Hi,

I have a friend who is a photographer and he asked me if I could take him up and let him take some shots of houses from the air. He is a country house photographer working most often for the large country house estate agents.

Is this legal as a PPL ( I wouldnt be being paid however I would ask for a contribution towards the rental of the aircraft). I tried to find out from the CAA but it is such wordy language that I couldnt make head nor tail of it!!

Any advice on this would be most appreciated.

Thanks

Foz

Your friend has asked you to take him on a flight from which he will derive commercial gain.

That can hardly be considered to be a private flight.

I strongly suspect that, were you to conduct such a flight, you would be acting illegally. It would be a different matter if your friend just wanted to snap his own house and agreed to cost share your private flight.

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.

"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.

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

...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.

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.

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)

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).

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.

Beagle & FD are spot on.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Article 130 of the ANO, available here
Section 1 Part XI Page 22
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

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

Mike

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 And don't be suprised if you get an evil look or two from commercial aerial photo operators &CPLs
Capt. M

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.

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