Aerial Photography

[cy becker]

A photographer acquaintance, has asked if I could take him flying in a light aircraft for some aerial shots.

I assume that if 'valuable consideration' is given [or promised] then the flight ceases to be 'private' and becomes 'aerial work'. Also, that 'aerial work' requires a professional licence. If these assumptions are correct [?], then could anybody please answer the following?

Flight operated as 'private':
1. Can I be paid for my services as the pilot [i.e. as I hold a professional licence]?
2. Can the aircraft hire be shared with a non-pilot [i.e. the photographer]?

Flight operated as 'aerial work':
1. Do flying clubs generally require an AOC [or any other CAA permissions] to authorise such a flight?
2. Can the aircraft hire and my services be paid for by the photographer?

Thanks

[Limey]

Why don't you charge your photographer for driving him to the airport (lets say a couple of hundred pounds ) and then split the cost of your private flight with him ?

[knobbygb]

Limey, I'm sure this kind of thing happens occasionally, but blantantly condoning this breaking of the 'spirit' of the law on a popular public forum is not in the interests of GA or the people involed in it. The rules are there, in my opinion, for a very good reason. The last thing we need is more restrictive legislation on matters like this.

The pilot in this case appears to have a cpl and be perfectly aware of the general rule and just needs clarification of specifics. Why suggest he knowingly break the law when he can easily work within it?

cy, sorry I can't help - I know how the law affect me, but haven't got the experience to answer your question. Ask the people you will be hiring the a/c from. Oh, and be aware of the laws specifically govourning arial photography - I beleive it is illigal in the UK without specific permission. It is you as pilot, not just the photographer who would be held to account.

[newswatcher]

Following knobbygb's comments:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/Aerial_photo.pdf

[AerBabe]

knobbygb the link doesn't work for me, so apologies if this is covered within it...
Is it illegal in the UK only if the photos are for publication? What happens for competitions, for example the Dawn to Dusk, when photographs are needed as evidence of the flight? I know this is pretty specific, sorry!

[knobbygb]

I can't get the link to work either... well, the link does but the PDF won't display properly.

Anyway, I didn't mean to give the idea I was some kind of expert on this - I was just remembering somthing I read somwhere - probably on Pprune. Can't find it any more though, so perhaps I imagined it.

Can't see what the problem would be taking photos for your own use as AerBabe suggests. Perhaps the problem was one of selling the photos for a profit - would that mean the flight constituted airwork? Bit of a grey area, if, say, the photographer was a friend who didn't pay you for the flight, but then made money from it himself.

I guess the link above would explain all if it worked. Newswatcher, what did it say?

[AerBabe]

Sorry knobbygb, didn't mean to imply you were an expert, I was being an idiot and thought you'd posted the link :o

[Cathar]

Captain Stable has posted the text of the CAA document on the safety forum. The use that the photos will be put to is not relevant to deciding whether it is aerial work.

You need to check the first paragraph of article 130 of the Air Navigation Order:

"Public transport and aerial work
130 - (1)

(a) Subject to the provisions of this article, aerial work means any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.

(b) If the only such valuable consideration consists of remuneration for the services of the pilot the flight shall be deemed to be a private flight for the purposes of Part III of this Order."

The remainder of the article deals with public transport.

[Cathar]

Of course the photographer is a passenger so it may be public transport.:confused:

[Alf Aworna]

I just chanced upon this thread but as a mil pilot it does affect me. I don't really know where the legality of your situation lies, what does concern me is that you tell someone that you are doing (CANP and a radar service if available). You tend to be down low when you are taking these piccies and you are very difficult to see. Thanks, hope the piccies come out alright.

[newswatcher]

Hi guys, link is OK but of course you will need Acrobat Reader to view it, as it is a "PDF". Sorry forgot to mention this earlier.

[Limey]

Cy,

What I said was a bit tongue in cheek but knobby seems to have gone off the deep end a bit

OK So serious hat on !

Having read ANO 30 It is still as clear as mud to me, main theme seems to be that even after passing 14 or so commercial exams, passing a pretty demanding (allegedly VFR) checkride, the CAA rules still do not permit you to charge your photographer associate (even if you do have a CPL)

You (or your employer) must have an air operators certificate (AOC)for this type of activity - This is yet another clever money making scheme for the boys at Gatwick, most clubs do not bother due to the rip off cost of an AOC, as an individual you would probably not be able to justify the cost even if you could jump through all of the red tape. Many clubs simply turn a blind eye.

So even though you have a CPL there is not a hell of a lot you can legally do with it on your own. Sorry to be a party pooper and I hope that I am wrong and that somebody else can tell us how to be legit.

[cy becker]

'Clear as mud' seems to sum up the situation nicely! ANO - Art.130 appears to be open to interpretation and be written for the benefit of lawyers, not pilots. Though I now have a better general 'feel' of things, the specifics upon which I sought clarification remain elusive (i.e. no conclusive plain-english references). That said - I'm inclined to think that Limey probably has the nuts of it. Perhaps a 'flying lawyer' (or other directly experienced person) might yet pass this way and help those of us considering such flying, approach it with more confidence - and provide an authoritative post for the archives...

In the meantime, thanks contributors one and all - very much appreciated.

Cy

@ Alf Aworna: I share your concerns of being 'down low' in 'your' alt. band - especially in a high wing 2-seater (no spare set of useful eyes in the back). Plenty of turns going in and out (better profile/movement) with lights on for the duration is hopefully useful. However, I remain uncomfortable with the actual 'bombing' run itself, where I can't (necessarily) practice alternate wing lifting or cover my six - when it's most crucially needed. Rest assured I wouldn't consider an 'ops-gardening' without using CANP.

Here's hoping you never see the whites of my dog's eyes on the back shelf! :eek:
Rgrds

[knobbygb]

OK - lightened up a bit.

It just did't seem tongue in cheek at the time - perhaps a couple of smileys?;)

I'm sure we all know that there are many people on Pprune who's sole intention is to find stuff here that they can use against aviation. These people are trying to take away our freedom. Why help them?

[Limey]

Smilies will be used next time :) :cool: :D

I was merely pointing out how stupid and non sensical the rules appear to me, even after reading them a couple of times they still do not provide clear guidance. They appear to be subject to interpretation and are just not sensible anyway. Contrast them with the US FAR's which are clear and concise.

Even if my point was extreme it is perfectly legal

Why are we spending a great deal of time and money gaining "commercial" licenses if the rules prevent us undertaking entry level commercial type work ?

And why can't we fly as independant professional practitioners as other's do.