peristaltor: (Default)
My neighbor wandered over just a few minutes ago to let me know that it's happened again: another tourist Duck has sank, perhaps killing two more. I fired up the 'puter, checked email, and a friend I haven't heard three words from since he was married nearly 3 years ago has already emailed me the link I embedded above.

Why have these folks sought me as the recipient of this information? Because, between 2000 and 2004, I worked as a captain at Ride the Ducks of Seattle. I am one of the few who has seen what happens in the regulatory world when one of these craft sinks. That happened here in Seattle in 2001, after all. No, I wasn't the captain in charge of driving the duck that night. That job went to a captain named Mike. No, to further quell your suspicions, I wasn't in any way responsible for that sinking. Much of the responsibility was laid on yet another guy named Mike. I was, though, privy by dint of my employment to take a small part into the following inquiry.

And let me tell you, if the policy outlined by the Coast Guard investigators in the wake of that sinking still stands, this latest accident might well be the end of all commercial passenger duck operations in the United States.

Here's the story. )
peristaltor: (Default)
Well, let me be clear; I still love boats. I would still love to be driving boats, especially for a living.

What I do not love is Bush's bureaucracy running rampant over anyone's ability to operate boats without an enormous degree of bullshit. I mean, really, requiring background checks on mule drivers?!?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal anti-terror law that requires longshoremen, truckers and others to submit to criminal background checks has ensnared another class of transportation worker -- mule drivers.

Yes, so-called mule skinners -- in this case, seasonal workers who dress in colonial garb at a historical park in Easton, Pa. -- must apply for biometric Transportation Worker Identification Credentials (TWIC), according to the Transportation Security Administration, which says it is bound by federal law.

The requirement has officials of the Hugh Moore Historical Park perplexed.

"We have one boat. It's pulled by two mules. On a good day they might go 2 miles per hour," said Sarah B. Hays, the park's director of operations.

The park's two-mile canal does not pass any military bases, nuclear power plants or other sensitive facilities. And, park officials say, the mules could be considered weapons of mass destruction only if they were aimed at something resembling food. . . .

The man holding this mule must be
licensed by the coast guard.
I wish I were kidding.

Park officials say four or five park employees typically have Coast Guard credentials to operate the canal boat, and the extra expense of a TWIC card, which is at least an extra $100 on top of fees for Coast Guard credentials, is unwelcome.(Emphasis mine.)

. . .at least an extra $100 on top of fees for Coast Guard credentials. . . . I'll bet you're wondering what those might be? Well, speaking from experience, captain's credentials run a few hundred bucks for the initial testing and paperwork background check, not including the costs of required Red Cross First Aid and CPR training (two separate courses, one for the bandages, one for the chest compressions), FCC maritime radio license (which may have been discontinued, I'm not sure), physical, and NIDA drug test. That's before you get licensed. (If you're curious, here's a linky.) If you pass the exam (extra money required for retesting if you fail, something I didn't have to worry about), you get to pay more for license issuance, about $50 (IIRC). The initial license and all subsequent renewals last 5 years.

If you work on the license, racking up at least 360 eight-hour days (sometimes they fudge and let applicants get away with only a six hour per day average) of sea time in that five year period, you can renew without the knowledge testing -- after taking the physical, drug test, 1st Aid and CPR, and background check.

Oh, and if your professional position takes you out of the US boundary, you also get to seek International Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping certification. Minimum cost runs about $5,000 every 5 years for the gamut of firefighting training, lifeboat practical testing, radar operator certification and a review of everything an Able Seaman needs to know (as determined by the USCG). If you're really lucky, your employer will cover the cost. If you're only moderately lucky, your employer will give you the time off to recert without docking your pay. (That I didn't have to do, thankfully.)

Now that I've ranted a bit, let's reexamine that whole "biometric" crap in the cited and quoted article. It turns out this bit of law was passed after 9/11 to prevent the wrong people from getting into "sensitive" areas on boats, planes, air traffic control centers and the like. Here's a snippet I grabbed from this site:

A biometric access control system consists of technology that determines an individual’s identity by detecting and matching unique physical or behavioral characteristics, such as fingerprint or voice patterns, as a means of verifying personal identity.

I wonder where on the mule one would put the biometric lock. Jesting aside, I know right where such locks should go on just about all boats -- overboard! I have been in critical situations where immediate access to, for example, the engine room saved lives. That's why we on the small boats didn't bother locking the engine room with the padlock. Yes, some punk kids might wander down there, but probably couldn't do it unnoticed; open those doors and the full noise from the engines blast the passenger areas. Was it "unsecure" if not locked? Probably; but again, that insecurity was a small price to pay for knowing the machinery spaces were available instantly.

Oh, and who out there has ever dealt with electronic equipment that failed to function? Everyone, I know. Now consider that the prototype locks that were supposed to identify someone deckhand's individual bad breath or whatever failed because of the smoke pouring out of the engine room, and that's why the boat and all her passengers were lost. It makes me sick just thinking about it.

So, for everyone wondering why boats don't play a larger role in the US economy, just read the above once again. A life on the sea (or lake, or bay, or river, or canal or sound) is rewarding.

The required paperwork no longer is.
peristaltor: (Default)

I've launched boats. I've been the guy on the boat while it is lowered (hopefully slowly) to the water. I really have no desire to be the guy in the second picture in freefall in the ladder well between the aft deck and the swimboard.

For you Photoshop accusers, here's the Snopes detail.
peristaltor: (Default)
The Seattle Boat Show is in town! This year's ad campaign features a cute graphic undoubtedly inspired by the popularity of Google Earth. Two power boats, starting almost side-by-side, peel away and inscribe a heart with their wakes:

Ain't that cute?

Now, instead of being Photoshopped, imagine this graphic was actually photographed from a helicopter. Here's the basic regulation governing the crossing of power-driven vessels, the rule that applies to the navigational situation shown in the ad:

When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel. (Emphasis mine.)

(For you unfamiliar with nautical terms, the "starboard side" is the right side of the vessel when facing the bow, or front of the boat.)

Now imagine you were driving the vessel executing the wake on the heart's left-hand side. That little curly bit at the heart's base? That was you following Rule 2(b), swerving at the last minute because the pilot of the other boat refused to yield proper right-of-way as dictated clearly by Rule 15!

Every Coast Guard license candidate in the United States has to pass a very in-depth, closed book test covering the 38 parts of the Rules of the Road, including Annexes. Not only that, the candidate needs to pass with 90% correct. Also, license holder or not, everyone piloting a vessel is bound by the Rules. That said, it's a safe bet just about anyone working on the water could spot the image's problem in reality. Right?

Bizarre as it may seem, though, non-professional vessel operators (like those targeted by the ad and the show) are not required to test for Rules proficiency. Worse still, boat salespeople are not considered "professionals" . . . as the ad clearly shows. Oh, about boat sales folks and the marine incompetence many of them embodied, I could tell you stories.

peristaltor: (Default)
First of all, let me remind all that I used to work full-time on boats. I drove them as captain, crewed them as deck crew. Passenger, cargo, cargo-passenger -- did it all.

But I didn't get to see an awful lot of real sea. There is plenty of work right here in good ol' Puget Sound. I seldom worked more than a few miles from shore.

I have long dreamed of the tramp's life, a self-contained existance on a boat, mostly, putting about infinitely. Too much Melville, London, and Conrad. Way too much Hayden. The problem, of course, is that to enjoy life, one must pay for the boat. Boats are expensive, little more than Large Holes in the Water Into Which You Throw Money. One definition for "boat:" acronym for "bring out another thousand." And that's the situation for yesterday's boater. Factor in one of the biggest cost of boating (outside of moorage and repair), fuel, and today's prices make just bumping around a game for the wealthy.

Oh, and if you think fuel is expensive, price sails. Damn. . . .

No worries. I have a bit of experience with electric vehicles. It's not brain surgery to swap out a smokin' engine and fit a diminuative motor. Most boats use gensets for power very poorly, running almost full out to keep the television glowing. Very wasteful. It's far more efficient to run the genset only occassionally to charge batteries (the larger the bank the better -- think ballast) and to convert that direct current source to alternating as needed with an inverter. Boaters often suppliment the genset power with solar panels and small wind turbines. Depending upon useage, the gensets can go days without running. Connect the battery pack to a motor through a controller, and away you go!

The last type of boat I drove professionally

In fact, one can get quite a bit of mileage out of low-speed electrics. At the University of Washington, the Department of Intercollegic Athletics hired me for a few years to shuttle folks visiting Husky and Seahawks games from the anchorage in Union Bay (yes, that's where the jeans maker got it's name) to Husky Stadium. Most recently they have used Duffy electric boats for the shuttling. In a bay with a strictly enforced 7 knot speed limit (8 mph, for you lubbers), speed is not a priority. We operated those shuttles for 10 hours straight sometimes.

Hey, it beat working.

Bugdet cutbacks have ended that particular boating gig for me, sadly. There are others on the horizon.

Ah, but let's get back to the tramp's dream. I lately read two articles in rapid succession.

In the first, scientists develop portable generator that turns trash into electricity. It's a nifty gadget that converts old food, wrappers and (of special interest here) plastic waste into electricity, providing". . . approximately 90 percent more energy than it consumed" to perform the task. Essentially, it eats the stuff you can't, making power.

Such a gizmo has limited use (given the purchase cost) in a Seattle home with weekly trash and plastic recycling pick-up, and really cheap electric power. It might, however, serve well on a largish boat with electric drive. . . provided one could find a good source of plastic floating trash. It is in abundance here in the Sound, sadly. But with shores and rocks and winds and other boats, one would have a less than peaceful drift collecting it. I've done this, but that's a story for another post.

No, what you would need would be a large, open ocean with relatively moderate weather about a gazillion miles from freakin' anybody, all stockpiled with lots o' flotsam.

Folks, let me introduce you to the North Pacific subtropical gyre, a whirling cesspool of plastic inorganics clogging the middle of the Pacific. Winds and currents circling the Ring of Fire carry our bobbing waste to a vast dead zone filled with trash:

I did a quick calculation, estimating the debris at half a pound for every hundred square meters of sea surface. Multiplied by the circular area defined by our roughly thousand-mile course through the gyre, the weight of the debris was about 3 million tons, comparable to a year’s deposition at Puente Hills, Los Angeles’s largest landfill.

3 million tons of trash. Or, with the converter device, millions of tons of power.

The ocean could use less of this plastic trash;
and I could use the power.

Phase One: Buy a large, beat-up but seaworthy boat, maybe even a power barge for deck space and stability. Equip with electric drives, a couple of good gensets, lots of bulletproof batteries.

Phase Two: Get one of those plastic-to-power converter devices. Make up some story about testing the thing in a marine environment, or working tirelessly to rid the oceans of trash. There must be some grant money out there for either cock-and-bull story.

Phase Three: Take time off work. Stock up on lots of food. Drift in the gyre, dipping nets, hooks and pikepoles to power your seclusion. Do lots of fishing, grilling it on an electric outdoor grill.

Forget what people look like, if only for a while.
peristaltor: (Home Sweet)
I've been playing with Google Earth for a while now (the free version, of course). It's fun to note what car was parked in front of your house when the satellite passed over your neighborhood. In my case, no car out front; but the wife's burgandy Camry is in the drive where it ought to be. Don't believe me? Check out the new Usepic!

Since home owner documents rarely come with latitude and longitude coordinates, I had to hunt for our house by using known and easily found landmarks and zooming ever closer. I then did this for my friend's house nearby, for my Mom's old house, Dad's house, the in-laws place (with help from the wife who is quite a bit more familiar with Lowell, Mass). . . hours of fun. Next came Devil's Tower, Wyoming and a few other famous places.

What then?

I started looking up old work sites. This was quite a bit more of a challenge, since I was until the last few years a working merchant mariner. My workplaces have a fixed location, sure; but only when they are at the dock. Folks, boats move. That's part of the fun. I found some of the easier targets, sometimes twice! The free Google maps have overlays of different pics, taken obviously in different times of days, even seasons.

Then I started hunting for the more obscure, smaller targets. Oh, I found them. I found them. )
peristaltor: (Default)
Well, we finally got the boat off its trailer without incident. Sort of. Third times a charm!

Some background is in order. )
peristaltor: (Default)
. . . because his balls are stainless steel.

Don't believe me? Read for yourself how he dove into the fish pen to kill that monster. In-fuckin'-credible.
peristaltor: (Default)
Time to share another old sailor story, this one dealing not with naval arrogance or equipment "failure", but with good ol' fashioned human failings, myself being one of those humans. It's a tale that tells of the follies in which we human engage, misdeeds with noble intentions that present an ever-present threat to our very survival.

I used to work for Arrow Launch, running launch vessels and cargo delivery here in Puget Sound. Essentially, if you have a large freighter to serve with taxi service, or are delivering supplies to such a freighter, Arrow is the primary go-to company to call, Twenty-Four/Seven.

24/7. All day, everyday.  )
peristaltor: (Default)
After working boats now for almost 15 years, it's time I shared one of the most spetacular near-miss accidents that I witnessed, involving a grain freighter and the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz. )
peristaltor: (Default)
Heinlein often wrote about "belt and suspenders" people, those that felt backup systems to be mandatory. If one fails, you always have the other, and, by implication, your ass is always covered. A few months ago, a friend and I reached disagreement over that philosophy, specifically on how much coverage one ass needed.

He briefly served as captain to a classic yacht (that shall remain nameless, even though it's a pretty cool boat). This is no mere pleasure boat. 90 feet long, wooden hull, built in 1929. A gorgeous boat, but, like anything old, updated with not enough attention to holistic detail.

When it was first built, I imagine it needed an engineer in the engine room at all times maneuvering was a requirement. Back before hydraulics, many boats were equipped with direct reversible engines. You want to move ahead? Start the engine. Reverse? Stop the engine, reverse the cams for the valves, and restart, in reverse. No disconnect between the engine and the prop shaft, and the entire process manually enabled from the engine room.

The new incarnation avoided the ugly buggaboo of the engine that wouldn't start in time (crashing into something, often at high speeds, was a common cause of marine mishaps, often due to an inability to restart in the proper direction). Much newer, smaller and more reliable engines had replaced the mammoth monsters of the past. A pneumatic shifter now directly engaged, reversed and -- importantly for this entry -- disengaged the transmission. The captain didn't have that panic in his gut, that creeping wonder if the engineer was in the head or asleep. He could simply reverse thrust, and hopefully the course of the vessel, himself, thanks to pressurized air.

After my buddy left the boat another captain got a chance to drive a tour. To save money, the owners didn't give the captain his regular deckhand/engineer.

Big mistake. Really big mistake. )
peristaltor: (Default)
Ever read Catch-22 by Joseph Heller? Brilliant book, better by far than the movie version. The very concept of doing exactly the right thing and either having it result in exactly the wrong thing for you, or for doing the wrong thing and coming out on top, or somehow being the victim of the very circumstances you are trying to avoid; so many can identify with this book simply because just about everyone has some experience with just that, happening to themselves.

It can get more than a little sticky, though, when talking to people who deal with a Catch-22 situation with a very different mindset, perhaps one that feels attacked by the very act of questioning circumstance. Had just such a conversation the other night.

I'm a talker. I enjoy interesting, sprawling conversations with people who, though not necessarily expert on any given topic, know enough to keep the talking flowing. A friend of mine (let's call him Arly, and he's definitely NOT Geo) both worked together on boats years ago. He got his first boat jobs when I was in the process of winding down my involvement in the marine industry; as a result he has since obtained more and more experience just as I have shifted into another field almost entirely. Also, his experience more recently is concentrated on larger vessels, where he served as either Ordinary or Able Seaman; I have always worked on boats too small to require accredited hands (meaning no licensed OSs or ABs). Still, we are both intimately familiar with the Coast Guard regulations pertinent to the industry, and often swap tales about same.

The other night, not such a pleasant swap.

Somehow, the topic of radar use came up (probably something I mentioned). Years ago, a sailing vessel called the Lady Washington was motoring upriver near Aberdeen. They had contacted a rail drawspan alerting the bridge tender of their approach. He acknoledged their approach. Just as they were crossing the span, however, the tender inexplicably dropped the bridge, hitting the mast and damaging the vessel. This happened on a clear, sunny afternoon, in the relatively tight quarters of a river passage.

After any marine accident, the Coast Guard will conduct an investigation, and they tend to be thorough. One of the questions they asked was whether the radar was functional, and operating at the time of the collision with the bridge. It was -- luckily for the captain, it seems, for if the captain did not have the radar on, he or she would have been held liable for the accident since, according to the rules, any equipment on board to aid in safe navigation must be used in navigation. (I heard this story from the then captain, who was at the time of the accident on board as a mate.)

From my perspective, using available radar is prudent; but I can think of some very limited circumstances when operational radar would be either moot or even inappropriate -- like the small boat making river passage in clear skies and calm seas. One would have the radar on, just in case, but would really not be paying much attention to it; the shore is so close to the vessel that vigilant visual navigation would be far preferable. Taking your eyes off the horizon to squint into a screen's visor, or dedicating a crewmember to keep his or her eyes in the visor, in my opinion, would detract from safe navigation by creating a distraction to the watch.

(Also, when vessels pass through locks, the radar's magnatron radiation, exactly the kind of radiation made by a microwave oven, illuminates the testicals and ovaries of lock attendents and visitors far more effectivley than the vessel's position. Placing the radars on standby in those cases is not only encouraged, but sometimes required -- by everyone but the Guard, I believe.)

Back to the Lady Wasington verses the bridge. It's obvious that the bridge tender was at fault; but had the useless radar not been operating at the time of the collision, the captain would have been at fault. To me, this represents a failure of the Guard's system, a failure that neglects realities. Furthermore, since radar is not required equipment, the captain would have been punished for having radar and not using it in an instance when its use would have served no purpose, and rewarded for not having radar at all.

Arly disagreed, and oh, did he get pissed about it.

He had points. First, any system that encourages mariners to do everything possible to sail safely should be implemented. Any captain who does not keep a radar watch is asking for trouble most of the time, and those few instances where the radar becomes a moot device are so few and far between that it seems equally moot even to quibble, as I was doing. Therefore, why not just do what the regs require? It's easier. That's what Arly said, that he embraces the rules put forth by the CG. They are, after all, the rules.

Me, I disagreed, to a point. Maybe I'm a contrarian.

I brought up a bit of inspection lore. Every year, passenger vessels are inspected by the CG to make sure they adhere to the regulations as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations. These can be some pretty close examinations, depending on everything from the mood of the inspector to the attitude of the crew. The captain and crew are on the boat to direct the inspectors to whatever they need to inspect, be it the ability to sound the horn, to counting and inspecting every PFD (lifejacket), to charging and spraying the firehose, you name it. On the vessels I was helping to inspect the inspections usually took at least three hours, and sometimes lasted a day.

On one such inspection, the CG noted a sight tube in the engine room. (Sight tubes are a simple way to determine the level of fluids; picture a tube, plumbed just outside a tank. The level of the fluid in the tank is going to be the same as the level seen through the clear tube on the outside of the tank, so one can see how much, say, fuel the boat has onboard.) The inspector noted that the tubes on this boat were glass, and could shatter, leading to fuel flooding the engine room. As a requirement of passing the inspection, he asked that the tubes be replaced with shatter-proof plastic. No problem. Done.

The next year, a different inspector noted that, in an engine room fire, plastic tubes would melt and release fuel into the fire. He asked that they be replaced with glass.

Wait a minute. . . .

My boss told him what had happened the year before. After a bit of venting, the inspector let the plastic remain; but it took a bit of arguing.

This example reflects my problem with the current system. The CG is not only the enforcement arm ensuring adherence to regulations, they also issue the regulations. They are both lawmaker and judge. Their stated goal is to improve maritime safety. Both inspectors were, technically, doing exactly that, but were doing so without considering whether or not a proscribed fix was worse than the perceived problem -- is breakable glass safer or more dangerous than meltable plastic?

Well, is it?

What's the answer? Thinking about it, I think the correct answer is "No one knows for sure." There are many boats with sight tubes for the fuel, but not many in any given year catch fire or experience fuel discharges. To determine which system would be safer, one would have to analyse real-world data regarding accidents involving both types of sight tubes, and compare damage in both. There simply aren't enough incidents to arrive at a rock-solid statistical conclusion.

But the "do nothing due to lack of data" is not written into the Coast Guard mandate. The inspectors are charged with actively making boats safer, not with noting instances where the regulation needs refinement. One would have to prove that the mandated change, in this case in sight tube material, would be worse before the change could be challenged, and without data . . . . (The tubes were not changed after the second inspection only because my boss was persistant enough to point out the silliness of contradictary requirements.)

I like to think that every rule has a reason. Find the reason, understand the rule. By logical reversal, however, if you find that the reason is no longer in season, or that the specific reason for the rule either doesn't apply in specific circumstances or, worse, the circumstances dictate that the rule should be ignored or even violated, then so be it. Goodbye rule, hello valid infraction. Seek and one shall find books dedicated to Blue Laws, silly laws that either make no sense in and of themselves, or fail to make sense in a modern era, or both. For me, what the CFRs, the regulations miss is an exception for radar use that takes into account the most prudent use of limited manpower available for the watch, or, more generally, a "non-preventable" category of exception. In the specific example of the Lady Washington, since use or non-use of the radar would have done nothing to prevent the accident -- and could have actually made the accident worse by providing needless distraction from the watch -- it should be inadmissable in the final report. Radar use would have been as moot a point as using running lights in broad daylight.

I think everyone who lives in the real world should get credit their actions in this world, not for the good intentions they showed by following rules to the exclusion of the world around them. And when rules conflict, that conflict should be noted.

When musing over this post, I thought of yet another example, one that, if one followed the rules to the letter, could mean lives lost and not saved.

The Coast Guard has a major hard-on for PFDs, or Personal Floatation Devices. They do work. They keep people's heads above water. In a major marine incident, that's a good thing. The problem; like in the shower in Junior High PE, their PFD boner seems to pop up inappropriately.

Let's take the example of the Miss Majestic, an amphibious passenger vessel (a WWII DUKW, or duck) that went down near Hot Springs, Arkansas, killing 19 (I think). One of the cable stations made great special on the sinking of the Miss Majestic. Some detail was, however, omitted from that special -- I believe -- because it conflicted with the CG dogma. I learned of this because I drove those things, those Ducks, right here in the Northwest, and talked to drivers who spoke with the CG just after the accident.

Two factors -- other than the shitload of stupid mistakes made by the Arkansas operators -- led to the magnitude of death in Hot Springs: first, the vessel went down stern first; and second, the windows didn't open. All of the corpses onboard were found pressed to the windshield glass and against the side plastic; most, if not all, were wearing life jackets.

A few people escaped the sinking vessel; a few of them may have been wearing PFDs, but not all. It's not in the report. The few survivors only escaped because they were seated toward the stern, and were able to bail from the vessel before the stern, the only opening, submerged. One or two may have swam to the exit after submersion and escaped.

But no one with a PFD too far forward could overcome their jacket's buoyancy and make that swim down to the exit. Their "life jackets" lifted them to their death.

That fact -- that those with PFDs died, and those without survived -- was not even mentioned in the special. To mention that fact would be to muddy the regulatory waters, to suggest that people question regulation designed to save their lives.

So, if you're on a boat, and it starts to capsize, should you immediately don a PFD? The Coasties say emphatically: Yes! at the first sign of trouble, no matter where on the boat you are.

I say use your brain! Look around; are you in an enclosed space? If so, once that boat slips beneath the surface, in diving parlance you are now in an overhead enviroment, where upward movement becomes life threatening. Get in the clear before you don the PFD, or that device's floatation will pin your personals to the ceiling as effectively as a cement vest will hold your drowning ass to the bottom.

To conclude, Arly takes the safety regs as an article of faith, by living them. And I do not, for I am proudly faithless.

To Arly, holding a position contrary to the letter of the law and only grudgingly adhering to the law made me somehow, someway, someone who was actively attacking the law. I got a bit flustered at his constantly shooting down my examples as improper, or incorrectly interpretted, mostly because I had no idea why he was doing it. Without realizing it, I was attacking his belief system; remember, he followed the law not just by learning and accepting it, but by living it. Question the validity of the law, it seems, and I question the world according to Arly.

And that really pissed him off.

Arly was angry because he failed to see that my ramblings meant no attack on him. He took it personally, and very personally attacked me in turn.

And that really pissed me off.

We all hold various aspects in our lives more dearly than others. The trouble starts when one realizes that some other person embraces the wrong, and regards the bad as good. I have to constantly remind myself these days that we are all other people.

Still, I despise blind adherence. And, for that matter, blind adherants.


peristaltor: (Default)

August 2017

678910 1112
20 212223242526


RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 04:29 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios