Inconsistent screening

[wwshack]

I could have entitled this double standards but I didn't.
What is the difference between this

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6019285

and this

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6018975

and this

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6018975

and this

http://s26.photobucket.com/albums/c110/WShackleton/?action=view&current=GCBCRz_Derby_20070710_003.jpg

Oh yes, Rejection Reason(s):- Obstructing Objects / Foreground Clutter on appeal....."Admin Comments >> The plane is covered in a sheet."

Now tell me why I should feel unfairly treated.

[Longreach747]

seems like a strange rejection to me...

[seahawk]

Your pic has roughly 50% of the plane covered, the others have much less of the plane covered.

[Longreach747]

posted in crew forum.

[BA747-436]

I was the admin who made the comment, and as pointed out the plane is covered by at least 50% by a sheet. I fail to see the motive in uploading this kind of shot.....?

Id like to add that the helicopter has a very small cover over the windshield, while the second shot you compared your's to was the first picture on the net and had visable damage to it which will always make our screening criteria somewhat more lienient. I hope this has explained our decission on your photo.

[Shanwick]

Do not get too worked up about it Wallace.It is very subjective but the Seneca pic was clearly ok,the helicopter I would say 50:50.My opinion the crew were right here.

[Christobal65]

I've gotta agree with the rejection as well, not trying to knock your pic or anything but the others feel more interesting to me.