SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!
Status
Not open for further replies.

6 Americans, 1 Brit vanish at sea

36K views 195 replies 41 participants last post by  tdw 
#1 ·
Six Americans have been missing at sea for more than three weeks after setting sail from New Zealand, officials said Thursday.

Three males -- aged 17, 28 and 58 -- and three women -- aged 18, 60 and 73 -- along a 35-year-old British man were aiming to sail the 70-foot schooner Nina to Newcastle, Australia.

A statement from Maritime New Zealand released early Thursday expressed "grave concerns" for the Nina's crew.

The vessel left the Bay of Islands area of northern New Zealand on May 29. It has not been heard from since June 4, when the ship was 370 miles west-north west of Cape Reinga in "very rough" conditions with winds gusting to 68 mph and 26-foot swells.

Authorities said the vessel's emergency beacon has not been activated.
Rescue Coordination Centre New Zealand search and rescue mission coordinator Kevin Banaghan said that a military aircraft had covered a 160,000 square nautical mile search area on Tuesday, with an additional 324,000 square nautical miles examined on Wednesday.

"No sign of the vessel has been found," Banaghan said. "We do hold grave concerns for the Nina and her crew but remain hopeful of a positive outcome."

The huge search was launched after family and friends raised concerns about the crew's whereabouts.

The Nina was built in 1928. It is also equipped with a satellite phone and a spot beacon, which allows tracking signals to be sent manually.

6 Americans vanish at sea while sailing from New Zealand to Australia - World News
 
See less See more
#91 ·
"The biggest mystery to us is why no EPIRB signal has been received"
No mystery there, EPIRBs fail. There is the fmaous and well-documented case of ACR EPRIBs that did not transmit--even though the test light said they were working. And I've seen externally mounted EPRIBs on commercial vessels, hanging upside-down intheir cradles (which is normal) with WATER in the strobe capsule, indicating the interior and electronics probably were waterlogged and useless. Move the EPIRB below where it is safe and dry, and it may never surface to transmit.

All it would take is one rogue wave (I have no idea if there are rogues in the Tasman Sea but would expect so) to roll the boat, trapping all the electronics and crew in the hull.

""A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."
[Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, USN]
 
#92 ·
Wow, those observations about the mast step deforming the hull enough to open the garboard seam is revealing. It suggests major structural problems with the backbone of this boat. Mast pressure should not be able to deflect the keel.
 
#93 · (Edited)
The stupid thing about EPIRBs is they can't be tested except for once.

The test uses so much battery that it reduces its life. Every other bit fo safety kit you can test every trip (except flares)

The other problem is they are so expensive that the rip-off companies who make them are feathering their nests while we suffer.
They should eb $100 each and then we could have lots.

Finally, they are a waste of time being stuffed below attached to some wall or in the Nav station. They should be attached to each and every sailor.

I dont rely on one of anything.... except my EPIRB.
 
#94 ·
It's like so many things that stifle safety in favor of corporate profit. These companies think since we sail, we must have deep pockets. Not only should they be more affordable, they should be rechargeable or have simple battery replacement capability. Liferafts are the same story. I almost gagged when I got a quote on updating my raft cert. Safety comes second when these companies choose to rip off consumers. Capitalism at its best.
 
#96 ·
"The stupid thing about EPIRBs is they can't be tested except for once."
Check again, the newer ones can be tested repeatedly. Yes, each test uses one burst of battery. A battery that is supposed to be making repeated bursts every minute for 48 hours. If the Wiki is right, they transmit once every 50 seconds, which would be some 3400+ transmissions in the course of 48 hours. So if you tested it once a month and consumed 24? 36? bursts? You'd still only be shaving 1% off the battery life.
You could, of course, also use a 406MHz receiver to monitor your own test of an old one, just do it in the basement of a room with a stamped-tin ceiling to keep the signal in. (No, actually, the USCG had promised to look into providing "casks" for that purpose in each district, but apparently dropped the ball.)
Actually...any "Class 1" cell phone or land-mobile radio service business, a place where they actually do real repairs not just swappie-swappie, has a room with copper-sheathed walls that they use for transmitter tests, you could always try to chase down one of those and offer some compensation as well.

Sheathing a wood boat in frg, dunno. I've heard folks with professional reputations say that's guaranteed to TRAP water and compromise what is left of the hull. And if the glass cracks for any reason, you're helixed. (PG-13 acronym.) Not to mention, unless they vacuum bagged the boat or rotated the hull upside down...really, glassing something that big while restraining gravity?? I think the phrase is "Yeah, but..."
 
#101 · (Edited)
Sheathing a wood boat in frg, dunno. I've heard folks with professional reputations say that's guaranteed to TRAP water and compromise what is left of the hull. And if the glass cracks for any reason, you're helixed. (PG-13 acronym.) Not to mention, unless they vacuum bagged the boat or rotated the hull upside down...really, glassing something that big while restraining gravity?? I think the phrase is "Yeah, but..."
TD's quite right - sheathing a wooden hull in fg is a last-ditch desperate measure to save a hull and can only be done after the boat is properly dried out, otherwise it simply peels off in sheets.

Maybe Nina wasn't in boat-show condition, but to counter the slightly alarmist view quoted by Jon, a couple of points here:

1. If the boat is bouncing off waves (and it would be) there is going to be plenty of pressure on the mast steps especially the foremast step... but I notice she had aluminium masts. If she was designed to carry timber masts, the original mast steps would be oversized for alloy ones. Assuming for a sec that the step did fail, in traditional boat design the piece of solid timber immediately under it is called the keel and runs the full length of the boat. ie. the mast isn't going anywhere. Sure, unfair pressure on the mast step/keel could cause the garboard seams to widen, but... hang on a sec.. this boat is sheathed! :eek: Not likely, sorry. Will water rush in? Sure.. but slowly - meaning a boat that size won't sink instantly and, if the bilge pumps are working, might even stay afloat for a long time. Certainly more than long enough to trigger the EPIRB, use the Sat Phone and/or get into a liferaft. (Remember the "Bounty"?)

2. Being dismasted and holed by a mast is a more likely way to sink rapidly, but I notice from the photos that she's keel-stepped and these are aluminium masts. I've seen plenty of dismastings in my life and in all cases I've seen, keel-stepped alloy masts bend and snap - they don't "break off" and fall over the side like a timber mast might; not immediately in any case... and if she'd been holed and sunk in this way (known as a "loss of structural integrity" ;) ), there'd be wreckage floating around for the search parties to find.

You can get "rogue waves" in any ocean and most certainly in the Tasman - and common enough that they're almost an occupational hazard. I'd like to think she's been dismasted and blown far outside the search area, but it is quite possible she was simply overwhelmed by a rogue wave and went down in one piece. Perhaps time will tell..
 
#97 ·
I've known three people who have completely sheathed a large boat in glass but NOT with only 1/4" which is totally insufficient. The entire hull was sheathed on these boats with enough glass to create a structural shell. This method works very well and can essentially build a hull around a hull, fastening the new glass hull with bronze ring nails after the first couple of layers spaced closely. If they did indeed put a thin layer of glass over a failing structure, it indicates there were huge structural problems. Maybe the keel was worm-eaten/soft which would coincide with the mast step problem. It would also explain a quick, catastrophic splitting apart of the hull.
 
#98 ·
I confess to limited experience here, but if I was to ever consider sheathing a timber hull in glass then I'd want to make damn sure the timber was good and dry with any areas of rot or worm excised. Surely (as noted by HS and Smurph) trapping an existing problem inside a fibreglass covering is bound to create ongoing problems, surely.
 
#102 ·
Nina's , deckhouse , is a very similar in design to the Smeeton's Tzu Hang which was twice pitchpoled in the Pacific while attempting to round Cape Horn. On both occasions the structure was torn away and had it not been for John Guzzwell's intervention (he was crewing) the Tzu Hang would have probably gone down. I'm not saying that would have been a quick sinking but it shows how "easily" timber deck houses can be torn away.
 
#109 ·
Harborless, google Roger Long Naval Architect, he may be one of those peers who do the reviewing. There are some people on here that you are not qualified to get into an argument with about boat design Roger Long, Bob Perry, and maybe a couple of others that do not put it out there quite as much. The best thing you could do is listen and learn. You know a little about a lot of things, and you are learning, but one learns more by listening than by getting into pissing matches with those who have the T-Shirt on a been there done that and got paid very very well for it basis.
 
#108 ·
Lol its really laughable. Qoutes by someone, meaning me, when i said it was from a PEER REVIWED ARTICLE. Seriosuly some of you and your abhorrence to young posters posting educated fact are really annoying. This is why i stay in off topic 90% of the time. Clean the termites out of your block head why dont you?
 
#118 ·
Thanks for the reviewed thoughts on the engine. I'll take it as read. Though I am stuffed if I know why anyone would spend $20,000 (remember its in NZ so very expensive) on a new engine but skimp on other things like the FG skinning. UNLESS the owner thought the FG and underlying hull was in good condition. I.e. if he was going a quick fix 'on the cheap' he wouldnt have put in a brand new donk.

Seriosuly some of you and your abhorrence to young posters posting educated fact are really annoying. This is why i stay in off topic 90% of the time. Clean the termites out of your block head why dont you?
Harborless: you come across as an A Grade a$$hole. Thats why you cop grief.
The content of your posts is usually good and your ideas excellent, but you always find the need to totally destroy the effects of your arguments by putting in some of the most demeaning and inflammatory statements directed to those whom you are trying to change minds.

I had a friend who did a Reality TV show and she decided she wanted to be the house *****. Then she wondered why everyone HATED her: the cast, crew and TV audience. It took ages to dawn on her that because she was acting a ***** people naturally thought she was a *****. So she stopped being a ***** and next episode her approval went up.

So stop playing the wanker and people will begin to respect your ideas.

Mark
 
#111 ·
Ugh im not trying to argue... much. Im simply backing up the second of really only two plausible options mark. Explain to me any other possibility besides rouge wave or hull failure. And even with a rouge wave mark they were in days of storms so i have to assume here the boat was pretty well latched and we both know wood is bouyant so in all likelyhood the rouge wave would have resulted in a roll over or in the very least a few minutes for water to intrude in seems and crevices to cause sinkage. The boat had to sink in seconds not minutes or a mayday call, epirb, liferaft, or flotsam would have been present.

I used multiple sources fro professionals that were peer reviewed and then physics from people a hell of a lot smarter than me.

Why is it im the no nothing? I only posted what other professional experts said and were reviwed about. Im only trying to defend logic based on science and multiple sources of decades of experience. Roger simply chose to insult my iltelligence instead of accept what others, not myself, said about wooden boat hulls.

Again, as if i want to be right about people drowning to death. Im not sick. I sinply see no other option for such a large well crewed boat to simply disapear without a trace. Do you???
 
#115 ·
Sudden hull failure.
well this is just hypocrtical now. Ive got work to do. After so long im learning less and less about sailing and more and more about , eh. Why bother? Im going to go read my new national geographuc over breakfast and start being productive. Something not possible here until im atleast 40 apparently.
enjoy your discussions.
out.
 
#116 · (Edited)
It seems to me that Harborless had it right, although the assumption that this boat was in poor shape could have been completely wrong. From the pictures below decks, it looked like a well maintained old wood boat. I have owned a couple of these. They are as strong and seaworthy as any glass boat. They don't need a thin film of fg to keep the sea out! IMO, this boat must have had a soft, rotten or worm-eaten keel. It probably just split apart and went down in seconds. Once a wood boat loses its structural integrity, planking starts moving and loosening, butt blocks start falling off, garboard planks spit out caulking and start falling off. A thin layer of glass indicates that proper repairs were not done and the hull was in poor condition. Looking at the drawings of this boat in a previous post, it appears to be constructed in a non-standard configuration with the keel having many pieces and apparently becoming very thin toward the bow section. Its basic construction could have contributed to a catastrophic failure.
 
#120 ·
It seems to me that Harborless had it right,
How could he possibly be right? NONE of us here could be "right" with the information currently.

The process of speculation can contribute to the safety of all of us it done properly. However, the search for approval or getting the consensus of a forum align with your thinking is counter productive to that aim.
 
#122 ·
Ill post one more time to this forum until the next time i have an actual question which cannot be answered by myself, my literature, my neighbors, or my abilities to cut and paste.


MAYBE the reason i come accross as an ******* is because the last two years posting here ive been treated like a dumb irresponsible young no nothing with no insight or intelligence worthy of being heard by ye old sailing masters.

Maybe all the disrespect, arrogance, know it all attitude and baseless assumptions have contributed to me having a built up defensive tone which comes accross as being an *******.

Im an ******* on sailnet gen discuss because you all made me that way because i stopped caring months ago. Im simply a producut of my enviornment. This is why my inbox gets filled with all these thank yous and well dones and keep it ups bc i suppose others do not want the public ridicule while im still young and stubborn enough to say no, thats incorrect, and speak out.

What i dont know i ask, what i dont understand i research. Unlike many here that when confronted with fact and truths can only reply with atleast they can spell better than me.

Well congrat u frigginlations.well done. At least i am ALWAYS willing to learn anf change my opinions based on facts and logics not just beat out of my old tired and worn out corner.

Ill be an ******* and you all can be disrespectful, arrogant, and many times wrong. Seems we all enjoy it the most.

See you in a few months, or not, whatever.

Flame away. I wont be reading.

Out out out.
 
#124 ·
Seems to me that way too often we insist on being CORRECT (he shouted). Yet so often it turns out, now this is a surprise, we are only partly so. Of course this applies to "we" as in everyone except me.
 
#127 ·
While I am certainly not anything like the type of expert that Bob Perry or Roger Long is, and I really am not certain at all of what may or may not have been the issue with the hull of the Nina, I would think that if the hull planking was unsound it could have been repaired for less than the FG wrap would have cost. I know that hull planks can be scarfed if only a portion is bad, and they can be replaced entirely if the whole plank is rotted. Obviously a wrap in FG is not going to fix a rotted and warped or sagging keel, in fact it might just make it worse by allowing water to become trapped behind the sheathing.

We may never know the whole story, and it would seem that some sort of enquiry into this should be done by those with far more knowledge of the actual situation than is available to most of us here on SN.
 
#128 ·
I believe you've made a Double Clanger!

We may never know the whole story,
Unless the boat turns up with the crew we will never know anything much of the story.

it would seem that some sort of enquiry into this should be done by those with far more knowledge of the actual situation than is available to most of us here on SN.
I most strongly disagree and point you to the Bounty thread on this forum which was writ by each of us numbskull cruisers but could have been the guideline of the Coast Guard inquiry hearings. We covered, investigated and exposed every salient point of that disaster, except maybe a few that would couldn't get without direct questioning of witnesses.

Don't dismiss the power if the brains of those on this forum! Don't dismiss the power of the internet. Dont relegate us to lower beings just because you dont personally know us. Further don't pedestal the 'authorities' or those interests of the families etc who have an agenda. We forumers have no agenda except to exercise the mind, pass the time and chew the fat...

Mark
 
#133 ·
I never said "investigation" I said "We covered, investigated and exposed"

Please read my posts more carefully :)
Fine, I used the wrong form of the verb.

You said we investigated. I say we speculated and discussed things that the true investigators revealed - and lots of other things that were just made up.

You say we covered and exposed. I say we discussed the coverage that was provided by others, and things that were exposed by others. Nothing unique was ever revealed here, with the only exceptions being 2 or 3 times when people who were actually on the boat or had actually met the crew revealed some of their own personal observations. That's not a whole lot of investigative content contained in about 2300 posts spread over several threads.

While some of you are sitting here saying there is nothing to investigate, nothing to think about, nothing to comment about...
I'm not aware of anyone saying any of this.

There's lots to investigate, but nobody with the time and resources to go down there and do it.

There's always lots to think about and comment about, and I haven't seen anything here that's trying to suppress that. Who are you accusing of this?

But don't go trying to suggest that thinking and commenting about things that news services uncover and others here speculate comes anywhere close to truly investigating. You can learn a lot from it, but it's basically as valuable as discussing hypothetical situations that someone proposes. To call it investigating is to fall into the trap of thinking something is true because enough people echoed what each other said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJR351
#132 ·
While some of you are sitting here saying there is nothing to investigate, nothing to think about, nothing to comment about... there is new information coming to light.

I dont like copy/pasting from another forum, but we cant discuss it there for fear of family hurt, so I post here a post of info released by a family member:

For those interested regarding Nina's engine..

Hi Cherie,
David had done a very good job on the install and had adhered to as much of
the advice that we gave him as he was able to
There was a few things such as the water intake that was not big enough to
allow maximum water flow to the engine at full throttle
Also the fuel lines were not of the correct size. These things would need to
be rectified before the warranty was signed off
The engine was quite capable of attaining full power however because of the
drive line alignment issues david chose not to go any higher in the rpm
On the sea trial the vessel motored at 6.5knots at 1600rpm. David was happy
running at a lower rpm that gave them 4-5 knots.
David was aware of the issues with the warranty and drive line and as he was
out of time he decided to address these issues when the vessel was slipped
in Australia
The issues with the fuel lines and water intake would not have caused any
problems at the lower rpm.
I trust this will help
Regards Bruce.
From Cruisersforum.com
 
#134 ·
Speculation is an integral and necessary part of an investigation (a noun, the object of the preposition-of). Without an excellent ability to ask "what if," an investigator has nothing on which to hang subsequent facts. Considering all the possibilities of the story is really the basis for finding the eventual truth. While the speculation on these forums is in no way an official investigation carried out by people paid to find the real story, I would not be a bit surprised to hear that some of those officials had done searches for relevant information and had peeked at the discussion of sailing forums.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkofSeaLife
#135 ·
The dangerous part of speculating on internet forums is that the speculation gets repeated enough that people start to treat is as fact. I've seen numerous cases of that very thing happening here. I'm not suggesting that it should be suppressed, but it should also be treated with an appropriate grain of salt.

All information is potentially useful, but inaccurate information treated as fact is potentially dangerous. Fortunately, professional investigators are well trained to sort out the two. Amateur wannable investigators, not so much. :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJR351
#137 ·
That's an interesting piece. It makes a lot of sense that any boat making long ocean passages should have redundant means of communication, a liferaft, SSB, ditch bag, etc. but inspecting every boat is problematic and would have to be done by some international agency. It also opens up a whole new opportunity for another government agency to get out of control.
 
#140 · (Edited)
I confess I find the debate that seems to inevitably arise in this type of thread somewhat bewildering. It appears that some folk believe that simply because a friend or family member of the crew might be reading this or any other forum it somehow follows we should hold our thoughts out of respect for the family.

Sorry but I call BS. (Personal speak here, not Mod speak).

Something happens that concerns us all, and a boat going down with possibly all hands does concern each and every one of us yet for some reason we are not allowed to discuss it ? Bizarre.

This incident has been all over the media. Family and friends would be far more likely to be upset over what they read in the press than what they might read here.

Should we not discuss safety issues on AC boats cos Andrew Simpson was killed ?

No, sorry, I think it is all being overly sensitive and that it doesn't make sense to me.

Then again, I could of course simply be one hard hearted bastard without a skerrick of empathy towards my fellow beings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkofSeaLife
#143 · (Edited)
...It appears that some folk believe that simply because a friend or family member of the crew might be reading this or any other forum it somehow follows we should hold our thoughts out of respect for the family.

Sorry but I call BS. (Personal speak here, not Mod speak).

Something happens that concerns us all, and a boat going down with possibly all hands does concern each and every one of us yet for some reason we are not allowed to discuss it ? Bizarre...
OK, time for me to call BS on your statement. I have yet to see anyone give any reason why we should not discuss this. I'm interested in seeing people's speculation about what happened. Occasionally I might even see some facts. But even the speculation is educational - it's just not factual.
 
#141 ·
RIP .... a

.............................................. moment

........................................................................... of

................................................................................................... silence.

thank you :)
 
#146 ·
Hull failure: As is the Edmund Fitzgerald wasn't the first or last ship to go down from that? This is a documented failure mode, after all.

Fornication with the ship's cat: Brings to mind that wreck vaguely in the UK about fiv eyears ago, where someone had bought a brand new pricey yacht and ran it aground on the maiden voyage, while offwatch with his, ah, beloved, leaving the yacht to find it's own way onto the rocks.

Now, tdw, is your reservation about the fact that it was the ship's CAT, as opposed to other livestock? Or that a carnal act outside of the sanctity of marriage might be involved?

"Senator, why did you beat your wife last night?"
I did not beat my wife, I have never struck my wife.
"Then who was that woman you were beating last night?"
 
#150 ·
HS ... apologies for missing your post and for delayed reply but given my own (lack of) matrimonial status the sanctity thereof is of little concern to me and well, if the cat was willing then who am I to deny anyone a bit of tabby.

My only concern was that we don't accuse anyone of rooting the ship's cat without evidence. Cats after all are sensitive creatures. :)
 
#148 ·
An update from LATITUDE 38:

Search Continues for Niña and Crew

July 26, 2013 - Tasman Sea

Ricky and Robin Wright of Lousiana, the parents of Danielle Wright, 19, who has been missing for nearly two months after setting sail from Opua, New Zealand, for Newcastle, Australia, with six others aboard the 70-ft staysail schooner Niña, haven't given up hope that their daughter and the others can be still be found alive. They and others have hired Equusearch, a Texas firm, to try to figure out where the schooner and/or her survivors might be now.

In addition, family and friends of the Niña crew are pressing for the U.S. government to have the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), a part of the Defense Department that supposedly has the capability of working out exactly where Niña's satphone calls were made from, to try to help find the survivors. The NGA was instrumental in locating Osama bin Laden. On the other hand, the NGA doesn't have the best record on the water. It was the NGA that provided the erroneous digital maps that contributed to the nearly new 224-ft U.S. Navy vessel Guardian going up on Tubbataha Reef, a World Heritage Site in the Sulu Sea, on January 17 of this year. The NGA charts showed the reef to be seven miles from its actual position. The expensive ship had to be cut up into three pieces and destroyed.

Friends of the Niña base their continued hopes on the possibility that New Zealand SAR resources may have been searching the wrong area in what has been their biggest search ever. Two GPS positions from Niña's Iridium phone were 700 miles apart, even though the reports were sent within just seven minutes of each other. Clearly one or both of the positions was in error. Friends of the Niña crew believe the Kiwis may have focused their search on the wrong GPS coordinate, and have thus been looking close to 700 miles from where they should have focused their search.

Realistically, there is reason to doubt that the Niña crew may still be alive. Nothing has been heard from their VHF, SSB, Iridium or EPIRB in nearly two months. And no matter which of their last GPS positions was correct, they were in cold and often rough waters.

But based on history, there is a chance they are still alive. In 2006, three fishermen from San Blas, Mexico, drifted 5,000 miles in nine months before their 29-ft disabled panga was spotted by a fishing boat near the Marshall Islands. One of the crew had died. In 1942, Poon Lim, a Chinese seaman, was on a merchant ship torpedoed by the Nazis off South Africa. He survived for 133 days in remarkably good shape, having lost not much weight at all. In 1973, Brits Maurice and Marilyn Bailey had their sailboat holed by a whale while on their way from Panama to New Zealand. They survived in their liferaft for 117 days before being rescued in poor health by a Korean fishing vessel. And sailor Steve Callahan drifted almost all the way across the Atlantic in his liferaft after a whale holed his boat.

- latitude / richard

Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude
 
#149 ·
"Two GPS positions from Niña's Iridium phone were 700 miles apart, even though the reports were sent within just seven minutes of each other. "
Not necessarily a mystery. if the phone was taken out of a box after extended non-use and travel, the last sky sight position would still be in memory, and presumably transmitted with the first call. One or more minutes later, the GPS would have refreshed and updated the position, so presumably the second position would be more likely to be the real one.

But NGA considers themselves to be part of the intelligence community and deals with civilians only to the extent that they are forced to. There's also a big difference between monitoring satellite calls in real time, versus what may or may not have been logged two months ago. As to their competency and whether they put a ship on a reef...remember, this IS the military intelligence community. If someone says "oops, we make lousy maps" you need to remember that the Russian cartographers were the finest in the world under the Czars. Then the Soviets literally misdrew entire villages and rivers on their maps, to ensure invaders (Hi, JFK!) wouldn't be able to use those maps against them. Sure, our maps are no good. Or is that a convenient disinformation?

Either way, putting one's hopes in the NGA is probably worth less than consulting the Oracle of Delphi. Or asking the NSA to task satellite coverage in the area where a liferaft might be now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top