wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Generally, the pilot needs a commercial license if the pictures are for
sale.

A CPL? No, I don't think so--not if he is flying in the pursuit of his own
business (not carrying passengers or cargo).

Wrong again.

I am making the assumption we are talking about the US, but the rules
are similar in most other countries.

Generally, any flight that includes compensation to the pilot in any
form as a result of having made the flight requires a commercial.

There are a few exceptions such as reimbursement for actual costs for
charity, sharing actual costs among the passengers under narrowly
defined conditions, etc.

The general test is whether or not the flight is essential to the
business.

Flying to a remote office is not concidered essential as the person
could take a car, bus, train, or airline flight.

But aerial photography where the photographs are for sale is clearly
a flight made for the sole purpose of making money and the flight is
essential to the photography so it requires a commercial.




I can't find it any more but there was that list of opinions from the
FAA chief counsel that while not having the effect of law was a pretty
damn good idea of how the FAA was going to treat a given situation.

For some reason there is a memory stuck in my head there was an opinion
in there that stated that the FAA or at least the Chief Counsel did
feel that when flying for professional photography the flying was
incidental to the photography and hence legal for a private pilot.

P.S. If anyone knows where that list of opinions is archived please
chime in. I'd really like to bookmark it.