PPL aerial photography [Archive]

yawningdog

24th Apr 2004, 23:58

As long as you receive no more than a proportional contribution for the flight, then you are not breaking any rules. If it's just you & him, then he can pay no more than 50% of costs.

What he does with the photographs afterwards bears no relevance.

However, I don't know about his rights. What happens if he is not happy with the conduct of the flight, and as a result doesn't get the pictures he desired? Does he have any grounds for complaint considering he paid for half of the flight?

Thinking bout it, I suppose that he is paying for the flight, and not for the service of the flight.

BEagle

25th Apr 2004, 05:27

"What he does with the photographs afterwards bears no relevance."

Certainly it does. You have already made it clear that your friend
".....is a country house photographer working most often for the large country house estate agents." As he 'works' in this way - and you've stated that the reason for the flight is to photograph such houses - then you would be collaborating in what is clearly a commercial activity.

Flyin'Dutch'

25th Apr 2004, 08:02

This is aerial work and as such you need to have the proper qualifications for this yourself as has the aircraft.

There is further guidance on aerial photography by the CAA in a handy leaflet.

If you want to know chapter and verse you will have to make the effort and delve a bit deeper into the information available on the CAA website.

May be a bit of hassle but a lot less than getting yourself into trouble.

FD

Start by reading this (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_Aerial_photo.pdf)

FNG

25th Apr 2004, 08:53

...and while you are at it why not look up what the first P in PPL stands for. There are olther licences, they begin with C, or AT. Spot the difference.

yawningdog

25th Apr 2004, 10:25

It's irrelevant as to whether the photos are used to make money or not. The photographer is being paid for the pictures, not the pilot. It's not a joint commercial venture.

What matters is the agreement concerning what the photographer is paying for. If he's paying for the service of a pilot to fly him to take the photos, then that's "aerial work". In that case it's also irrelevant as to whether the photographer is being paid or not. He's requested a commercial service.

If the pilot is receiving only a cost share for the flight and the photographer understands this, then this isn't aerial work.

Flyin'Dutch'

25th Apr 2004, 10:34

YD,

May I respectfully suggest that you acquaint yourself thoroughly with Article 130 of the ANO before making sweeping statements which may well lead the unsuspecting 'up the garden path'

What you are stating is akin to saying that it would be OK for a PPL to fly a 747 (providing one could get a type rating) as long as he was paid by the punters no more than a share of the cost of the flight.

Methinks that is incorrect.

FD

(Well actually I know that is not true)

boomerangben

25th Apr 2004, 16:22

The idea of PPL's doing aerial photography sends shivers down my spine after the accident near Retford a few years ago - 1 x Cessna 152 + 1 x GR4 Tornado + 4 dead.

Not sure of the legality of it all (although I am pretty sure that it is abuse of the privialages of a ppl), but if your mate is a professional estate agent/photographer, then he should get a professional pilot and be charged professional rates. After all he will be charging his client professional rates for the estate agency fees/photography. If you do it for him, it will be you that will be ripped off since he is only allowed to pay for half the FUEL (not hire).

PAUL101

25th Apr 2004, 17:17

Foz 2 et al. I have read all yr comments with much interest. I've spent about 3 hrs this afternoon going through CAP393 and I cannot find specific guidance on thes issues. I've posted a more generic question earlier about PPL renumeration and how is it defined.

Can anyone quote paragraph or section numbers in CAP 393 (a huge document!) or another CAA/relevant document.

Is there any seperate CAA guidance?

The comments clearly show how much confusion there is - help me please! Many thanks.

Zlin526

25th Apr 2004, 17:37

Beagle & FD are spot on.

witchdoctor

25th Apr 2004, 18:00

Foz and Paul 101,

Best advice is to steer clear. Regardless whether it is technically legal or not to operate as you have outlined, I can guarantee that should something untoward occur, the CAA will come and hunt you down with the full intention of prosecution. They're friendly chaps in that kind of way.

Whether you are able to successfully argue against prosecution is perhaps a moot point when considering the stress and uncertainty that you will be under whilst the cogs of the machine slowly grind along.

Are you really that desperate for hours? I bet your 'friend' wouldn't hesitate to drop you in it up to his neck if a prosecution was brought against either or both of you.

This is the kind of work that I do on an ad-hoc basis. Whilst it is tremendously enjoyable, it can be tricky as you will most likely be operating at relatively low altitudes in comparison to where your current experience may be and at low speed manouevering the a/c. This puts you in a situation where it could be very easy to lose control of the a/c and with little time to recover unless you are 100% on the ball. It takes time to adjust to operating in this manner and practice to be accurate and safe. My apologies if this is a skill you are already familiar with.

It is also the prime territory for mid-air collisions. The accident mentioned above does occur from time to time, and not always to the inexperienced or unwary. My photographer lost a good friend and former pilot colleague in just such an accident a number of years ago, also involving a fast jet, although I believe this was in Wales. Understandably he is rather paranoid about both of us maintaining a good lookout and a working closely with a radar-equipped ATC unit, ensuring that they have accurate position and altitude information to work with.

Be very, very wary of accepting this kind of approach.

PAUL101

25th Apr 2004, 18:14

Witch Doctor

Thanks for your message. I'm sure you are right.

I would very much like to read the facts for myself though - are you talking from an expert view - I still appreciate your views - can you guide me to what and cannot be done.

As to hours, I am not desperate at all. But if I can get through each stage of the long road to unforzen ATPL then that is the route I wish to take.

accurate references please - not opinion or gut feeling, anyone?

niknak

25th Apr 2004, 18:48

I speak as someone who has an interest in commercial aerial photography, so take heed of this as you wish, but the Whichdoctor is spot on.

It doesnt really matter what you want to do, you should really examine your own capabilities and consience, and then decide if you are both practically and professionally capable of doing it.

The commercial concerns who do aerial photography for a living have to jump through hoops to get regulatory approval, if it was just a case of hopping into an aeroplane with the latest piece of digital kit, everyone would be doing it.
If you go ahead, someone will notice, you'll be found out, and that, my son, will be the end of you and your short lived flying ambitions. :E

FNG

25th Apr 2004, 19:29

Quote

"The comments clearly show how much confusion there is."

There is no confusion. Read Art 130 ANO and the CAA's puiblished guidance. Don't go looking for loopholes.

AlanM

25th Apr 2004, 20:11

I echo the above from niknak...

I also occasionally partake in selling aerial pics commercially. Despite the wish or ease to do cheaply with friends or on your own...... DON'T!!

Not only is it illegal, but it is inherently dangerous. Get a suitably equipped licence holder to help you!!

As said, if you get caught, or worse still something happened, you would be hung drawn and quartered by the CAA.

Mike Cross

25th Apr 2004, 21:53

Article 130 of the ANO, available here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF)
Section 1 Part XI Page 22
I've spent about 3 hrs this afternoon going through CAP393 and I cannot find specific guidance on thes issues
You won't. CAP 393 contains the Law. If you don't understand it then you either need to try harder or employ a lawyer to advise you.

FD has already pointed you at this (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_Aerial_photo.pdf)

You have received good advice in answer to your question. Continuing to ask the question will not change the answer.

Mike

Capt. Manuvar

26th Apr 2004, 08:47

The ANO allows you to charge for mofe that the pro rata share of fuel. I believe you can share the costs of hire and landing fees as those fall under "direct costs".
Since the pictures are to be used commercially, it will be safe to say that this is not a private flight. The only way you can fly this sortie on a PPL is if you work for the friend or his company in a capacity other than as a pilot e.g "photographic assistant".
There are a lot of people make financial gain out of PPLs. A highly paid professionals/business people who get PPLs and high perf. a/c so they can save time and thereby money (financial gain) are not doing anything illegal.
If this does go to court, you'll probably have to prove that you did more than just fly in your capacity as photographic assistant. Good luck with that one:ok: And don't be suprised if you get an evil look or two from commercial aerial photo operators &CPLs :}
Capt. M

FNG

26th Apr 2004, 08:59

You've been advised by experienced flying instructors such as Beagle not to do it. You've been advised by lawyers not to do it , but Capt Manuvar, whom I understand to be an ATPL trainee, says it's OK to do it. He suggests that you get a job as a pilot but call yourself a photographic assistant. That will make it alright! The silly old CAA will never guess! Chortle! Well, advice is there to be taken, or not.

PS: any PPL who needs someone else to share landing fees should, in my opinion, consider a less financially demanding hobby.

Flyin'Dutch'

26th Apr 2004, 09:02

No such thing as a stupid question.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

But to give misleading advice which could potentially get people into trouble is something I can not just let pass.

Capt. Manuvar may be a trainee ATP but that does not make his interpretation of the rules or suggestion for loopholes a healthy one.

Anyone on these shores can claim to be anything but it usually pays to look at the contents of a few of their postings before you just jump in both feet first and follow the advice of some probably well meaning folks who are obviously not aware of the full picture.

FD

FNG

26th Apr 2004, 09:05

FD, you and I are on the same page. Deploy your irony detectors.

Flyin'Dutch'

26th Apr 2004, 09:12

FNG,

I thought it was pretty obvious that my comments were not directed at you!

May be I was too subtle!

;)

FD

witchdoctor

26th Apr 2004, 10:04

Paul,

Wish I could claim to be an expert in this area, but I am not. In fact, I often come trawling for advice on here myself quite regularly.

All I can say is that the company which uses my services in this area is well aware of the regulations which govern their operation. I work for them on a freelance basis, which as a CPL holder I am perfectly entitled to do without needing to understand the complexities of cost sharing for PPL holders - thank goodness.

For my part, as the PIC all I do is ensure that the flight itself is conducted safely and legally. My understaniding of the regs relating to that would be no better or worse than your own.

BEagle

26th Apr 2004, 10:10

Capt Manuvar, the ANO does not allow you to 'charge' for anything as a PPL holder. It does, however, indicate the regulations pertaining to cost-sharing. Something which is subtly different.

A 'highly paid PPL holder' choosing to use his own aeroplane to reduce travelling time does so purely for his own convenience. Would he be held to have gained ‘valued consideration’ by using his aeroplane to save time? I doubt it – he could quite reasonably claim that he chose to enjoy his private hobby on that particular day before starting work. But were he to attempt to recover his flying costs by charging his clients more than he would have done had he not flown, perhaps then he could be accused of receiving valued consideration?

The insurance regulations governing the use of private vehicles 'in connection with business' are often totally ignored by many people. If I drive my car to the airport in order to catch a flight for a business meeting, my car must be insured for use in connection with my business. But were I to drive to the same airport and catch the same flight to go on holiday, then I wouldn't need the same level of cover. So heavens knows what would happen if I decided to fly one of my company's aeroplanes to a business meeting - I may have a current ATPL, the ac may have a PT CofA, but I'm pretty sure that I couldn't legally receive any payment towards the costs involved........

GASH !

26th Apr 2004, 10:26

As someone who does this kind of aerial work for a living, I would strongly advise against taking up photographers as a ppl holder.

It took me 15 hours of specific training for this kind of work (on top of my CPL/IR) before I started to get the hang of it. Commercial photographers can be demanding, they will want you to fly lower than you are probably used to. You will not be used to handling the aircraft with the window wide open. If you are using any type of high wing aircraft they will want you to move the strut out of the way, which will mean side slipping, something you are probably not used to as a low houred ppl (I know I wasn't). You will be occupying yourself with what the photographer is doing instead of looking outside. "Left a bit, Left a bit more, left a touch more" and before you know it you'll be spinning into the ground from 600' with no idea how to recover it, by this point the legalities will be the least of your worries and the bloke sat next to you with his Canon 10D will be no use at all. Do not do it.

Foz2

26th Apr 2004, 10:56

Cheers everyone,

On reflection I have to agree with the general concensous that it shouldnt be done.

Ive asked a question and its been answered!!

Cheers chaps and chapesses

Foz

Capt. Manuvar

26th Apr 2004, 15:34

I amazes me how certain characters on this forum are so quick to criticize. If you bothered to read my post properly before taking the moral/intelliectual high ground you would have noticed the following:
if this does go to court, you'll probably have to prove that you did more than just fly in your capacity as photographic assistant. Good luck with that one also notice the smiley thing at the end.
I wasn't encouraging foz2 to go ahead with what he wanted to do and i'm happy with his decision. I was just trying to let him know that there are situations wherebyreimbursement is possible and i gave a far-fetched example hence the quote above. I believe the FAR's (which i'm studying at the moment) do a better job of explaining this topic than the ANO.
BEagle
"Charge" was a bad choice of words on my part.
FNG
There are airfields in the UK that charge over £200 for a PA28 class aircraft. That may be small change to you, but its one weeks wages to some people.

FNG

26th Apr 2004, 15:54

Why on Earth would anyone wish to fly a PA 28 to somewhere than charges 200 quid for a landing? As for wages, I don't suppose that people on £200 a week do a lot of landings at Heathrow etc. Must dash now, off to check that the gold leaf on the control column has been correctly polished by my underlings.

Capt. Manuvar

26th Apr 2004, 16:22

aerial photography:}

IO540

26th Apr 2004, 16:51

Beagle

It is perfectly reasonable for a PPL to get insured for a flight in connection with his business, and I have this. It didn't cost any more.

In practice, the ultimate arbiters in these things would be the insurers, not the CAA. It is therefore more illuminating to ask one's insurance broker. They won't approve of something that is illegal.

Re taking up the man who wants to take pics, I wouldn't, simply because if there is an incident, and he gets injured, and he discovers (as he probably will) that he can get more money in compensation if he claims (whether validly is irrelevant) that you did something illegal, then he will probably do just that.

PAUL101

27th Apr 2004, 13:33

Mike (Cross),

For heavens sake Mike take a chill pill. Which charm school did you study at? Or was it a bad day at the 'office' - if so I've had plenty of those myself so I really do forgive your tone.

Question - and please steady on the safety catch before you answer, is it not okay for me to ask for exact references so that I can read the law and explanations (where given) myself? You have, thankyou, supplied direct links now for which I am grateful. I was not asking the question again looking for a different answer.

To set the record straight, I did not wish to follow Foz2 down the road of aerial work but was following a differant thread concerning renumeration and hoped that someone could give me the correct references - thanks for those that have.

To the lawyers on the 100K paypackets (good luck to you) please spare a thought for those mere mortals who wish to fly on their PPL - legally - but reduce costs - legally and correctly - where possible on a military wage packet.

Thanks one and all for the advice (good or bad?)

Paul101

24Right

27th Apr 2004, 13:38

There are two issues here:

1 is it sensible?

2 is it legal?

So far as 1 is concerned, there have been a variety of opinions and, as this is a matter of opinion, all are valid. Make your own choice based on the opinions here and your own views (and abilities).

As for 2, this is a different matter and follows from the ANO, not opinion. My interpretation of the ANO, as a lawyer (but not a specialist aviation lawyer - perhaps Flying Lawyer coud comment?), is that the proposal is legal.

A flight is for the purpose of aerial work if valuable consideration (essentially payment, but the term is wider) is given for it UNLESS it falls within one of the exceptions set out in Art 130. The relevant exception is that for cost sharing of flights.

The CAA states in its interpretation of art 130:

"A flight will be deemed to be a private flight for all purposes if the only payment is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight (not annual costs) otherwise payable by the pilot in command. This is provided that (a) no more than four persons (including the pilot) are carried, (b) the pilot pays at least his proportionate share (e.g. if four persons are carried the pilot must pay at least 25% of the direct costs) and (c) the flight has not been publicised in any way except within the premises of a flying club".

Note the reference to 'direct costs'. This, along with 'annual costs' is defined in the ANO. Direct costs means those directly
incurred in relation to a flight (e.g. fuel) but excludes any remuneration payable to the pilot. Annual costs means the cost of keeping, maintaining and operating the aircraft over a period of one year (e.g. maintenance and hangarage). There must be no element of profit in either direct or annual costs. The cost sharing exception applies only to direct costs.

So it seems to me that for a PPL to take a friend flying and for that friend to take photos which he subsequently sells is not aerial work provided the cost sharing exception is strictly adhered to and the PPL receives no other payment for the flight, no element of the sale price of the photos, commission etc. You cannot add into the ANO stuff that isn't there, e.g. a concept of being involved in a joint commercial enterprise.

And yes, if you got a type rating for a 747 and hired it splitting the direct costs with 3 (very rich) friends on the basis of the cost sharing exception you could hop over to Paris with them for lunch.

My view for what its worth.

OK, now for the other legal stuff: the above is my interpretation of the ANO and I don't guarantee it to be right. You can't rely on it as you haven't instructed me and aren't paying for the advice. If you want someone to sue, hire a lawyer and pay for their advice.

24R

Flyin'Dutch'

27th Apr 2004, 14:15

Hi 24R,

Other than sounding a bit bombastic with your:

OK, now for the other legal stuff: the above is my interpretation of the ANO and I don't guarantee it to be right. You can't rely on it as you haven't instructed me and aren't paying for the advice. If you want someone to sue, hire a lawyer and pay for their advice.
you have pretty much just regurgitated what has been said on the previous 2 pages, and added your opinion.

To make that worthwhile and carry some weight I think that you need to come off the fence and be prepared to put your money where your mouth is.

No point in making some gratuitous comments which may lead folks up the proverbial, without the willingness to back it up.

MHO of course.

FD

24Right

27th Apr 2004, 14:26

'IMHO of course'

Humble??:confused:

Bombastic perhaps, but the way it has to be, unfortunately.

That's just because I can't afford to be sued in my personal capacity (not all lawyers are rich!). If someone wants to come to me at the office and get an opinion for a proper fee (and with the benefit of full information and insurance) I'll happily give one.

Don't think there was any regurgitation:yuk: ? and I gave an opinion based on the ANO and not what I'd like the ANO to say or what I've heard in the club bar. Other than the necessary disclaimer, there was no fence sitting. Take it how you like.

24R

Flyin'Dutch'

27th Apr 2004, 14:36

If you don't want to be sued for advice you give you should either say something along the lines of:

'This is how I see it and how I would do it if the occasion arose for myself but if others do it they do so at their peril'

or

Say nowt.

If professionals give advice be it in practice or on something like this BB it needs to be sound advice with which people can work.

Not some mamby-pamby stuff, and the bombastic bit is something that those who are recognised professionals on these shores don't seem to have to resort to.

Sorry to have a bit of a go at you for that, but it got right up my nose.

FD

24Right

27th Apr 2004, 14:57

Wouldn't like to say what bit of my anatomy it all got up (or is that where your message came from:) )

Come on, on a BB you can't give 'professional advice' its not what this forum's all about. Merely giving an opinion, albeit with the benefit of some specialist knowledge to add to the debate.

If you were an instructor answering a query about spin training you wouldn't expect me to go out and try it - you'd advise me to get an instructor to go with me and do it properly. This is no different in principle.

To respond - yes this is what I think the law is and is the way I would act (if inclined to fly low and slow whilst hanging out of the window, which I'm not) but if others want to do it on the basis of what I say they're welcome to do so, but don't blame me if someone disagrees (esp if they wear a CAA badge):eek:

24R

Flyin'Dutch'

27th Apr 2004, 16:58

Funnily enough I am an instructor and I am quite happy to give a well founded opinion on flying matters.

To extrapolate your analogy you suggest that I would be willing to give that advice only if they came to my office so that I can cover myself and get remunerated.

There are plenty of people on these shores that are happy to do give sound advice for free, just because they are happy to share their knowledge. Sometimes that has to come with a caveat attached to it and that is only fair.

You obviously feel less secure and have to express that your way, and that is of course fine.

Am not sure what you refer to with regards to orifices from which postings can be generated. I use my brain to think and fingers to type.

If you haven't tried those I would suggest you give it a go!

;)

Back to you.

FD

FNG

27th Apr 2004, 17:08

FD, I think that you're being a little bit harsh. Contemporary blame culture (which is not attributable solely to lawyers) may make it prudent to state that a duty of care is not assumed by offering an opinion here. When I've expressed caveats, I've usually said something like "When I write this, I ain't your lawyer. When you read it, you ain't my client. Free advice may be worth precisely what you pay for it".

Flyin'Dutch'

27th Apr 2004, 17:54

Come on F,

Surely 24R is big enough to fight his own corner.

Usually the medics that are accused of closing ranks when there is trouble ahead.

Have no problem with people warning others not to take advice offered on here as gospel, in fact I have even in the recent past done so myself only a page or what back.

The opening statement on one of the regular haunts I frequent has a warning just to that effect.

But can you hand on heart say that you thought the posting by your confrere was a positive contribution to the discussion and that the notion that worthwhile advice can only be obtained by parting with money is one you would happy to be associated with?

Surely there are more cutting reasons why advice given on here can never be comprehensive!

FD

24Right

29th Apr 2004, 09:04

FD, you're missing the point. The opinion given is as valid as all the other opinions given on the forum. The disclaimer is to do with professional liability. You may be right, and perhaps on reflection it's OTT, but lawyers and pilots have one thing in common, and that is a desire to avoid unnecessary risk by dealing as far as possible with that risk in advance - however unlikely it may be.

On this forum, like everyone else, I'm giving my opinions for free - they may be worth more or less than that - but ultimately people must make up their own minds and that applies just as much to an opinion about which is the best headset to buy. But the consequences of relying on some advice is more serious than others if it's wrong.

This is entirely different to a statement that only advice you pay for is any good. The issues of the quality of the advice and the liability of the persion giving it are not the same.

We obviously have different views on this but suggest we call it a day as it must be boring the pants of others in this thread.

Flyin'Dutch'

29th Apr 2004, 10:08

C'est le ton qui fait la musique!

;)

FD

24Right

29th Apr 2004, 12:49

FD - Over my head, I'm afraid. The only foreign language I'm fluent in is legalese.

FNG - I obviously need to use cooler language next time.

24R:O

FNG

29th Apr 2004, 12:53

That may have been the point FD was making : "It is the tone which makes the music". For what it's worth, I found your contribution to the debate to be a reasonable one, and I'm not just saying that because you are a lawyer, although I remain of the view that it would be legally unwise for a PPL to take on the photo mission.

Heliport

29th Apr 2004, 13:21

Flyin'Dutch'
Not sure about lawyers sticking together. It's obvious from reading recent threads in this forum that FNG and FL are poles apart in their approach and they aren't afraid to say so! :D

24Right's didn't phrase his 'disclaimer' in the most attractive of ways but his post on the legal side of this discussion is very interesting, not least because it's the opposite of the views given by most people so far.
He says -- Cost-sharing + no more than 4 people = legal and what his passenger does with the pics is no concern of the pilot's.

Is there a flaw in his reasoning?
Does 'valuable consideration' come into cost-sharing?
Do any of the other lawyers say 24R is wrong?
If so, why?

Art 130 of the ANO is complicated gobbledy-gook to most pilots. I'd bet even lawyers wouldn't claim it's easy to understand, except maybe FNG who can't seem to see legislation through the eyes of a non-lawyer. No offence intended FNG but, reading your posts on this and the related thread, you are rather impatient, and very patronising at times, with people who aren't as used understanding legislation as you.

Leaving aside the safety aspects, why do you say it would be "legally unwise" to do the photo flight?
Sounds a bit like fence-sitting? ;)
Is it legal or not?
You say the legislation is clear.
In your opinion, all dislcaimers in place etc, is it legal under the ANO or not?

_________________

Someone said earlier a PPL (with a type rating) wasn't legally entitled to do a cost-sharing flight.
Why?
As long as there were no more than 4 POB and the pilot paid his proportion of the cost, why wouldn't it be legal?

IO540

29th Apr 2004, 13:42

Heliport

And what his passenger does with the pics is no concern of the pilot's.

I am not a lawyer but I think you are right - no way the pilot could get done just because a passenger took some pics and sold them afterwards. He's an unwitting accomplice. However if the CAA established the pilot knew in advance of the commercial element, they would succeed in making the whole thing look like aerial work. And you bet they would go for it; they aggressively prosecute anything where they should get the AOC fee.

A big bizjet, say £50M, can be flown single pilot on a PPL/IR and you could cost share it. (The IR is required for a JET because outside the airways the fuel consumption is silly and because nobody will train the Type Rating unless the applicant already has an IR - believe it or not, people have bought jets and discovered this later).

Re the 747 business, you are right that a 747 can be flown on a PPL, though a 747 is not single pilot certified and I wonder how the need for two pilots would impact the PPL Cost Sharing rule :O I imagine J Travolta has a CPL/IR and takes someone along. But he can fly the Gulfstream single pilot.

Flyin'Dutch'

29th Apr 2004, 13:57

He's an unwitting accomplice. However if the CAA established the pilot knew in advance of the commercial element, they would succeed in making the whole thing look like aerial work. And you bet they would go for it; they aggressively prosecute anything where they should get the AOC fee.

And that is of course the crux of the matter.

If someone flies with you and takes a piccie and later flogs this off and you were not in the know you can not be blamed.

But as for flaunting the rules knowingly would be no excuse.

The CAA has a duty to protect people (as in the public) too from people doing things which can be potentially unsafe.

FD

FNG

29th Apr 2004, 14:13

I am with FD on the overall position. As for the legal argument, the given scenario is that the pilot deliberately sets out to fly a commercial photographer with a view to obtaining photos to be sold. Art 130(1)(a) focuses on the purpose for which the aircraft is flown. The argument would be that valuable consideration is given in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight. No doubt the photographer will offset his cost share against the proceeds of selling his photos. The pilot and the photographer are collaborating in a flight in which commercial gain is sought to be obtained through the very action of flying. By contrast, someone flying to a business meeting is simply using his aircraft as a means of transport.

I am sorry if I have appeared patronising in the other thread. I confess to being a bit testy with the endless "what if" scenarios, some of which appear of little real value. Previous threads have raised my suspicions that there exists a tiny minority of PPLs who seek to bend the rules and get paid for flying. They deserve to be sentenced to something really terrible, such as becoming helicopter pilots.

PS: Perhaps Bronx will again suggest that I'm a CAA stooge for saying this, but I don't think that collecting AOC fees would be the sole motivation for prosecuting in a case such as this. As well as the public safety element, there's the element of unfair competition by PPLs with people who have taken the time and spent the money to obtain commercial flying qualifications. I add that I can claim no insight into the CAA's prosecution policies, because I have no contact with that bit of the CAA.

Flyin'Dutch'

29th Apr 2004, 14:53

Previous threads have raised my suspicions that there exists a tiny minority of PPLs who seek to bend the rules

I am pretty sure that you are right in your suspicions and I am also sure that the CAA know the vast majority of these people.

As in most walks of life it takes little time and a bit of experience to fathom out what the score is with regards to who are interested in walking the tightrope.

FD

FNG

29th Apr 2004, 14:55

PPS: Art 130 is in general over complicated in its lay-out and presentation (see my discussion with BEagle as to statutory drafting on the other thread). The Article ought to be re-drafted in much plainer terms. I still think, however, that the concept of valuable consideration is not in itself a difficult concept for educated non-lawyers. As for the uneducated, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, just keep banging those rocks together, guys.

englishal

29th Apr 2004, 15:06

You could apply this arguement to many things in Aviation.

Hypothetically my brother phones me up and says "Alan, lets do lunch in Jersey, my shout", and I fly us there. I pay for the plane at the time, then later on when we're back he bungs me a wad of cash to cover the costs......Illegal, yes, but I wonder how many people would do it .....;)

Of course, I could never condone such action, being an upstanding citizen, but the big difference in this case would be that I could trust my brother not to drop me in it........

I've had people offer to pay me (or rather the costs) to take various relatives on joy rides, including one guy who wanted me to take his dad on a birthday treat. I refuse becasue its not worth the hassle if it goes tits up. In the States however.......

EA

Heliport

29th Apr 2004, 15:16

But, if your friend joins his dad on the birthday flight and pays 2/3 of the cost for himself and his dad, it's perfectly legal!

FNG
Thanks for your response.
I know a lot of pilots (PPLs and professional) who are uneducated by your criteria. We'll keep 'banging the rocks together' :rolleyes: but, in the meantime, to clear this up, please can you tell us -

What would be the offence which the PPL commited if he took his photographer friend flying on a cost-sharing basis knowing his friend would be selling the photos?

(You can assume I understand, and agree with, the thinking behind what you say the law is. )

FNG

29th Apr 2004, 15:57

My comments as to intelligibility by the educated are limited to the concept of valuable consideration, defined in article 129. I agree that Article 130 in general is a horrid piece of work. The rocks should not be bashed together, but thrown at the draftsperson.

If the argument which I set out above is correct, then the pilot would be flying without the required licence, and so could be convicted for breaching Article 21, and get fined for this.

Although I have no way of knowing the CAA's thinking on this subject, I am inclined to agree with IO540 that, if the CAA ever learned of a pre-planned commercial photo mission of the kind under discussion, they might well prosecute, taking the view that this was a deliberate attempt to fly commercially on a PPL (although, as I have said above, the prosecution could properly be motivated by factors other than revenue protection).

Saab Dastard

29th Apr 2004, 16:24

So if Man-on-the-Fence or DamienB ever ask for a lift to an airshow or fly-in, think very carefully before allowing them on board!

;)

SD

IO540

29th Apr 2004, 16:42

englishal

In practice, this sort of thing is (I am told, having rarely asked for or got a penny from a passenger) taken care of by the money changing hands AFTER the successful completion of the flight.

If I was doing PPL cost sharing to anywhere near the permitted limit and the money was being offered before the flight, I would get cheques, not cash.

I am sure a lot of people read this and think it's a load of diatribe. They are care-free and without commitments. When one has a business, or gets older and has kids etc, one becomes aware of the possibility of going bankrupt.

And there is where the real danger lies. The worst the CAA can do is a fine or a jail, and they won't jail you unless you've done something pretty bad.

I think the real problem is insurance, and particularly passenger liability.

If passengers get injured, they may have a big financial incentive to disclose things which were previously agreed to be quiet. They may also have a big incentive to make something up. I bet most people would do exactly that if the stake was big enough.

This is especially true for people who fly with no insurance - not in itself illegal. The passengers have a huge incentive to show the pilot was acting illegally.

FNG

29th Apr 2004, 17:50

Gosh, IO, you may be even more cynical than me. The compensation culture is truly depressing, and I''m glad that my work mostly keeps me away from it, but I don't think that we should be scared of our passengers. Of course we should insure ourselves (I find it odd that insurance is not yet compulsory, although of course this is likely to change). In the case of a passenger claiming damages for negligence, the threat to blow the whistle on an illegal flight might be a pressure tactic, but it would be of little effect if the flight was in fact a kosher one. I agree, however, that one of the reasons not to push one's luck with creative interpretations of "private" flying is that, if something goes wrong, the ensuing mess may be even messier than it might otherwise be.

IO540

29th Apr 2004, 21:27

Absolutely right, no reason to be afraid of passengers, but one has to keep things straight just in case. The compensation culture should serve as a confirmation that if somebody can have a go, they are very likely to. Very sad but true.

jumpseater

1st May 2004, 03:59

Having read the opening question I imagine that the CAA would view this as a commercial flight.

In the original statement the photographer photographs large houses as his profession. Foz doesn't say whether the houses to be photographed were of the type this chap normally works on. If they are, and the photographer has an input in the navigation of the flight, i.e. can we go here, and fly around a bit while I get some pictures?, then this would indicate that this was a commercial flight, particularly if the pictures appeared in sales publications, or his portfolio.

If however the photographer said can I come for a ride and take some pictures as as we go along?, and had no input in the route chosen but still took some pictures, this could be classed I feel as an ordinary PPL flight with contribution from a pax. The photographer could legitimately sell any pics commercially, as they were taken by chance, and not planned as such. I had a discussion a couple of years ago on this subject (me as a photographer),with SRG and the above, was my understanding of their position.

Chilli Monster

1st May 2004, 04:27

I've had people offer to pay me (or rather the costs) to take various relatives on joy rides, including one guy who wanted me to take his dad on a birthday treat. I refuse becasue its not worth the hassle if it goes tits up. In the States however.......

Not necessarily in the states even ;)

Recently the FAA succesfully revoked the licence and prosecuted someone who was asked by a friend to fly some people to a party. Said pilot was a CPL/IR. However, the way they looked at it he was offering his services, and his aircraft, as as an air carrier without part 135(?) approval.

So - be careful of the "In the states however................." thinking.