My feeling is that the lack of a contract to fly is the get-out.
Yes, I think that is the very important point. You would in theory only get problems if you had an on-going relationship with a customer or client, when it could be said there is an 'agreement', always remembering that legally there may be a contract found even where there is nothing in writing, and one might be inferred from a business relationship by the courts where you did not believe there was one. Of course it is also important to remember that the valuable consideration needs to be in respect of the flight, not the general business relationship of which the flight is an incidental element.
I am frankly surprised that the helicopter man pleaded guilty. It doesn't seem on the information given that valuable consideration was "given or promised in respect of the flight" by the celebrity. The 'benefit' derived from flying a celebrity about was not "given or promised" by anyone; furthermore it would be interesting to know whether the CAA attempted to quantify the consideration, i.e. was it more than nominal. The whole essence of what the ANO seems to be aimed at is the 'agreement' i.e. a contractual relationship. If I offer out of the goodness of my heart to drive you to london there is not contract, as you have not promised anything, e.g. payment in return. If you happen to be a celebrity and I obtain some personal cudos by being seen to drop you off at the Ritz there is still no contract/agreement. The position is exactly the same if car becomes helicopter or aeroplane. Any benefit I may get is not as a result of a contract with you since there is no contract
However, don't rely on the wording on an insurance policy, which is no guarantee that in any particular class of business use a flight is private. If I fly my client to a meeting in relation to a transaction for which I ultimately charge him then I suspect that is aerial work, even if I do not specifically charge him for my time in the air at the controls.
What a minefield
