Nice to see a scientific approach that supports actions under some circumstances, but also shows why that tactic in a different location is a recipe for disaster. While my comments do not specifically address PPA, the PPA is just another tool in the bigger picture of Incident Command and Tactics. Decisions, Decisions, Decisions; but don't you dare procrastinate or dally! Thinking on your feet and recognizing indicators will make or break this new coming era.
    All very true.

    I find it interesting that none of the most experienced and most active departments in the country seem to use Positive Pressure Attack. At least to my knowledge. I'm sure guys will be gad to tell me if I'm wrong.

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kuh shise View Post
    Pa. State Fire Academy has begun (December 2014) a roll-out of two new 3 hour Fire Dynamics Courses. Class is based upon the NIST, UL & FDNY tests as well as tests by Chicago & LA. My reaction to last evenings class covering the Fundamentals was... WOW, finally some scientific reasoning behind what I have been observing for the past 40+ years. A firm explanation as to why the new construction methods & materials including modern furnishings react the way they do in fires today. Review of older tactics & why they need to be changed to account for the changes in the fuel & construction in modern buildings. The fact that some of the hard learned tactics are still valid, but the I.C. must be taught what to look for and what to inspect for prior to the incident, so that tactics may be adjusted to fit the contents & the construction. If nothing else, for those who want and are able to learn new ideas and reasoning, there are going to be lots more judgment calls & changed methods/tactics that must be made as units are arriving on the scene. Attack points, ventilation (or not), Line size & location, entry or exterior attack based upon watching certain indicators... All this observation, anticipation, and attendant changes in tactics designed to protect firefighters will require a disciplined crew AND a well trained IC. Some of the things we were taught to do in the 1960's are being re-enforced by the test discoveries of today. Nice to see a scientific approach that supports actions under some circumstances, but also shows why that tactic in a different location is a recipe for disaster. While my comments do not specifically address PPA, the PPA is just another tool in the bigger picture of Incident Command and Tactics. Decisions, Decisions, Decisions; but don't you dare procrastinate or dally! Thinking on your feet and recognizing indicators will make or break this new coming era.
    If you do some of the cfi trainer classes "free" they are geared to investigation, but are also help with fire dynamics



    http://www.cfitrainer.net/


    and yes it is nice to know the science behind "fire"

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Just stumbled across a NIOSH firefighter fatality report from 2007. Two firefighters were killed in a flashover in a house fire where fan was operating. Fire was blowing out both the window and the hall door of the room they were found in. This after they believed they had knocked down the main body of fire in the living room.
    I have to acknowledge that this was not a textbook case of fan operation. But it supports the idea that a visual survey of exterior will not provide enough information to make PPA a good choice of tactics. The only reliable way to determine location AND extent of fire (and you definitely need to know both) is to get inside and find out.

  17. #17
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    Just stumbled across a NIOSH firefighter fatality report from 2007. Two firefighters were killed in a flashover in a house fire where fan was operating. Fire was blowing out both the window and the hall door of the room they were found in. This after they believed they had knocked down the main body of fire in the living room.
    I have to acknowledge that this was not a textbook case of fan operation. But it supports the idea that a visual survey of exterior will not provide enough information to make PPA a good choice of tactics. The only reliable way to determine location AND extent of fire (and you definitely need to know both) is to get inside and find out.
    And though not a common problem , I could see how a fire with multiple "sets" could really bite you.

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    And though not a common problem , I could see how a fire with multiple "sets" could really bite you.
    I think any area not separated by a closed door has to be considered part of the fire area. Certainly for any advanced fire. And these days they're almost all advanced by the time we arrive. By advanced I don't mean fully involved or free-burning but ventilation limited. A ventilation limited fire will present high heat and unignited fire gases at upper levels of all rooms. An exterior survey is not suitable to determine interior conditions. Introduction of air could ignite the entire area. Is the exhaust opening big enough? Who Knows? If it IS big enough, will it be big enough should other areas light up? Who knows?

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    I think any area not separated by a closed door has to be considered part of the fire area. Certainly for any advanced fire. And these days they're almost all advanced by the time we arrive. By advanced I don't mean fully involved or free-burning but ventilation limited. A ventilation limited fire will present high heat and unignited fire gases at upper levels of all rooms. An exterior survey is not suitable to determine interior conditions. Introduction of air could ignite the entire area. Is the exhaust opening big enough? Who Knows? If it IS big enough, will it be big enough should other areas light up? Who knows?
    agreed - but human nature -moth to flame -you have heavy smoke and one room really ripping and obvious , I can (and have) passed up a smaller fire.

  20. #20
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    agreed - but human nature -moth to flame -you have heavy smoke and one room really ripping and obvious , I can (and have) passed up a smaller fire.
    No doubt you are right.

    But it does argue strongly against PPA as a tactic, considering how perfectly conditions have to be predicted in order for it to work as expected. We all know that an exterior size-up can't be relied upon to be perfectly precise. Or better stated, we all SHOULD know that. Maybe some don't. Or just like to pretend otherwise so they can increase visibility with their fans.

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    agreed - but human nature -moth to flame -you have heavy smoke and one room really ripping and obvious , I can (and have) passed up a smaller fire.
    And to clarify ,it wasn't intentional -combo of tunnel vision and being in a hurry, definitely could have been a problem if a fan was fired up

  22. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    PPA proponents say we have to find the seat of the fire via outside survey, which IMO, is not always possible to do accurately. Nor can we always accurately determine the extent of fire this way. On top of that, with modern construction and contents, the seat of the fire is not really in a single place. If we arrive to find a ventilation controlled fire (very common due to speed of modern fire development), there is heat and fuel (fire gases in smoke) all around us. It will light up as soon as air is added.
    This would all counter indicate the use of PPA. If the fire can't be found, don't point the fan inside of the house (just yet). Use the TIC, senses and good common sense to find the fire. PPA has been used effectively on the west coast for a while and it's trained on by lots of FDs, but it won't work all the time.

    The biggest problems I've seen in both training as well as on scenes, are the lack of creating the negative/exhaust port prior to firing-up the fan (or pointing the fan inside of the building) and using too small of a negative/exhaust port. Ultimately it comes down to training... Try it on some acquired structures and see if it works for your FD based on realistic manpower and arrival times of your units.
    Last edited by mikeyboy411; 04-08-2015 at 01:58 PM. Reason: Additional thought

  23. #23
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyboy411 View Post
    This would all counter indicate the use of PPA. If the fire can't be found, don't point the fan inside of the house (just yet). Use the TIC, senses and good common sense to find the fire. PPA has been used effectively on the west coast for a while and it's trained on by lots of FDs, but it won't work all the time.

    The biggest problems I've seen in both training as well as on scenes, are the lack of creating the negative/exhaust port prior to firing-up the fan (or pointing the fan inside of the building) and using too small of a negative/exhaust port. Ultimately it comes down to training... Try it on some acquired structures and see if it works for your FD based on realistic manpower and arrival times of your units.
    So how do you know what size the exhaust port should be? I suspect you don't know until you try it. If your exhaust port turns out to be too small, how much time has been wasted? What do you do, expand the exhaust port (more wasted time) or discontinue PPA? I've seen recommendations from half the size of the entry port to three times the size of the entry port. This is from the experts in the field who write the articles and run the training. That discrepancy alone has always worried me.

    If training is to be done based on realistic manpower and response times, shouldn't it also be done with realistic fire conditions? No hay. No pallets. Just real world finishes, furnishings and contents. If you're not using the right fuel and you're not letting the fire develop as it would at a real house fire you are comparing apples and oranges and your training is not valid. There is a world of difference between the two fire environments as far as heat levels and volatility of fire gases.

  24. #24
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captnjak View Post
    So how do you know what size the exhaust port should be? I suspect you don't know until you try it. If your exhaust port turns out to be too small, how much time has been wasted? What do you do, expand the exhaust port (more wasted time) or discontinue PPA? I've seen recommendations from half the size of the entry port to three times the size of the entry port. This is from the experts in the field who write the articles and run the training. That discrepancy alone has always worried me.

    If training is to be done based on realistic manpower and response times, shouldn't it also be done with realistic fire conditions? No hay. No pallets. Just real world finishes, furnishings and contents. If you're not using the right fuel and you're not letting the fire develop as it would at a real house fire you are comparing apples and oranges and your training is not valid. There is a world of difference between the two fire environments as far as heat levels and volatility of fire gases.
    To quote an esteemed member of this forum:

    BING FREAKING O!!
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  25. #25
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    835

    Default

    I agree with you on how to train which is why instead of saying try it in your burn tower (which we've done and I completely agree it's not the same, but the concept can be taught) I said try it in acquired structures and your response into the structure should be based on your realistic arrival time, manpower, etc.

    What I've seen work very effective, is for a bedroom fire (for example) taking the large window or if available multiple windows (many houses in my area have multiple windows in the master bedroom and I'm looking through a large window in my own house). What I've seen not work at all was a bathroom fire where the crew took the small window and expected the heat to dissipate and be drawn away from them, it doesn't create enough of a negative pressure area to be effective.

    As far as exactly how big the exit port should be, I'm not gonna say it "always has to be exactly this big" because there are too many variables that folks can and will throw out here. My suggestion, get out there and see what works for your area and then crunch the data.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Governor's Island NIST, UL, FDNY Study: MUST SEE
    By Golzy12 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 08-16-2014, 10:00 AM
  2. NIST staffing study
    By TRUCK61 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 07:32 PM
  3. NIST WTC Investigation Report Released
    By superchef in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-13-2005, 10:59 AM
  4. NIST Report on fireproofing at WTC
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-08-2003, 01:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register