taking pictures from the sky

Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert M. Gary writes:

Passengers and cargo have little to do with it. You're probably
confusing commercial with 135.

I'm making a distinction between flying for hire and flying for one's own
business purposes. Just as a private pilot can fly between his offices in
different cities for business purposes, he can fly for the purpose of taking
pictures. If he transports someone _else_ who acts as photographer, though,
the situation may change.

Wrong.

If the purpose of the flight is to take pictures to sell, the purpose of
the flight is to make money and a private pilot can't do that.

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

for starters.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Flying is not "incidental" to the business of aerial photography. It
is, in fact, an integral part of it. I would say a Commercial
Certificate is required to be PIC on a hired photography flight.

If a Private Pilot is flying around taking pretty pictures, and then
selling them door-to-door or at art shows, I don't see how that would
require a Commercial Certificate.

If you asked 4 FSDOs, you'd get 4 different answers.

Lee Ross
N466SR
CP SEL IA
www.Rosspilot.com

"rosspilot" wrote in message
...
Flying is not "incidental" to the business of aerial photography. It
is, in fact, an integral part of it. I would say a Commercial
Certificate is required to be PIC on a hired photography flight.

If a Private Pilot is flying around taking pretty pictures, and then
selling them door-to-door or at art shows, I don't see how that would
require a Commercial Certificate.

If you asked 4 FSDOs, you'd get 4 different answers.

Lee Ross
N466SR
CP SEL IA
www.Rosspilot.com


I strongly suspect that you have summed it up rather well.

Peter