Let's clarify about monuments, stored, simulators and so on

[alexlebedev.fm]

Hi, y'all!

I know that JetPhotos team is always ready to support users, to enlighten or clarify their doubts.
So today I want to clarify for me a question regarding monuments, stored aircrafts, rescue simulators and all other stuff in a state of "will never fly again".

The question is, does the "Hot photo" rule apply to such things?

Because many times I've seen "Hot shots off the queue" accepted:
- monuments that nobody has photographed before
- repainted monuments
- stored planes that have been turned into rescue simulators.
- stored planes that have just been painted over in white with the last airline's identity.
- and so on (I think you know what I mean).

On the other hand, in private talks, fellow spotters have told me several times that they have received rejections in such cases.

I know that in any case, "Read the damn rules!"
But the rules seem to me to be written rather fuzzily:

- Photos of airliners with a registration not in the database will count as hot.
What about when the aircraft itself is new to the site but there is no registration on it? And it's not active?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that screeners don't always have 100% consensus on this either.
So it would be great if some of the admins would put an end to it.

Because personally, as an avid traveller, I have a lot of photos of broken, rusty and miserable monuments from all sorts of jerkwater towns. But I don't think that's a reason to put it all as "Hot", is it?

With best regards,
Alexander

[Alex - Spot-This !]

If it's a new registration, then the system will select it as hot and there's nothing you can do.
For all change of scheme, repainting and so on of preserved airplanes, there's no reasons for those to jump the queue so please put them in the normal queue, they are not hot.

And yes monuments are acceptable but please note that nowadays, most of those monuments are mock-ups which aren't acceptable for JP as they aren't real flying machines. Some confusion happens there as not all screeners would recognize a mock-up immediately, and we constantly have to make corrections for sometimes wrongly accepted images

Hope it clarifies.

Cheers
Alex

[Ottawa.Plane.Spotter]

Hi Alex, I'm slightly confused about this as well. Basically my question is what is considered a "mock-up". You say that these are not "flying machines" but what about decommissioned airframes or prototype aircraft that aren't yet certified?

[Felipe Garcia]

Hi Alex, I'm slightly confused about this as well. Basically my question is what is considered a "mock-up". You say that these are not "flying machines" but what about decommissioned airframes or prototype aircraft that aren't yet certified?

Those are acceptable, just not hot.

Mockups we're talking completely hollow frames covered with assorted boneyard fuselage and wing panels, fiberglass reproductions that are incapable of flight, airshow cabin mockups, that sort of thing.

[Alex - Spot-This !]

Just a few examples

This one is a mock up





So is this one



They look like real airplanes but they are usually just empty bodies looking more or less close to the original. Note that nowadays, we really rarely would see real warbirds being used as monuments like the example above. The value of such machines is just too high to let them rote in the open like this.

Now please note that full size replicas, flyable of not, made with the original material and components are acceptable.

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/keyword/K5054

So basically, there are a lot of museum exhibits which are full scale replicas, made as real as possible. Those are okay.
The ones we don't want are the fibreglass mock ups, like those plastic F-35's which LM is showing on airshows. Or those plastic Spitfires. Those are just empty shells.

Hope it clarifies, in case of doubt please use the forum and we'll be glad to tell you if it's an acceptable one or not.


Alex

[Ottawa.Plane.Spotter]

Thank you so much Alex, that clarifies a lot!

[alexlebedev.fm]

Dear Alex!

Last month, I posed the question

The question is, does the "Hot photo" rule apply to such things?
<...>
- Photos of airliners with a registration not in the database will count as hot.
What about when the aircraft itself is new to the site but there is no registration on it? And it's not active?

And you've clearly told me that

And yes monuments are acceptable but please note that nowadays, most of those monuments are mock-ups which aren't acceptable for JP as they aren't real flying machines.
Alex

"Great!" I thought. So I uploaded a photo of the new monument for the database, entered the serial number, location, etc, checked the "Hot photo", provided a link to your reply.
And bam! - rejection. "as per the thread, those are not hot."


Maybe I'm not smelling what you're stepping in.
Please, clarify, 'cause I just can't get my head round this.

[dlowwa]

Maybe I'm not smelling what you're stepping in.

Please clarify, because I just can't understand what you're trying to say

Please, clarify, 'cause I just can't get my head round this.

A link to the rejection would be helpful.

[alexlebedev.fm]

Please clarify, because I just can't understand what you're trying to say

Perhaps I don't fully understand what you're explaining to me about rules I meant this.

A link to the rejection would be helpful.

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=11446671

Kind regards

[Alex - Spot-This !]

This Helicopter won't be going anywhere so it doesn't need to jump the queue. As explained many times, hot photos are one of the main reason for a long queue so we try not to have photos jumping the queue for no needed reasons

Hope it helps
Alex

[alexlebedev.fm]

This Helicopter won't be going anywhere so it doesn't need to jump the queue. As explained many times, hot photos are one of the main reason for a long queue so we try not to have photos jumping the queue for no needed reasons

Hope it helps
Alex

Thank you, Alex. That's pretty clear.