"You are wrong Thierry. We understand our own rules. If the aircraft
doesn't fly, then how can Aviodrome be its operator? It should be
Untitled. It is also NOT a warbird, as it is unmarked. Please check the upload
help for assistance."
It came as a reply to an appeal I made concerning a cockpit shot of the following aircraft:
Photo © Thierry Deutsch
The photo was rejected for info with a personal message saying: "Aviodrome is not an aircraft operator, so their name should not appear in parenthesis in the "airline" field."
,referring to me putting the aircraft under "Untitled (Aviodrome)"
As you can see the same aicraft figures under this "Airline"-title several times already (also a shot taken by me and accepted only 2 days ago).
Now, I don't wanna blame somebody here and I'm really thankful for the good aid the screeners are giving lately when rejecting shots; all I wanna do is make the understanding of rules even better and increase consistency.
The HS (sadly don't know who it was) is right when saying "If the aircraft doesn't fly, then how can Aviodrome be its operator? It should be Untitled. It is also NOT a warbird, as it is unmarked." but despite knowing better I thought that if it has been accepted under the given info before it should be ok.
Let's try to clarify this one:
- it's not a warbird as it is unmarked and if I understand the upload help correctly it should be marked under "military" as it has a non-civilian registration!? But then why was it formerly put under "non-military" with the same reg?
- The Aviodrome IS an aircraft operator but a non-flying aircraft can't really be operated --> my bad, lesson learned!
According my refreshed knowledge the aircraft should be titled as follows:
reg: 210; airline: Netherlands - Navy; owner: military
but then the db editors should check the previous additons as there are noticeable inconsistencies.
Apparently I'm not the only one who should check the upload help again.
Thanks in advance for your help!