This is the joy of internet forums.
NigelH - any excuse for a rant at the CAA and or rules or an individual that tries to work within them. Your posts contain much for amusement, mostly, but normally little to nothing of any use.
Tarman, perhaps you misinterpret cutting sarcasm for arrogance. There is a thin line between the two.
Redplexus - As somebody like good old NigelH who'll insult strangers because they have nothing useful to bring to the discussion, trust me you'll be easier to spot. Paths crossing is unlikely as I dont 'hobby' fly and have no need of H300 or R44 ratings.
A brief search of this site brings up 214 references to charity flights, a fair proportion asking whats allowed. One of the most recent threads is this one
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/413...y-flights.html
from May 2010 showing how the legislation has changed and making charity flights easier.
The rules are there whether we agree or disagree with them. Ignorance is not an excuse the CAA often accept, and if 'we' choose to ignore the rules then I'd be more certain of them becoming more restrictive rather than less.
We can work to get the rules changed, but in the interim have little choice but to work with what we have. The rules aren't a buffet, we can't pick and choose which bits we fancy following.
A company publicly advertises (on a forum viewed by the CAA) an open day/get together - a commendable offering. They offer to donate some money to an air ambulance charity - even more commendable. What the uninformed seem to be forgetting is that the original postings come from a former AOC holding company, that's in the process of getting a new AOC issued. Nothing escapes the fact that as advertised the flights would, despite their aim, breach the rules leading to potential intervention pre/post event by the CAA - for the money the CAA want I wouldn't want to give them any excuse not to issue the forms.
Possible CAA intervention aside, equally as important would be any third party action in the event of an incident should any rules be found to have been broken. And lets not forget that by posting wrong information, others (be they companies or well meaning individuals) could follow suit and then find themselves on the receiving end of a prosecution also.
The flights are now completely free, so originally the owners only concern were fuel costs? In the grand scheme of things the fuel is a small proportion of the running costs. More probable is that the owner donated the aircraft 'dry' and that the operator is trying to save the fuel costs. Donating to charity doesnt provide carte blanche to obtain that money by any means, albeit the blinkered on this forum would no doubt find burglary acceptable so long as the profits, minus travelling costs, were donated to a worthwhile cause.
The irony Redplexus is that previous posts work to clarify the current rules, potentially help the operator from falling foul of the authorities, clear up any potential misunderstandings for others considering similar, and safeguard all the money taken going to the charity- so the charity don't need to lose out as WFS suggested. All of that is 100% of more value than your post.