AF A340 off rwy @ Douala
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Originally Posted by FlyingCroc
Bad fake, prove otherwise
Here are more photos by the same photographer on the same spotting trip. Just about all the aircraft registrations are both noted in the captions and visible on the aircraft, so anyone faking this many pictures would have had to go to a lot of trouble to get the correct aircraft.
And in any case, it would beg the question: Why would anyone bother to fake so many? You might fake one, perhaps, but the best part of a dozen? Scattered amongst other shots taken on the same trip that are plainly not faked?
Or are only some of the shots taken from this angle faked? And if so, which ones? Why? On what basis would the photographer have chosen to fake some photos while also submitting some equally good photos that were not faked?
The "faking" hypothesis just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1003359/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1004009/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1003281/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1003280/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1003279/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1003278/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1003277/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0999492/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0999193/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0998828/M/
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have missed the best one: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0998826/M/If the date is good, this plane was under AF flight safety chief command !
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a bit of a photog buff, I decided to invest some time into the question:
Are these AF photos fakes or are they real ?
This relates to 0998826 and 1003279 as compared to other photos listed:
2. The aircraft is lower and closer, thus larger.
3. New digital SLR's are capable of amazing things shutter/light-wise allowing for some quite large F-stop settings (small aperture) - giving a greater depth of field than your average camera.
4. I see people waving , looking up and covering their heads.
5. Look at both of them again - there is a faint shadow just below and forward. Notice that the sun is not fully out on these two photos.
Now let's go back to number 1.
A retired analyst I know - don't ask
- gave me a few more pointers:
I was shown shadow details, correct interference patterns where dark meets light, the accuracy of the reflections and matching color temps (K).
A bonus lesson given involved judging height differences by comparing foreground objects with others further back. Check the sock relative to the stripe on the utility building or balconies of buildings against their respective backgrounds.
Most of the photos appear to be taken from nearly the same vertical viewpoint - ruling out a higher POV being used exaggerate the aircraft's height (or in this case lack thereof).
In the end it was decided that they are most likely indeed genuine un-retouched photos. Without seeing a high resolution original - 95% sure.
I must say that despite the fact they are further along on the approach, the US 757 (1003278) gives the AF guys a good go at how low you can err go.
But the gold goes to AF
Interesting stuff really !
Are these AF photos fakes or are they real ?
1) The aircraft looks artificially put into an existing picture, maybe one of the kind you posted.
2) The aircraft ist too large compared to the rest.
3) The aircraft is crystal sharp, and so are the people, a lens cannot focus on the moving object and on the background.
4) The people are not looking in the direction of the aircraft.
5) There is no shadow of the aircraft but from the people.
2) The aircraft ist too large compared to the rest.
3) The aircraft is crystal sharp, and so are the people, a lens cannot focus on the moving object and on the background.
4) The people are not looking in the direction of the aircraft.
5) There is no shadow of the aircraft but from the people.
2. The aircraft is lower and closer, thus larger.
3. New digital SLR's are capable of amazing things shutter/light-wise allowing for some quite large F-stop settings (small aperture) - giving a greater depth of field than your average camera.
4. I see people waving , looking up and covering their heads.
5. Look at both of them again - there is a faint shadow just below and forward. Notice that the sun is not fully out on these two photos.
Now let's go back to number 1.
A retired analyst I know - don't ask
- gave me a few more pointers:I was shown shadow details, correct interference patterns where dark meets light, the accuracy of the reflections and matching color temps (K).
A bonus lesson given involved judging height differences by comparing foreground objects with others further back. Check the sock relative to the stripe on the utility building or balconies of buildings against their respective backgrounds.
Most of the photos appear to be taken from nearly the same vertical viewpoint - ruling out a higher POV being used exaggerate the aircraft's height (or in this case lack thereof).
In the end it was decided that they are most likely indeed genuine un-retouched photos. Without seeing a high resolution original - 95% sure.
I must say that despite the fact they are further along on the approach, the US 757 (1003278) gives the AF guys a good go at how low you can err go.
But the gold goes to AF
Interesting stuff really !
Last edited by vapilot2004; 28th Feb 2006 at 06:18.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AF photo
I think that all the other photos are genuine, except the AF340 one. True there is less sun, but there are shadows of the people but none from the aircraft. Also the people look in a different direction where the aircraft is. I think the aircraft was made slightly bigger and put lower in the photoshop. Maybe some photopro can prove here ifit is fake or real.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not an expert myself, FlyingCroc , but I do know that objects closer to the shadow produce darker shadows than ones that are farther away. Also, really have a good look under that 4-engined beauty - there is definately a shadow.
30+ years work for an agency known for its' .. erm . . photo work should count for something, shouldnt' it ? (ie photopro) I did mention that since hi-res originals were not available to my gentleman analyst that there is a 5% chance you are right.
Also, surely we can agree that the AF flights pictured here were not the first (nor likely the last) big-iron flights to be caught in such a great (albeit interesting) photo at this lovely locale.
regards,
vap
30+ years work for an agency known for its' .. erm . . photo work should count for something, shouldnt' it ? (ie photopro) I did mention that since hi-res originals were not available to my gentleman analyst that there is a 5% chance you are right.
Also, surely we can agree that the AF flights pictured here were not the first (nor likely the last) big-iron flights to be caught in such a great (albeit interesting) photo at this lovely locale.
regards,
vap
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe you are right
I looked at it again and again. Maybe you are right about the lens, hard to see a shadow. I also think that the spotter was there in vacation and probably would not have a motive to fake it. If this picture is genuine, man that is one scary approach And if really an AF management pilot was in it that would of course explain a lot
But what about the vortex, wouldnt there be sand flying around?
And if really an AF management pilot was in it that would of course explain a lot But what about the vortex, wouldnt there be sand flying around?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlyingCroc
If this picture is genuine, man that is one scary approach And if really an AF management pilot was in it that would of course explain a lot
But what about the vortex, wouldnt there be sand flying around?
And if really an AF management pilot was in it that would of course explain a lot But what about the vortex, wouldnt there be sand flying around?
A colleague has just met yesterday the AF flight safety chief who has answered his questions about this flight: he has confirmed the low short final approach made by his copilot and said that he had asked for the datas which are "inside the enveloppe" !!!!!It means that this enveloppe is a good one for the
AF flight safety chief !
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: In my skin
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
African ATC is unreliable.
Weather info is unreliable.
It’s only when you are very close to the ground that you can make a real runway condition assessment yourself.
Get real, the problems in this continent are known.......it will happen again!
Weather info is unreliable.
It’s only when you are very close to the ground that you can make a real runway condition assessment yourself.
Get real, the problems in this continent are known.......it will happen again!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who has visited the island (SXM) and had one of his photos questioned http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0983091/M/ I can say for sure that they are NOT faked.Jid
Too mean to buy a long personal title
Originally Posted by Jid
As someone who has visited the island (SXM) and had one of his photos questioned http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0983091/M/ I can say for sure that they are NOT faked.
My language was opaque, so my apologies for the impression that I gave.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The photos are legit. St. Maarten's ruway sits just meters from the beach. The runway is short too. Very few aircraft especially the heavies cross the threshold at 50'... thus that's why the aircraft are lower than they should be.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by captjns
The photos are legit. St. Maarten's ruway sits just meters from the beach. The runway is short too. Very few aircraft especially the heavies cross the threshold at 50'... thus that's why the aircraft are lower than they should be.
Sorry but I have landed there as B747 FO and A340 Captain many times and am not afraid of a dry 2358 meters runway's length for a safe landing without flying 50 feet under standard path at runway's threshold.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mermoz92
Sorry but I have landed there as B747 FO and A340 Captain many times and am not afraid of a dry 2358 meters runway's length for a safe landing without flying 50 feet under standard path at runway's threshold.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by captjns
So have I... as a captain... in a B727 on a wet runway cross wind 30 to 35 knot X-wind rescuing tourist from a hurricane as a captain on a B727. I was responding to a someone questioning the validity of some of the pictures.
Thank you, so there is no question on the validity of the pictures and we should go back to Douala "off runway" incident and see what can explain it in this flight safety chief context....after Toronto 
Isn'it a moronic question ?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mars
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by finessemax
.../ the A340 Air France Captain currently suspended from duty for allegedly using free style operating procedures. /...
The way he got suspended tastes as bad as it smells, and his understanding of the Toronto farce certainly has a lot to do with it.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Yaka
As far as i know this chap never destroyed any piece of equipment he was entrusted with, while one must agree that AF procedures for 340 operation are giving some pretty strange results, these days. Instead of suspending him, they should have made him write a new manual ...
The way he got suspended tastes as bad as it smells, and his understanding of the Toronto farce certainly has a lot to do with it.
The way he got suspended tastes as bad as it smells, and his understanding of the Toronto farce certainly has a lot to do with it.
Yaka, that's smart. One should think of stopping these "long-haul Air Inter" operations and fire quite a lot of responsible management pilots blacking out so many farces. But I have just learned another promotion of one of them who recently rolled out aside Libreville runway, morover a TRI one of this copilot who made the worst calomnious allegations against this brilliant Captain !