If Rotorhead is concerned about the licencing, then he should indicate clearly what licensing? Is he referring to the aircraft licensing, or the crew licencing.
Most flying or parachute clubs in SA operate under Part 91. When people join a parachute club for instance, they pay a joining fee. Then they pay to receive a day's worth of parachute training. After they have received their day's training, and their instructor believes that they are fit for their first jump, they board normally a club aircraft, flown by a club member who normally is a private pilot. The jumpers then pay a couple of hundred bucks to be taken up in the club aircraft, flown by a PPL. The club receives the money, (for good cause) and the PPL pilot does not get paid. He flies the aircraft for fun. So money changes hands. People board the club aircraft and pay money to do so. I know of a parachute club that used to be based in Pretoria that operated to Turbine powered aircraft that used to take up 11 or 12 jumpers at a time. Big business. PPL's flew those aircraft for the club, and although they did not get paid, the club made the money, because someone (like clubmembers) must pay towards the aircraft.
When people join a flying club, they normally join it with the intention to do some flying training. People however, can become "non flying members" or "country members" These guys, occassionally may hire a club aircraft, flown by a club member PPL pilot, who takes them on a joy ride. Again money changes hands. Someone pays for the rental of the aircraft and the money goes to the club.
Up to now, the CAA has not interferd with the way parachute and flying clubs work. Therefore one must assume that the way it is being done, is exactly in line with their regulations and therefore completely "kosher".
Sir Cumference mentioned in one of his threads that the operators of the Huey Extreme Club most likely identified a loophole to operate their machine in a club system, and therefore they were getting away with it. Maybe that is so!
There are many ways to utilize ZU aircraft. There are the warbird people, the microlight people doing cropspraying, and probably many other ways like using homebuilts or experimentals for ab initio flight training and or conversions.
The CAA must have borne this in mind when they developed Part 96, which is the commercial use of non type certified aircraft. I understand that the SACAA planned the development of Part 96 in consultation with ICAO, and is apparently the pioneers on the commercial use of non type certified aircraft.
I am also pretty sure that the CAA evaluated the implimentation of this Part very carefully through constructive dialogue with role players in the industry, and knowing the industry, they would never have consented to the implimentation of such an act, if they themselves would not have been happy with it. So lets see how its all going to pan out.