commercial privileges

Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on a
local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the part
135 drug-testing rules?

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:58:35 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on a
local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the part
135 drug-testing rules?

A commercial pilot being paid to carry passengers cannot provide the
plane (including renting one) without being an operator.

"ArtP" wrote in message
...
A commercial pilot being paid to carry passengers cannot provide the
plane (including renting one) without being an operator.

But if it's a local sightseeing flight, then the pilot is only an operator
for purposes of the part-135 drug-testing rules, not for purposes of any
part-119 requirements, right? (FAR 119.1e2 says that part 119 does not
apply to local sightseeing flights, and 135.1c says only that the
drug-testing sections of part 135 apply to such flights.)

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:fMI_b.113144$jk2.502249@attbi_s53...
Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on a
local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the
part
135 drug-testing rules?



Aerial photography is one of the specified exceptions to the charter rules,
as is flight instruction and such agricultural work as fish spotting or
pipeline patrol where there might be a 'passenger' on board. In each case
the 'passenger' is considered a required crew member.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:fMI_b.113144$jk2.502249@attbi_s53...
Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on
a
local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the
part
135 drug-testing rules?



Aerial photography is one of the specified exceptions to the charter
rules,
as is flight instruction and such agricultural work as fish spotting or
pipeline patrol where there might be a 'passenger' on board. In each case
the 'passenger' is considered a required crew member.

I see that it's an exception to part 119 (as per FAR 119.1e4iii), but I
wasn't sure if it still comes under the scope of 135.1a5, which applies even
when part 119 doesn't.

Thanks,
Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:kfK_b.113484$jk2.502865@attbi_s53...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:fMI_b.113144$jk2.502249@attbi_s53...
Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist
on
a
local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking
the
part
135 drug-testing rules?



Aerial photography is one of the specified exceptions to the charter
rules,
as is flight instruction and such agricultural work as fish spotting or
pipeline patrol where there might be a 'passenger' on board. In each
case
the 'passenger' is considered a required crew member.

I see that it's an exception to part 119 (as per FAR 119.1e4iii), but I
wasn't sure if it still comes under the scope of 135.1a5, which applies
even
when part 119 doesn't.

Part 135.1 says what part 135 applies to. Aerial photography is not listed
there. Neither are any of the other exceptions that are listed in part 119,
except for sightseeing flights, and part 135 says those have to comply with
the drug testing requirements.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Part 135.1 says what part 135 applies to. Aerial photography is not listed
there. Neither are any of the other exceptions that are listed in part
119,
except for sightseeing flights, and part 135 says those have to comply
with
the drug testing requirements.

Right, I'm just unsure where the boundary between sightseeing and aerial
photography lies. If someone hires me to fly and take pictures myself,
that's obviously aerial photography. But if someone hires me to fly *them*
to take pictures, it seems less clear. If that always counts as photography
rather than sightseeing, then the part-135 sightseeing rules could be
circumvented entirely as long as the sightseer brings a camera and wants to
take photos. That's probably not what the FAA intends, but who knows?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:zTT_b.54889$4o.71914@attbi_s52...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Part 135.1 says what part 135 applies to. Aerial photography is not
listed
there. Neither are any of the other exceptions that are listed in part
119,
except for sightseeing flights, and part 135 says those have to comply
with
the drug testing requirements.

Right, I'm just unsure where the boundary between sightseeing and aerial
photography lies. If someone hires me to fly and take pictures myself,
that's obviously aerial photography. But if someone hires me to fly
*them*
to take pictures, it seems less clear. If that always counts as
photography
rather than sightseeing, then the part-135 sightseeing rules could be
circumvented entirely as long as the sightseer brings a camera and wants
to
take photos. That's probably not what the FAA intends, but who knows?

The distinction is fairly obvious. If someone is claiming a flight is for
commercial aerial photography purposes, all an inspector has to do is ask
who is buying or publishing the pictures. If the pictures are for your own
use or are not being used for publication, then an inspector is probably
going to claim that it was a sightseeing flight. Even then, if the flight's
purpose was to take a picture of some area, such as a house or ranch (even
the client's own house), or if the picture was going to be used for survey
purposes, and if the flight was a simple out and back to take a picture and
return, it is aerial photography. Take a side trip to Mt. Rainier and you
just might be sightseeing. Carry non-essential passengers and you might be
sightseeing. The cameraman shows up with a case full of expensive
photography equipment and a press card and says, "I need some file photos of
Mt. Rainier," then you probably have a strong case that it is aerial
photography. If the client says, "Oh look, George, there's our house. Take a
picture," and finishes with "We had a wonderful time," then you probably
were sightseeing.

It is the same question of whether a flight is being conducted for flight
instruction or for sightseeing. The sightseeing flight limitations are
sometimes circumvented by shady operators who claim that the flight is
really flight instruction. Again, it is fairly easy to tell. If an
instructor is flying a long cross country with a student on his first
flight, it is going to be tough to sell an inspector on the idea that it is
not a sightseeing flight or even a charter flight. Somebody going more than
25 miles from the airport with a 'student' had better be prepared to show a
bunch of logbook entries showing some other training.

It is fairly obvious that taking a journalist up for the specific purpose of
aerial photography is an aerial photography flight.

It is like your logbook. You can pencil in all kinds of flights that you
never made and probably never get caught. You know what the real purpose of
the flight is. If it is really a sightseeing flight then you probably know
it. Even if you convince some inspector otherwise you still have to get up
in the morning and look at yourself in the mirror. Then again, as J.R. Ewing
said, "Once your ethics go, the rest is easy."

This gets hashed over about every six months...
Basically, a commercial ticket gives you the right to fly for pay, P E R I O
D...
It does not give you the right to hold out as an air taxi service by
providing aircraft...
denny
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:fMI_b.113144$jk2.502249@attbi_s53...
Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on a
local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the
part
135 drug-testing rules?

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
This gets hashed over about every six months...
Basically, a commercial ticket gives you the right to fly for pay, P E R I
O
D...
It does not give you the right to hold out as an air taxi service by
providing aircraft...

Even in the case of specified part-119 exceptions, such as aerial
photography and local sightseeing?

--Gary

denny
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:fMI_b.113144$jk2.502249@attbi_s53...
Can a commercial pilot be hired to rent a plane and fly a journalist on
a
local flight for aerial photography, without meeting any operator
requirements? Or does that count as a sightseeing flight, invoking the
part
135 drug-testing rules?