Rotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1844 times:
yep,thats correct, even , if it belongs to "scandinavian avation academy" it should be marked as untitled .... , but lets wait,what other guys tell you ....
Cicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1824 times:
747 4-ever
If it has "Scandinavian Aviation Academy" titles, it should indeed go in as with that exact title. (but you might utilize that "note for screeners" field in the upload to let them know it has titles.)
Cicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1757 times:
Robert,
I'd probably re-upload it, rather than appeal, with a note to screeners that it had been rejected for BadInfo last time...note the aircraft has titles and you didn't get the reg # (that could be a problem - not sure). Be sure to check "private" and "single engine prop" on 2nd page..etc.
Invader From Netherlands, joined Feb 2000, 324 posts, RR: 11 Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1732 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
When it has titles they have to be listed, so then Scandinavian Aviation Academy would be correct. I'm not involved in the screening, but I think the problem is that no registration is supplied. A Cessna 172 is quite a common aircraft, and then an anonymous example doesn't add much to the database. We have an editor assigned to the Cessna 172, and by having the registration he can verify the correct version and add the cn, which gives more value to the picture. But if you don't know the registration and you still want to upload it, it should at least be listed as SE-***.
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined Feb 2001, 604 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Feb 2000, 324 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
