commercial privileges

"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."

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
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.

CJ, that makes a lot of sense as a guideline for distinguishing whether the
passenger has a more or less commercial purpose for taking the pictures (as
opposed to just wanting to put some scenic photos in a personal album, for
example). I wouldn't be at all surprised if the FAA draws the same
distinction. But the problem I still have here regarding the FARs, as
written, is that nothing in the FARs' exemption for aerial photography
suggests that it makes any difference whether the passenger's purpose is
commercial or not. I'd probably draw the line just as you suggest, but I
still wish the rules said what they meant, and vice versa.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message news:Fg0%b.399249
CJ, that makes a lot of sense as a guideline for distinguishing whether
the
passenger has a more or less commercial purpose for taking the pictures
(as
opposed to just wanting to put some scenic photos in a personal album, for
example). I wouldn't be at all surprised if the FAA draws the same
distinction. But the problem I still have here regarding the FARs, as
written, is that nothing in the FARs' exemption for aerial photography
suggests that it makes any difference whether the passenger's purpose is
commercial or not. I'd probably draw the line just as you suggest, but I
still wish the rules said what they meant, and vice versa.

The rules don't draw a distinction between commercial photography and
private photography for a very good reason. The FAA has enough trouble
defining commercial and private aviation. Attempting to add such a
distinction would introduce enormous complexity to a relatively small area
of aviation.

If the purpose of the flight is so questionable that I cannot tell whether
it is really an aerial photography flight or not, I would have to assume
that it is not.

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?


It's not clear to me that the drug testing of Part 135 applies to
sightseeing tours for little airplanes. Part 119 exempts little
airplane sightseeing from Part 135; the implication to me is that the
sightseeing flights in Part 135 must be only for big airplanes. I
could find no letters of interp for this.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
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?


It's not clear to me that the drug testing of Part 135 applies to
sightseeing tours for little airplanes. Part 119 exempts little
airplane sightseeing from Part 135; the implication to me is that the
sightseeing flights in Part 135 must be only for big airplanes. I
could find no letters of interp for this.

It's true that 119.1e2 exempts small-plane local sightseeing flights from
part 119, but I don't see how it exempts them from part 135. It does exempt
them from 135.1a1, which refers back to part 119. But part 135's scope also
includes 135.1a5, which applies specifically to local sightseeing, with no
mention of part 119.

--Gary

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:37:20 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

It's true that 119.1e2 exempts small-plane local sightseeing flights from
part 119, but I don't see how it exempts them from part 135. It does exempt
them from 135.1a1, which refers back to part 119. But part 135's scope also
includes 135.1a5, which applies specifically to local sightseeing, with no
mention of part 119.

My vague understanding is that Part 119's purpose is to determine the
applicability of Part 135/121 to flights. So being exempted from Part
119 is to be exempted from Part 135/121.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:37:20 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

It's true that 119.1e2 exempts small-plane local sightseeing flights from
part 119, but I don't see how it exempts them from part 135. It does
exempt
them from 135.1a1, which refers back to part 119. But part 135's scope
also
includes 135.1a5, which applies specifically to local sightseeing, with
no
mention of part 119.

My vague understanding is that Part 119's purpose is to determine the
applicability of Part 135/121 to flights.

Right, and that's reflected by 135.1a1, which explicitly brings part 135 to
bear on flights covered by part 119.

So being exempted from Part119
is to be exempted from Part 135/121.

Pretty much, but 135.1a5 is an exception. It brings a little of part 135
(just the drug-testing) to bear on sightseeing flights, irrespective of part
119.

The key point is that the criteria enumerated in a1 through a7 needn't apply
all at once (or else, for instance, only mail-delivery flights would be
covered by part 135, as per a3). The listed criteria are distinct ways for
135 to be applicable. So being covered by part 119 is one way for part 135
to be applicable (as per a1); but being a local sight-seeing flight is
another way (as per a5).

At least, that's how it's written. I have no clue how it works in practice.


--Gary

Pretty much, but 135.1a5 is an exception. It brings a little of
part 135 (just the drug-testing) to bear on sightseeing flights,
irrespective of part 119.

Do you have any evidence that this is true? I don't buy it. Flight
instructors often take people for sight seeing tours, which is
permitted in Part 119. What sort of free lance flight instructor
would have a alcohol testing policy? Doesn't make sense.

If this were truly the case, the 119 exemption should be removed, and
135.1a5 would limit applicability to the drug testing stuff, and the
result would be the same.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
Pretty much, but 135.1a5 is an exception. It brings a little of
part 135 (just the drug-testing) to bear on sightseeing flights,
irrespective of part 119.

Do you have any evidence that this is true? I don't buy it. Flight
instructors often take people for sight seeing tours, which is
permitted in Part 119. What sort of free lance flight instructor
would have a alcohol testing policy? Doesn't make sense.

If you mean evidence as to what's done in practice, then no, I don't have
any. As I said, I'm only addressing what the regs say, not how the FAA
actually behaves, which I have little knowledge of. FAR 135.1a5, unlike
1a1, does not assert any contingency on part 119; that's my only point here.

Come to think of it, though, I do have one piece of anecdotal evidence, for
whatever it's worth. I've been told by a local flight school that the
reason the flight schools in the area all offer "introductory lessons", but
none offer sightseeing flights, is precisely to circumvent that part of the
regulations that would otherwise impose a drug-testing requirement.

If this were truly the case, the 119 exemption should be removed, and
135.1a5 would limit applicability to the drug testing stuff, and the
result would be the same.

It would be the same result only if there's no other consequence to falling
under part 119. I don't know if that's the case.

--Gary