Aerial Photography Question (aka 14.CFR 91.501.*)

[Sinistar]

So....

A Private Pilot gives a ride to a friend who is not a pilot. During that flight the friend takes a few pictures. The friend profits from one of those pictures. The aircraft is owned by the pilot. The pilot did not receive any compensation for the costs of the flight nor any profits from the picture. Have any FAR's been violated?

Lets say the friend has a photography business - does this change anything?

Lets say this is being done on multiple occasions - does this change anything?

 

[Dana]

If the pilot was going flying anyway and takes his friend for a ride and the friend just happens to take pictures and later sells them, it's legal. If the friend says, "Hey, will you take me flying so I can take some pictures to sell?", not legal. If the first case is repeated too many times, it would look suspicious.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Said Private Pilot who owns a large or turbine powered multi engine airplane should be able to afford a lawyer to figure it out.

but since doing aerial photography “work” implies a commercial operation, you’d want to avoid any mention of this reg in the context of personal flights.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Said Private Pilot who owns a large or turbine powered multi engine airplane should be able to afford a lawyer to figure it out.

but since doing aerial photography “work” implies a commercial operation, you’d want to avoid any mention of this reg in the context of personal flights.

In case this wasn't clear, 91.501 is the first section of Part 91 Subpart F which

large airplanes..., turbojet-powered multiengine...airplanes...,and fractional ownership program aircraft
​

not to light aircraft.

For the rest of us, 119.1 says aerial photography is one of those things a commercial pilot may do without the additional step of a commercial operating certificate.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So....

A Private Pilot gives a ride to a friend who is not a pilot. During that flight the friend takes a few pictures. The friend profits from one of those pictures. The aircraft is owned by the pilot. The pilot did not receive any compensation for the costs of the flight nor any profits from the picture. Have any FAR's been violated?

According to Today's FAA, that would be a violation of 61.113. However, thanks to Today's FAA's "compliance philosophy", they won't fry you on the first offense IF you legitimately were unaware of the fact that compensation for the picture happened.

Lets say the friend has a photography business - does this change anything?

Lets say this is being done on multiple occasions - does this change anything?

Absolutely, in both cases. You're talking about a commercial operation. It can still be a Part 91 sightseeing flight, but there are additional requirements for that. 91.501 is not the right reg here - 91.147 is. You need a commercial pilot certificate and you need to comply with 91.147.

In case this wasn't clear, 91.501 is the first section of Part 91 Subpart F which

large airplanes..., turbojet-powered multiengine...airplanes...,and fractional ownership program aircraft
​

not to light aircraft.

For the rest of us, 119.1 says aerial photography is one of those things a commercial pilot may do without the additional step of a commercial operating certificate.

OP specified Private pilot, not commercial. This is definitely something that requires a commercial pilot certificate, but it does not require an air carrier certificate.

 

[bflynn]

Your friend rides along with you on a flight and takes pictures along the route. Perfectly fine, even if your friend is a professional photographer, because the pictures are incidental to the flight. If you think it's a problem, please provide an example of a pilot who has been violated for this. You were going to fly anyway, they just came along and took pictures.

if you go places at his request, then you've changed the purpose because it's no longer your flight and you've become a charter.

If you're going to quote Perry, remember that Perry posed the question of running a business. As long as your friend is just flying with you, the pictures are incidental.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It can still be a Part 91 sightseeing flight, but there are additional requirements for that. 91.501 is not the right reg here - 91.147 is. You need a commercial pilot certificate and you need to comply with 91.147.

It can also be a Part 91 aerial photography flight (119.1(e)4)(iii)) which does not have the 91.147 requirement, although as you and I both pointed out, it requires a commercial certificate.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Lets say the friend has a photography business - does this change anything?

Lets say this is being done on multiple occasions - does this change anything?

Yes and yes. Both are circumstances which would be considered just like in any other analysis of whether a specific flight (not a bunch of generalizations) violated the separation between private and commercial privileges and operations.

 

[Pilawt]

What if your friend is a songwriter, and inspired by what he sees out the window of your airplane starts humming a melody that becomes a multi-platinum hit? Same difference, as far as I can tell.

 

[Sinistar]

Thanks for all the replies. I knew that doing this repeatedly and for profit brings in the commercial requirement. What was "gray" for me was if the pilot was never receiving any compensation. Clearly its not just the pilot receiving compensation that drives the rule - its that some form of compensation is happening and its related to aviation.

So another question: How do the youtuber's avoid having the commerical operating certificate. Obviously each has a commercial license or better. But each flight is operated for profit. And while it is operated for profit they often carry passengers. Are their planes subject to the 100hr inspections and other rules?

 

[midlifeflyer]

So another question: How do the youtuber's avoid having the commerical operating certificate. Obviously each has a commercial license or better. But each flight is operated for profit. And while it is operated for profit they often carry passengers. Are their planes subject to the 100hr inspections and other rules?

That should be good for a couple of pages

 

[midlifeflyer]

What if your friend is a songwriter, and inspired by what he sees out the window of your airplane starts humming a melody that becomes a multi-platinum hit? Same difference, as far as I can tell.

Was the pilot being compensated in order to bring the songwriter up because the songwriter was seeking the inspiration? IOW, was the transaction between them, "you bring me up so I can get some songwriting inspiration and, in exchange, I will compensate you by..."?

 

[bflynn]

So another question: How do the youtuber's avoid having the commerical operating certificate. Obviously each has a commercial license or better. But each flight is operated for profit. And while it is operated for profit they often carry passengers. Are their planes subject to the 100hr inspections and other rules?

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...tail-about-the-faa-coming-down-on-him.116969/

 

[Doc Holliday]

So....

A Private Pilot gives a ride to a friend who is not a pilot. During that flight the friend takes a few pictures. The friend profits from one of those pictures. The aircraft is owned by the pilot. The pilot did not receive any compensation for the costs of the flight nor any profits from the picture. Have any FAR's been violated?

Lets say the friend has a photography business - does this change anything?

Lets say this is being done on multiple occasions - does this change anything?

According to Today's FAA, that would be a violation of 61.113. However, thanks to Today's FAA's "compliance philosophy", they won't fry you on the first offense IF you legitimately were unaware of the fact that compensation for the picture happened.

No one in the FAA would waste their time on something so frivolous.

 

[Martin Pauly]

Thanks for all the replies. I knew that doing this repeatedly and for profit brings in the commercial requirement. What was "gray" for me was if the pilot was never receiving any compensation.

What "doing this repeatedly" does is it makes it very difficult to believe that the flights would have otherwise happened, without the photography being a part of them.

I would argue that if as a private pilot you take a friend along on a flight, without compensation and in line with all applicable rules, that flight is legal regardless of whether your friend happens to snap a picture that he ends up selling or that wins him the Pulitzer price. But do that 20 times, and it'll be hard to believe the photography wasn't what was motivating those flights in the first place.

- Martin

 

[Jim Carpenter]

I'm sort of in the same camp as Martin suggests in the above post. As presented, the original scenario does not mention any compensation to the pilot at all, not even sharing expenses. It's my understanding that as private pilot/ owner, you can completely donate your time and airplane use expense for any purpose, to a photographer, author, doctor, lawyer, candlestick maker, or even give JP Morgan a ride to make a big real estate deal, as long as you do not receive ANY compensation. As said, difficulty would come, especially after repeated events, in convincing FAA/courts that you truly did not gain in any way from the flights.

 

[Witmo]

I can't count the number of times I've jumped into an aircraft, took off, flew around, came back and landed. Let's say for the sake of argument, I made 1000 of those pleasure flights. Let's say I took a friend up with me 100 out of those 1000 flights. Let's say 80 of those flights, the friend took pictures. Let's say 20 times, those pictures were sold by my friend and he kept all the cash. I received no payment for any of the flights. I received no portion of the payment received for the photos. Does anyone really think the FAA would come after me for not having a commercial pilot certificate? Unless I had my aircraft covered in a vinyl wrap advertising aerial photography with plexiglass windows on the sides and bottom of the fuselage for cameras, does anyone think anyone would be able to discern photography for profit was being committed on any of my 1000 "pleasure" flights? Sometimes I think people just overthink things.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

No, no and you got that right.

 

[Sinistar]

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...tail-about-the-faa-coming-down-on-him.116969/

I appreciate you sharing this and I remember that thread. However its not quite the same as what I was trying to ask. Steveo is actually employed to fly a airplane and shooting his youtube videos on commercially operated aircraft. So he's not responsible (as in $$$$) for the 100hr inspections, etc. But other youtuber's (doing this for compensation, eg. Mat G)) are using their own planes. So do they need the 100hr inspection, etc?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I appreciate you sharing this and I remember that thread. However its not quite the same as what I was trying to ask. Steveo is actually employed to fly a airplane and shooting his youtube videos on commercially operated aircraft. So he's not responsible (as in $$$$) for the 100hr inspections, etc. But other youtuber's (doing this for compensation, eg. Mat G)) are using their own planes. So do they need the 100hr inspection, etc?

I don't understand. Why would a YouTuber need a 100 hour inspection unless the compensation was for carrying passengers or giving dual?

Are you using the common non-read

 

[Sinistar]

I don't understand. Why would a YouTuber need a 100 hour inspection unless the compensation was for carrying passengers or giving dual?

Are you using the common non-read

Got it. If they were using their plane for aerial photography would they need the 100hr inspection?

Edit: Maybe where i am confused is that a youtuber often gives rides. And they profit from the video so there is compensation. Its just that the compensation does not come from the passenger.

 

[bflynn]

Steveo got raked across the coals over the complaints filed against him. After disproving all of them, he was still required to take a 509 ride, not because he did anything wrong, but probably because he did it all right and the FSDO was upset at not being able to get an easy kill.

Brutal, but I call it like I see it.

 

[Doc Holliday]

No one? You have a lot more faith in them than I do. I think most inspectors, including all the reasonable ones, wouldn't do anything on a first offense unless there were other offenses included - They'll definitely use all the rope you give them to hang you.

However, there's also enough horror stories out there that I'm quite sure there's at least a few inspectors that would happily waste their time on something so frivolous.

BS. If you had the first clue as to the workload the average ASI carries, they don't have time going around chasing such crap. This is nothing more than internet forum mental masturbation.

 

[CharlieD3]

...

if you go places at his request, then you've changed the purpose because it's no longer your flight and you've become a charter.
...

Just to clarify... This only applies to a professional asking you to go certain places for his professional interest, correct?

Not to someone your taking flying who asks you to go over his house, or a golf course he'd like to see from the air... Even if he's say, an amateur golfer... Not a pro..

fly to the scene of the incident, or be recovered at the scene of the tragedy

 

[midlifeflyer]

I would expect a 100 hour inspection for acting as an aerial photography platf

Steveo got raked across the coals over the complaints filed against him. After disproving all of them, he was still required to take a 509 ride, not because he did anything wrong, but probably because he did it all right and the FSDO was upset at not being able to get an easy kill.

Brutal, but I call it like I see it.

Damn! I've been try to get the real story of what happened with Steveo since it happened. How did you manage to get it? Did I miss a video or post where he told the full story? Do you have a link.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Got it. If they were using their plane for aerial photography would they need the 100hr inspection?

Edit: Maybe where i am confused is that a youtuber often gives rides. And they profit from the video so there is compensation. Its just that the compensation does not come from the passenger.

Yes, I would expect an aircraft being used as a photography platform for hire to require a 100 inspection just like any other "aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire."

But those monetized YouTube videos (which the FAA might or might not consider "compensation for for the flight" - I think there's a rabbit hole there)? I quoted that portion of the 100 hour inspection regulation and emphasized part of it mostly to point out the words which are missing.

 

[bflynn]

He hasn’t talked a lot about it, but he went into some details on the LoDown podcast in the other thread linked above.

One of the complaints was that he wasn’t using checklists. In actuality, checklists don't make good video so he edited them out. He showed the inspectors his raw footage, but apparently that wasn’t enough.

Another complaint was that he was flying drones and didn’t have a 107 license. Why, yes he did and he had it with him.

Maybe the biggest was that the FAA inspector thought he was talking to passengers during a 135 flight, but he was able to show that he only recorded during part 91 flights and that he was talking to the camera.

All that and he still got a 509 ride.

What I take away is that you can expect an FAA investigator to be low information, to do zero research, and to come with an assumption of guilt. This was the worst process the FAA could have produced.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just to clarify... This only applies to a professional asking you to go certain places for his professional interest, correct?

Not to someone your taking flying who asks you to go over his house, or a golf course he'd like to see from the air... Even if he's say, an amateur golfer... Not a pro..

We can get into scenarios where the practical answer is, no one, including the FAA, really cares.

But if you want to drill down, the rules, official interpretations, written guidance, and enforcement actions are pretty consistent that, if you receive "compensation" in exchange for providing a flight service to someone, and it does not fit into one of the exceptions in 61.113, there is a regulatory deviation.

So, technically, if (1) you are flying someone who wants to see their house from the air and (2) that's the reason for the flight, and (3) you are receiving "compensation" in exchange for providing the service, unless it fits comfortably into an exception like shared expense for a flight with a common purpose, it is contrary to the rules.

But, that doesn't sound like your scenario. When I "take someone flying" it's because it's somewhere I want to go, and in the rare case where I might accept even a share of the expenses, I wouldn't worry in the least about including a request to fly over a location familiar to my passenger.

 

[midlifeflyer]

He hasn’t talked a lot about it, but he went into some details on the LoDown podcast in the other thread linked above.

One of the complaints was that he wasn’t using checklists. In actuality, checklists don't make good video so he edited them out. He showed the inspectors his raw footage, but apparently that wasn’t enough.

Another complaint was that he was flying drones and didn’t have a 107 license. Why, yes he did and he had it with him.

Maybe the biggest was that the FAA inspector thought he was talking to passengers during a 135 flight, but he was able to show that he only recorded during part 91 flights and that he was talking to the camera.

All that and he still got a 509 ride.

What I take away is that you can expect an FAA investigator to be low information, to do zero research, and to come with an assumption of guilt. This was the worst process the FAA could have produced.

Thanks. I'll have to check out that podcast.

But your takeaway, which involves a FSDO well known for being, let's say, a bit gung-ho, might no longer be applicable. One of the things I talk about in my enforcement seminars and talks, is that the Compliance Program" was in large part the FAA's effort to get recalcitrant FSDOs and inspectors in line with a policy which was taking place nationally.

 

[Larry Vrooman]

A couple thoughts...

1. I'm in agreement with the folks here who view giving someone ride with no compensation of any kind is not a commercial operation and does not require a commercial certificate, 100 hour inspections, etc, regardless of whether the passenger takes and then makes money off the pictures. The FAA is not yet to the point of saying that the pleasure of the passenger's company on the flight counts as "compensation".

2. I am concerned at the level of paranoia that is being expressed over the issue, and I am perhaps concerned that it's not really paranoia it the FAA is really out to get people. I see two potential reasons for the perception that the FAA is indeed in one of the pendular swings where over enforcement is "in":

- Up until about a year ago I was a fed inside the beltway (not FAA) and over my years there I saw a long slow slide from subject matter experts running things based on practical experience and common sense to attorneys running things based on a very narrow read of the law and a general lack of experience with the programs they oversaw and how things really worked in the field. When it comes to issues of public safety, the decision switch is usually safety wired in the "assume ill intent whenever possible" position. It was endemic across the federal programs with whom I liaised. In those environments, the remaining staff with actual field experience tended to work outside or at least alongside the normal channels helping state programs and/or individuals stay under the radar and avoid a potential over enforcement action.

- The internet has certainly added some potential wrinkles to the concept of "compensation", since it may clearly happen after the fact.

Worse, getting eventual compensation may or may not be the pilot's intent, and it's that ambiguity that allows an FAA inspector to step in and initiate an enforcement action that may or may not reflect appropriate use of discretion and common sense.

Combine that with an inspector who isn't able to admit there really isn't an issue after all, and things get unpleasant. Put that inspector in a "narrow read of the law" environment where over enforcement isn't seen as such and it won't be long before you have a major systemic problem. Maybe we are already there.

----

As for Steveo, I don't watch his stuff. I watched one video where he was getting a tailwheel endorsement and multiple times while flying over the airport he kept saying "There's the TBM 850" on the ramp below. Annoying as all get out. His apparent assumption that anyone watching a video with a Supercub in it would even be interested in his TBM 850, even once, let alone repeatedly, spoke volumes about his level of cluelessness. "Yes, you fly a TBM 850. We know that. But. We. Do. Not. Care. Not. One. Little. Bit." I've never watched another one of videos.

 

[CharlieD3]

A couple thoughts...

1. I'm in agreement with the folks here who view giving someone ride with no compensation of any kind is not a commercial operation and does not require a commercial certificate, 100 hour inspections, etc, regardless of whether the passenger takes and then makes money off the pictures. The FAA is not yet to the point of saying that the pleasure of the passenger's company on the flight counts as "compensation".

2. I am concerned at the level of paranoia that is being expressed over the issue, and I am perhaps concerned that it's not really paranoia it the FAA is really out to get people. I see two potential reasons for the perception that the FAA is indeed in one of the pendular swings where over enforcement is "in":

- Up until about a year ago I was a fed inside the beltway (not FAA) and over my years there I saw a long slow slide from subject matter experts running things based on practical experience and common sense to attorneys running things based on a very narrow read of the law and a general lack of experience with the programs they oversaw and how things really worked in the field. When it comes to issues of public safety, the decision switch is usually safety wired in the "assume ill intent whenever possible" position. It was endemic across the federal programs with whom I liaised. In those environments, the remaining staff with actual field experience tended to work outside or at least alongside the normal channels helping state programs and/or individuals stay under the radar and avoid a potential over enforcement action.

- The internet has certainly added some potential wrinkles to the concept of "compensation", since it may clearly happen after the fact.

Worse, getting eventual compensation may or may not be the pilot's intent, and it's that ambiguity that allows an FAA inspector to step in and initiate an enforcement action that may or may not reflect appropriate use of discretion and common sense.

Combine that with an inspector who isn't able to admit there really isn't an issue after all, and things get unpleasant. Put that inspector in a "narrow read of the law" environment where over enforcement isn't seen as such and it won't be long before you have a major systemic problem. Maybe we are already there.

----

As for Steveo, I don't watch his stuff. I watched one video where he was getting a tailwheel endorsement and multiple times while flying over the airport he kept saying "There's the TBM 850" on the ramp below. Annoying as all get out. His apparent assumption that anyone watching a video with a Supercub in it would even be interested in his TBM 850, even once, let alone repeatedly, spoke volumes about his level of cluelessness. "Yes, you fly a TBM 850. We know that. But. We. Do. Not. Care. Not. One. Little. Bit." I've never watched another one of videos.

I agree with everything you're saying here.

Particularly about the level of paranoia. And the issue of "compensation" being the pleasure of someone's company.

The initial posts (up until "steveio" whoever he is) seemed to allude that the pilot, even though uncompensated in any discernable material way, could get in trouble.

I've seen this paranoia in discussions about pilots taking up friends and family shortly after getting their ticket. "Wait until you have a gazillion hours and can fly through known ice and... And... And". Failure to do so is poor ADM.

fly to the scene of the incident, or be recovered at the scene of the tragedy

 

[Doc Holliday]

A couple thoughts...
Worse, getting eventual compensation may or may not be the pilot's intent, and it's that ambiguity that allows an FAA inspector to step in and initiate an enforcement action that may or may not reflect appropriate use of discretion and common sense.

Combine that with an inspector who isn't able to admit there really isn't an issue after all, and things get unpleasant. Put that inspector in a "narrow read of the law" environment where over enforcement isn't seen as such and it won't be long before you have a major systemic problem. Maybe we are already there.

The enforcement process within the FAA is a very arduous process which goes through several layers of management before it's even seen by the FAA legal dept. Many people believe that an Inspector can simply "write up" a violation and that's it, it's done. Hardly.

Even if an Inspector had nothing else better to do, and wanted to pursue the situation as written in the OP, the FAA Order 2150.3C is going to be the first obstacle as well as the FAA Order 8900.1, Vol 14. Then, the ASI will have to convince his supervisor to authorize him to proceed. Without that authorization, he simply can't move forward, and the supervisor is going to reference the 2150.3C and 8900.1. Even then, for the sake of argument, let's say the ASI convinces his supervisor to go along, now they have to convince the Office Manager who will consult with FAA Legal. And I can assure you FAA Legal will say "Drop it".

I'm sure someone will be along shortly and shout "Well.....Hoover!!!". But that was 3 decades ago and a lot was changed since then. Yet we still have the internet FAA experts that are convinced the FAA wants to hide in bushes around airports just waiting to pounce on anything and everything they see. And yet most of those experts have never ever had an interaction with the FAA other than receiving a pilot certificate.