Aerial Photography Legal with CFI?

Ron Levy said:
Except that the problem was that as a PP, you could not command the flight in the first place, which is why you were hiring the CP to fly as PIC.
Click to expand...

Not true, only hiring the CP to fly while I take pictures, the rest of the time I'm good. There is no rule I know of that says a flight cannot serve more than one purpose.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
I haven't seen 91.147 requirements mentioned anywhere in the decisions and opinions regarding aerial survey and photography operations. In the Shamborska letter, a FBO asked the chief counsel as to what is required to provide a plane to a radio station for traffic reporting. He was told that he needs 100hr inspections and cautioned to return to his point of origin for each flight to remain within the airwork exemption.
91.147 specifically applies to 'nonstop commercial air tours' operated under 119.1(e)(2) and doesn't refer to other airwork peformed under 119.1(e)(4).

Also, under 119.1(e)(4)(iii), aerial photography is excluded from the requirements of part 135*.

So I am not sure why the two regulations keep getting mentioned.

*unless the photographer or equipment is dropped off somewhere along the way. Fuel or peepee stops are allowed under the recent Bonilla letter.
Click to expand...
After review, it appears you are correct -- the aircraft operator can provide both plane and pilot for aerial photography without 91.147 or Part 135 ops, subject to the limits discussed in the Shamborska and Sapp letters. Since the pilot is being compensated, a CP or better and Second Class medical are required, along with a 100-hour inspection on the plane because there is carriage of a passenger for hire.

However, doing this as an alleged instructional flight with a CFI lacking a Third Class medical would not fly.
 
Ron Levy said:
After review, it appears you are correct -- the aircraft operator can provide both plane and pilot for aerial photography without 91.147 or Part 135 ops, subject to the limits discussed in the Shamborska and Sapp letters. Since the pilot is being compensated, a CP or better and Second Class medical are required, along with a 100-hour inspection on the plane because there is carriage of a passenger for hire.

However, doing this as an alleged instructional flight with a CFI lacking a Third Class medical would not fly.
Click to expand...

Agree on all points.

They get very picky with any kind of 'dual purpose' operation and typically the higher standards prevail (e.g. Infrared survey and dropping off the camera operator at the site of a hot-spot --> 135).

Interestingly, there are times when you can't do two things at the same time when you could do either separately, e.g. scattering ashes and taking a pax along.
 
bqmassey said:
Every time I started reading through my FAR/AIM I start to get aggravated to the point I just have to put it down.

Why does every agency feel the need to regulate the **** out of everything. Flying should not be this complicated.
Click to expand...

It's only complicated because people like us look for ways around the rules. If you want to CHARTER a photo mission then find a 135 op. if you want to charter a ride cross country find a 135 op.

If you and your buddy want to go get a hamburger and split costs be my guest. But don't advertise for buddies to fly with you for a fee.
 
Doggtyred said:
It's only complicated because people like us look for ways around the rules. If you want to CHARTER a photo mission then find a 135 op. if you want to charter a ride cross country find a 135 op.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you want to go on a photo or survey mission, all you need is to go to your local FBO and rent a plane and a pilot for that express purpose. This type of flight can extend beyond the 25nm limitation of a 91.147 LOA and may include stops for fuel or passenger comfort (but it has to return to the point of origin with photographer and all equipment on board). For the FBO it is advisable to document everything very well in case there are questions about the character of the flight down the line (If you are the technician for the local soil conservation district, there is a log of which county ditches were photographed and the bill for the flight was sent to the county treasurers office, it is certainly easier to prove that it was a legit survey flight than if you are a out of town tourist who paid cash for a trip to the grand canyon).
 
weilke said:
Actually, if you want to go on a photo or survey mission, all you need is to go to your local FBO and rent a plane and a pilot for that express purpose. This type of flight can extend beyond the 25nm limitation of a 91.147 LOA and may include stops for fuel or passenger comfort (but it has to return to the point of origin with photographer and all equipment on board).
Click to expand...
...and only for those needs. They can't get out and take pictures or anything else even if they get back in and return to the point of origin -- that would become a 135 flight. And I think the FAA used the phrase "physiological needs," not just "passenger comfort," which I believe would include lunch. Just don't take pictures of the food. :wink2:
 
Sorry to drag this on...

I'm trying to figure out the regs here. It's been a good learning experience.

With the following conditions
  • I have PP-ASEL certificate
  • Instructor is CFI and Commercial rated
  • Aircraft is the instructor's aircraft, and is current on annual and 100hr
  • I will be sole-manipulator of the controls except when shooting photos

It seems that it would be legal for me to conduct aerial photography for hire, because...

...the right seater is a CFI (medical irrelevant), while logging the entire flight as dual received and sole-manipulator time as PIC

or

...the right seater is a CP (with current 2nd class medical), while logging no dual-received, but logging sole-manipulator time as PIC

Is this correct?

Ultimately, my goal is to conduct aerial photography for hire to make a little extra money to put towards flying. Since I happen to be in a plane, while I'm in the plane enroute to/from the target, I would like to fly (sole manipulator) and log that time as PIC.
 
So, I was reading through this and wanted to pose this question, related to photography. I fly an aircraft, in which the sponsor leases advertising on the aircraft I fly, provides a camera man to go up with me. He takes shots, which aren't sold for money, but for goodwill and advertising. No money compensation, but compensation in the form of trading pictures from advertising.

Part 91 or 135?
 
bqmassey said:
Sorry to drag this on...

I'm trying to figure out the regs here. It's been a good learning experience.

With the following conditions
  • I have PP-ASEL certificate
  • Instructor is CFI and Commercial rated
  • Aircraft is the instructor's aircraft, and is current on annual and 100hr
  • I will be sole-manipulator of the controls except when shooting photos

It seems that it would be legal for me to conduct aerial photography for hire, because...

...the right seater is a CFI (medical irrelevant), while logging the entire flight as dual received and sole-manipulator time as PIC

or

...the right seater is a CP (with current 2nd class medical), while logging no dual-received, but logging sole-manipulator time as PIC

Is this correct?

Ultimately, my goal is to conduct aerial photography for hire to make a little extra money to put towards flying. Since I happen to be in a plane, while I'm in the plane enroute to/from the target, I would like to fly (sole manipulator) and log that time as PIC.
Click to expand...
Either it's a training flight, or it's an aerial work operation, or it's both. If it's an aerial work operation, the paid PIC must have a CP or better and Second Class medical. If it's a training flight, the PIC need not have a CP, but must have a Third Class, and there must be a CFI involved, not just a CP. If it's both, the CFI must have a CP or better (there are still a handful of CFI's with only a PP) and a Second Class medical (some hold only Third and some have none).

Where you could get in trouble is when you tell the FAA it's one because you don't meet the requirements for the other, but you're actually doing the other. The FAA has nailed quite a few for pretending a charter flight was a training flight that way. Not exactly the same as an aerial work flight pretending to be a training flight, but the same legal idea at work.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
So, I was reading through this and wanted to pose this question, related to photography. I fly an aircraft, in which the sponsor leases advertising on the aircraft I fly, provides a camera man to go up with me. He takes shots, which aren't sold for money, but for goodwill and advertising. No money compensation, but compensation in the form of trading pictures from advertising.

Part 91 or 135?
Click to expand...
Commercial goodwill is considered compensation by the FAA. I'm pretty sure you'll need a CP or better and Second Class to do this, but it won't be Part 135 as long as you comply with the aerial photography rules (discussed above).
 
Even more than goodwill, what KSCessnaDrive seems to be describing is closer to barter, for which you don't have to play the FAA "Let's call it compensation so we can get at the conduct" game. Barter is a bargained-for exchange without the game.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Even more than goodwill, what KSCessnaDrive seems to be describing is closer to barter, for which you don't have to play the FAA "Let's call it compensation so we can get at the conduct" game. Barter is a bargained-for exchange without the game.
Click to expand...
Barter is still quid pro quo and the FAA still considers it compensation, vis, the case where a restaurant was offering to trade free dinners for aerial advertising. See the Sommer interpretation.
 
Ron Levy said:
Either it's a training flight, or it's an aerial work operation, or it's both. If it's an aerial work operation, the paid PIC must have a CP or better and Second Class medical. If it's a training flight, the PIC need not have a CP, but must have a Third Class, and there must be a CFI involved, not just a CP. If it's both, the CFI must have a CP or better (there are still a handful of CFI's with only a PP) and a Second Class medical (some hold only Third and some have none).

Where you could get in trouble is when you tell the FAA it's one because you don't meet the requirements for the other, but you're actually doing the other. The FAA has nailed quite a few for pretending a charter flight was a training flight that way. Not exactly the same as an aerial work flight pretending to be a training flight, but the same legal idea at work.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. And with any of those three examples...
...commercial aerial photography mission
...training flight
...combination commercial/training flight

Would the paid pilot be prohibited from handing the controls over to me, a PP-ASEL, to be sole manipulator, therefore allowing me log time as PIC while he remains acting PIC.
 
bqmassey said:
Gotcha. And with any of those three examples...
...commercial aerial photography mission
...training flight
...combination commercial/training flight

Would the paid pilot be prohibited from handing the controls over to me, a PP-ASEL, to be sole manipulator, therefore allowing me log time as PIC while he remains acting PIC.
Click to expand...
The paid pilot could hand the controls over to a PP-ASEL or even a non-pilot. Aerial photography is a Part 91 operation not 135.
 
Everskyward said:
The paid pilot could hand the controls over to a PP-ASEL or even a non-pilot. Aerial photography is a Part 91 operation not 135.
Click to expand...

Cool, that's what I was thinking (and hoping).

Everyone agree? If there aren't any rules against this, I'll propose this to my instructor.

I think that there might be a lot of training value in doing a dual instruction/aerial-photography flight. Could be a good learning experience. I might log it as such (entire flight dual-received, and PIC time when I'm sole manipulator.)

I don't have my certificate yet (still a student) so it will be a little bit before I do something like this, but it sounds like fun.
 
bqmassey said:
I think that there might be a lot of training value in doing a dual instruction/aerial-photography flight. Could be a good learning experience. I might log it as such (entire flight dual-received, and PIC time when I'm sole manipulator.)
Click to expand...
How about this -- you give him the the camera, and you practice your turns around a point?
 
Ron Levy said:
Commercial goodwill is considered compensation by the FAA. I'm pretty sure you'll need a CP or better and Second Class to do this, but it won't be Part 135 as long as you comply with the aerial photography rules (discussed above).
Click to expand...

Ok, so if the base of operations for the aircraft changes all the time, it would involve tons of paperwork with each FSDO to get it worked out as legal.

I'll have to do some checking, as this might effect me and where I'm employed.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Ok, so if the base of operations for the aircraft changes all the time, it would involve tons of paperwork with each FSDO to get it worked out as legal.
Click to expand...

IF all you do is aerial photography, there is really no paperwork involved beyond filling out a rental agreement for the planes.
 
weilke said:
IF all you do is aerial photography, there is really no paperwork involved beyond filling out a rental agreement for the planes.
Click to expand...

It's complex and I'll have to look into it. Probably not worth looking into in the long run, because ultimately nothing will change.
 
Ron Levy said:
How about this -- you give him the the camera, and you practice your turns around a point?
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to the idea.

Either way, just sitting down, planning, and executing a photo mission might bring up some interesting discussion. I'm sure there are better ways to fly photo missions, and then some not-so-better ways.

Slow flight into headwind past the object? Turns about a point? Altitude? Time of day? Radius of orbit?

My point is that I could very well consider it to be dual-purpose, instruction and commercial photo, and do so in complete honesty.
 
bqmassey said:
My point is that I could very well consider it to be dual-purpose, instruction and commercial photo, and do so in complete honesty.
Click to expand...
Well, sure. But that doesn't get you out of the legal requirements with respect to a photo flight; just means you comply with the rules for a training flight and a photo flight.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Well, sure. But that doesn't get you out of the legal requirements with respect to a photo flight; just means you comply with the rules for a training flight and a photo flight.
Click to expand...
In that situation, where he's acting as PIC and the CFI is working for him as instructor and camera operator, and he's being paid only for the pictures, and the CFI isn't being paid to pilot the airplane, then nobody needs a CP or more than Third Class. Just make sure it's documented properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top