Bad info rejection (Registration and airline)

[Tommaso Dal Maso]

Hello guys, I wanted to bring this out as I'm very confused by the whole situtation revolving around this aircraft.
It has been rejected stating that it is Air Force and not Army, and that the registration is wrong and has two 0 in it (84-00182 and not 84-0182). Before uploading I did some research obviously and I found several scenarios stating with two zeros and many listing it with one only. Surely all of them classify this aircraft as US Army, so I don't understand that point of rejection. Here the full photo:
Various websites stating its registration as 84-0182:
- https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-...Ey3LFxN/Lf8%3D
- https://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/84-0182.html
- https://www.flickr.com/photos/runway27r/5791415099/
- https://it.flightaware.com/resources...tration/840182
I also noticed that his happened for some other C-12 for example: 84-0144 (And NOT 84-00144)
Upon my research only jetphotos, radarbox and flightradar add the extra 0. However I also got told via facebook that after the fiscal year it should have 4 digits not five. If someone can clear this up, very welcomed. Appeal has already been rejected with only a link to 84-00182, which doesn't explain much as to me it looks like the info in the DB is incorrect. Thanks, Tommaso

[ErwinS]

Hi,

Indeed the correct serial is 84-00182 and the operator is US Army. That the screener stated USAF is wrong.

But the registration should be as the provide link: https://www.jetphotos.com/registration/84-00182

[Tommaso Dal Maso]

Yes I saw that, however half of the net says it's with one zero only, and the jp database itself seems a bit unclear. For example:
85-1266: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9419921
85-1268: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8316786
85-01270: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8166601
This is the best example I could gather, as the registration are almost in a serie, but there's other ones too. I don't understand why the last one would have an extra 0. I think the same applies either to this (84-00182) or to all those with 4 digits after the year, it makes sense right? Something must be wrong unless they are going random...
At this point it's mostly for personal knowledge and willing to get this clear in my head; don't get it personal as I understand the rejection!

[ErwinS]

The thing what is going wrong is screeners making mistakes.

US army serials are xx-xxxxx
USAF is xx-xxxx

I will correct the ones you found.
And you can reupload with the data given.

[Tommaso Dal Maso]

The thing what is going wrong is screeners making mistakes.

US army serials are xx-xxxxx
USAF is xx-xxxx

I will correct the ones you found.
And you can reupload with the data given.

Thanks for clearing it up! And also great to know the DB is updated with the correct registration then -Tommaso