aerial photography

[Hornblower]

I have no idea if he accepted renumeration for this, ...

Not less than 3 posts in this thread have indicated that accepting or requiring a new number is key to the determination of whether or not commercial air service is being conducted.

[Hedley]

accepting or requiring a new number

what new number? A phone number?

It still seems bizarre to me that I can legally instruct
my kid on my aircraft - until ATAC gets their way,
that's still permitted freelance instruction - and that's
clearly not a "commercial air service" requiring an AOC.

However. If my kid straps on a chute, and we take
the doors off the Maule as specified in the POH and
I climb up and he jumps out, I am now a SINNER in
Canada because I am operating a "Commercial
Air Service" without an AOC, according to a written
response that I have from Transport on the subject.

WTF?! No money changed hands. No barter
occurred. How is it then commercial?

If I go flying with my kid, and he takes pictures out
the window, am I now a SINNER in Canada because
I committed aviation in a SINFUL way, according
to socialist doctrine?

[Hornblower]

accepting or requiring a new number

what new number? A phone number?

I have no Idea what number they are talking about, however they seem to be quite sure that re-numeration has something to do with a commercial air service.

[Hornblower]

Hedley, maybe you are confused about the difference between a commercial air service and a special flight operation regarding parachuting. Were you dropping him in or into controlled airspace or an air route or over or into a built-up area or open-air assembly of persons?

[Hedley]

No - nothing to do with populated area, controlled
airspace, etc - I've done that before, I know what
you're referring to.

I have a letter from Transport that says that
even in the absence of remuneration - specifically,
if I want to let my friends and family parachute
out of my aircraft for free - I am NOT permitted
to do so, without a 702 AOC.

Transport says that regardless of whether or not
any commerce is involved, in their opinion parachute
dropping is "aerial work" and requires a 702 AOC
to do so, and I will be charged with contravening
CAR 702.02 if I allow my friends or family to parachute
out of my airplanes, free of charge.

Maybe this is another example of how the rules
are applied differently to people with the same
last name as me, I dunno.

[Hornblower]

Without seeing the actual wording of the letter, it would appear that they are mistaken, and are threatening you. This would be an act that is contrary to the law I believe. I suggest that you show it to your lawyer, because I believe that you could take action against them for doing something like that. There is clearly no law against leaving an aircraft in flight other than the restrictions imposed by 602.25, and 602.26.

If you chose to be controlled by their empty threats, then you would be allowing their stupidity to affect your life. If you like, I would be happy to let your kid jump out of the airplane if you will permit me to fly it. My aircraft is not really set up for easy exiting in flight. I have no fear of empty threats from some bureaucrat who does not understand the rules he is hired to promote compliance with.

[Shiny Side Up]

The only thing I could say Hed would be to ask any parachute operation if they have an OC and if not, why they don't. Most jumper dumpers would probably try to get away without having an OC on this technicality. Since they could probably find a pilot to work for free and charge for a "parachute packing service", no commerce is exchanging hands for the use of an airplane, why would they bother to go through the trouble of getting an OC?

As above you can probably press the current interpretation of the law in your favor if you really feel that your rights have been infringed in this case.

Here's food for thought though. Many trades can't give certain services they provide out for free. For example an electrician friend can maybe fix a light switch for you, but playing around with the circuit breakers in your house is a no-no. A plumber can fix a leaky faucet, but ain't going to monkey around with your gas fixtures. There's certain legal ramifications for them to do certain types of work. Granted the laws which govern them are a little more cut and dried than the CARs are on these matters but the same idea applies.

In the end it becomes the old arguement between liberty, freedom and government control and the fine balance between the bunch.

[Widow]

I have no idea if he accepted renumeration for this, ...

Not less than 3 posts in this thread have indicated that accepting or requiring a new number is key to the determination of whether or not commercial air service is being conducted.

Okay, so illegal if they paid, legal if they didn't (although some seem to think it was illegal anyway - and certainly not "ethical"). But that CAR refers to PPL holders - is it the same for CPLs (who I assume also hold a PPL so again, I assume yes)?

In speaking with some reporters recently, it appears to be common practice to hire non-commercial pilots/operators to fly them around - they don't know about these rules. So I still find it hard to believe that the reporters would not have paid for the service. For the sake of argument, how would that affect pax liability/pilot/aircraft insurance payouts?

BTW, I think this is the COPA article that was referred to: http://archive.copanational.org/non-mem ... sement.htm

[albertdesalvo]

I have no idea if he accepted renumeration for this, ...

Not less than 3 posts in this thread have indicated that accepting or requiring a new number is key to the determination of whether or not commercial air service is being conducted.

Um, I think his point is more clear with a little bolding....

Sorry, I'm just razzin' ya. Just been reading some other threads about applying the break peddles with your heals on the floor, and buying hellicopters, and other such things. I think we need Meatservo to clean up the speeling in this place.

[Hedley]

If you chose to be controlled by their empty threats, then you would be allowing their stupidity to affect your life

My next date at the Tribunal is Oct 28th. I have represented
myself many times at the Tribunal, Tribunal Appeal, Federal
Court and Federal Court of Appeals. This current case has
legs - I am sure it will travel to at least the Federal Court of
Appeals, if not farther.

Until you've been on the receiving end of a "Bob Hoover"-style
campaign, you simply wouldn't believe what goes on.

Thanks so much, Chris!

The nice people at the flying club here are of the opinion that
it would be best if my son change his last name, if he wants
to fly in Canada in the future. At least, that's their opinion.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

If you chose to be controlled by their empty threats, then you would be allowing their stupidity to affect your life

There is nothing empty about any threat from Transport Canada, they can and do deny you anything they wish to including the right to work in aviation in Canada by blackballing you with anyone who wants to hire you.

Their ethics make the mafia look real ethical.

Seems a lot of you out there think that Hedley and me are making untrue statements, why would we do that?

[Dagwood]

Requirements for a 702 OC:

702.01 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Subpart applies in respect of the operation of an aeroplane or helicopter in aerial work involving
(a) the carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members;
(b) the carriage of helicopter Class B, C or D external loads;
(c) the towing of objects; or
(d) the dispersal of products.

(2) This Subpart does not apply in respect of the operation of an ultra-light aeroplane, or in respect of the operation of an aircraft in aerial work involving sightseeing operations.

Which part does Aerial photography fall under?
Maybe just call it a sightseeing operation?

[CD]

Dagwood...

I think that 700.02 might snooker you for sightseeing unless you have an FTU OC. See subsection (4):

700.02 - Requirements for Air Operator Certificate

(1) No person shall operate an air transport service unless the person holds and complies with the provisions of an air operator certificate that authorizes the person to operate that service.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), no person shall, unless the person holds and complies with the provisions of an air operator certificate that authorizes the person to do so, operate an aeroplane or helicopter to conduct aerial work involving

(a) the carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members;
(b) the carriage of helicopter Class B, C or D external loads;
(c) the towing of objects; or
(d) the dispersal of products.

(3) A person who does not hold an air operator certificate may conduct aerial work involving the dispersal of products if

(a) the person is a farmer;
(b) the person owns the aircraft that is used to disperse the products;
(c) the products are dispersed for agricultural purposes; and
(d) the dispersal of the products takes place within 25 miles of the centre of the person's farm.

(4) A person who does not hold an air operator certificate may conduct aerial work involving the carriage of persons other than flight crew members on board a single-engined aircraft if

(a) the person holds a flight training unit operator certificate;
(b) the pilot-in-command is the holder of a valid flight instructor rating in the appropriate category of aircraft;
(c) the aircraft is operated in day VFR flight;
(d) there are no more than nine passengers on board; and
(e) the flight is conducted for the purpose of sightseeing operations.

700.02 - Requirements for Air Operator Certificate

[C-FABH]

I have rented from several FTUs that have indicated aerial photography must be considered "sightseeing".

Infact, if those newspaper folks are only "sightseeing" and bring their cameras along for a few shots, provided zero renumeration, what's the rules?

PS: Renumeration doesn't involve getting a new phone number.

[Dagwood]

provided zero renumeration

I think TC may consider hours in your logbook "renumeration".

Anyways, you guys hash it out. I'll check back for the consensus later

[albertdesalvo]

PS: Renumeration doesn't involve getting a new phone number.

Verb
to renumerate (third-person singular simple present renumerates, present participle renumerating, simple past and past participle renumerated)
1. (obsolete, transitive) To recount (count again).
*******
Verb
to remunerate (third-person singular simple present remunerates, present participle remunerating, simple past and past participle remunerated)
1. To compensate; to pay.

[summitx]

Interesting article widow but not the one I was thinking of. The copa article I was referring to was specific to aerial photography. I believe there is quite a difference between what is allowed for a ppl or cpl. As I recall aerial photography for profit is allowed if you are a cpl and do the photography yourself.

[CD]

There are also quite a few pages of discussion of the issue on the following threads:

AvCanada: legal question
AvCanada: Is this a commercial operation or not?