Manfromuncle: Read the ANO. Read JAR OPS-3.There's no "loophole". The facts are that the rules on Public Transport were only ever designed to protect fare-paying passengers and cargo on commercial flights.
If a chap decides to lease a helicopter from one company, hire a pilot and invite mates along for a flight it is not illegal.
The term "valuable consideration" gets waved around. If "VC" is given for a flight it might be construed (by some) to be CAT. But if you lease a helicopter and pay the running costs you are essentially running a private flight. Unless you charge VC to any of the passengers.
And that's where the black & white becomes grey. For some.
Take, for instance, a large industrial conglomerate who have a fleet of helicopters and fixed wings which are run by them privately. No AOC. They use these machines to fly around their customers. And then their customers place large orders which make a profit for the company. Is that VC ?? Surely you could prove that the customer has paid for the flight if they've ordered goods from the flight provider. You could certainly try to prove that the flight produced revenue for the company.
Now, the company may or may not own the aircraft. It could lease them from an owner. Still doesn't change the category of the flight - it's still private.
And f the company has been operating in this fashion for over 30 years with no CAA challenge - and even been issued an ICAO telephony designator which should only be issued to AOC holders - you have to wonder.
In the UK we exist in a regulatory vacuum caught between the UK ANO and JAR OPS-3. If you want an AOC you have to comply with the bits of JAR OPS-3 that the CAA have recognised. There's an awful lot of JAR OPS-3 which we are not allowed to use. Until this impasse is resolved, until we have total recognition of JAR OPS-3, there will be some grey CAT/Private areas.