atco
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 2:30 am

Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Wed Jul 30, 2003 11:34 pm

I thought that some of these pics would be of wide interest as they show something never before seen.

Boy, was I wrong.

These were rejected as baddouble within seconds of being uploaded:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=300703_RADAR3anet.jpg

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=300703_RADAR2anet.jpg

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:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/300703_RADAR1anet.jpg

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 !!!
Canon through and through
 
atco
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 2:30 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Wed Jul 30, 2003 11:41 pm

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=300703_RADAR6.jpg

And this one too.........another baddouble !

I give up
Canon through and through
 
bigphilnyc
Posts: 3874
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2002 10:43 pm

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Wed Jul 30, 2003 11:48 pm

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.
Phil Derner Jr.
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Wed Jul 30, 2003 11:49 pm

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.

Just my 0.02c

Regards

Dan
 
BA777
Posts: 2048
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 11:40 pm

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Wed Jul 30, 2003 11:49 pm

I can see where you're coming from Garry, you'd be amazed at the joy on my face when i saw those pics! A VERY welcome change!

Lets just hope this gets sorted...

Henry
 
Demoose
Posts: 1891
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2001 8:06 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 12:08 am

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

Regards
Mark
Take a ride...fly across the sky
 
atco
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 2:30 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 12:38 am

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.

Cheers

Garry

[Edited 2003-07-30 17:54:28]
Canon through and through
 
atco
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 2:30 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 12:43 am

Sorry



Double post  Smile



[Edited 2003-07-30 17:58:34]
Canon through and through
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:05 am

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.

Luis
 
atco
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 2:30 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:18 am

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.
Canon through and through
 
PUnmuth@VIE
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 9:31 pm

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:18 am

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.


Peter
-
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:27 am

"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.

Luis
 
atco
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 2:30 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:35 am

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.

Thanks for the feedback

Garry
Canon through and through
 
Skymonster
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:17 am

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.

Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
atco
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 2:30 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 5:34 am

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  Smile

Anyway, I appreciate the situation and we'll move on, I also appreciate all the comments and feedback.

Cheers

Garry
Canon through and through
 
Continental
Posts: 5222
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 3:46 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 5:34 am

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.

co
 
lennymuir
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:58 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:34 am

I find them very interesting Garry  Wow! but the first thought that came to my mind was "do you have your employers permission?"

If that was taken within my company premises (a very big telcom company) I would not post them on the public internet.

Be careful...

Gerry





 
atco
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 2:30 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:56 am

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.

Not that anyone will see it here anyway Big grin
Canon through and through
 
lennymuir
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:58 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 8:11 am

That's fine... I'm just looking after you...

Right click (is that okay?)  Wink/being sarcastic

Gerry
 
atco
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 2:30 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 5:05 pm

I'd love a screener to give me an explanation about this:

All my shots were now rejected as badmotiv:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=300703_RADAR5.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=300703_RADAR4.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=300703_RADAR1anet.jpg

So even interior shots of an ATC Centre are not acceptable, although Towers are?????????
Don't get that.

And this shot is in the database:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nicholas Osborne



Can someone tell me please what the difference is, because I really do not understand this.

So are radar screens acceptable or not? Why is the inside of an ATC Centre not acceptable but a tower is?
Canon through and through
 
KingWide
Posts: 698
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 7:30 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:29 pm

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.

J
Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
 
atco
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 2:30 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:45 pm

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.

Thanks

Garry
Canon through and through
 
User avatar
Kereru
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 8:19 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:29 pm

Garry

I'd love a screener to give me an explanation about this:

All my shots were now rejected as badmotiv


Did you read the personal message that came with your rejection?

A comment from the screener regarding this upload:
"No section for radar screens on A.net as yet. Sorry I have to reject them badmotiv."

You can always appeal?

Colin
Good things take Time.
 
ben
Posts: 1369
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 1999 9:27 pm

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 8:23 pm

Just to add my own comments:

Garry, I really appreciate seeing these shots - they are very interesting. Thanks for posting them!

Even to see them in the rejections section is good enough for me.

To the A.Net gods above: It would be great if we could have another category for these types of pictures.

They definitely have a place on a site like this, in my opinion (and yes, I do know this is not a democracy, but just saying what I think).


A bit off the subject, do you ever work Heathrow Director? Thames Radar? or London Information?

Cheers,
Ben
 
Ikarus
Posts: 3391
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 10:18 pm

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 8:30 pm

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...
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 9:05 pm

That FlyBe photo is another one I don't understand.

Luis
 
gerardo
Posts: 3372
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 6:22 pm

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Thu Jul 31, 2003 9:32 pm

Perhaps, if Garry would have added a nice Bikini girl, it would have been accepted?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy Wink/being sarcastic

Cheers
Gerardo
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
 
atco
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 2:30 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Fri Aug 01, 2003 1:38 am

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 reasonable to seek clarification on that.

Ben:

No I don't work approach, I do the TMA which is area radar.

As an aside, I had an airport overview shot of the main terminal at Kuala Lumpur rejected for badmotive and baddistance.
It was taken from the same spot as this one:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Garry Lewis



I think I'm going to have a break from uploading here for a while, as I'm finding it all rather frustrating at the moment.
First I have 3 shots rejected for baddark only to be told they were not and to appeal, then I upload what I think are interesting shots of the ATC operation, only to find out they are badmotiv, then I have an airport overview rejected for baddistance and badmotiv (How does an airport overview become a badmotiv?), and a contrail shot rejected as badmotiv as well, even though I've had similar photos accepted before.

I've had more rejects in the last 6 weeks or so than in the last 6 months, and most seem to be for badmotiv.
Anyone who wants to see more of my ATC shots can find them elsewhere.
Canon through and through
 
User avatar
Kereru
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 8:19 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Fri Aug 01, 2003 8:54 am

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 shot this may influence the introduction of a category to accomodate them.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Colin
Good things take Time.
 
silverfox
Posts: 1034
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 8:39 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:07 pm

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)

Ron
 
atco
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 2:30 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Sat Aug 02, 2003 10:14 pm

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 of the ICAO code for the destination.
Examples:
LLis Heathrow (EGLL)
KK Gatwick (EGKK)
PH Edinburgh (EGPH)
CC Manchester (EGCC)
GW Luton (EGGW)

If the flight is not landing in UK airspace the letter(s) denote the point at which it leaves the UK FIR. For example Eastbound flights exiting via G1 through Dover carry a D exit code.
There are lots of others depending on the filed route, for example
K
AM
C
D
AS
P
V
E
H
S
DW
L
F
Also for Oceanic traffic its exit code displays it North Atlantic track entry point. eg: U6 indicates it is leaving through TNT, WAL to 56N 10W.
Examples of others are U5, U7,N6, N7, N8, N9 which route North through POL and then via Scotland, or in extreme cases a Z, Z1 or Z2 code would indicate it is exiting North Scotland to the Reykjavik FIR.

Regards

Garry

[Edited 2003-08-02 15:18:02]
Canon through and through
 
Granite
Posts: 5026
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:55 pm

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Sun Aug 03, 2003 4:34 am

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 confirm this?

I see the odd trail now and then but not as many as there used to be. Possibly they are usng a more southerly routing out of Scotland.

Cheers

Gary Watt
 
andyhunt
Crew
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Sun Aug 03, 2003 4:59 am

Gary,

Probably a reaction to your photo of the two jet contrails too close to each other..............you only have yourself to blame Big grin

Andrew
Full frame always beats post processing
 
luchtzak
Posts: 457
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2001 1:03 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Sun Aug 03, 2003 5:21 am

Atco,

I would like to have one or two of those radar-pictures on my website www.luchtzak.be, please contact me.

ciao,

Bart
 
RayPettit
Posts: 602
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 9:04 pm

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Sun Aug 03, 2003 7:32 am

Perhaps there ought to be a special section for ''miscellaneous" subjects such as radar screens, airport buildings and so on. In fact anything that does not feature a part of an aircraft or has not been photographed from one.

If I remember rightly there is a photo on the database of old advertisment hoarding featuring a Panam 707. That's good to see and I don't want it deleted but I think that's not what this site is about either, is it?

There are a good many of us who are not interested in certain types of pics but I guess we have to cater for all tastes...

R
 
atco
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 2:30 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Sun Aug 03, 2003 5:19 pm

Gary,

Whilst your airspace is a little outside my area Big grin, It may be due to the resectorisation of the North Sea sector, where the airway and sector flows were altered.
Unfortunately with ATC there tends to be a need-to-know basis with information, so I can only guess as I don't know for sure.

It may well be that due to Summer wind patterns the favourable Jetstreams are further South, thus most Oceanic traffic is cutting across through WAL/IOM or GOW/MAC and not going so far North.

Bart, as long as there is a name credit provided, I have no problem with use of those pictures.
Canon through and through
 
silverfox
Posts: 1034
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 8:39 am

RE: Baddouble.........I Cannot Believe This!

Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:16 am

Garry

Thanks for the insight on those little details
Much appreciated
Ron

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 6 guests