V&A in court bid to keep Huey chopper on the ground
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town (where else?)
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V&A in court bid to keep Huey chopper on the ground
No one can accuse the Huey of being publicity shy 
From todays Cape Times:
--------------------
V&A in court bid to keep Huey chopper on the ground
February 13, 2004
By Fatima Schroeder
The V&A Waterfront has lodged an urgent application in the Cape High Court to prevent a helicopter company from operating from its premises pending the lifting of a grounding order by the Civil Aviation Authority.
On January 7, the authority issued a grounding order after officials were allegedly denied access to maintenance records and could not establish the airworthiness of a Huey helicopter.
The grounding order could be lifted by a court or by agreement with the authority if the Huey Extreme Club can assure it that suspected defects in the Huey have been remedied.
Despite this, the chopper continued to be flown until January 17, when it made a forced landing in Cape Town. It wasn't flown again until January 29.
During the weekend of January 30 and 31, the attorney representing the Huey Extreme Club and Helicopter and Marine Services advised the Waterfront's attorney that the helicopter would not fly until February 2.
This followed a threat from the Waterfront to apply for an urgent order to stop it flying.
On January 31, the club appealed to the authority to lift the grounding order. If this did not occur by February 2, the club would seek an urgent court order to set it aside. The aviation authority declined to do so.
On February 3, the respondents flew the helicopter again. They did not file an application for a court order.
Counsel for the V&A submitted there could be no doubt that, if the helicopter continued to fly and was involved in an accident, it could damage life, limb or property.
Helicopter and Marine Services and the Huey Extreme Club said the Huey's safety record was "impeccable" and its condition "exemplary" and that the Waterfront had not made out a case that there was a safety risk.
From todays Cape Times:
--------------------
V&A in court bid to keep Huey chopper on the ground
February 13, 2004
By Fatima Schroeder
The V&A Waterfront has lodged an urgent application in the Cape High Court to prevent a helicopter company from operating from its premises pending the lifting of a grounding order by the Civil Aviation Authority.
On January 7, the authority issued a grounding order after officials were allegedly denied access to maintenance records and could not establish the airworthiness of a Huey helicopter.
The grounding order could be lifted by a court or by agreement with the authority if the Huey Extreme Club can assure it that suspected defects in the Huey have been remedied.
Despite this, the chopper continued to be flown until January 17, when it made a forced landing in Cape Town. It wasn't flown again until January 29.
During the weekend of January 30 and 31, the attorney representing the Huey Extreme Club and Helicopter and Marine Services advised the Waterfront's attorney that the helicopter would not fly until February 2.
This followed a threat from the Waterfront to apply for an urgent order to stop it flying.
On January 31, the club appealed to the authority to lift the grounding order. If this did not occur by February 2, the club would seek an urgent court order to set it aside. The aviation authority declined to do so.
On February 3, the respondents flew the helicopter again. They did not file an application for a court order.
Counsel for the V&A submitted there could be no doubt that, if the helicopter continued to fly and was involved in an accident, it could damage life, limb or property.
Helicopter and Marine Services and the Huey Extreme Club said the Huey's safety record was "impeccable" and its condition "exemplary" and that the Waterfront had not made out a case that there was a safety risk.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai
Age: 56
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZU registrations
I am all in favour of keeping ex-war birds in the air. I think the CAA has taken the correct view in terms of using ZU reg flying contraptions for commercial use.
It requires that the aircraft be maintained to commercial standard, even though no CofA has been issued. This is to protect the flying public from plasters and clewing gum.
I hear via the grape vine that most of the components on the Hueys have NO component records. To the extent that 1 of the airframe serial numbers is not for a Huey, but a Jet Ranger!
If this is the case, I would hope the CAA do something!!! Its in all our interests.
It requires that the aircraft be maintained to commercial standard, even though no CofA has been issued. This is to protect the flying public from plasters and clewing gum.
I hear via the grape vine that most of the components on the Hueys have NO component records. To the extent that 1 of the airframe serial numbers is not for a Huey, but a Jet Ranger!
If this is the case, I would hope the CAA do something!!! Its in all our interests.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cape Town SA and Manchester UK
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having followed this saga from a distance it appears that there is a campaign against the Huey from various character's whose businesses have lost out from the Huey's success.
I notice that the Huey camp are open, frank and generally very candid about their situation but we hear very little from the other side.
Doubtless justice will prevail but I'm slightly bemused by the one sided press statement by the V & A Waterfront. It is hardly objective from an organisation that should be neutral in this case. It seems the V & A Waterfront has swallowed the lies being perpetuated about the Huey.
I'm sure the specific allegations/lies about the Huey will be rebutted by those in the know.
As for the issue of commercial operation using ZU registered a/c.....it seems a but of a grey area. Thunder City is undoubtedly a commercial operation and their kit is all ZU registered. Flying schools use Jabiru for flight training which is also an a/c that is commonly on the ZU register.
I hope that whatever the CAA do they enable the Huey to keep flying safely. Given the goings on with CAA it appears that they do seem incapable of organising a piss up in a brewery.
I notice that the Huey camp are open, frank and generally very candid about their situation but we hear very little from the other side.
Doubtless justice will prevail but I'm slightly bemused by the one sided press statement by the V & A Waterfront. It is hardly objective from an organisation that should be neutral in this case. It seems the V & A Waterfront has swallowed the lies being perpetuated about the Huey.
I'm sure the specific allegations/lies about the Huey will be rebutted by those in the know.
As for the issue of commercial operation using ZU registered a/c.....it seems a but of a grey area. Thunder City is undoubtedly a commercial operation and their kit is all ZU registered. Flying schools use Jabiru for flight training which is also an a/c that is commonly on the ZU register.
I hope that whatever the CAA do they enable the Huey to keep flying safely. Given the goings on with CAA it appears that they do seem incapable of organising a piss up in a brewery.
Quite how anyone can claim to operate a helicopter to a commercial standard without complete component records defies imagination.
What is the origin of these machines?
Out of interest, what are the Serial Numbers and Registrations, any ex-military ID's?
I have read quite a bit about them here on PPRuNe (and followed the fighting) but would be interested in some factual information.
What is the origin of these machines?
Out of interest, what are the Serial Numbers and Registrations, any ex-military ID's?
I have read quite a bit about them here on PPRuNe (and followed the fighting) but would be interested in some factual information.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HUEY HISTORY LESSON
This Huey (now ZU-CVC)served with the USMC from 1967 till 1974 for a total of 2501 hours during which time it had 2 majors done at home in the US. The aircraft was sold via Israel Aircraft Industries to Ethiopia where it served for about 400 hours.
This Huey along with 3 others was earmarked for refit from 1989 by Agusta Bell but the project died halfway due to African financial woes.
The aircraft were purchased with a collection of 39 airplanes and brought to Johannesburg in 1997. Some of these were sold off and some rebuilt.
The Huey ser 9078 /66-16884 (TTSN 3000.00) was rebuilt from scratch at a private airfield in Johannesburg over a period of 2.5 years.
This aircraft was made fully AD and SB compliant as applied to Bell 205 manuals and not UH-1H. Records of all the components and times were traced from the original suppliers and updated.
The aircraft was sold to a buyer in Cape Town who took advantage of the brilliant new rules governing use of non type certificated airplanes in RSA.
In order to obtain a certificate to fly the aircraft still had to go through the normal process of inspection and audit by the CAA.
Additionally some 40 hours of proving flight had to be done before a operating C of A was issued.
Finally thanks to a brilliant business plan the Huey was able to take warbird lovers and curious public club members on a real Huey before only seen in movies in South Africa.
Unfortunately the opposition saw it as a threat to their businesses and created all sorts of stories to get the machine grounded. This achieved what must be a record of inspection by the CAA on one aircraft. (more than 20 in one year)
The said Huey has now flown nearly 500 hours without trouble proving its total reliability. Unfortunately all aircraft including Boeings and opposition helicopters do have snags. A few small problems which were attended to like any normal organisation were blown up into nightmares by the opposition causing the CAA to react negatively and influence the V&A management.
FACT:
The Huey has got ALL its component records (verified by CAA)
All the bulletins and mods have been done
All the proper and more maintenance has been done as per Bell and military manuals.
The second machine is nearly ready!!!!
Do any of you negative #@&%(*&#@ out there really believe that an engineer with any integrity would allow 14 people with family and kids to fly in a machine with doubtful history??
Signed,
The Hueys Chief Kennel Keeper.
[email protected]
This Huey along with 3 others was earmarked for refit from 1989 by Agusta Bell but the project died halfway due to African financial woes.
The aircraft were purchased with a collection of 39 airplanes and brought to Johannesburg in 1997. Some of these were sold off and some rebuilt.
The Huey ser 9078 /66-16884 (TTSN 3000.00) was rebuilt from scratch at a private airfield in Johannesburg over a period of 2.5 years.
This aircraft was made fully AD and SB compliant as applied to Bell 205 manuals and not UH-1H. Records of all the components and times were traced from the original suppliers and updated.
The aircraft was sold to a buyer in Cape Town who took advantage of the brilliant new rules governing use of non type certificated airplanes in RSA.
In order to obtain a certificate to fly the aircraft still had to go through the normal process of inspection and audit by the CAA.
Additionally some 40 hours of proving flight had to be done before a operating C of A was issued.
Finally thanks to a brilliant business plan the Huey was able to take warbird lovers and curious public club members on a real Huey before only seen in movies in South Africa.
Unfortunately the opposition saw it as a threat to their businesses and created all sorts of stories to get the machine grounded. This achieved what must be a record of inspection by the CAA on one aircraft. (more than 20 in one year)
The said Huey has now flown nearly 500 hours without trouble proving its total reliability. Unfortunately all aircraft including Boeings and opposition helicopters do have snags. A few small problems which were attended to like any normal organisation were blown up into nightmares by the opposition causing the CAA to react negatively and influence the V&A management.
FACT:
The Huey has got ALL its component records (verified by CAA)
All the bulletins and mods have been done
All the proper and more maintenance has been done as per Bell and military manuals.
The second machine is nearly ready!!!!
Do any of you negative #@&%(*&#@ out there really believe that an engineer with any integrity would allow 14 people with family and kids to fly in a machine with doubtful history??
Signed,
The Hueys Chief Kennel Keeper.
[email protected]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town (where else?)
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd just like to add to Kennel Keepers post. (Good to see you're still here!)
I remember looking at ZU-CVC in November 2002 (IIRC, just before she flew) and even took photos of the con plate, detailing the make, c/n no and serial.
I remember looking at ZU-CVC in November 2002 (IIRC, just before she flew) and even took photos of the con plate, detailing the make, c/n no and serial.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Huey Requirements
Hi All,
From what I understand (from a legislation point of view) the Huey being ZU registered has to be operated under a Class III air service license, issued by the DOT. CAA then issues an AOC upon the approval of the Ops Manual.
I’ve also been told that the V&A has certain requirements when operating from the heli-pad at the V&A, eg floatation gear, rotor blade diameter etc. Then there is also the question of insurance.
Does this Huey comply with these requirements?
Thanks for a great forum!
From what I understand (from a legislation point of view) the Huey being ZU registered has to be operated under a Class III air service license, issued by the DOT. CAA then issues an AOC upon the approval of the Ops Manual.
I’ve also been told that the V&A has certain requirements when operating from the heli-pad at the V&A, eg floatation gear, rotor blade diameter etc. Then there is also the question of insurance.
Does this Huey comply with these requirements?
Thanks for a great forum!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I guess after more than 20 inspections BY the CAA, they would have covered that as well, not sure but do the other operators use flotation gear
Victimasation I'd say due to jealousy
I love seeing that jopper fly and man o man that sound
Victimasation I'd say due to jealousy I love seeing that jopper fly and man o man that sound
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone said to me the other day that he really misses the saga surrounding the Huey, and that pprune has been a bit boring lately without the latest Huey news. Well, my friend, here is my latest contribution.
I fail to understand why this helicopter has attracted so much attention. Is it because its unique and not many people here in SA have seen a "real Huey", or is it because its a great hit and making money? Bear in mind that the Huey saga was started by the opposition as far back as December 2002. It is stil dragging on, and has now dragged on for the last 13 months.
During the 13 months, the Huey has flown approximately 500 hours, and transported about 5000 club members. 500 Hours of flying for any one helicopter in one year is a lot of flying, and probably a fair producer of revenue, taking into consideration that the average hourly revenue of the Huey has been in the region of R15 000 per hour. I personally think that this is the main reason why this helicopter has attracted so much attention. Not because its a bad machine, or because its flown by "idiots", or because its being operated in a "grey area" of the Law, but simply because it has made money, and this has p1ssed off the opposition.During the last 13 months, none of the Cape Town Helicopter Operators had anything good to say about the Huey and it's operation. (I wish I could post an email here received from a friend who received an emailed opinion on the Huey from a staff member in the employ of the operator that operates those big Red, Blue & White Helicopters. My goodness, what a nopinion that was. Should be published in a flying magazine.)In actual fact, only one of the 9 or 10 cape Town based operators had the decency to phone up and congratulate us. The gentleman told me that the Huey had certainly affected his business, pulled a big chunk of his revenue, but that it was a unique concept, and that he wished us well in our future endeavours. I thought that was pretty decent. If you're wondering who it was, I can assure you it was'nt Elvis!
During the last 13 months, we have also had many visits to our hangar/facilities by locals and foreigners. Even by the CAA. Some came to offer encouragement, whilst others came to take photographs of the rebuilds at our AMO. Some came to ask questions to educate themselves, and some just came to check out the Hueys. Some of the CAA inspectors became honorary club members, and some flew on the Huey during route checks or during routine inspections. Our friends from the CAA. Great guys!
Our business has always been pretty open, totally transparent and factual to the point. We have taken cognisance of the rumours, the hearsay, the condemnation and the CAA visits, and through it all, we went about conducting our business in such a way that the Huey was able to fly 500 incident/accident free hours. No one got hurt, no one was killed, the helicopter was'nt written off or damaged, and most important of all, we weathered all the bullsh1t that was created by mostly our opposition. The "accident waiting to happen", fortunately did not happen,(yet) and surely anyone concerned with aviation safety must wonder why? Why did this helicopter fly 500 hours in one year without any incident or accident? Was it luck, or can one subscribe it to good, healthy maintenance, a professional approach to the operation and professional airmanship? Surely "The proof of the pudding is in the eating?"
Having digested some of the latest postings, I would like to comment as follows:
Cleric: I see that you are a new member, and that your first posting is on the Huey. Welcome to pprune. For your info:
A Standard Operating Procedure (Sop's) were put into place by the Waterfront Company on insistance of the CAA, and all the Waterfront Helicopter Operators participated in the drafting of the SOP's. Countles meetings were held with the V&A Waterfront Company, the CA and the Operators. A couple of the issues that affected the Huey operation from the V&A was the fact that the other 3 V&A operators wanted the definition of "a light helicopter" to be (re) classified as a helicopter with a mass not exceeding 3500 kg, and not as 5700kg as officially described in the CAR's. You can only wonder but why? The Huey's AUW falls outside of the 3500kg category, but inside of the official "light helicopter" classification of 5700 kg. The second issue was the blade diameter. They said that no helicopter with a blade diameter exceeding 14 meters should be operated from the V&A Helipad. The Huey's blade diameter falls marginally outside of that. Then there was the issue of flotation gear. When the Huey originally came to the Waterfront, the opposition labelled it as unsafe, an accident waiting to happen etc. The reason? It was being flown without flotation gear. At that time, not every V&A operator was operating helicopters equipped with flotation gear, and after the persistent "hoo-haa" of the flotation gear, the CAA decided that ALL helicopters operating out of the V&A should be equipped with flotation gear. That meant that every light helicopter operating out of the V&A, must be float equipped. Then the very people who raised the Huey flotation gear issue, were forced to equip their machines with floats. Boy, you should have heard the moaning and groaning. Unfairness, bullsh1t, unnecessary, were but a few words that were expressed. We did not agree with the light helicopter story, the blade diameter story and the flotation gear requirement, and deleted it from our copies of the SOP's before it was signed and forwarded to the V&A Waterfront Company and the CAA. So no one can accuse us of being hypocrytes. We've disagreed with those three conditions right from the start, and we've stuck by it. Some of the opposition operators acquired floats, some asked for excemption, some continued to operate without floats etc. The VERY people that consistently moan about the flotation gear requirement, and who continuously slate the lack of flotation gear on the Huey, however, continues to sub-charter helicopters from the Airport based operators for operation out of the V&A. These helicopters are NOT equipped with flotation gear, and these helicopters are a common site at the V&A Waterfront helipad from time to time. So its OK for the opposition to charter helicopters operating from the V&A with no floats, but it is not OK for the Huey to operate out of the V&A with no floats? With regards to your insurance concern. The Huey meets all the requirements in terms of the law.
Cyclic Hotline: I think that Kennel-Keeper explained himself pretty well when he gave the history on the machine.
Avi8tor: I do not know what your interest in aviation is, how much experience you've got, and / or from who(m) you get your information. All I can say to you is that you obviously know nothing about Part 94 or Part 96. Do yourself a favour, read it and educate yourself a bit. Your statement from your posting that the Huey has no component records and that one part or serial number is that of a Jetranger and not of a Huey, is not ridiculous, but totally pathetic. Do you know anything about part and serial numbers? Do you know the difference between a Huey and a Jetranger? Do you really think that we are that stupid my man? Come on squire, get a life! Do you really think that the CAA, who meticulously inspected this helicopter prior to issueing it with a CofA would be so stupid to let such a thing happen? Do you really think so little of the CAA, their inspectors and their ability?
For the rest, it is sad that some people in the aviation industry had to stoop to levels that I have observed during this last year. One can only but wonder if it is driven by animosity and greed? Some people's obsessive behaviour and their consistent interference, fabrications and filming of the Huey operation leaves much to be desired. One can only but sympathise with these people, as their behaviour is indicative of "irrational behaviour", and of ones that have been deeply affected by the presence of the Huey here at the Waterfront.
For 12 months now we have heard of one opposition company in the Waterfront buying a Huey. We've heard reports and rumours from various sources that it was on the water, that it would be arriving in Cape Town soon, that its a definate etc, but to date, nothing has transpired. We've heard about this, but we've not seen a Huey yet. Its a pity that these people don't put their money where their mouth is, because can you imagine a squadron of Hueys filling the skies around Cape Town?
Perhaps if they do put their money where their mouth is, they will concentrate on running their own Huey and refrain from interfering with the operation of ours. Good luck to you guys!
Should any one interested in the Huey require more information, feel free to email me on [email protected]
Safe flying guys!
I fail to understand why this helicopter has attracted so much attention. Is it because its unique and not many people here in SA have seen a "real Huey", or is it because its a great hit and making money? Bear in mind that the Huey saga was started by the opposition as far back as December 2002. It is stil dragging on, and has now dragged on for the last 13 months.
During the 13 months, the Huey has flown approximately 500 hours, and transported about 5000 club members. 500 Hours of flying for any one helicopter in one year is a lot of flying, and probably a fair producer of revenue, taking into consideration that the average hourly revenue of the Huey has been in the region of R15 000 per hour. I personally think that this is the main reason why this helicopter has attracted so much attention. Not because its a bad machine, or because its flown by "idiots", or because its being operated in a "grey area" of the Law, but simply because it has made money, and this has p1ssed off the opposition.During the last 13 months, none of the Cape Town Helicopter Operators had anything good to say about the Huey and it's operation. (I wish I could post an email here received from a friend who received an emailed opinion on the Huey from a staff member in the employ of the operator that operates those big Red, Blue & White Helicopters. My goodness, what a nopinion that was. Should be published in a flying magazine.)In actual fact, only one of the 9 or 10 cape Town based operators had the decency to phone up and congratulate us. The gentleman told me that the Huey had certainly affected his business, pulled a big chunk of his revenue, but that it was a unique concept, and that he wished us well in our future endeavours. I thought that was pretty decent. If you're wondering who it was, I can assure you it was'nt Elvis!
During the last 13 months, we have also had many visits to our hangar/facilities by locals and foreigners. Even by the CAA. Some came to offer encouragement, whilst others came to take photographs of the rebuilds at our AMO. Some came to ask questions to educate themselves, and some just came to check out the Hueys. Some of the CAA inspectors became honorary club members, and some flew on the Huey during route checks or during routine inspections. Our friends from the CAA. Great guys!
Our business has always been pretty open, totally transparent and factual to the point. We have taken cognisance of the rumours, the hearsay, the condemnation and the CAA visits, and through it all, we went about conducting our business in such a way that the Huey was able to fly 500 incident/accident free hours. No one got hurt, no one was killed, the helicopter was'nt written off or damaged, and most important of all, we weathered all the bullsh1t that was created by mostly our opposition. The "accident waiting to happen", fortunately did not happen,(yet) and surely anyone concerned with aviation safety must wonder why? Why did this helicopter fly 500 hours in one year without any incident or accident? Was it luck, or can one subscribe it to good, healthy maintenance, a professional approach to the operation and professional airmanship? Surely "The proof of the pudding is in the eating?"
Having digested some of the latest postings, I would like to comment as follows:
Cleric: I see that you are a new member, and that your first posting is on the Huey. Welcome to pprune. For your info:
A Standard Operating Procedure (Sop's) were put into place by the Waterfront Company on insistance of the CAA, and all the Waterfront Helicopter Operators participated in the drafting of the SOP's. Countles meetings were held with the V&A Waterfront Company, the CA and the Operators. A couple of the issues that affected the Huey operation from the V&A was the fact that the other 3 V&A operators wanted the definition of "a light helicopter" to be (re) classified as a helicopter with a mass not exceeding 3500 kg, and not as 5700kg as officially described in the CAR's. You can only wonder but why? The Huey's AUW falls outside of the 3500kg category, but inside of the official "light helicopter" classification of 5700 kg. The second issue was the blade diameter. They said that no helicopter with a blade diameter exceeding 14 meters should be operated from the V&A Helipad. The Huey's blade diameter falls marginally outside of that. Then there was the issue of flotation gear. When the Huey originally came to the Waterfront, the opposition labelled it as unsafe, an accident waiting to happen etc. The reason? It was being flown without flotation gear. At that time, not every V&A operator was operating helicopters equipped with flotation gear, and after the persistent "hoo-haa" of the flotation gear, the CAA decided that ALL helicopters operating out of the V&A should be equipped with flotation gear. That meant that every light helicopter operating out of the V&A, must be float equipped. Then the very people who raised the Huey flotation gear issue, were forced to equip their machines with floats. Boy, you should have heard the moaning and groaning. Unfairness, bullsh1t, unnecessary, were but a few words that were expressed. We did not agree with the light helicopter story, the blade diameter story and the flotation gear requirement, and deleted it from our copies of the SOP's before it was signed and forwarded to the V&A Waterfront Company and the CAA. So no one can accuse us of being hypocrytes. We've disagreed with those three conditions right from the start, and we've stuck by it. Some of the opposition operators acquired floats, some asked for excemption, some continued to operate without floats etc. The VERY people that consistently moan about the flotation gear requirement, and who continuously slate the lack of flotation gear on the Huey, however, continues to sub-charter helicopters from the Airport based operators for operation out of the V&A. These helicopters are NOT equipped with flotation gear, and these helicopters are a common site at the V&A Waterfront helipad from time to time. So its OK for the opposition to charter helicopters operating from the V&A with no floats, but it is not OK for the Huey to operate out of the V&A with no floats? With regards to your insurance concern. The Huey meets all the requirements in terms of the law.
Cyclic Hotline: I think that Kennel-Keeper explained himself pretty well when he gave the history on the machine.
Avi8tor: I do not know what your interest in aviation is, how much experience you've got, and / or from who(m) you get your information. All I can say to you is that you obviously know nothing about Part 94 or Part 96. Do yourself a favour, read it and educate yourself a bit. Your statement from your posting that the Huey has no component records and that one part or serial number is that of a Jetranger and not of a Huey, is not ridiculous, but totally pathetic. Do you know anything about part and serial numbers? Do you know the difference between a Huey and a Jetranger? Do you really think that we are that stupid my man? Come on squire, get a life! Do you really think that the CAA, who meticulously inspected this helicopter prior to issueing it with a CofA would be so stupid to let such a thing happen? Do you really think so little of the CAA, their inspectors and their ability?
For the rest, it is sad that some people in the aviation industry had to stoop to levels that I have observed during this last year. One can only but wonder if it is driven by animosity and greed? Some people's obsessive behaviour and their consistent interference, fabrications and filming of the Huey operation leaves much to be desired. One can only but sympathise with these people, as their behaviour is indicative of "irrational behaviour", and of ones that have been deeply affected by the presence of the Huey here at the Waterfront.
For 12 months now we have heard of one opposition company in the Waterfront buying a Huey. We've heard reports and rumours from various sources that it was on the water, that it would be arriving in Cape Town soon, that its a definate etc, but to date, nothing has transpired. We've heard about this, but we've not seen a Huey yet. Its a pity that these people don't put their money where their mouth is, because can you imagine a squadron of Hueys filling the skies around Cape Town?
Perhaps if they do put their money where their mouth is, they will concentrate on running their own Huey and refrain from interfering with the operation of ours. Good luck to you guys!
Should any one interested in the Huey require more information, feel free to email me on [email protected]
Safe flying guys!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since moving from the UK to Cape Town I have followed this thread with interest. I have an apartment on the beach front in Table View and always welcomed the unique sound of the Huey when it flew past. Unlike some of the other helicopters that sometimes fly a bit too low over the ocean.
But I do think that in some cases your CAA gets it right. There is a lot of aviation nuts in the UK who would give their back teeth to see a Lightning, Buccaneer or Hunter in all their glory. Yet you guys have them on your doorstep.
But I do think that in some cases your CAA gets it right. There is a lot of aviation nuts in the UK who would give their back teeth to see a Lightning, Buccaneer or Hunter in all their glory. Yet you guys have them on your doorstep.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supreme Court Ruling
Following the sensational one sided media reports on this matter, as well as the subsequent Court Case, Judge Comrie ruled on the matter this morning.
It will be interesting to see if the Newspapers will report the judgement. We have learnt from experience, that the Newspapers always only publish the negative side by creating negative sensation, and making out that we are always in the wrong. The newspapers have yet to report anything positive on the Huey.
The Order is straight to the point and rules that The Aplication by the Waterfront Company (who was joined by the CAA) to have the Huey banned from operating from the Waterfront be dismissed with costs against the Waterfront Company and the CAA.
So justice prevails! The Huey can fly from the Waterfront!
The CAA's involvement in this matter and in their affadavids clearly showed their "male fides" once again, and still leaves many unanswered questions.
One can only but wonder what the real intention of the CAA and their inspectors are, and what was meant by one inspector when he stated "there is nothing that money can't fix!"
I rest my case.
To the many people that have supported us, many thanks. To our Club members who stood squarely behind us, thank you too. To all the others that called and visited and offered encouragement, thank you all. To all the emailers, thanks guys. It once again proved that the Huey is a hit, and that there are far more "far sighted" people in this world. More so than the few jealous opposition companies and individuals.
Safe flying guys!
It will be interesting to see if the Newspapers will report the judgement. We have learnt from experience, that the Newspapers always only publish the negative side by creating negative sensation, and making out that we are always in the wrong. The newspapers have yet to report anything positive on the Huey.
The Order is straight to the point and rules that The Aplication by the Waterfront Company (who was joined by the CAA) to have the Huey banned from operating from the Waterfront be dismissed with costs against the Waterfront Company and the CAA.
So justice prevails! The Huey can fly from the Waterfront!
The CAA's involvement in this matter and in their affadavids clearly showed their "male fides" once again, and still leaves many unanswered questions.
One can only but wonder what the real intention of the CAA and their inspectors are, and what was meant by one inspector when he stated "there is nothing that money can't fix!"
I rest my case.
To the many people that have supported us, many thanks. To our Club members who stood squarely behind us, thank you too. To all the others that called and visited and offered encouragement, thank you all. To all the emailers, thanks guys. It once again proved that the Huey is a hit, and that there are far more "far sighted" people in this world. More so than the few jealous opposition companies and individuals.
Safe flying guys!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SA
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done fellas! The phrase "Never give up" certainly applies to you guys. Just shows you. I have just read the Order from the Court file, and the Judge lambasted the V&A Waterfront and the CAA, and ordered costs against them. Well done Gary & Francois!The Judge, obviously, carefully studied all the Court papers, as his judgement handed down today comes two weeks after the Court case.
So poor "ol Elvis" must be "singing the blues", as once again he did not get his way. Its amazing that this guy has tried just about everything in the book to try and stop the Huey, and that includes lying, fabricating stories and creating false impressions. Its rather pathetic, but I hope the flying public out there now realises that the Huey Operation is not a "maverick" operation, but legitimate, and that "Ol Blue Suede Shoes" is the maverick and the fake.
Keep flying guys, we love that sound
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great stuff. Congratulations!What still amazes me most out of this entire saga is what the CAA's Agenda is in this matter. They lose a Court battle in December 2003, where the Judge tells them in no uncertain terms that their "grounding" of the said helicopter is invalid.
Negotiations follow and the next thing they do is they issue a second "grounding" on January 7, 2004 based upon the fact that they were denied access to the helicopter and its records. Surely that does not constitute a valid grounding?? No inspection but a grounding?? What are these guys????
Then they ask the Waterfront Company to be joined in their action against the Huey, and they lose that with costs as well. Does'nt make sense!
The CAA is either "bent" on getting their way with the grounding of the Huey, or their legal department is plain "dof". Boy oh boy, what a bunch of lunatics! Have they not learnt yet that the only thing guaranteed in litigation are the lawyers fees??
So it appears that this "Vendetta" against the Huey has now cost the CAA at least a Million Bucks in ordered legal fees, which at the end of the day, comes from us flying public's pockets. Raised renewal fees, raised application fees et al, and many more, just to satisfy the prosecuting mania of ego driven individuals in the CAA's legal department. Come on Mr. Minister, fire their butts, and concentrate on promoting aviation and not shooting it down. This sort of attitude is no good for civil and recreational aviation in our country. Get rid of these people that have only their own egos and agendas in mind.
By the way, rumour has it that the Executive Offices of the CAA is now called the "transfer lounge"
Pathetic, is all I can think of. 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town (where else?)
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great to see the Huey flying again.
Well, the court ruling did make the Cape Times, but is it just my imagination, or does the report still have an anti-Huey slant?
-----------------------
Waterfront fails to get interdict against helicopter firm, club
February 25, 2004
By Fatima Schroeder
The Cape High Court has dismissed an application by the V&A Waterfront to prevent a Huey helicopter from operating from its premises pending the lifting of a grounding order by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
The owners and manager of the Waterfront lodged the application against Helicopter and Marine Services, the owners, and the Huey Extreme Club, which leases the helicopter.
The CAA grounded the helicopter in December because it was not satisfied with its airworthiness.
But on December 18 the Cape High Court ruled that the club was entitled to operate the helicopter unless the CAA validly grounded it.
A second grounding order was issued on January 7, and is at the centre of the present court application.
The Waterfront's stance was that the grounding order was valid and should be obeyed until it was set aside or lifted.
They also felt that, according to the provisions of the lease between themselves and Helicopter and Marine Services, they were entitled to insist that the grounding order be complied with.
However, the club and Helicopter and Marine Services held the view that the grounding order was invalid and that the helicopter was safe and airworthy.
In a judgment delivered yesterday, Justice Jock Comrie referred to clause 6.8 of the lease agreement, saying it seemed "clear enough" that the club and Helicopter and Marine Services required a certificate in order to operate the helicopter.
He said it was also not disputed that the CAA had the power to ground any aircraft.
Judge Comrie said that allowing the helicopter to operate was a "clear breach" of clause 6.8.
He also found that the Waterfront had a clear right to insist that the grounding order be complied with.
A second requirement for granting a final interdict was whether it was reasonable to believe that injury would follow.
The Waterfront was of the view that the Huey may have an accident or cause damage to property at the Waterfront as well as injury to those aboard and even death.
In such an event, the Waterfront feared that it would be exposed to claims for damages which its insurance and the indemnities of Helicopter and Marine Services and the Huey Extreme Club would not be able to cover.
Judge Comrie said that "a reasonable man looking at all the facts" would, in his opinion, conclude that the chances of the helicopter having an accident due to its not being airworthy were remote.
"If the reasonable man be a man of the world, he would be likely to perceive that the CAA was licking its wounds, and in search of another mode of attack on its quarry," he said.
He said the reasonable man would view the CAA's demands and conduct after the December order "with a healthy dose of scepticism".
Judge Comrie said it followed that the application for an interdict must fail and dismissed the application with costs.
Well, the court ruling did make the Cape Times, but is it just my imagination, or does the report still have an anti-Huey slant?
-----------------------
Waterfront fails to get interdict against helicopter firm, club
February 25, 2004
By Fatima Schroeder
The Cape High Court has dismissed an application by the V&A Waterfront to prevent a Huey helicopter from operating from its premises pending the lifting of a grounding order by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
The owners and manager of the Waterfront lodged the application against Helicopter and Marine Services, the owners, and the Huey Extreme Club, which leases the helicopter.
The CAA grounded the helicopter in December because it was not satisfied with its airworthiness.
But on December 18 the Cape High Court ruled that the club was entitled to operate the helicopter unless the CAA validly grounded it.
A second grounding order was issued on January 7, and is at the centre of the present court application.
The Waterfront's stance was that the grounding order was valid and should be obeyed until it was set aside or lifted.
They also felt that, according to the provisions of the lease between themselves and Helicopter and Marine Services, they were entitled to insist that the grounding order be complied with.
However, the club and Helicopter and Marine Services held the view that the grounding order was invalid and that the helicopter was safe and airworthy.
In a judgment delivered yesterday, Justice Jock Comrie referred to clause 6.8 of the lease agreement, saying it seemed "clear enough" that the club and Helicopter and Marine Services required a certificate in order to operate the helicopter.
He said it was also not disputed that the CAA had the power to ground any aircraft.
Judge Comrie said that allowing the helicopter to operate was a "clear breach" of clause 6.8.
He also found that the Waterfront had a clear right to insist that the grounding order be complied with.
A second requirement for granting a final interdict was whether it was reasonable to believe that injury would follow.
The Waterfront was of the view that the Huey may have an accident or cause damage to property at the Waterfront as well as injury to those aboard and even death.
In such an event, the Waterfront feared that it would be exposed to claims for damages which its insurance and the indemnities of Helicopter and Marine Services and the Huey Extreme Club would not be able to cover.
Judge Comrie said that "a reasonable man looking at all the facts" would, in his opinion, conclude that the chances of the helicopter having an accident due to its not being airworthy were remote.
"If the reasonable man be a man of the world, he would be likely to perceive that the CAA was licking its wounds, and in search of another mode of attack on its quarry," he said.
He said the reasonable man would view the CAA's demands and conduct after the December order "with a healthy dose of scepticism".
Judge Comrie said it followed that the application for an interdict must fail and dismissed the application with costs.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so does this mean...
I hear that the Canadian Air Force are flogging a heap of OH-58 Kiowas (Military JetRanger) for next to nothing...
Does this mean the CAA will let me operate them commercially if i find a license?
Does this mean the CAA will let me operate them commercially if i find a license?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cape Town SA and Manchester UK
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done the Huey
Watching this saga from a distance I can only say well done to the Huey guys. In spite of all the adversity you have pulled through and been vindicated in court.
The reporting in the Cape Times is still very anti the Huey in it's tone. The subtext of the article still alleges wrong doing. I find the attitude of the V & A Waterfront bizarre in the extreme.
Surely they should be encouraging enterprises like the Huey that are unique in order to maintain Cape Town's place in the global tourist market. However I recall about a year ago a report came out saying that the Century City complex had achieved better sales than the Waterfront (or something to that extent) and I remember hearing the V & A spokeswoman on the TV dismiss it with such arrogance and contempt that I could barely believe it. Pride normally goes before a fall and one can only assume that the V & A's strange attitude towards the Huey comes from some sort of corrupt relationship they have with the Huey's failing competition.
The reporting in the Cape Times is still very anti the Huey in it's tone. The subtext of the article still alleges wrong doing. I find the attitude of the V & A Waterfront bizarre in the extreme.
Surely they should be encouraging enterprises like the Huey that are unique in order to maintain Cape Town's place in the global tourist market. However I recall about a year ago a report came out saying that the Century City complex had achieved better sales than the Waterfront (or something to that extent) and I remember hearing the V & A spokeswoman on the TV dismiss it with such arrogance and contempt that I could barely believe it. Pride normally goes before a fall and one can only assume that the V & A's strange attitude towards the Huey comes from some sort of corrupt relationship they have with the Huey's failing competition.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The World, although sometimes I wonder
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done Francois and the lads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cant wait to hear the old Huey flying around again. It certainly looks like it has been a titanic battle and like the ship, one hopes this will now be put to rest and get on with life.
However I fear that old Elvis will try and do something again. It is now high time that he was curtailed, locked in Valkenberg and left alone for a long time.
It still bothers me the things the CAA manages to get up to. This is clearly a case of someone paying the CAA to do their dirty work and remove competitors. A colleague of mine is embroiled in the CAA icw low flying aircraft and they, the CAA, could not be more helpfull. They have gone out of their wasy to help him and assist him, so there is some good in the CAA, or should I rather say, in some parties within the CAA.
It is clear to me that there are rotten parties in the CAA and the quicker they are removed, the better for us all.
The question now, is who is Elvis paying to do his dirty work and how do we get rid of that person?
Cant wait to hear the old Huey flying around again. It certainly looks like it has been a titanic battle and like the ship, one hopes this will now be put to rest and get on with life.
However I fear that old Elvis will try and do something again. It is now high time that he was curtailed, locked in Valkenberg and left alone for a long time.
It still bothers me the things the CAA manages to get up to. This is clearly a case of someone paying the CAA to do their dirty work and remove competitors. A colleague of mine is embroiled in the CAA icw low flying aircraft and they, the CAA, could not be more helpfull. They have gone out of their wasy to help him and assist him, so there is some good in the CAA, or should I rather say, in some parties within the CAA.
It is clear to me that there are rotten parties in the CAA and the quicker they are removed, the better for us all.
The question now, is who is Elvis paying to do his dirty work and how do we get rid of that person?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SA
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Went to visit the Huey Hangar yesterday, and things are looking good there. The Huey certainly looks in good shape. The Engineers have done quite a bit of work on in and installed a rotor brake, which in the South Easter will probably be a blessing.
I can't agree more with Goldfish Jack. The Waterfront Company has taken on a very arrogant stance, and they're quick to go to Court, acting like little boys when they can't get their way. They recently lost a High Court battle by trying to prevent 2 "bergies" from hanging out in the V&A. They're also involved in a Court battle with Cosatu, who claims that they're emplying tooo many whites, that they are racist, and not interested in transformation. Now they've lost the battle with the Huey, but it seems that it really is a case of Egos overruling IQ's.
Now that Elvis has been prevented by a way of a High Court Order not to interfere with the Huey business and not to film it, he has moved onto another dirty tricks campaign. He, his baby kid or his cronies, are now into faxing the "adverse" newspaper reports on the Huey to tourism agencies, tour operators, the CAA, Cape Town tourism, The Minister's office, political parties and everyone he can think of, warning them that the Huey is unsafe to fly in and the peope are risking their lives going near it. One can only but wonder what goes through this guys head, and why he is so hell bent on preventing the Huey from flying? I'm convinced that this guy has become obsessive, and he's most certainly acting that way.
Rumour has it that he has bought a Huey, but that the CAA has denied him an import permit. Whether it is true is to be seen. There are reports going around that some Cape Town Helicopter Engineers and a CAA Engineer wil soon be going to the States to examine the Heli for airworthiness. It is currently, as rumour has it, in the restricted category, and will have to be ZU registered when it gets here. Now why in the world would "crazy ol Elvis" want to have a ZU registered Huey when he has been complaining to the CAA that ZU registered aircraft is unsafe because it is not maintained correctly, and poses a serious safety risk. Why would he want to operate a Huey when he is the one that has complained bitterly to the CAA and the Waterfront Company that a Huey is tooo big for the Waterfront Helipad and that it is a noise risk to the serene Cape Town???
This man obviously thinks that if he gets a Huey, he can compete with the Huey Club, make more money and put them out of business. I must say in defence of Gary, that where he has lead, the others have followed. When he took Quaside offices and bought golf carts to shuttle pax from the Quayside to the helipad, so did the others. They all got kiosks and golf carts to do the same. When Gary gets a Huey, now Elvis must also get a Huey. Nothing wrong with fair competition, but what has brought about the sudden change of mind? Initially Elvis and his baby kid could not get enough of telling the newspapers what a piece of sh1t the Huey was, that its not the right machine for Cape Town, that it is going to destroy the goodwill that had been established with the Cape Town residents because of noise, and all the million other issues.
Well all I can say is that at the end of the day, one will have to see if Elvis' Huey will arrive. One will have to see how it will be registered, how it will be maintained etc. One will also have to see if the Watefront Company will go to Court to prevent it from flying from the pad. One will also have to see what Cluver and NAC/Makana are going to say about another Huey down there.
The Huey boys are quite excited about Elvis getting a Huey. All of them seem to think that it will shift the focus off theirs, and hopefully Elvis will stop interfering with theirs and concentrate on making his own work. I personally don't believe that Elvis can compete with the concept created by the Huey Club, and that he will only be a second fiddle to theirs, but who knows? Maybe he will go into combat with Gary's two Hueys, and at the end of the day, may the best man win.
Come on Elvis, get your Huey my China! We want ACTION!!!!
I can't agree more with Goldfish Jack. The Waterfront Company has taken on a very arrogant stance, and they're quick to go to Court, acting like little boys when they can't get their way. They recently lost a High Court battle by trying to prevent 2 "bergies" from hanging out in the V&A. They're also involved in a Court battle with Cosatu, who claims that they're emplying tooo many whites, that they are racist, and not interested in transformation. Now they've lost the battle with the Huey, but it seems that it really is a case of Egos overruling IQ's.
Now that Elvis has been prevented by a way of a High Court Order not to interfere with the Huey business and not to film it, he has moved onto another dirty tricks campaign. He, his baby kid or his cronies, are now into faxing the "adverse" newspaper reports on the Huey to tourism agencies, tour operators, the CAA, Cape Town tourism, The Minister's office, political parties and everyone he can think of, warning them that the Huey is unsafe to fly in and the peope are risking their lives going near it. One can only but wonder what goes through this guys head, and why he is so hell bent on preventing the Huey from flying? I'm convinced that this guy has become obsessive, and he's most certainly acting that way.
Rumour has it that he has bought a Huey, but that the CAA has denied him an import permit. Whether it is true is to be seen. There are reports going around that some Cape Town Helicopter Engineers and a CAA Engineer wil soon be going to the States to examine the Heli for airworthiness. It is currently, as rumour has it, in the restricted category, and will have to be ZU registered when it gets here. Now why in the world would "crazy ol Elvis" want to have a ZU registered Huey when he has been complaining to the CAA that ZU registered aircraft is unsafe because it is not maintained correctly, and poses a serious safety risk. Why would he want to operate a Huey when he is the one that has complained bitterly to the CAA and the Waterfront Company that a Huey is tooo big for the Waterfront Helipad and that it is a noise risk to the serene Cape Town???
This man obviously thinks that if he gets a Huey, he can compete with the Huey Club, make more money and put them out of business. I must say in defence of Gary, that where he has lead, the others have followed. When he took Quaside offices and bought golf carts to shuttle pax from the Quayside to the helipad, so did the others. They all got kiosks and golf carts to do the same. When Gary gets a Huey, now Elvis must also get a Huey. Nothing wrong with fair competition, but what has brought about the sudden change of mind? Initially Elvis and his baby kid could not get enough of telling the newspapers what a piece of sh1t the Huey was, that its not the right machine for Cape Town, that it is going to destroy the goodwill that had been established with the Cape Town residents because of noise, and all the million other issues.
Well all I can say is that at the end of the day, one will have to see if Elvis' Huey will arrive. One will have to see how it will be registered, how it will be maintained etc. One will also have to see if the Watefront Company will go to Court to prevent it from flying from the pad. One will also have to see what Cluver and NAC/Makana are going to say about another Huey down there.
The Huey boys are quite excited about Elvis getting a Huey. All of them seem to think that it will shift the focus off theirs, and hopefully Elvis will stop interfering with theirs and concentrate on making his own work. I personally don't believe that Elvis can compete with the concept created by the Huey Club, and that he will only be a second fiddle to theirs, but who knows? Maybe he will go into combat with Gary's two Hueys, and at the end of the day, may the best man win.
Come on Elvis, get your Huey my China! We want ACTION!!!!
GunsssR4ever
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Out there somewhere ...
Posts: 3,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Making Headlines again ..
Ohh nooo not again .. I can not take a break for a month and the HUEY makes headline news
Well done FM - show that creep with the side burns what we are made off
Fly safe out there all and tx for the free publicity you creeps ...
Gunnzzzz
Well done FM - show that creep with the side burns what we are made off
Fly safe out there all and tx for the free publicity you creeps ...
Gunnzzzz
