aerial photography

[conky]

Just looking for someone to clearify something for me. A friend of mine is a photographer for a major newspaper and he told me they were looking for a pilot to take some photographers up for aerial photography. Its not on a regular basis just every so often they need to get an aerial shot of a major event ie. parade, fires, car accidents, traffic. So he gave my contact info to the editor of the newspaper.

I would have to rent an aircraft from the local flying school, and the newspaper would cover the cost of the rental. I would not personally be getting paid for this. I have a CPL and I am current on the aircraft I would be renting. I was under the impression that unless I am an employee of the flight school or on the OC I cannot accept renumeration for the cost of the rental.

Can I do this legally? any input is appreciated

[human garbage]

Aerial photography is solidly 702 if you are being renumerated. No cash or consideration given and you might be able to dodge TC on it.

I would be very careful. If you are judged to be doing commercial work, you can fall afoul of the OC of the renting entity. They will also try and make the case that you required a PPC as well. It really depends on if and who finds out and the position they take.

I personally wouldn't risk it. There was a $75,000 fine given in the Pacific region for performing unauthorized aerial work a few years back. Granted it was many flights and it was aerial remote sensing as opposed to photography, but not something I would want to gamble on...

[Hedley]

I was told by Transport that I had to have a 702 OC
if I even wanted to let my friends parachute out of my
aircraft, with no money changing hands!

I guess I'm not too bright - I don't understand how
something that doesn't involve commerce can be
a "commercial air service" but that's the way it is.

[summitx]

Ahh the photo thing. I don't think you can go there as the photos are being used to generate revenue. You need an oc. I've looked at this reg a bunch but still totally clear on it. For me I have a cpl and fly my own aircraft and I think I can take photos and use them for my business but I have to do the photography.

[Hornblower]

If you take the photos yourself, and do not have a photographer on board with you, you can charge whatever you want. It would not be a regulated type of commercial air service, and there would be no need for a 702 or any other type of operating certificate.

Go ahead, ask me how I know.

[Ralliart]

Why on Earth would you willingly offer your services as a Commercial Pilot for free so that someone else can profit?

[AOtterstrom]

This came up on my commercial ride and the examiner was very clear that although you wouldn’t be benefiting financially you would be with hours in your log book and because of this transport would deem it commercial flying.

[wxguy]

This might help:

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.

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

(a) is employed on a full-time basis by the employer for purposes other than flying;
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

(b) conducts the flight on the employer’s business and the flight is incidental to the execution of the holder’s duties; and
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

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

(i) in the case of an aircraft owned by the holder, is paid at a rate based on distance travelled or number of hours flown that does not exceed the total of the holder’s direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, or
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

(ii) in the case of a rental aircraft, does not exceed the total of the holder’s rental costs, direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight.
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

There are a few more sections to this CARS number, see the link below

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... htm#401_26

[HS-748 2A]

In respect to the CAR above, Conky is a CPL. The CAR is intended to outline the limitations of a PPL.

Really, what Conky doesn't have is an O.C.

Would it be considered that the same limitations apply?

Probably not for 702, but I'm not sure.

[185_guy]

Just do it. Don't tell everybody what you are doing. Go have fun, be safe and do some flying.

Besides, how do you know what your friend is going to do with the pictures he takes from the plane that you rented to go flying, and he happened to go with you, and happened to loose some cash in the seat when he got out?
Someone once told me its easier to beg for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.

[wxguy]

In respect to the CAR above, Conky is a CPL. The CAR is intended to outline the limitations of a PPL.

Really, what Conky doesn't have is an O.C.

Would it be considered that the same limitations apply?

Probably not for 702, but I'm not sure.

My bad, I missed that.

[5x5]

Reading the original post, he is asking about doing it for a business (the Newspaper) with passengers who are not friends or personal associates, and are only doing it for their profit. Very difficult to rationalize this one as it is clearly a business transaction. If he were to do it, he would essentially be working for free and taking business away from some small legitimate operator struggling to make a go of it.

[ahramin]

In respect to the CAR above, Conky is a CPL. The CAR is intended to outline the limitations of a PPL.

Really, what Conky doesn't have is an O.C.

Would it be considered that the same limitations apply?

Probably not for 702, but I'm not sure.

My bad, I missed that.

A CPL is also a PPL. If you can do it with a PPL, you can do it with a CPL. However the CAR quoted has nothing to do with the question as that was for a rental, and the carrying of persons would not be incidental to the purpose of the flight.

[conky]

5x5, the photographer I would be taking up is a friend of mine. We have flown together several times just for the hell of it and split the cost. His employer often needs aerial shots of things and is willing to pay for the rental for me and him to go flying. Sure the paper would probably make money off the photographs. But i dont see how I am taking away business from a small operator? They are still making a profit from the rental are they not? As far as working for free, im not sure I understand your point of view. For the record I am employed but often rent aircraft to be ablt to go flying with friends and family.
I dont see what the harm is in letting my friends company pay for a flight that more than likely I would have paid for anyways, the only difference I see is that while the company is footing the bill for the flight we have a task to get done instead of the usual dicking around for the hell of it.

Thanks for the other replies, I was pretty sure that it wasnt legal...the part about "incidental to the flight" is tough to get around. Im not going to risk it the newspaper would put it on their expense account, would want reciepts and records of where we flew and why. That would be tough to explain to someone at transport as incidental to the flight

[black hole]

The rules say that you can't even take your GF to visit her grandmother; and get a hummer on the way, as it might be construed as being a benefit for service

[Hornblower]

How many answers are there to a question that wasn't asked?

[shitdisturber]

What it all boils down to is that TC will consider it to be a chisel charter and they will go after you if they get wind of it. I've heard of a couple of flight schools in this area getting themselves in hot water for doing similar work because they didn't have a 702 OC. Probably 99 times out of 100, you'd get away with it; but if these pictures are going to be published in a newspaper you're increasing the odds against you. There aren't many, but some people in Transport can read you know.

[5x5]

Conky, I didn't mean to offend but I do (I guess obviously) have strong feelings on this.

they were looking for a pilot to take some photographers up for aerial photography.

Also sorry that this led me to believe you would be taking other people besides your friend up for photo sessions.

As to working for free, an operator with an OC gets more money than just aircraft rental. They also pay a pilot who's typically pretty keen on getting whatever hours possible into each months billing round. So you actually would be affecting someone else's livelihood to some degree.

Hope that clarifies it a bit.

[Hedley]

affecting someone else's livelihood

Transport couldn't care less about that.

As a rule of thumb, when you offer a pilot and an aircraft
together to the public as a package, Transport's antennae
starts twitching, and you hear words like "commercial air service"
even if there is no commerce involved, which is a bit weird,
but there it is.

[Widow]

This seems like as good a thread for my question as any, and I hope no one will be offended ...

Recently, there was a fatal helicopter crash that had me thinking about all the discussions I'd seen on this sort of question.

The accident pilot apparently held a CPL, and the heli was privately owned (no OC, right?). He was flying passengers around for exactly this type of thing - to take aerial pics. Not just one passenger, but various passengers on seperate trips. I have no idea if he accepted renumeration for this, but find it difficult to believe that the employed reporters collecting visual aids for news broadcasts, etc., were not paying for the service, and certainly they would have been paid for the pics/vids they collected.

Either way - pilot paid or unpaid, and I mean no disrespect to the deceased, would this scenario have been considered legal?

[ahramin]

Hornblower check pms.

[conky]

5x5, no offence taken,

Currently the newspaper has no one to do aerial photography, my friend just mentioned me as a way for me and him to go up and not have to pay out of our own pockets. If he hadn't mentioned me it would have been business as usual for the paper and they wouldnt have had anyone taking aerial shots. So I'm not really taking away business or hours from anyone. Im actually bringing more business to the FTU. Regardless, if a friend wants to go up flying with me am I supposed to say "oh no I cant, I'm taking hours away from a flight instructor at the school, you should go flying with him instead of me"?

It doesn't matter anyways because Im not doing it.

[Hedley]

Trying to get away from the "protect my job" union angle ...

There is a crucial question that needs answering:

Is it a commercial air service if no money changes hands?

For example, Young Eagle flights. Transport might maintain
that a Young Eagle flight was a "commercial air service"
because a pilot and an aircraft was offered to the public
as a package. But no money changed hands - so was
it really commercial?

IMHO, you need money to change hands for it to be
"commercial". Transport might like to outlaw Young
Eagle flights (by requiring that they get an AOC), but
I'm not convinced the law empowers them to do that.

Transport has told me in the past that I require an
AOC if I wish to allow my friend to parachute out of
my privately-owned aircraft, even if he doesn't pay
me - Transport says I need a CAR 702 AOC for
"aerial work" as a commercial air service.

But if no money changes hands, how can it be commercial?

Sigh.

I get the feeling that in socialist Canada, aviation is a
SIN - something to do with class anger, and being
perceived as elitist. And, if you commit aviation, you
cannot avoid sooner or later committing a SIN and
sooner or later you will be caught and punished for
being a SINNER.

People say Canadians aren't religious, but I'm not so sure.

[Shiny Side Up]

There is a crucial question that needs answering:

Is it a commercial air service if no money changes hands?

For example, Young Eagle flights. Transport might maintain
that a Young Eagle flight was a "commercial air service"
because a pilot and an aircraft was offered to the public
as a package. But no money changed hands - so was
it really commercial?

IMHO, you need money to change hands for it to be
"commercial".

Then it would really depend on your interpretation of the word "commercial". The TC website searching through all its definitions doesn't give its lawful interpretation of the word interestingly enough. Technically by your definition I should be able to run a flying service by training monkeys to fly and take payment in banana form - since no money is changing hands, I'm not running a commercial service. A little far fetched, but you get the point.

Transport might like to outlaw Young
Eagle flights (by requiring that they get an AOC), but
I'm not convinced the law empowers them to do that.

It doesn't, though there's a line to cross there. If said young eagle flights start really getting into the realm of flight training, then you might run afoul of the regs regarding that activity. Sightseeing you might note doesn't fall under the umbrella of aerial work - unlike aerial photography or...

Transport has told me in the past that I require an
AOC if I wish to allow my friend to parachute out of
my privately-owned aircraft, even if he doesn't pay
me - Transport says I need a CAR 702 AOC for
"aerial work" as a commercial air service.

The "aerial work" you're doing in this case can be construed as a service that you are trading to someone - albeit its more you giving and him recieving. A good lawyer could probably get you out of this one.

I get the feeling that in socialist Canada, aviation is a
SIN - something to do with class anger, and being
perceived as elitist. And, if you commit aviation, you
cannot avoid sooner or later committing a SIN and
sooner or later you will be caught and punished for
being a SINNER.

Possibly it does, and is the chief reason of the differences between us up here and our friends south of the border. You might be on to the root of the problems with the regulator in this country.

[summitx]

There was a real good clarification on this printed in the copa paper about a year or so ago. I can't find it, wish there was a copa wizard here to attach it. This is such a gray area in many cases its hard to know if your legal or not. The photo thing with friends that may end up being used in a magazine or paper is much different than the situation widow describes. I doubt there is any question that one was a commercial air service under the regs.