In Need of Pilots!

[TMetzinger]

If he wants me to fly him on photo missions, I need a CPL and I can do it under Pt 91 with me providing the aircraft and no mileage limitation as long as we land back at the airport we departed from. Only if I land away from the field of departure in other than an emergency situation would I be required 135. See the White ruling by Chief Counsel Leland. There is special dispensation for aerial photography.

Yep, I agree with that.... here's a follow up. If you land at another airport for fuel and continue the mission, and he stays in the airplane, does that constitute carrying a passenger? Logically it shouldn't be - it's not like you picked someone up at A and dropped them off at B, but what does logic have to do with it.

So my original objection to him looking for a private pilot still stands, unless he's looking for a photographer/subconctractor like you originally argued.

 

[Henning]

Yep, I agree with that.... here's a follow up. If you land at another airport for fuel and continue the mission, and he stays in the airplane, does that constitute carrying a passenger? Logically it shouldn't be - it's not like you picked someone up at A and dropped them off at B, but what does logic have to do with it.

So my original objection to him looking for a private pilot still stands, unless he's looking for a photographer/subconctractor like you originally argued.

Land at any airport besides the one you took off from except in an emergency, and you need a 135. If you land for a fuel emergency, be ready to answer questions (though they prefer that to having to come investigate the accident from not landing for fuel.)

I though he was looking to subcontract some work, I used to do that a good bit just as I described it.

 

[Everskyward]

Land at any airport besides the one you took off from except in an emergency, and you need a 135.

Just to clarify here, if the pilot, photographer and the airplane all belong to, are leased by, or employed by the same company, you can land as far away as you want, as many times as you want and not need a 135. The difference comes when the photographer hires the pilot and airplane.

 

[Henning]

Just to clarify here, if the pilot, photographer and the airplane all belong to, are leased by, or employed by the same company, you can land as far away as you want, as many times as you want and not need a 135. The difference comes when the photographer hires the pilot and airplane.

Yep, that's already been established. Actually if the pilot, photographer and plane belong to the same company, the pilot only needs a PPL.

 

[TMetzinger]

Yep, that's already been established. Actually if the pilot, photographer and plane belong to the same company, the pilot only needs a PPL.

With one caveat - if the pilot is the owner of the company, or is the photographer, and is only getting paid for pictures, he only needs a ppl. If the pilot is an employee paid for flying, he needs a commercial.

 

[stingray]

Well, actually, it's the other way around, he knows exactly how it works and you don't. He uses the word "hire" loosely. He will set you up as an independant contracting photographer and 1099 you, it's so simple and completely legal.

Exactly how I do it for the paper.

Dan

 

[stingray]

If he wants me to fly him on photo missions, I need a CPL and I can do it under Pt 91 with me providing the aircraft and no mileage limitation as long as we land back at the airport we departed from. Only if I land away from the field of departure in other than an emergency situation would I be required 135. See the White ruling by Chief Counsel Leland. There is special dispensation for aerial photography.

What if you hire him to take your pictures? It would be no different than hiring a different photographer.

Dan