New Graphics?

[Lawreston]

Since I bought the replacement plane, friends(tacky, they are) have been asking, "Hey; you going to put the little idiot back on the tail of this one?" Well, I'm working on it; the preliminary study has been done. From my designer I received the following:
Yes, we are making progress. Sorry for all the delays, I have been swamped. Please find the attached preliminary layout for your Cessna 150M. I tried to combine the lettering into the existing stripes so that it all blends together (doesn't look like a sign board). In addition I placed your logo on the tail. I realize that the lettering on the logo will need to change, but I first wanted to show you what I was thinking.

Now I need to qualify to the agency that some of it may be too soon. I learned from AOPA Legal Services a few years ago that the tail feathers were OK because of my known ownership of Bowdoin Camera Exchange, Inc. But that I should not advertise aerial photography until with a Commercial rating(understood). However, the opinion also noted that if a friend who is with Comm. rating were to be PIC, and said friend would not be supplying the plane -- instead, flying me as a passenger in my own aircraft-- I(personally) would not have to have the Comm. rating to take photos for the purpose of resale. (And in the next house to me is the ATP who likes to keep his edge in smaller aircraft), as noted by a FSDO examiner who used to be the Chief Pilot for my neighbor's former employer.

And, yes: the designer left off the "ive" letters on the door.

Ron Levy? Dr. Bruce?

HR

 

[bbchien]

Since I bought the replacement plane, friends(tacky, they are) have been asking, "Hey; you going to put the little idiot back on the tail of this one?" Well, I'm working on it; the preliminary study has been done. From my designer I received the following:
Yes, we are making progress. Sorry for all the delays, I have been swamped. Please find the attached preliminary layout for your Cessna 150M. I tried to combine the lettering into the existing stripes so that it all blends together (doesn't look like a sign board). In addition I placed your logo on the tail. I realize that the lettering on the logo will need to change, but I first wanted to show you what I was thinking.

Now I need to qualify to the agency that some of it may be too soon. I learned from AOPA Legal Services a few years ago that the tail feathers were OK because of my known ownership of Bowdoin Camera Exchange, Inc. But that I should not advertise aerial photography until with a Commercial rating(understood). However, the opinion also noted that if a friend who is with Comm. rating were to be PIC, and said friend would be not be supplying the plane -- instead, flying me as a passenger in my own aircraft-- I(personally) would not have to have the Comm. rating to take photos for the purpose of resale. (And in the next house to me is the ATP who likes to keep his edge in smaller aircraft), as noted by a FSDO examiner who used to be the Chief Pilot for my neighbor's former employer.

And, yes: the designer left off the "ive" letters on the door.

Ron Levy? Dr. Bruce?

HR

The commercial pilot flying you as a pax for no compensation actually is interpreted by Alberta Brown at FAA as receivng the compensation of free hours of flying you. This then becomes a commercial operation, whether you have the words "distinctive views" or "Aerial photography" on the side of the bird or not. I would put the "idiot" on the tail but NOT the words. Add words later....

 

[Lawreston]

The commercial pilot flying you as a pax for no compensation actually is interpreted by Alberta Brown at FAA as receivng the compensation of free hours of flying you. This then becomes a commercial operation, whether you have the words "distinctive views" or "Aerial photography" on the side of the bird or not. I would put the "idiot" on the tail but NOT the words. Add words later....

Thanks, Bruce. The interpretation is about what I had in the back of my mind; hence, my "too soon for some of the stuff" reference in my original post and which concern I've yet to communicate to the designer.

And as soon as I can get the PP-ASEL to follow my name I'll be on a mission for the Comm. which would be more practical for intended use than IR.

HR(and in the event you've forgotten what LEW looks like......) This is a great tie-down slot; right on the end. Just taxi right into place.

 

[kath]

The commercial pilot flying you as a pax for no compensation actually is interpreted by Alberta Brown at FAA as receivng the compensation of free hours of flying you. This then becomes a commercial operation, whether you have the words "distinctive views" or "Aerial photography" on the side of the bird or not.

Right... but since the commercial pilot friend is a commercial pilot, and is not providing the aircraft, and is not transporting people or cargo for hire, I don't see what the problem is. Is it any different from, for example, me saying "Hey Bruce, I'd like you to take my 152 and fly this banner over Boston"? I could even compensate you for that, yes?

Confused,
--Kath

 

[bbchien]

Actually, no, The way published in the Federal Register I believe Aug 24 2005 (I've forgotten the date, (it's the part 91 revision rule, "emergency" promulgated) Ms Brown states FAA's postion that the commercial pilot is actually being compensated by being allowed to fly for free.

They're being very, very restrictive with an overly broad interpretation of "compensation". Everyone forgets that we fought this out legistlatively in the early 90s. FAA has always felt this way. Every not an then we have to beat them back with more legislation.

What's the Comm pilot good for? Not much. It's good for operations that require a commerical pilot...banner tow, cargo carriage, pipeline patrol....for hire. And right now just about everything under the son is being interpreted as for hire.

So Jerry needs to get his PVT ASEL done so that his flying can become incidental and personal to photography.

 

[Everskyward]

Actually, no, The way published in the Federal Register I believe Aug 24 2005 (I've forgotten the date, (it's the part 91 revision rule, "emergency" promulgated) Ms Brown states FAA's postion that the commercial pilot is actually being compensated by being allowed to fly for free.

I understand this part although I might not agree.

What's the Comm pilot good for? Not much. It's good for operations that require a commerical pilot...banner tow, cargo carriage, pipeline patrol....for hire.

Aerial photography falls under this exception 119.1(b)(4) too as long as everyone in the airplane is working for the same company. The pilot can be compensated, as long as they have a commercial certificate, and so can the photographer. All the aerial survey companies I've worked for operated this way under Part 91, not 135. The problem comes when the photographer hires an airplane and pilot then goes outside the "sightseeing radius" or makes a landing at a point other than the place of departure. This can be seen as "providing transportation".

In Jerry's case he's providing the airplane and hiring the pilot. Definitely Part 91.

 

[bbchien]

I understand this part although I might not agree.


Aerial photography falls under this exception 119.1(b)(4) too as long as everyone in the airplane is working for the same company. The pilot can be compensated, as long as they have a commercial certificate, and so can the photographer. All the aerial survey companies I've worked for operated this way under Part 91, not 135. The problem comes when the photographer hires an airplane and pilot then goes outside the "sightseeing radius" or makes a landing at a point other than the place of departure. This can be seen as "providing transportation".

In Jerry's case he's providing the airplane and hiring the pilot. Definitely Part 91.

I went looking for the web comment pages archive that I stored during the Oct 23, 3003 Fed Regist comment period, in which Ms. Brown led off with her definition of compensation. It was all encompassing. she, and FAA would consider that the private pilot flying Jerry was receiving benefit. I do NOT have this text anywhere, currently, and the NPRM comment web site has long closed on this one.

Rev. Ron, and Tom Downey followed this one closely and will be able to verify FAA's stated position.

 

[Everskyward]

It was all encompassing. she, and FAA would consider that the private pilot flying Jerry was receiving benefit.

But Jerry said the person who would be flying him was a commercial pilot which means he's allowed to be compensated.

What I meant when I said that I don't agree with the rule is that although I accept what it says, personally I don't think of flight time as being "compensation" in the same sense as money is "compensation".

 

[Ed Guthrie]

The commercial pilot flying you as a pax for no compensation actually is interpreted by Alberta Brown at FAA as receivng the compensation of free hours of flying you. This then becomes a commercial operation, whether you have the words "distinctive views" or "Aerial photography" on the side of the bird or not. I would put the "idiot" on the tail but NOT the words. Add words later....

If the business will employ a COM or ATP pilot to fly the airplane owned by Harley, what would be the possible problem with putting the entire paint scheme on the airplane? The logic you suggest would extend to Bob Kelleher--he isn't an ATP so he can't put up billboards advertising Southwest Airlines. Nonsense.

Harley, tell the paint shop to let'er rip. If you are worried about any possible taint that you might be suggesting you are the pilot, simply put your neighbor on retainer as the company pilot. If anyone asks show them the employment contract.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I went looking for the web comment pages archive that I stored during the Oct 23, 3003 Fed Regist comment period, in which Ms. Brown led off with her definition of compensation. It was all encompassing. she, and FAA would consider that the private pilot flying Jerry was receiving benefit. I do NOT have this text anywhere, currently, and the NPRM comment web site has long closed on this one.

Rev. Ron, and Tom Downey followed this one closely and will be able to verify FAA's stated position.

Bruce, you seem to have situations somewhat twisted. Yes, the person flying Harley must be a commercial pilot. However, since that person isn't supplying the aircraft and isn't flying the general public in Harley's aircraft the entire operation is Part 91. There is nothing outside Part 91 about Harley owning an aircraft and hiring a pilot to fly Harley in that aircraft, or that pilot flying Harley in that aircraft so that Harley can take pictures.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

So Jerry needs to get his PVT ASEL done so that his flying can become incidental and personal to photography.

Or Harley needs to hire a COM or better pilot and let that person do the flying, which is what Harley proposed.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Right... but since the commercial pilot friend is a commercial pilot, and is not providing the aircraft, and is not transporting people or cargo for hire, I don't see what the problem is. Is it any different from, for example, me saying "Hey Bruce, I'd like you to take my 152 and fly this banner over Boston"? I could even compensate you for that, yes?

Confused,
--Kath

Kath, you are not the confused person in this thread.

 

[bbchien]

Kath, you are not the confused person in this thread.

Actually, the confused person is Alberta Brown. The reason the NPRM provoked such a strong outrage is that her interpretation basically eliminates part 91.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Actually, the confused person is Alberta Brown. The reason the NPRM provoked such a strong outrage is that her interpretation basically eliminates part 91.

Ah, yes...that Alberta Brown.

 

[Lawreston]

Bruce, you seem to have situations somewhat twisted. Yes, the person flying Harley must be a commercial pilot. However, since that person isn't supplying the aircraft and isn't flying the general public in Harley's aircraft the entire operation is Part 91. There is nothing outside Part 91 about Harley owning an aircraft and hiring a pilot to fly Harley in that aircraft, or that pilot flying Harley in that aircraft so that Harley can take pictures.

I haven't read all the responses to my post; and thanks to each who has ventured an opinion. What's interesting is that I used to have a lot of my aerials displayed in my camera store; personal interest, ya know??? So, one day a customer came in; he happening to be an FAA Examiner. He had right-seated for me on numerous occasions but couldn't endorse my flights because of possible conflict of interest(if he were to be assigned to my eventual check ride). And "Sam" said, "These are good; you could sell these images."
I didn't respond, other than to comment that I had more images in the computer and I showed same to him. "No question, This is marketable stuff."

"Hey, Sam, you trying to test me? You know I don't have the first rating, let alone a Commercial rating."

"What about your ATP neighbor? He's Commercial, and I know he enjoys flying your plane with you or when you loan it to him. As long as he's PIC in your plane, not one he supplies to you, the passenger.............."

I just listened to what he said in the event he was testing me.

HR