Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
N***** Registrations  
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Posted (12 years 3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

What's the point? The upload page says:

"Registration:
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.

Justin

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Errrrrrr?

Obviously if you cant see the reg or didnt get it then you leaver it blank.....


User currently offlineRes From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 417 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2582 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.


FLY NAVY
User currently offlineYevgeny From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 199 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2543 times:

This is DEAD END LINK

Yevgeny


User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2547 times:

I agree with you 100% Justin, I actually was planning to start a thread about this issue. There is just no point to it!

-Dmitry


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2537 times:

I believe that the corrections editor once said that was what should be done. Check out this thread, and notice particularly the text from Southflite that I've cut and pasted...

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/32347/

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  Acting devilish

Andy



User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2527 times:

Hi!
Guilty again!
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  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Peter



-
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2485 times:

Amazing isn't it? Screeners do something folks don't like and we get a topic as long as your arm and the rhetoric continues no matter what we say.

As soon as its mentioned in this topic that its the corrections editor that has decreed that unknown registrations should be entered as N***** everyone goes quiet!

Andy


User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2480 times:

God forbid if I ever got a badinfo rejection for not having a reg.... but I'll save that for another post if need be Big grin

The deal with the *** registrations is that we'd rather have a partial registration than none at all

Then the "leave blank if unknown" for the reg# on the upload page needs to be changed then, since that rule does not seem to apply anymore.


User currently offlineFlpuck6 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2123 posts, RR: 29
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2477 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.

-Chris



Bonjour Chef!
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

Flpuck6 said: 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-

Badexamples Big grin Big grin

Actually, several Air France 747s were operated with N registrations for quite some time, and I'd bet I can find one or two US carriers with non-N regs on the database too!  Acting devilish

And thereby, I guess, is illustrated one of the points southflite was trying to make.

Andy


User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2529 times:

I'm totally with Justin and Chris on this...Three points:

1. Peter sez: "Guys its better this way then getting a badinfo rejection isnt it".

Yes, I would have to agree there. But why would a photo be rejected if you don't know the reg? It says if you don't know it to leave it blank.

2. IMHO it makes the photographer look unprofessional.

3. Andy sez: "Actually, several Air France 747s were operated with N registrations for quite some time"

True, and that leads me to this point...Take a look at this photo of mine that the N***** was added to:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brian Stevenson - SPOT THIS!



Now, speaking hypothetically, couldn't this aircraft been leased from a company w/ a F or EI or any other prefix reg? So how would you know for sure that a a/c is truly a N reg?

I honestly think that a strong majority of photographers would be in favor of doing away with this.

Just my take,
Brian


User currently offlineRes From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 417 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2429 times:

Good point, Brian. I've never agreed with the asterisk addition.


FLY NAVY
User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2350 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.  Sad Why you could not tell us with the friends of into a.net? Well, later!

Regards,

Scott W.


User currently offlineRoastedNutz From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2303 times:

Yeah I think the **** suffix on the registration is a load of bull****

 Laugh out loud



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...
Are Registrations Required Now? posted Wed Jun 14 2006 20:54:23 by D L X
Screening Annoyance: Usaf Registrations posted Tue May 2 2006 16:16:31 by Glennstewart
New Registrations On A.net posted Sat Jan 14 2006 13:58:08 by DC10Tim
Glider Registrations posted Tue Jun 21 2005 12:35:32 by Malandan
NX Registrations? posted Sat Oct 23 2004 22:38:19 by Go3Team
Aircraft Registrations posted Sun Jul 18 2004 02:53:38 by Woody001
Lack Of Registrations posted Sun Apr 18 2004 17:22:38 by Bigphilnyc
How Do You Get The Registrations? posted Wed Jul 2 2003 13:17:30 by Bigphilnyc
'Dummy' Or 'Real' Registrations Matter? posted Wed Jan 22 2003 17:18:14 by Lennymuir
N***** Registrations posted Fri Sep 27 2002 05:30:20 by Dazed767