Aerial photography
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerial photogrphy does not need an AOC.
Several commercial aerial photography firms have had this confirmed after a CAA investigation, I know of 1 operator who previously had an AOC but has now dropped it in light of the CAA's findings and clarification.
The reason you don't need an AOC is because the profit is from the images only, the aircraft is just a tool to get to the phography site, the same as a businessman being flown to a meeting in his own aircraft does not require an AOC.
However, if the aircraft is chartered to a photographer such that the aircraft itself generates profit, this becomes aerial work and does require an AOC.
Not all passenger carrying flights are public air transport. If the aircraft departs and arrives at the the same point with no intermediate stops and is operated VFR (pleasure flights) the operation is classed as aerial work, it does require an AOC, but these AOC's are much cheaper and easier to obtain.
Say again s l o w l y - some of the most proffesional aerial photography operations around don't have an AOC. Just because they don't have the bit of paper doesn't stop them from implementing the associated SOP's and certainly doesn't make them cowboys.
Several commercial aerial photography firms have had this confirmed after a CAA investigation, I know of 1 operator who previously had an AOC but has now dropped it in light of the CAA's findings and clarification.
The reason you don't need an AOC is because the profit is from the images only, the aircraft is just a tool to get to the phography site, the same as a businessman being flown to a meeting in his own aircraft does not require an AOC.
However, if the aircraft is chartered to a photographer such that the aircraft itself generates profit, this becomes aerial work and does require an AOC.
Not all passenger carrying flights are public air transport. If the aircraft departs and arrives at the the same point with no intermediate stops and is operated VFR (pleasure flights) the operation is classed as aerial work, it does require an AOC, but these AOC's are much cheaper and easier to obtain.
Say again s l o w l y - some of the most proffesional aerial photography operations around don't have an AOC. Just because they don't have the bit of paper doesn't stop them from implementing the associated SOP's and certainly doesn't make them cowboys.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arial Photography
Captain101 explains this issue correctly but there is one other thing to say.
If the pilot ia also taking the photos that is OK although we would all agree it is maybe hazardous. However should the photographer be carried as a passenger then the flight may be construed as a passenger carrying flight for the purpose of 'hire and reward' note; 'hire and reward' - payment is not specified. It could be said that being bought dinner is the reward and successful proscecutions have cited just that.
Much better that the Pilot/Photographer takes the photos and takes with them another valid pilot to act as a safety officer who will only take control in the event the the pilot/photographer losses it. In that way it cannot be construed that 'hire and reward' is taking place.
If the pilot ia also taking the photos that is OK although we would all agree it is maybe hazardous. However should the photographer be carried as a passenger then the flight may be construed as a passenger carrying flight for the purpose of 'hire and reward' note; 'hire and reward' - payment is not specified. It could be said that being bought dinner is the reward and successful proscecutions have cited just that.
Much better that the Pilot/Photographer takes the photos and takes with them another valid pilot to act as a safety officer who will only take control in the event the the pilot/photographer losses it. In that way it cannot be construed that 'hire and reward' is taking place.
Not all passenger carrying flights are public air transport. If the aircraft departs and arrives at the the same point with no intermediate stops and is operated VFR (pleasure flights) the operation is classed as aerial work,
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some may be professional, but many are not. I have seen and heard of some outfits that hire a low hours CPL holder to fly solo at low-ish level AND take photographs at the same time.
If that isn't a cowboy operation, then I don't know what is.
If that isn't a cowboy operation, then I don't know what is.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
being bought dinner is the reward and successful proscecutions have cited just that
I know a solicitor with access to the legal databases so a case ref will do just fine.
I tell you why I ask: who on earth is going to fly somebody when the "reward" is a dinner? Even a lawn mower strapped to one's back is going to have an operating cost way exceeding the value of a dinner.
Now, if the "reward" was something rather more "personal"
that might be a whole different scenario. But if that got you prosecuted, a large percentage of UK's PPL instructors would be in jail 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The price of dinner
IO540
Sorry I can't provide you with lots of detail.
I believe that the incident was this. The PPL was investigated for flying a Rugby team on a number of occasions. His defence in court was that he did so as a favour but admitted in court that the team paid his hotel and Evening dinner as a thank you for the flight but he did not receive any payment toward the actual cost of the flight. As I remember it this was sufficient for him to be found guilty for receiving a reward given specifically for the flight. Poorly advised by the sound of it. It wasn't held good enough for him to claim that as an owner/operator of an expensive aeroplane that he could afford his own hotel and dinner. The fact was he had received the hospitality wholely or partly for the flight itself. Remember the words within the ANO are 'hire or reward'
Sorry I can't provide you with lots of detail.
I believe that the incident was this. The PPL was investigated for flying a Rugby team on a number of occasions. His defence in court was that he did so as a favour but admitted in court that the team paid his hotel and Evening dinner as a thank you for the flight but he did not receive any payment toward the actual cost of the flight. As I remember it this was sufficient for him to be found guilty for receiving a reward given specifically for the flight. Poorly advised by the sound of it. It wasn't held good enough for him to claim that as an owner/operator of an expensive aeroplane that he could afford his own hotel and dinner. The fact was he had received the hospitality wholely or partly for the flight itself. Remember the words within the ANO are 'hire or reward'
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
homeguard
I am sure there is more to this one.
For starters, who reported him to the CAA? I bet it wasn't one of the rugby players.
I would guess, purely guess (but I've seen something similar happen a few years ago) that the said rugby team contacted a local air taxi firm(s) for a quote. If such a firm (an AOC holder of course) doesn't get the job, they will keep an ear very close to the ground afterwards to see who did get it - this is a VERY small world. But there are plenty of pleasure flight (oooops, I meant to say "trial lesson") operations and if the customer is then seen to be walking up to G-XXXX which belongs to a firm or an individual which everybody knows doesn't have an AOC, the CAA will be told within the hour.
Even so, IMHO it would take a bit more than flying the same bunch of people around on a few occassions. He may have done something else, but it could not be proved. The police used to do this routinely on motoring offences, as I know to my cost.
What happens to the PPL cost sharing scheme? If the flight costs say £100 then 3 passengers can legally buy you a £75 meal. Did he exceed the 3-passenger limit? Was it really a 6-seater? It must have been some 6-seater to carry more than 3 rugby players and enough fuel for a circuit
Or was it foreign reg? No cost sharing is allowed in those under the ANO (i.e. in UK airspace). One has to be seriously careful if flying people in an N-reg.
I am sure there is more to this one.
For starters, who reported him to the CAA? I bet it wasn't one of the rugby players.
I would guess, purely guess (but I've seen something similar happen a few years ago) that the said rugby team contacted a local air taxi firm(s) for a quote. If such a firm (an AOC holder of course) doesn't get the job, they will keep an ear very close to the ground afterwards to see who did get it - this is a VERY small world. But there are plenty of pleasure flight (oooops, I meant to say "trial lesson") operations and if the customer is then seen to be walking up to G-XXXX which belongs to a firm or an individual which everybody knows doesn't have an AOC, the CAA will be told within the hour.
Even so, IMHO it would take a bit more than flying the same bunch of people around on a few occassions. He may have done something else, but it could not be proved. The police used to do this routinely on motoring offences, as I know to my cost.
What happens to the PPL cost sharing scheme? If the flight costs say £100 then 3 passengers can legally buy you a £75 meal. Did he exceed the 3-passenger limit? Was it really a 6-seater? It must have been some 6-seater to carry more than 3 rugby players and enough fuel for a circuit
Or was it foreign reg? No cost sharing is allowed in those under the ANO (i.e. in UK airspace). One has to be seriously careful if flying people in an N-reg.
Remember the words within the ANO are 'hire or reward'
157(1)Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, aerial work means any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.
157(3)Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, an aircraft in flight shall for the purposes of this Order be deemed to fly for the purposes of public transport:
(a) if valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on that flight;
155 ‘Valuable consideration’ means any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken under an agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature;
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "nominal nature" bit is interesting. Is it defined anywhere?
I would say that whether something is "nominal" depends on the income of the recipient.
A lunch ought to be nominal to most people, especially somebody hanging around aviation.
A hotel room perhaps not but it could easily cost the same as a lunch.
This reminds me of the Inland Revenue IHT exemption; one can make unlimited gifts out of one's income. They just have to be small enough to not affect the donor's standard of living.
I would say that whether something is "nominal" depends on the income of the recipient.
A lunch ought to be nominal to most people, especially somebody hanging around aviation.
A hotel room perhaps not but it could easily cost the same as a lunch.
This reminds me of the Inland Revenue IHT exemption; one can make unlimited gifts out of one's income. They just have to be small enough to not affect the donor's standard of living.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem from a customer's point of view with trying to do aerial photography on a "trial lesson" is that the weather may be suitable for said trial lesson but unsuitable for the photography. You have to fly or pay a canellation fee!
Great for the school!
Regards,
DFC
Great for the school!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hidden Agenda The reason I wrote this was because most of the aerial photography companies I know of DONT have an AOC. That was an interesting point about hiring the aircraft out but I’m still not entirely sure you need an AOC for that I will have to do some more reading up.
As for the pilot taking the pictures himself as well as flying the aircraft I thought that was totally illegal!!
S
As for the pilot taking the pictures himself as well as flying the aircraft I thought that was totally illegal!!
S
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canada
Age: 44
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off I will say I have no idea about the regulations in GB. I am one of those guys that call my self an aerial photographer. I own a small business shooting aerial photos of farms and rural homes for companies that go door to door selling the finished product. I can agree the job I do can be a bit busy at times. The flying part of the job can only take up about 10% of my attention the rest is devoted to getting a great photos, mapping, ATC and looking out for radio towers & traffic. Each summer I shot around 25,000 photos 350-500 a day from 500AGL. As for the legalities of it in Canada we are allowed to use a privately registered aircraft as long as the pilot is alone and compensated for the photography, not the flying. I am no stranger to Transport Canada enforcement due to the my inevitable low flying complaints, they have never had an issues with the way I run my business. My style of flying on the other hand is a different story.
PT
PT
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of anything else, I am sure that a sole pilot taking pics is not illegal.
For a start he might have an autopilot. Pilots who have never had one (the vast majority of PPLs I guess) have no idea how this reduces cockpit workload.
Also he might have a proper camera fitment. I once video'd most of the Spanish coast, flying alone. On autopilot, twiddling the heading bug, and with a camcorder fixed to the window on a custom made bracket. As usual outside the UK, not a single other aircraft to be seen or heard.
With a camera window and a remotely controlled camera one could do great still and video work, flying alone.
What is possibly unsafe (though not illegal as such) is flying an old C152 at 501ft agl in a 60 degree bank while holding a camera against the window
For a start he might have an autopilot. Pilots who have never had one (the vast majority of PPLs I guess) have no idea how this reduces cockpit workload.
Also he might have a proper camera fitment. I once video'd most of the Spanish coast, flying alone. On autopilot, twiddling the heading bug, and with a camcorder fixed to the window on a custom made bracket. As usual outside the UK, not a single other aircraft to be seen or heard.
With a camera window and a remotely controlled camera one could do great still and video work, flying alone.
What is possibly unsafe (though not illegal as such) is flying an old C152 at 501ft agl in a 60 degree bank while holding a camera against the window
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canada
Age: 44
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ll tell you how most of us shoot low level oblique aerial photography SOLO.
- Usually done from a C-150, or C-152. I own a 1947 Luscombe 8E that I use.
- In a C-150 sit on the right side I have to sit on the left because that’s where the brake pedals are.
- ALWAYS OPEN THE WINDOW.
- tape a remote shutter button to the wheel or stick with a wire long enough to reach the camera.
- hold the camera with your right hand around the lens so its possible to operate the zoom with your ring & pinkie fingers.
- look through the camera sight & snap a photo using remote shutter wire (left hand).
- do everything ethos with your left hand; control plane, throttle, carb heat & PTT.
Don’t forget to keep a good scan going. After a thousand hours of taking photos like this. I have realized that there is only 2 things you NEED to look at on the dash; oil pressure and oil temperature everything ethos you should already know.
IO540
You hit it right on the head “flying an old C152 at 501ft agl in a 60 degree bank while holding a camera” but you forgot the part about the stall horn screaming.
PT
- Usually done from a C-150, or C-152. I own a 1947 Luscombe 8E that I use.
- In a C-150 sit on the right side I have to sit on the left because that’s where the brake pedals are.
- ALWAYS OPEN THE WINDOW.
- tape a remote shutter button to the wheel or stick with a wire long enough to reach the camera.
- hold the camera with your right hand around the lens so its possible to operate the zoom with your ring & pinkie fingers.
- look through the camera sight & snap a photo using remote shutter wire (left hand).
- do everything ethos with your left hand; control plane, throttle, carb heat & PTT.
Don’t forget to keep a good scan going. After a thousand hours of taking photos like this. I have realized that there is only 2 things you NEED to look at on the dash; oil pressure and oil temperature everything ethos you should already know.
IO540
You hit it right on the head “flying an old C152 at 501ft agl in a 60 degree bank while holding a camera” but you forgot the part about the stall horn screaming.
PT
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The link
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_GAD_AERIAL_PHOTO.PDF
contains the following contact for further information
For more information contact the CAA’s General Aviation
Department on 01293 57 3517
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_GAD_AERIAL_PHOTO.PDF
contains the following contact for further information
For more information contact the CAA’s General Aviation
Department on 01293 57 3517
E-mail: [email protected]
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: cambs.
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aerial photography
I have done this for a living for 20 years and would submit as follows:The photographer counts as "Crew" and not as a paying passenger. We choose to train hours building commercial pilots to help them build hours - it isnt everyone who should become an instructor to notch up a few hours. We always use 2 man crews but have no judgement to make on single man crew operators as there is an argument that the one that gets you will get you even if you have the whole of the airframe crammed with eyes(esp. the low fast stuff).
Further that nowadays with the advent of Digital cameras and the "multiplying" effect there is no need to fly low and slow - all of our stuff is shot upwards of 1800 feet agl where, given the efficiency of the german silencers, you would be hard pressed to hear us either.
It wouldnt surprise me if the powers that be decide that more regulation is necessary as we all feel a lot safer when there is a few more rules don't we? and what would you expect a regulatory body to think is more important 2-300 peoples livlehoods or a few more well meaning rules(read pricing the whole thing out of existance). Fortunately there are, in my experience, quite a few decent people in the CAA who value flying in all it's forms even though(unlike theFAA) they have no remit to actively "Promote" GA. So there is hope.
One last thought - what would all the monthly flying magazines look like with pics. of aircraft parked safely on the ground because the AOC operators would need both the photo ship AND the subject A/C on their hallowed AOC? or if any air-air shots of your own were suddenly decreed as been for "Reward" because you later decide to use them to sell your aircraft at alater date.
There are enuff rules to prosecute tossers with methinks?
Further that nowadays with the advent of Digital cameras and the "multiplying" effect there is no need to fly low and slow - all of our stuff is shot upwards of 1800 feet agl where, given the efficiency of the german silencers, you would be hard pressed to hear us either.
It wouldnt surprise me if the powers that be decide that more regulation is necessary as we all feel a lot safer when there is a few more rules don't we? and what would you expect a regulatory body to think is more important 2-300 peoples livlehoods or a few more well meaning rules(read pricing the whole thing out of existance). Fortunately there are, in my experience, quite a few decent people in the CAA who value flying in all it's forms even though(unlike theFAA) they have no remit to actively "Promote" GA. So there is hope.
One last thought - what would all the monthly flying magazines look like with pics. of aircraft parked safely on the ground because the AOC operators would need both the photo ship AND the subject A/C on their hallowed AOC? or if any air-air shots of your own were suddenly decreed as been for "Reward" because you later decide to use them to sell your aircraft at alater date.
There are enuff rules to prosecute tossers with methinks?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: cambs.
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aerial photography
I have done this for a living for 20 years and would submit as follows:The photographer counts as "Crew" and not as a paying passenger. We choose to train hours building commercial pilots to help them build hours - it isnt everyone who should become an instructor to notch up a few hours. We always use 2 man crews but have no judgement to make on single man crew operators as there is an argument that the one that gets you will get you even if you have the whole of the airframe crammed with eyes(esp. the low fast stuff).
Further that nowadays with the advent of Digital cameras and the "multiplying" effect there is no need to fly low and slow - all of our stuff is shot upwards of 1800 feet agl where, given the efficiency of the german silencers, you would be hard pressed to hear us either.
It wouldnt surprise me if the powers that be decide that more regulation is necessary as we all feel a lot safer when there is a few more rules don't we? and what would you expect a regulatory body to think is more important 2-300 peoples livlehoods or a few more well meaning rules(read pricing the whole thing out of existance). Fortunately there are, in my experience, quite a few decent people in the CAA who value flying in all it's forms even though(unlike theFAA) they have no remit to actively "Promote" GA. So there is hope.
One last thought - what would all the monthly flying magazines look like with pics. of aircraft parked safely on the ground because the AOC operators would need both the photo ship AND the subject A/C on their hallowed AOC? or if any air-air shots of your own were suddenly decreed as been for "Reward" because you later decide to use them to sell your aircraft at alater date.
There are enuff rules to prosecute tossers with methinks?
Further that nowadays with the advent of Digital cameras and the "multiplying" effect there is no need to fly low and slow - all of our stuff is shot upwards of 1800 feet agl where, given the efficiency of the german silencers, you would be hard pressed to hear us either.
It wouldnt surprise me if the powers that be decide that more regulation is necessary as we all feel a lot safer when there is a few more rules don't we? and what would you expect a regulatory body to think is more important 2-300 peoples livlehoods or a few more well meaning rules(read pricing the whole thing out of existance). Fortunately there are, in my experience, quite a few decent people in the CAA who value flying in all it's forms even though(unlike theFAA) they have no remit to actively "Promote" GA. So there is hope.
One last thought - what would all the monthly flying magazines look like with pics. of aircraft parked safely on the ground because the AOC operators would need both the photo ship AND the subject A/C on their hallowed AOC? or if any air-air shots of your own were suddenly decreed as been for "Reward" because you later decide to use them to sell your aircraft at alater date.
There are enuff rules to prosecute tossers with methinks?
Re: Aerial photography
Originally Posted by spernkey
I have done this for a living for 20 years and would submit as follows:The photographer counts as "Crew" and not as a paying passenger.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: cambs.
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aerial photography
Apart from the small matter of "Technical" law can you agree that it still ammounts to the same thing ie 2 consenting adults getting in a plane and pointing a camera for a bit - same risk exposure - same aircraft - the law is an ASS! What we really need is some more stupid rules to tidy up these anomalies caused by the first set of stupid rules!-i think not.
Cynical freinds tell me all this "Hire and reward" stuff was probably brought in to serve the self interest groups stacked around the sausage factory that spits out commercial pilots - i couldn't say one way or the other.
Cynical freinds tell me all this "Hire and reward" stuff was probably brought in to serve the self interest groups stacked around the sausage factory that spits out commercial pilots - i couldn't say one way or the other.