Helmet fire,
Yep, we agree LTE is not LTA. The investigator was bang on in his findings, I think, but he does mix LTA and LTE, as does most of the helo world, by now, perhaps by careful planning of some authorities.
I dislike doing armchair investigation, but here goes:
1) The aircraft was too heavy, and the low speed maneuver (near hover) that was attempted was not within the performance capability of the aircraft. That is the root cause of the maneuver seen in the film. Note the finding about understanding hover limitations. The recovery involved dumping 10,000 pounds of water, sort of proof of that fact!
2) LTE is way too loose of a term, and has no meaning in this case. The tail rotor was admirably effective throughout this incident, it was simply being forced to operate at too low of an rpm. Thus it was an LTA incident, but look at the thread to see how many pilots do not get the distinction.
Regarding the actions taken, I do think it is harsh, the pilot showed great airmanship in recovering, but he probably knows that he painted himself into a tight corner. I think this illustrates what I have always said, "The difference between training and experience is told in flying stories." That pilot has a flying story that we can all learn from.
The pilot stepped into something bigger than his incident. The US Forest service is under a microscope, because of the real safety problems they have had these last few years. That C-130 that shed its wings several years ago started the whole thing, and even the basic policies of letting contracts are under examination. I am sure some pruners know much more that I do about this.