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.