Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Genre and "Airline" questions for the screeners

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    Originally posted by philh
    It`s still looking a bit grey to me as there seems no definitive answer and although I have had a rejection before for as little as no construction number it now seems an aircraft can be accepted even if the whole current genre is wrong i.e. civil or mil!
    Maybe I wasn't very clear, sorry for that. GENRE (civil/military) has to be correct or pic'll be rejected for badinfo/genre but for CATEGORY (like warbird/vintage) you can leave a note to the screener if it's a borderline case for you.

    Originally posted by philh
    I think its quite important for some set rules to be made here or confusion will still abound!
    Absolutly agree that's why we're dicussing it among crews too. But try to follow the guidline I made on my 1st reply. And feel free to ask or show examples of pic/aircraft that you have doubts about.

    Regards
    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • philh
    replied
    Thanks for taking the time to post Alex.

    It`s still looking a bit grey to me as there seems no definitive answer and although I have had a rejection before for as little as no construction number it now seems an aircraft can be accepted even if the whole current genre is wrong i.e. civil or mil!

    I think its quite important for some set rules to be made here or confusion will still abound!

    Anyway, thanks again for posting, much appreciated.

    P.S. I thought someone called Luis Marmisa screened that particular shot or mine (admittedly one of a 'could go either way' bunch!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    Originally posted by kukkudrill
    A thought about genre: would it be better to classify flying warbirds as military? Seems to me, someone browsing for military aircraft photos in the db would be more interested in warbirds than somebody browsing for airliner photos. In other words, aircraft would be classified by genre according to their original function rather than current ownership or registration.
    well you have a point here...
    I personnaly agree in a way but let's not forget that these birds are flying under civilian reg.
    Let's not make it more complicated that it already is... like a C-47, original function was indeed military but now many of them have civilian colours and reg or take a Stinson L-5... military or not ? Most of our uploaders don't know that the majority of those birds were built for the military...etc...

    But thank you for your idea, we're always trying to improve the categories and most of all we're working on the database to correct all mistakes on these museum/warbird shots. Please fill a correction if you still see wrong infos.

    And again, leave a message to the screener when uploading if you're not sure about the category.
    Thanks again

    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • kukkudrill
    replied
    Originally posted by Omar Alex Saffe
    Good question.

    1) A NON-Flying military plane in a museum should be uploaded as :
    Genre: Military
    Airline : The Air force of the Paintscheme and NOT the name of the museum please

    2) A flying preserved military plane should be uploaded as :
    Genre : Civilian
    Airline : either Private or the organisation owning the plane.

    Now you have cases where a museum has planes in flying conditions, even if it's only a couple of time/year... in that case see 2). Note that ex- military planes flying should be uploaded with their CIVILIAN reg and not the military one.
    Hope it helps

    Best regards
    Alex
    Thanks for this because it clarifies things for me too.

    A thought about genre: would it be better to classify flying warbirds as military? Seems to me, someone browsing for military aircraft photos in the db would be more interested in warbirds than somebody browsing for airliner photos. In other words, aircraft would be classified by genre according to their original function rather than current ownership or registration.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    Hi Phil,
    I remember screening your picture of the Avro.
    The majority of ex-military planes in museum are donation or have been bought by the museum in question. So yes it is "owned" by the museum but to avoid a total mess it's way easier to go for the painscheme UNLESS it has a civilian reg... this is just to avoid the very grey area of planes in museums but still belonging to the military (like in Monino) or owned by the museum (like in the UK)... the planes 'll look exactly the same and who knows if it's owned by the museum or not...
    What we need is that if someone is looking for let's say, a German air force plane, he will get all the planes, in museum and still active and not only the ones in service.

    Now about the Warbird/Vintage... Not every plane in museum will be in the category but an Avro Vulcan was designed in 1947, first flight in 1952 and was taken out of service in 1984... that's more than 20 years ago now... So yes it's indeed vintage but it's also true that this category isn't very easy to decide... just a few exemples. Is a B-52 vintage ? better .. what about a KC-135 ? some airframe are more than 50 years old now and still flying so...
    Please leave a note to screeners when uploading if you have any doubts...
    Thank you

    Leave a comment:


  • philh
    replied
    What if it has been bought privately for the museum? I had a rejection recently for an ex mil aircraft at a museum that was privately owned but the screener rejected it because he said it should have been ticked as mil rather than civilian, even though it was privately owned.

    He also said it should have been ticked as a warbird/vintage just because it was in a museum, and the aircraft in question is a vulcan so I would still argue that this is def not even close to warbord or vintage as that should be WWII stuff etc.

    Didnt appeal as it was a grey area but I would like it cleared up just for my own sake and to help others!

    Leave a comment:


  • Propman
    replied
    Thanks for that.

    Last edited by Propman; 2007-10-19, 13:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    Good question.

    1) A NON-Flying military plane in a museum should be uploaded as :
    Genre: Military
    Airline : The Air force of the Paintscheme and NOT the name of the museum please

    2) A flying preserved military plane should be uploaded as :
    Genre : Civilian
    Airline : either Private or the organisation owning the plane.

    Now you have cases where a museum has planes in flying conditions, even if it's only a couple of time/year... in that case see 2). Note that ex- military planes flying should be uploaded with their CIVILIAN reg and not the military one.
    Hope it helps

    Best regards
    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • Propman
    started a topic Genre and "Airline" questions for the screeners

    Genre and "Airline" questions for the screeners

    If this topic has already been discussed, then apologies and could someone please direct me to the thread.

    If not, then my question is how should I classify upload shots of preserved military aircraft in military colours, but which are no longer owned by the military, but by a museum, private individual or organisation? Or, more complicatedly, where the aircraft now has a civil registration, which is more often than not, not displayed, instead bearing a genuine old military serial no.

    Are these aircraft to be classified as genre "Military" and USAF etc, or civil and "Private" owner?

    Last edited by Propman; 2007-10-19, 13:44.
Working...
X