Dazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5515 posts, RR: 49 Posted (13 years 2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2840 times:
What's the point? The upload page says:
Registration number ONLY! If you don't know the registration, leave empty."
There are 92 photos of N***** ranging from Saab340s, 727s, DC10s, and 747's! God knows how many G-****, F-****, etc photos there are. It's happened to me as well. I leave it blank for a reason, because I don't know the reg#. Obviously if it's an airline from the U.S.A, it will probably have an N reg#. Why do some people feel there needs to be something for a registration if it's not even complete? I find it annoying, but that's just my opinion. Just thought I'd bring this up again.
Res From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 417 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2797 times:
Yeah, i dont see what the big accomplishment is...it really does not change anything about the photo at all. I see a lot of entries that look like N***AA for american airlines...well, that really doesnt help much.
The deal with the *** registrations is that we'd rather have a partial registration than none at all ... simple as that. Airport overview and window view photos generally wouldn't have a rego filled in, but if there's an aircraft in the photo we'd like something in the rego field, even if it's just a pattern/template of what the rego could be. You'd be surprised how many of those *** regos lead people to examine the photo closely and find some identifying mark to positively ID the aircraft.
So, if you don't like the addition of N*****, have a moan or a whinge about the corrections editor - it'll make a change from screener bashing
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4164 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2742 times:
I have this thread Andy mentioned in mind during screening and when i see an empty rego field i add as much as possible.
Guys its better this way then getting a badinfo rejection isnt it
Flpuck6 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2123 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 months 2 days ago) and read 2692 times:
I think the asteriks look horrendously unprofessional. Or are we not aiming for professionalism?
If someone wants to scrutinze the photo, then they can and they'll send in the information to fill out the reggie. The N***** doesn't motivate me to open it up and look more carefully especialy when the reggie is clearly not visible in any form. It doesn't take a genius to know that an Air France reggie starts with F- or than a US-carrie starts with an N-
Justin has a point there. The "leave blank if unknown" for the reggie on the upload page needs to be modified if the corrections editor has told us a partial reggie is better than nothing.
ScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 2565 times:
Yeah, Brian and actually that you need get a longer zoom with more than of 2000mm zoom with the good shot by the 37,000 feet into the your flight, ok? This is your point it out about with the photography to do. And also, I can do see with the your photo of US Airways shuttle were good shot as for yourself, huh? You can't see it with the reg. number on the aircraft by Airbus A320. Why you could not tell us with the friends of into a.net? Well, later!