Well, since Heliport has laid down the challenge, I can confirm that there are precisely no references to the phrase hire and/or reward in the ANO.
There is one reference to 'reward' and five to 'hire' in the ANO all unrelated to the question in point. Two of the references to 'hire' are in the word 'GloucestersHIRE'.
What it does say on the subject of PPL remuneration is as follows:
UK PPLH
(2) He shall not:
(a) fly such a helicopter for the purpose of public transport or aerial work other than aerial work which consists of:
(i) the giving of instruction in flying if his licence includes a flying instructor’s rating, flight instructor rating or an assistant flying instructor’s rating; or
(ii) the conducting of flying tests for the purposes of this Order;
in either case in a helicopter owned, or operated under arrangements entered
into, by a flying club of which the person giving the instruction or conducting the test and the person receiving the instruction or undergoing the test are both members;
(b) receive any remuneration for his services as a pilot on a flight other than remuneration for the giving of such instruction or the conducting of such flying tests as are specified in sub-paragraph (a).
JAA PPL(H)
(1) Subject to any conditions specified in respect of the licence, the privileges of the holder of a Private Pilot Licence (Helicopter) are to act, but not for remuneration, as pilot in command or co-pilot of any helicopter included in a type rating in Part XII of the licence engaged in non-revenue flights.
Now so far the situation looks clearer for the UK PPL than the JAA one. The UK PPL is banned from aerial work and public transport (save for the flying instructor exception). Now although aerial work and public transport is a can of worms, it is at least defined. The JAR PPL is only banned from flying for remuneration which is nowhere defined in the ANO. However, the term 'non-revenue flight'
IS defined as follows
‘Non-revenue flight’ means:
(b) in the case of a flight by a helicopter, any flight which the holder of a United Kingdom Private Pilot’s Licence (Helicopters) may undertake under paragraph (2)(a) and (b) of the privileges of that licence set out in Section 1 of Part A of Schedule 8 (ie not public transport or aerial work)
Excuse me ? We're trying to work out the meaning of a non-revenue flight in the context of a JAR PPL, and the definition refers to the UK PPL. Surely that can't be right ? A closer reading that makes more sense implies that it's the definition of the flight that's being imported (ie no public transport or aerial work) and that the reference to the UK license is just a bookmark for where the text can be found.
If this is correct then PPLs of all colours are banned from aerial work and public transport. If you've stuck with me this far then, you'll probably go 'well I knew that anyway', but remember I had to prove it using the actual words of the legislation.
The rules on public transport and aerial work have been debated in these columns many times, and I don't intend to rehash them. VeeAny has posted the CAAs summary of the rules, which is as helpful as they get. The essence of the rule though is 'valuable consideration' changing hands in respect of the flight. Valuable consideration is defined in the act as follows.
‘Valuable consideration’ means any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken under an agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature;
Now I don't know about you, but that looks pretty clear - free flying hours are without question a benefit. Worse still I could argue that the definition does indeed involve an assessment of the motivation of the pilot. If she's doing it for pleasure alone then the benefits I would argue are nominal. However if he's doing it to build hours then the benefit is far from nominal, it's what he would otherwise have paid for the flight.