Employee with PPL flying for the Company

[PRpilot]

If I only have a PPL would I be allowed to fly a plane to take photos of job sites for the company I work for? It's an engineering company, not related to aviation in any way. The purpose of the photos would be for our own site reconnaissance and project marketing materials. We wouldn't be transporting anyone except for company employees for the purposes of viewing the sites from the air. We would also want to fly employees to get to job sites and/or meetings as well.

I've read the topic "Jobs you can do with your own floatplane", viewtopic.php?f=54&t=144694, but I still am not sure about my usage case. I suspect it's not allowed, but I wanted to check before making this anything more than a thought experiment.

Or is this something that we would have to get an AOC for, as well as upgrading to a CPL?

[valleyboy]

There is far more involved. Liability and consequences if you have a mishap. Is it really worth it.

[Bede]

There is far more involved. Liability and consequences if you have a mishap. Is it really worth it.

Thats what insurance is for.

401.28
(3) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement from the holder’s employer for costs incurred in respect of a flight if the holder

(a) is employed on a full-time basis by the employer for purposes other than flying;

(b) conducts the flight on the employer’s business and the flight is incidental to the execution of the holder’s duties; and

(c) receives a reimbursement that

(i) in the case of an aircraft owned by the holder, is paid at a rate based on distance travelled or number of hours flown and that does not exceed the total of the holder’s direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, or

(ii) in the case of a rental aircraft, does not exceed the total of the holder’s rental costs, direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight.

Who owns the plane?

[photofly]

If I only have a PPL would I be allowed to fly a plane to take photos of job sites for the company I work for? It's an engineering company, not related to aviation in any way. The purpose of the photos would be for our own site reconnaissance and project marketing materials. We wouldn't be transporting anyone except for company employees for the purposes of viewing the sites from the air. We would also want to fly employees to get to job sites and/or meetings as well.

I've read the topic "Jobs you can do with your own floatplane", viewtopic.php?f=54&t=144694, but I still am not sure about my usage case. I suspect it's not allowed, but I wanted to check before making this anything more than a thought experiment.

Or is this something that we would have to get an AOC for, as well as upgrading to a CPL?

If it's part of your job to pilot an aircraft then it's quite clear: you need a CPL. With a PPL you can fly to your job, but not as your job.

If the photography is for and within your company and the company owns the plane then it's not a commercial air service: per the Aeronautics Act: "A commercial air service means any use of aircraft for hire or reward;" - and in this case there is none. Therefore you don't need an OC.

If you want to fly company personnel around in a company airplane, you can do that (with a CPL). No OC is required. If using a large aircraft, a jet powered aircraft, or a turbine powered aircraft with more than six seats then you need a private operator registration document under section 604 of the CARs.

[PostmasterGeneral]

Just go take your pictures and don't tell anybody. Problem solved!

[PRpilot]

As for who owns the plane, that's not decided. It could be the business owner who would buy it personally. I could also buy a share of it as well. Or, he could buy it within the company.

My job is to prepare engineering documents and aerial photos would just be to add to those documents. So the flying part would be incidental and not my job. Ie, the job will go ahead with or without the flying part.

If you want to fly company personnel around in a company airplane, you can do that (with a CPL). No OC is required. If using a large aircraft, a jet powered aircraft, or a turbine powered aircraft with more than six seats then you need a private operator registration document under section 604 of the CARs.

To clarify, for flying company personnel around, I would need a CPL? Even if I am also attending the meetings and or site visits?

Thanks for the feedback!

[photofly]

If you fly company personnel around, in an airplane owned by the company that you work for, and that pays you, and you don't have a CPL - that's not going to look good at the enquiry.

Seriously - do you think it's fair and appropriate to your colleagues to ask them to be shuttled around by someone who only holds a PPL? Do they get the opportunity to say "no thanks - that's too risky"?

[ahramin]

Well I've seen that exact situation many times and it never raised eyebrows. This was a 604 operation though which has pretty high requirements. If any of my friends and family were in a situation where the company 421 or 182 was being flown by a private pilot I would absolutely tell them to refuse getting on board without asking a lot of questions. I'd want to see at least the level of training and operational control required by a 604 operation.

[photofly]

A PPL was flying an aircraft big enough to require a 604 operation?

[PRpilot]

Thanks for the sobering thoughts photofly. Really, I am just at the beginning of pondering all this, hence why I reached out to the AvCanada community. I wanted to get peoples' thoughts on the matter. I have a PPL, but haven't flown in a long time and recently my job has morphed into this as possibility, so I thought, hey, why not look into seeing if I can fly somehow with my job.

Seriously - do you think it's fair and appropriate to your colleagues to ask them to be shuttled around by someone who only holds a PPL? Do they get the opportunity to say "no thanks - that's too risky"?

That's a very valid point which I'm glad you raised. I am also considering continuing my training to get the CPL. Just want to know all the issues before making a decision.

Well I've seen that exact situation many times and it never raised eyebrows. This was a 604 operation though which has pretty high requirements. If any of my friends and family were in a situation where the company 421 or 182 was being flown by a private pilot I would absolutely tell them to refuse getting on board without asking a lot of questions. I'd want to see at least the level of training and operational control required by a 604 operation.

Sounds like maybe I should look into what goes into a 604 operation.

[ahramin]

It does make me wonder. If a private pilot charges by the hour to fly the company aircraft and take some pictures which CAR is violated? What about a PPL who charges another PPL for conversion training?

[photofly]

I don't think you can elect to have a 604 operation. Either you have a private aircraft that's big enough to require one, or you're not eligible. I don't think there's any element of choice about it.

Of course you can voluntarily try to abide by all the 604 requirements for a small plane, but you don't get the supervision or ability to say "we're a 604 operation."

[photofly]

It does make me wonder. If a private pilot charges by the hour to fly the company aircraft and take some pictures which CAR is violated?

401.28 (1)

It's axiomatic that to get paid to be a pilot you need a Commercial Pilot Licence.

[ahramin]

A PPL was flying an aircraft big enough to require a 604 operation?

Yes. There's nothing about flying a TBM 900, a King Air 350, or a Citation that requires a CPL. I've seen PPLs flying all of those.

[photofly]

I know it's legal, I'm just surprised that it actually occurs. If it comes to it, there's no rule that a PPL can't fly an airplane run by a 70x operation, (excepting being PIC of a multi-crew airplane) - they just can't get paid for it.

[ahramin]

It does make me wonder. If a private pilot charges by the hour to fly the company aircraft and take some pictures which CAR is violated?

401.28 (1)

Well that's pretty clear, I hadn't looked at that one for a while.

[ahramin]

I know it's legal, I'm just surprised that it actually occurs.

There are actually a lot of highly qualified and experienced PPLs out there, they just don't hang out here.

[PilotDAR]

You have asked:

If I only have a PPL would I be allowed to fly a plane to take photos of job sites for the company I work for?

And you have said:

I have a PPL, but haven't flown in a long time and recently my job has morphed into this as possibility,

The combination of those two is worrisome for me. Some types of aerial photography demand precise flying, and paying more attention to what your subject on the ground is than flying the plane. Then you get into the realm of precise aerial photography, you're either being distracted trying to fly and photograph at the same time to get the photo right, or you've got someone on board with you, distracting you, and asking you to turn more tightly, or fly past downwind or such.

I suggest a fifty hours of recency flying, including airwork, slow flight, and emergencies, before you consider any kind of photography more demanding than the occasional scene out the window. If you devote that fifty hours toward a CPL, even better!

[photofly]

Out of interest - the PPL holders flying for a 604 operation - were they the owners of the aircraft (and operation) or flying for someone else?

[ahramin]

I don't think you can elect to have a 604 operation. Either you have a private aircraft that's big enough to require one, or you're not eligible. I don't think there's any element of choice about it.

Of course you can voluntarily try to abide by all the 604 requirements for a small plane, but you don't get the supervision or ability to say "we're a 604 operation."

A client of mine tried exactly this with his RV-6 so that he could do RCAP approaches. TC told him to pound sand. I haven't checked the rules lately but at some point there was some overlap between not being required to have one and being able to get one. I think multi engine piston aircraft.

[ahramin]

Out of interest - the PPL holders flying for a 604 operation - were they the owners of the aircraft (and operation) or flying for someone else?

The TBM and the jet were owned by the individuals in question. The King Air was owned by a public corporation and the CEO would usually fly it when he was onboard.

[photofly]

That makes perfect sense. I was trying to figure a circumstance where an individual was chosen (not employed, obviously) by a chief pilot of a 604 operation on the basis (only) of their piloting skills but didn't have a CPL.

[ahramin]

For a while he was the chief pilot . Theoretically I suppose any PPL in the company with the requisite skill and willing to pay for their own training would have been welcome to fly when they happened to be on board.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

If I only have a PPL would I be allowed to fly a plane to take photos of job sites for the company I work for? It's an engineering company, not related to aviation in any way. The purpose of the photos would be for our own site reconnaissance and project marketing materials. We wouldn't be transporting anyone except for company employees for the purposes of viewing the sites from the air. We would also want to fly employees to get to job sites and/or meetings as well.

Here's another way to look at... can you do the work without the plane? If so, the flying part of the job is incidental - this would apply to transporting employees from one place to another. You could do it by car, but airplanes are just faster and more convenient in your case. However, this thought experiment would not apply to aerial photography - it would be impossible without the airplane (although drones may now have changed this). That's my thinking, but I don't really know much on the subject.

A couple of other suggestions:

- For aerial photography, why not use a drone? They're cheaper, safer, and can hover in place for easier shots I would think.
- If it does turn out that you can't do this without a CPL, is your employer willing to pay for, or subsidize the cost of a CPL? That would be one helluva sweet deal for you.

I also agree with other posters that you appear to be quite "rusty", for lack of a better term, to be flying passengers like this. You will face pressure to get people in and out on a schedule, which will affect your judgement with regards to inclement weather and fatigue, IMHO. Even should your employer give you veto power over flights, you will still face peer pressure from colleagues who have places to be and things to do (again, IMHO). This is not a prudent course of action for a rusty PPL, generally speaking.

Either way though, I would ask Transport Canada, and get it in writing if you can. It's the only way to be sure.

[edit]
Don't bother asking Transport, as noted by PF end Bede below. Ask a lawyer.
[/edit]

[photofly]

Either way though, I would ask Transport Canada, and get it in writing if you can. It's the only way to be sure.

You will not get a "permission slip" from TC. They all know the rules about "officially induced error", and CASI's are not lawyers and are not qualified to give legal opinions. Unfortunately you have to interpret the regulations yourself, with (if you need it) help from a lawyer, whom you will have to pay. That's what lawyers are for.

If so, the flying part of the job is incidental

I don't think that's relevant. If it's part of your job, you're being paid for it, and you need a CPL. It may be that you could achieve the same ends by various other means, but that doesn't mean it's not what you're being paid for.