 |
|
|
|
|
This is my second flight review published on FlightSim.Com, the first was about a short trip from Vienna to Innsbruck in late winter last year. This one is a bit longer as you'd need about 1 hour and 15 minutes to read it entirely. So may I suggest you to come back to it from time to time.
I've been a flight simulator enthusiast since the FS4 time, but let's say that I began serious IFR point to point flights in the FS5.1 - FSFW95 time. Like many flightsimmers, I've virtually flown all types of aircraft, from the Cessna single prop to the 747-400, and mainly concentrating on the commercial flights (airliners) and general aviation (business aicraft). The first 'long' IFR flight I managed to accomplish successfully was linking Amsterdam with Ajaccio (Corsica), flying a KLM 737 and using Jeppesen Low Altitude European charts (yes I know they were not those to be used but the only ones I owned at the time). This was with FS5.1 and the longest European flight I could made, since the sceneries available at the time were very poor (we had to wait until FS2000 came through for a worldwide airport database). A bit later I acquired a Jeppesen charts collection covering the five continents along with the oceanic airspaces and could really start the adventure. In July 1997 I made my first transatlantic flight, along with the first long range trip, flying a Delta L1011-500 Tristar from Brussels to New York JFK. In the meantime I started to try to fly in poor weather conditions, trying ILS approaches with 500' ceilings and low visibility (CAT operations), useless to say that it never works very well on the first time, when it's better to fly 200 nautical miles more to the South and land in clear, sunny skies, but week after week it becomes easier, managing the approach speeds and tracks better according to the approach charts and finally becoming common with commercial jet flying - in flight simulation I mean. A bit later came the flight planners, adventure compilers and flight management systems that allowed more and more precise navigation along with autopilot programming (then allowing me to go to sleep while the computer is running for a night long range flight) and, last but not least, ATC communications that, though very 'computerized', added a great touch of realism.
Since then I've virtually visited, well, many regions of the globe, my 'flight book' is 'approaching' the 1900th flight - living in Belgium, the flights are usually departing from or arriving at western European hubs. Long range flights take place one or two times a month, usually following the real flight (timetable information), or, like in this case, flying a virtual airline. Paris-Tokyo, Brussels-Singapore, London-Los Angeles are already very long non stop trips, but, even if flying now for more than 6 years, I had never made a round the world trip with refuelling and commercial stops (eg. from Singapore, going further to the Far East , then the Pacific and so on). The longest flight I've ever simulated was from Sydney to London Heathrow non stop in a Qantas 747-400 'Longreach'. That was with FS98 and a 20 hours long flight (hopefully the PI 200MXX machine did it well for that one) - such a flight was actually made in August 1989 (with only 23 passengers on board) but in the other direction (LHR-SYD).
Having spent much time with 6 different versions of FS (FS2002 now), I needed to add a round the world trip in my flightsim experience, and then share it with others. Of course, I'm not the first to have the idea: round the world tours are common to many flightsimmers (some even create websites with real time detailed reports), among whom I must be the less keen and patient: I've chosen to travel with a Boeing 767-400ER modern jet airliner, which permits to fly more than 5600 nm (10400 km - 6500 miles) legs, while most of globe trotters choose little turboprop, even piston engine light aircraft to make their virtual world tour.
In that way, they are more realistic than me, since such aircraft can be flown alone (I the real life I mean), while a 767 needs at least two crew members: for this virtual flight, I'll then be both the captain and the first officer. In my view of PC flight simulation, a single person is sufficient to handle a whole flight, even with wide bodies, though the help of a second pilot can be helpful to handle the ATC communications on departure and approach as well as flaps settings etc. so that the pilot in command can better concentrate himself on the flight.
As you've probably guessed, I'm not a real airline pilot. That means that I have some knowledge about aircraft, airports, procedures, navigation, flight planning etc. but only learned by myself and applied to flight simulation to make it as realistic as possible, with these two final goals:
1. Reaching the destination (not land at on the wrong airport - some
of you will laugh but it has already happened in real life)
2. Landing there correctly and safely (bringing all the virtual
passengers alive)
(If I didn't succeed in what is listed above after 6 years of flightsimming it would have been safer to choose another hobby); but it also means that this review could (will) contain lacks, even mistakes. Don't expect state-of-the-art technical descriptions or complete ATC messages here (I apologize) as we will concentrate on the main flight parameters, approach procedures etc. as well as the geography and locations visited.
We will fly an westbound world tour, departing Brussels-National (EBBR), visiting 4 continents (North America, Australia, Asia and Africa), 2 oceans (Pacific and Indian) and then returning to Brussels. The airline will be Horizon Dreams, a small virtual airline I've created (actually, I've just repainted Camil Valiquette's 767-400 and uploaded the file with a little documentation - you can refer to HZD764.ZIP). The stopovers will mainly be (exotic) world famous destinations, with a focus on some Pacific islands. There will be one particular offset approach at Honolulu and one dangerous approach at Lhasa in the Himalayas.
All the flight plans will be given for each leg, they were created using Navigation Data flight planner with the Jeppesen HI, HI/LO altitude enroute and orientation charts basis and also loaded in the FS2002 GPS after flight plan conversion (see credits for all the software used), the GPS beeing used for the flight plan autopilot (AP + NAV=GPS) during cruise, because of its excellent precision. I'll also give a few cities and regions that will be overflown (the stuff that the captain tells the passengers).
MS default ATC will be used (no online flying), but keeping in mind this is not a true to life ATC. ATC communications written in this report will sometimes be a little enhanced to be more true to life (then not being the word by word transcription of what I heard from MSFS, though that will remain the basis). Apart from Brussels, MS default AI traffic will also be used, and sometimes set to very low values (even 0%) for better frame rates during approach and landing (I'm not running a rocket machine: Win98 PIII 800MHz 512MB SDRAM GeForce 4MX 64MB).
All the times given will be local, with sometimes the Greenwich time in brackets. I've tried to fly real time, but once in very remote regions I didn't care any more. No time compression was used during the tour at all (sim rate = 1x).
Now, let me reveal to stopovers of the trip. They have been chosen following:
1. preferably, places were I've never flown before (with FS2002)
2. preferably, places not served by the airline scheduled services (exception for SFO), but still matching the virtual airline spirit
3. airports that can accomodate wide bodies like the B767-400
4. places offering various and different landscapes and cultures, and being usual world mythic spots
5. places spaced considerating the operating range of the aircraft used
6. places having a very particular location, implicating a particular approach
7. airports available as scenery add-ons. Though every airfield is supposed to be modelled in the FS2002 world, this is better to enjoy detailed accurate scenery once on the ground. Meanwhile, some FS2002 default sceneries will be used were no add-on scenery is available (yet).
Around the World with Horizon Dreams will include 11 legs and will be:
Brussels - San Francisco - Honolulu - Tahiti - Fiji* - Sydney - Jakarta - Lhasa (Tibet)* - Maldives - Kilimanjaro - Ghat (Sahara desert)* - Brussels (add-on scenery is used for underlined destinations, the symbol * means that I land there for the first time, all FS versions merged)
You'll notice that the global trajectory is snake shaped, the shortest distance to be covered around the globe not being a goal in this case, the aircraft being able to do that within only 4 legs.
The flight number for the all trip will be HZD1989. This is a charter flight (the airline which as a single aircraft-fleet suspended all scheduled operation during the time of the tour), the callsign being Horizon (I know it belongs to an US carrier but it's pleasant to hear that from the ATC instead of 'experimental', 'world travel' or so). Why 1989 ?... I had to choose a number - it has been cited above, but that's also the year when I became interested in civil aviation after a journey (real this time) in Tunisia when I was 12. That was Brussels-Monastir and return in a Sabena B737-200 (sadly, no more existing airline, no more operated plane in Belgian skies).
As we fly an airliner, and not an empty aircraft, which passengers would be on board ? Well, in a era where it's possible to exhange cash with a trip to the antipodes, no privileged rich Belgian people who don't have an atom of feeling for the flying machine that will be used and its crew, without thinking a second about the thousands of people that have made and make the miracle of aviation possible. Since the 850 km/h cruise speed of the 767-400 is perhaps not fast enough for them, they would prefer the Concorde or the Soyouz space launcher anyway.
Due to airborne operations in extreme conditions for some of the destinations (see below), the aircraft would certainly not be fully loaded. So I imagine that some of the the passengers could be seriously ill children (but still able to travel) and their families... in such a case, full medical equipment and staff should be carried also, the plane also visiting places that, well... don't really match the western medical standards. Who would pay then for such a trip?... sponsors and the few rich people that have finally prefered baby Boeing instead of Concorde.
A last word before starting the engines, about the weather. I don't have any Internet connection at home: I cannot run FSMeteo neither Real Weather then. That means that the only true to life weather generated during the trip will be for Brussels, when I just have to glance outside the window (I live only 16 nm south of EBBR). For the rest of the world, I'll try to generate various types of weather, according to the region and, if possible, following the thiny information provided by world TV channels (I don't have Internet but a television set though).
It's time now to fasten our seatbelts, let's go in the first leg of the tour. Notice that most of the screenshots that will be given are passenger and outside views, you'll then feel like a passenger or a bird...
Enjoy your trip with Horizon Dreams !
Aircraft
Horizon Dreams virtual Airlines Boeing 767-400ER Sunset Bird reg. OO-HZD (and that will be for the all trip)
Flight plan
DEP: EBBR Brussels-National 25R
ARR: KSFO San Francisco Intl 28R
ALTN1: KOAK Oakland Intl ALTN2: KLAX Los Angeles Intl
CRUISE ALT: FL350 (35,000 ft - 10500 m)
CRUISE SPD: 460kts TAS Mach 0.8 (850km/h - 530 mph)
ROUTE: EBBR (TOLEN1C) NIK TOLEN TULIP TOPPA 83ADN SNIPE ADN
BORMA RONAK 6110N ALDAN VM KEF HEKLA NYGAR 6860N 070C
080C 090C 100C SF YMM YEG YXC GEG IMB LKV RBL SAC RISTI
CEDES I-GWQ KSFO
DISTANCE: 4920nm (9100km - 5690 miles)
FLIGHT TIME: 10:55 HRS
Jeppesen enroute charts used
E(HI) 3 Europe, E(HI) 1 Europe, AT(H/L) 1 Atlantic (orientation), CA(HI) 4 Canada, CA(HI) 2 Canada, US(HI) 1 United States, US(HI) 2 United States
Route
Brussels - North Sea - Aberdeen - North Atlantic - Reykjavik - Greenland - Northern Canada - Edmonton - Spokane - Lakeview - Red Bluff - Sacramento - San Francisco
More than 60 tonnes of fuel were loaded in the tanks, giving a comfortable safety margin in case of holding at the destination and diversion to the farther alternate airport (Los Angeles in this case) or any other critical situation. Prior to push back I contacted Brussels Delivery to get my IFR clearance:
> Brussels clearance delivery Horizon one nine eight nine Heavy ready to copy I inform request clearance to San Francisco...
>> Horizon one nine eight nine Heavy cleared to San Francisco airport as filed. Fly TOLEN one charlie departure, after take off right turn to join Nicky VOR then as filed. Departure frequency one two two decimal five. Expect flight level three five zero ten minutes after departure. Squawk zero zero seven four.
> (readback of all the data given)
>> Horizon 1989 Heavy readback correct. Contact Ground on one one eight decimal zero five when ready to taxi. Good day.
The two General Electric CF6 engines, each delivering 28.2 tons of thrust, were started at 15:10 local time (14:10 UTC). This is already a bit late for a westbound transatlantic flight, meaning that in this season we will have sunset in the first part, night in the frozen North latitudes, sunset light again in northern Canada until the first stages of descent and a night landing at the destination. After pushback I switched the COM frequency to contact Brussels Ground.
> Brussels Ground, Horizon 1989 Heavy ready to taxi I inform
>> Horizon 1989 Heavy taxi to and hold short of runway two five right using taxiways outer six and bravo one. Contact Brussels Tower on one one eight decimal six when ready.
No much surprise here, 25R is commonly used for take off's at EBBR. But sometimes wide bodies are vectored to 25R via taxiway W4 for the longest runway lenght available. Anyway, we are not in a 747 loaded to its maximum take off weight.
As very true to reality, we will not queue for take off in this gloomy sunday afternoon deserted airport scene (being myself a Brussels-National spotter, I know what I'm talking about). The only jet to depart before us was a small Avro RJ85 of SN Brussels Airlines bound for London. Flaps were set to 10 and after a short taxi we were at the holding point for rwy 25R, ready for take off.
I didn't check the ATIS for wheather information since we would be above the clouds a few seconds after departure (we care less about the weather than in a landing situation), though it should have been done in real life.
> Brussels Tower Horizon 1989 Heavy at runway 25R ready for take off
>> Horizon 1989 Heavy cleared for take off. Wind two seven zero degrees four knots.
> cleared for take off, Horizon 1989 Heavy, goodbye sir.
And away we go... The rotation speed (Vr) in this case was 140 knots (259 km/h - 162 mph).
Passengers didn't have much time to glance at their mother country ground since the plane was catched by the grey haze before leaving the airport perimeter. With a positive rate of climb, the gear was retracted. Immediately after take off we made a 90° right turn to Nicky VOR (NIK 117.4MHz) located west of Antwerp as filed with the TOLEN1C standard instrument departure procedure. This was executed by the autopilot as the FMC EXEC mode (in this case, actually, via the GPS tool) was engaged.
After a few seconds then we emerged from the cloud layer, a white sea stretching as far as the eye could see. The sun which I hadn't seen for a while was already setting. As the airspeed was increasing, flaps were retracted to give the wing it's pure aerodynamic shape. Power was also set back to 80% N1. Passing 6000' I already decided to switch off the seatbelts signs since the departure phase was over and no more turbulence was to be encoutered. We though had to remain under 250 kts (460 km/h - 290 mph) below 10,000 feet - if easy to observe with a Beech Baron, less easy with a monster like the 764. Climb rate, initially set to 3500 feet/min was set back to 2500 ft/min and finally to a smooth 1000 ft/min before reaching the cruise altitude of 35,000 feet (10500m), almost half an hour after engine start. Brussels Departure switched us to Brussels Center (125.8), quickly followed by Amsterdam Center (118.8) as we entered the Netherlands airspace.
After passing Aberdeen in Scotland and still heading to the North, we entered Reykjavik MNPS Oceanic Airspace. If you are interested in the cross-atlantic operations, don't expect this review to teach you something but please refer to the excellent article by K. Michikian and V. Hassiotis (CROSSATL.ZIP).
Note that for the route flown here, we are quite often above land (more than in a Brussels to New York or Miami route): we overfly the south head of Iceland (in English, it sounds really like a well named territory), then Greenland, then northern Canada above the Hudson Bay, as shown by the GPS diagrams.
With this route, we are always less than 120 minutes flight away from possible diversion airports in case of technical or medical emergency, the aircraft being certified for ETOPS (Extanded Range Twin-engine Aircraft Operations). This will be less obvious once we'll be flying in the Pacific. Twin-engine long range operations have become common nowadays (A310, A330, B767-XXXER, B777,...) but for some passengers the feeling of safety remains proportional with the number of engines (B767>DC10>B747). The first twin-engine long range operation take place in 1984 with Israel national carrier El Al that was connecting Tel Aviv with New York direct using 767's.
But let's go back to our flight. Having spent several hours in regions that will not see daylight for a while, flirting with the artic polar circle above 60° North Latitude, a nice winter sunset light appeared again in northern Canada. Actually, it was afternoon there, local time beeing 15:00... There were not many other aircraft in the vicinity, though AI was set to 100% at that time. There shouldn't also be many people below, but great white bears well.
The flight path began to head southwards to the final destination. If curve-shaped on a planisphere, the flight trajectory will look like a straight line on a globe. We passed Edmonton, then the Rocky Mountains. Later the light raised a little bit, but remaining as end of the day light.
After Edmonton Center we were controlled by Seattle Center then Oakland Center until the destination.
At 115nm (212 km - 132 miles) from SFO, reaching the TOD point of the flight plan the descent started.
>> Oakland Center Horizon 1989 Heavy descent and maintain flight level two five zero reduce speed to three five zero expect vectors for ILS runway two eight right approach.
...
>> Oakland Center Horizon 1989 Heavy descent and maintain five thousand reduce speed to two five zero contact Approach on one three four point five. Good day.
We flew a eastern approach of the airport via the RISTI and CEDES waypoints. At 20nm from the airport both the localizer and glideslope came alive. At 16nm (30 km - 19 miles) from destination I disengaged the autopilot to fly a manual landing as I usually do, besides the clear weather in the San francisco Bay did not justify to fly otherwise. The true airspeed was then 220 kts (407 km/h - 254 mph).
...
>> San Francisco Approach Horizon 1989 Heavy cleared for the ILS runway two eight right maintain 1800 feet until established on the localizer contact Tower on one two zero point five.
...
> San Francisco Tower Horizon 1989 Heavy on the localizer runway 28R six nautical miles away - landing.
>> Horizon 1989 Heavy, cleared to land runway 28R. Number one for landing.
> Roger, cleared to land Horizon 1989 Heavy.
I called 'gear down' but forgot that ther was no first officer, then pulled down the gear lever myself, and after a while the 3 red dots turned to green, meaning that the gear was down and locked. Flaps were lowered to their max position to drop the approach speed to 160 kts (296 km/h - 185mph). Spoilers were also armed. Note that I never use the autobrake function in FS.
We kissed the ground at 146 kts (270 km/h - 168mph), the spoilers automatically deployed and I applied full reverse in the first seconds of the landing, then less as the aircraft was slowing down on SFO's longest runway, in a way to household the engines that would be hard demanded in other following parts of the trip. After a few seconds, the aircraft was rolling at a (race) bike speed.
>> Horizon 1989 Heavy welcome to San Francisco, exit runway when able, report runway vacated. Contact Ground on one two one point eight.
...
> San Francisco Ground Horizon 1989 Heavy request taxi to the gate ...
Engines were shut down at 17:25 local time (1:25 GMT), after a 11 hours and 15 minutes flight. We will rest a bit at San Francisco before taking off again to see if the waves of Hawaii look like people say.
In a view to limit the amount of text in this article, the following reports will be less detailed (ATC etc. ) for the events and parameters that remains basically the same from one flight to another.
I decided to set clear weather again in the area (without caring about the real situation) so that we could enjoy the San Francisco Bay scenery in the departure phase, and a soft north wind so that we will depart from runway 01R, then fly an offshore departure, making the left turn a little while before overflying downtown San Francisco.
Flight plan
DEP: KSFO San Francisco Intl 01R
ARR: PHNL Honolulu Intl 26L
ALTN1: PHTO Hilo Intl ALTN2: -
CRUISE ALT: FL330 CRUISE SPD 460 kts TAS M0.8
ROUTE: KSFO SUPER BEBOP BAART BLUFF BAKON BILLO BEATS
BANDY BRADR BITTA CKH98 MAGGI JOELE BAMBO CKH I-EPC PHNL
DISTANCE: 2094nm (3874km - 2421 miles)
FLIGHT TIME: 4:42 HRS
Jeppesen enroute charts used
P(H/L) 3 Pacific Ocean, P(H/L) 4 Pacific Ocean
There will only be water below during the all flight. Shall an emergency happen above the Pacific, the aircraft would have to return to San Francisco if in the first half of the trip, proceed to destination in the other case.
 Taxiing out |
 Take off rwy 01R |
Once the flight plan loaded in the FMC, the ETA (estimated time of arrival) showed 16:32, meaning four and a half in the afternoon local time (there are 2 hours time lag between SFO and HNL) - we started the engines at 13:30 local time at San Francisco.
 Departure |
 Downtown San Francisco |
 The Golden Gate Bridge with a big zoom effect |
 So long San Francisco |
 Cruise with nothing but water below |
 At 370 nauticals from destination |
The cruise was uneventful, except the passage of another aircraft some 2000 feet below that was cruising faster than us (may be more than 500 kts) in rather the same way. 'Traffic in sight' was reported to the ATC.
So didn't the approach. Particular one in beautiful outstanding sceneries. LDA/DME 26L is what airmen name an 'offset' approach, which means that the instrument first part of the approach make the aircraft follow a signal similar to ILS (at Honolulu, that's a localizer - no glideslope - and DME) that has an angle (offset) with the runway axis, then in the second part of the approach, which is a visual procedure, the pilot has to negociate a turn (that can be tight depending of the offset value) to align the aircraft with the runway on short final. In some cases, there's even no localizer neither glideslope for the offset approach, like for an airport only fitted with VOR/DME equipment.
Such a procedure has been described in detail in my first review while approaching Innsbruck, so I won't do that again this time and let you see the thing with images. Note though that at Honolulu, the offset is rather high (45° = [offset approach heading 304°] - [short final approach/runway heading 259°] ), this is comparable with former Hong Kong Kai Tak (right 45° turn), but in this case (left 45° turn) the approach is made above sea instead of buildings. Offset approaches are not made to add some pimento in the flight deck, they are usually due to high terrain obstructions in the normal approach path.
Runway 08R/26L is built on a artificial island and linked to the airport by a sole taxiway crossing water. After a long taxi to the terminal we set the parking brakes at the gate at 16:35 local time, right on schedule, next to a Qantas 747-400. Weather was stormy with scattered cumulus and quite windy, but hadn't affected the approach so much.
 Taxiing in |
 At the gate |
The next step will fly us to French Polynesia, some 4900 km (3000 miles) in the South, to see if the Tahitian women are like people say.
December 26, 2002
Ah, this time, there is no time lag between origin and destination (they're located approximately on the same longitude). It's also interesting to say that the Hawaiian archipelago and the Society Islands, among whom Tahiti is the youngest and biggest, have a similar geological history. The both archipelagos are 'hot spot' ones, the youngest island owning active 'red' volcanoes (though very demonstrative like in Hawaii, not the most dangerous on Earth) and the oldest ones been reduced to atolls, as paradise still water giant swimming pools with dry land a few feet above sea level. This is how Tahiti, which now has summits that compete with peaks in the Alps, will look like in a few million years.
The flight plan will made us follow the Hawaii archipelago axis, then head southwards direct to Tahiti once Hawaii, the biggest island, will be passed. The next land we will see shall be the destination island.
We departed at 8:10 in the morning and should arrive in the early afternoon at Papeete.
Flight Plan
DEP: PHNL Honolulu Intl 26R
ARR: NTAA Tahiti Faaa 22
ALTN1: NCRG Rarotonga Intl ALTN2: -
CRUISE ALT: FL350 CRUISE SPD: 460 kts TAS M0.8
ROUTE: PHNL NAUNA FIRES IAI TOTOW TACCO TORAM TRASK
TAERO TAVAK ARONA (ARONA 1M) TAF NTAA
DISTANCE: 2435nm (4500 km - 2815 miles)
FLIGHT TIME: 5:30 HOURS
Jeppesen enroute charts used
P(H/L) 4 Pacific Ocean, P(H/L) 2 Pacific Ocean, AS(H/L) 5 Australasia
Note that oceanic flight plans only consist of intersections-fixes, almost no navaids. In case of diversion approaching the destination, the alternate airport would be Rarotonga in the Cook Islands some 619nm (1145 km - 715 miles) away.There are plenty of airfields in French Polynesia, but considering those which can accomodate wide body airliners is another thing. That's why the tanks were filled with an amount of fuel that would allow to fly almost one and a half the planned distance, safety margin added.
I planned to overfly Rangiora atoll in the Tuamotu Islands, north-east of Tahiti - it has the second largest lagoon in the world (also there was very good add-on scenery available), but forgot that this was located on the Los Angeles-Tahiti route, that I had once operated in a Air France 747, not Honolulu-Tahiti, that passes some 130 nm on the west. It's a shame, that will be for another occasion.
At 11:15 local we passed the equator for the first time in the tour and would remain in the southern hemisphere for a while. The ATC had remained very quiet during cruise... at 140nm from destination, we were asked to start descent.
>> Horizon 1989 Heavy descent and maintain flight level two four zero expect visual approach vectors for runway two two
Arriving from the north, we flew the ARONA 1M standard arrival procedure. Once reached ARONA, the last fix of the flight plan, we proceeded straight ahead to Tahiti VOR (TAF), but once at 20nm we made a left turn to observe a 20nm radius arc from TAF, until the runway axis interception. There is no ILS on rwy 22, this is a VOR/DME and visual approach.
>> Tahiti approach Horizon 1989 Heavy cleared for visual runway 22 report airport in sight
> Horizon 1989 Heavy have the airport...
Located on the shore, Tahiti's 3420 meters long runway was clearly identified some 10nm from rwy treshold. Rwy 22 approach makes aircraft low overfly Papeete's commercial port and container terminal, very important facility for a remote island that must import most of its goods.
I managed to exit via the only taxiway connecting to the terminal apron so that I didn't have to backtrack the runway. Arrival time (ATA): 13:50, local temp. 30°C.
We will stay here for one day before taking off again to the Fiji islands, some further 3500 km to the west.
Cedric De Keyser
cdk@ngi.be
