Raptor----yep, what I meant to type was "you are in FACT correct", tis what happens when I try to answer questions quickly.
fly911
If this was a USFS contract, there could be a "Public Use Aircraft" loophole, with emphasis on could, as far as requiring a licensed pilot.
AC 00-1.1
I am well aware of USFS contracting requirements, I am involved in bidding contracts year round, and I fly contracts for the USFS for about 9 months each year. The 300CB is NOT a contracted aircraft.
The only way this could have been a government contract would be if a contract was awarded to say a video company or
PR company to produce a video. Then the "company" hired the helicopter independently of the USFS, at which point, it was a commercial flight and the pilot is in violation.
The only other way to justify the third class medical is if the pilot happens to own the video or
PR company and the flight was "incidental" to the business of producing the video. Either way, it all sounds suspect to me.
Edited to add:
fly911: Some of the information in the AC you provided is not 100% clear. This AC may be in the process of having to be re-written based upon the Iron 44 crash in which some USFS personnel and contracted personnel died. Some of the findings of the report make for interesting reading, and it is not over yet---there is law suits pending, therefore---watch this space. The term public use has been mis-interpreted for many years, read the regs carefully if you intend to use the "loopholes".