AVweb

« Back to Full Story

The Bottom Line

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article
  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

For as long as I can remember, the powers-that-be in general aviation have been worrying that there are too few new pilots. Recently, AOPA said as many as 80 percent of prospects who start flying lessons never get a certificate. That seems like a pretty low completion rate. Maintaining the flow of money to keep flying is certainly one major factor, but I suspect another underlying factor is that what students want and what flight schools want is not the same thing.

Of course, not all students want the same thing, either. Some are looking for adventure, some want to fly for business and practical reasons, some are on a career track. Ideally every flight school should take the time to determine what each student wants, and find the way to best meet those needs. For the adventurer, a sense of fun and shared community may be essential. The practical flyer may want to maximize simulator time and take a weekend class to get the knowledge test done. Every student probably would benefit from more time spent on the ground, with CFIs clearly explaining each lesson and debriefing afterward.

AOPA's study found that many students feel flight schools are not meeting those needs. Part of the problem may be that CFIs and flight schools chase the bottom line. Sure, cookouts and movie nights at the hangar might go a long way to enhance a new pilot's experience, but they won't enhance profits. For time-building CFIs, hours spent on the ground tutoring students are not very productive. Flight-school managers can't maximize income by moving students to completion and out the door as quickly as possible. GA is not alone in this -- the emphasis on profit crowds out all other interests in most work places today, with disheartening effects on workers as well as customers.

It's hard for business operators to take the longer-term view of creating a business that will grow over time with a satisfied customer base, rather than focusing on the short-term effort to maximize returns. But in some sectors, the concept of a "triple bottom line" is gaining traction. The triple bottom line represents an effort to factor in not only dollars but the impact a business has on quality of life. Along with profit, the company's impact on its community, its workers, and the environment are factored in as important returns on investment. It's a way to think about an escape from pure economics to value other by-products of a well-run business that can grow sustainably over time.

Andrew Savitz, author of The Triple Bottom Line, says the traditional single-focus on profit isn't working anymore, and the more holistic view is the way to grow. "Executives today must take the time to think hard about the social, economic, political, environmental and cultural transformation that business is undergoing, and decide how their companies will participate," he says. "If they don't, they will misunderstand and be blindsided by some of the most powerful trends and changes affecting their industry."

It's not hard to see how this approach could lead to more user-friendly flight schools, with a greater emphasis on creating communities of pilots who share a love of flying. Would this also lead to better retention rates, more rentals, a growing customer base? It might. And it might at least create a little more happiness in the world -- and it's hard to put a price on that.

Comments (42)

I local component of a national flight school persuaded one of my students to come to them by offering financing that I could not provide. After 40 hours of flying with her they cut her loose without ever soloing her. They did, however, do several cross country flights and about 20 hours of prep for the practical exam. She told me that the instructor had gone to his bosses because he was having trouble getting her to solo. They reportedly told him to take her through the rest of the training program and then cut her loose.

I got her back a few weeks ago and after about 10 hours she soloed.

Is there no oversight of part 141 operations that would prevent this type of blatant theft. The bottom line is that an instructor can not teach every student. We have to be able to communicate well and teach the way that the student learns. If we are not succeeding we have a responsibility to refer to another instructor.

In this case where numerous other instructors were on staff why did they leave her with only this instructor.

By the way. I am a dentist by profession and a flight instructor because I love to teach and love to fly. Profit is not the motivation, teaching my students to be good pilots is.

Posted by: LYLE BROOKSBY | January 3, 2011 9:11 AM    Report this comment

The "profit motive" is not the problem. One doesn't need a PhD in economics to realize that if a flight school fails to generate a profit for its owners/shareholders, then it will shortly disappear. While one can come up with various examples of abuse, like Scott's above, the basic truth remains that private enterprise, fueled by the desire to make a profit on the part of the providers of goods and services, is the most efficient way to distribute those items where they are needed. The nearly 80% attrition rate cited by the AOPA study is clearly unacceptable but we must look further afield for a solution than the desire of flight schools to be profitable. Enhancing the flight instruction profession as a valid and honorable career choice, rather than a sole means for reluctant low-time pilots to accumulate hours so they can move on, will help. Dan Schwartz, CFI, CFII, MEI.

Posted by: Daniel Schwartz | January 3, 2011 10:50 AM    Report this comment

I agree it's obvious that a business can't survive without a profit. But the pressure to maximize short-term returns can make it hard for businesses to invest in strategies that will hopefully make the business more sustainable over the long term. Savitz' book addresses all this in more detail and in business-speak. If 80 percent of your customers are leaving unsatisfied, I agree, something is clearly not working. And I also agree, creating a real career track for instructors would go a long way towards creating a positive change.

Posted by: Mary Grady | January 3, 2011 11:36 AM    Report this comment

The fligt training drop-out rate is merely a symptom of several deeper root causes and those must be identified and addressed. Then the symptoms will correct themselves. For example, I suspect a huge percentage of drop-outs are due to students simply not understanding the very basics of what they are getting into.

AOPA (and all of us) should be addressing the following:

1. Identify the list of underlying reasons that people want to be pilots. 2. Develop specific marketing plans to leverage & foster each reason. 3. Prepare proper introductory briefing materials and induction processes so that the folks who simply should not even bother with aviation are weeded out before everyone wastes their time and money. 4. With all this foundation they should then work hard to retain/train the solid candidates.

Also, what is the “correct” rate of inducting new pilots into aviation? Clearly the career category demand can be estimated from industry data. Perhaps similarly with the category of personal business and personal leisure travel. The sport pilot category might be more difficult because it is a very elastic demand and affected by the huge array of competing endevours available in today’s world. But still, there is a “sweet spot” that should be identified and targeted, in that way the industry can move forward harmoniously with sensible goals. This is far better than a simplistic mad scramble to retain more of the current people who take a first lesson.

Posted by: JIM HERD | January 3, 2011 1:02 PM    Report this comment

Specialization would go a long way towards improving the quality and profitability of flight training in the US. If a large percentage of the "career track" aspiring pilots are going to the pilot mills (universities, etc.) should smaller flight schools continue to focus on competing for that business?

Maybe the small flight schools would be better off becoming the resident experts on certain subject matter. You could probably charge a bit more per hour if you were the "Bonanza expert", the "Instrument guy", or the "tailwheel guy/gal" in your area.

Just a thought............

Posted by: DAVID COLEMAN | January 3, 2011 1:30 PM    Report this comment

Looking at the cause of drop outs, could it be because we are not soloing them soon enough? I really liked the december issue of AOPA Pilot Magazine that talked about soloing students in 10 hours.

It can be done, but we need to rethink the training paradymn. I now teach basic stick and rudder on the first lesson, stalls on the second lesson and then after that we work on touch and goes. I have seen instructors that to a land and taxi back as a rule and I think they are milking the students. If our goal is to teach them to do a go around if something is not right, then a touch an go is simply a go around after a brief time on the runway. They learn to land and go around at the same time.

Once a student solos we are setting the plan and scheduling the checkride while they are on the solo high. Are others doing this too?

Posted by: LYLE BROOKSBY | January 3, 2011 3:22 PM    Report this comment

My opinion: Money is the single biggest factor in people abandoning GA training and participation. Second is that sometimes flying an airplane does not resemble what people imagine flying to be. Third is that sometimes the training environment is a mismatch for the student or is just lousy.

My prescription: Develop a financing facility that smaller independent schools or even instructors could benefit from. This would have to be set up to avoid penury in interest rates and sleaze in schools. ( I know, I know...good luck.)

Next, make sure flying is fun for the student. There are a lot of different kinds of flying. Personally I learned in a cub. For me learning in a 172 would have been dull. I never liked flight schools with bomber patterns and epaulets, some do. If a student wants to fly upside down, it should be easy and safe to make happen. The school could try to hook up students with owner/pilots who would like company on long flights in more advanced aircraft and so on. ETC.

The last one is tough. We need CFI's who are interested in teaching for its own sake. They need to have health insurance and be able to eat. The reward can't be just time building. Maybe we could think of ways that an instructor could be used more efficiently. The dominant paradigm here is one on one instruction. Maybe we should consider one on two or one on three instruction for some things.

Posted by: robert miller | January 3, 2011 3:55 PM    Report this comment

I would like to know if anyone knows if the cost,(in real terms,) of airplanes and flying has ever been less than it is today.

Posted by: robert miller | January 3, 2011 3:59 PM    Report this comment

"the traditional single-focus on profit isn't working anymore"

Excuse me, but Flight Schools are some of the nicest places on the planet with the nicest people you will ever meet. The profit margins on rental aircraft is also some of the smallest.

The bottom line is that Andrew Savitz is NOT an aviation person and his motivational talks should not be used in this context. Aviation is already friendly, inviting, and low profit. The real problem is just that it does cost a lot of money to operate and maintain anything in Aviation.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | January 4, 2011 1:48 PM    Report this comment

Mark, I think you are right in many cases, but AOPA's study cited a lot of prospects who found less than your ideal when they went searching for flight training... and a number have been cited in this comment thread.

Posted by: Mary Grady | January 4, 2011 2:25 PM    Report this comment

To answer Robert Miller's question: In constant dollars, the cost of instruction from 1978 to present is flat. The cost of new single engine piston aircraft however, is up 250%-400% depeding on model in the same timeframe and fuel is up about 30-50% more expensive in inflation-adjusted dollars. In other words, instruction costs have not gone up but aquisition and operating costs have gone up a great deal.

Posted by: David Kruger | January 4, 2011 3:08 PM    Report this comment

Mary, AOPA is basically wrong in it's assumption. 70-80% of people who start taking lessons don't finish because flying is not for 70-80% of the population anyway. It can take a few lessons before people see what it actually COSTS in terms of time and money and commitment.

Perhaps it would have been boring if AOPA had simply reported that all the numbers of certificate holders had remained amazingly flat for the last decade?

Posted by: Mark Fraser | January 4, 2011 3:17 PM    Report this comment

I was curious about the "success rate" of dieters. My guess is that it's worse that 80% and probably 95% failure rate after 2 years.

You simply cannot conclude that "good will" makes a difference or that success is accomplished by "wanting". It takes hard work and PERSONAL commitment. Blaming failure of personal goals in your life is as easy as it is wrong.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | January 4, 2011 7:45 PM    Report this comment

I used to clean house in 1982 for four hours and that would pay for a cessna 152 and an instructor, now that doesn't even cover the cost of a 152. So the instruction has gone up significantly.

Posted by: Patty Haley | January 5, 2011 2:04 AM    Report this comment

I manage a pretty busy 141 school that is also a not-for-profit (club). We are near a rather large, affluent college market and used to struggle with the "drop-out issue" continually. I used to aggressively "qualify" applicants to make sure they were "serious" and would become pilots but now we more freely open the doors to whomever wants to try the program. The basic reason; give them a chance to try flying! It might very well NOT be for them for financial, social or personal reasons but we offer the opportunity for them to discover that. Ultimately it IS a huge commitment of time and money and though you tell everyone this up front, they need to discover how it fits into their lives. I really don't care what my "my numbers" look like! I want everyone possible to try the experience of flying and we access a bigger market and ultimately have more pilots as a result. We have "junior members" from 10 years old to one fellow who got his private at 83! We have grown the last two years (and have 58 years in the business) Screw the stats and focus on presenting aviation to as many people as possible in an open, inviting fashion: make it safe but keep it fun!

Posted by: DAVID ST GEORGE | January 5, 2011 7:28 AM    Report this comment

David, That's exactly what I see in the flight schools around me. Great people with open doors.

I'm no instructor but I've taken countless people on "demo flights" in my own plane burning my own gas. What I see is that most are satisfied with just saying that they "flew" a plane. I don't care if they peruse a certificate, I just make sure that they have a pleasurable time and have a good impression of GA.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | January 5, 2011 8:49 AM    Report this comment

Flight schools....with them it's always talk talk talk about money. The excuse flight schools use that they are "promoting" aviation by charging nearly $150hr for basic training just doesn't fly, and I'm sure they've done their share in chasing people away to pursue other interests. I say instead of "promoting" aviation we do more to enjoy it.

Posted by: Fredric Lowerre | January 6, 2011 7:36 AM    Report this comment

Lets see. I am a part time instructor. I am a dentist by profession. I charge $40 and hour as an instructor and about $300 per hour as dental specialist.(sometimes more sometimes less)

The airplane rents for $70 per hour dry and that covers maintenance, tiedown, insurance and I wish a little profit. The gas is over $5 per gallon and at 8 gal per hour that is $40 per hour. So there is the $150 per hour. I wish it were cheaper, but have not been able to figure out how to make it cheaper.

By the way, when I am going someplace that I want to go my students can fly with me for just the cost of gas. Some things just cost money. People do all kinds of useless things that cost a lot of money for enjoyment and relaxation. Flying can seem like one of those, but at least it can also have very useful purposes also. Try doing that with skis. :)

Posted by: LYLE BROOKSBY | January 6, 2011 8:18 AM    Report this comment

Frederic, You need to BUY AN AIRPLANE, rent a hanger, do an annual, get insurance with very low hours, and then fly on $5/gal AvGas. Do that and then tell me what it REALLY costs per flight hour.

$150/hr is not an "excuse", that's called cheap flying.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | January 6, 2011 8:30 AM    Report this comment

Mark, I have owned several aircraft over the past 20 years from trainers to high performance retracts. I currently own two aircraft...a VW powered SoneraiII and a Cessna 150.I have over 800 hrs and only 30 are in rented aircraft.The SoneraiII burns 4gph at 140mph.It cost $9,000 to buy.(I'm also an EAA member) Two months ago when my son decided to start flying I bought the Cessna (1976 full IFR) for $12,500 because paying the flight school $109hr to rent a 152 + $45hr for their instructor is rediculous.($159hr for a 172 just because it has a glass panel?Even more rediculous)The C-150 burns 6gph.Insurance is $414yr and tie down $35mo.I just did my annual(owner assisted) and it cost $375.My son pays $25hr for his flight instructor.So I know the cost of owning and flying an airplane.Do the math...It does NOT have to be expensive.But flight schools,especially in my area of Central Ca,push their students towards flying their larger,faster, gizmo equipped high$$$ planes in order to turn a buck as opposed to providing a cheaper alternative.It's no wonder so many,dare I say most,new students give up to pursue other interests.

Posted by: Fredric Lowerre | January 6, 2011 11:23 AM    Report this comment

I worked as a CFI for a national flight school ten years ago, and saw first hand it is all about the money. This company took over the flight training duties for an FBO I had worked for previously, and in the first instructor meeting after the changeover we were told their average student finished the PPL program in 90 hours. We just stared at each other after hearing this - when NAFI says the US avg is 60-70 hours something is very wrong. This was reinforced months later after I had left to teach at another flight school. I got in touch with a student of mine who had just finished all his dual XCs before I left, and was shocked to hear he still hadn't finished. This school, my previous employer, had him fly with several different instructors and take a stage check with the chief pilot, which served no purpose IMHO other than to soak him for more money. My takeaway from this was to tell anybody interested in flight instruction to go online and find a local CFI and talk to them about training instead of giving their money to a flight factory.

Posted by: Will Alibrandi | January 6, 2011 11:57 AM    Report this comment

Certified 141 Flight schools won't use a VW powered SoneraiII (or an IFR equipped C150) because basically too many people are just too fat! That means the C172 is now required to cover the new generic prospective student. That means higher cost, more insurance, more fuel burn.

It's NOT the fault of Flight schools that they have to buy bigger hardware and pay higher insurance premiums and rent actual buildings that individual part 91 owners don't want. Business simply requires they do it.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | January 6, 2011 12:10 PM    Report this comment

Of course you would not do basic flight training in a Sonerai.I fly for fun and the Sonerai is fun and inexpensive.As far as the C-150 it was good enough for me,my dad,all my pilot friends,and my son.I have given many rides in it and have yet to find someone so big they can't comfortably fit in it.The point is there are cheaper alternatives to training and flying.

Posted by: Fredric Lowerre | January 6, 2011 5:48 PM    Report this comment

And telling someone they need a bigger plane? That's just another excuse for jacking up the cost.

Posted by: Fredric Lowerre | January 6, 2011 6:03 PM    Report this comment

Yes! That's because the "bottom line" is that people today are a lot larger than our dads were. People just don't weigh 150 pounds anymore so you can't fill up an IFR 150 with two 200 pound people and be legal for W&B. Private people can buy panes that fit them; businesses have to buy planes that will fit others. That's why it's different.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | January 6, 2011 8:51 PM    Report this comment

I think this thread has gotten a little silly. It seems self evident to me that flying is compelling enough that some portion of the population will put up with a lot to do it. ( I remember reading about one homebuilder that paid for his plane by collecting cans.) We've all heard about schools like the one Will Alibrandi describes but there are good places too. I don't think the problem is one of focusing on the bottom line in those cases, its more a problem with ethics. If you justify unethical behavior by pointing at the bottom line well than that is a problem.

Posted by: robert miller | January 7, 2011 12:34 AM    Report this comment

Robert, I thought it was silly that people say "flight schools" were dictatorial and unfriendly. No mention at all is made about the FAA, TSA, and all the hoops and costs and insanity that pilots have to endure every day just to finally enjoy an one hour of flying some afternoon. Excuse me now, I have to mail in my new $5 "N-registration" fee today and call the shop to schedule an annual... Seriously.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | January 7, 2011 8:09 AM    Report this comment

Not every new student starts with a clear idea of their objectives. Intro flights lead to starts – typically, tentative starts. Look at dropouts broken down by phase-of-training – the picture becomes a lot clearer. Pre-solo dropouts run the gamut, from insufficiently-mitigated apprehension, to “this is a lot harder than I thought it would be,” to “I tried it, but it’s not giving me the buzz that I hoped it would.” Then there are the students who solo a few times, but drop out in the face of cross-country training. They tell themselves, “I did it – I flew an airplane, all by myself!” The post-solo stuff is too much like… work.

A few scare themselves on a solo cross-country flight and simply flee. More just conclude that this whole private pilot thing isn’t what they thought it would be.

Yes, we can do a better job of encouraging fledgling aviators. But the awful truth is that flying – just like other endeavors – isn’t for everyone. How many private pilots do you know who stopped flying after taking a handful of family and friends up for $100 hamburgers?

Disappointment is a thread that runs through much of this. Some of that is a consequence of misframed expectations. But if we told everybody how challenging this can be, many of them wouldn’t even give it a try. So we continue to tease newbies into the tent, one step at a time, in the hopes that some will endure long enough to “get it.” It ever has been thus.

Posted by: Tom Yarsley | January 7, 2011 11:03 AM    Report this comment

Thomas,that is a very lucid and thoughtful post. Too many imagine that flying is like riding a jet ski or a motorcycle for a weekend of fun and excitement. Private piloting is actually more akin to a profession.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | January 7, 2011 3:09 PM    Report this comment

Thomas Yarsley has some great points. I've been instructing practically full time for the past 3 years. Most of the students that have completed their training were initially trained by someone else many years earlier and quit for many of reasons listed in the other posts. In fact, I have had only 3 students that started with me...finish with me.

In terms of training, as much as I try and keep the training personal, fun, and relevant to their initial reasons for pursuing the rating in the first place, I would say my completion rates are in line with AOPA's findings. Costs, competition for discretionary time/interests, and in my opinion, the lack of real utility are all reasons for drop-outs.

I believe to address this problem, we need to address the value vs. cost issue and encourage more students to become aircraft owners or part of a flying club before completing their training. I have found owner student pilots are always more committed. For me, I was part owner in a Cherokee 140 during my training and I flew all the time. Since I no longer have the aircraft, I have only flown 3-4 personal flights in the past 3 years because now I have to rent just like my students. Even for me who wants to fly, I can't get beyond the hourly rental rates and our rates are as low as they get.

Posted by: Michael Piervy | January 7, 2011 9:00 PM    Report this comment

Interesting posts, all. Kinda makes me think about the divorce rate ... 50—60%? I think clear goals, personal comittment, and dampening down of the need for instant gratification will serve to increase the success rate of flying students ... and wedded couples.

Posted by: Phil Derosier | January 10, 2011 4:51 AM    Report this comment

Aviation is hard work that brings it's own satisfaction. Saying that it's a "friendly" problem on the front end is simply wrong (and such misrepresentation will perpetuate dropout rates).

Posted by: Mark Fraser | January 10, 2011 9:54 AM    Report this comment

Part of the problem is that the Aviation industry tends to oversell the utility of flying. The idea that a new private pilot will be able to use a plane for vacations and business travel in a manner competitive to airline travel is unrealistic yet that is what is often sold to prospective students (think of all the places you can go and see without being tied to the airlines!). I know of many private pilots (let alone students) who eventually faded away because they came to realize that unless you are able and willing to commit a very large sum of money towards additional (IFR) training and proficiency, most flying falls into the $100 hamburger on a sunny Sunday variety and that is not enough for many pilots to maintain interest. I hate to say it but it almost always comes down to the cost versus the utility. For someone to be able to fly 100 hours a year, which is how much you will fly if you are really getting serious utility out of a plane (i.e, really using it to travel places) and maintaining real proficieny, they need to have some real expendable cash. Assuming a rental at $150 an hour for a four-place plane to cart the family around, you need $15,000 annually in free cash -- more than the average working person has lying around for a weekend hobby I would venture. Therein lies the real reason that the pilot roster is shrinking annually.

Posted by: Ken Appleby | January 10, 2011 12:21 PM    Report this comment

Agreed, Ken. It's crazy expensive and massively regulated. That's not most peoples idea of "fun". Flight schools are part of that expensive and regulated system so I'm sure they are blamed when the illusion of "freedom" is dashed and the reality of the constrictive nature of aviation sets in.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | January 12, 2011 7:16 AM    Report this comment

While it is expensive to fly, so also is freedom expensive to maintain.

Posted by: LYLE BROOKSBY | January 12, 2011 10:51 AM    Report this comment

If you had always had to rent a car after you learned to drive you would probably take the bus. So likewise if we do not own the airplane we probably will not fly it. With the cost of airplanes at an all time low it is the perfect time to learn and buy. Yes we will still have to buy gas and insurance and maintain it, but the same is true with a car. If I need to go somewhere where a cheap airfare is not available, or if several of us have to go the private airplane quickly become the better choice. If you do not understand this or are content to stay in one place all of the time you will not fly. Those of us that fly do so for the challenge and the freedom.

Posted by: LYLE BROOKSBY | January 12, 2011 10:57 AM    Report this comment

In the last few posts you guys have gotten to the core of the issue! So why is AOPA clinging to the belief that if they can just get instructors to be nicer to students they will remain inside the aviation tent?

I urge you all to write to AOPA and lobby them to get beyond the superficial shock that the drop-out rate is so high - this is purely a symptom. AOPA and the entire industry needs to get to grip with the underlying ROOT CAUSES, and deal with them!

If you guys "get it" why don't they?

I hope AvWeb will help lead us all on this one because it is so profound to the industry we all love.

Posted by: JIM HERD | January 12, 2011 1:17 PM    Report this comment

The industry is monstrously complex between lawyers, fuels, FAR's, taxes, airports, and the economy that there is no ROOT cause to pilot frustration. Just any day you could be required to have a $10K ADS-B, that 100LL is banned, find an engine AD in your mailbox, or your nearby airport gets sold to a developer.

The longer I fly, the more I see that any day could be my last day that I can afford keeping up with all of this stuff...

Posted by: Mark Fraser | January 12, 2011 2:47 PM    Report this comment

Oh, just after posting, I went flying last night and my AH gyro went tango uniform. That's another $400-$500 in repairs and a weeks downtime before the next hour of flight. That's what flying is.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | January 13, 2011 9:26 AM    Report this comment

Sorry to hear about your gyro Mark but that about sums it up. To Scott's point about ownership, even at today's low prices, most four place aircraft in good condition are still expensive ($35K for a hobby plane is out of most "average" people's budgets) and when you are done with all of the annual costs including dead gyros, it is every bit as expensive as renting or more. The break-even requires a lot of flying in most cases.

Posted by: Ken Appleby | January 13, 2011 5:43 PM    Report this comment

"The break-even requires a lot of flying" That's like saying that the more you shop, the more you save. There is no break even on hobbies. We do it because that's what we decide to do.

Posted by: Mark Fraser | January 14, 2011 3:15 PM    Report this comment

I have to agree with Fred. I obtained my Private Pilot's Certificate and Instrument Rating in the 150 Fredric just bought for his son's flying lessons. Fredric, I hope you are taking good care of 9162U. I wished I never sold her. She was a fun and cheap plane to fly.

Posted by: Richard Van Frank | February 4, 2011 11:34 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment

Forgot password?

Register

Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration

« Back to Full Story