Jump to content
maz48

Technical issues on Caribbean Princess

Recommended Posts

We are booked on the September 22nd westbound TA and have had an email this morning making fairly big changes to our itinerary due to 'technical issues' that will cause the ship not to be able to travel at full speed. Has anyone who has been on the ship recently heard anything about it? I imagine it doesn't affect other cruises too much till then, but going over the Atlantic at that time of year on a ship with problems doesn't thrill me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are booked on the September 22nd westbound TA and have had an email this morning making fairly big changes to our itinerary due to 'technical issues' that will cause the ship not to be able to travel at full speed. Has anyone who has been on the ship recently heard anything about it? I imagine it doesn't affect other cruises too much till then, but going over the Atlantic at that time of year on a ship with problems doesn't thrill me.

There's something wrong with the ship that they can't fix between now and September????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're on the this cruise and the British Isles one prior to it, and we're very concerned since this is an issue that this ship had had for a while. How can they know there's an issue like this and not be able to fix it prior to the ta? Would they have the power to outrun a hurricane? Can/will this affect other cruises this summer? Our final payment is due next week, and we may be cancelling this cruise which is something we don't want to do.

Here's the memo we received--

<<ITINERARY CHANGE

 

Please be advised that Caribbean Princess has experienced technical difficulties which have resulted in our inability to operate at full speed. This in no way compromises the safety of our guests and crew which is our highest priority; however, our technical experts have determined that it is necessary to make the following changes to our itinerary. We will no longer call to Rotterdam, Vigo, or the Azores (Ponta Delgado). Instead, we will now call to Zeebrugge on Saturday, September 23, 2017, and to Bermuda (West End), on Wednesday, October 4. In addition, we will now call to Paris/Normandy (Le Havre) on Sunday, September 24 rather than on Monday, September 25, and to Lisbon on Wednesday, September 27 rather than on Thursday, September 28, and call times have been amended.

As a goodwill gesture, each guest will receive a refundable credit of $100 USD applied to their onboard folio. We regret any disappointment these changes may cause, and look forward to welcoming you aboard Caribbean Princess.>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear about the issues and the pending changes to your itinerary. We did the CB's Iceland/Norway T/A (Westbound) last September and sat bobbing around the anchor near Lerwick while they worked on some engine issues. I know it is extremely frustrating loosing out on some ports that you were looking forward to visiting. If I were sailing on this itinerary though, I would be disappointed but glad they didn't cancel the whole cruise.....:):):)

 

Fair Winds and a Following Sea

 

Bob

Edited by Woobstr112G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we did this ship on her TA in April after drydock and everything was fine-must have come up after that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe someone on board now can find out more? At a Meet the Crew-type event? Won't the ship have to do a TA to get from the Caribbean to Europe before September?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CB had propulsion issues when we cruised on her in July 2008 causing a deviation from the itinerary. Propulsion and other issues have surfaced periodically since that time to the point where we will not cruise on her again.

 

One would think the propulsion issue would have been successfully addressed in the last nine years.

 

PNG%20Sig_zps9bcbhaj9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe someone on board now can find out more? At a Meet the Crew-type event? Won't the ship have to do a TA to get from the Caribbean to Europe before September?

 

The ship is already in Europe doing British Isles since April. I don't know why they couldn't have taken care of these mechanical/technical issues during the 2 wk dry dock prior to the TA in April??? That's why I believe Princess is lying about the reason for changing itinerary. Doesn't pass the smell test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The CB had propulsion issues when we cruised on her in July 2008 causing a deviation from the itinerary. Propulsion and other issues have surfaced periodically since that time to the point where we will not cruise on her again.

 

One would think the propulsion issue would have been successfully addressed in the last nine years.

 

PNG%20Sig_zps9bcbhaj9.png

 

Lew;

 

That would be the obvious & smart thing to do. I wonder why that seems not to have been done?.....:):):)

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why wasn't this addressed/corrected during recent dry dock? One poster on the roll call suggested there is another week of "off line" in late October for this ship.

 

So unsettling. I would not want to traverse the Atlantic in Sept without a 4th gear. With final payment next week, i think a lot of folks might let this one pass by. Esp for just $100 OBC. I feel badly for those pax, it's a tough decision and precious little time to make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why wasn't this addressed/corrected during recent dry dock? One poster on the roll call suggested there is another week of "off line" in late October for this ship.

 

So unsettling. I would not want to traverse the Atlantic in Sept without a 4th gear. With final payment next week, i think a lot of folks might let this one pass by. Esp for just $100 OBC. I feel badly for those pax, it's a tough decision and precious little time to make it.

 

My final payment for just the TA portion is due on July 9th. The more I think about it we would have to change a lot of reservations if we cancel this or move to another crossing. There is a good chance we will just grin and bear it. But I certainly wouldn't say I'm looking forward to this cruise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very odd that there is a known fault that they can't fix in the next 3 months. The OBC doesn't seem adequate for what you are missing. I would be very annoyed if I'd booked this cruise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no expert on "propulsion problems" but if you compare the original and revised itineraries the obvious intent by Princess is saving fuel. Now I trust that Princess (or any other cruise line) would immediately take out of service a ship with engine room issues that could even remotely compromise safety or integrity. So my guess in this case is that the only effect the current ongoing problem has is on fuel economy. Which is why Rotterdam was scratched because of the redundant out-and-back on the North Sea from Southampton. (And this call would have always been at risk if there was even the slightest delay leaving Southampton and/or a forecast of poor weather on the approach).

 

For the rest of the cruise I personally would exchange Vigo and the Azores straight up for Zebrugge and Bermuda anytime; the $100 OBC is a nice bonus. Though I concede those who had already made arrangements onshore for the rescheduled port days will feel otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not same ship, but Coral had an engine offline that they originally thought was due to an obstruction on the propeller. If I remember what the Capt. said on the PA, they needed some time before they could put divers down to correct that... once divers took a look though it was a different problem. Then it took some more time to troubleshoot and then it sounded like they needed to wait another week or 2 for the part before they could make repairs.

 

It's possible they need time to fabricate something necessary for the repairs, and that it can only be done by a special shop and when the queue there allows? We're not talking about super mass produced engine parts that you can walk down to your local PepBoy to replace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just answer a few of the questions posed here.

 

One, as for a problem that can't be fixed prior to September, this could be a problem requiring drydocking, and either dock space is not available or the line feels it isn't financially prudent to take the vessel out of service at this time (don't flame me, that is just what the line may be thinking). Or it could be that a part is required that is not available and needs to be manufactured. Not every part of these systems is "stocked on the shelf" and many are only produced when an entire unit is ordered, as they are not expected to fail.

 

To say that the propulsion issue has not been corrected in nine years is ludicrous. Many here on CC tend to lump a lot of things together into the blanket "propulsion issue", when these are complex machinery systems that have many components, any one of which can fail (and not the same one) and still be called a "propulsion failure". If your car has the "check engine" light come on several times over a period of nine years, do you feel that the problem has not been fixed?

 

How do you know the problem didn't come about after the drydock? There is no guarantee that everything will work for the next 5 years after a drydock.

 

Yes, it is unfortunate when this happens, but the airlines have to take equipment out of service unexpectedly all the time, the car rental companies have breakdowns (as does your own car, likely), so why are cruise lines held up as villians and conspirators when their source of income breaks down? The problem is that the unit cost of a cruise ship is vast compared to even the largest airliner, so there are no "spares" left around to jump in and fill the void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's something wrong with the ship that they can't fix between now and September????

 

We are on the ship July 22 but did not receive any email so far about any schedule changes. I don't think full costs has anything to do with it since barrels are below $50.

 

But strange they can predict a problem in three months but can't fix it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have two cruises booked on the Caribbean Princess before September. We have received nothing from Princess about any problem affecting our cruises. We enjoy cruising so much that a change in port schedule, while it might be disappointing, it would not cause us to cancel a cruise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cruised on the Caribbean Princess from Mar. 11-19, 2017 and we didn't have any problems.

 

But the email that was posted and the story the OP was told don't make sense - how can Princess know there will be some unnamed problem in September requiring an itinerary change, but everything will apparently be OK all summer?? Princess must have a very good crystal ball! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how can Princess know there will be some unnamed problem in September requiring an itinerary change, but everything will apparently be OK all summer?? Princess must have a very good crystal ball! ;)

 

Why would they need a crystal ball?

 

All they need to know is that there is some operating restriction that is limiting them

to some speed, and that it won't be repaired before september.

 

Then, look at the upcoming itineraries, and determine if they can be maintained with the

new speed. If not, drop some ports, and keep chugging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're booked on CB for next March. Looking forward to a wonderful cruise and have no worries about the ship. Hope all who are booked on the affected cruise have a great cruise. I'm sure it's upsetting but it sounds as if Princess is doing what they can. Hopefully it doesn't cause too much disruption of plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the email that was posted and the story the OP was told don't make sense - how can Princess know there will be some unnamed problem in September requiring an itinerary change, but everything will apparently be OK all summer?? Princess must have a very good crystal ball! ;)
Perhaps the distances required for the remaining summer itineraries do not require the same propulsion needed to cross the Atlantic. Princess essentially added two sea days to the itinerary, which makes me think the ship will be going a bit slower than originally planned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm no expert on "propulsion problems" but if you compare the original and revised itineraries the obvious intent by Princess is saving fuel. Now I trust that Princess (or any other cruise line) would immediately take out of service a ship with engine room issues that could even remotely compromise safety or integrity. So my guess in this case is that the only effect the current ongoing problem has is on fuel economy. Which is why Rotterdam was scratched because of the redundant out-and-back on the North Sea from Southampton. (And this call would have always been at risk if there was even the slightest delay leaving Southampton and/or a forecast of poor weather on the approach).

 

For the rest of the cruise I personally would exchange Vigo and the Azores straight up for Zebrugge and Bermuda anytime; the $100 OBC is a nice bonus. Though I concede those who had already made arrangements onshore for the rescheduled port days will feel otherwise.

 

By Ben Lyons, Cruise Critic contributor

Diesel ElectricEven though many ships are still built with conventional diesel plans, almost all new cruise ships (such as Celebrity's Solstice Class or Carnival's original Destiny Class) feature some form of "diesel electric" propulsion. On these ships, the main engines aren't connected to the propeller shafts; instead, the main engines are directly connected to large generators with one job: producing electricity. The electricity they produce is sent to electric motors, which then power and turn the propellers.

 

The primary advantage of diesel electric systems is efficiency; they allow the main engines to operate near their most efficient speed regardless of whether the ship is moving at 5 knots or 20 knots.

 

Getting the Terminology Straight

Admittedly, the technical vocabulary can be a bit confusing. For the purpose of this article, "main engines" refer to those engines that produce the vast power to move the ship. On conventional, or direct drive, diesel vessels, these engines are connected to the propeller shaft; on diesel electric ships, the main engines are connected to the main generators.

 

Furthermore, "engine" and "motor" are not interchangeable. Engines rely on fuel and ignition and can help generate electricity. Motors rely on electricity to make something move. Propulsion motors, therefore, take the electricity produced by the engines and use it to make the propellers turn.

It's all About the PowerAs we've seen in recent cruise-ship troubles, losing electrical power can be devastating. The main engines and even the generators themselves require electricity to keep going. Electrically driven pumps take in cold seawater from the ocean to help cool the engines; electrical pumps take fuel from the fuel tanks and supply it to the engine. Electrical power is critical to many operating functions, and without it, the ship comes to a halt.

 

Of course, the production of electricity is vital to all aspects of a ship's operation. Large equipment (such as the bow thrusters, or, in the case of diesel electric ships, the actual propulsion motor) requires high-voltage electricity. For smaller machinery, such as lights in your cabin or the equipment in the galley, the electricity goes through a transformer and is stepped down into a more useable, lower voltage -- such as 110V.

 

To distribute the electrical power, large cables snake through the ship. Hundreds of miles of cables carry power from the generators to switchboards and eventually through passageways, cabins and public rooms.

 

Cabling can be a weak point in a ship's distribution system. Even ships with two engine rooms can suffer power failure if the electrical cables are not truly redundant. For instance, if two main engines in different engine rooms produce power that goes into a single cable that brings power to the propulsion motors, a problem to that electrical cable would cut off all propulsion power. Consider it like a highway: If an accident closes the road, traffic (i.e. electricity) won't move anywhere unless there is a detour or a second route that can provide another way around the accident.

Portside PowerWhen ships are docked and not moving, main engines and generators produce far more power than needed. In port, they are turned off, and smaller generators are used to supply the "hotel" load (i.e. lights, air-conditioning, the galleys, etc.). Actually, moving the ship through the water takes up the vast majority of a ship's need for power -- somewhere in the vicinity of 85 percent of the power a diesel electric plant produces goes to the propeller. The rest goes toward keeping the lights on and the passengers and crew comfortable.

 

This helps explain why hotel functions can sometimes be restored even if the ship's propulsion is not working -- separate generators provide power that does not go toward moving the ship. (However, if a fire knocks out the wiring that supplies the electricity, having a separate generator won't make any difference.)

Emergency GeneratorsSo what happens when things go wrong and the ship is dead in the water? All ships have an emergency generator to maintain vital electrical power.

 

These backup generators are always located higher up and outside the engine room spaces to insulate them from fire or damage to the engine room. Big ships require so much power that they might have two or more emergency generators. Even so, they will not have anywhere near the capacity of the main engines and generators. They don't produce enough electricity to move the ship, and they can't even supply all the limited power needed in port, mostly because of space constraints.

 

Thus, the emergency generator is instead used only for very essential navigation systems -- crucial bridge and communication equipment, a few critical pumps in the engine room (such as the pumps that supply fuel to the engines) and emergency lighting. (Cruise ship emergency lighting is generally pretty good. You can recognize which lights are operational on the emergency switchboard because there will be a little red dot next to the light. On your next cruise, take a look as you walk down the passageways and look for the red dots -- you might be surprised how many lights are powered in an emergency.)

 

Should the emergency generator also fail, ships are required to have -- and we're not making this up -- a battery backup. Battery rooms provide at least 24 hours of power to an even smaller list of emergency equipment. However, the essential systems they supply are so limited, they cannot power many hotel services and are certainly not enough to move the ship.

New Regulations and ImprovementsSo, what is being done to ensure incidents like the Carnival Triumph stranding don't happen again? Plenty, actually.

 

Until now, emergency power supplies have never been powerful enough to cover "non-essential" items, like air-conditioning, which is one of the biggest power draws of the hotel load. (That isn't likely to change in the foreseeable future. It may be uncomfortable to be hot and sticky on a ship, but it isn't unsafe.)

 

Nor have the vacuum pumps needed for the toilets been considered "emergency equipment" until this point. However, recent regulations entitled "Safe Return to Port" by the International Maritime Organization have come into effect for almost all passenger ships built after 2010. Recognizing that increasing passenger capacity makes it harder to evacuate large ships, these regulations are designed to ensure that in the case of a fire or other incident, there are enough redundancies so that passengers can stay safe longer -- and have basic services.

 

The newest ships that have launched (such as Royal Princess and Norwegian Breakaway) now feature full redundancies -- including two engine rooms and the doubling up of cables and electrical systems that snake throughout ships. This means that even if a fire destroys one main engine room and the generators that supply the power to move the ship, a separate engine room with enough power to propel the ship would still be operational. Although the ship would not be able to travel at normal speed, it would be able to navigate without the assistance of tugboats. Even more groundbreaking are the designations for providing basic services -- including specifications for one workable toilet for every 50 people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't quote the whole thing, but what the PP posted from Mr. Lyons is a pretty accurate picture of a cruise ship power plant, though the last statement about one working toilet for every 50 pax is a little misleading.

 

As stated, there are two engine rooms with generators, powering two switchboards that distribute the power throughout the ship, for a ship that meets the Safe Return to Port requirements (which some significantly older ships do as well). Normally, the two switchboards are connected together so they can share power between engine rooms. But, if one engine room and switchboard is damaged, one switchboard feeds every single hotel function on the ship, from toilets to smoothie machines. Each switchboard has a feeder to the distribution panels for the hotel load. What is limited is that with only half the engine/generators available, you can only send half the power to the propulsion.

 

As to why they can "predict" this problem months in advance, the answer is simple. The problem exists today, but the current itineraries do not require full speed, but the TA will. Ships frequently operate under reduced power without the passengers knowing anything about it. The diesel engines are completely torn down and overhauled (about a 3-4 week process) every 12,000 running hours (about every 2 years under normal operating parameters), so during this overhaul, the ship is operating without sufficient generators to provide full speed to the propulsion, yet no one ever knows, as the itineraries are set to accommodate the overhaul.

 

A diesel generator out of service waiting on a long lead time item for the generator could be the answer why it is mentioned as a "technical" issue and not a "propulsion" issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were on Caribbean Princess four weeks ago and there was no apparent problem.

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To say that the propulsion issue has not been corrected in nine years is ludicrous. Many here on CC tend to lump a lot of things together into the blanket "propulsion issue", when these are complex machinery systems that have many components, any one of which can fail (and not the same one) and still be called a "propulsion failure". If your car has the "check engine" light come on several times over a period of nine years, do you feel that the problem has not been fixed?
Not ludicrous at all...perhaps a different point of view. You, as an engineer, think of all the different reasons the propulsion could fail. As a cruise consumer, I see it as a change of itinerary, missing planned ports of call, and disappointment.

 

A quick search of this board returns a total of 255 posts mentioning either Caribbean Princess and propulsion or CB and propulsion over the years. The CB has been plagued with recurring propulsion issues for a long time whatever the cause. I know of no other ship in the Princess fleet that has experienced close to the number of propulsion related events as the CB.

 

PNG%20Sig_zps9bcbhaj9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received the email in question. Although changes can always be unnerving, I am not too concerned in this case. As someone else said trading Rotterdam for Bruges is a pretty good trade-off and a stop in Bermuda before Fort Lauderdale is good as well. For me, the sea days are what this cruise is all about so they could add even more and I would be happy. All in all, still looking forward to this return from Europe. Beats flying every time. Besides, crossing the Atlantic in the fall is kind of problematic anyway. I don't think one would make a booking to sail in this area during hurricane season and not accept the possibility of encountering a hurricane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not ludicrous at all...perhaps a different point of view. You, as an engineer, think of all the different reasons the propulsion could fail. As a cruise consumer, I see it as a change of itinerary, missing planned ports of call, and disappointment.

 

A quick search of this board returns a total of 255 posts mentioning either Caribbean Princess and propulsion or CB and propulsion over the years. The CB has been plagued with recurring propulsion issues for a long time whatever the cause. I know of no other ship in the Princess fleet that has experienced close to the number of propulsion related events as the CB.

 

PNG%20Sig_zps9bcbhaj9.png

 

Well, to me, a far more telling indication would be the number of threads about the Caribbean Princess and propulsion, not the number of posts. I don't know how to search for that, and don't really have the inclination. I did, however, to a search as you did, for "Caribbean Princess and propulsion", and on page two there were posts referring to Island, Grand, and Coral Princess propulsion issues as well as Norwegian Star and Carnival Vista, at that point, I stopped checking the search results. I did this because of the well noted unreliability of CC's search function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to hear about the issues and the pending changes to your itinerary. We did the CB's Iceland/Norway T/A (Westbound) last September and sat bobbing around the anchor near Lerwick while they worked on some engine issues. I know it is extremely frustrating loosing out on some ports that you were looking forward to visiting. If I were sailing on this itinerary though, I would be disappointed but glad they didn't cancel the whole cruise.....:):):)

 

Fair Winds and a Following Sea

 

Bob

 

Was on the same cruise. The weather did not allow tender landings at Leerwick on that day, So the ship had the time to stop without impacting schedule. From what I recall the Captain announced that the problem developed the night before during rough weather and that they were fully able to fix it before we left that day. As such the rest of the cruise was not affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was on the same cruise. The weather did not allow tender landings at Leerwick on that day, So the ship had the time to stop without impacting schedule. From what I recall the Captain announced that the problem developed the night before during rough weather and that they were fully able to fix it before we left that day. As such the rest of the cruise was not affected.

 

The rest of the cruise was not affected, but we were traveling at higher speeds to make it to ports stops in Iceland and Boston on time. The bad weather during the sea day before Akureyri delayed our arrival. We also had an unscheduled overnight stay in Reykjavik due to the weather. So while the engine problems did not cancel the rest of our cruise, the schedule was in fact somewhat impacted by the weather.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rest of the cruise was not affected, but we were traveling at higher speeds to make it to ports stops in Iceland and Boston on time. The bad weather during the sea day before Akureyri delayed our arrival. We also had an unscheduled overnight stay in Reykjavik due to the weather. So while the engine problems did not cancel the rest of our cruise, the schedule was in fact somewhat impacted by the weather.

Bob

But as I said not by the repairs they had to make near Leerwick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps the distances required for the remaining summer itineraries do not require the same propulsion needed to cross the Atlantic. Princess essentially added two sea days to the itinerary, which makes me think the ship will be going a bit slower than originally planned.

 

You are right on the money with this. See my post that I did for the Roll Call pertaining to this voyage pasted below here:

 

Sorry to hear all the quick negative reactions to the itinerary changes. As reported, the problem is technical not power related. The effect is not being able to achieve full speed and the itinerary changes result in obtaining two more full days under way to arrive in Port Everglades at it's scheduled time.

 

We are also disappointed in not being able to visit Rotterdam, Vigo and the Azores. They were partly the reason we booked that voyage and it obviously matched up with our already booked Caribbean Tour voyage on the CB to make a BTB.

 

My feeling upon reading the announcement was that there was no way Princess would compromise the safety of its passengers by putting them on a ship that wasn't seaworthy. I wanted to make sure there was a plan to fix the issue knowing that there wasn't any indication that the ship was going into a repair dock since the next voyage hadn't been altered.

My wife and I are fortunate to have a close contact at the upper level of Princess. I took the opportunity to send an email early yesterday and received a phone call back almost immediately letting us know a response from Princess regarding the situation is being readied and should be out next week.

 

The bottom line is that we are staying the course and will review the response when it appears. I would agree that just offering the $100 OBC and no apparent reduction in PF&T seeing we are losing about two port days is not a great deal - more like no deal. However, with doing 31 voyages with Princess we are in the "loyal" group and as a stockholder along with being a stakeholder, I'll give them the benefit of a response that makes sense before we "jump ship".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But as I said not by the repairs they had to make near Leerwick.

 

I would have to disagree, The time we sat anchored off of Lerwick necessitated our increased speed......

 

Bob

Edited by Woobstr112G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick search of this board returns a total of 255 posts mentioning either Caribbean Princess and propulsion or CB and propulsion over the years.

 

That sounds serious, until you realize it's a tiny fraction of the number of posts about butter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is insulting to ask passengers to sail on a ship across the Atlantic in Hurricane season, that is not functioning properly. The itinerary has been changed and is not one I would have chosen in the first place. I have cancelled. However, I lost a 400.00 fee on American Airlines and 75.00 on Jet Blue. 950.00 for 2 people. I have not received any customer service to help alleviate this burden. They have not been very understanding. Much like they really don't care.

Have been a good customer for many years. Not any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That sounds serious, until you realize it's a tiny fraction of the number of posts about butter.

 

Or the proper dress code in the MDR.....:D:D:D

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×