Do's and Don'ts of Aerial Photography?

[navigator72]

That's a very gray area, If you take some photos and happen by chance to sell them it's good. If you find clients and offer them your aerial photography services and fly off to take some photos for your client, you will probably be in trouble with the FAA.
This is one man's opinion, I welcome yours.....

 

[av8rbama]

HOWEVER...according to Donald P. Byrne, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division in 1990, landing for "physicological reasons" at an airport other than the origin/destination takes the flight out of the "aerial phtography" exception and places it under 135. (assuming that the pilot is "owned" by the same people who own the airplane, and the photographer is hiring them for the flight)


Fly safe!

David

In our case, as in most aerial mapping companies, the plane is owned by the mapping company and the pilot & photographer are employees of that company. What you mention is an interesting case though... I may have to do a little case law research on it.

 

[A Squared]

Many people have inquired about whether what I do for a living requires a commercial certificate. It depends on who you talk to at the FSDO. We go, take pictures, and occasionally land for fuel or to take a piss. We come back with the exact same thing we left with, so is it incidental to the business? The only difference is film is "exposed" when we return.

I'd be really cautious on how liberally you attempt to interpret the "incidental to that business" clause.

I don't have any guidance on how "incidental" in interpreted, wither in case law or a chief counsel interpretation, but my opbservation has been that generally, the FAA interprets regulations quite restrictively. The NTSB, of course, is required to abide by the FAA's interpretation.

A construction manager, flying himself to various jobsites to confer with the on-site managers? Sure the business is construction, the flying is incidental, the business wouldn't be substantially different without hte flying, it would just take the guy longer to get to the jobsites.


Aerial Photography? I seriously doubt that you'd havbe much luck convincing anyone that flying is incidental to aerial photography. It's not just photography, it's aerial photography, and the nature of the business would be substantially different without the "aerial" part. If somone took away your airplane, you wouldn't just prop your RC-30 up on a tripod and open a portrait studio and shoot weddings on sundays.

 

[thee12nv]

Ok.. to clarify. I own my aircraft (experimental) and only hold a ppl. SO can i go up take digital pics and sell them ?

 

[gkrangers]

That's a very gray area, If you take some photos and happen by chance to sell them it's good. If you find clients and offer them your aerial photography services and fly off to take some photos for your client, you will probably be in trouble with the FAA.
This is one man's opinion, I welcome yours.....

how and why would I be in trouble with the FAA?????

 

[FN FAL]

HOWEVER...according to Donald P. Byrne, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division in 1990, landing for "physicological reasons" at an airport other than the origin/destination takes the flight out of the "aerial phtography" exception and places it under 135. (assuming that the pilot is "owned" by the same people who own the airplane, and the photographer is hiring them for the flight)


Fly safe!

David

Did you make that up yourself, or just edit out the parts you didn't want us to read?

How about a link to the case?

 

[A Squared]

Did you make that up yourself, or just edit out the parts you didn't want us to read?

How about a link to the case?

I think that the interpretation was addressing the specific situation of an operator accepting compensation to carry a photographer on a photo flight. It wouldn't be relevant to the situation of an aerial photography company with it's own airplanes, and pilots and photograpers who are employees.

But you're right, it would be helpful to see the full text of the interpretation.

 

[FN FAL]

I think that the interpretation was addressing the specific situation of an operator accepting compensation to carry a photographer on a photo flight. It wouldn't be relevant to the situation of an aerial photography company with it's own airplanes, and pilots and photograpers who are employees.

But you're right, it would be helpful to see the full text of the interpretation.

The way I read his citation of Donald P. Byrne's remarks...the poster makes no distinction between what Byrne said and the poster's own comments, making it appear that the the Acting Assistant Chief Counsel said something he didn't say.

I don't expect that someone use APA format to write a post, but you'd think that if someone was going to post an official public document, they'd at least use quotation marks and provide a link to the information so we can read and see for ourselves. There's no way, this Byrne guy said pilots were "owned".

HOWEVER...according to Donald P. Byrne, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division in 1990... (assuming that the pilot is "owned" by the same people who own the airplane, and the photographer is hiring them for the flight).

 

[gkrangers]

Just to make this clear for myself.

I'm a CSEL.

I rent 172 from FBO.

Me and Photographer fly around for an hour, return to the airport (no other stops).

Photographer compensates me for the cost of the aircraft and my pilot services.

Legal, under the Aerial Photography exception, right?