Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




Pazan
09-03-2017, 06:53 PM
About 3 months ago I applied for a Second Class medical to begin flight training. I was denied due to self disclosure. I was given the option to testify asking for a reevaluation of my medical. I am currently waiting to hear back from the FAA. I am currently enrolled in ground school. No one that I know or anyone at the school has heard of a similar case. Just looking if anyone knows anyone or them selfs have been in my situation. Also wondering what my future may hold.


WesternSkies
09-03-2017, 08:55 PM
Medical condition or Drugs?

PerfInit
09-04-2017, 07:44 AM
To the OP, sorry to hear that. You did not give enough detail in your post for someone to be able to help you. I would assume your medical was denied due to how you answered question #18, pertaining to your medical history. Get with AOPA or your AME to see what can be done for special issuance. Some medical conditions (Per 14 CFR) are automatically disqualifying. Other conditions can be mitigated. You really need to seek expert medical advice here.


atpwannabe
09-05-2017, 06:11 AM
To the original poster:

Make sure that the reason you were denied is not a permanent disqualifier. If it is, you will not be medically certified even if you persue the SI route.

If you do get your medical, let me know IMMEDIATELY!

Thanks.


atp

JohnBurke
09-05-2017, 12:18 PM
About 3 months ago I applied for a Second Class medical to begin flight training. I was denied due to self disclosure. I was given the option to testify asking for a reevaluation of my medical. I am currently waiting to hear back from the FAA. I am currently enrolled in ground school. No one that I know or anyone at the school has heard of a similar case. Just looking if anyone knows anyone or them selfs have been in my situation. Also wondering what my future may hold.

You've provided no information.

Your medical was not denied due to "self disclosure." Your medical, i a "denial" has occurred, is deferred due to a condition you disclosed. If you have this condition and this condition is disqualifying, you are required to disclose it. There is no penalty for disclosure; it's required, and failure to disclose a condition means that you've made a false statement on your application, which is grounds for revocation of your medical.

No one has ever heard of a medical being deferred or denied when someone had a condition that was disqualifying? Happens all the time.

There are medical examiners who specialize in assisting airmen with special medical issues, and these may be your best bet.

What your future holds depends on the specifics of your situation, which you have withheld.

Pazan
09-09-2017, 07:39 PM
It was for using marijuana. I was denied under faa 67.107 (b) (3)
I do not have a dependency. I am just a stupid teenager. It was in good faith seeing as I knew what I did was wrong. I did provide dates on which I last used that was within the 2 year window. Thank you all!

atpwannabe
09-14-2017, 11:29 AM
It was for using marijuana. I was denied under faa 67.107 (b) (3)
I do not have a dependency. I am just a stupid teenager. It was in good faith seeing as I knew what I did was wrong. I did provide dates on which I last used that was within the 2 year window. Thank you all!

Pazan:

As far as the FAA is concerned, you have a dependency...irrespective of how long ago it was. Sorry to hear that my friend. If you are going to pursue certification, Special Issuance is the route you will take.

Good luck to you. All the best. Blue skies!


Marcus
(atp)

JohnBurke
09-14-2017, 02:11 PM
As far as the FAA is concerned, you have a dependency...irrespective of how long ago it was.

Dependency is irrelevant. The denial was not for dependance; it was for "misuse of a substance that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgement relating to the substance involved."

There is a two-year window. Stop using, reapply. A bigger problem is that now the medical has been (apparently) denied. That question will come up again.


If you are going to pursue certification, Special Issuance is the route you will take.



Why would you suggest that a special issuance is required? The medical has been reported by the original poster as "denied." Get a special issuance as a waiver for someone using an illegal substance? No.

Dependency is not an issue. The use of the substance is the issue.

14 CR 61.107(b) relates to "Substance abuse within the preceding two years."

Abuse is not the same as dependency.

SonicFlyer
09-14-2017, 06:18 PM
The government is allowed to lie to you, but you're not allowed to lie to the government... funny how that works :rolleyes::mad:

JohnBurke
09-14-2017, 10:41 PM
The government is allowed to lie to you, but you're not allowed to lie to the government... funny how that works :rolleyes::mad:

Meaning what, exactly. Where has the FAA lied to the original poster, and where is the FAA authorized to lie to the original poster about his substance abuse?

Are you trying to muddy the water, or simply steer the conversation to a dead end, and either way, how do you hope to contribute?

The original poster used illegal drugs. The regulation is explicit. There is no surprise, there are no lies, and there is no falsehood here.

Law enforcement has been permitted to use a lie to elicit a confession from a criminal suspect; this has no bearing on the original poster making a correct statement of his drug abuse, or the action of the Administrator relating to that statement.

SonicFlyer
09-15-2017, 09:44 AM
Meaning what, exactly. Where has the FAA lied to the original poster, and where is the FAA authorized to lie to the original poster about his substance abuse?

Are you trying to muddy the water, or simply steer the conversation to a dead end, and either way, how do you hope to contribute?

The original poster used illegal drugs. The regulation is explicit. There is no surprise, there are no lies, and there is no falsehood here.

Law enforcement has been permitted to use a lie to elicit a confession from a criminal suspect; this has no bearing on the original poster making a correct statement of his drug abuse, or the action of the Administrator relating to that statement.Marijuana is not dangerous or harmful to any significant degree, if it was tens of millions of people would be dead. Obviously no one should behave irresponsibly with it (or any other substance) but denying a medical cert because someone has used it is the height of absurdity.

rickair7777
09-15-2017, 02:30 PM
Marijuana is not dangerous or harmful to any significant degree, if it was tens of millions of people would be dead. Obviously no one should behave irresponsibly with it (or any other substance) but denying a medical cert because someone has used it is the height of absurdity.

Welcome to aviation. Or the military, or law enforcement. I have no issues with a little ganga, as long as it's far away from aviation.

Remember that MJ is NOT legal at all per the Fed. So using it, even in a state which has "legalized" it, still shows a disregard for federal law...which aviation also falls under.

SonicFlyer
09-16-2017, 10:32 AM
Remember that MJ is NOT legal at all per the Fed. So using it, even in a state which has "legalized" it, still shows a disregard for federal law...which aviation also falls under.Which is ironic because federal drug laws show a disregard for the Constitution since they are not actually legal.

rickair7777
09-16-2017, 11:40 AM
Which is ironic because federal drug laws show a disregard for the Constitution since they are not actually legal.

Be sure and explain that to your AME :rolleyes:

JohnBurke
09-16-2017, 02:55 PM
Marijuana is not dangerous or harmful to any significant degree, if it was tens of millions of people would be dead. Obviously no one should behave irresponsibly with it (or any other substance) but denying a medical cert because someone has used it is the height of absurdity.

Tell you what. Go toke up and then go do some precision flying. Not an ILS. Go fly back and forth under powerlines for a while, where inches count. See if you hit one. Then tell me if it's harmful.

Whether it's harmful is irrelevant, though clearly an impaired pilot is harmful regardless of whether it's lack of sleep, alcohol, marajuana, or something else. What is relevant is that it's not legal, and that the regulation stipulates that substance abuse is a disqualifying condition when occurring within a two year period...which is the subject of this thread.

SonicFlyer
09-17-2017, 07:28 PM
Tell you what. Go toke up and then go do some precision flying. Not an ILS. Go fly back and forth under powerlines for a while, where inches count. See if you hit one. Then tell me if it's harmful.You must have a reading comprehension problem because nowhere did I write that people should drive/fly while under the influence :rolleyes:

regulation stipulates that substance abuse Use =| abuse

JohnBurke
09-18-2017, 12:18 AM
You must have a reading comprehension problem because nowhere did I write that people should drive/fly while under the influence :rolleyes:


Roll your eyes at someone else.

You stated that marajuana is not harmful. More to the point, you specifically stated that marajuana is not dangerous or harmful. You stated this incorrectly and painted with far too broad a brush.

You attempted to state that marajuana use does not equate abuse. Clearly you've not read the regulation, though it's been given you. Try again.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=7334508b66176f35055f3e84f23cd6e4&mc=true&node=pt14.2.67&rgn=div5#se14.2.67_1107

14 CFR 61.107(b):

§67.107 Mental.
Mental standards for a first-class airman medical certificate are:

b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:

(1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous;

(2) A verified positive drug test result, an alcohol test result of 0.04 or greater alcohol concentration, or a refusal to submit to a drug or alcohol test required by the U.S. Department of Transportation or an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation; or

(3) Misuse of a substance that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the substance involved, finds—

(i) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or

(ii) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.

We work in a field in which judgement is everything. The use of marajuana by a pilot is very poor judgement, if for no other reason than its prohibition by law, policy, and regulation.

There is not presently a means of determining, other than operationally and by visual observation, the degree of impairment by marajuana (unlike alcohol).


Note that the regulation defines "substance" as:

i) “Substance” includes: Alcohol; other sedatives and hypnotics; anxiolytics; opioids; central nervous system stimulants such as cocaine, amphetamines, and similarly acting sympathomimetics; hallucinogens; phencyclidine or similarly acting arylcyclohexylamines; cannabis; inhalants; and other psychoactive drugs and chemicals;

As for the constitutionality of marajuana use, perhaps you'd care to tilt at that windmill, but you're still held accountable to both the law, and the regulation.

You have no constitutional guarantee to be a pot head, and certainly no such right to be a career pilot and a pothead.

You may have to choose between the two. Imagine that.

Hetman
09-19-2017, 02:18 AM
JB is correct; one or the other, but not both.

Shooting from the hip, here: It is going to cause a delay, but probably not much more. After the two years (from the date reported as the last use) reapply for the medical and check the "no" box. Truthfully, of course.

You will have to check "yes" at every application forever for the "have you had a medical denied?" box, with explanation, but after the first time doing that the explanation will be PRNC. That should be the end of it.

Good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgment.

METO Guido
09-19-2017, 06:19 AM
It was for using marijuana. I was denied under faa 67.107 (b) (3)
I do not have a dependency. I am just a stupid teenager. It was in good faith seeing as I knew what I did was wrong. I did provide dates on which I last used that was within the 2 year window. Thank you all!
Seem pretty sharp for your years, betting you'll find the right answer. Useful post. Caution area in this for many others.

SonicFlyer
09-19-2017, 09:28 PM
Roll your eyes at someone else.

You stated that marajuana is not harmful. More to the point, you specifically stated that marajuana is not dangerous or harmful. You stated this incorrectly and painted with far too broad a brush.

You attempted to state that marajuana use does not equate abuse. Clearly you've not read the regulation, though it's been given you. Try again.Just because the government decrees something doesn't actually make it true.

The government could define the sky as being purple, but again, that wouldn't make it true.





We work in a field in which judgement is everything. The use of marajuana by a pilot is very poor judgement, if for no other reason than its prohibition by law, policy, and regulation. That is the only reason not to use it, because it is illegal. And the law that makes it illegal is illegal in and of itself (Constitution doesn't grant the feds power over substances or medical issues).

There is very little medical difference between alcohol and marijuana. In fact it is generally understood that marijuana is indeed healthier to use than alcohol over the long term.


There is not presently a means of determining, other than operationally and by visual observation, the degree of impairment by marajuana (unlike alcohol). This is actually very true. Colorado has had some problems with this issue. In fact marijuana does not metabolize in everyone at the same rate. Some people have different rates of metaobilization.


You have no constitutional guarantee to be a pot headActually the 9th and 10th Amendments allow one to do whatever drugs they want (unless prohibited by state law).

and certainly no such right to be a career pilot and a pothead. Being addicted to any substance or dependent upon any substance of course should be a no-go. But casual use of substances, if done in a responsible manner, should be no problem.

I think your one of those guys who were ok with prohibition of alcohol :rolleyes:

JohnBurke
09-19-2017, 10:16 PM
Just because the government decrees something...

...blah, blah, blah...

...doesn't actually make it true.


All of which is entirely irrelevant to the thread. Have you something to contribute to the topic?

V1rotateV2
10-14-2017, 04:48 AM
To the OP--your honesty is a testament to your character; learn from your mistakes and press on!

mkfmbos
11-21-2017, 04:41 AM
Sorry to hear about that buddy. Your AME is a real D%$#. Tell your friends, the answer is "no". In fact when I did my first medical my AME told me: "Before you tick yes on anything, tell me and we can talk about it"

I didn't get what he meant and I ticked yes on that I take medicine for hayfever. I will carry that around on my medicals for the rest of my freaking career. If you continue in this career you will learn, never volunteer information. You are always guilty. We have arrived in the "Age of BULL*******" and it no longer matters what is "true" or "real". What really matters is how it looks. Make it look good.

galaxy flyer
11-25-2017, 02:43 PM
Sorry to hear about that buddy. Your AME is a real D%$#. Tell your friends, the answer is "no". In fact when I did my first medical my AME told me: "Before you tick yes on anything, tell me and we can talk about it"

I didn't get what he meant and I ticked yes on that I take medicine for hayfever. I will carry that around on my medicals for the rest of my freaking career. If you continue in this career you will learn, never volunteer information. You are always guilty. We have arrived in the "Age of BULL*******" and it no longer matters what is "true" or "real". What really matters is how it looks. Make it look good.

This is not good advice. You have to answer truthfully and completely on the medical application. Yes, you should seek prior advice from an experienced medical consultant familiar with the CAMI procedures and act accordingly.

GF

mkfmbos
12-24-2017, 02:41 AM
This is not good advice. You have to answer truthfully and completely on the medical application. Yes, you should seek prior advice from an experienced medical consultant familiar with the CAMI procedures and act accordingly.

GF

So you think it was a good thing that he/she was denied a medical because he smoked a joint at a party in high school?

TiredSoul
12-24-2017, 04:46 AM
1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous;

How is smoking a blunt in the safety of your home and the comfort of your friends a situation which was “physically hazardous”?

Just a question. I don’t smoke period.

rickair7777
12-24-2017, 05:09 AM
So you think it was a good thing that he/she was denied a medical because he smoked a joint at a party in high school?

Is what it is. MJ is a federal controlled substance. Doesn't matter what any of us thinks.

If you get caught lying about it you can go to prison. This is real, not hypothetical. So usually best not to lie.

SonicFlyer
12-24-2017, 05:26 AM
Doesn't matter what any of us thinks.
That should be a clue that our government is not responsive to the people.

tomgoodman
12-24-2017, 07:34 AM
That should be a clue that our government is not responsive to the people.

Sometimes the response is NO! ;)

rickair7777
12-24-2017, 07:53 PM
That should be a clue that our government is not responsive to the people.

I for one am all for legalization of pot. I'm also all for drug testing of employees in safety sensitive positions. Booze is legal, but you can't come to work with it in your system. Reeferheads can't expect special treatment.

Until they come up with a real-time THC impairment test (like a breathalyzer), then weed is not compatible with flying, or many other jobs.

While much of the traveling public probably blazes up, most of them don't want their pilots (or doctors, etc) blazing up. Government is doing fine in that regard I suspect.

TiredSoul
12-24-2017, 11:31 PM
How is smoking a blunt in the safety of your home and the comfort of your friends a situation which was “physically hazardous”?

Just a question. I don’t smoke period.

I’m not trying to be facetious but anybody care to take a stab at the question?

SonicFlyer
12-25-2017, 02:54 PM
I for one am all for legalization of pot. I'm also all for drug testing of employees in safety sensitive positions. Booze is legal, but you can't come to work with it in your system. Reeferheads can't expect special treatment.

Until they come up with a real-time THC impairment test (like a breathalyzer), then weed is not compatible with flying, or many other jobs.

While much of the traveling public probably blazes up, most of them don't want their pilots (or doctors, etc) blazing up. Government is doing fine in that regard I suspect.
I completely agree except for the last sentence... it isn't the government's job.

AirBear
12-27-2017, 07:49 AM
Let me tell you how ridiculous the FAA Medical Folks can be.

About 15 years ago my wife noticed a discolored area on the back of my head had gotten darker. My Doc had previously looked at it and said it was OK. The wife started bugging me to go see the Doc. I had to see the Doc for another reason a few weeks later, and at the last second I remembered to ask him about that spot. This time he said go see the Skin Doc. A few days later I did. Skin Doc took a sample and sent it to the lab. This was on a Thursday, Monday morning his nurse calls me and says the lab just called, the spot was malignant melanoma but it had not metastasized yet. They sent me to a plastic surgeon who cut out a quarter sized chunk around the dime-sized melanoma. Test confirmed he got it all. The procedure was simple, I could have driven myself home even if my wife hadn't been with me. This was a close call but really not a big deal, at least I thought so.

Now all this happened about a month after my March FAA Physical. I went back to flying a few days after all this, and months later when my September Physical was due my AME's Nurse told me to call AMAS and see what info I needed for reporting this event. The Doc at AMAS returned my call and told me I had been flying illegally all summer! Any Cancer is grounding until the FAA reviews the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. So even thou I was perfectly healthy I had to stop flying for several months and get the paperwork done. I later got a nastygram from the FAA "admonishing" me to abide by such-and-such regulations. This event cost me thousands of dollars in lost wages. It's no wonder pilots try to hide stuff from the FAA.

I don't think anyone is going to jail for hiding something unless it results in an accident/incident like the JetBlue Captain the F/O had to lock out of the cockpit. (I have no idea what happened to him, or if he knew he had an illness).

rickair7777
12-27-2017, 09:11 AM
I don't think anyone is going to jail for hiding something unless it results in an accident/incident like the JetBlue Captain the F/O had to lock out of the cockpit. (I have no idea what happened to him, or if he knew he had an illness).

People have gone to jail. You got off lightly because you were not trying to hide anything, it was an honest mistake, and they found out about it from you.

If they find out by some other means, it's a serious condition, and you failed to report it at a regular medical, that's when DOJ gets involved.

In theory they can access any federal records, although this has been sporadic to date. Eventually they will gain access to all medical records, which are now all digital (federal law). Eventually I expect they will use automated record screening. If you're young you might see retroactive, automated screening of all your old records later in your career. This is why honesty is more important than it used to be.

LRSRanger
12-27-2017, 03:16 PM
When I was an army recruiter for a few years, I found out that NO = New Opportunities and YES = Your Enlistment Stops.

For what it’s worth...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rickair7777
12-27-2017, 03:29 PM
When I was an army recruiter for a few years, I found out that NO = New Opportunities and YES = Your Enlistment Stops.

For what it’s worth...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what my grandfather (WWII pilot and 30-year man) told me before I joined up. But the military is just checking boxes, as long as you can get the job done they're not going to dig too deep. But the FAA will have your *** thrown in federal prison if you intentionally falsify the fact that you have a significant medical issue. If you get caught falsifying anything, they'll most likely revoke all of your certs. Not worth the risk.

AirBear
12-31-2017, 07:42 AM
Yes, you are correct I was referring to non-intentional. And Pilots who hide a major condition should get some jail time if it's something that could incapacitate them.

Here's what happened to a Cape Air pilot that hide the fact he was an insulin dependent diabetic until he had a episode where his pax had to restrain him and a student pilot landed the plane gear up:

Former Cape Air pilot sent to prison - News - capecodtimes.com - Hyannis, MA (http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20080322/News/803220323)

He got 16 months in prison and 2 years supervised release.

Edit: here's what happened to the JetBlue Captain that had to be locked out of the cockpit:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/travel/jetblue-pilot-released/index.html



People have gone to jail. You got off lightly because you were not trying to hide anything, it was an honest mistake, and they found out about it from you.

If they find out by some other means, it's a serious condition, and you failed to report it at a regular medical, that's when DOJ gets involved.

In theory they can access any federal records, although this has been sporadic to date. Eventually they will gain access to all medical records, which are now all digital (federal law). Eventually I expect they will use automated record screening. If you're young you might see retroactive, automated screening of all your old records later in your career. This is why honesty is more important than it used to be.

JohnBurke
12-31-2017, 12:16 PM
But the FAA will have your *** thrown in federal prison if you intentionally falsify the fact that you have a significant medical issue.

Really? To whom has this happened?

The short list of criminal prosecution for FAA-related cases is very short indeed, and doesn't involve falsification on medical certificate applications.

Can you say Sabretech?

rickair7777
01-01-2018, 02:23 PM
Really? To whom has this happened?

The short list of criminal prosecution for FAA-related cases is very short indeed, and doesn't involve falsification on medical certificate applications.

Can you say Sabretech?

See the post above. I don't know what sabretech is.

Also, here's one mass prosecution involving disability records...

U.S. Says 46 Pilots Lied to Obtain Their Licenses - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/us/us-says-46-pilots-lied-to-obtain-their-licenses.html?_r=0)

Some of them went to jail. If you break a federal law (vice an FAR), the DOJ prosecutes you, not the FAA.

AirBear
01-02-2018, 02:05 PM
"The authorities reviewed licenses held by both commercial and private pilots and found that some license applicants claimed to be medically fit to fly an airplane yet were simultaneously receiving disability benefits."

You can't fix stupid.

JohnBurke
01-02-2018, 04:46 PM
See the post above. I don't know what sabretech is.

Also, here's one mass prosecution involving disability records...

U.S. Says 46 Pilots Lied to Obtain Their Licenses - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/us/us-says-46-pilots-lied-to-obtain-their-licenses.html?_r=0)

Some of them went to jail. If you break a federal law (vice an FAR), the DOJ prosecutes you, not the FAA.

You should know what Sabretech was. Does Valuejet ring a bell?

14 CFR is regulation, and administrative law. Falsification is another matter and carries criminal penalties punishable under criminal law; this law is not the "FAR." ("FAR" is already taken by the Federal Acquisition Regulation," incidentally and the use of "FAR" as popular slang is incorrect).

The California effort garnered a lot of heat from the public and industry, and was not and is not as cut and dried as you think. Further, the individuals involved were part of a bigger project and had gone beyond simply making a false statement; they were also receiving federal and state funds for the disability.

Had the matter simply been one of false statements on a medical application and nothing more, it would have taken the route of administrative action.

rickair7777
01-02-2018, 06:58 PM
14 CFR is regulation, and administrative law. Falsification is another matter and carries criminal penalties punishable under criminal law; this law is not the "FAR." ("FAR" is already taken by the Federal Acquisition Regulation," incidentally and the use of "FAR" as popular slang is incorrect).

I'm a senior military officer, I know far more about acquisitions than I ever wanted to. But this is APC, not the E-ring.


The California effort garnered a lot of heat from the public and industry, and was not and is not as cut and dried as you think. Further, the individuals involved were part of a bigger project and had gone beyond simply making a false statement; they were also receiving federal and state funds for the disability.

Had the matter simply been one of false statements on a medical application and nothing more, it would have taken the route of administrative action.

So were they prosecuted for fraudulently collecting disability while perfectly fit to fly? Or for lying about their fitness to fly?

Either way it's relevant here, because almost all 20+ year vets have some sort of disability rating.

JohnBurke
01-02-2018, 09:30 PM
Either way it's relevant here, because almost all 20+ year vets have some sort of disability rating.

Hopefully they're intelligent enough and have the integrity to not falsify their application. That's relevant.

I know an individual who lost his medical thanks to driving under the influence. He was on a federal contract, on a federal base, carded by the federal government (which includes a review of his pilot credentials, and medical). He was caught with a falsified medical; an entirely fraudulent medical certificate, removed from the aircraft and the operation. Jail, no. Loss of certification, yes.

The bottom line, regardless of the nuance, is to not hide or falsify on an application.

I check several boxes on my own application each time, and they're cited "previously reported, no change," and I move on. Much better than trying to remember what one didn't say.

The original poster did not get penalized for self reporting. He had a disqualifying condition which he was required to report. It wasn't his reporting that got him in trouble; it was doing the drugs in the first place. It's good and well to try to slide that responsibility onto the FAA, but that too, is false.



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1