Airial photography.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting one! The hire and reward part is pretty clear to me as the person "up North" has shown me legal papers relating to CAA actions that were dealt with! What also interests me is Backpackers info on the Netherlands blanket ban on photo's from the air due to military reasons! What do the Netherlands have to be so protective of? If you look on google earth you will see that all the airfields in Holland are smudged out! Not even Russia or USA take these steps, so what are they hiding I think we should be told
Plumber same could be said the the Greeks ! get arrested there taking photo's from the side of the road, isn't it great, that we are all now Europeans and bound by same laws
Oh original poster, why bother taking photo's of peoples house from the air ? when there's google earth ?
Plumber same could be said the the Greeks ! get arrested there taking photo's from the side of the road, isn't it great, that we are all now Europeans and bound by same laws
Oh original poster, why bother taking photo's of peoples house from the air ? when there's google earth ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: york
Age: 49
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Google earth is very old imagery, i dont think you would get a decent shot of, lets say Charlotte Church, including the bump! next to the pool from google earth!
BRL I cant divulge the history of my nick name! But be my guest and guess
But i do wonder at the Dutch ban on aerial photo's, seriously, does anyone know why they are so anti? Just curiose!
BRL I cant divulge the history of my nick name! But be my guest and guess
But i do wonder at the Dutch ban on aerial photo's, seriously, does anyone know why they are so anti? Just curiose!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who speak Dutch, here is the law which covers photography over Dutch territory:
http://wetten.overheid.nl/cgi-bin/de...le=2/article=2
It's even worse than I thought. It's even forbidden to take a photographic apparatus with you on board an aircraft, even if you don't intend to use it. But there is an exception for scheduled, international persons or goods transport.
It is clearly a Defense issue. If you want to get a license you've got to go to the Ministry of Defence. But getting such a license (issued for a four-week period if you're non-commercial) is free:
http://overheidsloket.overheid.nl/in...roduct_id=1195
To put all this in context, this became law in 1959. Cold war and everything.
http://wetten.overheid.nl/cgi-bin/de...le=2/article=2
It's even worse than I thought. It's even forbidden to take a photographic apparatus with you on board an aircraft, even if you don't intend to use it. But there is an exception for scheduled, international persons or goods transport.
It is clearly a Defense issue. If you want to get a license you've got to go to the Ministry of Defence. But getting such a license (issued for a four-week period if you're non-commercial) is free:
http://overheidsloket.overheid.nl/in...roduct_id=1195
To put all this in context, this became law in 1959. Cold war and everything.
I'm interested in this guy up North that can prove that a PPL can fly a plane for the purposes of paparazzi photography. Can you give more information?
From the ANO, CAP393 (2007):
and:
As I understand it, the "valuable consideration" doesn't have to be given or promised to the pilot. If the flight is for any commercial purpose, for example someone (such as a paparazzi) gains or pays a "valuable consideration", whether or not the pilot benefits, then the flight is "aerial work". If the pilot is a PPL and knows (or might reasonably infer) that the photographer may use the photos for any commercial purpose, then I should say he's in breach of the ANO (and his insurance, almost certainly).
If that's wrong, could someone please explain?
From the ANO, CAP393 (2007):
PART A – FLIGHT CREW LICENCES
Section 1 – United Kingdom Licences
Sub-Section 1 AEROPLANE PILOTS
Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
…
(2) He shall not:
(a) fly such an aeroplane for the purpose of public transport or aerial work save as
hereinafter provided:
[none of the exceptions include aerial photography]
Section 1 – United Kingdom Licences
Sub-Section 1 AEROPLANE PILOTS
Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplanes)
…
(2) He shall not:
(a) fly such an aeroplane for the purpose of public transport or aerial work save as
hereinafter provided:
[none of the exceptions include aerial photography]
Public transport and aerial work - general rules
157 (1) Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, 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.
157 (1) Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, 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.
If that's wrong, could someone please explain?
Last edited by FREDAcheck; 8th Jun 2007 at 08:38.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fareham
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why supposedly intelligent people find this so difficult:
If someone in the aircraft is getting paid or might reasonably expect to get paid for something they do as result of being there, it's aerial work. End of story. You need a CPL.
It matters not one jot if the guy at the front or the guy in the back is getting paid.
If someone in the aircraft is getting paid or might reasonably expect to get paid for something they do as result of being there, it's aerial work. End of story. You need a CPL.
It matters not one jot if the guy at the front or the guy in the back is getting paid.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the whole story by a long way.
In just about every situation which needs a CPL, you also need an AOC, or at least a one-off permit. A CPL alone is close to worthless.
In just about every situation which needs a CPL, you also need an AOC, or at least a one-off permit. A CPL alone is close to worthless.
Very generally speaking that may be true, but not always. It comes down to whether the operation is undertaken for the purposes of aerial work, or the purposes of public transport.
There is a document available from the CAA which explains the differences and how to decide whether an operation comes under aerial work rules or public transport rules, the latter perhaps requiring an AOC if the company is an 'air transport undertaking'. The doc is a guide rather than a canonical authority but it's handy reading.
As ever, there can be grey areas though. The document suggests that 'cameramen' are to be considered passengers which would therefore infer a public transport operation. However, there are at least two companies in the UK which consider their sensor operators to be crew, and thereby operate under aerial work rules. Each year these company must have their annual CAA Ops Inspection, and each year the CAA presumably go home happy. That said, I'm talking about operations involving twin turbines and big twin pistons fitted with very expensive sensors rather than spamcans with SLR's poking out the windows.
I digress; the document also explains how to decide what constitutes valuable consideration, which might be useful to Pumper Bob. Notice it talks about a payment being made - not necessarily to the pilot, not even to the cameraman, just to someone (e.g. the operator). Presumably somebody somewhere will be making money from these pap shots. If that somebody were no longer making money from them, would they still want the shots taking?
There is a document available from the CAA which explains the differences and how to decide whether an operation comes under aerial work rules or public transport rules, the latter perhaps requiring an AOC if the company is an 'air transport undertaking'. The doc is a guide rather than a canonical authority but it's handy reading.
As ever, there can be grey areas though. The document suggests that 'cameramen' are to be considered passengers which would therefore infer a public transport operation. However, there are at least two companies in the UK which consider their sensor operators to be crew, and thereby operate under aerial work rules. Each year these company must have their annual CAA Ops Inspection, and each year the CAA presumably go home happy. That said, I'm talking about operations involving twin turbines and big twin pistons fitted with very expensive sensors rather than spamcans with SLR's poking out the windows.
I digress; the document also explains how to decide what constitutes valuable consideration, which might be useful to Pumper Bob. Notice it talks about a payment being made - not necessarily to the pilot, not even to the cameraman, just to someone (e.g. the operator). Presumably somebody somewhere will be making money from these pap shots. If that somebody were no longer making money from them, would they still want the shots taking?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fareham
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 and Charley. Agree totally. I was just trying to keep it simple as it appeared that one or two people did not understand the (slightly) complex answer.
Also, in simple terms, if the CAA get wind of what you are up to they will throw the book (and the bookcase) at you.
Also, in simple terms, if the CAA get wind of what you are up to they will throw the book (and the bookcase) at you.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Small dot in the Caribbean
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[http://www.aerialcinematography.com/index.html] [http://www.camerasystems.com/products.htm]
If you only have a PPL you can't do anything legally and since it's illegal, you can't advertise in the papers, business will be limited and if someone doesn't like their picture, or is just a bit devious they can extort you or they can blackmail for your last dollar and may still turn you in, or they can call the cops (somewhat better) without blackmail.
[Extortion is where the erm, extorter threatens to do something illegal unless they are are paid while in blackmail the blackmail threatens to do something legal, I believe]
Its risky business for the illegal...If you really want to do it get the appropriate certifications...
And it's often guys like those who don't get caught and guys like you who do.
If you only have a PPL you can't do anything legally and since it's illegal, you can't advertise in the papers, business will be limited and if someone doesn't like their picture, or is just a bit devious they can extort you or they can blackmail for your last dollar and may still turn you in, or they can call the cops (somewhat better) without blackmail.
[Extortion is where the erm, extorter threatens to do something illegal unless they are are paid while in blackmail the blackmail threatens to do something legal, I believe]
Its risky business for the illegal...If you really want to do it get the appropriate certifications...
I have proof of this with someone doing something similar up north!
