Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Generally, any flight that includes compensation to the pilot in any
form as a result of having made the flight requires a commercial.

If he is compensated for the flight. But if he is working on his own as a
photographer, that doesn't count. The aircraft is a tool of his trade, he is
not flying for hire.

If he is selling the photos he is compensated.

But aerial photography where the photographs are for sale is clearly
a flight made for the sole purpose of making money and the flight is
essential to the photography so it requires a commercial.

The flight is not essential to the photography, since he could hire someone
else to do the flying.

Bad logic.

A flight is essential to aerial photography.

A flight is not essential to ground photography.

No matter who is flying the airplane, that person must have a commercial.

See:

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/to...otography.html

"Here's the answer: FAR 61.113(b)(1) states that a private pilot may
act as pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft in connection with any
business or employment if the flight is only incidental to that business
or employment. Clearly, this flight on its photography mission is not
merely incidental to the business, because the photos are to be sold or
used in the business. Therefore, a private pilot cannot legally be PIC
of this flight; the PIC must hold a commercial pilot certificate."

If he hires someone, the flight is governed by part 91 as long as the
flight lands only at the original point of departure. If the flight
lands anywhere else, it is governed by part 135.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.