So it's simple and straightforward, according to some?
Let's see.
Some quotes from the discussion so far:
"for hire or reward". That says it all.”
All what?
And where does it say “for hire and reward”?
“a PPL can only take passengers when he intended the flight anyway.”
Where does it say that?
“It's quite simple and a lot of you have already made the point. The PPL cannot fly for hire or reward, it is that simple.”
Simple?
Where does it say hire and reward?
“if they are not paying a pro-rata share of the cost of the flight, then it is illegal.”
So, if a helicopter owner allows a PPL accompanying him to fly his helicopter free of charge, the PPL is breaking the law?
“any PPL flying must be either , a cost sharing flight or self funded.”
So, if a generous helicopter owner allows a PPL to borrow his helicopter free of charge, the PPL is breaking the law?
“No grey area ....”
People seem to have very different views about what's black and what's white.
“suggest you look up the regs.....quite straight-forward I'm glad to say when it comes to classifications of private/commercial flight.”
It may be straight-forward (to some), but is it a complete answer to the question here?
“Have these guys never heard of LASORS? It's online and it's free, so no excuse.”
So help them by telling them where in LASORS they can find the answer.
“Whirly (and others with doubts)”
Whirly (and others who disagree with me)?
“free flying must come under the banner of "hire or reward, promised, implied or given"
Where can people find the ‘hire and reward’ banner?
“If the aircraft needs you to get it from A to B and no one else can do it, it is work.”
Is that the test?
That no one else can do it?
“debate the legal semantics of LASORS.....”
Where do we find the answer in LASORS?
Heliport
I suggest ignoring distractions by 'Out of Date'.
Responding to trolls only encourages them.