Aerial Work

[Finalgearup]

I've been studying CAR's at length trying to find a definitive answer to this but I'm guessing there is someone out there in PPrune land who will know the answer off the top of their head.

Consider this: I, as a licence holder, hire a light single from my local flying club for a couple of hours pottering around the countryside. During the flight I see a fabulous mansion on the ground; real Hollywood stuff. I get out my digital camera and fire off a couple of snaps. Later on I approach the house owner, asking if they are interested in buying aerial pictures of their house. Is this aerial work?

I haven't been commissioned to take the photos, I don't own the aircraft, I haven't employed anyone to take the photos. It would seem a bit extreme to have to be an AOC holder since this is ppurely an opportunistic thing.

Any one have any experience of this or thoughts on the subject?

[Woomera]

Some years ago - eight or ten years ago - a guy was prosecuted by CASA for doing exactly as you suggest. I recall the case but on't recall the details.

The definition of Aerial Work is simple - it is exactly what your CASA FOI thinks it should mean.

Sunny Woomera

[wdn]

CAR 2 (7)(d)(iv) - i'm not going to write it out but its on page 30.

it seems pretty clear that aerial photography is only a private op if nobody involved receices remuneration. there doesn't seem to be a time limit for when the remuneration cannot be received.

(that whole pvt ops section is one of the most misunderstood regs there is.)

CAR 206 (1)(a)(iv) - page 367

aerial photography (with no limit on who can be remunerated) is aerial work.

[Finalgearup]

Thanks Woomera.

So let me get this right, I can conduct two flights, identical in every respect.

However, a few weeks later when I subsequently sell a photograph I took on one of the flights, that flight suddenly changes from a Private flight to an Aerial Work flight. For this I need to go through the nause of obtaining an AOC, or should I have obtained an AOC before I took the camera out of its case....just in case?

Guess I don't have the big picture!

Just beat me to it wdn! Will look at page 30.

[Lord Snot]

Aerial work is what you tell FS you're doing when you're near the aerodrome you planned to land at but can't quite work out where the fcuk it is...:}

[poteroo]

Whether it's perceived as an outright commercial operation may well depend on how you are handling your transactions for tax.

If you receive payments for matters which are deemed as [I]private recreational pursuits or hobbies[I] then these payments are not subject to GST. The income may or may not be required to be included in your gross income, and you'd have to pay income tax at your marginal rate. Check with your accountant here....I'm not one!

If the transactions were seen by the ATO as being of a private recreational pursuit or hobby nature, ie non-commercial, then you might have some strength in your likely disputation with CASA.

happy days,

[scrambler]

V6-VNE I disagree. The ATO ruling is for taxation purposes only. I couldn't see you being successful in arguing that because the ATO considered something as a hobby or recreational pursuit it wasn't covered by the CAA or CAR's.

I understood that the Hobby ruling came into effect to stop people claiming a loss every year from a hobby.