Leaderboard

Good weather recently, so I did a 25 hour loop. Pics presented without comment or context.

Around 7 hours of work, and the washing I even had assistance. Hand washed twice over, then applied and removed wax with a rotary polisher. Even got the exhaust stains out on the belly, which was the hardest part. After this, I decided a rotary takes too much work. While they are powerful machines, they need a LOT of skill and control to use, and being on ladders instead of scaffolding, or pressing it overhead, or in weird leaning positions, it's just too difficult and I had a couple strikes when it got away from me (marred paint). I sprung for a proper weekend warrior polisher after this, a Griot G9 and wax red pads, will see how it works out. There are also some old repair sites that I'll redo the glaze and paint, as well as the strike areas. Will also do paint correction one day and get it to a true mirror finish with a ceramic wax that I'll switch to, but this already was some ridiculously good results with what I had, I expect good things from this G9 when I finally get to use it.

Running 93 octane ethanol pump mogas I have been struggling with vapor issues in my CTSW for a while now, but I wanted to work through them as far as I could without asking for help. I ran this same fuel for ten years with no issues, and it came up after I changed my fuel system to include teflon-lined hoses. The symptom has been pretty consistent: intermittent power loss when the engine is hot and the deck angle is high. This means I most often saw it on takeoff and climb out, sometimes at very low altitudes (not fun!). The RPM would drop from WOT RPM (5200-5500 with the eProp) down to about 4000rpm, often surging up and down in 2-5sec pulses. Reducing throttle and deck angle usually allows me to fly at 4000-5000rpm and land. After this first happened I re-routed a fuel line to remove a potential vapor trap and the issue went away and was gone all Summer when it was hot so I assumed it was solved. Then I went to Tampa last fall to visit Bill Ince, and we were two up departing St. Petersburg and the issue happened again out over the water, two quick pulses and then it smoothed back out but we were both a little puckered up! The problem did not recur and we continued on the 15-20 miles back to Clearwater. Before I went back to Georgia I topped off with 100LL and had no issues going back home. After I got back home I went back to mogas and had no issues all winter, so I thought maybe a difference in Florida fuel blends vs Georgia could have been the cause, or just some bad gas in Florida. Carbs were rebuilt in March, and I flew until mid-April with no issues. The last few weeks it got warmer, but only in the 70s or so. Quite suddenly I started getting the vapor issue on every flight. I tried insulating all the AN connections on my fuel lines in case they were getting hot, but no joy. Finally I switched to 100% 100LL fuel and the problem ceased immediately and has been gone for several flights. I'm fine with running avgas if necessary, but I'm still a little confused over what exactly happened or changed. I checked my gascolator screen and did a fuel flow test draining out the tanks completely and there were no issues. My ideas are: 1) The new fuel lines are teflon, stainless braided, and with integral silicone firesleeve. It's possible the new lines retain more heat than rubber hoses and lead to increased chance of vaporization of ethanol. 2) Fuel blends have changed. I read that the EPA is working on changing the max ethanol in standard fuel from 10% to 15%...I'm wondering if suppliers have begun a stealth creep up of ethanol content or other additives. 3) I changed out my fuel pump when I did the hose change...perhaps my new pump is weaker than the old one? The old one was well past replacement age and was an older revision pump, but I never had this issue until after it got changed out. Maybe the new one is just a factory dud. 4) I had to make a new heat shield for my gascolator during the fuel system changes, but it's pretty much the same thickness aluminum material and the exact same shape as the old one if not slightly larger, plus it's more reflective so should bounce more heat. I guess I could beef that up or add additional insulation. Here's what it looks like: I'm certainly open to other ideas, recommendations, or wild speculation. I know Corey recommends a boost pump installation, and I'd do that if 100LL ends up not totally curing the issue, but so far so good. I miss the cheaper fuel, but it is more convenient to just pull up to the pump.

Finally, almost 2 years wait is over. It was delivered to me last week. Now I need to get 5 hours transition training. BR

Just brought home my new to me CTSW! Looking forward to new adventures

Merry Christmas, I hope everyone has a good holiday.

I di check the two CTLS that are in the shop, and they do have carbon fiber sub fins. So an internal antenna on a CTLS sub fin probably won't work.

The torque adapter works better than a crows foot because it fully captures the nut, and you can't get to the bottom fuel pump nut with a crows foot. I have used a wrench and a scale for the bottom nut before I purchased the torque adapters. Regarding removal of the propeller. The popped heads on the M6 bolts I think came from Arian. It is something I have always done. While the propeller maintenance manual doesn't say that the bolts will be damaged it does say to loosen them before loosening the six M8 bolts. I try to follow the maintenance manual to the best of my ability, especially since it is required by regulation. I don't find any reference to lubricating the plunger in the Rotax manual or the SB on fuel pump replacement, but it is something I picked up in my Rotax training along the way. The lubrication I use is an engine assembly lube. It will fully dissolve in the oil.

Warming the engine and burping are probably not necessary. Unless you are planning to removed the crankshaft gear, locking the crankshaft is also probably not necessary. Make a chute like in the picture to keep oil away from the radiator and oil cooler, and have a drip pan or bucket for the oil. Before installing use some grease to hold the rollers on the bearing in place for installing the gearbox. I have some white grease mixed with STP that I use for engine assembly that I use. Also put a dab of grease on the plunger for the fuel pump as it goes back on. New lock washers 945-832 for the fuel pump would be a good idea, and as I mentioned above a new isolating flange 950-228 should be used. Six new DIN 985 M8 locknuts for the propeller.

When the propeller goes back on tighten the nuts on the six M8 screws in a crosswise pattern to 27nm or 19.91 (20) ft/lb. Then tighten the three M6 screws to 10nm or 88.5 in/lb. My preferred way of torqueing the prop nuts is with a torque adapter turned 90° to the torque wrench. These also work well for torqueing the nuts on the fuel pump. I have used a universal impact socket for the nuts before, but the adapter works better. Neuform Propeller.pdf

I'll see if I can post the Neuform manual tomorrow. When removing the propeller loosen the three smaller bolts first, then just tighten them until the touch. Then loosen the six that hold the propeller on. If you don't do this it is possible to pop the heads off the small bolts. Also slide something in between the engine and the radiator to direct oil away from the engine, because there will be oil that pours out of the gearbox.

Like Roger said it is not hard, but I think his 30-40 minutes is a little light. You will need to remove the propeller and fuel pump. You should probably replace the fuel pump isolating flange. You will need a puller. It is $554.65 from Rotax, but one can be fabricated using some angle iron, bolts, and a slide hammer. One thing I do when applying sealant is to cut some 1.5" wide strips of paper and roll them up and insert into the bolt holes. This will help keep the holes clean when applying the sealant. Also, make sure the sealing surfaces are really clean.

You guys haven't seen bad ethics until you see what's been going on in the last 20 years with used certified aircraft. When I make the comment to a used aircraft salesman that I know about how atrocious some of his planes are, even bordering on criminal, he tells me. "There is a sucker born every minute but I will make a lot of money on it". Most of you guys have no clue on how bad things have gotten. A lot of these 50 to 60 year old planes are so worn out and corroded, restoration is almost impossible. The FAA no longer makes rounds at local airports and even if they did , most wouldn't know what to look at, I know these guys, I could write a book on stupid things they've done. Be glad you have fairly new planes.

General Aviation is the only significant category of aviation that does not use Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) as the basis for maintenance. Read this article to see why airlines, the military and other major aviation entities use it. https://resources.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2011-03_the-waddington-effect.pdf Here is an AvWeb article discussing Maintenance Induced Failure (MIF). https://www.avweb.com/ownership/the-savvy-aviator-53-the-dark-side-of-maintenance/ This 2021 article talks about the downside of maintenance. It reveals the fact that MIF was found to be an issue in WWII. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2021/march/pilot/savvy-maintenance-ri It is tempting to conclude that GA would be better off to use maintenance procedures more inline with airlines and the military . It seems generally accepted that maintenance is best done using the right material and good procedures by skilled mechanics and overseen by knowledgeable owners. In my opinion, we should worry more about people knowing now to check their hoses than about when to replace them. Replacing them at an appropriate time will follow if we inspect them carefully and on a timely basis.

Maybe we should rename this forum to FD fliers and welcome these beauties in. We are all in the same family.

First off let me say everyone makes mistakes whether it is offering advise or doing work. I know I have made mistakes. In my opinion the advice being offered in this VLOG is a mistake. In my observations of doing maintenance on CT's the past 15 years I would say that it is likely that going past 5 years will not be a safety issue, but it is hard to tell when it will be an issue. Unless you can verify the material choices made by the installer, and are comfortable with the quality of work I would say the 5 year replacement is a good thing. I have found issues with oil hoses from both substitution of non Rotax hose and safety related installation errors. The installation errors were from the factory and well respected LSA mechanics. The installation error is poor positioning of the Band-it clamp for the fire sleeve causing a constriction of the oil hose. I have posted pictures before. I have seen problems with fuel hoses. Mostly from the wrong sizes being used causing leaks, but also some poor quality hoses. I had one customer have a forced landing due to a bad fuel hose replaced during a hose change the year before I started working on the airplane. It came apart on the inside and a little peice of rubber blocked off the fuel inlet on the 2-4 carburetor. When you shut down one side of the engine it is not good. I had one batch of hose that I bought that I sent back to the supplier because I didn't like the quality, and it did meet the required DIN specification. The hose would collapse and kink when bent around a reasonable radius. I have not seen as many problems with coolant hoses, but I did have one airplane that the hoses were absolutely rotten at 5 years, but they did not appear to be Rotax supplied hose. There was a time that the replacement Rotax 90° hose would leak it you didn't also switch to the new Rotax spring clamps. The old spring clamps didn't apply enough tension to seal up, because the wall thickness of the hose was thinner. A failed carburetor socket can cause a forced landing or leave you stranded. I personally know of two failures. I have removed some pretty rotten looking diaphragms from carburetors, that can also lead to bad things happening. A leaking float needle because it got hard from age can ruin an engine if not caught. I am a little up in the air regarding fuel pumps. A lot of times it is just poor quality workmanship and poor choices with material substitutions. Often times the mechanic doesn't know better because they didn't do the research, or they receive some poor advice.

Good grief. No, I do not change hoses every annual. I was trying to comment on the fear mongering warning me that I am going to crash and burn because I might be skeptical about the Rotax 5-year requirement. After all, if the goal is to be safe, why not be really, really, safe. After all, can we be really, perfectly, totally, absolutely certain that no hose will ever need to be replaced before five years? At some point, the argument about the frequency of hose changes amounts to religion (or, possibly, self-interest if one is in the business of hose replacement) and not to actual risk assessment. If risk assessment was the issue, I would expect Hobbs time to be the better indicator of hose life and not calendar time, anyhow. BTW, except for coolant hoses, all hoses on my E-LSA airplane are custom stainless braid/teflon with a lifespan that exceeds my natural life expectancy. I will switch lower coolant hoses to silicone at the next 5 year change. It may be hard to find silicone hoses for the top of the engine due to the bends required.

Took a short flight this afternoon going east from Hendersonville NC and saw this. Apparently contrail shadows. I don’t know what that dark streak to the ground is. You just never know what you’re going to see up there.

Even cheaper than Andy's suction cup shade, I keep one of those old fashion paper charts in the cockpit and drape it over the forward spar tube when needed.

Yes. Little doctor lake. The plane is very good on floats when it’s light. I have the eprop coming and I’m excited to try it. The main issue now is on floats it has a hard time climbing over 8000ft and it’s always nice to get a little higher than the tallest mountains in your route. But on lower elevations it’s ok. our backyard is the Nahanni park.

Turns out that FD soldered the motor wires to the spade terminals ( you can’t see that because it’s covered with a rubber boot) and one broke off. I installed spade connectors on both terminals and it’s all good now. Thanks for the helpful advice.

Price of tires, oil, filters, you name it - it's all 30% + from a few years ago. Thank Brandon.

440 NM. Total fuel burn was 17 gallons.

ELSA is the only way to go and it should not devalue the aircraft depending on who does the work. I probably have the most modified SW in the world and all of the modifications were done in accordance with accepted practices and technology for aircraft. Some things take a lot of research and effort and not everything is successful to do, but it can make a much better aircraft. Someone came in my hangar not long ago and commented that I just can't leave things alone. I guess not for the last 50 years.

It will take a lot of padding with a 6" ladder. I use one that is almost 6 foot tall.

I just had the bowls off within the last week for my annual, they were super clean. I can check them again, but I don’t think that’s it.

Water bottles are useable for more than one thing! Just don't forget it's not lemonade!

PS I believe the thread well size of the sensors are 10mm x 1.5mm pitch. You still have to take a depth reading and make sure the thread engagement area isn't too long either, as said there are many variations available, but if you find one it will be all of 25 dollars instead of 200.

I understand the sentiment, but I'm experimental and I wouldn't remove the BRS. I consider it an excellent piece of safety equipment, and a real selling point of the CT series. Yes it's expensive, but it's also something that can turn several low probability but unsurvivable events into very survivable events. The service intervals are obviously very conservative because BRS wants to make sure this thing works, *every time*. Even if you don't want to pay for the BRS service, I'd leave it installed and it will most likely work as designed, even if it's been 15 years. Everybody has their own risk analysis and YMMV, but I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it (e.g. "die").

Just got back from Freeport Grand Bahama. Flew KMLB, KPBI, MYGF, and back after 2 day visit. No need to take on fuel. Still had 11 gallons left. The 912Is is just so efficient. Fun trip, but the paperwork and DHS procedures can be intimidating. N838Q if you’re interested in looking at the flight path. Highly recommend. It’s a whole different world over there, but you have to fly 80 miles over open ocean, and wear a life jacket. Eat the conch salad and enjoy.

Won't be long it'll be $10,000.

For several months I have been working on trying to reduce stall speed with the use of vortex generators. I installed vgs on wings and stabilator at various % chord and even used two types of vg's however was unable to provide a significant reduction in stall speed. About a month ago I was having a conversation with Tom Peghiny about vg's and he brought up a possible issue of something not having to do with stall speeds. It involved possible boundary layer separation in cruise on the top of the cabin. I installed string tufts along the top of the cabin and with a video camera mounted on the vertical stabilizer and found that no separation occurred in cruise. Later that day I ran the full video and saw that the boundary layer completely separated during the flare to landing. I guessed that this might affect the tail due to significant disruption of airflow on the stabilator so I added 22 vg's about 2 inches behind the windshield. Flight tests showed no boundary separation during flare to landing with the vg's. Cabin vg's definitely would be a positive addition due less drag and maybe better stabilator control when landing to avoid sudden descent that we all are aware of on a CT. I discussed this issue with Anni Brogan, owner and test pilot for Micro AeroDynamics and came to the conclusion to add vg's to the stabilator. I added 40 vgs to the stabilator at 4% chord and tried them in a convergent pattern and a divergent pattern. I settled on the vg pattern NASA did in a study and is recommended on stabilator type aircraft. I installed string tufts on the stabilator before and after installing vg's and videoed them with a camera mounted on the gear leg. Then the flight tests started and all I can say it was a game changer when it came to landings, like night and day comparison. There was total stabilator control all through te flare to the landing. Over several dozen landings over a number of days I tried to force the plane to stall out of the flare with no luck, I flew on calm days and also with 11 kts gusting to 17 kts. Sometimes a gust would balloon the plane up and still had effective stabilator control. All landings were done with engine at idle. Once I prolonged the flare so long I got the angle of attack so high the bottom of the tail scraped the runway and the plane continued to a nice landing. If you flare at 6 ft above the runway I'm sure nothing will help except some power. I also performed approach, departure and accelerated stalls at altitude and found no change in handling. I generally don't do full power stalls in my plane as I have an E Prop which gives me a higher angle of attack and with the vg's my concern is a possible tail slide if I hit turbulence at the wrong time. My vg's are now permanent. If anyone decides to do this change the vg kit is available from Micro AeroDynamics for $395 and includes everything. I would suggest that you should attach the vg's temporarily with the double faced tape which is included and evaluate your plane's performance before making them permanent. Do your own analysis for your aircraft as some planes may differ. Mine is a CTSW. The videos I have included are not geat and I had the mike on so they are noisey, they are my first attempts for a film career cabin top with vgs_448x252.mp4 cabin top withno vgs.mp4

Spark plug cap explanation video Spark Plug cap video.mp4

Morning. I LOVE my CTsw. It's just so easy to fly. So I'd like to keep it longer. Could I convert my S-LSA 2006 CTsw to E-LSA for IFR? Has anyone done this? I'm getting a quote for new panels on it. Will the plane lose value? Would there have to be a checkout period like other E-LSAs? Just wondering what are the pros and cons of doing so and anyone's experience. Edit: Also, anyone have a rough quote on what they paid for their panels?

I was absolutely STUNNED at how this turned out.

My fix was to epoxy an aluminum sheet on top of the bottom skin then filling in the crush area from the washers with epoxy. I then use stainless fender washers with the screws. The screws and washers can then be tightened without any issues. I do not use 5 min epoxy, I use the overnight cure epoxy, it's stronger. I lightly sand for better adhesion.

I just want to add one thing. You don't have to be an Aeronautical Engineer to change or improve things in aviation, you just have to be persistent even when you fail. I know a lot of people who have done incredible things that they were not trained on. Even a person who repairs bicycles for a living can make a difference in aviation.

I really like this one.

If you have the laser clamped down and steady, might be able to hit burn a second time, and double etch to work the remaining amount clean. Looks like you're on the right track.

Madhatter - Good stuff. I'd have a hard time accepting VG's along the whole wing, but these areas look to be "bug friendly" and not nearly as bad from appearance view. I'll very likely install these.

To my eye, I would call the pattern shown on top of the cabin divergent and the underside of the stabalator convergent. Mike Koerner

Just a note and a personal opinion: There have been a couple of comments in this thread (and others) about not wanting to do things to your airplane to "preserve resale value". To me this seems a little ass-backwards. An airplane is a depreciating asset like a car. While they typically don't depreciate as quickly as a car, every hour you fly the thing does in theory "lower the resale value." I'd say don't let fear of valuation changes drive you to less enjoyment of your airplane; these airplanes seem to resell for similar pricing, with the only big changes being due to high total hours and/or damage history. As a friend of mine once said: Not doing things you want to do for resale reasons, is like not making love to your girlfriend so she'll stay pristine for the next guy. YMMV

Great work Mike...

Where do you get this that covers anyone with no required hours?

I use the twin-gauges style on my 912 ULS and find it easy to use and decipher. Another possibility is to find an old but accurate twin-engine aircraft manifold pressure gauge.

My flap controller went bad. I was still getting a readout, but the 0 position was malfunctioning. Programming did nothing to resolve it. It was reading out dashes (---) like when you move it to manual up and manual down, so I pulled the controller out and started reverse engineering it. I know enough about electronics to get myself in trouble, but I am by no means an expert. But, I do know that almost every electronic component has an ID on it, so I start IDing things. The small tiny stuff is just generic components like resistors, transistors, etc, but I overlayed text to show what the big important devices are. Turns out, this version of the flap controller only sends 5 positions (-6, 0, 15, 30, 35) to the microcontroller. The other two, manual up and manual down, bypass the board entirely and just send a signal to the relays to roll the motor one way or the other. That's a good clue! That means that when the controller doesn't have a signal, it still provides an indication of some kind! So now, with the voltmeter, I start tracing out some of the pin positions. First, I verify that the rotary switch is actually getting good contact. Uh oh. Nope, not getting good contact on two pin positions, moving the switch causes jitter. It's a pretty generic switch so I just opened it up, clean the contacts, and replaced the wiper. Retest. Still no 0 position, but the flicker is gone now. Back to the bench! After a while of studying this board, I get to one of the chips. There's not much between the switch terminals and the microcontroller, and I've already verified the controller is making good contact. I pull the number etchings off the chip and go look up the datasheet. This chip is a darlington transistor array. I don't know enough about electronics to say what this chip is used for in this circuit design, but the data sheet has a block diagram, and basically it's just amplifying to the corresponding pin on the opposite side. When I start testing the terminals... oh. The 0 position is all wonky on this chip. I take my physical measurements of the chip, comb the datasheets to figure out which version this is (and holy crap, there are a LOT of versions!), and put an order on mouser for 2 at a whole whopping $0.58 each. Now, these are SMD devices. Surface Mount Devices, if you will. Lots of pins. It's about time I get a real electronics workstation, so I pick up this nice piece for ~180. Hot air gun, soldering iron with vacuum, desoldering vacuum, digital control... and lots of tips, including one that will work well for drag soldering. Technically this should be attributed in the cost of repair too, but I've been looking for a reason to buy this anyways! So, I swap out the chip, cross my fingers and plug it in. VOILA! It works! $1300 saved with only a few bucks in parts plus a soldering station that will be used many times more! Now to clean up those diode mounts. My fault because I got things a little too warm near them and they moved a bit, and I moved them back but not very well. I'll be redoing them.

I raised this here before that my AILERON STICK FEELS REALLY STIFF. I got a bunch of great info, especially learning that my 2008 CTLS is one of the earlier versions with different aileron centering springs. Since then, I have communicated with FD USA and got this back ... "Are you sure it's the cable tension and not some binding somewhere in the system? There is a procedure to lighten the spring loading. There is no possibility of changing the springs, unless you change the plane to experimental.1. Center the aileron trim.2. Start on the left side of the plane. Move the control stick all the way to the right. Have a helper hold it, or use a rope. This should relieve tension on the left side aileron spring.3. Loosen the two nuts on the lower cable clamp. Adjust cable tension is that there is no slack in the cables, but no real tension on the spring. Move the clamp down and tighten the nuts, while holding the same tension on the cable.4. Repeat 2 - 4 for the right side.This will give you the least amount of spring tension possible without having the system go slack." So I went and did some troubleshooting, took off the spring and the ailerons were way less stiff. Obviously no springs is not the answer but I have 2 questions ... Can any of you please send me a picture of the later spring setup in your plane? Any used the above procedure and it lightened the spring load? I am especially curious about the above procedure because from my current setup this would mean the springs are more extended with the stick in neutral compared to now. Do springs have less tension when extended a little bit? Thanks for your thoughts and experiences with this, Robert PS: For your enjoyment and off topic, here are 2 pictures with new decals, and yes we named our plane ... think Chipmunks, "Alvin" is still in the making btw

Linkage Plug_Contured v6.stl See if this works.

I was speaking specifically about landing incidents/accidents. Just about every bad landing I've had in a CT were caused by either too much speed into the flare, trying to get the airplane to land before it was ready, or both. I agree with you on energy management. But I think that the low wing loading and high power-to-weight ratio of these airplanes magnifies errors of managing energy to the fast side and minimizes errors to the slow side.

Due to lots of complaints, some of recent, and posters that can't quite keep it together with snarky aggression the Admins had a long discussion. We are kind of at witts end. We are in the last quarter with ten seconds to go, 3rd down and behind 2 points on the ten yard line. It isn't any fun to by an admin and get as many complains as we do. We have had hundreds and all because of just 4-5 people. The open NASA post which has nothing to do with LSA was kind of a social experiment and it failed. It was attempt to be a more hands off self governing forum. It works some, but there are a few here that make people leave our forum and or don't post for fear of aggressive reprisals. We have gone over this type of aggressive behavior time and time again. We have tried to not be a dictator type governing body as you have seen on some sites. If you have been on the Vans site or dealt with their admin you'll know exactly what I mean. If the admin or Mfg person doesn't like you your gone for little to no reason and they won't tell you why. Several members have ask us to intervene on many occasions. We had only ask that politics, personal attacks or aggressive postings be aired out some place else. Admins are limited to what choices they have to make sure that a forum is a safe, non hostile and friendly place to hang out and exchange ideas, information and fun flying. The forum admins has some rules; we can lock a thread out, we can send private emails to stop unwanted behaviour, we can suspend a member and last, but not least the worst thing we ever want to do is ban someone. This is reserved for people that just refuse to stop bad behavior when requested to multiple times and from multiple complaints from other forum memebers. The forum should be a hostile free environment that all can come to and post or read without fear of posting or asking questions and they shouldn't be put off by aggressive behavior. The forum used to be hostility free and we just didn't have aggressive posters. So the only avenues open to the admins to help protect the other 98% either means control what type of post are posted, suspended members and for repeat offenders just get rid of them. Post should be limited to LSA flying and maybe an occasional stray, but that should be the exception and not the rule. As we have become friends we share something nice like Andy's car, but it shouldn't turn into negative 20 page arguement. Bottom line, stop turning a post about a sunny day into an argument. If you don't like someone and or dislike their post and just can't bring it upon yourself to be decent in a rebuttal or a discussion please just ignore it and move on. Life won't end and no life will be lost if you fail to intervene,. I'm going to leave this open for a couple of days to get some feedback. Maybe it's time to revisit some rules? Take the time to think about what you may post. I always told me people if you have a complaint, No problem, but think about it before you present it and have 1-2 ideas for a solution. We ALL MUST get a handle on this, The Admins p.s The ball's in your court let's see what you can do.