Justiciar
Coming back to the helicopter and the celebrity, any flight which results in a "profit or benefit" is aerial work. So, the business man on his business trip may well fall under article 130, whether he directly charges his client for travel time or not. If he thereby secures a deal or contract then he has certainly derived a 'benefit'. The only get out is that the benefit is not "undertaken pursuant to an agreement" where there is not deal or contract in place when the flight is made - though there may be on the way back
I see what you are getting at, but ... in this business, the bunch of people who should know more than anybody what is legal are the insurers. If a flight is illegal they can walk away.
My insurance says "private and business". It has a few named pilots, too, plus "anyone authorised by XYZ Ltd" (the company that owns the plane).
The insurer knows perfectly this is not an AOC operation. They also know the main pilot (me) is only a PPL+IMCR, not a CPL. On top of that, a CPL without an AOC has privileges so limited they are practically worthless, in the context of flying for money. Even spotting for traffic jams needs an AOC. Flying schools avoid the need for an AOC by the narrowest of margins legally, and the CAA wouldn't dare to insist because many would go under if they had to part with the fee, and not infrequently they get done by the CAA for stepping over the line.
Yet the insurer has issued the policy for "private and business".
Obviously, anyone doing a flight on business must be facing the possibility of the business improving as a result of the trip.
So there cannot be a problem
My feeling is that the lack of a contract to fly is the get-out.
Furthermore, I always make sure that if I do a business trip, any passengers are somehow connected with my business and not just somebody getting a lift. Also if I carry any commercial goods, they are wholly connected with my business.
Paul101
Please ignore people who have a go at somebody who wants to get to the bottom of these complicated matters. It is absolutely right to make sure one is legal. We all know that one is unlikely to get caught but that isn't the point.
Sadly, asking your favourite instructor is no good because more often than not he will give you a very confident but duff answer. And most PPL pilots have nobody else to ask.
FNG
Please stop moving the goalposts and fudging the ground in between them.
There is nothing wrong with getting people to subsidise one's flying. I rent out my plane, at slightly more than the direct hourly cost. So I get a contribution towards the fixed operating costs.
If somebody is learning while flying (doesn't that apply to everybody anyway) there is no harm in carrying people and getting them to pay something. They will learn too.