One was not rejected but this showed the whole of the Southern UK airspace, rather than a detailed shot of the Heathrow area. These two shots are completely different from the shot that was HQ'ed or whatever it is now, which you can see here:
I honestly thought that these would be an interesting series of snapshots of a rarely seen side of the aviation World, an overview of the UK early morning, a detailed look at Heathrow holding, and a shot of simultaneous 27L/R approaches at a busy LHR.
However it seems that I would have been better off standing under the approach shooting side on views of BA A319s. I really just cannot see how this is baddouble, apart from the fact that they were shot in the same building on the same day !!!
BigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4073 posts, RR: 56 Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2662 times:
I don't think those kind of shots are very good for anet in terms of what they are of.
Nice pics, but maybe anet isn't the place for it. There's no category for it I dont think.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2644 times:
I understand exactly where you are coming from, Garry, but I can see why the screener rejected them.
Yes, very interesting photos, but I think one is enough, even if you want to show everything, I don't think the average A.net user will find the four photos any more interesting then just one.
Just think of it as taking a picture out of the window, one or two is interesting, but any more starts to get boring, Or doing closeups on the same plane, one looks good but if you have 3 or 4 of the same plane, its baddouble.
Demoose From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1952 posts, RR: 26 Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2620 times:
Well they certainly were of interest to me, thanks for bringing them to our attention. I spent ages tracking down all the different airlines on that last photo! Great stuff
Atco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 26 Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2599 times:
So Dan, if I get what you are saying, there is room for 855 shots of BA A319s on the database but only room for 1 shot of an LTCC radar display?
I disagree totally on what the average anetter will find interesting, I think these shots are totally unique and certainly as relevant to this database as shots of the inside of airport terminals.
I understand baddouble, which is why I chose to upload shots showing different things going on. Also when I uploaded 3 shots of Astraeus 737 on its first flight and the first 3 shots of Jet2, all were accepted.......3 shots, same plane, same day. I assume that is because they were new to the database, not seen before.
To date there are 0 photos on the database from the LTCC, and hardly likely to be any more soon.
I take your point again on wing views, but there are 2,994 wing view shots here, my pics are showing something totally unique, and as such I thought they were likely to be of interest to aviation enthusiasts.
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2575 times:
When I read your post I thought you were talking about an aerial view of south England taken from a flying aircraft, not a radar scope. Were you really expecting to have 4 radar scopes accepted in a row?
Sorry but I don't think this is Airliners.net material, even if they are interesting photos.
Atco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 26 Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
I find it strange everyone agrees they are interesting shots yet not airliners.net material, kind of implies this site does not care for interesting shots.
I find it amazing how they are not a.net material, when the inside of a terminal building is, or the OUTSIDE of a tower is. What is the difference?
Again the three scope shots are different, one shows a large portion of UK airspace, a kind of overview if you will, the other two show different situations around LHR, including approaches to both runways.
Anyway, I have got the message loud and clear, these shots are not welcome here. I'll just have to see if I can add to the 855 BA A319's on the database instead.
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 56 Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2567 times:
Luis is absolutely right.
We have feedback from the boss and all of them are badmotive until there might be a new section in the future for shots like this. Sorry Garry.
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 16 Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2568 times:
"I find it amazing how they are not a.net material, when the inside of a terminal building is..."
For me it's not also, like many other photos here that in my opinion are not Airliners.net material but I'm not the boss.
If you post this in a public forum, you should expect some comments, my opinion is that radar scopes don't belong here. If there are people who think different I only have to respect but not necessarly agree with.
Atco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 26 Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2547 times:
OK Peter,
I respect that, this isn't my site and Johan makes the rules.
I really fail to see how the inside of a terminal building or the outside of a tower is acceptable, but a radar screen full of aircraft isn't.
This was an opportunity to show the wider public something they are never likely to be able to see, I think it's a real shame that opportunity has been denied.
However we live and learn, my shots from the inside of the tower at Heathrow and London City will have to go elsewhere.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2520 times:
Garry,
With greatest respect, and from a personal point of view I do find your pictures interesting, you're hardly comparing like-with-like when you say "I really fail to see how the inside of a terminal building or the outside of a tower is acceptable, but a radar screen full of aircraft isn't." If we included pictures that were solely of the TV monitors displaying details of departing flights, that were situated in terminals, then I think the comparison would be valid.
However, as you rightly point out we do include pictures of the inside of complete terminals, and if you check the database you'll find that interior pictures of towers have also been accepted in the past. I accept that it is clearly your choice where you upload your pictures, but to say you won't upload pictures of the interior of towers because we don't accept radar screens is like saying you won't upload pictures of airplanes because we don't accept pictures of individual airplane wheels.
Atco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 26 Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2454 times:
Andy,
Thanks for your comments:
I have to say that while you feel comparing a terminal to a radar screen is not a valid comparison, I cannot accept either that a departures board can be compared to a radar showing live traffic.
Everyone in their life has seen a departures board when flying, how many people have seen a radar screen of the London TMA?
I also fail to see how the interior of a tower is not the same as a radar unit......it's the same job, using a different tool. The Tower is visual control, using flightstrips and mark 1 eyeball, the radar controllers eyes are the tube, his control utilises strips and radar.
By saying one type of ATC shot, of the tower is appropriate but a radar shot is not is like saying that one type of ATC is somehow different to the other. I don't get why one is acceptable and the other is not.
I still stand by my comparison, if the inside of a terminal building with no aircraft visible is acceptable, why is a radar photo actually showing aircraft not?
Surely the fact that everyone has stated they find the pictures interesting, must mean they at least have some value and may be appreciated by a wider audience?
I would have hoped that the unique nature and rarity of the shots would encourage them to be looked at in a slightly different way.
As I have said though, I'm happy to live by the rules here, I have respect for the site and the team, if you don't want these sort of pictures, I can 100% live with that, but at the end of the day, why spend time uploading tower interiors and risk getting a badmotiv or baddouble when the boundaries of what is acceptable and what isn't are so blurry?
It's more like saying you'll take pictures of an A330-200 but not an A330-300, they are essentially the same, but different
Anyway, I appreciate the situation and we'll move on, I also appreciate all the comments and feedback.
Continental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5476 posts, RR: 21 Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2456 times:
I would have clicked on it! There are hundreds accepted each day, and you can bet that it'd be at the top! Doesn't a.net want to have good, interesting photos so they can maxmize the amount of hits on each shot? Well hell, there's a good example right there! I think the change'd be great, I say let one through, it's interested, and it IS related to AIRLINERS.
Atco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 26 Reply 17, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2400 times:
Yes Gerry,
Already checked and confirmed, with my supervisor last night.
What is posted is already within the public domain, from photos already displayed by a previous watch member and from shots released by NATS in publications and on TV.
Kingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 21 Reply 20, posted (9 years 10 months 17 hours ago) and read 2328 times:
Garry,
The only explanation for the badMotiv rejections is that we were told by Johan to reject the shots as badMotiv. Yes, there is a shot in the database as you rightly point out and I suspect, if Johan had seen it when it was added, his response would have been no different. The only difference in your case is that the screener rejected it before it got in the database, we discussed it with the boss and he's made a rule which we're going to continue to follow from now on.
Atco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 26 Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 17 hours ago) and read 2299 times:
Fair enough Jason,
But what about say shot number 4, which is not a close up of a radar screen, and merely shows a controller at work?
Does this rule mean no pictures of operational ATC are allowed at all, and that applies to both Area ATCC's and Tower's?
I'd like to know, as there is no point uploading anything that is simply not wanted here.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (9 years 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 2260 times:
So what about the shot of a PTV showing planes turning around mid-Atlantic on 11/9? Doesn't really qualify as "cabin shot" and constitutes "badmotiv" by the same standard as these radar screens, yet it is interesting (and has 10,000s of views).
Or what about the night shots where no plane is fully visible, just a streak of light?
Or what about the FlyBe advert shot where there is barely a little part of plane somewhere in the background, and 3 people holding up destination names in the foreground? Accepted just because one of them happened to wear a bikini?
Sometimes, I get the impression that there is not that much consistency w.r.t standards and criteria here - Either be totally rigid (i.e. take out that FlyBe shot) or be a bit flexible as to what constitutes an aviation photograph...
25 Mirage: That FlyBe photo is another one I don't understand. Luis
26 Gerardo: Perhaps, if Garry would have added a nice Bikini girl, it would have been accepted? Cheers Gerardo
27 Atco: To answer a couple of questions: Colin: Yes I did see that, but I was confused by the presence of the radar picture on the database, I think it was re
28 Kereru: Garry, I did find your photos interesting, that is my personal view and I am sure if there is enough interest generated in the forum for this type of
29 Silverfox: Garry Nice shots, I like them. can you explain what the letters are afer the FL? D LL P etc Thanks hope the bosses change their views (no pun intended
30 Atco: Hi Ron, Glad you liked the pictures. The letters represent one of two things. If the flight is landing in UK airspace it carries the last two letters
31 Granite: Hi Garry Maybe off topic but since the new overflight routings came into force some months ago, traffic over ABZ seems to have dropped. Anyway you can
32 Andyhunt: Gary, Probably a reaction to your photo of the two jet contrails too close to each other..............you only have yourself to blame Andrew
33 Luchtzak: Atco, I would like to have one or two of those radar-pictures on my website www.luchtzak.be, please contact me. ciao, Bart
34 RayPettit: Perhaps there ought to be a special section for ''miscellaneous" subjects such as radar screens, airport buildings and so on. In fact anything that do
35 Atco: Gary, Whilst your airspace is a little outside my area , It may be due to the resectorisation of the North Sea sector, where the airway and sector flo
36 Silverfox: Garry Thanks for the insight on those little details Much appreciated Ron
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4073 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
but the first thought that came to my mind was "do you have your employers permission?" 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Aug 1999, 1391 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}