Aerial Photography question.

[Cathy Specific]

I have recently been approached to do some aerial photography and I was just wondering on the 'legal angle'.

Here's the scenario, Pilot [CPL holder] and photographer. Photographer renting public transport cat. C172 and proposing to pay pilot for services.

I am aware of the rule 5 situation and CANP etc but just looking for a clearer view on the ANO aerial work, private ,public trans etc.

Would appreciate any thoughts or anybody's personal experiences.

Kind Regards, Cat.

[eyeinthesky]

I think that comes under the umbrella of Public Transport. If so you will require the full AOC process, I'm afraid.

[unfazed]

Cathy Specific

I think that the response above is correct albeit very daft

CPL holder is more than qualified to take care of a Cessna photoshoot IMHO

From my experience I would recommend that you come to some arrangement with the photographer for your travel costs and "groundschool" time where you will conduct a brief lecture on "Aerial Photography"

Then you fly the aircraft as a private flight and your "friend" takes his personal snaps and chips in half of the cost (you need to make sure your seminar is priced accordingly.

All a bit cloak and dagger but daft laws create even dafter workarounds

Bottom line is that without an AOC you must conduct as a private flight (which must be cost share basis). But many turn a blind eye !

[Cathy Specific]

Thanks very much for the info.

Kind Regards,

Cat

[Piltdown Man]

The legal workaround smells a bit sus to me. What we are suggesting here is "aerial work" and I think that the law is pretty clear on this. But when you have cleared the muddy waters, you'll get better results if the photographer sits in the left hand seat because the slipstream will keep the window open.

PM

[plumponpies]

Been there myself and it is classed as "areial work". CPL holder, no problem, i found the only sticking point was the club i needed to hire the aircraft from were not too happy because they were not getting the commercial hire rate from the photographer!

[Simon150]

Raising this topic again I am afraid.....

It is clear that if the 'passenger and photographer' is paying the CPL holding pilot, the situation with regard to whether the flight is considered to be public transport is at best grey. The flight would obviously be aerial work in any case.

However, here is another situation.

Our fictional CPL holding pilot is a semi-professional photographer who wishes to add another string to his bow by engaging in commisioned aerial photography (he has done lots of private aerial photography in the past so this is not a new discipline)

The passenger in this case is PAID BY the CPL holding pilot to take photographs from the aircraft.

Where does our intrepid freelance photographer stand on whether an AOC is required for this operation?

[windriver]

I did quite a bit of this back in the early eighties on a CPL.. so things may have changed a bit. I used a club aircraft, A Beagle Terri(f)ier as it happens... but I set up an AOC to handle this work and got a type rating for the aircraft.

I wouldn`t dream of tackling it any other way as sods law usually kicks in when the clients want to operate inside CAS of some sort... doing it 'officially' makes getting the clearances so much easier.

Most importantly of all though clients would pay a commercial rate for the job... about 4 times the self fly hire cost of the aircraft as I recall.

If it's just a one off you're looking at... I recommend "No Can Do" as a good response.

[llanfairpg]

If you are going to 'soft pencil' the law remember the consequences if it goes wrong and someone is injured, remember Betty Hill!?

[BYALPHAINDIA]

Or the 'Everton' Nottinghamshire incident Cessna head - on - crash with a TTTA Tornado it was about 8 years ago.

The Cessna was 150ft agl above the church, And the report said that it was taking photos without the proper procedures and licence.

The Tornado was on a low level recon Training flight from RAF Cottesmore, The pilot had no time to avert the collision with the cessna.

Sadly both the Cessna occupants & the Tornado crew (foreign Nav) were killed instantly.

It was fortunate that the Aircraft missed a junior School by a 'hairpiece' one only knows the consequences that would have been.

[Simon150]

"Soft pencil" the law?

I have studied the ANO in depth and am non the wiser due I am sure to the 'special' way in which the requirements are written. Please don't get me wrong - I am asking the question to ensure I am operating within the law, not work around it. If an AOC is required - so be it, however, in this case I am not sure it is......and if it is not required, there is no way I would engage in trying to get one (as I am sure you can appreciate).

Ozy, in my case, I am both a CPL holder and a freelance photographer. This would either work by me flying for free (but taking profits from my Limited Company) and my companion being paid BY ME directly for taking photographs, or my Limited company paying both ME as pilot and my cameraman for his work.

Either way, A CPL (me) would be flying and the cameraguy would NOT be paying for carriage, in both cases he would be getting paid to do a job.

On this basis, I think the ANO says that this is aerial work, not public transport and therefore requires a CPL holder to fly the aircraft obviously but no AOC is required. I don't think the aircraft in this case is required to have a P.T Cat C of A either, but I am not 100% on this (still trying to find the relevant bit).

Llanfairpg and BYALPHAINDIA, thanks for the 'heads up' (pun) but I think these are lessons that all pilots - not just those engaged in aerial photography can learn from.

PP&PPPPP, and stay legal!

[alexpc]

Going slightly at a tangent here, but...

The other day a friend, a basic PPL holder, asked me what the legal status of flying for aerial photography would be.

I had vague memories of photography being one of the few exceptions from the requirement to hold a CPL for "aerial work." However, my reading seems to prove quite conclusively that this isn't the case.

Am I just making this up completely, or did it used to be correct?

[sjm]

did it for three years classed as aerial work no aoc required, a/c PT, cpl required to fly hire or reward, wether flying photographer or taking pics below is correct:ok:


"It would constitute aerial work if you both were employed by an aerial photography company, and the company was selling the pictures for profit. It's not public transport in this case as the photographer is not paying to be carried as a passenger"