Photo Flights & 25NM Limit?

[NW_Pilot]

OK, say some one wants to have you fly them in your airplane on a photo flight to take photo's/video of something 50+ miles away, or have you take them on an adventure photographing lakes around the US but would require multiple stops? Would that fall under the photo flight exception! Or would the flight have to be within 25 NM? Has there been any opinions from the feds on this?


(e) Except for operations when common carriage is not involved conducted with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does not apply to
(1) Student instruction;
(2) Nonstop sightseeing flights conducted with aircraft having a passenger seat configuration of 30 or fewer, excluding each crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, that begin and end at the same airport, and are conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of that airport; however, for nonstop sightseeing flights for compensation or hire conducted in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, requirements of SFAR 50-2 of this part and SFAR 38-2 or 14 CFR part 121 or 14 CFR part 119, as applicable, apply;
(3) Ferry or training flights;
(4) Aerial work operations, including
(i) Crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and b chasing;
(ii) Banner towing;
(iii) Aerial photography or survey;
(iv) Fire fighting;
(v) Helicopter operations in construction repair work (but it does apply to transportation and from the site of operations); and
(vi) Powerline or pipeline patrol;

 

[spudskier]

The way I'd interpret it is that the pilot, and possibly other required crew members only may go on the trip, if you carry pax it instantly goes back to the 25nm NON-STOP limitation. Even a "photo flight" with passengers could easily be argued by the FAA to be a sight-seeing tour and venture beyond 25nm could land you in some hot water.

Rule of thumb, don't think about whether you can get away with it and how "bending the rules" in one particular situation seems ok, rather look at it from the FAA stantpoint... They don't bend rules when it comes to certificate action or inquisition. Did you dot your "I"s and cross your "T"s?

 

[NW_Pilot]

Not trying to bend any rules, just looking for clarification. I have a gal that wants to go on a 3 day mission in my airplane to a bunch of different locations taking aerial photos & videos. Just wanting to know if I can do this in my airplane or should I go and tell her she will have to rent one.

The only thing I will be charging her is for my airplane operating expenses fuel oil etc. & something for my time.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[FN FAL]

Not trying to bend any rules, just looking for clarification. I have a gal that wants to go on a 3 day mission in my airplane to a bunch of different locations taking aerial photos & videos. Just wanting to know if I can do this in my airplane or should I go and tell her she will have to rent one.

The only thing I will be charging her is for my airplane operating expenses fuel oil etc. & something for my time.

Have the photog rent a plane from the local FBO. Block time.

Then have her hire you as pilot services pilot.


You cannot have any connection to the plane rental, even if you are an FBO instructor or a janitor at the FBO.

However, people can lease planes and hire pilots to fly them.


This leaves out you using your plane. Your plane means holding out.

 

[spudskier]

yup yup, little money for your time, little money to cover expenses, that's definitely covered by 119.

 

[Steve]

Are you a CFI? If so ask her if she wants to get some dual and make sure you show her turns around a point first. While you showing her how turns around a point go, nothing says she cant take a few pics to help her study later.

 

[AgDownUnder]

Not trying to bend any rules, just looking for clarification. I have a gal that wants to go on a 3 day mission in my airplane to a bunch of different locations taking aerial photos & videos. Just wanting to know if I can do this in my airplane or should I go and tell her she will have to rent one.

The only thing I will be charging her is for my airplane operating expenses fuel oil etc. & something for my time.

She has to rent it from a third party. The photo thing is if you have a photo business and you take an employee along to take the pictures while you fly. If you take her in your plane to take pictures for her purposes and charge her for it, it's 135. If she rents third poarty and hires you to fly, it's 91.

 

[nosehair]

fly them in your airplane on a photo flight to take photo's/video of something 50+ miles away, or have you take them on an adventure photographing lakes around the US but would require multiple stops? Would that fall under the photo flight exception! Or would the flight have to be within 25 NM?

...hmmm...interesting responses. I'm interested in anyone's knowledge of NTSB rulings or FAA Legal Opinions regarding the definition of a "photo flight" as intended in the regulation. As I see it in blak-and-white in the regulation as written - there are no limitations or conditions.

(e) Except for operations when common carriage is not involved conducted with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does not apply to
(1) Student instruction;

See? No limitations on that one. We do student instruction all over the country.

(2) Nonstop sightseeing flights conducted with aircraft having a passenger seat configuration of 30 or fewer, excluding each crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, that begin and end at the same airport, and are conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of that airport; however, for nonstop sightseeing flights for compensation or hire conducted in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, requirements of SFAR 50-2 of this part and SFAR 38-2 or 14 CFR part 121 or 14 CFR part 119, as applicable, apply;

See? There's a limitation/condition attached to that one.

(3) Ferry or training flights;

No Limitations or conditions

(4) Aerial work operations, including
(i) Crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and b chasing;
(ii) Banner towing;
(iii) Aerial photography or survey;
(iv) Fire fighting;

No limitations or conditions on those,

(v) Helicopter operations in construction repair work (but it does apply to transportation and from the site of operations); and

See that? They impose the 135 rule on transportation to and from work site. If they intended that for aerial photography, they would have made the same provision here. Also, if the intent was a 25 mile limit, it would be included as it is in the sightseeing provision.

(vi) Powerline or pipeline patrol;

pipeline patrols go all over the place.
But...this is only my opinion. I have not seen case law. Anyone?

​

 

[FN FAL]

So all you'd have to do to eliminate the need for a charter certificate is to give your passengers a throw away camera?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Unfortunately I don't have access to it now, but there HAS been an official interpretation. As previously stated, the 25-mile limit doesn't apply to aerial photography. However, all flights must depart and land at the same airport--if you land somewhere else (with the photographer), even for a potty break, you have to have a 135 cert.

If I recall the interpretation correctly, you can reposition the airplane (solo) to another airport to meet the photographer, and do flights locally from that airport, the a solo reposition to another airport to meet the photographer and do local flights.

Fly safe!

David

 

[nosehair]

So all you'd have to do to eliminate the need for a charter certificate is to give your passengers a throw away camera?

No. That's like calling it dual when it's not. I'm not saying use it as a loophole. Use it exactly as written.
And Mauleskinner, yeah, I've seen someone say that same thing about an "official" interpretation - but I have not seen it.
A FSDO Inspector's opinion is not official.
​

 

[MauleSkinner]

Found it...from the "Acting Assistant Chief Counsel"...note that it references 135.1 rather than 119.1, as it was done before the creation of Part 119.

(it's long...and I had to abbvreviate it somewhat, as well, but everything beyond the first "question" is intact)

April 28, 1990
... requesting an interpretation concerning your client's proposed aerial photography operations using a single engine airplane....provide an aerial photo platform for professional photographers who wish to take aerial photographs or video recordings.
Part 135 applies to operations by air carriers (common carriers) and commercial operators (carriers other than common carriers) who transport persons or property for compensation or hire. In regard to common carriage, Part 135 applies to:
However, an exception to the applicability of Part 135 reads as follows:
Section 135.1
(b) ... [T]his part does not apply to
(4) Aerial work operations, including
(iii) Aerial photography or survey.

{p2}

Question
The question presented in your letter is whether any or all of your client's proposed operations would fall within the "aerial photography" exception to the applicability provisions of Part 135. If so, then they could be conducted under Part 91 instead of under the more rigorous provisions of Part 135. If, however, your client's operations involve transportation of persons or property for compensation or hire, then they would be governed by Part 135.
Answer
The answer will depend upon whether the purpose of the flights is for the carriage of passengers or for aerial photography or both. If the sole purpose is for aerial photography, then the operation may be conducted pursuant to Part 91. However, if the operation includes carrying passengers from one point to another in addition to the aerial photography (that is, if it has a dual purpose), then the operation must be conducted in accordance with Part 135.
The Agency has consistently interpreted Part 135.1(b) so that if an aircraft lands at a site other than its origin, the "aerial photography" exception does not apply. This is due to the fact that the flight takes on the "dual purpose" of both aerial photography and transporting passengers from one point to another for compensation or hire. However, if the aircraft returns to the point of departure without landing at another location, then the "aerial photography" exception would apply. Thus, if an operator takes off on an "aerial photography" flight under the rules of Part 91, that person must be deemed to recognize that no landing other than at the origin point is permitted and should so inform his or her passengers before taking off. If the passengers indicate that they might ask for a landing, then the rules of Part 135 must be followed. If they do not so indicate and later change their minds, a prudent operator should decline the request on the grounds that he or she could be subjected to an Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) enforcement action. Indeed, a prudent operator should inquire before the flight to determine what is contemplated by the passengers. Having so inquired, the operator will have the facts required to conduct the flight under the correct rules.

{p2}

The determining factor is whether the aircraft lands at a location other than the point of origin since the landing usually changes the nature of the operation from one of aerial photography to transportation of passengers and/or property for compensation or hire. In deciding what rules must be complied with, each flight, from take off to landing, is considered separately.
These principles for interpretation of the regulation are applied below to the three scenarios envisioned by your client.
Scenario #1:
(1) Airplane is flown about 100 miles from Airport A to Airport B to pick up the photographer.
(2) Airplane is then flown on a photo mission lasting as long as several hours out of Airport B without landing at any other airport. Airplane would travel as much as 100 or 200 miles away from Airport B.
(3) Upon return to Airport B, the photographer would leave the airplane. Finally, the airplane would be returned to its home base, Airport A.
Conclusion:
Since the airplane would not land at any other airport, the operations involved in Scenario 1 would fall within the aerial photography exception found in 135.1(b)(4)(iii), and could therefore be conducted under Part 91. The operator could charge for the placement flight from A to B, since the charge would not be for the carriage of persons or property for compensation.
Scenario #2:
(1) Airplane would fly from Airport A to Airport B to pick up the photographer.
(2) Airplane would then fly to Airport C (2 hours and 15 minutes flying time from Airport B). It would land for fuel and physiological reasons at Airport C.
(3) One or more photo missions would then be staged out of Airport C or D, etc., before returning to Airport B to drop off the photographer.
(4) Both the pilot and photographer, and possibly a second crewmember (who would be on board as a safety/relief pilot), might have to stay overnight one or more nights at Airport C or D, etc. to complete the assignment, either due to mission length, delays, etc.

{p3}

Conclusion:
Each flight must be evaluated separately. The flight from Airport A to Airport B could be conducted under Part 91. Likewise, the flight constituting the photo mission, which would take off from and return to Airport C without landing, could be conducted under Part 91 since it falls within the aerial photography exception to the applicability of Part 135. However, the flights from Airport B to Airport C and from Airport C to Airport B involve the transportation of persons or property and would not fall within the exception for aerial photography. Therefore, they would be governed by Part 135.
We do not have enough information to properly evaluate the flights involving Airport D or other airports. We would need to know exactly how Airport D or other undesignated airports would figure in this operation and exactly who would be on board in order to arrive at a conclusion regarding these flights.
Scenario #3:
(1) Airplane would be flown from Airport A to Airport B to pick up the photographer.
(2) Airplane would then be flown to Airport C to pick up an "on-the-scene" art director/producer/ad agency representative who would be paying for the assignment.
(3) The photo mission would either then be flown directly, or the airplane would proceed on to Airport D, would land, refuel, and would then take off again to do the actual photo mission.
Conclusion:
Once again, each flight must be evaluated separately. The flight from Airport A to Airport B could be conducted under Part 91. In contrast, the flight from Airport B to Airport C involves transportation of persons or property, and would be governed by Part 135. If a photo mission were then staged out of Airport C and returned to Airport C without landing, then that particular flight could be conducted under Part 91 since it would fall within the aerial photography exception to the applicability of Part 135. However, if the airplane instead flew from Airport C to Airport D, such a flight would involve the transportation of persons or property and would not fall within the exception for aerial photography. It would therefore be governed by Part 135.

{p4}

We hope this satisfactorily responds to your request. Your client's concern for safety and compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations is appreciated. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely,

/s/

Donald P. Byrne
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

{p5}
April 26, 1990

 

[NW_Pilot]

Wow! Thanks a bunch. I guess she is going to have to rent some one else’s airplane because it would require more than 1 fuel stop and over night stays. Dam! I guess it make's it to cost prohibitive for her now.