They were uploaded using the Auto Complete function, and have exactly the same information as a previous set of 7 photos of Hawks from this trip, that all successfully passed through screening some weeks ago.
So as far as I can see I have done nothing differently, or nothing wrong. Am I missing something? They are uploaded as 'British Aerospace Hawk...' and 'UK - Air Force' and have the correct registration and c/n. They are also correctly categorised as 'Military'.
Jat74l From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 618 posts, RR: 16 Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2860 times:
I think the point here is that the previous uploads were accepted with the same info and the photographer now has a rejection for no reason apparent to himself.
When I upload I check to see the previous versions accepted and copy that info if multiple choices are available.
Frustrating.
Regards
John
I like trains just as much as planes but trains don't like the Atlantic!
Peter - In the absence of anything else I think you may be right. But the fact of the matter is that this is the format that the database has indicated is the 'standardised' way to upload these aircraft. As such I have not uploaded any incorrect information. It would be completely wrong to penalise an uploader for using standardised information that the site itself provides, unless it is clearly incorrect.
Ian - I used the surface of the runway/taxiway as a horizontal reference, and both these are dead straight.
Any more thoughts? I am loathed to use an appeal only to further increase my rejection rate unless I am pretty sure of my situation.
Malandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 16 Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2805 times:
Paul,
I have a feeling that should a screener have responded to your thread, almost certainly the phrase " as a long term uploader ......" would probably have been applied.
The A.net database contains a considerable number of errors and disparity's and I always treat the auto load function with a degree of mistrust. This, by the way, is not a criticism of our undoubtedly hard working and dedicated screeners, but a reflection of how complex is the total world of aviation, resulting in problems for both screeners and uploaders. I view it indicatively rather than definitively!
A recent thread of mine related to the question as to whether one should use the manufacturers or the builders name when uploading home built kit aircraft. The official response was indeed definitive stating that the kit manufacturer took precedence, but within days another Europa appeared in the database listing the plane by it's assemblers name! Unfortunate to my mind but maybe understandable in terms of the human condition!
Maybe I have too much time on my hands, but I seldom upload an image without checking one or more of the independent references, G-INFO, Scramble, etc, particularly on occasions where the auto load function offers more than one recommendation, and certainly in such a case as yours where "Hawk ..." clearly indicates incomplete info.
I have a Bulldog in the queue just now and the only image in the database lists it as "Bulldog" but to me it is clearly a "Bulldog T.1". How do I know, well I checked it out.
My advice to you Paul is to identify the correct designation and re-upload accordingly.
As you say yourself
Quoting Psych (Reply 4): But the fact of the matter is that this is the format that the database has indicated is the 'standardised' way to upload these aircraft.
and I note the word "indicated.
It clearly is a problem and I sympathise particularly over the question of other similar images having been accepted.
Malcolm.
My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2753 times:
Update:
I decided to appeal one of the shots, as I was still feeling rather flummoxed about what was wrong. I have just had the appeal rejected, again for 'info', but have not been left with any clarification what the problem is.
So I am none the wiser, I have an extra rejection against my name and am thinking a little lot about issues such as 'customer relations'.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2744 times:
Hi Peter.
What really upsets me here Peter is the lack of clarification - I feel as though there is a test that I am failing and the examiner is sitting back amused at my lack of success. Maybe a bit harsh, but it would have been so easy to help me out here.
The issue for me - as someone not very familiar with military aircraft - is that the Auto Complete provides three alternatives:
British Aerospace Hawk T1
BAe Hawk T1
British Aerospace Hawk...
Now I know that the Hawk is a T1, but the only standardised version of the information above is the last one - the others have not been seen to be fit by the database editors - for whatever reason - to be considered 'standardised'. Although I agree that the Auto Complete function is not foolproof, it looks for all the world that someone properly involved with the site information has decided to standardise this information using the last category as indicated above. Given a choice, I am sure I would not be the only one feeling that it would be the 'right' thing to do in such a complex database to upload using the information indicated to be 'standardised'.
To add to this impression, previously the database had lots of Hawk photos in various versions and names, but decided to lump all the shots together under the title 'British Aerospace Hawk', without model type.
I am just sad that something like this can feel so unpleasant............
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2719 times:
Based on simple observation, it should be...
British Aerospace Hawk T.1, as it does not have the AIM 9 pylons which would make it a T.1A. The Red Arrows now fly the T.1A version which is Sidewinder capable.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2694 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 12): I can't believe something like this upsets a grown man. Come on Paul, a little research on your part would have avoided the rejections.
You make a valid point Jeff, but it does, all the same.
I had done my research, and accept it if I was in error, but the fact of the matter is that the 'correct' version of the information, as demanded by the screeners, is not deemed to be standard, according to the database editors - it is the incorrect information that has been labelled as 'standardised'. Given how things are here, it would be harsh to blame someone for going with what has been labelled 'standardised' by the crew, as this implies that the editors have actively decided that this should be the correct information. Also, the fact that the database has been changed such that all Hawk models are now in the category of 'Hawk...', irrespective of model, only further adds to this incorrect assumption.
The fact that recent uploads labelled using the exact same logic got through no problem also further tends to lull one in to a false sense of security, as this reinforces the belief that you are doing what is required of you.
But in the end your point is valid - things like this should not bother me. Too much time on A.net!
MarkyMc From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 30 posts, RR: 18 Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2680 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Paul,
Just to clarify, XX220 is a Hawk T1A, whilst XX307 is a standard T1. I always check either an online reference such as the Scramble database, or a spotters serial book such as Military Aircraft Markings, which is updated every year.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3769 posts, RR: 20 Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2660 times:
Quoting MarkyMc (Reply 14): Just to clarify, XX220 is a Hawk T1A, whilst XX307 is a standard T1.
XX307 is indeed a standard T1, sorry, my mistake.
Quoting JeffM (Reply 12): Based on simple observation, it should be... British Aerospace Hawk T.1, as it does not have the AIM 9 pylons which would make it a T.1A.
The T1A's pylons are not neccesarily fitted I suppose.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2641 times:
Quoting MarkyMc (Reply 14): Just to clarify, XX220 is a Hawk T1A, whilst XX307 is a standard T1.
Thanks for that clarification Mark, and welcome to the Forum.
Maybe you will pass on to the database editors this problem with Hawk aircraft, as most of the registrations have the 'Hawk...' as the only standardised entry - the two aircraft versions you mention above are not considered 'standardised' and I could quote many more examples for RAF aircraft.
I say again - for all the world an uploader would be forgiven for thinking that the database editors are actively looking for uploaders to use the 'British Aerospace Hawk...' aircraft version, but maybe this has not been communicated to screeners.
On a related issue, if uploaders have photos rejected when using validated database information, is this then passed back to the database editors, or will these potential errors be allowed to continue?
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2630 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 16): will these potential errors be allowed to continue?
Just put the proper information in in the first place Paul, you're blaming your rejection on someone else's laziness when you didn't do the research on your own image, which makes you....well.....lazy too.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2604 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 17): Just put the proper information in in the first place Paul, you're blaming your rejection on someone else's laziness when you didn't do the research on your own image, which makes you....well.....lazy too.
Jeff - I can't let a comment like that go - you are missing the point here again.
I was not lazy, in that I knew full well that the Hawk was a T1. My mistake was to trust the database and I allowed myself to be misled by the fact that the information I provided was the only option the database editors had seen fit to make standardised. This is not just the case with the photo(s) in question, but ALL Hawk registrations I have looked at. Thus, the database presents a list of all the versions that have been uploaded - for XX231 there are 6 possibilities - but the ONLY one marked as standardised for the purposes of uploading is 'British Aerospace Hawk...'
Though I haven't checked, my hunch is that in other areas this would not be the case - e.g. in Tim's quoted example, I would know not to upload a 747 - 436 as 7474-4.., because I bet the 747-436 aircraft version has also been deemed to be standardised.
It is wrong to trust the database - a shame, but understandable given the workload involved - but here it looks for all the world that an ACTIVE decision has been taken to encourage uploaders to use this specific information - hence why not also have the correct versions standardised. They are there. I guess the answer is time and resources, and I have sympathy with this. My mistake was to develop a coherent reasoning in my mind - relating to an attempt to pull together masses of different possibilities, some incorrect - that allowed me, yes, incorrectly, to think that I was doing the right thing. We have a name for this normal way of thinking in psychology. Those of us interested in aviation and human factors involved in incidents are very familiar with this. To then have the experience of previous uploads have been deemed acceptable only further reinforced this view.
I try not to get involved in making derogatory statements about people on a public Forum - I prefer not to have this done about me too.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2560 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 18): I try not to get involved in making derogatory statements about people on a public Forum - I prefer not to have this done about me too.
Hardly derogatory Paul, just an observation. If you knew for sure what it was, then upload it as such, any thing else is a weak excuse.
Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 960 posts, RR: 35 Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2506 times:
I think one of the points Paul is trying to make is the lack of constancy. Paul may have got a rejection for slightly incorrect information which he believed had been added correctly by the auto fill. Next thing he looks at his local airport and sees an A321 added with no C/N and no version and yet there it is accepted! It took me 30 seconds to find the missing info for this aircraft, which would not of been added by the auto fill as it is a recently re-registered aircraft.
Jid.
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
Yes there is. But on one hand, it's important for the database for the information provided to be as complete and correct as possible. And on the other hand, with an upload queue of two weeks, I'm kind of glad that screeners don't check the data for each photo completely thorougly.
It's quite simple really. If you don't provide complete and correct data, you may get away with it, but you do run the risk of a rejection.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Thanks to the screeners for not finding anything else to fault this time around - I shall not be making that error again (I hope). Thanks also to everyone for your feedback with this item.
Malandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 16 Reply 25, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2312 times:
I have been contacted by a fellow Anetter who has asked me to correct an error in my previous response where I listed the aircraft type for a recent upload.
He makes the point that ........
UK military aircraft uploaded to Airliners.net should not have the dot that appears between type and numerical sequence. So in your example:
Bulldog T.1 is incorrect.
Bulldog T1 is correct.
However, on examining the database I am clearly not alone as numerous examples exist among many aircraft types. The effect of this is to create a "false" variant for what is clearly the identical aircraft type.
As he points out .......
"As well as risking possible rejection, it will also have to be corrected some day by an editor, increasing their workload."
I would suggest that sceeners should consider a little less leniency in the interests of us all.
Malcolm.
My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3769 posts, 
From Malta, joined Mar 2006, 394 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 960 posts, 
- I shall not be making that error again (I hope). Thanks also to everyone for your feedback with this item.
From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
