Much as I hate to contribute to this thread, I don't think the last sentence of this is correct:
Originally Posted by noflynomore
Working as a "Pilot". The author of the above is quite wrong in saying one cannot earn any revenue while flying as a PPL. One cannot earn money (ie be paid for one's services as...) as pilot with a PPL but Tracy was not, as far as we know, employed and paid as pilot. That she was paid anything is probably in doubt as she set up the expedition and the income was allegedly from a film documentary. Even if she did earn money from the trip she'd quite correctly say it was for being expedition leader. The fact that she flew during the trip has no bearing on the matter unless she specifically took money for doing so.
As I understand the flights and the regulations (ie not very well) the aircraft was N-registered and the pilot was flying on a Part 61.75 PPL. The flight therefore should have conformed to the Part 61.113 regulations. Even if she may not have been paid for the actual flying, there are two potential pitfalls:
- Although business flights may be undertaken, they must be incidental to the business of the company. I'm not sure a film production company called "Bird in a Biplane Ltd" could argue the flights were incidental to its business.
- As her engineer, Mr Gritsch seems to have been transported as an employee or contractor of the business. His transport may not be considered by the FAA as incidental to the company's primary business.
Of course, in addition to me having simply misunderstood the rules, it's quite possible that she or the company received dispensation from the FAA prior to the flights. Given the complexity of FAA regulations, it's also quite possible there are other rules which would allow such a flight to be made.
This AvWeb article goes into more detail on how the FAA applies the rules.