jkhirsch

Here's a couple more pictures:

Thank you very much! It looks like the really small part says 'mirage q' un car' I would love to figure out who this Hirsch character is. I have seen this photo without the caption and with the caption and I wonder if it is attributed to Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. This is the plane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caudron_Simoun

Splitting an atom is ok. Splitting hairs is stupid.

There's a particular word that caught my interest, any help is appreciated, I googled about all of the googling I cared to do this morning and couldn't find the text or source of the written caption on this photo:

Wow not a single person said "Airplane" now that's a crying shame. During the first flight training that I got during summer camp at Culver Military Academy, part of our ground school was watching aviation movies.

Send Mike Elliot a message and see what his availability is, he's on here as Mike Elliot. I think Don Kaye is probably a lot closer though, but I have no personal knowledge of his status with regards to anything.

Exactly what I was fishing for...thanks!

I'm guessing that no one ever heard, or happens to know what kind of useful load Jake Clemens ended up with.

He's the man who would know.

Well this is now officially a bump because I never found the useful load number. According to the memory of things I have read on here, a 252 is eligible for a 200lbs weight increase.

Just for information, I am based about 300 feet away from Hawk, he paints a lot of planes over there and they all come out looking good. I've inspected several of them close up, and I'm no kind of paint expert but if I was getting mine painted he would be who I would use. I realize it wouldn't be the most convenient from Louisiana but the sacrifice of convenience is worth a lack of frustration to me.

Wow

Stupid thing didn't attach the first time.

I thought some of you might enjoy the coincidence here; I followed the link and it just so happened that the size of the tab that opened in my browser yielded this result: I literally hovered my mouse up there to make sure it wasn't some kind of error or typo. (Hovering the mouse shows the full title if it is shortened)

No one would ever say anything to me...I've idled the chats lots of times and rarely would anyone respond.

wow

I'll say it...Andrew's paint scheme is better

Hypocrisy sure is a shame. For those of you Clint Eastwood fans--my favorite summation of current society is contained herein:http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a46893/double-trouble-clint-and-scott-eastwood/

I truly hope some part of that is sarcasm.

I happened upon the Rants and Raves topics (poll and original) last night, somewhat oblivious to the existence of them due to the waxing and waning of my participation in the site. I notice that many people's words and actions are not in congruence, which is disappointing to see. However it is easy to empathize with based on my own internet participation. I have long advocated for a private section of the site that is completely invisible to public or unregistered users, whose search indexing is disabled so that google does not cache it, and requires an extra effort for registered users who want to participate in to be a part of. The technical term for this in the past was "sub-forum" and it's own permissions could be designated. I will restate the same point that I made before: when you bring people together with a common interest it is simply an extension of human nature for them to explore other similarities or differences that they may have. I do my best to avoid any mudslinging and only share different perspectives, or factual information. I cannot say that my nose is completely clean but I have always followed this rule in corporate and personal communications, 'Imagine anything you say being read in front of everyone you know, and also being published in the newspaper.' While I have the utmost disregard to individual sensitivities commonplace in today's society it would be completely reckless to ignore "the optics" of every situation we encounter in this day and age. I was always taught that being nice will get you much further than being nasty and try my best to follow that doctrine, but sometimes we do come to the end of our ropes and all of us being human I choose and actively try not to condemn people for it. We have a common bond that brings us together, and in some ways binds us to each other, and I don't believe that occasional misgivings should drive us apart.

It's a fine line that we trace, we cannot assume that each of us share our own intentions.

There are multiple legal issues in play here, but the possibly 'first in the timeline' issue of United's breach of contract seems to be pretty straightforward to me. I would argue that United had no right under their contract to ask him to leave the plane in the first place, whether it was nicely or not is purely related to the optics. That opens the big door of: We have an impasse. What is the resolution and who is tasked with resolving it and how will they handle it? I'm not on any type of factual high horse about the way he was removed, but I think the people engaged in his removal had to be pretty dense to not understand the optics of what it looks like to see a passenger literally dragged off of an airplane. The end of the legal essay by Jens David Ohlin speaks well to your point: "Say you hire a painter to paint the inside of your house. You refuse to pay and so the painter says, “I’m not leaving until you pay me.” When the painter refuses to leave, you call the police and ask them to remove him because he is trespassing. The proper resolution is that the painter must leave but can sue you for breach of contract." It may be possible that the passenger in question was attempting to create additional legal issues (torts) by forcing someone to remove him from the airplane with force. That is where the grey area and discussion really begins!

It's not a news article, it's a legal essay discussing the issues of the case originally posted here http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/04/united-airlines-own-contract-denied-it.html written by Jens David Ohlin is associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law at Cornell Law School. Reposted by newsweek.

This is very much different than your original post: "This pax was disruptive and belligerent. They didn't want him on their airplane." That statement implies that they were invoking some right to remove him because he was disruptive and belligerent, which is simply wrong and the real reason has been substantiated by many different source, including the CEO of United himself. Fact: He was removed from the plane because United wanted 4 of their employees to ride on that plane to Louisville. Lie: United wanted to remove him from the plane because he was "disruptive and belligerent."

Here is an excellent article written by Jens David Ohlin is associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law at Cornell Law School. http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535