dutchspotter1 wrote:Has any of you noticed the height of the glass...?
Does that mean that the new developers can finally start working on the many other outstanding items? Slowly but surely this seems to be the case for now. Yesterday I spent quite some time with a developer to reproduce the bug that upscales images when reuploading (i.e. if an original is 1200px wid...Jump to post
We had a bug, but all is fixed now.Jump to post
Hi all, We will be offering priority screening for all images taken during the Singapore Airshow 2020. The priority window is now open until February 16 15:59 (all times UTC). Once the priority window has expired, images will be screened as part of the regular queue. To request priority, please tick...Jump to post
Clackers wrote:Wow such a scary touch and go just then from a BA A320. Such a slow landing and approach, tough touch down, and then took off again unexpectedly.
Clackers wrote:LATAM diverted to BCN
Clackers wrote:Incoming LATAM flight reporting very low fuel, apparently..
Aircraft had a gear problem on landing https://twitter.com/airportwebcams/status/1226469624092483584?s=21 I was going to say it looked more like a gear-up landing than a ‘hard landing’. The nosegear is down though (but not sure if that happened before or after the landing): https://pbs.twimg.com/me...Jump to post
Should be interesting to tune into liveatc today.Jump to post
Hi, photo accepted almost 48 hours ago, still not showing up, Hey Cole, I meant to contact you but hadn't gotten around to it yet. It's about the FedEx 767 sunset photo, right? I screened that. I could see the large version, but the thumbnail was missing. No idea what happened, but we consulted the...Jump to post
According to ASN, it was a P32R. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/232807 The Yute Commuter Service plane was a Piper PA 32, according to Allen Kenitzer with the Federal Aviation Administration. https://www.kyuk.org/post/all-aboard-yute-commuter-service-plane-deceased-after-crashing-near-tuntutul...Jump to post
Weather around the time of the accident (15:19 UTC).
https://twitter.com/flightradar24/statu ... 97/photo/1
"According to the Minister of Transport there were no casualties."
Considering the aircraft experienced a 20m/60ft drop and the shape the fuselage is in, I'd say that's a miracle.
https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20200205-0
zeke wrote:Didn’t they have an overrun at the same airport last year ?
Photo from a different angle:
https://twitter.com/CagilKasapoglu/stat ... 96/photo/1
According to the FR24 Twitter feed, a Pegasus B738 overran the runway. Initial photos show extensive damage. Source: https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1225083022367739910 Video: https://twitter.com/Hsn_Erydn/status/1225078909898821637 Still image from video: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQBfbN...Jump to post
FWIW I deleted my own post with the onboard photo because I'm not sure if it's legit. the reference post quoting it was deleted for that reason as well. Not saying it's not legit, but it looks off somehow.Jump to post
https://www.airlive.net/breaking-air-canada-ac837-is-holding-after-departure-from-madrid-due-to-issue-with-left-engine/ The article features a short video of the climbout. At around 0:06 you can see a flame at the back of the left engine. All wheels seem to be accounted for, although their condition...Jump to post
According to this Twitter message, the expected landing time is 19:30. That's in 1h50 from now.
https://twitter.com/duque_de_gomez/stat ... 8001168384
FlyThiz wrote:TrafficCop wrote:Maybe a drone attack!!!
MAD operations partially stopped due to suspected drone activity
Do you have sources for this?
The registration listed for each photo is different. Visually, one would indeed think they are a double, but it's cleverly bending the rules.
This popped up after the fixes of the large photo/screening bug from last weekend. The devs were informed of this layour bug the same evening.Jump to post
I agree it looks a bit hazed. Underside, underside cheatlines, leading edges of wing/hor.stab.Jump to post
I agree with Tim (with the note that a magenta color is fixable).Jump to post
I would give you a pass on the runway exit photo. For the takeoff photo, the aft fuselage still blends in with the sky and it doesn't seem fixable. Perhaps if you have another photo in the sequence where the trees can be seen behind it it would look better.Jump to post
Although better, they still look quite contrasty. I really don't know what to advise.Jump to post
Man, that's some tough contrasty conditions. The new edits look better.Jump to post
Linking on sites/pages is alright and part of the modern way to share photos with a wider audience.Jump to post
I’ve been in contact today with the Swiss user and it’s not him. So the photos were likely linked somewhere, intent unknown. I’ll try to see if we can change the voting parameters, but with the pace that things are improved I’m not holding my breath.Jump to post
32andBelow wrote:It was his helicopter I believe. Like he owned it.
Scarebus34 wrote:Here's a few more links for those that will inevitably say TMZ isn't a good source.
Can the same 'hacks' be used for the top of the day? Today we have four images by the same photog, of regular subjects in not-the-best light. I think this has been discussed before but I really am curious as to how they got there... Are we talking about a Swiss user? It does look odd that he got so...Jump to post
Please contact support[at]airliners.net for that.
A system with a minimum of X votes would work best I think.Jump to post
^ pretty much what Jehan wrote. The crew does not have access to any PC vote information. The only solution is as many people as possible voting every day for photos they find worthy.Jump to post
I saw N400AA take off at NAS today, another GIII for the list.Jump to post
Meh, I was looking forward to flying their -500's next week. Hopefully the schedule disruptions/delays will have flattened out by then.Jump to post
Batik: blurry nose
JetStar: needs a tighter crop, but also looks a little OOF.
Zero-G and Omni look good, Xiamen could use a bit more magenta, but otherwise nice.Jump to post
FedEx747 wrote:Can you please elaborate? Like where do you see the blurriness?
FedEx747 wrote:And why does the fact that it's distant matter?
Not just noisy, but also blurry and distant.Jump to post
Looks alright to me.Jump to post
Still not seeing a link?Jump to post
The FI looks a little blurry, especially on the nose.
The LH was my doing as I felt the pole distracts too much. But I too make mistakes, so feel free to appeal. I can't handle the appeal anyway, as I've already screened it.
I would pull the CZ A330, it looks too smudgy (especially the tail). The taxiing ANA 787 looks passable, but the dark tarmac underneath seems a little noisy. Some people may fall over that.
Those links do not work.Jump to post
Hi Rene, Everyone can use the photo links. They are also listed in the acceptance/rejection E-mails. I agree that the SAS looks oversharpened to compensate blur. The initial upload was likely misjudged as soft instead of blurry. While the 'size' likely indicates that the quality isn't sufficient for...Jump to post