In Need of Pilots!

W

Wolfman

Guest
I am an aerial photographer based in NYC. I do photo shoots all over the world, and am always in need of pilots. If you are a private pilot and own or have access to a Cessna-172, please contact me:

J Henry Fair
New York, NY
khwb.photog@gmail.com

Thanks!
 
This isn't a subsidiary of Silver State Helicopters, is it?

Hanging out at any local airport should produce more pilot candidates than one could ever want.
 
Brian Austin said:
And don't let a little thing like FAR 61.113 get in the way... ;)
Click to expand...

Brian the OP never mentioned compensation and if he's not a pilot he can't be expected to know the FARs. Can't tell you how many people ask me to fly them where ever and say Oh I'll pay you can you fly to Mt. Poobha or where ever. When I tell them I can't and why they look at me all befuddled.
 
Adam, if the original poster has all the experience doing aerial work, this should not be news to him.
 
AdamZ said:
Brian the OP never mentioned compensation and if he's not a pilot he can't be expected to know the FARs. Can't tell you how many people ask me to fly them where ever and say Oh I'll pay you can you fly to Mt. Poobha or where ever. When I tell them I can't and why they look at me all befuddled.
Click to expand...

If he's done aerial photography and hired pilots, don't you think he'd have learned, though? He's spent enough time in the air from his shots. http://jhenryfair.com/aerial/index.html
 
He looks like the real deal. We've given him a baptism of fire here on POA, with our sarcasm and hazing. J. Henry, where do you want to photograph?

(gotta admit I was put off by the message Warning - visiting this web site may harm your computer! when I visited jhenryfair.com)
 
JohnR said:
He looks like the real deal. We've given him a baptism of fire here on POA, with our sarcasm and hazing. J. Henry, where do you want to photograph?

(gotta admit I was put off by the message Warning - visiting this web site may harm your computer! when I visited jhenryfair.com)
Click to expand...

I knew who he was from some photo magazine articles. That doesn't change the private vs commercial requirements, though.
 
Just remember -- it's only the private pilot who gets in trouble, not the person who hires the pilot. In any event, if you provide pilot and aircraft for someone else's photo operation, that's a Part 135 operation. It's only Part 91 if the aircraft is provided and the pilot hired by the photo operator.
 
Ron Levy said:
Just remember -- it's only the private pilot who gets in trouble, not the person who hires the pilot. In any event, if you provide pilot and aircraft for someone else's photo operation, that's a Part 135 operation. It's only Part 91 if the aircraft is provided and the pilot hired by the photo operator.
Click to expand...

So if the photographer rents the plane from the FBO and hires the private pilot, that's Part 91? Why doesn't this feel logical compared to other 91/135 comparisons? This entire thing still screams 135 to me.

Don't get wrong here. I'd LIKE to be incorrect and am perfectly happy with it. It just doesn't make sense.
 
Brian Austin said:
So if the photographer rents the plane from the FBO and hires the private pilot, that's Part 91? Why doesn't this feel logical compared to other 91/135 comparisons? This entire thing still screams 135 to me.

Don't get wrong here. I'd LIKE to be incorrect and am perfectly happy with it. It just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

You were fine until you used the word "hire" and "private pilot" in the same sentence. Private pilots cannot be "hired" without running afoul of the regs.

So, a private pilot who owns an aerial photo business can rent/own and fly an airplane and take pictures (or hire a photographer to ride along and take pictures) and be compensated for the photography.

A non-pilot can own an aerial photo business, and buy/rent/lease an airplane and hire a COMMERCIAL pilot to fly the airplane, and hire photographers to take the pictures, and be compensated for the photography. As long as the company is providing the airplane, they are the operator, and it's a part 91 operation. The issue isn't whether the pilot in this specific case is operating for hire - he is, absolutely. What the FAA said is that this is not a 135 operation because it fits into the exemption from 135, since passengers or cargo are not carried for hire.

So, back to the original post - if an photographer solicits a private pilot to take him up so he can take pictures, and the FAA investigates, it's going to look bad for the private pilot if the FAA can show that the private pilot was compensated in ANY way (not just monetarily) for the flight. The same thing would happen, only worse, if the private pilot went and advertised or offered to photographers. So if you're a private pilot and you want to get involved in aerial photography, you've got to set up the business side first, and be the person who gives the orders.
 
Im all for respecting the law but this one has always seemed a little over the top. A more insightful person than me will have to explain how this poses such a serious hazard to public safety.
 
TMetzinger said:
So if you're a private pilot and you want to get involved in aerial photography, you've got to set up the business side first, and be the person who gives the orders.
Click to expand...

That part is already done. Just not sure the models are interested in flying and shooting at the same time. :D
 
What if the photographer was a pilot as well and let another private pilot fly his plane without compensating him while he was taking pictures? Surely, that can't be illegal, or is it?
 
sba55 said:
What if the photographer was a pilot as well and let another private pilot fly his plane without compensating him while he was taking pictures? Surely, that can't be illegal, or is it?
Click to expand...

The FAA has a wide view of what is considered "compensation". Merely logging the time has been considered compensation.

And don't call me Shirley.

Seriously, if an aerial photographer took along another pilot while on a photo mission, and said "hey, hold her level" while he took a difficult shot, then took the controls back, that probably wouldn't be an issue. But if the photographer took this guy on every mission, and the other pilot did all the flying, that would draw more attention.

You're not supposed to fly in furtherance of anybody elses pleasure or business without a commercial certificate. You can fly in furtherance of your own business or pleasure with a private certificate. If you (or your business) is the reason the plane is flying, you're generally ok to be flying it with a private certificate. If someone/something else is the reason for the flight (other than family, or one of the narrow exceptions like an Angel Flight), then you need to carefully consider whether a commercial certificate and possibly a 135 certificate is needed.
 
It amazes me how much the laws try to prohibit the love of aviation by turning just about anything into a case of breaking the FARs. :rolleyes:

I understand needing to have a commercial license for doing for-hire work, but if your photographer friend, a private pilot with his own plane, says to another private pilot (let's say one with low hours who's trying to build up time) "Hey, you want to come along and fly my 172 on this so that I don't crash while trying to take pictures? I won't pay you but it's supposed to be a great day for flying out." I can't possibly see the problem. He's doing his friend a favor, his friend is doing him a favor, and they're doing the safe thing. Where's the problem again?
 
and this thread has, IMnsHO, unfortunately once again confirmed to those on the outside that "those pilots are just a bunch of cliquish a-holes"
 
Well, of course we are (cliquish, that is)! So are boaters, racers, hikers, bikers, walkers, fisherman, firefighters, cops, and on and on.

Our hobby/profession/obsession puts us and others at significant risk of death or injury. We have high standards of conduct aimed and mitigating and minimizing that risk. All are welcomed, but all are tested before they earn access to our subsociety. Our ability to self-enforce our rules is directly tied to having more restrictive rules placed on us - the better we do, the easier it is to fight future restrictions.

Look at this post (and remember the original poster was experienced at this) and compare the post of the student who did his solo X/C while making good decisions on the way. That student earned our respect. The original poster on this thread lost mine by asserting his experience while clearly not understanding something that an experienced aerial photographer should understand.
 
TMetzinger said:
The original poster on this thread lost mine by asserting his experience while clearly not understanding something that an experienced aerial photographer should understand.
Click to expand...
Someone who is an aerial photographer but not a pilot might not necessarily understand the regulations about hiring pilots. For all you know he might understand the term "private" pilot to be someone who owns their own airplane. I have had many people ask me in all seriousness, as they are standing there behind me watching me fly the airplane they have chartered, if I have ever been interested in flying "commercially" or if I have always flown "privately". Obviously they are trying to ask about the airlines, but it doesn't quite come out that way.
 
Mari, the FIRST time he looks for pilots, he might not understand. But if he's done it lots of times, he should understand, in my opinion. But I'll agree that it is possible for someone to think of a 135 operation as a "private" pilot.
 
Tim - good points. I just reacted to what looked like another case of jumping all over a first time poster - we've done it a few times here in the recent past. Feels a little ugly and certainly not welcoming. On the other hand, perhaps this was just another drive-by (fly-by) posting?
 
So... does the subtle distinction of the photos being sold later in the "non-CP pilot taking a pro photographer for a ride" scenario alone invite scrutiny by the FAA? Or the fact that the photographer is "soliciting" pilots, even without offer of compensation for the actual flying? I mean, what is the technical difference between that and taking a shutterbug friend up and splitting expenses in the normal way, when they have no intention of selling the photos?
Anyone know if there is a precedent for a FAA "action" in such a case?
 
Everskyward said:
I have had many people ask me in all seriousness, as they are standing there behind me watching me fly the airplane they have chartered, if I have ever been interested in flying "commercially" or if I have always flown "privately". Obviously they are trying to ask about the airlines, but it doesn't quite come out that way.
Click to expand...

Yep. It wasn't until sometime post-solo that I asked enough questions to understand the difference between Private Pilot, Commercial Pilot, Part 135, etc. I still don't fully understand it, but I understand it well enough as it's likely to affect me. When I tell non-pilots I'm going to go for my commercial rating when I have the hours, the normal response is "Oh, so are you going to fly like 737s then?" I then educate them as much as I can. From the time I started flight training I had non-pilots say "Oh great, can you fly me someplace when you get you licence? I'll pay you." I even had my ex-fiancee ask if I could get a sign-off to fly to Arizona (pre-PPL) and take her with me. That was fun to explain.

Mari, I suspect you're probably correct. I wouldn't expect this guy to understand the difference. Furthermore, if he's found private pilots who just take the cash and either don't themselves know the law or don't care, he could quite probably not know. I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

I think, though, that it would be prudent to point out to any pilots on the board who might not know better in a kind and gentle manner that they shouldn't respond to this gentleman's request unless they meet the legal requirements. :)
 
AdamZ said:
Brian the OP never mentioned compensation and if he's not a pilot he can't be expected to know the FARs. Can't tell you how many people ask me to fly them where ever and say Oh I'll pay you can you fly to Mt. Poobha or where ever. When I tell them I can't and why they look at me all befuddled.
Click to expand...

Nothing at all illegal even for a PP renting a plane if set up correctly. OP offers a franchise opportunity. You are in business for yourself taking the pictures and have a contract to deliver the photos to the OP. Completely legal and above board.
 
Brian Austin said:
So if the photographer rents the plane from the FBO and hires the private pilot, that's Part 91? Why doesn't this feel logical compared to other 91/135 comparisons? This entire thing still screams 135 to me.

Don't get wrong here. I'd LIKE to be incorrect and am perfectly happy with it. It just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect in the way you're setting it all up.

The PP sets up a photography company (he can even hire someone to go with him and take the pictures or make them a partner) and takes a contract to provide services fulfilling contracts for the OP. Nothing illegal at all and even sanctioned under the White letter by Chief Counsel.
 
Ron Levy said:
Just remember -- it's only the private pilot who gets in trouble, not the person who hires the pilot. In any event, if you provide pilot and aircraft for someone else's photo operation, that's a Part 135 operation. It's only Part 91 if the aircraft is provided and the pilot hired by the photo operator.
Click to expand...


ARRRRRGH, Can't anyone think around here? You can structure it either as a franchise or as a contractor, and there is absolutely no problem, even if it is a sole source contract.

After all these years on this subject, it's really incomprehensible to me that people can have trouble with this entire concept. How do y'all get anything done in life?
 
TMetzinger said:
The original poster on this thread lost mine by asserting his experience while clearly not understanding something that an experienced aerial photographer should understand.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I understand needing to have a commercial license for doing for-hire work, but if your photographer friend, a private pilot with his own plane, says to another private pilot (let's say one with low hours who's trying to build up time) "Hey, you want to come along and fly my 172 on this so that I don't crash while trying to take pictures? I won't pay you but it's supposed to be a great day for flying out." I can't possibly see the problem. He's doing his friend a favor, his friend is doing him a favor, and they're doing the safe thing. Where's the problem again?
Click to expand...
No problem at all as long as no money changes hands, i.e., the private pilot with the plane pays all costs of the flight. The problem arises when the photographer gives money or other valuable considerations to the pilot in return for the flight. That's air transportation for hire, and that's illegal when the pilot holds only a PPL.
 
Right -- now a commercial license, that's another question. But a PPL soliciting 1099s for flying duties??? I haven't studied the FARs lately, but that seems like a losing deal for the PPL. ESPECIALLY if the PPL had NO relationship with the person prior to the $$$ changing hands.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Right -- now a commercial license, that's another question. But a PPL soliciting 1099s for flying duties??? I haven't studied the FARs lately, but that seems like a losing deal for the PPL. ESPECIALLY if the PPL had NO relationship with the person prior to the $$$ changing hands.
Click to expand...


Sigh!!!!! It's NOT about flying, it's about photography. A 1099 means you are an independant contractor, and you get 1099'd for the money you earned taking and selling pictures to the guy writing you the checks and giving you the 1099. Don't any of y'all have businesses?

Here's how it works. OP puts a contract out to have photographs taken in exchange for $XXXX.xx. I pick up the contract, scout the locations, rent a plane, fly over the locations take the pictures (or bring someone along, paid or not, makes no difference) fulfilling my part of the contract and deliver those images to the OP who pays me for those images at the contracted rate fulfilling his end of the contract, at the end of the year, he 1099s me for the moneys he has paid to me. Perfectly legally with both the FAA and IRS, no CPL or 135 or corporation required, all doable on a PPL and sole propriatorship cottage business.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Sigh!!!!! It's NOT about flying, it's about photography. A 1099 means you are an independant contractor, and you get 1099'd for the money you earned taking and selling pictures to the guy writing you the checks and giving you the 1099. Don't any of y'all have businesses?

Here's how it works. OP puts a contract out to have photographs taken in exchange for $XXXX.xx. I pick up the contract, scout the locations, rent a plane, fly over the locations take the pictures (or bring someone along, paid or not, makes no difference) fulfilling my part of the contract and deliver those images to the OP who pays me for those images at the contracted rate fulfilling his end of the contract, at the end of the year, he 1099s me for the moneys he has paid to me. Perfectly legally with both the FAA and IRS, no CPL or 135 or corporation required, all doable on a PPL and sole propriatorship cottage business.
Click to expand...
If Henning's description of the operation is correct, then he's also right about its legality -- per the Chief Counsel interpretation cited above, pay for pictures doesn't require a CPL.
 
Henning said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not how I read it - he wants me to fly, not to provide pictures. I read it as he will be taking the pictures. He clearly states that HE does photo shoots and needs PILOTS, not photographers. But perhaps you're right, and he's more of a producer/broker/prime contractor, and he'll never get near the actual airplane and photo taking.

As you stated elsewhere, if he tells me:
"You go bring back pictures of this stuff from the air, and I'll pay you for them", then I can absolutely do that with a PPL whether I take the pictures or hire a photographer to do it for me while I fly, because MY business is aerial photography.

But what I understood the original post to say was:
"I am a photographer, and I'll take pictures in your airplane while you fly, and I'll get paid for the pictures". HIS business is aerial photography, and he's looking for me to provide air transport to further HIS business. And if I am compensated in any way I need a commercial certificate. And if I provide the airplane and not just pilot services, I need a 135 cert as well.

So, with all due respect, please consider that I may not be interpreting the original poster's intent the way you do, as opposed to not knowing how things work.
I'll admit that I could be wrong in interpreting the original poster's intent, will you admit my original interpretation is possible?

Since the original post specified the airplane type, I'm inclined to believe this is not a subcontracting deal, because a prime contractor wouldn't care about the type of airplane used, as long as the pictures met the requirements.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
But what I understood the original post to say was:
"I am a photographer, and I'll take pictures in your airplane while you fly, and I'll get paid for the pictures". HIS business is aerial photography, and he's looking for me to provide air transport to further HIS business. And if I am compensated in any way I need a commercial certificate. And if I provide the airplane and not just pilot services, I need a 135 cert as well.
Click to expand...
I interpreted it the same way, and if that's what's on offer, I would not change my original opinion. If it's what Henning says, it's no problem. Thus, any PPL considering taking up this offer should read the details carefully and obtain any necessary legal advice to interpret it properly.
 
Ron Levy said:
I interpreted it the same way, and if that's what's on offer, I would not change my original opinion. If it's what Henning says, it's no problem. Thus, any PPL considering taking up this offer should read the details carefully and obtain any necessary legal advice to interpret it properly.
Click to expand...

Oh good. Proof I'm not crazy, or at least I'm not alone in my insanity.

Thanks.
 
infotango said:
Please, read the interpretation I posted.
Click to expand...

I read it again more closely, and I think I see your point.

Although in this case, US Helicopters is clearly in the aerial photography business - they are under contract to provide ENG photos and reporting;
"U. S. Helicopters has exclusive-use contracts with television stations throughout the United States for the purpose of ENG media photography and reporting with helicopters, during both day and night visual flight conditions."​

The opinion does say that a company could provide a pilot and aircraft for aerial work applications and not run afoul of 135, as long as they are specifically hired for one of the listed aerial work applications. But if the pilot is getting paid, the pilot had better have a commercial certificate. I imagine that the insurers will impose a certain degree of rigor as well, because it is operating for hire even if a 135 certificate isn't needed.

Henning had a good alternative interpretation that covers a private pilot getting money - the original photographer was looking to hire/subcontract another aerial photographer, not hire a pilot/airplane to take him on a photo shoot.

So, you've convinced me that a 135 certificate may not be required, but that a private pilot certificate is not enough unless you are getting paid for the photos and not the flying.

Always glad to learn something.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
Not how I read it - he wants me to fly, not to provide pictures. I read it as he will be taking the pictures. He clearly states that HE does photo shoots and needs PILOTS, not photographers. But perhaps you're right, and he's more of a producer/broker/prime contractor, and he'll never get near the actual airplane and photo taking.

As you stated elsewhere, if he tells me:
"You go bring back pictures of this stuff from the air, and I'll pay you for them", then I can absolutely do that with a PPL whether I take the pictures or hire a photographer to do it for me while I fly, because MY business is aerial photography.

But what I understood the original post to say was:
"I am a photographer, and I'll take pictures in your airplane while you fly, and I'll get paid for the pictures". HIS business is aerial photography, and he's looking for me to provide air transport to further HIS business. And if I am compensated in any way I need a commercial certificate. And if I provide the airplane and not just pilot services, I need a 135 cert as well.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top