![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:48:30 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in : wrote: 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. I can't find it any more but there was that list of opinions from the FAA chief counsel that while not having the effect of law was a pretty damn good idea of how the FAA was going to treat a given situation. For some reason there is a memory stuck in my head there was an opinion in there that stated that the FAA or at least the Chief Counsel did feel that when flying for professional photography the flying was incidental to the photography and hence legal for a private pilot. P.S. If anyone knows where that list of opinions is archived please chime in. I'd really like to bookmark it. The answer below may be what you were looking for: http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.c...61_72205 .doc QUESTION: I just had a question regarding pilots who received their commercial license prior to the limitation/ restriction requiring them to have an instrument rating before they could fly for compensation (i.e., issued prior to the November*1, 1974 effective date when Part*61 was revised requiring Instrument?Airplane rating). Are they grandfathered in, or to fly for hire, are they required to go out and get the instrument rating? ANSWER: Ref. §*61.133(b); Yes, a person who holds a commercial pilot certificate with the airplane rating but without the instrument-airplane rating issued prior to November*1, 1974 are grandfathered in However, if the question you’re asking is whether a person may fly for a Part*121 or Part*135 operator flying airplanes, the answer is no. Because note in both provisions of §*61.133(a)(1)(i) and (ii), the words “. . . is qualified in accordance. . . and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation . . .” For example, if a person holds a commercial pilot certificate with an Airplane-Single-engine Land rating, but does not hold an Instrument-Airplane rating. Then per §135.243(b)(3), it requires a person to hold an Instrument-Airplane rating. But certainly, the pilot may continue to perform some commercial operations (that are not applicable to Parts*121 or 135 operations), such as photography flights, pipeline patrols, etc. where there is a carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire. This answer is based on previous policy letters that were issued on November 20, 1973 and October*9, 1974. {Q&A-305} Apparently inspector Lynch created several of these FAQs: http://www.soaringsafety.org/pilots/FAQ_Glider.doc http://trifocus.net/~casey/pt141faq.doc |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Spitfire Taking off | Glenn[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 1 | April 12th 07 10:40 AM |
Taking the pledge | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 107 | March 7th 07 03:28 AM |
P-3 taking off from Pensacola NAS | Tom Callahan | Aviation Photos | 9 | February 27th 07 04:37 PM |
Taking pictures commercial? | Andrey Serbinenko | Piloting | 7 | January 18th 07 10:45 PM |
Taking a Glider from the US to NZ,,,, | TomnKeyLargo | Soaring | 5 | November 27th 03 06:15 AM |