Is it legal for a PPL to "sell" rides in his own plane?

[AlbertaRunning]

Trying to clear something up here.

Locally to me, a guy sells "plane rides" in his four-seat floatplane for $200 an hour. He advertises and sells gift certificates online.

However, he only holds a PPL and boasts his "1000 hours on type" as an accolade. He's currently advertising for the summer season.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he can't do this, right?

I complained to TC last year but they didn't seem interested in pursuing. I might try again.

[gustind]

Super illegal. Straight to jail for him.

TC.PNRInvestigation-EnqueteRPN.TC@tc.gc.ca

[PilotDAR]

You're correct, it is illegal. It also very likely violates the terms of the aircraft insurance, which could be a much more serious problem.

[piperdriver]

It is illegal. I am surprised Transport Canada did not pursue this matter when you informed them.

[JasonE]

Perhaps "help" the guy out and advertise in more places for him to get TC's attention

There was a guy at the cottage a few years ago going around trying to sell aerial photos of everyone's property. When I asked him for his AOC he took off pretty quick!

[Bede]

There was a guy at the cottage a few years ago going around trying to sell aerial photos of everyone's property. When I asked him for his AOC he took off pretty quick!

Doing aerial photography without an AOC does not contravene the CAR's.

[Bede]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he can't do this, right?

I complained to TC last year but they didn't seem interested in pursuing. I might try again.

Very illegal. https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 3/index.do

[JasonE]

Doing aerial photography without an AOC does not contravene the CAR's.

I knew he didn't have commercial registration or license anyways...I've never studied the commercial material but it is clear from PPL that you can't make any money flying with it.

[digits_]

Doing aerial photography without an AOC does not contravene the CAR's.

I knew he didn't have commercial registration or license anyways...I've never studied the commercial material but it is clear from PPL that you can't make any money flying with it.

That's a tricky one. If you were a travelling plumber flying into lodges to fix toilets, you could do it with a PPL.

Aerial photography does require a plane, but photography does not.

One could argue that a travelling plumber would also require a plane.

The distinction might be that the plumber is not earning money while flying, yet the aerial photographer is doing part of his money earning while flying.

Curious what other opinions are.

[broken_slinky]

There was a guy at the cottage a few years ago going around trying to sell aerial photos of everyone's property. When I asked him for his AOC he took off pretty quick!

Doing aerial photography without an AOC does not contravene the CAR's.

So where's the TC "gotcha" then? Aerial photography is clearly listed as Aerial work and considered a 702 operation in TP4711. A 702 operation is one of the CAR rules. Taking photos in itself from a plane definitely doesn't. If so, everyone who's ever snapped a photo out of a plane window would get a spanking. Is it that the guy tried to sell the photos?

[AlbertaRunning]

I'm the OP here. Seems TC have over six weeks to reply, to meet their "service standards". The issue is that this pilot is actively marketing his flights and could potentially fly dozens and dozens of other people before TC get involved. Is there a quicker way to get their attention? I assume civil police can't do anything if I inform them?

[digits_]

Post a link to the ad here. There are some TC people on avcanada.

[AlbertaRunning]

Sure: https://ukrcanada.com/uk/ads/2269/

[JasonE]

It's posted on such an obscure website (likely on purpose) for TC to find. They probably just need a little help finding it. Give them some time if you have reported it, they are likely behind.

[digits_]

That ad is also 2 or 4 years old, depending on the date format used.

[AlbertaRunning]

The ad pops back up and down often. I just grabbed a cached version for demo purposes. He's still active as folks are posting on Reddit discussing their flights with him, as recently as this weekend.

[digits_]

Oh my, he's even in the yellow pages. Airplane registration confirms the plane is privately registered and linked to the same name as advertised in the ad.

[AlbertaRunning]

I hope TC takes it seriously.

[digits_]

I hope TC takes it seriously.

They should. If not, I'm going to start doing the same

[Squaretail]

So where's the TC "gotcha" then? Aerial photography is clearly listed as Aerial work and considered a 702 operation in TP4711. A 702 operation is one of the CAR rules. Taking photos in itself from a plane definitely doesn't. If so, everyone who's ever snapped a photo out of a plane window would get a spanking. Is it that the guy tried to sell the photos?

While aerial photography may be considered "aerial work" it doesn't necessarily fall under the mandate of 702.

702.01 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Subpart applies in respect of the operation of an aeroplane or helicopter in aerial work involving

(a) the carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members;

(b) the carriage of helicopter Class B, C or D external loads;

(c) the towing of objects; or

(d) the dispersal of products.

Because it would be nearly impossible to police everyone in an airplane with a camera, this is by design. Note that (a) applies if one carries a photographer. Technically speaking, the CARs specification of "aerial photography" is behind the times. Since very few people are still using film, photography is a very limited description, if they wished to regulate the increasing amount of this type of "aerial work" they need to talk in terms of data collection. But I digress.

There are a lot of guys out there hawking photos taken while flying as PPLs with privately registered aircraft. Hilariously, they're also really territorial, I saw two competitors get into a fist fight once when they happened to end up getting fuel at the same place.

[Bede]

Doing aerial photography without an AOC does not contravene the CAR's.

I knew he didn't have commercial registration or license anyways...I've never studied the commercial material but it is clear from PPL that you can't make any money flying with it.

Not true. There are many ways a PPL can make money with a plane. They can sell minnows, take pictures, stake mineral claims, ag flying, etc. What they can't do is fly passengers or cargo for remuneration (with the exceptions listed in the CARs).

There is a company without an AOC that has been operating for years with a fleet of Cessna 150's that flies around taking pictures of farms and then the sales people go door to door trying to sell them. Another one goes and collects minnows and then delivers them to the lodges and sells them there. On the other hand, if the company sold the minnows and then went and delivered cargo, that would not be legal.

[PilotDAR]

I went through this with TC years ago for a client with an atmospheric research airplane. The logic TC gave me was very simple: The airplane flies, who pays? The owner; fine. The flight produces a product of value, who is paying for that product? If the owner pays for the flight, and keeps the product with no revenue return, the flight is most likely private. If the product of the flight creates revenue (other than some provisions for shared costs, which are defined), it is commercial, and regulated as such. My client did not sell the research data at all, it was for their internal use only, so private. I'm sure that people can cite exceptions, but that's the simple theme.

If a photographer sells a photo from the air, that was a product of the flight = commercial. If the plumber arrives to a cottage. ties up the plane, goes in the cottage and plumbs, the plumbing is not a product of the flight = private.

[photofly]

I went through this with TC years ago
...
If a photographer sells a photo from the air, that was a product of the flight = commercial and regulated as such.

I think if you look carefully into this there are two things to be concerned with. Does the pilot have a CPL, and is the aircraft operated under an OC?

I believe it's fairly clear from 700.02 that aerial photography (conducted by a crew member) doesn't need an OC.

I also think it would be very hard to maintain an argument that someone selling photos they took in the air would have engaged in acting as pilot-in-command "for hire and reward" - the action of being pilot-in-command was very clearly incidental to thing or act for which a reward was received.

Here is a tribunal case where a pilot lost an appeal against an enforcement action for low flying during aerial photography without an OC.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tatc/doc/2 ... 93158.html
It seems fairly settled that TC doesn't require an OC for aerial photography.

[Squaretail]

I believe it's fairly clear from 700.02 that aerial photography (conducted by a crew member) doesn't need an OC.

Yes, though there is a bit of clarification that is required. If the photo is taken by a flight crew member. However, if the equipment operator (photographer) is crew, but not flight crew, then you do need a OC.

I've gotten the idea that TC mandate is to protect the unwitting non-pilots from the actions of pilots.

Here is a tribunal case where a pilot lost an appeal against an enforcement action for low flying during aerial photography without an OC.

Technically speaking, to engage in low flying of the kind in question one doesn't need a 702 OC but can do it under a SFOC (Special Flight Operations Certificate) if the aircraft is operated privately as per 603.65.

[photofly]

I don’t agree. 702.03 says “no person other than a crew member is carried on board, not “no person other than a flight crew member”. If the flight is an aerial photography flight the the photographer is assigned the duty of photography during the flight and is clearly a crew member under the definition of “crew member”.

A photographer can’t be carried on a positioning flight to where photographs are to be taken without an OC because then they are a passenger, and there is a tribunal case that makes that clear. Nor can photography equipment be carried to such a place. I’ll post details of the case later if nobody beats me to it.