If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "John Galban" wrote in message ups.com... [...] Probably not. The FAA has long held that aerial photography (i.e. snapping photos and selling them) is not a commercial pilot activity. Keep in mind that the compensation rules are primarily designed to discourage private pilots from flying passengers for hire. "Primarily", perhaps. Hard to say without talking to the person who designed them (which I haven't, but he did publish a FAQ ). However, there are plenty of examples of "for hire" operations that don't involve passengers, and which are prohibited. Crop dusting, banner towing, etc. Obviously the "design" of the compensation rules incorporates those concerns as well. Whether they are all only secondary or not, I don't know. That said, it's my recollection that you're correct about aerial photography. I haven't been able to find a reference, and I believe that the allowance applies only to pilots who are doing the photography themselves. A pilot carrying a passenger who is doing the photography would require a commercial certificate (but the operation would otherwise still be allowed under Part 91, at least). I would love to see the references that describe all this. The Part 61 FAQ implies it, but doesn't state so directly. Pete As I recall the FAA makes the distinction based on whether or not the pilot is being compensated for flying the airplane. They will accept compensation as long as it is not for flying. For example, an employee can fly an airplane on company business with a private ticket if he is not paid for flying. He may be paid for the trip, but the payment must be the same whether he is flying, driving, or taking the bus. :-) There are many "dodges" used to allow the pilot to get someone else to pay for his flying, but the FAA closes them down as fast as they can find them. By the way, they now consider "flying time" in the logbook as "compensation." The photographer can fly his own or rented airplane and take pictures and be paid for the pictures. He is not being paid for the flying. If your cousin wants to fly to Schenectady and offers to pay for the airplane if you will fly him there and back it is considered compensation ( the flying time ) and you will get nailed. If YOU are flying to Schenectady and your cousin wants to go along and he pays half the cost of the flight, that is OK. But you had to be going to Schenectady even if your cousin didn't want to go along. Therein lies a large gray area, because intentions are a lot more difficult to discern than actions are. Highflyer Highflight Aviation Services Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY ) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
The cost sharing - reimbursment - flight for hire mess | Roger Long | Piloting | 18 | October 21st 03 03:12 PM |
LOOKING FOR COST SHARING | Corey Bonnell | Owning | 0 | October 19th 03 09:04 PM |
Cost sharing revisited | Roger Long | Owning | 2 | October 17th 03 09:56 PM |
Cost sharing revisited | Roger Long | Piloting | 2 | October 17th 03 09:56 PM |