MCA & Flares

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure about them working in the wet, why do you need to keep them in a water tight container ?

Most of your arguments (they have always worked so why not use them, I'll accept the risk relative to the emergency) do not provide (to me) a case to keep them in preference to more modern less hazardous solutions.

Are you sticking with them because they are Better than the alternatives, or is it simply because you always have.

I was in the latter category and have changed my view for the reasons given, and I have yet to find an example where the newer technology is not better. Perhaps you will provide one ?

There are many cases where flares have been ignored, the Titanic being the most obvious where two ships ignored them. Indeed had the Titanic not used it's wireless transmissions, there would have been even more casualties.

I agree respecting the risks of devices powered by electricity, but you don't carry a single flare do you ? so why have a single electrically powered safety device ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why keep them in a container - long term exposure will deteriorate the casings. Short term will not. So they will work even after a dunking.

Risk of injury against life saved - this is similar to the drag a person out of a burning house etc. - better to break an arm / leg etc. getting them out and save their life than lose them.

I'm sticking with them because I believe that they have a place in my emergency kit.

No-one as far as I see does not accept that modern developments in some areas are better - of course they are. But I am yet to be convinced that modern 'alternatives' replace flares completely. IMHO they complement or are additional to the emergency package.

Where do you get this "you don't carry a single flare do you" from ? I have a container of red's and also a set of whites ready for use.

The subject of Titanic and the 'rockets' that were used in those days. They were white and not Red. There has been debate about whether they were seen - reports say they were. They were also fired off regardless of whether another vessel was in area to see or not. IMHO Titanic is not a good example to use in this debate.

OK - lets look at later incidents .... Texaco Oklahoma, tanker that broke in half. Engineers and crew stranded on aft section with Emergency radio. They wound that handle ... sending SOS etc. for hours and nothing. Why ? They had test link still bridging the antena link stopping transmission of signal. Ships passed them ......
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/docs/boards/texoklahoma.pdf

Sobering read ....
 
No other CG seems to have popped up here, so I will, and just say that IMHO a flare within sight of the coast is a magic device which will attract instant attention, in my (quite extensive) experience.
VHFs are electronic and therefore like anything else subject to not working, quite apart from the fact that a lot of matelots don't seem to bother to listen to them these days.
I reckon you cannot beat a flare for getting attention from those closest to you. Period.
 
The 1971 sinking of the tanker which split up was indeed a sobering read.

It included the phrase "The crew members on the stern section attempted to attract passing ships by firing flares, blinking red and white light signals....." "One ship responded to the light signals but no distress signals were identified and she departed".

So flares did not save them, though light signals were actually seen.

The radio mentioned was a "portable liferaft radio" the person who knew how to operate it had perished in the forward section, "it was not known if or how the ground or antenna was attached, during the tuning. Proper attachment of the antenna and ground wire and operation of the tuning dials were critical to the operation of the transmitter. Four controls had to be manipulated in the proper sequence to tune the transmitter."

Today's hand held sets do not need that level of skill to set up and operate. An EPRIB does not need anywhere near that level of skill, and I am convinced had they had one, it would have saved a lot of the lost crew members, do you not think an EPRIB could have saved the day (where the flares had failed) ?

I undertstand the instinctive action argument, though today the emergency services are taught to instinctively use the safest methods to hand first.

The single flare argument, was meant to demonstrate that you have to build into your emergency kit some doubling up, if the first flare failed to ignite then you will go to the next one, the same argument should apply to electronic equipment, as several have pointed out, sometimes techology will let you down, but if you have another xxxx or an alternative you are still in the game as it were.

To me the Titanic is the quintessential argument for not relying on flares, maybe not for you, but it was shown that the nearest ship saw them, and an illegal whaler saw them at the very least, the radio transmissions were what brought the rescue, but today we have EPRIBs if the main radio is rendered useless, and good hand held radios .

It might sound like my boat is bristling with technology, but truth be known, I can't wait to switch the engine off and sail her, and I much prefer navigation using paper charts.

Flares have worked for ages, and will continue to provide a (limited) means of emergency communication, I am not disputing this, I am simply arguing that for me, they have no place in my kit because I can purchase better alternative equipment. As I said before, I will not campaign for the removal of flares and respect your position for retaining them.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How any one in their right mind put a man who only thinks of cost in charge of an organisation which is primarily responsible for safety I do not know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does he have an MBA?
<flame shields ON> /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently he's got an MSc(1983) from Cranfield on "Central government policy towards volunteers"....

Even though he's CE of the MCA, I think, considering our different viewpoints, I'll ignore him and carry on having flares as part of my arsenal.

( I still think chucking 15-year-expired flares o/b near the Richard Montgomery or any number of well-charted places (off Ventnor???) on a dark night would be the best bet...) /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Stuart Carruthers, cruising manager at the RYA,... 'We don't actually have a position on it,' Mr Carruthers told us. 'We're giving it some thought.'

Nice fudge - I like it /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
The Texaco Oklahoma - careful read of body as well as intro reveals a lot more.

It is accepted that flares and various methods were used visually to attract attention. BUT it's that final act that fails because the crew believed RADIO had highlighted their plight, second that the ship that did respond to visual approached but had no confirmation signal as well as asking CG if any reports of incidents. CG basicaly said all fine and she sailed on. I maintain (TO is a well known accident for tanker guys like myself and created hours of discussion amongst ships officers) that had the crew realised they needed to fire ANOTHER flare when the ship approached - that they would have been rescued. But they did not.

I am always wary of Radio calls as I have personal experience of misunderstanding over which ship calls etc.

How many here have heard a ship call : Ship on my xxx bow this is xxxxxxx, position xxxx xxxxx Over.

It is not the easy thing that people consider it to be - to identify quickly and without error who's calling who.

I can realte a common finding amongst Seismic Crews. I worked in 2 Seismic companys for periods - driving boats on shoots. We would be towing cables 2 ... 3 .... 4 kms long. End of cable marked by float and radar reflector. Many small craft could actually pass over the cable when submerged for work - but it was accepted that it was better to warn of any craft from doing so. We would at frequent intervals make safety calls on VHF giving position, speed and course. Didn't make a ot of difference ... trawlers, ships, all sorts still kept coming and we had to resort to Very Pistol and flares. White ones. We had boxes of the things and we would go through loads on a shoot.
It was normal that we would try repeated VHF call - get no reply. We'd then fire a flare and call again on VHF ... Boy was that a 'Wake-up' call ..... You KNEW it had worked because one of two or both things happened : a) they would steer away, and/or b) reply on VHF asking for advise on what action ....
I really wouldn't like to think what would happen if we didnt use those flares. Told to illustrate the location aspect.

EPIRB - an excellent addition to any inventory and in most cases would provide better communication of distress. In coastal terms - it will lead rescuers to close proximity, then pinpoint position indication takes over ... visual..... which could be anything from the vessel on fire, obvious damage and yes ... you guessed it - a Flare fired of.
Now lets take a vessel out in middle of ocean. EPIRB activated. Signal relayed, checked and confirmed that vessel is out there. Remember they have to go through a confirmation due to number of false signals set off etc. No-one will send out SAR / divert shipping until they are reasonably sure. So it could be by time SAR is nearing casualty - EPIRB has died .... now what ? VHF ? OK - but still when SAR are closing in they will need visual signal to pinpoint.

I don't talk about this lightly - having been involved in ships diverting to search areas.

I feel frustrated that such a simple time honoured tool is being discarded so carelessly. In my book any item that saves even one life, let alone potential to save many is worth carrying. Considering it's cost over the counter. Nothing else near it for value.
What about the race boys ... I need to get out my Copy of Ocean Racing - but I'm sure there must be something in there about carrying them. I'm sure that Alan having included life-lines specifications in the book - would not ignore flares !

I cannot help but feel a lot of this argument generates from the disposal of TEP's and the hassle some have.

I shall be carrying Flares on my boats until forced to stop. In UK you are lucky that you do not have 'MOT' of boats. Many other countries do- Flares and safety equipment being an important part of those inspections. In UK you have the luxury of choosing what to carry on the boat.
 
[ QUOTE ]

To me the Titanic is the quintessential argument for not relying on flares, maybe not for you, but it was shown that the nearest ship saw them, and an illegal whaler saw them at the very least, the radio transmissions were what brought the rescue, but today we have EPRIBs if the main radio is rendered useless, and good hand held radios .


[/ QUOTE ]

For me, the Titanic shows the importance of not discarding old methods just because something new comes along. Titanic had water-tight compartments, and there was a tested system of radio to summon help. All she needed to do was remain afloat until help arrived, and transfer passengers and crew with the ships boats. She was not therefore required to have sufficient lifeboats for everyone. The pity was, no-one predicted a glancing blow with an iceberg breaching 5 comparments.

The vessels close at hand may have ignored the flares, but equally they did not respond to the radio.

Since GMDSS there has been no requirement for ships to maintain a listening watch on Ch16. If I were to sight a flare my first action would be to ensure that the VHF was working, followed by a Mayday relay. Without the initial trigger of a flare, I might sail by without any knowledge of a near-by distress.

John
 
[ QUOTE ]
No other CG seems to have popped up here, so I will, and just say that IMHO a flare within sight of the coast is a magic device which will attract instant attention, in my (quite extensive) experience.
VHFs are electronic and therefore like anything else subject to not working, quite apart from the fact that a lot of matelots don't seem to bother to listen to them these days.
I reckon you cannot beat a flare for getting attention from those closest to you. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]And if I'm out of sight of land? Or the coast is unpopulated? Or the visibility is poor?

Are you advising me, as you are CG, to use a flare before using a DSC call?
 
Re: MCA &amp; Flares

And if I'm out of sight of land? Or the coast is unpopulated? Or the visibility is poor?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it me, or is this debate starting to get silly. when its necessary to use 'what ifs'.

Surely the important thing, is to think about a drill you would use in any emergency, whether this involves flares, EPIRB, DSC, etc, dependant upon your preference.

IMHO, it is more important to have a drill & practice it, so you do not forget something important, rather than to try & make it up as you go along.
 
Richard .... I think that's pushing the 'envelope'. Out of sight of land can apply to VHF and other forms as well ... Handheld VHF at waterline ? What distance will you get then ?

We can all think up circumstances where systems are inadequate etc. - What we try to do is cover all bases where practicable, so we stand best chance of being rescued.

I repeat a previous - If I was going to crew on a boat and I became aware that there were NO flares on board and we were about to embark on a reasonable cruise - I would think seriously about not going. Time expired or not makes no odds to me - NO flares - No Go for me.

I just like the idea that I have non-powered / non-electrical safety item at hand - that when all goes tits-up - I still have a means of giving signal of distress.
 
Whatever works for you Refueler.

Personally, I will still leave the flares until the last resort and by then I won't be expecting too much success from them.
 
Have you ever taken yourself and anyone who crews with you to a practical demonstration?

It's well worth it for what you learn, and as well as inside 'classroom' stuff, learning how each different type of flare works, you also get to let them off for real, and find out how difficult it would be for many ladies would not be able to activate them unless in adrenaline situataion, but also how many people on the coast report them in. Trainers have to call the coastguard first, and gain permission before they are let off, in case there is an urgent situation ongoing.
 
Firstly flares made no impact on any of the ships they were fired at back in the 1971 example.

The bottom of page 6 says "The third vessel appeared about 19:00. The crew fired several additional flares, blew the ships whistle repeatedly and rigged a large red light which they blinked"

This is the vessel which saw the lights, saw the flares, blinked their lights back, but still did nothing of value. Two other ships which passed by at 06:30 and 17:00 also had flares fired but to no avail.

Better still, the lesson learned from this was THAT SHIPS SHOULD BE GRANTED EPIRB FREQUENCIES and by implication use them.

If you go to page 18, it states

"The equipment (i.e. the complex radio that failed them) was designed for use in lifeboats and is not suitable for use in life rafts which constitute a large portion of lifesaving equipment in use today. Miniaturaised watertight floatable radio transmistters which can be carried aboard ship or packed on liferafts are available and can be activated without setup or tuning procedures"....."The Coast Guard, FCC, and the Radio Techincal committee, Marine have made proposals at the International Telecommunication Union World Administrative Radio Conference for Space for allocation of frequency for EPIRBS"

Re your casting doubt about EPIRB reliablity and Pinpointing.

For £325 I can buy an EPIRB that has an 11 year usefull battery life (guarenteed for 5 years), and will transmit for 48 hours at minus 40 degrees. It transmits on two frequecies one which will give the position to within 3NM and another for SAR to home in onto.

Does it work, well lets use an example of where it did.

In the late 90's when Tony Bullimore lost his keel in the southern ocean he deployed his EPRIB and waited 4 days for rescue, in preference to getting into the liferaft, and the SAR managed to find him without flares.

Re your white flares, I find it interesting that none of the boats rushed up to you and tried to rescue you, so if you are down to the white ones, everyone stays away.

BTW, Australia has made EPIRBs mandatory for many boats, and are thinking about making them mandatory for life rafts, I only mention this to show that some countries are taking them seriously.

Nobody is saying that in the past, flares have not provided a good service, but for me, it is time to move onto better, safer, and (nearly) fool proof SAR communication aids.
 
Re: MCA &amp; Flares

Given the recent news reports about satellites being damaged by space debris, the fact that sunspot activity is on the increase again (11 year cycle), with expected disruption to satellite communications, I think I will continue to carry flares for use in inshore waters if required, to supplement DSC VHF. EPIRBS have their place, but are not infallable, any more than other electronics.
With regard to the safety of flares, I was always taught that flares are safe until you forget that they are dangerous. The only accidents I can recall are the well known one with the instructor, clearly a malfunction, and a RIB crew setting fire to their boat- operator error?
There are millions of flares out there, probably tens of thousands fired every year but very few accidents.
As for the MCA, its a government department which has discovered that there is money to made from us, lets start with proposed drink driving legislation - even though the stats prove the problem is almost insignificant its seen as an oportunity to develop new powers. Give them another couple of years and there will be mandatory 'vessel inspections', provided for your own safety, of course the charge will just be to 'cover costs'. Does anybody really think they have OUR interests in mind WRT flares? No chance.
 
[ QUOTE ]
No other CG seems to have popped up here, so I will, and just say that IMHO a flare within sight of the coast is a magic device which will attract instant attention, in my (quite extensive) experience.
VHFs are electronic and therefore like anything else subject to not working, quite apart from the fact that a lot of matelots don't seem to bother to listen to them these days.
I reckon you cannot beat a flare for getting attention from those closest to you. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know someone who fired of multiple flares in front of a manned CG station and got no help or response whatsoever.

Are you saying that your advice as a CG is that a flare will attract instant attention, whereas VHF/EPRIB/Mobile are less likely to?
 
Sorry but the Texaco Oklahoma report cannot be divided up as you have done. It has to be taken in context of what was available at the time and also fact that the crew did NOT continue to make distress signals when ship approached. It states clearly that vessel approached to within 5 miles - saw no further distress indications, called CG and were advised no action and they then sailed on.
EPIRBs - read on and you'll see that frequencies they talk about are different to present day, they also make plain that they need to IMPLEMENT a system or go it alone. We are talking 1971 - when they were still trying to set into place common international set-up on items like that.

Please stop disecting and extracting pieces to suit ... read whole as a whole.

White Flares are not a Distress signal - they are a warning signal. Numerous VHF calls to approaching vessels got no replies ... fire a white flare and we very quickly got a reply / action. We would highlight the fact of firing a flare in the call and usually got reply straight back that Flare was SEEN.

I do not cast doubt on EPIRB use ... but I do question any reliance on battery powered items. OVER AND ABOVE non-powered items. Battery life is great when new or near new. Many people only realise a battery is dead when they need it. On ships R/O is responsible to service / check the EPIRB set in it's self-launch cradle. I know of two vessels I was on that they were dead but still within "design life". Of course blame the R/O that failed to see it before ... but that's the point. Human error leading to item failure. I have been on others that the AB detailed to collect EPIRB for drills winds the lanyard around the antena to body rendering it useless .... puts it back in cradle that way ... great ! Myself and others have on many occasions had to 'instruct' the guy to NOT do this, and also to lift out of cradle and correct.

If Flares were so outdated and not worth carrying - why does SOLAS and Maritime Authorities Worldwide require their carraige on the ship, in Lifeboats, Liferafts etc. ?? Can they be wrong ? Possible but given the wealth of experience and number of people involved in deciding the specifications - doubtful .....

Again I say - I support ALL means of rescue / SAR / distress methods - but I don't believe that any one of them covers all bases - they ALL have their place in the inventory.

I will now really throw the cat into the pigeons .......... I maintian that my style and area of boating is covered safely by :

Flares
VHF - fixed and handheld
High Power Flashlights

Combination of these I am reasonably confident would have me rescued. My area of boating ? Baltic Central. Not being such a large area as Atlantic or Pacific - EPIRB IMHO drops a few places down the priority listing.

So that brings me to the real crux IMHO - where and what do people sail. That has a large influence on what to carry. Solent ? Flares have to be high on the list simply because of the number of potential sightings. EPIRB ? bit of an overkill in Solent ?
Middle of English Channel ? Flares still high up the list, EPIRB coming into the fray now as it depends which part of Channel ... eastern end surrounded by ships or Western App's where out of sight.
Further off-shore ......... the EPIRB is now approaching top of list for it's real design purpose - that of off-shore indication. I cannot agree with some that EPIRB was designed with coastal / near shore in mind apart from remote areas.

So as I say - where you sail has a great impact on how you see your inventory for safety / SAR.

Blimey there's bod's on here that resist fitting DSC radio let alone other modern gear.

Evolution and development is fine as long as it doesn't just tread over and ignore all aspects.
 
Of course the anti flare mob have every right not to carry them, though perhaps their suggestion that we should give up on visual signalling techniques is perhaps misguided. Radio communications are better and more reliable, that is true, but there are areas arounf d the UK never mind going further afield where both mobile phones and vhf coverage is decidedlt unreliable. 406 epirbs should be better but may not be so immediate. 121 may be good for localisation if the searching vehicle does not have too much choice but in some areas may not be as helpful as one would like. Mention has been made of high power lights for visual sugnalling and yes they can work, but they do bepend on both the transmiiter and reciever being reasonably well aligned, where as the 360 degree output from a flare or smoke is much more readily spotter.

On balance the 406 epirb may well be an acceptable replacement for the parachute rocket, but at present I see no real replacement for the plare/smoke.

I for one will not be binning my flares though that does not mean that I won't avail myself of moder communications devices either. EXpanding options seems better than reducing them.

As for the reliability of flares, we have learnt over the years the science of how to make and test one shot devices so that the user in the field does have a very high level of confidence in their use.
 
I am sorry but page 6 and 7 of the detail clearly state that the Tanker crew fired flares at the Bourganville, then used the lights which were then confused as a fishing vessel. The Bourganville stayed around for 2.5 hours, and left as a result of the coast guard informing them them that there were no ships that had reported being in distress in that area. (ie nobody else had reported these flares or the flares fired at the other two ships at the times mentioned).

Ergo the flares did not instigate a rescue by this or the other two ships they fired them at.

Nowhere in that report does it actually say the crew stopped firing flares, the only place you are hoping this is implied is in the summary (which you told me to disregard in favour of the underlying body of evidence), which refers to "no further distress signal" but this could easily refer to the fact that the Coast guard said there were no reported ships in distress, and that the lights were rigged up to resemble a fishing boat, rather than an SOS signal.

But let's say they did stop firing flares, and this was what doomed them, surely the recommendations would have included either a requirement to stock more flares because they exhausted the supplies, or better crew training on when to fire flares ? There are no flare related recommendations that I can see.

The recommendation on page 18 was that ships should be covered by the same (fool proof) emergency beacons that aircraft had at the time. Let's not worry too much about the frequencies, the recommendation was that ships had their own frequencies separate from aircraft ones, and that EPIRBs were automatic, or simple in operation, which is clearly the case today.

All I can see on pages 46 and 47 are recommendations respecting the structure and repair of tankers, along with easier inspection and then on the crew safety a recommendation (number 4) that the portable radio equipment is made easier to use, (the tanker was built in the mid 50's so may have been original equipment) and recommendation 5

"5. It is recommended that there be required, as additional safety equipment on Ocean and Coastwise vessels; a portable, poisition-indicating, distress beacon which will operate automatically when manually triggered or when immersed in the sea."

Re white flares, what you are saying is that if you have half your flare pack as white flares, they will not help you in an emergency because everyone knows they are a "stay away" signal.

Re the technology aspect, sure you can quote examples of technology failing, I can quote examples of flares failing (i.e. the Tanker) and the authorities recommending an EPIRB as the solution. The lesson I learn from this is that you don't leave safety to chance, you make sure you understand the equipment, and ensure you have built in duplication (i.e. you don't carry one flare do you).

I can quote examples where the EPIRB was the only communication option and worked (Tony Bullimore)

I agree about the equipment levels, some won't even consider a liferaft as essential. I am not an early adopter of new technolgy, but you have to accept in life that sometimes newer technology can offer advantages over the older technology, I bet you have a DVD or HD player and wear a battery power watch /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Now I am happy for you to continue to use flares, but for me a couple of EPIRBs cover the long range and short range SAR lock on, and that will only be needed if the DSC (powered by two independent batteries) and hand held radios with a box of spare batteries do not work, or I cannot get attention via the fog horn or powerfull torches (or mobile if in the solent).
 
[ QUOTE ]
Re white flares, what you are saying is that if you have half your flare pack as white flares, they will not help you in an emergency because everyone knows they are a "stay away" signal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never noticed you looking in my flare container.......... in fact I have a larger number of flares than the advised number. I do not buy in fancy packs. I buy individually and spread the cost out. As to white flares - I have 2, clipped to bulkhead just inside companionway.

Back to that report ..... I actually advised in various words - Read in entirety.
 
[ QUOTE ]
perhaps their suggestion that we should give up on visual signalling techniques is perhaps misguided.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your case is so weak that you are desperate enough to need to employ the straw man fallacy.

[ QUOTE ]
Mention has been made of high power lights for visual sugnalling and yes they can work, but they do bepend on both the transmiiter and reciever being reasonably well aligned, where as the 360 degree output from a flare or smoke is much more readily spotter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why tell such an obvious lie? Your life jacket has a 360 degree strobe on it. Most MOB kits include a floating strobe that flashes when you turn it the right way up. There are countless 360 electric lights in every day use - your anchor light for one. Did you really think you'd get away with pretending otherwise?

[ QUOTE ]
at present I see no real replacement for the plare/smoke.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're ignorant of the alternatives, what does that say about the value of your opinion?

[ QUOTE ]
As for the reliability of flares, we have learnt over the years the science of how to make and test one shot devices so that the user in the field does have a very high level of confidence in their use.

[/ QUOTE ]

...but you can't be sure someone's looking, I've seen a flare fired on a busy day in the Solent. There mush have been 200 craft in clear view of it. It generated only 4 calls to the CG on 16, none giving an accurate position. I saw it and took it for a Maroon from Yarmouth. No search was instigated. About an hour later someone called on 16 to say they'd let of a red firework in memory of an old sailing buddy. I respect your right to choose, but you should respect my right to choose too. I won't bet my life on the chance that someone switched on enough to get an accurate position is looking my way at the right moment. (With a mere 4 miles in daylight.) God help anyone who tired to summon help with a flare at the wrong moment around the Hebrides, or in fog, or around Nov 5th.

The performance of flares are so utterly poor that people in this thread and others that people have actually had to lie about their relative performance to make them seem better. People have had to stoop to misrepresent other people's cases simlpy to make a case for an ineffective coms system that doesn't stand up to independent scrutiny.

VHF/EPIRB/mobile need no such artificial bolstering. They are all well acknowledged to be effective.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever taken yourself and anyone who crews with you to a practical demonstration?

[/ QUOTE ]About 40 years ago. We discovered none of our old flares (all three) worked, plus they were only just out of date. Gave us great confidence. Still, I expect the modern ones are much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

D
Replacement for time expired Coastal flare pack
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
2K
lustyd
lustyd
F
Keeping the salt dry.
Replies
11
Views
393
lustyd
lustyd
mogmog2
Maxwell windlass 10 VW looks interesting (to a windlass noob)
2 3
Replies
59
Views
1K
mogmog2
mogmog2

Share this page

Top