Is it legal for a PPL to "sell" rides in his own plane?

[Bede]

Doing aerial photography without an AOC does not contravene the CAR's.

I knew he didn't have commercial registration or license anyways...I've never studied the commercial material but it is clear from PPL that you can't make any money flying with it.

Not true. There are many ways a PPL can make money with a plane. They can sell minnows, take pictures, stake mineral claims, ag flying, etc. What they can't do is fly passengers or cargo for remuneration (with the exceptions listed in the CARs).

There is a company without an AOC that has been operating for years with a fleet of Cessna 150's that flies around taking pictures of farms and then the sales people go door to door trying to sell them. Another one goes and collects minnows and then delivers them to the lodges and sells them there. On the other hand, if the company sold the minnows and then went and delivered cargo, that would not be legal.

[PilotDAR]

I went through this with TC years ago for a client with an atmospheric research airplane. The logic TC gave me was very simple: The airplane flies, who pays? The owner; fine. The flight produces a product of value, who is paying for that product? If the owner pays for the flight, and keeps the product with no revenue return, the flight is most likely private. If the product of the flight creates revenue (other than some provisions for shared costs, which are defined), it is commercial, and regulated as such. My client did not sell the research data at all, it was for their internal use only, so private. I'm sure that people can cite exceptions, but that's the simple theme.

If a photographer sells a photo from the air, that was a product of the flight = commercial. If the plumber arrives to a cottage. ties up the plane, goes in the cottage and plumbs, the plumbing is not a product of the flight = private.

[photofly]

I went through this with TC years ago
...
If a photographer sells a photo from the air, that was a product of the flight = commercial and regulated as such.

I think if you look carefully into this there are two things to be concerned with. Does the pilot have a CPL, and is the aircraft operated under an OC?

I believe it's fairly clear from 700.02 that aerial photography (conducted by a crew member) doesn't need an OC.

I also think it would be very hard to maintain an argument that someone selling photos they took in the air would have engaged in acting as pilot-in-command "for hire and reward" - the action of being pilot-in-command was very clearly incidental to thing or act for which a reward was received.

Here is a tribunal case where a pilot lost an appeal against an enforcement action for low flying during aerial photography without an OC.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tatc/doc/2 ... 93158.html
It seems fairly settled that TC doesn't require an OC for aerial photography.

[Squaretail]

I believe it's fairly clear from 700.02 that aerial photography (conducted by a crew member) doesn't need an OC.

Yes, though there is a bit of clarification that is required. If the photo is taken by a flight crew member. However, if the equipment operator (photographer) is crew, but not flight crew, then you do need a OC.

I've gotten the idea that TC mandate is to protect the unwitting non-pilots from the actions of pilots.

Here is a tribunal case where a pilot lost an appeal against an enforcement action for low flying during aerial photography without an OC.

Technically speaking, to engage in low flying of the kind in question one doesn't need a 702 OC but can do it under a SFOC (Special Flight Operations Certificate) if the aircraft is operated privately as per 603.65.

[photofly]

I don’t agree. 702.03 says “no person other than a crew member is carried on board, not “no person other than a flight crew member”. If the flight is an aerial photography flight the the photographer is assigned the duty of photography during the flight and is clearly a crew member under the definition of “crew member”.

A photographer can’t be carried on a positioning flight to where photographs are to be taken without an OC because then they are a passenger, and there is a tribunal case that makes that clear. Nor can photography equipment be carried to such a place. I’ll post details of the case later if nobody beats me to it.

[digits_]

I don’t agree. 702.03 says “no person other than a crew member is carried on board, not “no person other than a flight crew member”. If the flight is an aerial photography flight the the photographer is assigned the duty of photography during the flight and is clearly a crew member under the definition of “crew member”.

A photographer can’t be carried on a positioning flight to where photographs are to be taken without an OC because then they are a passenger, and there is a tribunal case that makes that clear. Nor can photography equipment be carried to such a place. I’ll post details of the case later if nobody beats me to it.

I can't find 702.03, but I find this one:

Requirements for Air Operator Certificate
700.02 (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;

[Squaretail]

I don’t agree. 702.03 says “no person other than a crew member is carried on board, not “no person other than a flight crew member”

Are we looking at two different versions of the CARs? There is no 702.03 anymore and 702.01 (a) specifies

(a) the carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members;

Personally I have been round and round with TC (and the FAA where their definition is slightly different) over the crew/flight crew/passenger issue.

[Bede]

I believe it's fairly clear from 700.02 that aerial photography (conducted by a crew member) doesn't need an OC.

Yes, though there is a bit of clarification that is required. If the photo is taken by a flight crew member. However, if the equipment operator (photographer) is crew, but not flight crew, then you do need a OC.

I've gotten the idea that TC mandate is to protect the unwitting non-pilots from the actions of pilots.

Correct. That would make it a 702 flight.

[photofly]

I don’t agree. 702.03 says “no person other than a crew member is carried on board, not “no person other than a flight crew member”

Are we looking at two different versions of the CARs? There is no 702.03 anymore and 702.01 (a) specifies

(a) the carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members;

Personally I have been round and round with TC (and the FAA where their definition is slightly different) over the crew/flight crew/passenger issue.

You’re right. I misremembered it.

[redlaser]

It's legal only if he gets paid in Russian Rubles, HA HA HA.

[WANP]

First thing that struck me about the ad, is how little they are charging. Is the guy making money at $200/hour?

[Beefitarian]

What a bunch of tattle tales. Just for that I’m not going to sell any of my discount domestic game meat products here.