dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7227 posts, RR: 32 Posted (10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5849 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Hi everyone,
After a lengthy discussion, we have decided to update and clarify the motive rules for obstruction. This will hopefully serve two functions: 1) clarify the rules to all, and 2) relax some areas to make some shots easier to get accepted (especially ramp shots). We've tried to cover everything below in regards to obstruction, but if you think something has been missed, please let us know by posting here. As always, we retain the right to apply the rules as we see fit, and make exceptions when deemed necessary.
RAMP VEHICLES (including tugs, loaders, baggage carts, etc...) are allowed to block part of the aircraft as long as they are:
[1] not blocking engines or wheels (exception: tugs are allowed to block engines/wheels if towing aircraft, and ground crew are allowed to block any part if not too prominent, which is at our discretion)
[2] below the window line
[3] part of active operations (this amendment is meant to exclude any aircraft parked with equipment in front of it. 'Active operations' is meant to include those aircraft actively loading or unloading.)
As was previously the case, for preserved subjects there is much more leeway when the obstruction is unavoidable, such as permanently affixed stairs, or fences.
Integral stairs on biz jets (and some larger aircraft such as 737s) are allowed to obstruct. Smaller crew ladders affixed to the sides of military aircraft are generally allowed, even on static subjects.
JETWAYS
Jet ways are not allowed if blocking any part of the side of the aircraft facing the photographer.
For head-on shots, they are not allowed to block the engine/gear or a significant portion of aircraft if a wider view. Small blockage of the wing will be allowed for tighter crops.
FENCES
Fences should not block any part of the aircraft. Fences taking up more than one-third of the frame can also be considered motive rejections even if not blocking part of the aircraft.
GRASS/RUNWAY
The terrain is allowed to block no more than 50% of the wheel. This does not apply to runway/taxiway markers, for which there is no allowable blockage as they are easily avoidable. For vegetation that is evenly spread out (i.e. not just one big clump of grass that could have been avoided, similar to a taxiway marker), there can be some tolerance past 50%, but this will be at our discretion.
CONES/COVERS
Cones are ok if unavoidable (i.e. by shooting from different angle) and not obstructing too much. How much is 'too much' will again be at our discretion.
Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already. If we already have an image of it uncovered, then we will not accept it covered. This does not include engine/pitot covers. For partial/canopy covers, this again will be at our discretion.
powwwiii From United States of America, joined May 2011, 226 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5733 times:
Thanks Dana for clarifying this. Just a quick question about grass. I have many pictures of aricrafts that have been sitting for a long time at some grassy airfields, when they cut the grass they can only cur around the aircraft so that leaves tall grass which block the wheels and even some lower part of the fuselage, I guess that is ok, especially for those aircrafts are not in DB, correct?
Rimantas From Lithuania, joined Dec 2007, 12 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5692 times:
One more question regarding security tapes, like this: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Euroc...d=1f2f3dd71a8023ae53f6bec90ec4558b
They are common in static displays of air shows. Should we treat them as fences or as cones ?
I have photo of CASA S-295 with around 30% front wheel obstructed by such tape and I'm am not sure whether it's acceptable for database.
vir380 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2002, 615 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (10 months 6 days ago) and read 5670 times:
Quoting Rimantas (Reply 4): One more question regarding security tapes, like this: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Euroc...d=1f2f3dd71a8023ae53f6bec90ec4558b
They are common in static displays of air shows. Should we treat them as fences or as cones ?
I have photo of CASA S-295 with around 30% front wheel obstructed by such tape and I'm am not sure whether it's acceptable for database.
Hi , that picture you show is not a problem , the tape is not much of a distraction as its a single tape & less than a third of the image is distracted , cant really treat them as a fence as such BUT all will be judged individually based on the tape and image itself...
Why not post the image you refer to on the feedback forum ?
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11357 posts, RR: 50 Reply 7, posted (10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5474 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 3): As stated above, some discretion will be applied in cases where it is more than 50% of the wheels, but appears to be unavoidable.
Dana, presumably this is not much different to the situation previously, where photos such as these were accepted?
AlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 42 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5429 times:
How about wheels part covered by runway camber? I've generally not tried uploading any of these because I've rightly or wrongly expected them to be rejected.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7227 posts, RR: 32 Reply 9, posted (10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5413 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting scbriml (Reply 7): Dana, presumably this is not much different to the situation previously, where photos such as these were accepted?
Yes, this has not changed. The only real changes were with ramp vehicles and covers, the rest is just a clarification of how things were already being done.
Quoting AlexC (Reply 8): How about wheels part covered by runway camber?
geocan From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 25 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (10 months 5 hours ago) and read 5103 times:
Dana,
thank you for the clarification.
In the above notes I could not find any references to signs in front of aircraft in museums.
What are the guidelines in such cases? A while back I had a couple of photos taken inside the museum at Hamilton ,ON which were rejected for motive because the sign was covering parts of the lower fuselage/trailing edge.
Thanks,
George
EZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4929 posts, RR: 28 Reply 12, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4999 times:
Hi,
after reading the thread, would the following shot be accepted now? It was rejected for motive only, and after appeal, the head screener mentioned that the fence was the cause of the rejection.
Rimantas From Lithuania, joined Dec 2007, 12 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4980 times:
Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 12): after reading the thread, would the following shot be accepted now? It was rejected for motive only, and after appeal, the head screener mentioned that the fence was the cause of the rejection.
I believe it should't be rejected for motive, since fence neither block any part of the aircraft nor is taking up more than one-third of the frame in this photo.
EZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4929 posts, RR: 28 Reply 15, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4941 times:
Quoting Rimantas (Reply 13): I believe it should't be rejected for motive, since fence neither block any part of the aircraft nor is taking up more than one-third of the frame in this photo.
that's what I was thinking as well
Quoting airkas1 (Reply 14): That fence is still very distracting. Why don't you just clone it out?
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7227 posts, RR: 32 Reply 16, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4912 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting geocan (Reply 11): In the above notes I could not find any references to signs in front of aircraft in museums.
What are the guidelines in such cases? A while back I had a couple of photos taken inside the museum at Hamilton ,ON which were rejected for motive because the sign was covering parts of the lower fuselage/trailing edge.
Standards for museum/permanent displays have actually not changed. As mentioned above, we do give more leeway for obstruction in these cases when it seems unavoidable, and is not too intrusive. As always, it will be a case-by-case judgement call. For your specific case, I would probably need to see the image in question.
Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 12): Hi,
after reading the thread, would the following shot be accepted now? It was rejected for motive only, and after appeal, the head screener mentioned that the fence was the cause of the rejection.
No, this would still be rejected, as the out of focus foreground object is distracting and seems avoidable by simply shooting a few seconds earlier or changing your angle. It may not take up 1/3 of the frame, but as mentioned above, we reserve the right to make case-by-case judgment calls.
EZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4929 posts, RR: 28 Reply 17, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4909 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 16): No, this would still be rejected, as the out of focus foreground object is distracting and seems avoidable by simply shooting a few seconds earlier or changing your angle. It may not take up 1/3 of the frame, but as mentioned above, we reserve the right to make case-by-case judgment calls.
Thanks for replying, although I have to admit I disagree with the conclusion. Mainly becuase I possibly did not have a chance of shooting from another agle or a few seconds later. Also, unless I'm missing something, the screener descretion mentioned above is for ramp vehicles/ground crew, not for fences. In any case, no big issue, but I just don't agree in relation to the rules posted above.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7227 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Oct 2010, 6 posts, 
. I take vids and pics with my iPod.
From United States of America, joined May 2011, 226 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Dec 2007, 12 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2002, 615 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 25 posts, 
From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4929 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3844 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2011, 161 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
