PPL aerial photography
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That may have been the point FD was making : "It is the tone which makes the music". For what it's worth, I found your contribution to the debate to be a reasonable one, and I'm not just saying that because you are a lawyer, although I remain of the view that it would be legally unwise for a PPL to take on the photo mission.
Last edited by FNG; 29th Apr 2004 at 15:40.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyin'Dutch'
Not sure about lawyers sticking together. It's obvious from reading recent threads in this forum that FNG and FL are poles apart in their approach and they aren't afraid to say so!
24Right's didn't phrase his 'disclaimer' in the most attractive of ways but his post on the legal side of this discussion is very interesting, not least because it's the opposite of the views given by most people so far.
He says -- Cost-sharing + no more than 4 people = legal and what his passenger does with the pics is no concern of the pilot's.
Is there a flaw in his reasoning?
Does 'valuable consideration' come into cost-sharing?
Do any of the other lawyers say 24R is wrong?
If so, why?
Art 130 of the ANO is complicated gobbledy-gook to most pilots. I'd bet even lawyers wouldn't claim it's easy to understand, except maybe FNG who can't seem to see legislation through the eyes of a non-lawyer. No offence intended FNG but, reading your posts on this and the related thread, you are rather impatient, and very patronising at times, with people who aren't as used understanding legislation as you.
Leaving aside the safety aspects, why do you say it would be "legally unwise" to do the photo flight?
Sounds a bit like fence-sitting?
Is it legal or not?
You say the legislation is clear.
In your opinion, all dislcaimers in place etc, is it legal under the ANO or not?
_________________
Someone said earlier a PPL (with a type rating) wasn't legally entitled to do a cost-sharing flight.
Why?
As long as there were no more than 4 POB and the pilot paid his proportion of the cost, why wouldn't it be legal?
Not sure about lawyers sticking together. It's obvious from reading recent threads in this forum that FNG and FL are poles apart in their approach and they aren't afraid to say so!
24Right's didn't phrase his 'disclaimer' in the most attractive of ways but his post on the legal side of this discussion is very interesting, not least because it's the opposite of the views given by most people so far.
He says -- Cost-sharing + no more than 4 people = legal and what his passenger does with the pics is no concern of the pilot's.
Is there a flaw in his reasoning?
Does 'valuable consideration' come into cost-sharing?
Do any of the other lawyers say 24R is wrong?
If so, why?
Art 130 of the ANO is complicated gobbledy-gook to most pilots. I'd bet even lawyers wouldn't claim it's easy to understand, except maybe FNG who can't seem to see legislation through the eyes of a non-lawyer. No offence intended FNG but, reading your posts on this and the related thread, you are rather impatient, and very patronising at times, with people who aren't as used understanding legislation as you.
Leaving aside the safety aspects, why do you say it would be "legally unwise" to do the photo flight?
Sounds a bit like fence-sitting?
Is it legal or not?
You say the legislation is clear.
In your opinion, all dislcaimers in place etc, is it legal under the ANO or not?
_________________
Someone said earlier a PPL (with a type rating) wasn't legally entitled to do a cost-sharing flight.
Why?
As long as there were no more than 4 POB and the pilot paid his proportion of the cost, why wouldn't it be legal?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport
I am not a lawyer but I think you are right - no way the pilot could get done just because a passenger took some pics and sold them afterwards. He's an unwitting accomplice. However if the CAA established the pilot knew in advance of the commercial element, they would succeed in making the whole thing look like aerial work. And you bet they would go for it; they aggressively prosecute anything where they should get the AOC fee.
A big bizjet, say £50M, can be flown single pilot on a PPL/IR and you could cost share it. (The IR is required for a JET because outside the airways the fuel consumption is silly and because nobody will train the Type Rating unless the applicant already has an IR - believe it or not, people have bought jets and discovered this later).
Re the 747 business, you are right that a 747 can be flown on a PPL, though a 747 is not single pilot certified and I wonder how the need for two pilots would impact the PPL Cost Sharing rule
I imagine J Travolta has a CPL/IR and takes someone along. But he can fly the Gulfstream single pilot.
And what his passenger does with the pics is no concern of the pilot's.
A big bizjet, say £50M, can be flown single pilot on a PPL/IR and you could cost share it. (The IR is required for a JET because outside the airways the fuel consumption is silly and because nobody will train the Type Rating unless the applicant already has an IR - believe it or not, people have bought jets and discovered this later).
Re the 747 business, you are right that a 747 can be flown on a PPL, though a 747 is not single pilot certified and I wonder how the need for two pilots would impact the PPL Cost Sharing rule
I imagine J Travolta has a CPL/IR and takes someone along. But he can fly the Gulfstream single pilot.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's an unwitting accomplice. However if the CAA established the pilot knew in advance of the commercial element, they would succeed in making the whole thing look like aerial work. And you bet they would go for it; they aggressively prosecute anything where they should get the AOC fee.
If someone flies with you and takes a piccie and later flogs this off and you were not in the know you can not be blamed.
But as for flaunting the rules knowingly would be no excuse.
The CAA has a duty to protect people (as in the public) too from people doing things which can be potentially unsafe.
FD
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with FD on the overall position. As for the legal argument, the given scenario is that the pilot deliberately sets out to fly a commercial photographer with a view to obtaining photos to be sold. Art 130(1)(a) focuses on the purpose for which the aircraft is flown. The argument would be that valuable consideration is given in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight. No doubt the photographer will offset his cost share against the proceeds of selling his photos. The pilot and the photographer are collaborating in a flight in which commercial gain is sought to be obtained through the very action of flying. By contrast, someone flying to a business meeting is simply using his aircraft as a means of transport.
I am sorry if I have appeared patronising in the other thread. I confess to being a bit testy with the endless "what if" scenarios, some of which appear of little real value. Previous threads have raised my suspicions that there exists a tiny minority of PPLs who seek to bend the rules and get paid for flying. They deserve to be sentenced to something really terrible, such as becoming helicopter pilots.
PS: Perhaps Bronx will again suggest that I'm a CAA stooge for saying this, but I don't think that collecting AOC fees would be the sole motivation for prosecuting in a case such as this. As well as the public safety element, there's the element of unfair competition by PPLs with people who have taken the time and spent the money to obtain commercial flying qualifications. I add that I can claim no insight into the CAA's prosecution policies, because I have no contact with that bit of the CAA.
I am sorry if I have appeared patronising in the other thread. I confess to being a bit testy with the endless "what if" scenarios, some of which appear of little real value. Previous threads have raised my suspicions that there exists a tiny minority of PPLs who seek to bend the rules and get paid for flying. They deserve to be sentenced to something really terrible, such as becoming helicopter pilots.
PS: Perhaps Bronx will again suggest that I'm a CAA stooge for saying this, but I don't think that collecting AOC fees would be the sole motivation for prosecuting in a case such as this. As well as the public safety element, there's the element of unfair competition by PPLs with people who have taken the time and spent the money to obtain commercial flying qualifications. I add that I can claim no insight into the CAA's prosecution policies, because I have no contact with that bit of the CAA.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Previous threads have raised my suspicions that there exists a tiny minority of PPLs who seek to bend the rules
As in most walks of life it takes little time and a bit of experience to fathom out what the score is with regards to who are interested in walking the tightrope.
FD
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPS: Art 130 is in general over complicated in its lay-out and presentation (see my discussion with BEagle as to statutory drafting on the other thread). The Article ought to be re-drafted in much plainer terms. I still think, however, that the concept of valuable consideration is not in itself a difficult concept for educated non-lawyers. As for the uneducated, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, just keep banging those rocks together, guys.
Last edited by FNG; 29th Apr 2004 at 15:18.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could apply this arguement to many things in Aviation.
Hypothetically my brother phones me up and says "Alan, lets do lunch in Jersey, my shout", and I fly us there. I pay for the plane at the time, then later on when we're back he bungs me a wad of cash to cover the costs......Illegal, yes, but I wonder how many people would do it .....
Of course, I could never condone such action, being an upstanding citizen, but the big difference in this case would be that I could trust my brother not to drop me in it........
I've had people offer to pay me (or rather the costs) to take various relatives on joy rides, including one guy who wanted me to take his dad on a birthday treat. I refuse becasue its not worth the hassle if it goes tits up. In the States however.......
EA
Hypothetically my brother phones me up and says "Alan, lets do lunch in Jersey, my shout", and I fly us there. I pay for the plane at the time, then later on when we're back he bungs me a wad of cash to cover the costs......Illegal, yes, but I wonder how many people would do it .....
Of course, I could never condone such action, being an upstanding citizen, but the big difference in this case would be that I could trust my brother not to drop me in it........
I've had people offer to pay me (or rather the costs) to take various relatives on joy rides, including one guy who wanted me to take his dad on a birthday treat. I refuse becasue its not worth the hassle if it goes tits up. In the States however.......
EA
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But, if your friend joins his dad on the birthday flight and pays 2/3 of the cost for himself and his dad, it's perfectly legal!
FNG
Thanks for your response.
I know a lot of pilots (PPLs and professional) who are uneducated by your criteria. We'll keep 'banging the rocks together'
but, in the meantime, to clear this up, please can you tell us -
What would be the offence which the PPL commited if he took his photographer friend flying on a cost-sharing basis knowing his friend would be selling the photos?
(You can assume I understand, and agree with, the thinking behind what you say the law is. )
FNG
Thanks for your response.
I know a lot of pilots (PPLs and professional) who are uneducated by your criteria. We'll keep 'banging the rocks together'
but, in the meantime, to clear this up, please can you tell us -What would be the offence which the PPL commited if he took his photographer friend flying on a cost-sharing basis knowing his friend would be selling the photos?
(You can assume I understand, and agree with, the thinking behind what you say the law is. )
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My comments as to intelligibility by the educated are limited to the concept of valuable consideration, defined in article 129. I agree that Article 130 in general is a horrid piece of work. The rocks should not be bashed together, but thrown at the draftsperson.
If the argument which I set out above is correct, then the pilot would be flying without the required licence, and so could be convicted for breaching Article 21, and get fined for this.
Although I have no way of knowing the CAA's thinking on this subject, I am inclined to agree with IO540 that, if the CAA ever learned of a pre-planned commercial photo mission of the kind under discussion, they might well prosecute, taking the view that this was a deliberate attempt to fly commercially on a PPL (although, as I have said above, the prosecution could properly be motivated by factors other than revenue protection).
If the argument which I set out above is correct, then the pilot would be flying without the required licence, and so could be convicted for breaching Article 21, and get fined for this.
Although I have no way of knowing the CAA's thinking on this subject, I am inclined to agree with IO540 that, if the CAA ever learned of a pre-planned commercial photo mission of the kind under discussion, they might well prosecute, taking the view that this was a deliberate attempt to fly commercially on a PPL (although, as I have said above, the prosecution could properly be motivated by factors other than revenue protection).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
englishal
In practice, this sort of thing is (I am told, having rarely asked for or got a penny from a passenger) taken care of by the money changing hands AFTER the successful completion of the flight.
If I was doing PPL cost sharing to anywhere near the permitted limit and the money was being offered before the flight, I would get cheques, not cash.
I am sure a lot of people read this and think it's a load of diatribe. They are care-free and without commitments. When one has a business, or gets older and has kids etc, one becomes aware of the possibility of going bankrupt.
And there is where the real danger lies. The worst the CAA can do is a fine or a jail, and they won't jail you unless you've done something pretty bad.
I think the real problem is insurance, and particularly passenger liability.
If passengers get injured, they may have a big financial incentive to disclose things which were previously agreed to be quiet. They may also have a big incentive to make something up. I bet most people would do exactly that if the stake was big enough.
This is especially true for people who fly with no insurance - not in itself illegal. The passengers have a huge incentive to show the pilot was acting illegally.
In practice, this sort of thing is (I am told, having rarely asked for or got a penny from a passenger) taken care of by the money changing hands AFTER the successful completion of the flight.
If I was doing PPL cost sharing to anywhere near the permitted limit and the money was being offered before the flight, I would get cheques, not cash.
I am sure a lot of people read this and think it's a load of diatribe. They are care-free and without commitments. When one has a business, or gets older and has kids etc, one becomes aware of the possibility of going bankrupt.
And there is where the real danger lies. The worst the CAA can do is a fine or a jail, and they won't jail you unless you've done something pretty bad.
I think the real problem is insurance, and particularly passenger liability.
If passengers get injured, they may have a big financial incentive to disclose things which were previously agreed to be quiet. They may also have a big incentive to make something up. I bet most people would do exactly that if the stake was big enough.
This is especially true for people who fly with no insurance - not in itself illegal. The passengers have a huge incentive to show the pilot was acting illegally.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh, IO, you may be even more cynical than me. The compensation culture is truly depressing, and I''m glad that my work mostly keeps me away from it, but I don't think that we should be scared of our passengers. Of course we should insure ourselves (I find it odd that insurance is not yet compulsory, although of course this is likely to change). In the case of a passenger claiming damages for negligence, the threat to blow the whistle on an illegal flight might be a pressure tactic, but it would be of little effect if the flight was in fact a kosher one. I agree, however, that one of the reasons not to push one's luck with creative interpretations of "private" flying is that, if something goes wrong, the ensuing mess may be even messier than it might otherwise be.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely right, no reason to be afraid of passengers, but one has to keep things straight just in case. The compensation culture should serve as a confirmation that if somebody can have a go, they are very likely to. Very sad but true.
Having read the opening question I imagine that the CAA would view this as a commercial flight.
In the original statement the photographer photographs large houses as his profession. Foz doesn't say whether the houses to be photographed were of the type this chap normally works on. If they are, and the photographer has an input in the navigation of the flight, i.e. can we go here, and fly around a bit while I get some pictures?, then this would indicate that this was a commercial flight, particularly if the pictures appeared in sales publications, or his portfolio.
If however the photographer said can I come for a ride and take some pictures as as we go along?, and had no input in the route chosen but still took some pictures, this could be classed I feel as an ordinary PPL flight with contribution from a pax. The photographer could legitimately sell any pics commercially, as they were taken by chance, and not planned as such. I had a discussion a couple of years ago on this subject (me as a photographer),with SRG and the above, was my understanding of their position.
In the original statement the photographer photographs large houses as his profession. Foz doesn't say whether the houses to be photographed were of the type this chap normally works on. If they are, and the photographer has an input in the navigation of the flight, i.e. can we go here, and fly around a bit while I get some pictures?, then this would indicate that this was a commercial flight, particularly if the pictures appeared in sales publications, or his portfolio.
If however the photographer said can I come for a ride and take some pictures as as we go along?, and had no input in the route chosen but still took some pictures, this could be classed I feel as an ordinary PPL flight with contribution from a pax. The photographer could legitimately sell any pics commercially, as they were taken by chance, and not planned as such. I had a discussion a couple of years ago on this subject (me as a photographer),with SRG and the above, was my understanding of their position.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had people offer to pay me (or rather the costs) to take various relatives on joy rides, including one guy who wanted me to take his dad on a birthday treat. I refuse becasue its not worth the hassle if it goes tits up. In the States however.......
Recently the FAA succesfully revoked the licence and prosecuted someone who was asked by a friend to fly some people to a party. Said pilot was a CPL/IR. However, the way they looked at it he was offering his services, and his aircraft, as as an air carrier without part 135(?) approval.
So - be careful of the "In the states however................." thinking.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM
I bet there was more to that than somebody asking a PPL "can you take XYZ to a party". On that basis, we would all be illegal half the time when taking passengers.
The people who get done don't usually advertise the fact, let alone the details
Incidentally, and I apologise of this has been covered already, but if a pilot takes 3 passengers, they can clearly contribute up to 75% of the direct cost. What if the same amount of money comes from somebody who is not on board?
I bet there was more to that than somebody asking a PPL "can you take XYZ to a party". On that basis, we would all be illegal half the time when taking passengers.
The people who get done don't usually advertise the fact, let alone the details
Incidentally, and I apologise of this has been covered already, but if a pilot takes 3 passengers, they can clearly contribute up to 75% of the direct cost. What if the same amount of money comes from somebody who is not on board?
