Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Understanding Uploading Rules  
User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2070 posts, RR: 51
Posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2348 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Just got a nice e-mail from one of our well respected Headscreeners which drew a broad smile onto my face, stating:
"You are wrong Thierry. We understand our own rules. If the aircraft
doesn't fly, then how can Aviodrome be its operator? It should be
Untitled. It is also NOT a warbird, as it is unmarked. Please check the upload
help for assistance."

It came as a reply to an appeal I made concerning a cockpit shot of the following aircraft:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thierry Deutsch



The photo was rejected for info with a personal message saying: "Aviodrome is not an aircraft operator, so their name should not appear in parenthesis in the "airline" field."
,referring to me putting the aircraft under "Untitled (Aviodrome)"

As you can see the same aicraft figures under this "Airline"-title several times already (also a shot taken by me and accepted only 2 days ago).

Now, I don't wanna blame somebody here and I'm really thankful for the good aid the screeners are giving lately when rejecting shots; all I wanna do is make the understanding of rules even better and increase consistency.

The HS (sadly don't know who it was) is right when saying "If the aircraft doesn't fly, then how can Aviodrome be its operator? It should be Untitled. It is also NOT a warbird, as it is unmarked." but despite knowing better I thought that if it has been accepted under the given info before it should be ok.

Let's try to clarify this one:
- it's not a warbird as it is unmarked and if I understand the upload help correctly it should be marked under "military" as it has a non-civilian registration!? But then why was it formerly put under "non-military" with the same reg?
- The Aviodrome IS an aircraft operator but a non-flying aircraft can't really be operated --> my bad, lesson learned!

According my refreshed knowledge the aircraft should be titled as follows:
reg: 210; airline: Netherlands - Navy; owner: military
but then the db editors should check the previous additons as there are noticeable inconsistencies.

Apparently I'm not the only one who should check the upload help again.  Wink

Thanks in advance for your help!

Thierry


"Go ahead...make my day"
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2340 times:

THierry,

The owner is no longer "Military". The Aviodrome is now the owner. It is a "preserved" arcraft.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2070 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2331 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting Viv (Reply 1):
The owner is no longer "Military". The Aviodrome is now the owner. It is a "preserved" arcraft.

But it still carries a military registration and thus falls under the same category according to A.net's uploading rules. In addition it has only recently been accepted as such. I know it sounds kinda weird since, as you have correctly noted, the owner is the Aviodrome which is not a military organisation.
"Preserved" would be ticked in addition to "military".

Thierry



"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2319 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

it's not a warbird as it is unmarked and if I understand the upload help correctly it should be marked under "military" as it has a non-civilian registration!? But then why was it formerly put under "non-military" with the same reg?

I would guess that it was listed as non mil because the first shots of the plane in the database show it as having KLM colors.

I don't think anyone on the screening team told you to upload it as a Warbird.

I have alerted the editing team and hopefully they will standardize the database entries for 210.


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2261 times:

Having a problem Thierry ? Big grin
After the trouble of touring you around not nice to hear  Sad

Quoting ThierryD (Thread starter):
It is also NOT a warbird, as it is unmarked.

This is a faulty statement although not all markings are in place yet, will be in a short while.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders



Quoting ThierryD (Thread starter):
The photo was rejected for info with a personal message saying: "Aviodrome is not an aircraft operator, so their name should not appear in parenthesis in the "airline" field."

Who said that ?
The Aviodrome is a museum, a theme park and an operator.
Think the trouble here starts at the upload page where we have to fill in the operator but really want the name painted on the a/c.
It took me a few emails some years ago to get things sorted for the Connie and DC2 which both use a KLM livery but are operated by the Aviodrome.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders


In our case the livery says nothing about the operator but is just use to be historical correct, infect KL has nothing to do with it.

The Neptune is at this point still a preserved aircraft, it can't be a warbird because it doesn't have a civil registration.
In my interpretation this means it should still be a military a/c although I understand ClickHappy's(and other screeners) confusion.
The KL colors were there because at the time the Neptune was stationed at the KL ground school after it left the Navy.
Now we are in the process to make it original again, the rest of the marking will follow soon.

Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2254 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

No one has ever said it wasn't a Military plane. There were however, since fixed, a couple of database entries that had it marked as a non-military plane.

User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2070 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2215 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 4):
Having a problem Thierry ?

  Nothing one couldn't solve...
Hope the trouble wasn't too big!  

Many thanks Royal for the quick help!
I'll re-upload the photo with the info as it figures now with the updated shots of the db (Untitled; PRESERVED only).

Thierry

PS: Willem, glad to see you got the Junkers (CASA) in!  Smile

[Edited 2007-05-17 01:00:30]


"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 2137 times:

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 6):
I'll re-upload the photo with the info as it figures now with the updated shots of the db (Untitled; PRESERVED only).

If I understand the upload rules and Clickhappy correctly it should now be Military as well ?
Or applies Mil only to military owned planes no matter the colors and/or markings ?

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 6):
Hope the trouble wasn't too big!

No trouble at all Thierry.

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 6):
glad to see you got the Junkers (CASA) in!

Me too.
Did you manage to get something out of the other building at AMS ?



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2070 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week ago) and read 2120 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 7):
If I understand the upload rules and Clickhappy correctly it should now be Military as well ?

The rule isn't completely clear to me neither but the database editors now put it under "Preserved" only so I'll just stick with that.

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 7):
Did you manage to get something out of the other building at AMS ?

Nope, either too dark or too cluttered with other stuff or both. Maybe you'll get luckier!?  Wink

Thierry



"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week ago) and read 2117 times:

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 8):
Nope, either too dark or too cluttered with other stuff or both

What a pitty  Sad
As it can't be you who failed it must have been the Nikon letting you down Big grin



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
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...
Uploading Farnborough Shots - What Are The Rules? posted Thu Jul 22 2004 20:54:19 by LGW
Rules On Cabin Shots posted Mon May 14 2007 06:37:21 by Alibo5NGN
Understanding Quality posted Tue Apr 10 2007 13:33:40 by OD720
Colour/Saturation Change After Uploading posted Tue Mar 27 2007 18:37:21 by PictureThis
A380 US Visit Rules? posted Sat Mar 17 2007 04:06:18 by JohnJ
Dumb Question About Uploading Photos posted Mon Feb 19 2007 05:45:08 by N612UA
Uploading Question posted Sat Feb 17 2007 14:02:51 by Airkas1
Worth Uploading? posted Fri Feb 16 2007 19:47:17 by Preelude
Are These A320 Pics Worth Uploading? posted Sun Feb 4 2007 09:22:24 by Monteycarlos
Worth Uploading? posted Sat Jan 20 2007 21:48:58 by MidEx216