aerial photography 61.113

[Levidog]

Being new to this board, maybe this has already been visited previously here. What's your opinion of pvt. pilots doing aerial photography for compensation? 61.113(b)(1) uses "incidental" to allow flying in conjunction with business. If one owns a photography business, would flying be incidental to that business? (Obviously, if one owns an aerial photo business, it would not be incidental. )61.113(f) allows aircraft salespersons to demonstrate to customers with only a pvt lic. thus deeming sales the primary business. And CFIs aren't necessarily exercising commercial privledged if they only need a 3rd class med.
Are there any precedents in court about aerial photography?

 

[avbug]

You're correct. Conducting aerial photography for compensation or hire is not permissible as a private pilot.

 

[wheelsup]

And CFIs aren't necessarily exercising commercial privledged if they only need a 3rd class med.

No, they aren't. If they're not acting as PIC they don't even need a medical! I believe the explination for this resides in the fact that they aren't getting paid to fly the aircraft, they're simply getting paid to teach.

If a CFI does aerial photography work - i.e. some guy walks into an FBO with a camera and says I need to go take a picture of the lincoln tunnel, then the COMMERCIAL PILOT cfi can fly him, as directed under CFR 119.

The CFI isn't using their CFI certificate to fly the aircraft in than sense, they are using their commercial cert. because they (hopefully) are being compensated to fly.

If I understand you correctly, this is your situation:

You own a photography company, and want to expand into the aerial field. You have a private pilot license and want to rent an aircraft and take pictures while aloft to sell.

Here's AOPA's interpretation:

Private pilots may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command in connection with any business or employment if the flight is incidental to that business or employment and the aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. To understand "incidental," it's best to think about it in terms of its antonym - "fundamental." If you cannot conduct your business without the use of your airplane, then it's possible that flying is fundamental to your livelihood. Such activity would likely fall under the domain of commercial flying. If flying is subordinate to your business activity, then it's probably not a major enterprise for profit, and a commercial certificate isn't necessary.

cya~wheelsup

 

[wheelsup]

Avbug:

He wouldn't be getting paid for flying though - only for the pictures. I'd have to say that if his business did not depend on him flying, and that rental of an aircraft to take pictures every now and then was what he was doing, having a private license would be ok.

After all, he's not getting PAID to fly.

~wheelsup

 

[avbug]

If he is making a profit from his endevor, he is benifitting economically from the exchange; he is acting as pilot in command for compensation. Even where no profit is to be shown, the FAA has still shown compensation by demonstrating that the logging of flight time may be considered compensation. That a profit is not to be had from the pictures is not necessary to successfully execute and affirm on appeal, enforcement action.

Would the picture have been taken up there without the airplane? No? Then the use of the airplane is not incidental to the operation.