Aerial Photography Legal with CFI?

[bqmassey]

I know this topic has been brought up before in some fashion. From my understanding, the FAA's stance is that if you advertise yourself as an aerial photographer, and you're the one doing the flying, you must have a commercial certificate.

My question is this: If you're logging the flight as dual received, (therefore the flight is already a commercial operation, with a CFI onboard), can you, the student, shoot and sell photos?

If you're answer is "no", check out boatpix.com. They sell time-building hours in a Robinson R22. You pay XX per hour, and you go fly with one of their CFIs. You and the CFI take turns flying and shooting pictures (of boats). Boatpix sells the photos. The instructor gets paid to fly. You build time at a reduced rate. They've been doing it for a while, so I'm guessing that the FAA is either fine with it, or hasn't put together a strong enough case to bust them.

If it's kosher, I'm considering doing the same thing (only occasionally). I'm currently receiving primary instruction for the Private Pilot certificate in an A22 Valor LSA. If I were to find a customer who wanted photographs taken, could we get some pictures during the progress of a flight and be in the clear?

Once I receive my certificate, if I bring my CFI along, can we go on a dedicated photo mission?

 

[Skylane81E]

With boat pix who sells the picks, the student or the company?

 

[bqmassey]

With boat pix who sells the picks, the student or the company?

The company does. The way it's been explained to me, they go out and do orbits around random boats taking pictures. They have "Boatpix.com" splashed on the side of their helo. Boatpix makes money when someone who's on the boat notes the website, and visits it later, buying the photo through the website. The instructor and the student, who is a private pilot, take turns flying and shooting, depending on who's side of aircraft is facing the boat.

 

[Skylane81E]

So the private pilot does not receive compensation for the flying.

Thing is so long as a commercial piot is PIC you should be ok.

Just pay the CFI and go fly.

 

[Henning]

Once I receive my certificate, if I bring my CFI along, can we go on a dedicated photo mission?

If you as a photographer can definitely rent an airplane and CFI from an FBO and do a dedicated photomission and as a benefit, you can get instruction and log dual training stuff as well. It's all good, Image stabilization is magic, it's worth 2 stops of lens weight.

If you provide the plane, you can hire any commercial pilot, you can find them for $25hr, maybe $18 if you're offering a lot of hours, room and board away from base same for CFI.

 

[poadeleted20]

Any Commercial Pilot can be paid to fly a photo mission, not just a CFI allegedly giving training to the photographer. The only issue will be who's providing the plane. If it's the photographer, no problem -- you can hire a CP to fly any aircraft you provide anywhere you want. If it's the Commercial Pilot, then either 91.147 or Part 135 comes into play, depending on whether or not you stay within 25sm of the originating airport and land nowhere else. If you claim you were receiving flight training while taking pictures for a photography business, the FAA is likely to smell a rat, i.e., that you were using that "training flight" to sidestep either 91.147 or Part 135, as applicable, and they get really upset about that.

In theory, it is legal to have an aerial photgraphy business and fly the plane with only a PP -- this has been answered before by the Chief Counsel. However, you can only be paid to take the pictures, not fly the plane, so that's where it gets tricky -- if you're taking the pictures, who's flying the plane? And if you're flying the plane while someone else takes the pictures, you can't receive compensation for that, even free flying time. Kind of a conundrum.

 

[NoHeat]

Does selling photos taken speculatively while flying actually require a commercial certificate?

If someone is agreeing to compensate you before you fly, for example a photography studio agrees with you that they will pay you X dollars if you go up and take photos of Y, then that sounds like "compensation or hire" and would require a commercial certificate ...

... but if you are a private pilot or even a student pilot, and you take some photos on your own initiative without any customer lined up, and after landing you find somebody willing to buy a photo, is that "compensation or hire"?

 

[poadeleted20]

Does selling photos taken speculatively while flying actually require a commercial certificate?

No, but see post #6 above.

If someone is agreeing to compensate you before you fly, for example a photography studio agrees with you that they will pay you X dollars if you go up and take photos of Y, then that sounds like "compensation or hire" and would require a commercial certificate ...

You're taking pictures for compensation/hire, not flying the plane. Only problem is who's flying while you're snapping?

... but if you are a private pilot or even a student pilot, and you take some photos on your own initiative without any customer lined up, and after landing you find somebody willing to buy a photo, is that "compensation or hire"?

That's photos for compensation/hire, not flying for compensation/hire. But again, who's flying the aircraft watching for other aircraft while you're shooting pictures?

 

[poadeleted20]

If you as a photographer can definitely rent an airplane and CFI from an FBO and do a dedicated photomission and as a benefit, you can get instruction and log dual training stuff as well.

You can try that, but the FAA may see that as a dodge to get around 91.147 and/or Part 135, just like faux charters disguised as training. And if they have the LoA or ATCO certificate, it doesn't have to be a CFI -- any CP on their certificate or letter will do.

If you provide the plane, you can hire any commercial pilot, you can find them for $25hr, maybe $18 if you're offering a lot of hours, room and board away from base same for CFI.

Legally correct.

 

[jesse]

I've been thinking about trying to get a 91.147 LoA....Doesn't seem too hard -- just not sure it's worth the effort.

 

[bqmassey]

So the general consensus is:

1.) Private pilot, by himself with a rented aircraft, can not advertise and conduct business as an aerial photographer

2.) Private pilot, logging dual time with a CFI on board in a rented aircraft, can advertise and conduct business as an aerial photographer, but you might **** off the FAA.

Agreed?

 

[Henning]

Any Commercial Pilot can be paid to fly a photo mission, not just a CFI allegedly giving training to the photographer. The only issue will be who's providing the plane. If it's the photographer, no problem -- you can hire a CP to fly any aircraft you provide anywhere you want. If it's the Commercial Pilot, then either 91.147 or Part 135 comes into play, depending on whether or not you stay within 25sm of the originating airport and land nowhere else. If you claim you were receiving flight training while taking pictures for a photography business, the FAA is likely to smell a rat, i.e., that you were using that "training flight" to sidestep either 91.147 or Part 135, as applicable, and they get really upset about that.

In theory, it is legal to have an aerial photgraphy business and fly the plane with only a PP -- this has been answered before by the Chief Counsel. However, you can only be paid to take the pictures, not fly the plane, so that's where it gets tricky -- if you're taking the pictures, who's flying the plane? And if you're flying the plane while someone else takes the pictures, you can't receive compensation for that, even free flying time. Kind of a conundrum.

My photo studio assistant is doing the physical camera work as I monitor, or I have a fixed mount and do both flying to ground shooting to a reasonably aligned monitor. With digital vs film, the later has become much more practical. When I did the survey job that was all video. 6hrs fly and 4-5 hrs + a day of that taping. I set up still on a bulk reel but never really used it, the video was perfect for the client, that's all he wanted. Lotsa desert and intra-mountain west but even some east. That was a really good time building gig, it worked out just perfect with my TN BE-95 shooting out/down aft out of the luggage.

 

[denverpilot]

In theory, it is legal to have an aerial photgraphy business and fly the plane with only a PP -- this has been answered before by the Chief Counsel. However, you can only be paid to take the pictures, not fly the plane, so that's where it gets tricky -- if you're taking the pictures, who's flying the plane? And if you're flying the plane while someone else takes the pictures, you can't receive compensation for that, even free flying time. Kind of a conundrum.

Sounds like a job for a fixed mount camera and a remote shutter trigger on the yoke. Point a wingtip and push the button.

 

[Henning]

Sounds like a job for a fixed mount camera and a remote shutter trigger on the yoke. Point a wingtip and push the button.

Yeah, takes some practice especially with the oblique work I'd do in early and late light, but now with image stabilization vibration proofing the mount isn't such a chore. It's a lot more pleasant if you have a good assistant to shoot though, especially if I'm using larger formats of film. Most of the real aerial photo equipment (vertical shooting 10" cameras and such) will require a camera operator. Shooting verticals out the window I always did alone because it requires a lot of slipping and my assistant, well, her tummy didn't handle slipping well.

 

[flyingron]

S
2.) Private pilot, logging dual time with a CFI on board in a rented aircraft, can advertise and conduct business as an aerial photographer, but you might **** off the FAA.

Agreed?

Might cheese off the instructor as well. As pointed out, flight instruction isn't a commercial operation. A CFI can give instruction and not have the requirements to be PIC or even a required crew member.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't think this was mentioned, although Ron alluded to it when he said any commercial pilot not just a CFI. Many CFIs don't maintain a second class medical. That would mean no commercial privileges and no photo-for-compensation flight.

 

[poadeleted20]

1.) Private pilot, by himself with a rented aircraft, can not advertise and conduct business as an aerial photographer

No. Such a pilot certainly can do that. Only problem is doing it safely.

2.) Private pilot, logging dual time with a CFI on board in a rented aircraft, can advertise and conduct business as an aerial photographer, but you might **** off the FAA.

Three ways this might go...

First, the private pilot rents the plane, and then hires a Commercial Pilot (CFI or not -- doesn't matter) to fly it while the PP shoots pictures. Completely FAA-legal. Of course, the party renting the plane to the PP might get upset if s/he lets someone else fly the plane in violation of the rental contract and insurance provisions, but that's not the FAA's concern.

Second, the PP hires the CP who then goes out and rents a plane to fly the PP around. In that case, the CP would be providing air transportation for hire in violation of 91.147 and/or Part 135, and if caught, the CP would get fried.

Third, the PP goes to the flight school and asks for an airplane and instructor for training, and then goes out taking pictures while the CFI flies the plane. The FAA would almost certainly see that as a violation because if the PP is conducting an aerial photography business, then the claimed flight training appears to be a sham to get around 91.147 and/or Part 135. The CFI (and maybe the FBO/flight school, if they knew what was going on) would be in deep trouble because the FAA takes those sorts of violations very seriously.

 

[poadeleted20]

My photo studio assistant is doing the physical camera work as I monitor, or I have a fixed mount and do both flying to ground shooting to a reasonably aligned monitor. With digital vs film, the later has become much more practical. When I did the survey job that was all video. 6hrs fly and 4-5 hrs + a day of that taping. I set up still on a bulk reel but never really used it, the video was perfect for the client, that's all he wanted. Lotsa desert and intra-mountain west but even some east. That was a really good time building gig, it worked out just perfect with my TN BE-95 shooting out/down aft out of the luggage.

If you have a Commercial Pilot certificate, that's all perfectly fine.

But if a PP is flying while someone else shoots the pictures, and the PP receives any compensation at all, then the PP is being compensated for flying the plane, and a PP can't do that. The key there is whether the PP can show that s/he wasn't being compensated for flying the plane, and if someone else is shooting the pictures, that might be hard to do.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sounds like a job for a fixed mount camera and a remote shutter trigger on the yoke. Point a wingtip and push the button.

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't think this was mentioned, although Ron alluded to it when he said any commercial pilot not just a CFI. Many CFIs don't maintain a second class medical. That would mean no commercial privileges and no photo-for-compensation flight.

Good point, and I had forgotten that. I was just thinking of the airman certificate required, and if being done legally, the CFI is not necessary, only the CP (or ATP). But yes, because CP privileges are being exercised, CFI or not, the CP doing the flying needs a Second Class medical.

And there may still be a few CFI's around with only a PP certificate, and those folks couldn't do this legally even if they can give flight training.

 

[spinfire]

You can do CFI with Private Pilot only, no Commercial? Or is that something legacy where they are grandfathered in? I thought a Commercial certificate was the prereq to obtaining your CFI.

 

[Dr. O]

A CP (CFI or not) flying a person who wants to take photos from the FBO's rental plane is done routinely by every FBO I have known... Been done as long as I have been around aviation... I have never seen or heard of the FAA considering that a violation of any kind... I have seen it being done in conjunction with a WIngs Seminar and Dawn-Patrol / Pancake-breakfast for the public... The FAA officials at their booth were right in front of the loading area for the photo-flights / Rides and never even blinked...

I think we get too hung up on nit picking the regs... As long as you are not trying to avoid being properly licensed for holding out to the public for air taxi service, it is just part of general aviation...

 

[poadeleted20]

You can do CFI with Private Pilot only, no Commercial? Or is that something legacy where they are grandfathered in? I thought a Commercial certificate was the prereq to obtaining your CFI.

Legacy. Back in the day (like 50 years ago), you could get a CFI with only a PP, but you had to fly the CFI ride to Commercial standards. When they added the CP requirement to the prerequisites, they grandfathered those folks. A few may still be alive and instructing -- I don't know.

 

[poadeleted20]

A CP (CFI or not) flying a person who wants to take photos from the FBO's rental plane is done routinely by every FBO I have known... Been done as long as I have been around aviation... I have never seen or heard of the FAA considering that a violation of any kind... I have seen it being done in conjunction with a WIngs Seminar and Dawn-Patrol / Pancake-breakfast for the public... The FAA officials at their booth were right in front of the loading area for the photo-flights / Rides and never even blinked...

You could do that within the sightseeing exception until the FAA added 91.147 to the flight rules in 2006. Now it takes a Letter of Authorization from the FSDO.

I think we get too hung up on nit picking the regs...

When someone asks what the rules are, I think they deserve a straight answer. Some folks are more interested in what they can get away with outside the rules, or the chances of being caught or written up for violations, but I see those as separate issues from asking what the rules are.

As long as you are not trying to avoid being properly licensed for holding out to the public for air taxi service, it is just part of general aviation...

That used to be true, but it isn't any more. The FAA made those sightseeing rides short of Part 135 operations something for which there are specific requirements including a Letter of Authorization from the FSDO. You should take a look at 91.147 to see what the rules on such rides are now.

 

[Skylane81E]

A CP (CFI or not) flying a person who wants to take photos from the FBO's rental plane is done routinely by every FBO I have known... Been done as long as I have been around aviation... I have never seen or heard of the FAA considering that a violation of any kind... I have seen it being done in conjunction with a WIngs Seminar and Dawn-Patrol / Pancake-breakfast for the public... The FAA officials at their booth were right in front of the loading area for the photo-flights / Rides and never even blinked...

I think we get too hung up on nit picking the regs... As long as you are not trying to avoid being properly licensed for holding out to the public for air taxi service, it is just part of general aviation...

We too do this, but must meet fairly high standards to provide both the plane and pilot. We can't just grab a plane and a CP off the street and go. As we provide the plane it must be in 100hr and the pilots must be drug tested.

 

[Henning]

Might cheese off the instructor as well. As pointed out, flight instruction isn't a commercial operation. A CFI can give instruction and not have the requirements to be PIC or even a required crew member.

Are you nuts? Every CFI has a CPL, I've never even heard of a CFI saying no. It's all money. If they don't have a medical, find one that does. Hell, it's more interesting and challenging than instructing.

 

[poadeleted20]

We too do this, but must meet fairly high standards to provide both the plane and pilot. We can't just grab a plane and a CP off the street and go. As we provide the plane it must be in 100hr and the pilots must be drug tested.

You do have a 91.147 LoA, right?

 

[poadeleted20]

Are you nuts? Every CFI has a CPL,

As discussed above, I'm not sure that's true. There still may be a few old CFI's with only a PP, and they aren't eligible to do such rides under 91.147, and most definitely not Part 135.

 

[Henning]

We too do this, but must meet fairly high standards to provide both the plane and pilot. We can't just grab a plane and a CP off the street and go. As we provide the plane it must be in 100hr and the pilots must be drug tested.

Right, which means your operation will be perfectly capable of fulfilling to OP's requirements since all he needs is just a plane in annual and a CP.

 

[poadeleted20]

Right, which means your operation will be perfectly capable of fulfilling to OP's requirements since all he needs is just a plane in annual and a CP.

Not if his operation provides both pilot and plane. That would require either a 91.147 LoA or a Part 135 operating certificate.

 

[Henning]

Not if his operation provides both pilot and plane. That would require either a 91.147 LoA or a Part 135 operating certificate.

True, but as a certificated pilot, I can rent the plane and independently contract a CP. They don't like it if the pilot has a prior relationship with the FBO, but as long as I sign the rental form as a certificated pilot and I walk out to the couch and point at one of the guys and say "You wanna go fly for a bit and spell me when I take some pics, it'll take an hour, I'll pay you $20", that is completely legal and not what the FAA is looking for violation wise. IOW, if they provide me a paired set, that requires 135, however they can provide me the plane and I can select a pilot that happens to be at their location; thing is I have to be a rated pilot to do that. If I wasn't a rated pilot, I'd have to bring in my own commercial pilot from outside.

 

[bqmassey]

Every time I started reading through my FAR/AIM I start to get aggravated to the point I just have to put it down.

Why does every agency feel the need to regulate the **** out of everything. Flying should not be this complicated.

 

[poadeleted20]

True, but as a certificated pilot, I can rent the plane and independently contract a CP.

As I said, that's fine from an FAA perspective.

They don't like it if the pilot has a prior relationship with the FBO,

Exactly -- the duck is quacking.

but as long as I sign the rental form as a certificated pilot and I walk out to the couch and point at one of the guys and say "You wanna go fly for a bit and spell me when I take some pics, it'll take an hour, I'll pay you $20", that is completely legal and not what the FAA is looking for violation wise.

That's correct. Only problem is that doing that is probably a violation of your rental contract and the FBO/flight school's insurance, and that has non-FAA consequences.

IOW, if they provide me a paired set, that requires 135,

...or 91.147 approval if you stay within 25 sm and don't land anywhere else.

however they can provide me the plane and I can select a pilot that happens to be at their location; thing is I have to be a rated pilot to do that. If I wasn't a rated pilot, I'd have to bring in my own commercial pilot from outside.

Again, legal per the FAA, but probably not acceptable to the operator providing the airplane. They normally want the PIC to sign the rental contract, but if you hired gun does that, your hired gun is providing both airplane and pilot services, and then we're back to the 91.147/Part 135 issues.

 

[Henning]

Again, legal per the FAA, but probably not acceptable to the operator providing the airplane. They normally want the PIC to sign the rental contract, but if you hired gun does that, your hired gun is providing both airplane and pilot services, and then we're back to the 91.147/Part 135 issues.

I've not found this to be true. I have many times walked into an FBO and said "I need to rent a plane and take my boss up." They take my clients credit card and my pilots license and medical; 15 minutes later I'm doing my checkout and after that we're flying. I do it all over the country looking at properties and taking pics of boats and have never been denied.

 

[poadeleted20]

Why does every agency feel the need to regulate the **** out of everything.

Because folks keep thinking up clever ways to get around the agency's idea of what they want/don't want done, and then they have to rewrite the regulation so what they don't want done is now illegal.

Flying should not be this complicated.

Perhaps so, but we have only ourselves to blame, because pretty much all those regulations were written because some wise guy or idiot did something that was technically legal, and in the aftermath of the ensuing wreck, the FAA had to figure out how to make it illegal as well as just stupid/unsafe/inappropriate. For example, Part 135 exists today primarily because of the crash that killed Buddy Holly, JP "Big Bopper" Richardson, and Richie Valens -- thank you, Roger Peterson and Hubert Dwyer, for making that happen.

 

[poadeleted20]

I've not found this to be true. I have many times walked into an FBO and said "I need to rent a plane and take my boss up." They take my clients credit card and my pilots license and medical ans 15 minutes later I'm doing my checkout and after that we're flying. I do it all over the country looking at properties and taking pics of boats and have never been denied.

Big difference between you as a Commercial Pilot acting for your boss to hire the plane in the company's name and then being approved as the pilot by the operator providing the plane, and someone walking in and asking to rent a plane that will be flown by some pilot-to-be-named-later. Not an FAA issue, of course, but I really don't think any operation renting out airplanes will go along with such a proposal.

 

[Henning]

Big difference between you as a Commercial Pilot acting for your boss to hire the plane in the company's name and then being approved as the pilot by the operator providing the plane, and someone walking in and asking to rent a plane that will be flown by some pilot-to-be-named-later.

Makes even less difference in the original context, I'm a rated pilot and hold the liability for the plane. There's no difference in that as far as the insurance is concerned if I give my daughter the controls or a CP the controls, I can do either with no issue and still maintain the command of the flight from a liability standpoint. There are no rules that say I can't let anyone else have the controls, not the FAA and not the insurance. If a specific FBO has an issue, I'll go next door.

 

[poadeleted20]

Makes even less difference in the original context, I'm a rated pilot and hold the liability for the plane. There's no difference in that as far as the insurance is concerned if I give my daughter the controls or a CP the controls, I can do either with no issue and still maintain the command of the flight from a liability standpoint.

Except that the problem was that as a PP, you could not command the flight in the first place, which is why you were hiring the CP to fly as PIC.

 

[flyingron]

Are you nuts? Every CFI has a CPL, I've never even heard of a CFI saying no. It's all money. If they don't have a medical, find one that does. Hell, it's more interesting and challenging than instructing.

The assumption that a CFI has a medical and is legal to be pilot in command should not be relied upon. This error was pointed out by the phrasing of the initial question "...since this is already a commercial operation..." It need not be.

 

[weilke]

Not if his operation provides both pilot and plane. That would require either a 91.147 LoA or a Part 135 operating certificate.

I haven't seen 91.147 requirements mentioned anywhere in the decisions and opinions regarding aerial survey and photography operations. In the Shamborska letter, a FBO asked the chief counsel as to what is required to provide a plane to a radio station for traffic reporting. He was told that he needs 100hr inspections and cautioned to return to his point of origin for each flight to remain within the airwork exemption.
91.147 specifically applies to 'nonstop commercial air tours' operated under 119.1(e)(2) and doesn't refer to other airwork peformed under 119.1(e)(4).

Also, under 119.1(e)(4)(iii), aerial photography is excluded from the requirements of part 135*.

So I am not sure why the two regulations keep getting mentioned.

*unless the photographer or equipment is dropped off somewhere along the way. Fuel or peepee stops are allowed under the recent Bonilla letter.