Is this a commercial operation or not?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:37 pm

This whole argument is so fu.kin stupid it should be a sticky...

Before TC would get involved someone would have to lay a complaint.

Then TC would have to interview the person who took the pictures and on and on.....

Are we to believe that every time someone rents an airplane and a passenger has a camera with them it becomes suspect that the flight is illegal???

tired of the ground · Post by **tired of the ground** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:39 pm

I'm not saying TC would become involved. But maybe someone with a 702 OC saw you loading a photographer into your plane (you can see these guys a mile away). They might not be thrilled about you squeezing their market. I believe it was AIRTIDS that was annoyed about someone doing a chisel charter when he had to put up the cash to do it legally and suggested he would call transport.

Also, even though these photos are going to be handed out for free as promotional material, promotional material is a commercial use.

Essentially look at it this way. In general, if you can pay someone to do it for you then you need an OC for it. (this doesn't always work as I know Cat Driver is going to point out that aircraft rental and advanced pilot training do not require OC's)

ragbagflyer · Post by **ragbagflyer** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:59 pm

hornblower wrote: 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.

Correct. An owner of a privately registered aircraft can pay a commercial pilot to fly it. They just can't charge anybody who's riding on the plane. As long as they don't charge passengers, it's not an air service. Lot's of companies operate aircraft this way.

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:03 pm

tired of the ground wrote: Essentially look at it this way. In general, if you can pay someone to do it for you then you need an OC for it. (this doesn't always work as I know Cat Driver is going to point out that aircraft rental and advanced pilot training do not require OC's)

You should read the rules brother, I think you are being way too general.

And what is "it" anyways?

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:14 pm

ragbagflyer wrote:
hornblower wrote: In reality if someone hires you to fly their aircraft ...
Correct. An owner of a privately registered aircraft can pay a commercial pilot to fly it. They just can't charge anybody who's riding on the plane. As long as they don't charge passengers, it's not an air service. Lot's of companies operate aircraft this way.

Not quite; an air transport service entails an " a commercial air service that is operated for the purpose of transporting persons, personal belongings, baggage, goods or cargo in an aircraft between two points", and a commercial air service is " any use of aircraft for hire or reward"

You need a ops certificate if you intend to both at the same time

spongebob · Post by **spongebob** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:56 am

commercial air service is " any use of aircraft for hire or reward

What if the pilot isn't getting paid, but doing it as a favour. There is no hire there and no reward for the pilot?

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:14 pm

You still don’t seem to be differentiating between operating an air service, and flying an aircraft for pay.

You may accept money for being a pilot if you have a commercial licence or ATPL. You may not operate a commercial air service however. Now this is where doing it in a hired aircraft gets a little sticky. Some people (TOTG and Opsman) think that if the guy who you are taking is paying for the aircraft, then you are operating a commercial air service, even though you actually received no benefit. I completely disagree.

If you go flying in a rented aircraft that someone else pays for, what is the benefit to you?? Have you received money? Gratuity? Benefit of some kind either directly or indirectly? Seems to me no. Seems to me it actually costs you time and or money. How could anyone prove you received anything when in fact you actually didn’t. And even if you accept money for being the pilot of a private aircraft, as many pilots in this country, and around the world do everyday, that action does not constitute operating a commercial air service.

All that being said (and truthfully you should look up the regs yourself), if someone like TOTG is a TC inspector, and stills believes his misinterpretation of the actual regs is the correct interpretation, there is nothing stopping TC from charging you with an offence, rightly or wrongly (wrongly in this case).

And like Cat Driver said, who really cares anyways?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:46 pm

All that being said (and truthfully you should look up the regs yourself), if someone like TOTG is a TC inspector, and stills believes his misinterpretation of the actual regs is the correct interpretation, there is nothing stopping TC from charging you with an offence, rightly or wrongly (wrongly in this case).

And therein lies the reason there is such fear of doing anything as a pilot in Canada.

All you need do is ask some of us who have been hammered by TCCA.

They think they are the law and have lost track of the fact they are supposed to regulate it fairly not act like Nazi Storm Troopers just because their bosses condone unethical behavior as a way of doing things.

But we have been over this forever, so suck it up and meekly submit to whatever your masters wish...that worked real well in Germany in the 1930's and 40's.

rd1331 · Post by **rd1331** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:24 pm

I agree with Cat that TC is not going to find out so.....whatever....

But I disagree, this is a commercial ops. If the company had the airplane and wanted you to fly it for them then fine. No biggy. But they are paying for the rental of the airplane, the CARs says right in it that you can accept money for Cost Sharing, and the passenger has to be only an incidental passenger, nothing more. But then who knows, its amazing what you can get in thankyou cards, or christmas cards, or birthday cards. Random money showing up, man i wish i got more of them.

You want to do it and not get caught, get one of those cards in the mail with a check that just happens to be close to the amount for the rental, and no questions can be asked. Seperate the money completely from the flight. Don't have them pay for the airplane, you are opening yourself up to some dumb ass TC guy that may have a grudge to grind.

l_reason · Post by **l_reason** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:39 pm

Take the pictures your self, don't bring a photographer. I took 20,000 pictures this past summer and got paid for every one of them. Send me a pm, I'll give you a quote to do the work. There are a few companies across Canada that take aerial photography.

Just for fun Google “aerial photography” (Canada only). You will find TC would have a lot of work ahead of then if they want to nail all of us.

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:51 pm

rd1331 wrote:I

But I disagree, this is a commercial ops.

I'll see your disagreement, and raise you two disagreements

The section you are referring to, is regards a private pilot's permission to receive money for the flight, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a commercial pilot charging for his services.

Guys, guys, guys, ... gotta read more carefully.

And Cat, I knew that line would be to hard to resist

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:05 pm

And Cat, I knew that line would be to hard to resist

It really is hard to resist.

It is like priests sodomizing children, when people are in a position of power and abuse or use their power to harm those who they are supposed to protect it is just plain sick....

What real difference is there between a pedophile priest and a government inspector who abuses his/her power to hurt others?

Tower C in Ottawa is in my opinion a haven for these creatures.

Ogee · Post by **Ogee** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:44 pm

Jesus, this has been an appalling thread.

I forget who it was that started this, but if your company wants you to go and take some pictures for them from a rented airplane, go ahead and do it. You are not doing anything against the law. Forget all the other complete bullshit that has been posted here.

The essential element of operating an illegal commercial air service is "holding out" to the public the offer of an aircraft for hire and reward without the proper licensing authority. That means you offer some service with an airplane which is not registered to someone who has an operating certificate and you ask for some type of payment for that. Whoever is telling you that you are operating a commercial air service by renting an airplane for your company to take photographs and by getting the rental cost reimbursed by your company had better not give up their day job to go into aviation law.

A good portion of my helicopter time has been gained by flying a helicopter for a company that shoots thousands of aerial photos on speculation and then goes door to door and sells them. I have checked with Transport Canada on whether this was a commercial air service and have been emphatically told that it was not. Here is why. There is no holding out of the use of an aircraft to take photos for the public. You couldn't find this company in the Yellow Pages, they didn't advertise aerial photo services, and the photos they shot were for themselves for resale to the public. You couldn't contact them and get them to go up and shoot a specific photo for you. All they sold to the public was photos.

I have worked for other companies and for professions like lawyers and on many occasions rented an aircraft to travel from a flying school. Most times the school directly billed the company, on occasions when they didn't I paid and put the bill on my expense account and was paid. When I was working on contract, I charged my regular hourly rate, whether I was in the air or not. Checked with Transport. Not a commercial air service.

In your case, the flying school is authorized to give you the use of an aircraft for payment. They "hold out" such aircraft to use by the public, at least those who have pilots licences. YOU cannot take payment for performing the service of flying that aircraft unless you have a commercial pilot's license, unless you would have been paid for your time anyway in which case a private license is OK. You don't need a commercial drivers license if you rent a car on company business, do you?

Here's the deal. It's a commercial air service if you somehow get your hands on an airplane and offer to let someone else use all or part of it for payment of money or something near to money. Read in carry people or cargo.

It's a commercial air service if you rent a licensed pilot an airplane without having that bullshit new license they put in a few years ago where you had to have an OC to rent airplanes to licensed pilots. You didn't have to until recently.

It's a commercial air service if you lease an airplane to someone else and either openly or in what you may think is a clever deception also provide the pilot, read in form one company that owns the airplane and another that rents pilots. Or get your wife or girlfriend to form such a company, or your dog.

If you rent a Seneca and do a weekend trip to Reno and the rental cost is $1600, and you take five gay caballeros with you, you can charge each of them $266, you're fine. If you put up a notice on the bulletin board at work offering trips to Reno to the same five people for $350, you are running an illegal commercial air service. You are "holding out" by the bulletin board notice, and you are going beyond the cost sharing exception by charging beyond the equal share between all passengers.

spongebob · Post by **spongebob** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:11 am

Thanks Ogee, that's exactly the post reply I was looking for when I posed the question.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:25 pm

Widow wrote:Are there different insurance implications should there be an accident?

Was this a stupid question? If the pilot is not working, he/she is not covered by Worker's Comp ... so if the working photographer is injured or killed, the pilot could be held liable?

Ogee · Post by **Ogee** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:02 pm

Well, anything is possible, Widow.

Workers Compensation does cover death or injury of working pilots and passengers who are flying in connection with their work. I'd don't think aerial photography such as this gets into the fine details like this.

Pilots are generally covered for liability by the aircraft owners insurance.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:56 pm

Ogee wrote:Pilots are generally covered for liability by the aircraft owners insurance.

Does that mean that the liability insurance coverage requirements for a private rental are the same as the liability insurance coverage requirements for a commercial operation?

Ogee · Post by **Ogee** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:20 am

Transport Canada requires a minimum liability coverage on an aircraft. I don't know if its different for a private or a commercial aircraft, but I do know that all aircraft must have liability coverage, just like all cars have to be insured.

Liability insurance is cheaper for a private aircraft than it is for a commercial aircraft.

The TC minimum insurance level is just that, a minimum. Many owners carry much higher limits for liability, and some customers of commercial carriers demand very much higher limits, depending on the "value" of the passengers in the eyes of the customers.

C-FABH · Post by **C-FABH** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:09 am

tired of the ground wrote: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.

I believe that's called "sightseeing" - just as if you orbited the downtown core of Toronto with your family or buddies as pax. Maybe?

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:22 pm

Ogee
I believe that you are confusing ours with the rules in the US. There is absolutely no requirement to "hold out" or publicize your air service in Canada. I believe that it should be a criterium, but it isn't. You can be charged with operating a commercial air service if you meet the definition of a "commercial air service" in Aeronautics Act. TC can do what they want since the definition is so loose.

If you really got that info (def. of a commercial air service) from TC, please post it, everyone here needs to see it and be able to use it as a clear TC based interpretation (in the event they need it to defend their actions).

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:31 pm

From the Aeronautics Act

"commercial air service" means any use of aircraft for hire or reward

and

"hire or reward" means any payment, consideration, gratuity or benefit, directly or indirectly charged, demanded, received or collected by any person for the use of an aircraft"

Definitions

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:59 pm

So when someone "RENTS" an airplane for personal use is it against the law to take pictures from the airplane?

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:31 pm

No of course not. "I reason" does it for a living. It only becomes an issue if you are also transporting a person other than a crew member (iE an equipment operator or photographer), then it becomes aerial work, that is if you are receiving "hire and reward" (whatever that is) for the operation of the aircraft.

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:33 pm

And by the way, you can just read the rules, they are not that complicated. I am really surprised at the level of understanding regarding this issue.

If anything is confusing to me, it is the meaning of "hire and reward", the rest seems straight forward.

2R · Post by 2R » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:46 pm

Which particular CAR does not allow flight below 500 feet ???
I have had months where i have never been above three hundred for the entire month