commercial privileges

"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.