gdinscoll - post screening\rejection advice

[gdinscoll]

Yes, we use the registration as displayed on the aircraft.

https://www.jetphotos.com/registration/NL98CF

But as I said, "NL98582" as registration doesn't exist, if you check google. Whereas "N98582" does exist. This page covers this aircraft http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p51re...1-4474976.html

This aircraft has G-DAKS displayed on the aircraft, but was a fake reg. https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9781406

[dlowwa]

Hi,

Again, another bad info, this time I have double checked everything . https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8835302
I didn't get an email so couldn't see what was the rejected bad info exactly. But I am guessing it is the registration? Because the screener see's it has "NL98582" on its tail, but that is not an actual registration, whereas N98582 is.

http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p51re...1-4474976.html

Yes, we use the registration as displayed on the aircraft.

https://www.jetphotos.com/registration/NL98CF

[gdinscoll]

Hi,

Again, another bad info, this time I have double checked everything . https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8835302
I didn't get an email so couldn't see what was the rejected bad info exactly. But I am guessing it is the registration? Because the screener see's it has "NL98582" on its tail, but that is not an actual registration, whereas N98582 is.

http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p51re...1-4474976.html

[dlowwa]

Would you have any avice on this, I am trying to get the horizon level, and I've rotated it off the pole behind the aircraft.. would this be correct or does it need an adjustment purely off the ground?

I'd use a combination of the vertical references (pole & fence), in which case looks like it needs a little CW.

[gdinscoll]

Would you have any avice on this, I am trying to get the horizon level, and I've rotated it off the pole behind the aircraft.. would this be correct or does it need an adjustment purely off the ground?

[gdinscoll]

Did you check the info before uploading, or even after the rejection? It says Navy on the aircraft, and 15-3016 is not a valid AF reg, so...

Apologies.. thanks.

[dlowwa]

Evening,

I had this rejected. I assume the categories missing was Warbird/Vintage - I didn't tick this because it was built after 1970 but after I checked the guidelines it says any aircraft in a museum should have this ticked, fine.
But the bad info airline/registration I am a little confused, can a screener assist what is wrong? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8831172

Cheers

Did you check the info before uploading, or even after the rejection? It says Navy on the aircraft, and 15-3016 is not a valid AF reg, so...

[gdinscoll]

Evening,

I had this rejected. I assume the categories missing was Warbird/Vintage - I didn't tick this because it was built after 1970 but after I checked the guidelines it says any aircraft in a museum should have this ticked, fine.
But the bad info airline/registration I am a little confused, can a screener assist what is wrong? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8831172

Cheers

[dlowwa]

Morning,

would this these baggage belts be enough to cause an obstruction rejection?

Cheers

Normally yes, but looks like a scan, so there might be some leeway if that frame/color scheme is rare (fewer that ~5 images) on the DB.

[gdinscoll]

Morning,

would this these baggage belts be enough to cause an obstruction rejection?

Cheers

[dlowwa]

Good afternoon,

I'm looking at uploading this photo, would it be suitable as a ramp shot, or an aircraft shot and just use the details of the 777

Cheers

Use the 777 please.

[gdinscoll]

Good afternoon,

I'm looking at uploading this photo, would it be suitable as a ramp shot, or an aircraft shot and just use the details of the 777

Cheers

[gdinscoll]

Evening,

I had this rejected for bad info but screener left no additional comments as to what was bad and I am unsure as everything on my end seems correct. Can a screener see what the
"bad" info was? https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=8752823

Thanks

[gdinscoll]

For future reference, that would fall in the 'Cut Off' rejection category.

Gotcha, thanks!

[dlowwa]

I just thought "cropping" rejection was if part of the aircraft cut off, which is why I thought the screener may have thought the wingtip was chopped.

For future reference, that would fall in the 'Cut Off' rejection category.