Aerial Survey work on a PPL
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Earth
Age: 35
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this question is connected to this thread:-
I have an NPPL so the basic of the basic! - and a friend of mine has asked if we can go for a flight for him to get aerial shots for his private photo collection. What is this classed as? is it just a passenger with a camera?
Also how much can he pay towards the flight, is it only up to half of it?
cheers
SO
p.s. i hope i'm not hi-jacking the thread but i think it's related!
I have an NPPL so the basic of the basic! - and a friend of mine has asked if we can go for a flight for him to get aerial shots for his private photo collection. What is this classed as? is it just a passenger with a camera?
Also how much can he pay towards the flight, is it only up to half of it?
cheers
SO
p.s. i hope i'm not hi-jacking the thread but i think it's related!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Private flying
Snowy owl
Of course you can do this Flight and share the costs equally but remember you must be members of the same club! Many clubs insist that all have at least a day membership in order that they do not fall fail of this requirement.
Of course you can do this Flight and share the costs equally but remember you must be members of the same club! Many clubs insist that all have at least a day membership in order that they do not fall fail of this requirement.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by homeguard
Of course you can do this Flight and share the costs equally but remember you must be members of the same club!
Many aircraft and pilots have zero affiliation to a club; there is no restriction on private photography because of that.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost sharing
Davew
Photography is irrelevent to this. To cost share you must be members of the same club and no more that 4 people, including the pilot, may share costs. The pilot must pay at least one quarter. 'Club' is ill defined in law. You could form your own club if you wish.
Photography is irrelevent to this. To cost share you must be members of the same club and no more that 4 people, including the pilot, may share costs. The pilot must pay at least one quarter. 'Club' is ill defined in law. You could form your own club if you wish.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chapter and verse, please?
There's nothing in ANO Article 160 (Used to be 130) that says this. What it does say is - and see my bold for the precisely relevant bit:
This is why I think you are confusing things with a detail regarding advertising.
There's nothing in ANO Article 160 (Used to be 130) that says this. What it does say is - and see my bold for the precisely relevant bit:
Public transport and aerial work—exceptions—cost sharing
160. —(1) Subject to paragraph (4), 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 falls within paragraph (2) and the the criteria in paragraph (3) are satisfied.
(2) Valuable consideration falls within this paragraph if it is—
(a) valuable consideration specified in article 157(3)(c);
(b) in the case of an aircraft owned in accordance with article 162(2), valuable consideration which falls within article 162(3); or
(c) is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command;
or falls within any two or all three sub-paragraphs.
(3) The criteria in this paragraph are satisfied if—
(a) no more than 4 persons (including the pilot) are carried;
(b) the proportion which the contribution referred to in paragraph (2)(c) bears to the direct costs shall not exceed the proportion which the number of persons carried on the flight (excluding the pilot) bears to the number of persons carried (including the pilot);
(c) no information shall have been published or advertised prior to the commencement of the flight other than, in the case of an aircraft operated by a flying club, advertising wholly within the premises of such a flying club in which case all the persons carried on such a flight who are aged 18 years or over shall be members of that flying club; and
(d) no person acting as a pilot shall be employed as a pilot by, or be a party to a contract for the provision of services as a pilot with, the operator of the aircraft which is being flown.
(4) If valuable consideration specified in article 157(3)(c) is given or promised the flight shall for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order (other than articles 19(2) and 20(2)) be deemed to be for the purpose of public transport.
160. —(1) Subject to paragraph (4), 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 falls within paragraph (2) and the the criteria in paragraph (3) are satisfied.
(2) Valuable consideration falls within this paragraph if it is—
(a) valuable consideration specified in article 157(3)(c);
(b) in the case of an aircraft owned in accordance with article 162(2), valuable consideration which falls within article 162(3); or
(c) is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command;
or falls within any two or all three sub-paragraphs.
(3) The criteria in this paragraph are satisfied if—
(a) no more than 4 persons (including the pilot) are carried;
(b) the proportion which the contribution referred to in paragraph (2)(c) bears to the direct costs shall not exceed the proportion which the number of persons carried on the flight (excluding the pilot) bears to the number of persons carried (including the pilot);
(c) no information shall have been published or advertised prior to the commencement of the flight other than, in the case of an aircraft operated by a flying club, advertising wholly within the premises of such a flying club in which case all the persons carried on such a flight who are aged 18 years or over shall be members of that flying club; and
(d) no person acting as a pilot shall be employed as a pilot by, or be a party to a contract for the provision of services as a pilot with, the operator of the aircraft which is being flown.
(4) If valuable consideration specified in article 157(3)(c) is given or promised the flight shall for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order (other than articles 19(2) and 20(2)) be deemed to be for the purpose of public transport.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Homeguard,
If it was that simple then we would have PPLs getting FI ratings and then setting up a Limited Company.
Legally the limited company is a separate person from the person who sets it up.
To follow your argument would mean that this company could be contracted to provide flight training either directly to individuals or through another organisation such as a flying club and provided that the PPL who owns and set up the company does not receive a pay cheque for flying then all is rosy.
That is not the case.
Remember it is the fact that the flight training is "Aerial Work" which requires the pilot to have a CPL. As soon as the student pays for the services provided on that flight it is aerial work. It does not matter if they pay the instructor, the instructor's company, a flying club who employ the instructor unpaid or a trial lesson voucher company.
If the student does not pay for the instruction or if it is a flight test does not pay for the test, it is not aerial work.
For that to happen in the example organisation provided by Bose, they would have to either charge no students for instruction (unlikely) or not charge the PPL instructor student's for the instruction.
Regards,
DFC
If it was that simple then we would have PPLs getting FI ratings and then setting up a Limited Company.
Legally the limited company is a separate person from the person who sets it up.
To follow your argument would mean that this company could be contracted to provide flight training either directly to individuals or through another organisation such as a flying club and provided that the PPL who owns and set up the company does not receive a pay cheque for flying then all is rosy.
That is not the case.
Remember it is the fact that the flight training is "Aerial Work" which requires the pilot to have a CPL. As soon as the student pays for the services provided on that flight it is aerial work. It does not matter if they pay the instructor, the instructor's company, a flying club who employ the instructor unpaid or a trial lesson voucher company.
If the student does not pay for the instruction or if it is a flight test does not pay for the test, it is not aerial work.
For that to happen in the example organisation provided by Bose, they would have to either charge no students for instruction (unlikely) or not charge the PPL instructor student's for the instruction.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I don't mean to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but...
Well - no, it's not. 
There's a reason that some of us have paid the money, done the time, and the hard work, to get a commercial licence.
To get work as a Commercial Pilot. Simple.
Kiwi Chick
Bloody annoying isn't it? Considering the flying involved would be very straightforward, nothing out of the ordinary at all.
There's a reason that some of us have paid the money, done the time, and the hard work, to get a commercial licence.
To get work as a Commercial Pilot. Simple.
Kiwi Chick
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ppl Fi
DFC
You, me may or may not like it but it is the way it is. It is not always the case that aerial work requires a CPL. There are many exemptions from that as you know. Such as Microlite Instructing, Glider Instructing, Glider Tugging and Parachute Dropping to give just a few examples. In fact a PPL Flight Instructor is still undertaking Aerial Work although unpaid. In France Flight Instruction is not included within the commercial sphere at all and the aircraft are not required to have a 'Public Transport' CofA.
Please realise that i'm not advocating any particular arguement but to vary the debate things are changing fast. Microlites are already very sophisticated machines and the VLA types are in already in operation. The NPPL take-up is growing with the SSEA class rating being the only NPPL rating that still requires the instructor to have a CPL to be paid. A few more years of statistics and that will change too. EASA themselves are proposing a 'Recreational' Licence, another name for our NPPL. The irony of all this is that Microlite Instructors are in the main paid better than Group A Instructors.
However, please don't turn this into yet another what have the romans ever done us thread
You, me may or may not like it but it is the way it is. It is not always the case that aerial work requires a CPL. There are many exemptions from that as you know. Such as Microlite Instructing, Glider Instructing, Glider Tugging and Parachute Dropping to give just a few examples. In fact a PPL Flight Instructor is still undertaking Aerial Work although unpaid. In France Flight Instruction is not included within the commercial sphere at all and the aircraft are not required to have a 'Public Transport' CofA.
Please realise that i'm not advocating any particular arguement but to vary the debate things are changing fast. Microlites are already very sophisticated machines and the VLA types are in already in operation. The NPPL take-up is growing with the SSEA class rating being the only NPPL rating that still requires the instructor to have a CPL to be paid. A few more years of statistics and that will change too. EASA themselves are proposing a 'Recreational' Licence, another name for our NPPL. The irony of all this is that Microlite Instructors are in the main paid better than Group A Instructors.
However, please don't turn this into yet another what have the romans ever done us thread
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have anything against instructors who only hold a PPL.
However, flight training must be legally completed if for no other reason than to provide a good example to the student.
France is not the only place where instruction is not considered to be aerial work or commercial flying. As far as I am aware, JARs say that is the case as does ICAO.
If this PPL was a member of a flying Club or Group that operated on a not-for profit basis and where all the members owned the club and it's assets (if any) then there would be a good argument to let it continue because in efect the only payment would be for the aircraft and all members would be treated equally and all instructors would operate on the same basis etc etc.
However, the organisation that employs this person is set up for the purpose of trading and making money i.e. it is a Company.
No problem with going back to the days when I trained and the most experienced instructors were PPLs.....provided it is legal and above board.
Regards,
DFC
However, flight training must be legally completed if for no other reason than to provide a good example to the student.
France is not the only place where instruction is not considered to be aerial work or commercial flying. As far as I am aware, JARs say that is the case as does ICAO.
If this PPL was a member of a flying Club or Group that operated on a not-for profit basis and where all the members owned the club and it's assets (if any) then there would be a good argument to let it continue because in efect the only payment would be for the aircraft and all members would be treated equally and all instructors would operate on the same basis etc etc.
However, the organisation that employs this person is set up for the purpose of trading and making money i.e. it is a Company.
No problem with going back to the days when I trained and the most experienced instructors were PPLs.....provided it is legal and above board.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: cambs.
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh no i have been illegal all these years!
Hello everyone. I have a ppl and make my living taking SPECULATIVE aerial photos. I have done this only for the last 20 years. I keep getting "handed-in" to the CAA by legal experts not unlike some of the posters on this thread. The CAA dont even bother to come and see me any more about it as they say i am legal. I don't go getting myself all embroiled in paragraph this or that as i'm real happy that the authority know what i do and the armchair legal eagle self-righteous i- dotter t-crossers don't upset me anymore.
I won't enter into too much debate on the rules and laws cos my limited mental energies are better spent working on how to operate better. However i do recall some factors that seemed to be relevant from the last time i got myself "handed in" by a diligent CAA "Deputy" (you know the type i mean dont you? - very well versed in all the rules and regs and quick to pass judgement, always at the airfield - but never flying?!- and very very watchfull of others). I seem to remember the inspector saying things like "Not public transport to carry a phtographer as he is "Crew" and not paying to be transported"
"no-one pays you to go do speculative shots" This one makes sense, actually, cos otherwise a lovely shot of a Yak that someone took air to air couldn't find its way onto the front of a magazine for a fee. This happens all the time. Mate of mine took a shot of that big explosion near London as he flew by, it got published, and he got paid and he only has a ppl! And he asked the authority before he agreed to accept the money - just to be on the safe side.
Naturally i will be a bit pissed off for all of us in the business if it turns out weve been illegal these last 50 years or so - especially for all the salespeople who also make a living. By industrial standards it is a small industry employing less than 500(?) people in the UK (we supply 70-80 by the way).
One question i do have is how all the companies that offer to do pre-commissioned work are mainly one man bands with ppl's? I can see that people like me monging about taking photos no one has asked for is legal but someone commissioning the work seems different possibly? Live and let live though - buzzards gotta eat - same as worms.
I still employ cpls for my other crews as these pilgrims need all the help getting the experience they need to get jet jobs so if i am illegal it'll only be when i go to work personally.
Depressingly my competitors are mainly single man crew which though legal i find astonishing. Even with a cpl, dfc and bar how can it be right for someone to spend 6 hours a day orbitting looking through a camera? whilst sacrificing at least a bit of attention to the plane and other aircraft! Funny old world innit?
Can we have a campaign for the return of the old ppl holding instructors and let them get paid like before? They were good guys they were - real enthusiasts for GA and all round good eggs! The vested interests (cpl factories) will never let them put the toothpaste back in the tube on this whilst they have the ear of the authority i fear, not while there are wannabe's wanderering about with the ability to borra dosh - shame!
Spernkey Bowlock
I won't enter into too much debate on the rules and laws cos my limited mental energies are better spent working on how to operate better. However i do recall some factors that seemed to be relevant from the last time i got myself "handed in" by a diligent CAA "Deputy" (you know the type i mean dont you? - very well versed in all the rules and regs and quick to pass judgement, always at the airfield - but never flying?!- and very very watchfull of others). I seem to remember the inspector saying things like "Not public transport to carry a phtographer as he is "Crew" and not paying to be transported"
"no-one pays you to go do speculative shots" This one makes sense, actually, cos otherwise a lovely shot of a Yak that someone took air to air couldn't find its way onto the front of a magazine for a fee. This happens all the time. Mate of mine took a shot of that big explosion near London as he flew by, it got published, and he got paid and he only has a ppl! And he asked the authority before he agreed to accept the money - just to be on the safe side.
Naturally i will be a bit pissed off for all of us in the business if it turns out weve been illegal these last 50 years or so - especially for all the salespeople who also make a living. By industrial standards it is a small industry employing less than 500(?) people in the UK (we supply 70-80 by the way).
One question i do have is how all the companies that offer to do pre-commissioned work are mainly one man bands with ppl's? I can see that people like me monging about taking photos no one has asked for is legal but someone commissioning the work seems different possibly? Live and let live though - buzzards gotta eat - same as worms.
I still employ cpls for my other crews as these pilgrims need all the help getting the experience they need to get jet jobs so if i am illegal it'll only be when i go to work personally.
Depressingly my competitors are mainly single man crew which though legal i find astonishing. Even with a cpl, dfc and bar how can it be right for someone to spend 6 hours a day orbitting looking through a camera? whilst sacrificing at least a bit of attention to the plane and other aircraft! Funny old world innit?
Can we have a campaign for the return of the old ppl holding instructors and let them get paid like before? They were good guys they were - real enthusiasts for GA and all round good eggs! The vested interests (cpl factories) will never let them put the toothpaste back in the tube on this whilst they have the ear of the authority i fear, not while there are wannabe's wanderering about with the ability to borra dosh - shame!
Spernkey Bowlock
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by homeguard
Fair enough, clear as a bell - no arguement.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A PPL holder can fly on his own business. If he is an employee then he also can do so provided he is not contractually required to do so.
I am not aware of an ANO clause which specifically prohibits aerial photography or aerial survey work, so a PPL should be able to fly around and do that and make money out of it.
There is a provision somewhere that the flight must be no more than incidental to the company's business, however, and (if true) this could be the catch.
A dedicated aerial survey business would then require a CPL but more to the point would require an AOC which rockets the cost by 5 digits annually.
I know for a fact of one outfit (a flying school actually) which was contracted to a local radio station for traffic spotting and they had an AOC for that. What I don't know is whether they actually needed the AOC or whether that was some scam by an insider - the school collapsed later following some massive fraud.
I am not aware of an ANO clause which specifically prohibits aerial photography or aerial survey work, so a PPL should be able to fly around and do that and make money out of it.
There is a provision somewhere that the flight must be no more than incidental to the company's business, however, and (if true) this could be the catch.
A dedicated aerial survey business would then require a CPL but more to the point would require an AOC which rockets the cost by 5 digits annually.
I know for a fact of one outfit (a flying school actually) which was contracted to a local radio station for traffic spotting and they had an AOC for that. What I don't know is whether they actually needed the AOC or whether that was some scam by an insider - the school collapsed later following some massive fraud.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with the whole issue of Aerial photography is in many cases getting good enough of a case together to meet the requirements for a prossicution.
Joe Bloggs pays Mr. A Pilot to go and take pictures of his house - Aerial Work, Illegal if a PPL.
However, Mr. A Pilot goes up and photographs a house that belongs to Joe Bloggs and then sells the photo and even though you and I know full well that Mr Pilot departed with the sole intention of taking photographs and selling them on i.e. aerial work, it is very hard to prove that is the case when Mr. Pilot is willing to swear that they were going flying anyway and just happened to snap a few (rolls) of photographs and by chance after the event a few people liked the photo's ebough to purchase them.
That is why some people can do it and with the hekp of their lawyers give two fingers to the CAA.
Regards,
DFC
Joe Bloggs pays Mr. A Pilot to go and take pictures of his house - Aerial Work, Illegal if a PPL.
However, Mr. A Pilot goes up and photographs a house that belongs to Joe Bloggs and then sells the photo and even though you and I know full well that Mr Pilot departed with the sole intention of taking photographs and selling them on i.e. aerial work, it is very hard to prove that is the case when Mr. Pilot is willing to swear that they were going flying anyway and just happened to snap a few (rolls) of photographs and by chance after the event a few people liked the photo's ebough to purchase them.
That is why some people can do it and with the hekp of their lawyers give two fingers to the CAA.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: cambs.
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"That is why some people can do it and with the hekp of their lawyers give two fingers to the CAA."
Thats never been the case with me - the CAA bloke just turned up cos he had to and said it's legal, thereby not necessitating the need for super slickering lawyers etc...
The poster who said after "all the hoops he'd had to jump through......" and wanting to duff people like me up in the dark or something is missing the point. It is likely that all those hoops were necessarry for what you do with planes but it just aint for me operating in the best of VFR.
Lets suppose for a moment that i go do all that hoop jumping meself. Did a degree in Physics oncet so i would hope the exams would not be too much of a strain. Pay some appalling money for some indifferent training. Eventually come out with say a cpl or an atpl etc...
Trouble with that is it would still be me in a cessna using my judgement, experience and skill to fly around low level in peachy VFR!! There is just no need for all that mince.
If the system was actually producing competant commercial pilots anymore i wouldnt mind, but the handling skills and airmanship i have witnessed from the sausage factory cpl's has been woeful of late.
One idea which i think is good is for a basic type of AOC to cover this area and also to include flying schools doing sight seeing and casual bits of transport for less than 4 passengers(why a club instructor cant fly a businessman somewhere is a real missed oportunity as a market) etc... The current AOC costs are geared up for real big businesses and prohibitive but a "mini" AOC which concentrated on developing a "responsible" management of such activities would be a goer methinks!
Thats never been the case with me - the CAA bloke just turned up cos he had to and said it's legal, thereby not necessitating the need for super slickering lawyers etc...
The poster who said after "all the hoops he'd had to jump through......" and wanting to duff people like me up in the dark or something is missing the point. It is likely that all those hoops were necessarry for what you do with planes but it just aint for me operating in the best of VFR.
Lets suppose for a moment that i go do all that hoop jumping meself. Did a degree in Physics oncet so i would hope the exams would not be too much of a strain. Pay some appalling money for some indifferent training. Eventually come out with say a cpl or an atpl etc...
Trouble with that is it would still be me in a cessna using my judgement, experience and skill to fly around low level in peachy VFR!! There is just no need for all that mince.
If the system was actually producing competant commercial pilots anymore i wouldnt mind, but the handling skills and airmanship i have witnessed from the sausage factory cpl's has been woeful of late.
One idea which i think is good is for a basic type of AOC to cover this area and also to include flying schools doing sight seeing and casual bits of transport for less than 4 passengers(why a club instructor cant fly a businessman somewhere is a real missed oportunity as a market) etc... The current AOC costs are geared up for real big businesses and prohibitive but a "mini" AOC which concentrated on developing a "responsible" management of such activities would be a goer methinks!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A mini AOC would be a great idea but knowing human nature would result in massive protests to the CAA from holders of "proper AOCs".
It would be a great idea for another reason: in most places in Europe you can get tax free avgas (half price approx) on production of an AOC.
Whether you can in the UK is not widely known. I believe you can but not at the pump - you have to reclaim it separately. It would certainly explain why some schools have an AOC for charter which cost them a fortune but they seem to rarely operate it.
As for sticking a finger up to the CAA, the way the law works is that it states what is prohibited, and everything else is permitted. Someone might take a moral ground on it but that's a different topic. Everything not prohibited is 100% legal.
It would be a great idea for another reason: in most places in Europe you can get tax free avgas (half price approx) on production of an AOC.
Whether you can in the UK is not widely known. I believe you can but not at the pump - you have to reclaim it separately. It would certainly explain why some schools have an AOC for charter which cost them a fortune but they seem to rarely operate it.
As for sticking a finger up to the CAA, the way the law works is that it states what is prohibited, and everything else is permitted. Someone might take a moral ground on it but that's a different topic. Everything not prohibited is 100% legal.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If someone is stupid enough to spend £00,000's getting a CPL when they don't need one, then that is their fault an no one elses.
Believe it or not, there are ways to get a JAA ATPL, 1500 hrs, jet time, turbine time, and loads of experience for £35,000 or less....Or you can give £65,000 to an FTO and walk away with an fATPL and 250 piston hrs....
There are lots of people in aviation who don't do proper research before parting with their money, think that everyone owes them everything, and like to blame everyone else for their "mistakes".......and then like to cause trouble by "grassing up" other people, for no reason....
Believe it or not, there are ways to get a JAA ATPL, 1500 hrs, jet time, turbine time, and loads of experience for £35,000 or less....Or you can give £65,000 to an FTO and walk away with an fATPL and 250 piston hrs....
There are lots of people in aviation who don't do proper research before parting with their money, think that everyone owes them everything, and like to blame everyone else for their "mistakes".......and then like to cause trouble by "grassing up" other people, for no reason....