Rejection queury

[gdinscoll]

Yeah the old stuff is very nice.

Just had some doubts with shots like https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9757087

So the dates of the old photos gave you the impression he may not be around anymore? - can’t be me taking this photo, haven’t been able to escape Berlin for months with all the lockdowns!

[ErwinS]

Yeah the old stuff is very nice.

Just had some doubts with shots like https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9757087

[gdinscoll]

Not really a difference but Untitled is beter imo since she was active at that time for some operator. Unknown is really used only if the airframe itself us a mystery.

Collection is indeed the way to go. But just seen that there are also recent shots. Also taken by your dad?

Okay thanks for that, I’ll re-upload it under untitled later today then.

Absolutely, all are his. All mine are under James Dinsdale account. Sometimes we’re at the airport together so we have overlapping locations and times. But I give you my word I’m not uploading photos taken by one person to two separate accounts. His photos deserve to be under his name, I’d like it to be a little bit of a legacy for all his photos that go back to the 1950/1960s!

He just got scanner so that is why we’re starting to upload a lot of slide photos and hence I’ve been uploading new reg’s first as we go through them all for everyone to enjoy

[ErwinS]

Not really a difference but Untitled is beter imo since she was active at that time for some operator. Unknown is really used only if the airframe itself us a mystery.

Collection is indeed the way to go. But just seen that there are also recent shots. Also taken by your dad?

[gdinscoll]

Indeed.Typo. untitled is then ok for upload.

So out curiosty. Are all your uploads taken by your dad?

Can I ask what the difference is between untitled and unknown in this context, as in, would the original submission now be accepted under the unknown selection?

Yes that's correct, I'm uploading solely his photos to this account, I've just re-checked the guidance on this and I may have misunderstood the terms of "Collection". Should I change this to solely "Graham Dinsdale" rather than "collection" as I have the right to upload them on his behalf?

Thanks for responding

[ErwinS]

Indeed.Typo. untitled is then ok for upload.

So out curiosty. Are all your uploads taken by your dad?

[gdinscoll]

TN-AGH seems to be with Trans Air Congo at that time

Hi Dutch,

Thanks for having another look at the Juba Air, I did think it was a risk for obstructions but it's nice to see we both come to same agreement that the rarity and the motive is good enough.
You have mentioned TN-AGH, but the registration of the An-12 I submitted was TN-AHG - I'm not sure if you made a typo.

TN-AGH was in fact with TAC, but in 2002, so three years before the photo I submitted. But that is irrelevant now because TN-AHG is what we are looking for, and which I could not find a dinstinctive answer, hence the submission under "unknown" - please have a look here: https://russianplanes.net/reginfo/2007

[ErwinS]

TN-AGH seems to be with Trans Air Congo at that time

[ErwinS]

In hindsight your upload of that Juba An-12 is accepted. Rarity wise and sometimes maintenance adds something to the picture. As is in this case

[gdinscoll]

Hi,

unfortunatelly, the plane is way too obstructed by the scaffold it also needs "Cargo" category. There are, of course, pictures of planes undergoing heavy maintenance in the DB, but they are taken in the hangars or there is not too mutch obstruction of the fuselage.

I don't know if the photographer was able to wait for a less obstructed or totally unobstructed view of the plane, but that would be much more preferable. FYI, the airline do exist in the DB nad here is a picture of the same airframe from its previous use, at the same location , with just a minor obstruction of the nose landing gear witch is acceptable in hases like that. Hope you can find a less obstructed view of the plane.

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/7752040

Greetings

Sotiris

Hi Flying Doc,

Thanks for the reply that's very helpful. Would you be able to help me with another rejection that I got.
https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8234204 This was rejected for bad info; wrong airline. I appealed on the basis that the only registration I could find was under an unknown airline, but the screener dismissed the appeal saying "wrong airline". That doesn't really help me when I said in the screener comments that I've searched for a while to find the correct airline and the only website I could find was this: https://russianplanes.net/reginfo/2007

I would like to re-submit this with the correct info but the screener seems to have different information and doesn't want to share it?

Kind regards

[flying Doc]

Hi,

unfortunatelly, the plane is way too obstructed by the scaffold it also needs "Cargo" category. There are, of course, pictures of planes undergoing heavy maintenance in the DB, but they are taken in the hangars or there is not too mutch obstruction of the fuselage.

I don't know if the photographer was able to wait for a less obstructed or totally unobstructed view of the plane, but that would be much more preferable. FYI, the airline do exist in the DB nad here is a picture of the same airframe from its previous use, at the same location , with just a minor obstruction of the nose landing gear witch is acceptable in hases like that. Hope you can find a less obstructed view of the plane.

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/7752040

Greetings

Sotiris

[gdinscoll]

Hi,

I don't want to waste time for a screener by appealing this but I would still like an opinion so I'll ask on here.

With a type of photo such as this, including a rare aircraft, one with a registration that isn't in the JP database, an airline that isn't in the JP database and undergoing heavy maintenance that is never really done outside of a hanger, how come this can't be accepted with that type of motive? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8237525

Cheers!