Aerial Photography

[Grob Driver]

I know this has been the subject of many discussions, but I cant find the answer to my question by searching through the old threads.

I need to take an aerial photograph for work, and would like to take the photo myself. However, I hold a PPL, not a CPL.

My question is this… Can I take an aerial photograph for use at work if I don’t get paid anything for doing so? I’m happy to use my aircraft, my time, and my fuel, however if this were to be challenged, would it be lawful?

I would appreciate your comments.

Regards

GD

[BackPacker]

The definition of aerial work is something along the lines of "...someone making money...".

The fact that you are paying for the flight costs yourself in this case seems to be irrelevant. What is relevant, I think, is whether the company is going to make money with that photograph.

So if it's just a snapshot of the building with the aim of framing it and putting it in the directors office, it's probably legal. But if it's a photo of stuff that your company has built, with the aim of putting it in a brochure, then it's probably illegal.

But note that I'm not a lawyer so expect lots of people to disagree with me though.

[IO540]

Can't see what could possibly be illegal about taking a pic and just using it for something.

The intent of the regs, such as is to a very limited extent evident from actual prosecutions, is to keep a lid on people setting up in competition with AOC holders who do these kinds of things (surveying etc) for a living.

AOC holders moan like hell to the CAA, and the CAA takes notice because AOC holders pay them big money in approval fees.

[Pace]

Taking pictures from an aeroplane is hardly a safety factor when compared to taking them for your own use (legal) or making money from them.
Regulations regarding aviation should be safety motivated and that alone.

So this has to be protectionism at its worst.

As a PPL you are flying for business or pleasure so take the shots give them to your employers and get them to pay you a bonus on your normal day work.
Sir Douglas Bader " Rules are for fools to obey and wise men to question".

This smacks of the to question bit :)


Pace

[Pilot DAR]

Or phrased differently: Sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. This is certainly one of those times!

Go take your photos... You have the full authority of us anonymous PPRuNers!

[scotavia]

Aerial work which includes glider towing, photography can be carried out without an AOC. Several Uk registered aircraft carry out air photo flights without having an AOC,they are owned and operated by companies and individuals.They are not available for others to rent. Microlights are not able to carry out air photo work for hire or reward.

A PPL may take aerial photos on the basis of giving away the results, they may not charge for them.

Be very careful if you are on your own, I recommend a pilot and photog.And even then you need to take extra care.

[Pace]

Be very careful if you are on your own, I recommend a pilot and photog.And even then you need to take extra care.

That goes without saying and is relevant to personal or commercial photos.
Low and slow with steep turns while all your concentration is on the photography is a recipe for a number of potential threats from not seeing other aircraft to stall spin accidents or even missing something happening in the aircraft etc.

Another PPL to fly while you take the shots or a friend along to at least keep an eye out is good advice.

If you are taking Digital try an editing programme called Picasa it is the best I have found for easely enhancing aerial work.

Pace

[bookworm]

Can I take an aerial photograph for use at work if I don’t get paid anything for doing so? I’m happy to use my aircraft, my time, and my fuel, however if this were to be challenged, would it be lawful?

It depends a little on what you mean by "for use at work". It becomes aerial work (and therefore illegal on a PPL) if "valuable consideration is given or promised for the flight or the purpose of the flight". If you work as an estate agent and a client is paying for you to publish a photograph of their property, taking an aerial photograph might fall foul of that. If the photograph is simply for the internal use of your employer, your employer can even reimburse you the direct costs of the flight, as if you were using it to travel to a business meeting.

[883robert]

And there's always Rule No.1: 'Don't get caught'. Everything else comes after that.

[scotavia]

And some never bother to even check if its ok, for example the chap down at Eaglescott who sells pics taken from a weight shift microlight and even works on a commisioned basis. Totally illegal ,although the shame is that the camera platform is a good one within its own weather limits.

[bobstay]

If the photograph is simply for the internal use of your employer, your employer can even reimburse you the direct costs of the flight, as if you were using it to travel to a business meeting.I'm intrigued. By this, do you mean that, with a PPL, I could legally fly myself to a business meeting (instead of driving), and get my employer to reimburse me just as they would if I'd driven?

How about if I take along three of my colleagues to said meeting?

[Pace]

I'm intrigued. By this, do you mean that, with a PPL, I could legally fly myself to a business meeting (instead of driving), and get my employer to reimburse me just as they would if I'd driven?

How about if I take along three of my colleagues to said meeting?

Yes that is basically correct with one uncertainty. You can fly for business or pleasure. What you cannot do is to charge for your services as a pilot and neither you or your employer can charge your colleagues for the use of the aircraft. As long as it is used in the legitimate course of your business and as you said instead of taking your car that is ok.

Lets take it further your company may have a contract in some difficult to get to location. They could either purchase or lease an aircraft to cover that need and meet the costs of that aircraft. They could employ a commercial pilot to fly it for them. They could transport their employees on that aircraft.

You as a PPL are licenced to fly the aircraft. If you drove a rented car to the location with your colleagues you would not expect your company to pay you as a taxi driver or to charge your colleagues for the trip.

What you may need to check is the insurance cover and the companies own insurance to make sure that the proposed operation and you as a PPL are acceptable.

I am not sure as an employee rather than an owner of the company whether the rental should be in the companies name. Ie whether you renting it as a private individual and then claiming the costs back is legitimate as the rental should be directly with your company.

Ie Joe Bloggs enterprises Ltd rents and pays for the aircraft with you flying it as a licenced PPL and an employee of theirs.

Pace

[bookworm]

I'm intrigued. By this, do you mean that, with a PPL, I could legally fly myself to a business meeting (instead of driving), and get my employer to reimburse me just as they would if I'd driven?

Correct. The employer can pay the direct costs of your flight.

How about if I take along three of my colleagues to said meeting?

Essentially, provided they are not contractually required to travel with you, that's OK. Most of us who do such trips make sure our colleagues are explicitly offered an alternative means of transport.

Public transport and aerial work - exceptions - recovery of direct costs
161(1) Subject to [the usual requirements on aircraft that are hired out], a flight shall be deemed to be a private flight if the only valuable consideration given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight other than:

(a) [aircraft hire fees]; or

(b) [normal contributions to group running costs];

is the payment of the whole or part of the direct costs otherwise payable by the pilot
in command by or on behalf of the employer of the pilot in command, or by or on
behalf of a body corporate of which the pilot in command is a director, provided that
neither the pilot in command nor any other person who is carried is legally obliged,
whether under a contract or otherwise, to be carried.

[bookworm]

As long as it is used in the legitimate course of your business

There is no requirement for this from the point of view of aviation law. The Revenue would, of course, be concerned about it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

CAA permits its employees who hold PPLs to fly themselves to meetings. I think that they get reimbursed normally at motor-mileage rates or exceptionally at actual aircraft cost if they can afford it.

I *believe* that they do require an IMC, but that's not a legal requirement, it's CAA's take as an employer on what makes an adequately safe and competent pilot for flying business trips within the UK.

G

[bigfoot01]

I always really enjoy these legal debates. I have a question, I fly up take a photo of somebody's house. They give me a pile of cash. Job done.... Does anybody evey really get prosecuted for this stuff?

[scotavia]

Just try it Bigfoot, see what happens ! Oh and dont expect a bundle of cash for taking pics of a house, Skytrax have that market down at very low prices and in the current climate the bundle will have shrunk to loose change.

[bigfoot01]

Hey, I'm not really that good a pilot or photographer, and the bundles of cash aside. I am both unclear about how such a digression will be detected and I am unclear of where the motivated authorities are for prosecuting these things. Rather than me test the theory by actually going out and breaking the law (thanks for the suggestion and motivation – aiding and abetting? Is there some in Lasors about that? I’d go and look, but it’s quicker to ask on here J) it would be nice to see some BBC stories.

‘Man prosecuted for making an estimated £100,000 through the process of taking a photograph of something pretty and then it being used by his company for something. Police advise that he was hovering in his jet over houses for up to 8 hours a day during high winds, which were not safe to be flying in…’

Of course there is the possibility that every pilot is an honest pilot and wouldn’t dream of doing such things…

[FREDAcheck]

Is it legal to take photographs for money if you are a PPL, or to let someone else in the plane do so? No. It's "Aerial Work". See "CAP 393 AIR NAVIGATION: THE ORDER AND THE REGULATIONS AMENDMENT 3/2008", para 157. Penalties (para 148) up to two years plus a fine. You would be breaking the terms of your licence, probably breaking the terms of the C of A of the plane, and probably your insurance would be invalid.

Are you likely to get caught? No

It's not rocket science. With a few defined exceptions (paras 158-163) you can't make money - directly or indirectly - from flying, nor can anyone else in the plane you pilot. You're not likely to get caught, but if you do you're not likely to get away with in, nor be treated at all charitably by the CAA.

[IO540]

There are two quite separate issues: insurance, and the pilot getting done by the CAA.

Nobody will get caught until there is some incident or problem.

Take a crash. The pilot has no liability to passengers unless shown to have been negligent. The ref for this is somewhere in the Civil Aviation Act, I think.

So, any surviving injured passengers, or their estates if they got killed, will try hard to nail the "negligent" label onto the pilot - whether he is still alive or not - because then they will get a nice payout. It doesn't matter what he actually did, so this kind of thing can get pretty dirty.

You soon find how good your friends are if the sh*t hits the fan, and the reality is that most will all desert you instantly the moment there is a, shall we say, conflict of interest ;)

That is why it's best to keep things straight.

The other thing is the GA airfield gossip scene. All the malicious gossip travels at 150kt. If you do stuff for money, the word will get around.

[BackPacker]

With a few defined exceptions (paras 158-163) you can't make money - directly or indirectly - from flying, nor can anyone else in the plane you pilot.

(My emphasis). In fact, my understanding is that noone can make money from your flight, even if they did NOT fly with you. So if you give the pictures to the company and the company then uses these to make money (or, at the very least, save the expenses of having them professionally done) it's already illegal. And that's independent of the question of whether you get reimbursed for the flight expenses or not.

As a side issue: Come to think of this, doesn't make this it illegal for the plane rental company to make money off you? And how about the fuel supplier?

[IO540]

doesn't make this it illegal for the plane rental company to make money off you?

That one is covered by some other obscure bit of the UK ANO :)

But yes that is a good point.

It is also relevant to renting out an N-reg, which on the face of it should breach Article 140 but it doesn't - and I have checked this with the top man at the DfT.

[bigfoot01]

Anybody every prosecuted for any of these things ever?

[IO540]

Maybe not aerial photos but certainly what was deemed illegal paid ops on a PPL.

Some recent CAA prosecutions are here (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=503&pagetype=90&pageid=6484).

I believe they have taken out most, if not all, of those that failed.

I like the "Aircraft took off with concrete block still attached" one ;)

This kind of stuff makes interesting reading - it puts to bed so much pilot forum gossip about getting done for this and that. The FAA (in the USA) is far more pro-active.

But as I said, it is the insurance angle which might turn out to be the gotcha.

[bigfoot01]

Great post, I didn't know they were there, but in summary the answer is no, nobody has been prosecuted for taking a snap for your company and then using it, maybe even making a few bob, in the past 3 years (or similar!). Pragmatically, I think the original question is on pretty safe ground, despite the fascinating technicalities of LASORS. Hey ho....

[bookworm]

(My emphasis). In fact, my understanding is that noone can make money from your flight, even if they did NOT fly with you. So if you give the pictures to the company and the company then uses these to make money (or, at the very least, save the expenses of having them professionally done) it's already illegal.

Your understanding is wrong then, at least so far as UK law is concerned. The condition that makes a flight aerial work or public transport is much narrower than you suggest, and revolves around whether valuable consideration is given or promised for the flight or the purpose of the flight. There are many ways to "make money" in a way that does not fall under that condition.

The "taking the job away from professionals" argument is also a frequently quoted distraction. If you fly your private aircraft from A to B for pleasure, you're often depriving an airline or air taxi company of the income they would get from carrying you on the same route. That doesn't make your flight aerial work.

Flying has enough regulatory encumbrance, without anyone inventing imaginary prohibitions.

[Grob Driver]

Thank you all for the posts so far.

I tried talking with the CAA on Friday to get a definitive answer but they were about as much help as..........

In the end they suggested I e-mail my question to them.

Just to give a bit more background... I work for a government agency, and they photo would be used to help in a potential prosecution. So, there would be no 'financial' gain for either me or my employer.

Regards
GD
PS - I'm not a planner, and it's not planning related! - Just wanted to get that in before a torrent of abuse heads my way (Would be justified abuse too... If I were a planner!!!!!!!!!!!!)

[BelArgUSA]

OK, I think you guys in UK go a little bit overboard with your law abiding attitudes.
Yes, of course. Taking a picture with a PPL, on a non-commercially licenced airplane...
Bla bla bla...
xxx
Consider this. You are all pilots, I visit England.
I am in pilot uniform, at LHR T-3, you are passing by with your car.
Raining like hell. You stop, and ask if I would like a ride... you are a buddy pilot.
We pilots help each other. Right...?
Yes Sir, I need to go to LGW... I need a taxi...
You offer me the ride, as you were driving to Crawley anyway.
Quick on the M-25... 35 minutes later, you drop me at LGW.
Hey, thanks, mate... and I give you 20 quids for your kindness.
xxx
Well, Sir, you are a dirty b*stard. You are not operating a licenced taxi.
You do not have a commercial driver's licence either.
You are not covered by your insurance to offer transportation.
You fail to report your earnings to internal revenue...
Should I report you, or thank you for the assistance you gave me...?
xxx
Same thing... you take a plane, and make a picture.
Nothing "commercial" about it. Likely you will never make pictures in flight again.
You are really not operating aerial work business. It is just incidental.
Your employer appreciates, and reimburses you for part of your flight.
As a thank you for your effort.
xxx
That is my point. And that is my opinion, law, or no law considered.
Now continue to discuss nonsense, and sit on the rules.
xxx
I do not know about "your" wonderful CAA...
In the USA, where I flew part of my career, it would never be considered a commercial flight.
Do you know i.e. than with FAA rules, a PPL (airplane salesman) can legally fly a potential customer.
It does not require a CPL, even though part of your salary will be a sales commission.
Flying with a customer is incidental to your salesman job. Nothing "commercial".
xxx
I had a friend in California, real estate salesman. Million dollar estates.
He was a PPL. The plane was rented from a flight school.
He often took pictures from the plane, of the mansions he was selling.
xxx
So, for heaven's sake, go and take that picture, and do not say a word.
:rolleyes:
Happy contrails

[Halfbaked_Boy]

I agree with BelArgUSA,

Come on buddy, you're in an aeroplane, not in school - do whatever you want, just be safe and don't get caught :ok:

p.s. this is completely legal.

[172driver]

BelArgUSA: :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Pace]

BelArgUsa

Very well put we are so up our Ar**s in the UK. Interesting snippet the average UK resident breaks the law 22 times a day without even realising it.

If it breathes or moves regulate on it.

No wonder all our emplyement is in government positions :) and I repeat
Sir Douglas Bader " The law is for fools to obey and wise men to question".
A heck of a lot need an awful lot of questioning.

Pace

[Jumbo Driver]

... and I repeat
Sir Douglas Bader " The law is for fools to obey and wise men to question".
...

... I believe the Bader quote was actually "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" ...


JD
;)

[percy prentice]

Hey chaps, I think that you will find that we all probably break the law over here every time we get out of the door in the morning & some probably in their own homes before they even get out through the door :)

There are hardly any inforcements going on unto something goes wrong. When it does every single rule book is then looked at. That is when the rule book is used to beat the offender over the head.
We can all pooh pooh these laws & say that we have got away with it but when there is a problem you can guarrantee that some official will nail you on something.
I conduct my business & try and adhere to best practices but what I do know is when something goes wrong a little enforcer will be there to nail someone.

I think that you are safe as I am not aware of anyone making money out of taking aerial pictures of buildings, it becomes profitable if there is a well known celeb being caught in the act & if a goat is involved..... now that would pay for your fines & a damn good holiday ...well worth it eh?

[TheGorrilla]

it becomes profitable if there is a well known celeb being caught in the act & if a goat is involved..... now that would pay for your fines & a damn good holiday ...well worth it eh?

Ah that good old well know, rolling goat shag! :8

Are you sure you don't work for the paparazzi Percy?