One more tip: Public aircraft status is only applicable in the event of a mishap or accident and only relevant to the NTSB.

Imagine a mechanic aboard a restricted category flight to observe the aircraft function. Part 91 surely allows him/her to be aboard to perform “an essential function”. But after the mechanic observes the gauges, or verifies the performance of the component in question, the ship must land and discharge this person immediately and make him/her walk as this person is not not fulfilling an essential function.

What if a UH-1H operator is training a new pilot on a specific mission. Should the flight instructor be allowed to ride along in the aircraft while the ship is transiting between the takeoff area and the training site? What about the return leg?

My hats off to Timberline for pursuing this topic with such zeal. I have no idea how they figured they could make money by protesting the contract…which they didn’t bid on. Next time you are on a fire and they show up, tell them thanks for nothing.

The whole issue of what the governmental mission is important. Why people persist in saying that you can fly the firefighters to the fire but taking them home magically turns into a 135 flight is a croc (IMHO). The governmental mission includes fire supression from the air and delivering hand crews to the fire line by air because that is the fastest, safest and most effective way to do that in many fires. It is also all of those things if you have to pull people out of those places in an emergency. Just because the imminent threat of THAT fire may be over doesn’t mean that their job is over. Another fire may start at any time (and often does) and they have to repack and refresh to be ready for the next job. Taking them off the fire line is still part of the governmental mission in my book. It would be a cold hearted judge who rules that after working 12 hours in 100 degree heat that those men and women have to hike out with their gear, or that you would have to bring in a 135 aircraft , which by the way could not be operating under it’s own certificate because of the operational control issues (read ops spec. A008 if in doubt). Do not be confused, the requirement that the U.S. DOA and DOI have that if you fly passengers you have to have the aircraft on your 135 certificate is just that. It is THEIR REQUIREMENT not an FAA requirement. If they want to waive it they should be able to.

Last, I don’t get why DOI and the operator don’t just go through the simple steps of a declaration. It is pretty clear that the FAA just wants something to point to in the tragic case of a fatal accident that can be seen as their ability to not be in the hot seat because they were thought to be responsible for oversight of the aircraft and it’s operation. Our legal system is blame based and you can’t blame someone if you can’t figure out who is responsible. I fear it’s going to take some legal decisions (for Pete’s sake, this is the US… sombody needs to sue somebody to get these decisions made). Maybe a “go fund me” campaign would help. The other alternative is for the FAA to try and violate someone and let the court sort it out. I think that would be a toss up and could go either way. There are too many vested interests in this to sucessfully “talk it out” based on existing statute. Unfortunately as a wise helicopter sage has said to me on multiple occasions, perhaps I’m expecting too much common sense and fairness in this mess.

For example, if a restricted category aircraft is certificated for a 21.25(b) special purpose which is not excepted in 119.1(e), that operation would have to be conducted under 119 if the operation was being conducted for compensation or hire.

There are several 21.25(b)(7) special purpose operations listed in FAA Order 8110.56 which are not excepted in 119.1(e) (such as target towing, space launch vehicle transport, alaska fuel hauling, etc) which are being conducted in restricted category aircraft under 135. Nonetheless, 91.313 still prohibits the carriage of persons which are not necessary for the special purpose for which the aircraft was certificated.