Airliners.net - why did they let this through?

[Razor61]

Having had a photo or two declined in the past just on the fact one wasn't as sharp as they would like and the other had one little dust spot....this one extracts the urine a bit. Why on earth did they let this through?

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Marines/Westland-WG-13-Lynx/0944453&tbl=photo_info&photo_nr=1&sok=WHERE__%28reg_%3D_%27XZ182%27%29_&sort=_order_by_photo_id_DESC_&prev_id=&next_id=0932284

[KarlADrage]

Rich - this was added to the database on the 22nd October 2005. Standards have risen dramatically since that time. I doubt very much it would get on under today's rules, but that doesn't mean it should be removed either.

[Lumix]

I'm sure UKAR's BJCC will be well chuffed!

Karl is correct, the A.net acceptance standards have continually improved over the years. I know some of my early shots would stand no chance today!

As for moaning about having a shot rejected for a small dustspot!! You should have checked!

[Razor61]

I wasn't moaning at all.... i was just surprised to see such a shot on airliners.net.

[Bjcc]

Three years ago, what do you expect! There a gret a deal worse that that about, and much more recent.

I have to agree about dust spots, if you get them rejected for that, then should have checked! And certainly does happen to us all.

Bernie (aka BernieC)

[Rotor]

There was still a high standard 3 Years ago and far from everything got excepted..
Saying that they accepted a malaysian Lynx of mine with the wheels missing in the long grass