The Huey in Capetown (including Huey down)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hallo all Huey fans! Thanks for the calls today.
Interesting stuff, but I'm not going to take the bait.
I resigned from the Huey Organisation courteously during October of 2004 for my own personal reasons, and thats where it ends. When I left, I had no problems with anyone there, and I don't have a problem with anyone there now.
To date and since my resignation, I have not been back there and have had no contact with anyone there, except for two phonecalls I recently received from two of my ex colleagues. What they do or say now is really none of my concern.
End of story.
P.S. REBOUND, check your PM's.
Interesting stuff, but I'm not going to take the bait.
I resigned from the Huey Organisation courteously during October of 2004 for my own personal reasons, and thats where it ends. When I left, I had no problems with anyone there, and I don't have a problem with anyone there now.
To date and since my resignation, I have not been back there and have had no contact with anyone there, except for two phonecalls I recently received from two of my ex colleagues. What they do or say now is really none of my concern.
End of story.
P.S. REBOUND, check your PM's.
SWFA,
My interest in this stems from the history of Restricted Catagory aircraft in the USA...that suggest there always exists a possibility of bad, bogus, out of time, falsely certified parts showing up on an aircraft. That may or may not be the case here and could happen for any number of reasons. I am viewing this as if I were the buyer of the aircraft in question and pose these questions, all of which I think are fair and legitimate.
I am in no way suggesting that is the case here...afterall...my input was based upon straight forward review of news articles and other public sourced information available to anyone who can spell "google.com" and hit an enter key.
When I read of the accident report submitted by Bert, then see an FAA document showing the same aircraft being exported to South Africa...then one can only wonder about the status of that aircraft. The accident report did call into question the tail rotor as being suspect as to being a genuine Bell part did it not? What is the truth on that issue? Was the accident caused by the installation of a bogus part, or improperly repaired part? Or, was the repair done in compliance to existing Bell procedures and the Bell inspector missed out on something that is not reported so far?
Based upon that one accident report, one can only assume the aircraft received major damage. That then brings up the question of whether the airframe now bearing the data plate in question is the same airframe that crashed. SWFA I assume can remove and replace data plates on various airframes can you not? Where in the current aircraft's records is that documented? Was there an airframe change as a result of that crash and the old data plate afixed to a different airframe? What was the original US Army tail number for the aircraft in question....if a buyer had that information, he could then to the VHPA data files and trace the military history of the aircraft and see what kind of combat service the aircraft had if any, what units it was assigned to ....and how it was disposed of. All which would be of interest to a buyer I am sure.
Other general questions arise as well...was the current airframe one of the ex-Singapore airframes imported to the USA by SWFA? Did not that batch of airframes have corrosion problems that lead to some problems with the FAA regarding certification requirements? How successful has the blade modification been where you guys shorten the blades and move the trim tabs....has there not been a lot of cracking on them that force their removal from service?
I think as a buyer, I would want to know where this particular aircraft stands in regard to those issues.
Understand, I love to see the old birds fly....and love to fly them...but I like to know what I am stepping into before I go up. Asking the questions in no way suggests impropriety on the part of SWFA or its South African Agent but rather points out valid concerns about the history of the aircraft.
My interest in this stems from the history of Restricted Catagory aircraft in the USA...that suggest there always exists a possibility of bad, bogus, out of time, falsely certified parts showing up on an aircraft. That may or may not be the case here and could happen for any number of reasons. I am viewing this as if I were the buyer of the aircraft in question and pose these questions, all of which I think are fair and legitimate.
I am in no way suggesting that is the case here...afterall...my input was based upon straight forward review of news articles and other public sourced information available to anyone who can spell "google.com" and hit an enter key.
When I read of the accident report submitted by Bert, then see an FAA document showing the same aircraft being exported to South Africa...then one can only wonder about the status of that aircraft. The accident report did call into question the tail rotor as being suspect as to being a genuine Bell part did it not? What is the truth on that issue? Was the accident caused by the installation of a bogus part, or improperly repaired part? Or, was the repair done in compliance to existing Bell procedures and the Bell inspector missed out on something that is not reported so far?
Based upon that one accident report, one can only assume the aircraft received major damage. That then brings up the question of whether the airframe now bearing the data plate in question is the same airframe that crashed. SWFA I assume can remove and replace data plates on various airframes can you not? Where in the current aircraft's records is that documented? Was there an airframe change as a result of that crash and the old data plate afixed to a different airframe? What was the original US Army tail number for the aircraft in question....if a buyer had that information, he could then to the VHPA data files and trace the military history of the aircraft and see what kind of combat service the aircraft had if any, what units it was assigned to ....and how it was disposed of. All which would be of interest to a buyer I am sure.
Other general questions arise as well...was the current airframe one of the ex-Singapore airframes imported to the USA by SWFA? Did not that batch of airframes have corrosion problems that lead to some problems with the FAA regarding certification requirements? How successful has the blade modification been where you guys shorten the blades and move the trim tabs....has there not been a lot of cracking on them that force their removal from service?
I think as a buyer, I would want to know where this particular aircraft stands in regard to those issues.
Understand, I love to see the old birds fly....and love to fly them...but I like to know what I am stepping into before I go up. Asking the questions in no way suggests impropriety on the part of SWFA or its South African Agent but rather points out valid concerns about the history of the aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The principals of the company in Florida are most welcome to register.
However, the purported post from them is deleted as both registration and message came from the same computer as Injector in South Africa.
You may be able to nail helicopters together but you have the IT skills of a fetid bucket of dingo's kidneys.
Regards to all seeking clarity in the murky depths,
Rob Lloyd
However, the purported post from them is deleted as both registration and message came from the same computer as Injector in South Africa.
You may be able to nail helicopters together but you have the IT skills of a fetid bucket of dingo's kidneys.
Regards to all seeking clarity in the murky depths,
Rob Lloyd
A listing of USAF aircraft tail numbers dated 18 Feb 05 shows aircraft tail number 64-13980 being registered by the FAA as N37BA which was the number tail number used to export the aircraft to South Africa.
It would seem this aircraft saw service with the US Army, US Navy, the National Guard prior to being removed from government service. At least one airframe bearing that number on the data plate had that service anyway. Somewhere in all of the aircraft records should be the information to demonstrate the history of that data plate.
Once again....caution should be used when considering this data...it is not the official source but is supposed to have been taken from official records at some time in the past.
The VHPA Gold book data for that tail number:
Helicopter UH-1B 64-13980
Information on U.S. Army helicopter UH-1B tail number 64-13980
The Army purchased this helicopter 0365
Total flight hours at this point: 00001175
Date: 05/13/67
Unit: 20 TC CO
This was a Combat incident. This helicopter was REPAIRED IN THEATER
This was a Recon mission for Armed Recon
Unknown this helicopter was Landing at 0500 feet and 080 knots.
South Vietnam
Helicopter took 1 hits from:
Small Arms/Automatic Weapons; Gun launched non-explosive ballistic projectiles less than 20 mm in size. (7.62MM)
The helicopter was hit in the Bottom
Systems damaged were: MAIN ROTOR SYS, STRUCTURE
The helicopter Continued Flight.
The aircraft continued and accomplished all mission objectives.
Original source(s) and document(s) from which the incident was created or updated: Survivability/Vulnerability Information Analysis Center Helicopter database. Also: LNOF, 72671, ARADM, JSIDR (Lindenmuth Old Format Data Base. Joint Services Incident Damage Report. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information on U.S. Army helicopter UH-1B tail number 64-13980
The Army purchased this helicopter 0365
Total flight hours at this point: 00001175
Date: 07/07/67
Unit: 611 TC CO
This was a Combat incident. This helicopter was REPAIRED IN THEATER
This was a Recon mission for Armed Recon
Unknown this helicopter was Unknown at UNK feet and UNK knots.
Unknown
Helicopter took 1 hits from:
Small Arms/Automatic Weapons; Gun launched non-explosive ballistic projectiles less than 20 mm in size. (7.62MM)
The helicopter was hit in the Forward area
Systems damaged were: MAIN ROTOR SYS
The helicopter Continued Flight.
The aircraft continued and accomplished all mission objectives.
Original source(s) and document(s) from which the incident was created or updated: Survivability/Vulnerability Information Analysis Center Helicopter database. Also: LNOF, 74262, HDSV (Lindenmuth Old Format Data Base. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information on U.S. Army helicopter UH-1B tail number 64-13980
The Army purchased this helicopter 0365
Total flight hours at this point: 00001530
Date: 06/19/69
Unit: 238 AVN
This was a Combat incident. This helicopter was REPAIRED IN THEATER
for Close Air Support
While On Target this helicopter was Attacking at 0500 feet and 060 knots.
South Vietnam
Helicopter took 1 hits from:
Small Arms/Automatic Weapons; Gun launched non-explosive ballistic projectiles less than 20 mm in size. (7.62MM)
The helicopter was hit in the Right Side
Systems damaged were: UNK
The helicopter Continued Flight.
The aircraft continued and accomplished all mission objectives.
Original source(s) and document(s) from which the incident was created or updated: Survivability/Vulnerability Information Analysis Center Helicopter database. Also: UH1P3, 17003 ()
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is Goldbook information on US Army helicopter UH-1B tail number 64-13980
It is provided here as an ESTIMATE of the history of this helicopter and is not intended to be the final authority.
This helicopter was purchased by the US Army in 0365.
Please provide any additional information on this helicopter to the VHPA.
DATE FLT HRS UIC UNIT AREA POST COUNTRY
6610 43 941 WC7ZAA 155 AVN CO VIETNAM RVN
6611 38 979 WC7ZAA 155 AVN CO VIETNAM RVN
6612 54 1033 WC7ZAA 155 AVN CO VIETNAM RVN
6701 37 1070 3412 ARMY AVN DIV 6TH ARMY DUGWAY PG TEVALCOM
6702 24 1094 3412 ARMY AVN DIV 6TH ARMY DUGWAY PG TEVALCOM
6703 29 1123 3412 POST SUPPLY 6TH ARMY FORT ORD 6TH ARMY
6704 0 1123 3412 ARMY AVN DIV 6TH ARMY DUGWAY PG TEVALCOM
6705 52 1175 WCLGAA 765 TRANS BN VIETNAM RVN
6706 0 1175 WCLUAA 611 TRANS CO DS VIETNAM RVN
6707 0 1175 WCLUAA 611 TRANS CO DS VIETNAM RVN
6708 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC 4TH ARMY NAVAL AIR STA AVCOM
6709 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC 4TH ARMY NAVAL AIR STA AVCOM
6710 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC 4TH ARMY NAVAL AIR STA AVCOM
6711 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC 4TH ARMY NAVAL AIR STA AVCOM
6712 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC 4TH ARMY NAVAL AIR STA AVCOM
6801 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC IN MAINT NAVAL AIR STN AVCOM
6802 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC IN MAINT NAVAL AIR STN AVCOM
6803 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC IN MAINT NAVAL AIR STN AVCOM
6804 2 1177 W0MUAA ARADMAC IN MAINT NAVAL AIR STN AVCOM
6805 26 1203 2422 355 AVN CO 4TH ARMY FORT SILL 4TH ARMY
6806 19 1222 2422 355 AVN CO 4TH ARMY FORT SILL 4TH ARMY
6807 32 1254 2422 OPM SEA NITEOPS 1ST ARMY FORT BELVOIR AMC
6808 24 1278 2454 HHD 44 ENG GP THAILAND PACIFIC
6809 17 1295 2454 HHD 44 ENG GP THAILAND PACIFIC
6810 0 1295 2454 HHD 44 ENG GP THAILAND PACIFIC
6811 10 1305 2454 POST SUPPLY 6TH ARMY FORT ORD 6TH ARMY
6812 5 1310 2454 HHD 44 ENG GP THAILAND PACIFIC
6901 35 1345 2454 HHD 44 ENG GP THAILAND PACIFIC
6902 0 1345 2454 HHD 44 ENG GP THAILAND PACIFIC
6903 3 1348 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6904 54 1402 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6905 75 1477 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6906 53 1530 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6907 84 1614 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6908 80 1694 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6909 52 1746 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6910 65 1811 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6911 100 1911 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6912 99 2010 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7001 65 2075 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7002 30 2105 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7003 93 2198 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7004 46 2244 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7005 71 2315 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7006 70 2385 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7007 9 2394 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7008 69 2463 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7009 44 2507 WEAWLF HEL ATCK LT SQ3 VIETNAM RVN
7010 81 2588 WEAWLF HEL ATCK LT SQ3 VIETNAM RVN
7011 22 2610 WEAWLF HEL ATCK LT SQ3 VIETNAM RVN
7012 59 2669 WEAWLF HEL ATCK LT SQ3 VIETNAM RVN
7101 103 2772 SEAWLF SEAWOLF SQDN 3 VIETNAM RVN
7102 103 2875 SEAWLF SEAWOLF SQDN 3 VIETNAM RVN
7103 117 2992 SEAWLF SEAWOLF SQDN 3 VIETNAM RVN
7104 36 3028 SEAWLF SEAWOLF SQDN 3 VIETNAM RVN
7105 74 3102 SEAWLF SEAWOLF SQDN 3 VIETNAM RVN
7106 107 3209 SEAWLF SEAWOLF SQDN 3 VIETNAM RVN
7107 100 3309 WEAWLF SEAWOLF SQDN 3 VIETNAM RVN
7108 0 3309 W0Y6AA AVSCOM FLT DET 5TH ARMY ST LOUIS AVSCOM
7109 0 3309 W0Y6AA AVSCOM FLT DET 5TH ARMY ST LOUIS AVSCOM
7110 0 3309 W0Y6AA BEL HEL BAILMENT FT WORTH AVSCOM
7111 0 3309 W0Y6AA BEL HEL BAILMENT FT WORTH AVSCOM
7112 1 3310 W0Y6AA ARADMAC IN MAINT NAVAL AIR STN AVSCOM
7201 11 3321 W0MUAA ARADMAC IN MAINT NAVAL AIR STN AVSCOM
7202 17 3338 WQM7T0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7203 28 3366 WQM7T0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7204 21 3387 WQM7T0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7205 27 3414 WQM7T0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7206 54 3468 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7207 24 3492 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7208 0 3492 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7209 0 3492 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7210 0 3492 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7211 0 3492 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7212 0 3492 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7301 1 3493 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7302 0 3493 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7303 3 3496 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7304 6 3502 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7305 12 3514 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7306 30 3544 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7307 20 3564 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7308 26 3590 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7309 18 3608 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7310 17 3625 WPE9D0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7311 15 3640 WPE9D0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7312 0 3640 WPE9D0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7401 4 3644 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7402 1 3645 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7403 0 3645 WQM7T0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7404 5 3650 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7405 23 3673 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7405 23 3673 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7406 4 3677 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7409 5 3699 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7410 17 3716 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7411 9 3725 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7412 17 3742 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7501 3 3745 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7502 5 3750 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7503 13 3763 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7504 13 3776 W0M7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7505 7 3783 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7506 0 3783 W0M7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7507 2 3785 W0M7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7508 18 3803 WP6J99 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7509 3 3806 W8BKAA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7510 2 3808 WP6J99 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7511 13 3821 WP6J99 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7512 5 3826 W7NPAA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final report for the probable cause of the crash noted by Bert in his post....
MIA00LA170
On May 24, 2000, about 0820 eastern daylight time, a Southwest Florida Aviation SW-204, N37BA, registered to and operated by Colony Services Inc. as a Title 14 CFR Part 137 agricultural aerial application flight, crashed in a citrus grove in the vicinity of Fort Pierce, Florida. Instrumental meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed. The helicopter received substantial damage and the commercially-rated pilot, the sole occupant, was not injured. The flight originated from a remote field about 5 minutes before the accident.
According to the pilot, he was at 50 feet agl, and about 35 mph forward flight over an orange grove when he felt a shudder, heard loud cracking noises, and lost directional control. He attempted a forced landing between tree rows, touched down, and lost all control.
According to an FAA inspector, examination of the wreckage site revealed the rotorcraft collided with orange trees and made several rotations and collisions with the terrain before coming to rest on its left side. The tail rotor assembly was found about 400 yards from the wreckage. Inspection of the assembly revealed one of the tail rotor blade tip weights had torn loose, causing an imbalance and separation of the tail rotor assembly from the tail boom at the 90-degree gearbox. The blade data plate was missing and the area where the plate had been factory mounted was raised and painted over.
The tail rotor blade and the tip weight, found later by a ground crewman, were boxed and shipped to Bell Helicopter Textron for failure analysis with FAA oversight. According to the examination report, the cause for the blade tip weight separation was corrosion of the bond-line between the adhesive and the blade skin and corrosion of the bond-line between tip weight and the adhesive around the spar on the lead side of the blade. Screws used for a secondary means of fastening were still attached to the tip weight, and the countersunk screw holes in the blade skin revealed inward dimpling and elongation. A comparison of the reported blade part and serial numbers with the actual features of the blade did not match the Bell Helicopter assembly records. It was revealed that the reported blade and serial number was assembled in 1972 using a Narmco 1113 adhesive, (yellow). The adhesive found on the submitted blade was Narmco 123, (purple), and was used during the time frame, 1966 to 1968. The Bell Helicopter Textron Report No. 20400R-019 is an attachment to this report.
According to the FAA inspector who oversaw the blade examination, the apparent inconsistency between the blade serial number and the color of the tip cap adhesive caused him to request that Bell Helicopter Textron file a "Suspected Unapproved Part" report. This was accomplished on September 15
It would seem this aircraft saw service with the US Army, US Navy, the National Guard prior to being removed from government service. At least one airframe bearing that number on the data plate had that service anyway. Somewhere in all of the aircraft records should be the information to demonstrate the history of that data plate.
Once again....caution should be used when considering this data...it is not the official source but is supposed to have been taken from official records at some time in the past.
The VHPA Gold book data for that tail number:
Helicopter UH-1B 64-13980
Information on U.S. Army helicopter UH-1B tail number 64-13980
The Army purchased this helicopter 0365
Total flight hours at this point: 00001175
Date: 05/13/67
Unit: 20 TC CO
This was a Combat incident. This helicopter was REPAIRED IN THEATER
This was a Recon mission for Armed Recon
Unknown this helicopter was Landing at 0500 feet and 080 knots.
South Vietnam
Helicopter took 1 hits from:
Small Arms/Automatic Weapons; Gun launched non-explosive ballistic projectiles less than 20 mm in size. (7.62MM)
The helicopter was hit in the Bottom
Systems damaged were: MAIN ROTOR SYS, STRUCTURE
The helicopter Continued Flight.
The aircraft continued and accomplished all mission objectives.
Original source(s) and document(s) from which the incident was created or updated: Survivability/Vulnerability Information Analysis Center Helicopter database. Also: LNOF, 72671, ARADM, JSIDR (Lindenmuth Old Format Data Base. Joint Services Incident Damage Report. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information on U.S. Army helicopter UH-1B tail number 64-13980
The Army purchased this helicopter 0365
Total flight hours at this point: 00001175
Date: 07/07/67
Unit: 611 TC CO
This was a Combat incident. This helicopter was REPAIRED IN THEATER
This was a Recon mission for Armed Recon
Unknown this helicopter was Unknown at UNK feet and UNK knots.
Unknown
Helicopter took 1 hits from:
Small Arms/Automatic Weapons; Gun launched non-explosive ballistic projectiles less than 20 mm in size. (7.62MM)
The helicopter was hit in the Forward area
Systems damaged were: MAIN ROTOR SYS
The helicopter Continued Flight.
The aircraft continued and accomplished all mission objectives.
Original source(s) and document(s) from which the incident was created or updated: Survivability/Vulnerability Information Analysis Center Helicopter database. Also: LNOF, 74262, HDSV (Lindenmuth Old Format Data Base. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information on U.S. Army helicopter UH-1B tail number 64-13980
The Army purchased this helicopter 0365
Total flight hours at this point: 00001530
Date: 06/19/69
Unit: 238 AVN
This was a Combat incident. This helicopter was REPAIRED IN THEATER
for Close Air Support
While On Target this helicopter was Attacking at 0500 feet and 060 knots.
South Vietnam
Helicopter took 1 hits from:
Small Arms/Automatic Weapons; Gun launched non-explosive ballistic projectiles less than 20 mm in size. (7.62MM)
The helicopter was hit in the Right Side
Systems damaged were: UNK
The helicopter Continued Flight.
The aircraft continued and accomplished all mission objectives.
Original source(s) and document(s) from which the incident was created or updated: Survivability/Vulnerability Information Analysis Center Helicopter database. Also: UH1P3, 17003 ()
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is Goldbook information on US Army helicopter UH-1B tail number 64-13980
It is provided here as an ESTIMATE of the history of this helicopter and is not intended to be the final authority.
This helicopter was purchased by the US Army in 0365.
Please provide any additional information on this helicopter to the VHPA.
DATE FLT HRS UIC UNIT AREA POST COUNTRY
6610 43 941 WC7ZAA 155 AVN CO VIETNAM RVN
6611 38 979 WC7ZAA 155 AVN CO VIETNAM RVN
6612 54 1033 WC7ZAA 155 AVN CO VIETNAM RVN
6701 37 1070 3412 ARMY AVN DIV 6TH ARMY DUGWAY PG TEVALCOM
6702 24 1094 3412 ARMY AVN DIV 6TH ARMY DUGWAY PG TEVALCOM
6703 29 1123 3412 POST SUPPLY 6TH ARMY FORT ORD 6TH ARMY
6704 0 1123 3412 ARMY AVN DIV 6TH ARMY DUGWAY PG TEVALCOM
6705 52 1175 WCLGAA 765 TRANS BN VIETNAM RVN
6706 0 1175 WCLUAA 611 TRANS CO DS VIETNAM RVN
6707 0 1175 WCLUAA 611 TRANS CO DS VIETNAM RVN
6708 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC 4TH ARMY NAVAL AIR STA AVCOM
6709 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC 4TH ARMY NAVAL AIR STA AVCOM
6710 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC 4TH ARMY NAVAL AIR STA AVCOM
6711 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC 4TH ARMY NAVAL AIR STA AVCOM
6712 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC 4TH ARMY NAVAL AIR STA AVCOM
6801 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC IN MAINT NAVAL AIR STN AVCOM
6802 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC IN MAINT NAVAL AIR STN AVCOM
6803 0 1175 W0MUAA ARADMAC IN MAINT NAVAL AIR STN AVCOM
6804 2 1177 W0MUAA ARADMAC IN MAINT NAVAL AIR STN AVCOM
6805 26 1203 2422 355 AVN CO 4TH ARMY FORT SILL 4TH ARMY
6806 19 1222 2422 355 AVN CO 4TH ARMY FORT SILL 4TH ARMY
6807 32 1254 2422 OPM SEA NITEOPS 1ST ARMY FORT BELVOIR AMC
6808 24 1278 2454 HHD 44 ENG GP THAILAND PACIFIC
6809 17 1295 2454 HHD 44 ENG GP THAILAND PACIFIC
6810 0 1295 2454 HHD 44 ENG GP THAILAND PACIFIC
6811 10 1305 2454 POST SUPPLY 6TH ARMY FORT ORD 6TH ARMY
6812 5 1310 2454 HHD 44 ENG GP THAILAND PACIFIC
6901 35 1345 2454 HHD 44 ENG GP THAILAND PACIFIC
6902 0 1345 2454 HHD 44 ENG GP THAILAND PACIFIC
6903 3 1348 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6904 54 1402 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6905 75 1477 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6906 53 1530 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6907 84 1614 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6908 80 1694 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6909 52 1746 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6910 65 1811 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6911 100 1911 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
6912 99 2010 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7001 65 2075 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7002 30 2105 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7003 93 2198 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7004 46 2244 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7005 71 2315 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7006 70 2385 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7007 9 2394 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7008 69 2463 WDX9AA 238 AVN CO 1AVN VIETNAM RVN
7009 44 2507 WEAWLF HEL ATCK LT SQ3 VIETNAM RVN
7010 81 2588 WEAWLF HEL ATCK LT SQ3 VIETNAM RVN
7011 22 2610 WEAWLF HEL ATCK LT SQ3 VIETNAM RVN
7012 59 2669 WEAWLF HEL ATCK LT SQ3 VIETNAM RVN
7101 103 2772 SEAWLF SEAWOLF SQDN 3 VIETNAM RVN
7102 103 2875 SEAWLF SEAWOLF SQDN 3 VIETNAM RVN
7103 117 2992 SEAWLF SEAWOLF SQDN 3 VIETNAM RVN
7104 36 3028 SEAWLF SEAWOLF SQDN 3 VIETNAM RVN
7105 74 3102 SEAWLF SEAWOLF SQDN 3 VIETNAM RVN
7106 107 3209 SEAWLF SEAWOLF SQDN 3 VIETNAM RVN
7107 100 3309 WEAWLF SEAWOLF SQDN 3 VIETNAM RVN
7108 0 3309 W0Y6AA AVSCOM FLT DET 5TH ARMY ST LOUIS AVSCOM
7109 0 3309 W0Y6AA AVSCOM FLT DET 5TH ARMY ST LOUIS AVSCOM
7110 0 3309 W0Y6AA BEL HEL BAILMENT FT WORTH AVSCOM
7111 0 3309 W0Y6AA BEL HEL BAILMENT FT WORTH AVSCOM
7112 1 3310 W0Y6AA ARADMAC IN MAINT NAVAL AIR STN AVSCOM
7201 11 3321 W0MUAA ARADMAC IN MAINT NAVAL AIR STN AVSCOM
7202 17 3338 WQM7T0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7203 28 3366 WQM7T0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7204 21 3387 WQM7T0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7205 27 3414 WQM7T0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7206 54 3468 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7207 24 3492 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7208 0 3492 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7209 0 3492 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7210 0 3492 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7211 0 3492 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7212 0 3492 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7301 1 3493 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7302 0 3493 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7303 3 3496 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7304 6 3502 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7305 12 3514 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7306 30 3544 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7307 20 3564 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7308 26 3590 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7309 18 3608 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7310 17 3625 WPE9D0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7311 15 3640 WPE9D0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7312 0 3640 WPE9D0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7401 4 3644 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7402 1 3645 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7403 0 3645 WQM7T0 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7404 5 3650 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7405 23 3673 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7405 23 3673 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7406 4 3677 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7409 5 3699 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7410 17 3716 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7411 9 3725 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7412 17 3742 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7501 3 3745 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7502 5 3750 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7503 13 3763 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7504 13 3776 W0M7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7505 7 3783 WQM7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7506 0 3783 W0M7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7507 2 3785 W0M7AA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7508 18 3803 WP6J99 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7509 3 3806 W8BKAA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7510 2 3808 WP6J99 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7511 13 3821 WP6J99 NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
7512 5 3826 W7NPAA NAT GUARD NAT GDZI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final report for the probable cause of the crash noted by Bert in his post....
MIA00LA170
On May 24, 2000, about 0820 eastern daylight time, a Southwest Florida Aviation SW-204, N37BA, registered to and operated by Colony Services Inc. as a Title 14 CFR Part 137 agricultural aerial application flight, crashed in a citrus grove in the vicinity of Fort Pierce, Florida. Instrumental meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed. The helicopter received substantial damage and the commercially-rated pilot, the sole occupant, was not injured. The flight originated from a remote field about 5 minutes before the accident.
According to the pilot, he was at 50 feet agl, and about 35 mph forward flight over an orange grove when he felt a shudder, heard loud cracking noises, and lost directional control. He attempted a forced landing between tree rows, touched down, and lost all control.
According to an FAA inspector, examination of the wreckage site revealed the rotorcraft collided with orange trees and made several rotations and collisions with the terrain before coming to rest on its left side. The tail rotor assembly was found about 400 yards from the wreckage. Inspection of the assembly revealed one of the tail rotor blade tip weights had torn loose, causing an imbalance and separation of the tail rotor assembly from the tail boom at the 90-degree gearbox. The blade data plate was missing and the area where the plate had been factory mounted was raised and painted over.
The tail rotor blade and the tip weight, found later by a ground crewman, were boxed and shipped to Bell Helicopter Textron for failure analysis with FAA oversight. According to the examination report, the cause for the blade tip weight separation was corrosion of the bond-line between the adhesive and the blade skin and corrosion of the bond-line between tip weight and the adhesive around the spar on the lead side of the blade. Screws used for a secondary means of fastening were still attached to the tip weight, and the countersunk screw holes in the blade skin revealed inward dimpling and elongation. A comparison of the reported blade part and serial numbers with the actual features of the blade did not match the Bell Helicopter assembly records. It was revealed that the reported blade and serial number was assembled in 1972 using a Narmco 1113 adhesive, (yellow). The adhesive found on the submitted blade was Narmco 123, (purple), and was used during the time frame, 1966 to 1968. The Bell Helicopter Textron Report No. 20400R-019 is an attachment to this report.
According to the FAA inspector who oversaw the blade examination, the apparent inconsistency between the blade serial number and the color of the tip cap adhesive caused him to request that Bell Helicopter Textron file a "Suspected Unapproved Part" report. This was accomplished on September 15
GunsssR4ever
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Out there somewhere ...
Posts: 3,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IP ADDRESS
Well done PPRUNE Towers :
The old IP address is such a wonderful tool
Mr F .. (injector) - I will send you my bank account details - when fully paid up - I will teach you how to overcome that small problem that gave you away
However, the purported post from them is deleted as both registration and message came from the same computer as Injector in South Africa.
Mr F .. (injector) - I will send you my bank account details - when fully paid up - I will teach you how to overcome that small problem that gave you away
GunsssR4ever
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Out there somewhere ...
Posts: 3,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Summary
Thanks for the info bladestrap. Yeah I was dozing me thinks 
I took time out and re-read it all and my conclusion (not as judge but just as an outsider on a rumour network) are as follows : It is obvious that the owner of the UH-1B was misled with regards to the purchase of this helicopter.
It appears from the websites that this helicopter was involved in a serious accident, and was either totally rebuilt, or the data plate was changed, as the helicopter in question suffered serious damage in terms of the NTSB report. The whole thing just doesn't seems right.
The SACAA will only register it as ZU, and not as ZS, as INJECTOR previously reported.
The SACAA have also not yet issued it with an authority to fly - so its a sitting duck at this point in time. They only had permission to do the test flight as I can gather ?
Furthermore the SACAA will apply all the restrictions to it in terms of the FAA Certification, which means that this helicopter will not be able to do anything else but sling work or cropspraying. It may not carry cargo in its cabin, neither may it transport any passengers. Its certified for crew only. It may not even transport passengers in a private capacity. So the owner will not be able to fly his friends and family around. A waste - put it up a pole ath the entrance to the Waterfront and let the saga end.
Elvis has the last laugh
What a waste. I think somebody was smoking somebody!
I took time out and re-read it all and my conclusion (not as judge but just as an outsider on a rumour network) are as follows : It is obvious that the owner of the UH-1B was misled with regards to the purchase of this helicopter.
It appears from the websites that this helicopter was involved in a serious accident, and was either totally rebuilt, or the data plate was changed, as the helicopter in question suffered serious damage in terms of the NTSB report. The whole thing just doesn't seems right.
The SACAA will only register it as ZU, and not as ZS, as INJECTOR previously reported.
The SACAA have also not yet issued it with an authority to fly - so its a sitting duck at this point in time. They only had permission to do the test flight as I can gather ?
Furthermore the SACAA will apply all the restrictions to it in terms of the FAA Certification, which means that this helicopter will not be able to do anything else but sling work or cropspraying. It may not carry cargo in its cabin, neither may it transport any passengers. Its certified for crew only. It may not even transport passengers in a private capacity. So the owner will not be able to fly his friends and family around. A waste - put it up a pole ath the entrance to the Waterfront and let the saga end.
Elvis has the last laugh
What a waste. I think somebody was smoking somebody!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Southern Africa
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The heading: (fetid bucket of dingo's kidneys)
If that is the views of Rob Lloyd and the PPRUNE towers then i can only assume you are as bad as the rest of them.
To set the record straight SWFA has opened a branch in South Africa and will be operating out of Helibase under the FAA and the SACAA. Unlike the double standards of other PPRUNERS, SWFA has told me they are not here to pull the wool over anyones eyes but merely to set the record straight. The Helibase.com is the domain name utilized by thirty individuals which all fall under Helibase.com.
You are invited to varify this yourself and i can assure you that Injector and SWFA are two seperate entities and whilst they may be known to each other they are not even from the same company. I find it amazing that when facts are clarified and convicted criminals are allowed freedom of the PPRUNE when it is known to be fiction and factual infomation is removed for whatever reason, then i can only assume that it is PPRUNES policy to behave in this manner and inlight of the personal attacks being made totally unprofessional in which case it is not worth responding further.
Should you wish to set the record straight you can contact the SWFA representative at [email protected] which is the local address for the whole of africa. Or supply your details so that we can get hold of you.
If that is the views of Rob Lloyd and the PPRUNE towers then i can only assume you are as bad as the rest of them.
To set the record straight SWFA has opened a branch in South Africa and will be operating out of Helibase under the FAA and the SACAA. Unlike the double standards of other PPRUNERS, SWFA has told me they are not here to pull the wool over anyones eyes but merely to set the record straight. The Helibase.com is the domain name utilized by thirty individuals which all fall under Helibase.com.
You are invited to varify this yourself and i can assure you that Injector and SWFA are two seperate entities and whilst they may be known to each other they are not even from the same company. I find it amazing that when facts are clarified and convicted criminals are allowed freedom of the PPRUNE when it is known to be fiction and factual infomation is removed for whatever reason, then i can only assume that it is PPRUNES policy to behave in this manner and inlight of the personal attacks being made totally unprofessional in which case it is not worth responding further.
Should you wish to set the record straight you can contact the SWFA representative at [email protected] which is the local address for the whole of africa. Or supply your details so that we can get hold of you.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an impressive reply Rebound,
Ah the dignity, the wounded pride, the air of resigned patience, the despair at having your collective integrity impugned while at the same time the haughty disparagement of this site and those who ask questions. There must be an SA award you can be nominated for after such a performance.
Many people read the the post in question before I binned it so lets review it for those who missed the imor(t)al prose.
In the light of the contents of this thread the words it contained can only be construed as a complete semantic null. It contained no information other than justifying and defending the general interests and operations of a company in Florida.
It refused to discuss, detail or elaborate now or at any time in the future the history or status of the aircraft in question. It's accident history, the dataplate or the engine fit are studiously ignored. (To those supping a tassie at the moment it was simply a cover yer ass exercise completely ignoring what folks are actually interested in.)
Rebound, in the post above you make it abundantly clear that you are not SWFA at helibase. The are no apparent company registrations in SA indicating such a branch, partnership or agency as yet recognised in law yet you direct readers to helibase in SA for correspondence rather than America.
Therefore the post was removed as it went over the line in British law of 'passing off.' It's the era of the internet if you hadn't noticed and can check the statutes and case law yourself.
The registration was from South Africa, helibase to be precise. The post itself was from helibase and not Florida. No mention in the post was made that it was made from SA - no indication given that it was anything other than a post made directly by SWFA in the States. This was not the case.
With no record in SA of you having any connection with the company other than as a customer and no public announcements in Florida to the contrary the only logical conclusion was to remove the post.
As before the principals in the States are more than welcome to register but they must now be fully aware that any repetition of the original post will be greeted with derision as a simple exercise in both self justification and avoiding answers to basic historical, airworthiness, and certification questions. I'm sure there are those here who can collate the salient points as a short series of very well informed but basic questions as to what the airframe was certifcated to be able to carry out in the States and so on.
Finally our motivation here at the Towers? Quite frankly you reap what you sow in South Africa. Having the main, ill disguised protagonists chose to carry on in this way on a website read worldwide insults South African aviation professionals wherever they live and work. The entire huey saga compresses into Readers Digest format every ill aflicting your country as a whole - a land of gargantuan, self publicising, lawless egos haplessly countered by, what many of you claim to be, ineffectual authority.
This thread turned away from being a entertaining slapdown bitchfest between Waterfront operators a long time ago. Many have seen the light and read the saga as we see it. A wake up call reflecting an apparent demise in many aspects of aeronautical standards and operational integrity.
Rob Lloyd
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
Ah the dignity, the wounded pride, the air of resigned patience, the despair at having your collective integrity impugned while at the same time the haughty disparagement of this site and those who ask questions. There must be an SA award you can be nominated for after such a performance.
Many people read the the post in question before I binned it so lets review it for those who missed the imor(t)al prose.
In the light of the contents of this thread the words it contained can only be construed as a complete semantic null. It contained no information other than justifying and defending the general interests and operations of a company in Florida.
It refused to discuss, detail or elaborate now or at any time in the future the history or status of the aircraft in question. It's accident history, the dataplate or the engine fit are studiously ignored. (To those supping a tassie at the moment it was simply a cover yer ass exercise completely ignoring what folks are actually interested in.)
Rebound, in the post above you make it abundantly clear that you are not SWFA at helibase. The are no apparent company registrations in SA indicating such a branch, partnership or agency as yet recognised in law yet you direct readers to helibase in SA for correspondence rather than America.
Therefore the post was removed as it went over the line in British law of 'passing off.' It's the era of the internet if you hadn't noticed and can check the statutes and case law yourself.
The registration was from South Africa, helibase to be precise. The post itself was from helibase and not Florida. No mention in the post was made that it was made from SA - no indication given that it was anything other than a post made directly by SWFA in the States. This was not the case.
With no record in SA of you having any connection with the company other than as a customer and no public announcements in Florida to the contrary the only logical conclusion was to remove the post.
As before the principals in the States are more than welcome to register but they must now be fully aware that any repetition of the original post will be greeted with derision as a simple exercise in both self justification and avoiding answers to basic historical, airworthiness, and certification questions. I'm sure there are those here who can collate the salient points as a short series of very well informed but basic questions as to what the airframe was certifcated to be able to carry out in the States and so on.
Finally our motivation here at the Towers? Quite frankly you reap what you sow in South Africa. Having the main, ill disguised protagonists chose to carry on in this way on a website read worldwide insults South African aviation professionals wherever they live and work. The entire huey saga compresses into Readers Digest format every ill aflicting your country as a whole - a land of gargantuan, self publicising, lawless egos haplessly countered by, what many of you claim to be, ineffectual authority.
This thread turned away from being a entertaining slapdown bitchfest between Waterfront operators a long time ago. Many have seen the light and read the saga as we see it. A wake up call reflecting an apparent demise in many aspects of aeronautical standards and operational integrity.
Rob Lloyd
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Southern Africa
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is amazing that it has been previously noted that other PPRUNERs have posted under several diffirent pseudonyms and it was confirmed by PPRUNE TOWERS that these were from the same IP address but low and behold this was allowed.
SWFA International SA (Pty) Ltd is a bona fide company registerd under the laws of South Africa 2004.
It is interesting also to note that Rhodie and his quick company check is so readily adopted by yourselfs.
Since i find it very interesting that it is against British Law for two seperate users with registed email address and companies to be found in violation of British Law because they supposedly used the same IP address.
As you mentioned this whole thing is a joke and unless the playing fields are levelled we have no interest in participating in this forum under these conditions.
I would really like you to contact the SWFA representitive at [email protected] to clarify these issues and confirm these statements as it is unprofessional and ridiculous to carry on in this manner. Should you not want to seek out the truth, dont bother as we know who the players are in our industry.
Whilst we are all aviation enthusiasts there is actually more harm been done than good.
Last but not least you as the moderator should be setting the standards and making an effort to ensure fair play as apposed to behaving in the same manner. Constructive criticism and rumours never hurt anybody but bias, personal attacks and protecting certain individuals are recipe for disaster.
Hope to hear from you in a more professional and civilized manner...
SWFA International SA (Pty) Ltd is a bona fide company registerd under the laws of South Africa 2004.
It is interesting also to note that Rhodie and his quick company check is so readily adopted by yourselfs.
Since i find it very interesting that it is against British Law for two seperate users with registed email address and companies to be found in violation of British Law because they supposedly used the same IP address.
As you mentioned this whole thing is a joke and unless the playing fields are levelled we have no interest in participating in this forum under these conditions.
I would really like you to contact the SWFA representitive at [email protected] to clarify these issues and confirm these statements as it is unprofessional and ridiculous to carry on in this manner. Should you not want to seek out the truth, dont bother as we know who the players are in our industry.
Whilst we are all aviation enthusiasts there is actually more harm been done than good.
Last but not least you as the moderator should be setting the standards and making an effort to ensure fair play as apposed to behaving in the same manner. Constructive criticism and rumours never hurt anybody but bias, personal attacks and protecting certain individuals are recipe for disaster.
Hope to hear from you in a more professional and civilized manner...
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW, PP Towers. Wish I had said that.................Thats the best spanking I have seen in a long time............
Anyway as to SASless' posting. It appears that ther numbers on the tail in the picture really are only painted numbers and have no relavance to the aircraft itself.
The history is very interesting. For those who wish to purchase a CD ROM of all these aircraft it is available and I have the website at home. I will be back in May if anyone wants it I will email it to you.
The aircraft appears to have been in Vietnam between 66-71 serving both the Army and the Navy. Very interesting to see it was on River Patrol. It came back for service at ARADMAC before tranfering to service in the National Guard until it was retired.
Anyway as to SASless' posting. It appears that ther numbers on the tail in the picture really are only painted numbers and have no relavance to the aircraft itself.
The history is very interesting. For those who wish to purchase a CD ROM of all these aircraft it is available and I have the website at home. I will be back in May if anyone wants it I will email it to you.
The aircraft appears to have been in Vietnam between 66-71 serving both the Army and the Navy. Very interesting to see it was on River Patrol. It came back for service at ARADMAC before tranfering to service in the National Guard until it was retired.
VHPA Gold Book CD
The CD ,Bert references and from which I got the historical data, is produced by the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association (VHPA) whose web site is vhpa.org .
The information for ordering the CD can be found at that site along with all sorts of other information and links to related sites.
The information for ordering the CD can be found at that site along with all sorts of other information and links to related sites.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With 19 pages of postings so far I dont know if this was mentioned..
"ZS-RXX Bell UH-1B-BF Iroquois > 1104 64-13980(N),N37BA,ZS-RXX .
" Southwest Florida 204HP "
Seems Registration is there, next all they need is a C/A... and it will be ready to...........................mount on a pedestal.
"ZS-RXX Bell UH-1B-BF Iroquois > 1104 64-13980(N),N37BA,ZS-RXX .
" Southwest Florida 204HP "
Seems Registration is there, next all they need is a C/A... and it will be ready to...........................mount on a pedestal.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SA
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clipboard
In response to your posting.
I will take a bet to Vegas any day of the week that SWFA is "lawyered up" and is not going to make any comments in a "Rumor Mill" Sounds reasonable to me. Besides the money is in the bank and the Aircraft is no longer their problem. Its one of those buyer beware-no warranty items.
As to the questions on airframe. Since the Bell Data Plate is gone and has been replaced by one from SWFA. We can only assume that this was done by a reputable company. Those changes are acceptable and expected based on the STC that SWFA has for Modifications.
As to the L11.....My wrench friends (FAA certifed) explain that YES an L11 can be modified to L13. BUT, if that is done it will be so noted on the data plate and the engine logbook?? So if it says L11...its an L11. Only someone from the owners side can tell us if there is an engine logbook (there should be).. but quite frankly thats something he does not have to share with us. Further it cant be something done in Capetown.
Another item one might like to look at are the transmissions. They also have different numbers. Some are upgraded and will be so noted. If the bigger engine is installed it will require an upgrade on the transmission. If not.......well its anyones guess what will happen.
This one thread has cast a big shadow over ALL Aircraft and Operators in SA, in that ever since these( I mean all of them) OD money makers hit the SA shores these aircraft have always raised questions. When a Company can flaunt the rules set down by the one agency responsible for Aviation Safety in SA and that agency acts so inept in that they do not have anyone left with the required expertise to deal with these matters, what message do you think this is sending to the rest of the world? I' ll comment that it says do not purchase anything that has flown in SA as it is suspect.
What hurts is the reputable companies will suffer the same plight.
Maybe the best thing for SA Aviation would be to do as many have been done in the states...many being HUNDREDS.. Crush them and recycle them as Castles Cans. Im sure that is not what many want to hear.
In response to your posting.
I will take a bet to Vegas any day of the week that SWFA is "lawyered up" and is not going to make any comments in a "Rumor Mill" Sounds reasonable to me. Besides the money is in the bank and the Aircraft is no longer their problem. Its one of those buyer beware-no warranty items.
As to the questions on airframe. Since the Bell Data Plate is gone and has been replaced by one from SWFA. We can only assume that this was done by a reputable company. Those changes are acceptable and expected based on the STC that SWFA has for Modifications.
As to the L11.....My wrench friends (FAA certifed) explain that YES an L11 can be modified to L13. BUT, if that is done it will be so noted on the data plate and the engine logbook?? So if it says L11...its an L11. Only someone from the owners side can tell us if there is an engine logbook (there should be).. but quite frankly thats something he does not have to share with us. Further it cant be something done in Capetown.
Another item one might like to look at are the transmissions. They also have different numbers. Some are upgraded and will be so noted. If the bigger engine is installed it will require an upgrade on the transmission. If not.......well its anyones guess what will happen.
This one thread has cast a big shadow over ALL Aircraft and Operators in SA, in that ever since these( I mean all of them) OD money makers hit the SA shores these aircraft have always raised questions. When a Company can flaunt the rules set down by the one agency responsible for Aviation Safety in SA and that agency acts so inept in that they do not have anyone left with the required expertise to deal with these matters, what message do you think this is sending to the rest of the world? I' ll comment that it says do not purchase anything that has flown in SA as it is suspect.
What hurts is the reputable companies will suffer the same plight.
Maybe the best thing for SA Aviation would be to do as many have been done in the states...many being HUNDREDS.. Crush them and recycle them as Castles Cans. Im sure that is not what many want to hear.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update from previous posts
http://www.sun-herald.com/searches/s...ticleID=205047
I have to side with SWFA on one point and one only.
"Hill, however, suspects Bell encouraged the raid as a ruse to conduct corporate espionage.
"I feel Bell encouraged it," Hill said. "They had the run of my shop for three days. I didn't. I was barred from entering."
As one involved in the surplus program at one time, I can say that Bell was NOT supportive to the extent that Im certain pressure was put on the U.S.Government to destroy as much of the UH-1 and OH-58 surplus fleet as they could thus limiting their liability and ensuring sales of new aircraft.
It was sickning for me as a Pilot to see new blades and transmissions go under the torch. One of my Fellow Police Pilots lost a UH-1 to the Crusher, relatively new with less than a few hundred hours on the airframe.......Such a waste.
http://www.sun-herald.com/searches/s...ticleID=205047
I have to side with SWFA on one point and one only.
"Hill, however, suspects Bell encouraged the raid as a ruse to conduct corporate espionage.
"I feel Bell encouraged it," Hill said. "They had the run of my shop for three days. I didn't. I was barred from entering."
As one involved in the surplus program at one time, I can say that Bell was NOT supportive to the extent that Im certain pressure was put on the U.S.Government to destroy as much of the UH-1 and OH-58 surplus fleet as they could thus limiting their liability and ensuring sales of new aircraft.
It was sickning for me as a Pilot to see new blades and transmissions go under the torch. One of my Fellow Police Pilots lost a UH-1 to the Crusher, relatively new with less than a few hundred hours on the airframe.......Such a waste.
Bert,
Bear in mind the real tragedy of that decision...as usual Bell was very short-sighted in their business stategy. The "new" Bell 210 program uses those very same surplus hulks for the core of the 210.
So...all those "like new" airframes that got crushed....could be seeing new life as a 210. Compare the Army's decision to rebuild "A" model Chinooks into "D" and now "F" model Chinooks.
Bear in mind the real tragedy of that decision...as usual Bell was very short-sighted in their business stategy. The "new" Bell 210 program uses those very same surplus hulks for the core of the 210.
So...all those "like new" airframes that got crushed....could be seeing new life as a 210. Compare the Army's decision to rebuild "A" model Chinooks into "D" and now "F" model Chinooks.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: close to the sun
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, she has'nt flown yet, and from what I understand from the ground crew is that the owner is still awaiting the SACAA to come and inspect it and issue a C of A. What a shame!
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AlwaysInverted writes "still awaiting the SACAA to come and inspect it and issue a C of A. What a shame!"
Ok, let me get this straight. You have read all the postings and you believe the SACAA will make it right by blessing it to fly??
I still can't determine from postings here whether this is a "flyable SWFA STC'd Aircraft" or the one mentioned that was built as a Museum display. Not that I have a need to know.
My guess is it will be some time before the rulings come out as to what will be allowed if anything.. Consensus on this side of the pond and based on past dealings with FAA........Someone in SA got screwed. May not be the case over there.
Someone else asked me about Huey transmissions and upgrades. As I understand upgrades etc are all under 204 part numbers on the Data Plate. That was for all Hueys powered by T53-L9, L11, or L13 engines. Some even used GE engines, mainly Air Force and some Navy. Im sure Sasless will correct my mistakes. Only when they are powered by the T53-L703 engine do they change to 209 part numbers, also requiring drive train changes.
Also as to Blade Mods. Reasoning behind that is probably that B Model Blades are more scarce than H model blades.
Ok, let me get this straight. You have read all the postings and you believe the SACAA will make it right by blessing it to fly??
I still can't determine from postings here whether this is a "flyable SWFA STC'd Aircraft" or the one mentioned that was built as a Museum display. Not that I have a need to know.
My guess is it will be some time before the rulings come out as to what will be allowed if anything.. Consensus on this side of the pond and based on past dealings with FAA........Someone in SA got screwed. May not be the case over there.
Someone else asked me about Huey transmissions and upgrades. As I understand upgrades etc are all under 204 part numbers on the Data Plate. That was for all Hueys powered by T53-L9, L11, or L13 engines. Some even used GE engines, mainly Air Force and some Navy. Im sure Sasless will correct my mistakes. Only when they are powered by the T53-L703 engine do they change to 209 part numbers, also requiring drive train changes.
Also as to Blade Mods. Reasoning behind that is probably that B Model Blades are more scarce than H model blades.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im sure some would love to see this thread die. It was almost gone once before, but with the addition of new toys there must be something going on in the Cape..........Awfully quiet though.........