Well, let me start by saying that I was the lucky guy who was able to caught this with my camera!! I wasn't even going to photograph this one, but I went to the runway thinking that it was a Falcon 50... Also, I was quite lucky with the weather, that seamed to open when the aircraft was landing!
Now, to the technical stuff.... Some of you have been saying that this one was "photoshoped"... Well, the only thing that occurred to me when I saw that was "Wow...Jealous guys near..."
This was taken at F9, 1/500" and 400mm! The only photoshop it toke was to correct the horizon and to correct the colors, sharpening and nothing else...
I cannot explain how we can't see the surface controls in action, but I really think that it was because they where caught by surprise...
This is the sequence of the event:
I hope to be able to reply to any questions you might want to ask!
Spiderguy252 From India, joined Feb 2009, 237 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 29214 times:
Hi Paulo,
The photo definitely does NOT look like a fake, and the entire slide just goes on to support that point. I hope that's answer enough for all the jealous nitpickers commenting on the picture.
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 52 Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 29171 times:
I'd love to see that frame from the bottom left of the slide larger and edited for anet! Looks awesome!!
5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
Sharktt From Portugal, joined Mar 2008, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 29153 times:
Chris, are you talking about the 5th picture? If so, I've sent it today to A.net, so in about a week or so it should be online, if accepted!
Best regards
Paulo
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 29137 times:
Yeah the 5th pic, the stress on the gear looks fantastic, can't wait to see it!
5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
Vishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 29153 times:
Paulo, i love the photo & i almost jumped when i saw the thumbnail.
Who in the hell questioned it ?
Let them howl here if they have the guts.........
Btw, can you put-up a bigger version of photo # 5 from top/3rd from last, the post MLG looks under super-stress.
Keep you shots coming mate , its a pleasure viewing sceneries in the distance without any haze, something we can just dream of in this part of the world.
Alevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 804 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 29114 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Paulo, the vast majority know this is a real photo, but thanks for posting the sequence to show what happened with the landing.
It is sad to see the comments from the know-it-alls and poseurs rambling on about aileron deflections and rudder inputs. But, as my mom used to say, "it takes all kinds to make this world go around, and there's no sense wasting your time because in the end, you can't fix stupid".
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11122 posts, RR: 63 Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 29057 times:
Paulo, those are amazing pictures. Did the A310 blow tyres, or do you know if the frame suffered any structural damage? The forces on the gear look pretty extreme - very nice capture!
Coninpa From Luxembourg, joined May 2005, 233 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 29003 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Congrats again Paulo (my comment somewhere under your shot) for this superb photo! Even when pilots are well trained, when they face a sudden situation like wind shear, they simply do... what they can. So forget about comments regarding controls position, etc...
Don't bother! There will always be someone somewhere jealous enough to criticize your work in an unfair way. That's life!
BmiBaby737 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1636 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 28935 times:
Fantastic series of shots, would love to see 5 and 7 on the site...
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, RR: 26 Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 28929 times:
People question a lot of photos and in the end, have no idea what they are talking about. Not once did the thought cross my mind that it might be fake. Great shot and excellent timing!
I had a shot questioned a lot. I would get emails from people saying things like, "you're good at photoshop". Luckily I had a lot of YouTube video of the same event available. Just politely thanked them, and then sent them a couple of links from YouTube. That shut them up. HA!
Quoting Sharktt (Reply 3): Chris, are you talking about the 5th picture? If so, I've sent it today to A.net, so in about a week or so it should be online, if accepted!
Quoting Sharktt (Reply 3): Yeah the 5th pic, the stress on the gear looks fantastic, can't wait to see it!
Watch out for the "Double" rejection...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Excellent shot Paulo! I have it as my wallpaper right now. The chances of getting this kind of shot are one in a million and you happened to be at the right spot at the right moment...so don't bother with some ignorant/jealous people saying its a fake. The sequence of images you posted its a nice slap in their face and shows what they know!
I would hope not....that would be an excellent addition to the database and I hope screeners consider the conditions and chances of getting such a shot.....I mean, how often do you really see the landing gear bent/stressed like that?
Life only makes sense when you look at it backwards.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, RR: 26 Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 28851 times:
Quoting Phoenix9 (Reply 15): I would hope not....that would be an excellent addition to the database and I hope screeners consider the conditions and chances of getting such a shot.....I mean, how often do you really see the landing gear bent/stressed like that?
If you notice the thread about doubles, many of us feel the same about shots that have been rejected for double.
[Edited 2009-11-28 11:52:57]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Sharktt From Portugal, joined Mar 2008, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 28837 times:
A million thanks for everyone's attention!! I'm really happy to see that those jealous ones are not among A.net members!
The only thing I've wanted to state is that the picture is real, and I really was kind of sad to read such strange things about my work...
But hey, life goes on, and I'm quite happy to see that you guys believe in the picture The link to this topic is also a form to show those guys that it's the real deal!
I'm sorry for the delayed reply, but as you can figure it out, I'm trying to reply to so many emails concerning this photograph.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 28828 times:
Who cares what is said outside here? This thread is not necessary. Shot is easily genuine. Great work with one hell of a shot. Now why is there no video!
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3805 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 28806 times:
Brilliant, brilliant photos. I'd never question them...at all.
Do you happen to know whether this plane was able to depart for its onward destination, or was it grounded so it could be inspected?
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 28708 times:
Quoting Vishaljo (Reply 5): Who in the hell questioned it ?
Let them howl here if they have the guts.........
Now, I am not saying I thought it is a fake, but over at pprune there's a whole bunch of long-time professional pilots who claimed it as fake, even an ex-A310 pilot.
While they don't know anything about photography, and I told them it's not a fake, they surely know about flying, and I also said that the lack of visible control deflections in the image uploaded yesterday does make one wonder.
Rare catch there, and I am mighty glad they managed to get it down safely, this may as well have resulted wayyyyyy worse.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 28590 times:
Quoting INNflight (Reply 22): the lack of visible control deflections in the image uploaded yesterday does make one wonder.
Just like the A300, I think the A310 has its ailerons behind the engine. Towards the wingtip, there are no controlling devices beyond the engine, except for (static) flaps. pics
You can see that on the pic in question, the aileron behind engine no 2 is pointing down, and behind engine no 1 you see nothing (= aileron up?). You can't see anything at the wing ends, because that's just not where the ailerons are located. Why there is so little rudder I don't know, but perhaps the gust really came as a surprise and there was no time to react (yet).
E
[Edited 2009-11-28 12:41:45]
25 AirKas1: I was planning on posting this in another thread, but this one will be better for it. Paulo, it is a stunning image, without a doubt! When I saw thee
26 Whisperjet: Hi Paulo, great picture, I was speechless when I saw it first! I guess you'll be approached by the media shortly (if you haven't been already). Be car
27 Zbot69: Paulo, Morons are a demographic inevitability. Just ignore that stuff. Life's too short and beautiful to waste your time with them. The skill it took
30 Sharktt: Hi guys I don't really know if I can post the links here, but if I can't, please tell me that I will edit this post! Here's two of the forums where pe
31 GrahamHill: How do we say again? "Ignorance can be cured, stupidity is forever"? Looks like whatever you will try to do, say or demonstrate, you will always have
32 Johnsiebert: EXECELLENT PICTURE, I can just repeat what others said this picture is definitely not a fake, and I never considered it to be one, I can't believe why
33 Lexy: I hope it gets accepted!! Both of these shots, heck the whole set of photos, are some of the most amazing I have ever seen. You are one lucky man and
34 Speedracer189: You sound awful gun shy. Why don't you engage the people that you feel are wrong on those websites as opposed to crying about it here?
35 Xpress690: ..if go back to those links you will find that almost all of them are FlightSim pilots, not only they don´t know s***t about photography, but they do
36 Psych: Paulo. The world is full of conspiracy theorists. You can be confident that the membership here who know anything about aviation and photography will
37 NIKV69: I love the guy who says if you look at the right wing you see a reflection of a windwo from a house LOLOL. Actually a trained eye can tell that is the
38 Raedervision: Paulo, Nice job! I have had three of my photos accused of this now. If there are people who believe we didn't go to the moon there will surely be some
39 MidEx216: I just want to say, I think this shot you have here is amazing. I was just with my girlfriend last night, marveling at your photo and even pointing ou
41 NIKV69: Doesn't Airbus prefer pilots use ailerons over rudder for correcting rolls?
42 Cpd: It's an amazing photo by the photographer. And I can't believe they didn't go around!
43 Dehowie: As far as i know thats standard for all transport aircraft...well unless you work for AA that is.. In the shots though there isnt even any aileron de
44 Mirrodie: Queue that scene from Coming to America "IN DA FACE!!" Wonderful capture Paulo! You know, its simply a reflection of their jealousy and inner disbeli
45 IL76: Hi Darran! Hmm, maybe I worded it wrong... By static I meant "not moving, fixed". Didn't know the word "wicks" before you mentioned it. So excuse me
46 INNflight: Indeed I didn't think the A310 would only have inboard ailerons ("all speed ailerons" as Airbus named them), simply because a lot of other types do ha
47 Dehowie: Good pick up Ed! Never flown the 310 but even looking at the pic it seems to have them as its standard to have the wicks located on the aileron traili
48 Ptrjong: Don't worry about it, Paolo, really. [b]Any/b] picutre that gets a lot of hits and looks sligthly unusual will be claimed to be fake by some, especia
49 Zbot69: Interesting observation Peter. As a matter of curiosity, what does happen with photos that have somehow slipped through the screening process and are
50 Plainplane: Definitely a perfect example of being at the right place at the right time. Well done Paulo.
51 Ptrjong: It's quite simple: for A.net, any editing that replaces pixels or moves them into another position (except cloning out dust spots) is totally unaccep
52 HAWK21M: Thats a Fantastic catch......Congrats. regds MEL.
53 Inavia: Paulo, no need to explain! Simply a great shot, and the sequence shown is even greater to have a "full picture" of what happened. Obrigado for posting
54 PMN: Someone was questioning how real this image is on another forum not yet mentioned here and I can't understand why because it's so very obviously real.
55 Speedracer189: Are the other pics from that event going to be uploaded? I would really like to see the compression/distortion on the left gear.
56 JohnKrist: I had no doubts it was real, it has been sitting on my desktop since the day it was uploaded, spectacular picture!
57 Ilpavone2004: Well i had the same problem with my photo! Some people thought it was totally photoshopped http://www.airliners.net/photo/Ethio...d=86efb14035d59fb6a1
59 Speedracer189: You wonder. The suck with this website just gets stronger and stronger.
60 Silver1SWA: Here... Rejected for double is my guess. Without the screeners giving themselves the option to accept doubles under special circumstance, his second
61 Ptrjong: Yes, the screeners should allow themselves to make exceptions to the double rule, as I have argued in that other thread. Peter
62 UnattendedBag: That would be logical. But Paulo still hasn't answered the question. No can of worms there!
63 Sharktt: Yes, it was rejected for double... Oh well, their loss. I'm not going to send anymore of this sequence to A.net. I'm sorry for the delayed response, b
64 UnattendedBag: If you get a chance and are willing, we would love to see that second photo up close. It is almost as dramatic as the one that got accepted.
65 Speedracer189: Another loss due to A-net incompetence. Good job guys.
66 Mirage: Now imagine the quantity of good photos rejected because of a... "rule"!?!? it's weird that Airliners.net wants more "creative" photos, whatever that
67 Speedracer189: Look at all the doubles on the front page right now.
68 Silver1SWA: Are they all from the same photographer? The double rule applies to multiple shots from the same photog.
69 Mirage: There are doubles, photo taken from the same side, of the same N787BA, by the same photographer. Luis
70 Lochgilp: But, as far as I can see, at different airports. Therefore not doubles.
74 Silver1SWA: I'm not seeing anything of N787BA that qualifies as double. I think the screeners have consistently applied the rule here.
75 Speedracer189: Boy this place loves to have its little rules. The more rules you have the less pics you will get. No wonder you got passed up by the most popular Ai
76 UnattendedBag: Your relatively new here, so I will be gentle. Without rules pertaining to the quality and quantity of photos uploaded to this site from a single ind
77 UnattendedBag: What? Did I miss something? There is an "Airplane photo database" that's more popular? Where?
78 Speedracer189: New, really. Your wrong on that one. I was here when Johan was here. When he was here there was a spirit of friendship and comradery. People used to
79 UnattendedBag: Soles? As in feet? Do you maybe mean "soul". Lecture? Ha! We are discussing a rule, a rule that was around when Johan was here. I have been here much
80 Speedracer189: Your are wrong on that one. They get deleted. If you have been here as long as you say you would know this.
81 Speedracer189: Also, if what you say is true why cant Photogs make comments in site related??
83 WakeTurbulence: Luis, how do you know that those shots are taken on the same day? -Matt
84 UnattendedBag: For his own reason, Royal didn't include the exact date of the photo. A screener should have questioned him about it. If they did prove to be taken o
85 Mirage: I see, so if taken on different days they are not doubles. I confess I didn't know that rule, thanks. Luis
87 Ptrjong: When taken at different days, they can be still considered doubles if the screeners decide they are really similar and uninteresting enough. I guess
88 Bottie: For me, that's a double I'm not a screener, Royal is....
Sponsor Message: 
From Portugal, joined Mar 2008, 35 posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2009, 237 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2813 posts, 
, its a pleasure viewing sceneries in the distance without any haze, something we can just dream of in this part of the world.
From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 804 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11122 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 2257 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined May 2005, 233 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, 
From France, joined Mar 2007, 2513 posts, 
From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5542 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
