Is this a commercial operation or not?

spongebob · Post by **spongebob** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:47 pm

I was approached by a friend that would like me to rent an airplane from a local flight school and carry a photographer to take pictures for some promotional material for his company. I would not get paid (but I do hold an ATPL), but his company would pay for the rental of the aircraft and the photographer and all the pictures that he/she would take. I don't intend to go below 500 feet (as per CARs). Now, my question to you is: is this legal to do without a commercial operator's certificate? The school has one, but I'm only renting the airplane as I'm not an employee of the school. But, I'm also not making any money from this and neither is my buddy's company (he won't be selling the pictures, just giving them out as gifts to clients/prospective clients) Am I missing another angle here? What if in this situation, I did get paid for my time? I will call Transport and ask, but my guess is that the answer will vary depending on whom I ask. Just would like everyone's opinion and arguments for and against before I make the call.

Thanks for your input

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:00 pm

flyincanuck · Post by **flyincanuck** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:18 pm

grey area, and you're right, you'll get different responses from TC.

I say it's not, as long as you're not getting paid.

"tipped" maybe?

check out 401.28...talks about flight reimbursement. its based on the holder of a private licence, but an ATPL holder can exercise the privileges of a CPL, and a CPL can exercise...etc, etc, etc.

don't crash and you'll be alright.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:44 pm

I don't believe the paranoia that exists in Canadian aviation.

What do they do to you people to induce such fear?

Highsea · Post by **Highsea** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:09 pm

I though photograph was one of the few things that didn't need a OC and can be done on a Private Aircraft?

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:32 pm

Get the company to pay for the rental directly. Then there is no question of you being reimbursed or not. It's really that simple. Where does it say that the PIC has to pay for the rental???

IF taking pictures is considered as commercial work, then there are a lot of airlines that need to be shut down for pax taking pics through their windows without having that particular form of op on their AOC.

Sheesh...

Cat, lets go grab a beer.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:40 pm

Sheesh...

Cat, lets go grab a beer.

I had to quit drinking booze 22 years ago, but reading the naked fear of Transport Canada a lot of pilots in Canada have I might have to take up drinking again to escape from this B.S.

Ref Plus 10 · Post by **Ref Plus 10** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:59 pm

opsman wrote:In order to operate an aircraft for any reward including the rental cost requires a commercial operation certificate. I also sense from your comments that there has been some discussion regarding you receiving some monies. This is no allowed. The flying school can do the trip as is can be considered as sight seeing which is allowed under FTU O.C. You however can not be reimbursed for the aircraft rental. Having a CPL or an ATPL only allows one to be employed as a pilot in a commercial operation. Hope this answers your question.

So by that logic, the next time a friend and I rent an airplane and go somewhere, he/she is not legally allowed to contribute half of the cost without me setting up a commercial operation?? Sorry Opsman, pretty sure you're wrong on that one, however, as has been said, flying for reward is no-no...breaking even is a different story

spongebob · Post by **spongebob** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:16 pm

I'm glad there's a good discussion on this topic. It's another gray area in the TC world, but I wanted some opinions before going out and doing it.

Now, for my opinion, I also believe that someone else paying for your flying is a non-issue. It's not for reward, you're not gaining any monies from the flight.

I also believe that you SHOULDN'T need an OC for this situation. There's no money being made directly from this flight except for a third party (the photographer, who Transport doesn't monitor) and there's no special requirements (low-flying) needed to complete the flight.

furious george · Post by **furious george** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:31 pm

Spongebob,
I know this is unrelated to your original question, but as far as you know, is the photographer going to be making money off the pictures they're taking?

flyinphil · Post by **flyinphil** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:35 pm

When it comes to Transport, Don't ask, they might give you an answer you don't like.

This would not be a commercial operation, but I wouldn't draw attention to yourself by announcing your plans. Some busy body asswipe will certainly cause you grief.

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:57 pm

I'll go along with what someone else said; have the company pay for the rental of the aircraft directly to the FTU. That makes you bullet proof as you're not in any way getting any sort of reward; should they somewhere down the road decide to give you a Christmas present that's nobody's business but your own. As has been stated as well, don't ask TC anything! In a situation like that if you ask three different people this question you'll get four different answers; the fourth because at least one will very carefully cover their ass by telling you both yes and no.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:13 pm

Are there different insurance implications should there be an accident?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:48 pm

spongebob.....if your license is valid just go rent the fu.kin airplane and go flying with the passenger..

Where you get the money to rent the airplane is your affair.

If your passenger wants to take pictures and you are willing to let them whats the problem?

spongebob · Post by **spongebob** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:01 pm

Thanks Cat! I whole heartedly agree. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something, and so far this discussion has supported my thoughts exactly. I wanted second (and more) opinions to see if I was the only one who thought this way.

Ref Plus 10 · Post by **Ref Plus 10** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:08 pm

So if someone in the company has a licence, then we wouldn't discussing this thread.

...definite grey area..

I'll refer you to CAR 401.28, which I believe you already know, having made the above comment.

Aeroplanes and Helicopters - Reimbursement of Costs Incurred in Respect of a Flight

401.28(1) The holder of a private pilot licence shall not act as the pilot-in-command of an aeroplane or helicopter for hire or reward unless the conditions set out in subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5), as applicable, are met.
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

(2) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement for costs incurred in respect of a flight if the holder
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

(a) is the owner or operator of the aircraft;
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

(b) conducts the flight for purposes other than hire or reward;
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

(c) carries passengers only incidentally to the purposes of the flight; and
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

(d) receives a reimbursement that
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

(i) is provided only by the passengers referred to in paragraph (c), and

(ii) is for the purpose of sharing costs for fuel, oil and fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, as applicable.

spongebob · Post by **spongebob** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:09 pm

Opsman,

Interesting link. I might have to re-read that a few times, but sounds like one person's opinion to me. Damnit, I hate CARs. So much is left to interpretation, but if you do interprete wrong (according to one inspector) TC will fine you. What a joke!

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:13 pm

spongebob...

Flying is so clusterfu.ked with rules and regulations that if you were to really try and figure out what you can and can not do you would need a law degree..and even then you would not really be sure what you can do.

Keep your life simple by using common sense and make sure you fly safe and live a long life.

Ref Plus 10 · Post by **Ref Plus 10** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:32 pm

Agreed

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:13 pm

opsman wrote: Having a CPL or an ATPL only allows one to be employed as a pilot in a commercial operation. Hope this answers your question.

What a sack of horseshit!

I guess the pilots for the all the oil company private jets, and any other private aircraft, are all criminals?????

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:25 pm

With a commercial licence you are allowed to fly for hire and reward. The type of flying you do is dependant on the licence you hold.

I would tend to disagree with Cat on this point: Don’t rent the plane, get the guy to rent the plane, and accept whatever he decides to pay you for the services of a commercial pilot. In this way, he is renting a private plane for his own purposes and for supporting his own business affairs, much like pretty well all the other private business aircraft in Canada, … no in the world. You would be his employee (part time or contract).

tired of the ground · Post by **tired of the ground** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:58 pm

This is not a grey area. If you as a commercial pilot or otherwise is getting paid to fly someone around and take pictures you require a 702 OC. Even if you aren't getting paid you require the 702 OC because the pictures are for a commercial purpose.

What if this same corporation wanted to rent you a King Air so they could sell a couple tickets to go to florida? You probably wouldn't have even asked weather that was allowed.

I think if you take your buddies for a flight, no-one is going to get pissy. You are going anyways and they can share your cost. The problem is you weren't planning on circling over some guys farm or whatever for 30 mintues.

Of course you could always do it, then wait for transport to ask where the pictures came from. You'll be fine when you explain that the internet said it was ok.

spongebob · Post by **spongebob** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:08 pm

Tired, I agree with your post if the company was selling the pictures. This company wouldn't be selling them and I wouldn't be getting paid (except for cost of rental of A/C, not a penny more). They would be giving them out free of charge. That's the dilemma (in my mind). This company is not a photography company, nor an aviation company. It just wants to take a few pictures from the air and hand them out (free of charge) to clients.

edited for clarification

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:08 pm

Of course you could always do it, then wait for transport to ask where the pictures came from.

How would TC become involved?

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:30 pm

tired of the ground wrote:This is not a grey area. If you as a commercial pilot or otherwise is getting paid to fly someone around and take pictures you require a 702 OC. Even if you aren't getting paid you require the 702 OC because the pictures are for a commercial purpose.

What if this same corporation wanted to rent you a King Air so they could sell a couple tickets to go to florida? You probably wouldn't have even asked weather that was allowed.

Disagree completely. It is the guy selling tickets on the King Air that would be operating the commercial air service. Of course that would not necessarily mean that TC would not charge you. Sometimes they just throw something out and see if it sticks. In reality if someone hires you to fly their aircraft you are permitted to do so, and be paid for it. Just don't operate an "air transport service" without an operating certificate, which is something completely different from flying an aircraft for hire and reward.

As for the aerial photos, it must be a COMMERCIAL air service to be caught in that definition of aerial work, and it would be easily argued that since the privileges of his licence allow him to work for money (see CAR 401), the reward he is receiving is for the act of flying the aircraft, not for operating a commercial air service.