Guns posted that the SACAA will register this helicopter as ZU-RXX and not as ZS-RXX, and that all the FAA restrictions will apply. If that is indeed so, then this helicopter actually becomes worthless to the owner. No pax, no internal cargo, only crew for spraying and external cargo. That means no fun with the buddies! Ouch, not nice.
Having read the NTSB report as well as Bert's and Sasless' contribution to the thread, which I found very informative, I can only think that importing this helicopter was maybe not such a good idea. The entire deal looks problematic.
Surely the SWFA guys must be reading this stuff, and to date the "criticism & controversy" here, as Injector put it, has not lead them to post their side of the coin. That in itself is quite strange. One would have thought that they would at least come out and defend themselves, seeing that they now have at least one client in SA, and one would have thought that it would have been in their interest to give their existing client, and possibly future others, the necessary comfort by stating their case.
Unless of course, the SWFA guys were just to happy to be rid of N37BA. The questions that have been posted on this thread re the UH-1B, have actually not yet been answered, neither by Injector or Rebound.
From reading the postings, it is clear that there are uncertainties about whether:
a. This aircraft was actually totally rebuilt after its accident?
b. The data plate on N37BA is the original data plate for N37BA, and/or if it was in fact placed on N37BA after its accident and rebuild, and/or whether it was placed on another UH-1B frame, and then sold off as N37BA? (Would SWFA do something like that?)
c. The data plate is correct in terms of the engine fitted. The plate says its fitted with a Dash 11 engine but the crew at Helibase says its fitted with a Dash 13 engine. (So what is it actually?)
d. This helicopter can indeed be certified by the SACAA under the FAA STC?
e. The SACAA recognises and approves of the FAA Restrictions under the STC, and
f. How the SACAA proposes to certify it for flight?
Maybe SWFA can clarify the above? Its pointless to ask Injector or Rebound to clarify the matter due their bias in the matter. Come on SWFA Principles, tell us. Any input from the SACAA would also be welcome.
As aviation, and in particular Huey enthusiasts, its a shame that things always have to be done so covertly. Surely, its in the interest of all associated with aviation to learn something about this helicopter, and to support it's operation at airshows or wherever it may or will be flown in the future.
Hopefully it will not end up as an exhibition somewhere.
