Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Baffled By Badcatagory...........  
User currently offlineJohndm1957 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2406 times:

Looking for some help here guys,

I took some shots at the USS Midway Museum, and had the first few accepted. Example here..


Click Here
to view the photo



Now had three rejections for Badinfobadcatagory using the same catagorys, ie Private, Preserved
here,
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/IMG_jm768211.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/IMG_jm765111.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/IMG_jm769711.jpg

I'm guessing they might have been rejected for not being 'Military'?, but they are now privately owned.

Any ideas?

Regards

[Edited 2005-08-10 17:48:37]


Canon 550D, 18-55, 50 1.8, 100-400L
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJFKTOWERFAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1100 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2377 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

I would be willing to say it was the military category. The first one you used military but not the others. But if the are privately owned as you say then PRIVATE.PRESERVED would be correct. Could you provide the details on the aircraft so it could be researched to give you a better answer?

Corey



C'mon Man
User currently offlineLeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2350 times:

The only way an aircraft in military colors is anything other than MILITARY is if it bears a civil registration, and then it is a WARBIRD, rather than PRIVATE.

There are, of course, exceptions, but it is not uncommon for museum aircraft to bear solely the military registration. In such a case, the category for a preserved aircraft is MILITARY,PRESERVED, and the Registration is the military one.

If a preserved aircraft is in military colors but bears a civil registration, it is WARBIRD,PRESERVED, the Registration is the civil one, and the military registration is placed in the code field (if it is present on the aircraft) or in the remarks field (if it is not present on the aircraft).


User currently offlineJohndm1957 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2342 times:

JFKTOWERFAN

The museum site here.. http://www.midway.org/site/pp.asp?c=coIMKTMCF&b=81432

There are already pictures of some of the exibits in the DB.

LeanOfPeak

I disagree. Military applies to a current flying Military example.
Warbird applies to a flying private or civil aircraft with Military markings but civil registered.

A restored non flying Military jet owned by a Museum not the Military is Private

regards



Canon 550D, 18-55, 50 1.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2317 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

This thread does a good job of summing up the attitudes around here lately.

You have a photographer, Johndm1957, telling two Airliners.net database editors, JFKTOWERFAN and LeanOfPeak, that they are wrong, and that he has it right.

There might be some inconsitency in some of the database entries (hence why we pay attention to this stuff and reject things as badinfo) but I am guessing that the two db editors know more about what is going on with regards to categories and how to correctly upload a photo here.


User currently offlineJohndm1957 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2278 times:

Clickhappy

I'm not telling anyone anything, am I not allowed to disagree?

No big deal really, should I pull my queued pictures from the museum and resubmit with 'military'?

I have read the upload readmes again, and the 'Military' clearly says an aircraft owned by the military. If privately owned in military colours choose 'Warbird' instead.

Warbird states 'flying' example which it is not, which leaves 'private'.

Guideance appreciated

regards



Canon 550D, 18-55, 50 1.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineJFKTOWERFAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1100 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2235 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting JFKTOWERFAN (Reply 1):
Could you provide the details on the aircraft so it could be researched to give you a better answer?

If you would do this we could help you. The link you provided does not give me the reg info on your aircraft.

Corey



C'mon Man
User currently offlineJohndm1957 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2225 times:

Hi Corey,

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/IMG_jm768211.jpg
is Reg: 153880, Cn: 2466, McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/IMG_jm765111.jpg
is Reg: 158978, Cn: 39, Grumman F-14 Tomcat

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/IMG_jm769711.jpg
is Reg: 153030, Cn: 1557, McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II


Regards,

John

[Edited 2005-08-10 21:44:07]

[Edited 2005-08-10 21:47:13]


Canon 550D, 18-55, 50 1.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineJFKTOWERFAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1100 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2206 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Ok heres what I come up with:
153880:
Generic: McDonnell F-4 Phantom II
Version: McDonnell F-4S Phantom II
USA - Navy
Category: MILITARY,PRESERVED

158978:
Generic: Grumman F-14 Tomcat
Version: Grumman F-14A Tomcat
USA - Navy
Category: MILITARY,PRESERVED

153030:
Generic: McDonnell F-4 Phantom II
Version: McDonnell F-4N Phantom II
USA - Navy
Category: MILITARY,PRESERVED

Corey



C'mon Man
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2196 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The upload help text could be better, and we're discussing how to improve that for those categories.

In the meantime, as has already been stated, the airliners.net definitions are as follows:

MILITARY: Aircraft (genuine ex-military examples) in full military markings, which are NOT currently on the civil register. Examples include aircraft flown by a military air force, aircraft retired from military service as a gate-guard, (non-flying) aircraft in museums, etc. Some times the aircraft will have been flown in civil hands, on the civil register after it retired from the military. However if it later gets taken off the register and is preserved in non-flying condition, then it reverts back to MILITARY. Only if the aircraft actually carries visible civil markings should be be PRIVATE. All MILITARY should be listed with their respective air force name in the "Airline" field.

WARBIRD: Civil-owned airworthy aircraft in military markings, although not necessarily ex-military aircraft.

PRIVATE: No military-painted aircraft (active or inactive) should appear in this category.

Quoting Johndm1957 (Reply 5):
No big deal really, should I pull my queued pictures from the museum and resubmit with 'military'?

Yes please. You should also change all your "Airline" fields from "Untitled" to the correct air force (eg "USA - Navy"). From a quick check, it looks like the existing accepted entries are correct.

Tamsin



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineJohndm1957 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2144 times:

Corey, LeanOfPeak and Tasmin,

Yes the upload help text is confusing!
Thanks to you all for your time spent in clarifying the catagories for me in such a prompt and courteous manner

Looks like I've got a busy evening now!

regards

John



Canon 550D, 18-55, 50 1.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2093 times:

Quoting Tamsin (Reply 9):
WARBIRD: Civil-owned airworthy aircraft in military markings, although not necessarily ex-military aircraft

OK, so [for example] the civil-operated fire bombing C-130s still in USAF colours are warbirds now then?  sarcastic 


User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 53
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2082 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Skymonster (Reply 11):
OK, so [for example] the civil-operated fire bombing C-130s still in USAF colours are warbirds now then?

For the purposes of airlners.net, then quite probably. Our definition is simply military-painted aircraft flying in non-mlitary hands on the civil register. So yes, that means the Cessna 172 below is a "Warbird" in airliners.net terminology. Ours is NOT the classic definition of the term.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TZ Aviation



Do you have an image to illustrate your question? That would sure help.

Tamsin



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2071 times:

Quoting Tamsin (Reply 12):
Do you have an image to illustrate your question? That would sure help.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gerard Helmer



Whatever a.net's definition of the term warbird is, I think the fundamental problem is that contributors have a perception of what a warbird is, and Cessnas and Hercules don't usually fall within the common perception. The help text as it is doesn't really help, so the result is likely to be photographer frustration when a picture is rejected due badcategory. The ideal would be for there to be a little lattitude in applying the rules, or alternatively for the screeners to actually enter the word WARBIRD into the category list if it really had to be there - this latter action would take less time than rejecting and rescreening at a later date anyway.

A


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2070 times:

Quoting Tamsin (Reply 9):
Only if the aircraft actually carries visible civil markings should be be PRIVATE

I guess that C-130 could actually be PRIVATE too, given its civil registration is visible?

Or given it is owned by a company, is it "Untitled" or "Untitled (Hawkins and Powers)"??? Or an untitled, private, warbird???  Wink

Not trying to bash anyone here, just seeking some logical clarification.

Andy


User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2065 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Andy

Yes, looks like that's a WARBIRD to me, in the airliners.net definition, of course.

Quoting Skymonster (Reply 13):
help text as it is doesn't really help

I conceeded above that the help text is poor and needs to be better. Within minutes of this topic coming up here, the editors and screeners started working together to make that better. A great team makes a great website.

Quoting Skymonster (Reply 13):
The ideal would be for there to be a little lattitude in applying the rules

Disagree, the ideal would be a perfectly accurate database and no photographers ever getting badcategory rejections. That's what we strive for.

Quoting Skymonster (Reply 13):
for the screeners to actually enter the word WARBIRD into the category list if it really had to be there

We're now moving away from the original poster's question, which regarded some preserved military aircraft and the need to put them into the MILITARY category. Nobody was quoting a "warbird" which got rejected for badcategory, but anyhow... I relentlessly amend categories at screening time, as I'm sure you did yourself Andy. If the uploader is a large-volume uploader, then I may reject with a little explanation to assist them, so things can be more aligned with airliners.net standards for future uploads.

Nobody but nobody but nobody should run away with the idea that we would EVER reject a rare shot for badcategory. We love aircraft and spend countless hours screening. We have a passion for the hobby and try to reflect that in accepting great shots. Our passion is not rejecting good images.

Tamsin



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2062 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Skymonster (Reply 14):
guess that C-130 could actually be PRIVATE too, given its civil registration is visible?

Is it in full military markings? Yes See my explanation above.

Quoting Skymonster (Reply 14):
Or given it is owned by a company, is it "Untitled" or "Untitled (Hawkins and Powers)"??? Or an untitled, private, warbird???

It's not military, we're agreed, Does it have any titles? No Then it's "Untitled".

Maybe I need to go to bed, but these issues don't seem to be as complicated as nuclear fusion?

At the end of the day, it's a database full of numerical rules. Wherever you draw the lines, they have got to be drawn somewhere. People in Key West don't complain that their postal address is not "Canada".

Tamsin



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2057 times:

Quoting Tamsin (Reply 16):
Does it have any titles? No Then it's "Untitled".

Just to point out that the example cited by Andy in reply 13 does carry numerous military titles on the tail..."AFRES", "USAF" and a 5 digit # which I can't fully make out but almost certainly dealt with the aircraft's service in military life before it was civilianized, along with numerous emblems on the fuselage...IMO, its a very interesting aircraft for sure, never seen anything quite like it before!

Greg

[Edited 2005-08-11 00:52:56]


Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 53
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2052 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting USAFHummer (Reply 17):
Just to point out that the example cited by Andy in reply 13 does carry numerous military titles on the tail..

Yes, I saw those. However, if it does not fit in the airliners.net MILITARY category (for active serving military aircraft or preserved non-flying aircraft) then it should be listed as "Untitled" and WARBIRD.

It would not make sense to list it as "USA - Air Force" if it's being flown by a civil operator. The same is true of all the traditional Spitfire warbirds in the UK.

Quoting USAFHummer (Reply 17):
a very interesting aircraft for sure

On that point, I'm sure we certainly all do agree!

TZ



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineInvader From Netherlands, joined Feb 2000, 325 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2045 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting Skymonster (Reply 11):
OK, so [for example] the civil-operated fire bombing C-130s still in USAF colours are warbirds now then?

Do not confuse "military colours" with "military markings". The colours are a paint scheme, the markings are military nationality markings like roundels or star-and-bar, or, for US Army aircraft, the text "United States Army". Aircraft with a civil registration which are painted in "military colours" but without "military markings", are, in general, never warbirds.

So this aircraft, which has military colours and a civil registration, is NOT a warbird, because it has NO military markings:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon


But these aircraft, which also have military colours and a civil registration, ARE warbirds, because they HAVE military markings.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Terry Shepherd
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Snorre - VIP Vienna International Planespotters


However, aircraft which are ferried from a former military operator to a new civil operator with a civil registration but where they "forgot" to overpaint the military markings for the ferry flight, shall also NOT be listed as warbirds as there is no intention to continue flying in those markings as commemorative aircraft.
So, these two aircraft which have a civil registration and military markings (star-and-bar) are NOT warbirds, because they only flew like this on their ferry flights and are not actively flying as such. So these aircraft will not be listed as military nor as warbird.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Snorre - VIP Vienna International Planespotters
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ralph M. Pettersen


When these two aircraft would however continue to fly with those military markings after their ferryflights, then they would have to be classified as warbird (like the C-123 above).

I hope you see the logic for all this?

Peter Vercruijsse
Chief Database Editor


User currently offlineJohndm1957 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2042 times:

Its nice to see my point has been taken 'on board' by the team, excellent attitude.

Any small improvements to ease Photogs uploading will result in hopefully far fewer frustrating rejections.

As I said earlier, 'no big deal really', just a couple of hours re-submitting.

Regards

John



Canon 550D, 18-55, 50 1.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineTomTurner From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 247 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2014 times:

It is rather confusing. At least when type and owner become confused on the upload page -

Airliners (apart from the BBJ I suppose) and helicopters are really not Biz Jets, which is sporadically enforced in screening.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Pedro Becken - Porto Spotter




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Shull



Also, searches pull up a good number of simultaneous Preserved *and* Warbirds..but as the original poster pointed out, I believe Warbirds are flying and Preserved are not.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TZ Aviation





Any clarification is good though..


User currently offlineLeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1992 times:

Corporate jets, regardless of whether they are of a type that would generally be considered bizjets or of a type that would generally be considered an airliner, go under BUSINESS. Propeller-driven aircraft never do.

HELICOPTER and BUSINESS are never coincident. I've fixed that one and I'm sure there are more that are wrong, but I can't deal with it right at this moment.

WARBIRD means an aircraft bearing military roundels or titles that is actively civilly registered. PRESERVED is a separate category, and warbirds can be in it or not, just as can aircraft in any other category. "Actively flying" should not be part of the WARBIRD helpfile as there are exceptions (Though in most cases, the civil registration of an aircraft intended for permanent static display will be allowed to lapse and painted over, there are exceptions to this and there are numerous aircraft which are part-time displayed in museum static displays and part-time maintained as flyable), and we're working on that now. Again, there likely are some errors here.

[Edited 2005-08-11 05:31:39]

User currently offlineTomTurner From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 247 posts, RR: 18
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1982 times:

Thank you for your response LeanOfPeak.

I cite the helicopters only because I learned after several years - via a rejection - that helicopters do not go in the Business section.

That section of the upload page refers to "Owner" rather than "type" - at least the heading anyway.. [later the help was amended to read - this includes just about any kind of "aircraft" to any kind of "business jet" - note here - "business jet" which implies the type...rather than "Corporate" ownership. If someone can sort it all out, and it does not cause an issue with how the database has already been organized, perhaps the Headings of the categories might be improved as well?

Of course, from a logic standpoint, I still don't understand the connection between Ownership and Type - and why they're being mixed here. Why for instance a fractional ownership Sikorsky S-76 would go under "private". These are essentially "corporate aircraft" in most cases, no different than a business jet.

The Warbird not only indicates flying (yes, it does indicate "actively flying" - but most warbirds are on a limited schedule). The Preserved section - in a different category further down indicates "non-flying". In my last post I only meant to reference airworthy vs non airworthy. But the difference between "actively flying" and "non flying" would seem to be clear.

Not trying to give you a hard time Lean -- its great that you guys are overhaulding things - and its understood you can't please everyone. From an uploader prospective though, The Bad Category can be a tough rejection
- so its all to the best when the help section is as good as it can be.  Smile Again - not bashing... Keep up the good work!

- Tom


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Baffled By My Recent NOA_Motiv Rejections! posted Wed Aug 30 2006 21:20:14 by Speedbird2025
Baffled By Centering Rejection posted Mon Mar 27 2006 00:56:00 by D L X
Got Asked If I Was Cloning By Screener posted Sun Nov 26 2006 04:07:09 by Eksath
Killed By Reflection? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 05:50:23 by Fiveholer
London Fly-by 11/11. posted Thu Nov 9 2006 20:55:25 by Spencer
Ruined By Surroundings? HW posted Mon Oct 2 2006 04:57:54 by D L X
'By The Tail Into The Hangar'. Motive? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 02:11:09 by Chukcha
New CF Card Not Recognized By Card Reader. posted Sun Sep 3 2006 19:01:04 by Cpn360
Do Not Cheat By Changing The Date On Your Uploads! posted Mon Aug 28 2006 00:58:53 by AndyHunt
Possible Photo Theft By Volga-Dnepr posted Sat Aug 26 2006 20:18:24 by Futterman