The Huey in Capetown (including Huey down)
Registered User *
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Not here anymore
Age: 63
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all aspects of SA aviation
Gunzzz!!(it's late..I know). Howzit bru! Nice one on the IP's, hopefully have the trolls thinking about it????.
SRT, as Gunzzz said, I can only endorse that one, the truth hurts...big time
Jammydonut, TV...what TV?
why doesnt turn it into an actuality sit com for TV
(Ali. Osborne ) they have the same problem in expressing themselves as you seem to have... The seemingly pending demise of the Huey is not a sitcom, it's a bloody disaster...for those of us who love warbirds (in any form or in any way..and I'm one of those), for Cape Town, for South Africa, for this world and for the future of all "old" flying machines that may have had a chequered background but by the grace of Zeus and the other Gods had someone that said "Get me on the road again"...Let's keep on trying. Long live warbirds...and the Huey!!!!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South Africa
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rob
Thanks for the honest correction and point taken, but if you don’t mind I will stick to my initial opinions while taking stock of South African aviation and rugby. If you read SA history you will see the sad roots of what we refer to as the crab syndrome. “As one escapes the fishing basket for the big blue waters the others will draw him back into the basket.” We have the ability to backstab and fight while forgetting and not solving the real issues. As long as the sun doesn’t shine on others life is good.
So even attempting to reflect on this saga objectively it is difficult to assess who is in the basket and who is really concerned with aviation safety. Lets just hope that the final decision makers have more wisdom than the average crab.
I do agree though -- Long live the Huey and it was great to fly in one again.
So even attempting to reflect on this saga objectively it is difficult to assess who is in the basket and who is really concerned with aviation safety. Lets just hope that the final decision makers have more wisdom than the average crab.
I do agree though -- Long live the Huey and it was great to fly in one again.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please read the following statement objectively without involving the sentiments for or against the Huey’s present owner/operator.
My hands are tied with regard to disclosure of any facts to the public at large for the following very sad reason :-
In any normal world wide aviation accident or occurrence the norm would be for everyone from the FAA / CAA, manufacturer and operator to have access to the parts to determine the cause of the failure or incident, and to use this information to either improve the failed component or recommend operating procedures or warnings to operators of similar aircraft.
However it has been my sad experience that in South Africa playing along with the authorities only spells trouble.
Our system which includes the CAA and insurers as well as banks have a tendency to punish the pilot/operator/owner for the incident rather than use this info for the good of all.
I have had this experience personally and know of others who have honestly admitted true facts of an accident to the authorities only to have licences suspended and insurance claims refuted.
This has sadly created a precedent with owners and pilots to rather lie and cover up than tell the truth which WILL be used to punish you.
In truth the Huey like many other aircraft has had a “forced” landing due to a failure of some sort. Normally this failure would be reported to Lycoming and other operators as it occurred at low engine total time. However this is now being used as a means to cane somebody for being a naughty boy.
If I or anyone connected to this aircraft were to admit any form of failure in the said engine or maintenance procedures, the chances are the said AME/AMO licence would be suspended and someone would be prosecuted!! Should the aircraft have been insured the insurers would be looking for any excuse not to pay with a great deal of help from the CAA.
The CAA authorities try to pretend they are your friends only to use any information given to punish you. We still seem to be locked into the old police state from the past.
Additionally due to the current climate of jealousy within the other operators everyone is trying now to claim they were right all along about the Huey being a dangerous aircraft including the CAA.
The other day a big European operator had an engine explode on takeoff at JNB with a new 777 full of packs. The aircraft stopped on a taxi way and all persons on board were safely evacuated. Immediately following the incident the engine was replaced and the aircraft was inspected and found serviceable to fly back to Europe.
Airbus did not get on the net and cry foul, nor did the CAA impound the 777. I think Airbus used this as a lesson of why the engine failed rather than as a reason to badmouth Boeing.
I would prefer full disclosure but fear a very large stick being waved including a CRIMINAL record for having dared to work on a component which failed due to FOD or fatigue.
Eddie( Using a proxy server through another port just in case big brother is watching)
My hands are tied with regard to disclosure of any facts to the public at large for the following very sad reason :-
In any normal world wide aviation accident or occurrence the norm would be for everyone from the FAA / CAA, manufacturer and operator to have access to the parts to determine the cause of the failure or incident, and to use this information to either improve the failed component or recommend operating procedures or warnings to operators of similar aircraft.
However it has been my sad experience that in South Africa playing along with the authorities only spells trouble.
Our system which includes the CAA and insurers as well as banks have a tendency to punish the pilot/operator/owner for the incident rather than use this info for the good of all.
I have had this experience personally and know of others who have honestly admitted true facts of an accident to the authorities only to have licences suspended and insurance claims refuted.
This has sadly created a precedent with owners and pilots to rather lie and cover up than tell the truth which WILL be used to punish you.
In truth the Huey like many other aircraft has had a “forced” landing due to a failure of some sort. Normally this failure would be reported to Lycoming and other operators as it occurred at low engine total time. However this is now being used as a means to cane somebody for being a naughty boy.
If I or anyone connected to this aircraft were to admit any form of failure in the said engine or maintenance procedures, the chances are the said AME/AMO licence would be suspended and someone would be prosecuted!! Should the aircraft have been insured the insurers would be looking for any excuse not to pay with a great deal of help from the CAA.
The CAA authorities try to pretend they are your friends only to use any information given to punish you. We still seem to be locked into the old police state from the past.
Additionally due to the current climate of jealousy within the other operators everyone is trying now to claim they were right all along about the Huey being a dangerous aircraft including the CAA.
The other day a big European operator had an engine explode on takeoff at JNB with a new 777 full of packs. The aircraft stopped on a taxi way and all persons on board were safely evacuated. Immediately following the incident the engine was replaced and the aircraft was inspected and found serviceable to fly back to Europe.
Airbus did not get on the net and cry foul, nor did the CAA impound the 777. I think Airbus used this as a lesson of why the engine failed rather than as a reason to badmouth Boeing.
I would prefer full disclosure but fear a very large stick being waved including a CRIMINAL record for having dared to work on a component which failed due to FOD or fatigue.
Eddie( Using a proxy server through another port just in case big brother is watching)
Guest
Posts: n/a
"I have had this experience personally and know of others who have honestly admitted true facts of an accident to authorities only to have licences suspended and insurance claims refuted"
What a strange experience, I wonder why this should be?
Prospector
What a strange experience, I wonder why this should be?
Prospector
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Pierre et Miquelon
Age: 68
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I haven’t always agreed with everything Bert says, at least he’s always upfront and the rather pathetic attempts to discredit him serve only to show the inadequacies of the posters themselves.
I went for a flight in the Huey earlier this year and I fully agree that it’s a complete sham trying to pass it off as a club. It’s a normal fare-paying passenger pleasure flight. In my opinion it’s also a completely unsafe passenger operation. When I went up we had a long leg over the water, flew ridiculously low in a single engine machine carrying passengers and had there been any major engine problem a lot of people would have been seriously injured or killed. While it may be nice to keep old warbirds flying, this is not the way to do it.
I went for a flight in the Huey earlier this year and I fully agree that it’s a complete sham trying to pass it off as a club. It’s a normal fare-paying passenger pleasure flight. In my opinion it’s also a completely unsafe passenger operation. When I went up we had a long leg over the water, flew ridiculously low in a single engine machine carrying passengers and had there been any major engine problem a lot of people would have been seriously injured or killed. While it may be nice to keep old warbirds flying, this is not the way to do it.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KK writes:
"However it has been my sad experience that in South Africa playing along with the authorities only spells trouble.
Our system which includes the CAA and insurers as well as banks have a tendency to punish the pilot/operator/owner for the incident rather than use this info for the good of all.
I have had this experience personally and know of others who have honestly admitted true facts of an accident to the authorities only to have licences suspended and insurance claims refuted."
This is a good point to bring up and I will mention how it sometimes gets resolved in the states.
If there is a failure of some kind or an accident. One who is involved can write an honest statement to the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) This information CANNOT be used in any way for prosecutorial purposes, only for SAFETY and in the hopes the problem can be resolved. Lots of folks use to this legally get off the hook, and thats OK, if it prevents future problems. I dont think SA has that in Place.
This all applies if all else is considered "legal". That is proper documentation issued by the FAA as to the aircraft and all persons involved, ie. Pilots, Mechanics(Engineers) etc.
I believe the comparison to the major carrier engine problem and this situation is a matter of apples and oranges.
"However it has been my sad experience that in South Africa playing along with the authorities only spells trouble.
Our system which includes the CAA and insurers as well as banks have a tendency to punish the pilot/operator/owner for the incident rather than use this info for the good of all.
I have had this experience personally and know of others who have honestly admitted true facts of an accident to the authorities only to have licences suspended and insurance claims refuted."
This is a good point to bring up and I will mention how it sometimes gets resolved in the states.
If there is a failure of some kind or an accident. One who is involved can write an honest statement to the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) This information CANNOT be used in any way for prosecutorial purposes, only for SAFETY and in the hopes the problem can be resolved. Lots of folks use to this legally get off the hook, and thats OK, if it prevents future problems. I dont think SA has that in Place.
This all applies if all else is considered "legal". That is proper documentation issued by the FAA as to the aircraft and all persons involved, ie. Pilots, Mechanics(Engineers) etc.
I believe the comparison to the major carrier engine problem and this situation is a matter of apples and oranges.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SA
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing that the moderators are now keen to expose pprune posters, why don't they just expose the whole lot? That way we will all know who's who in the zoo. 
Its amazing how much attention the truth attracts, and how few people like the truth!
Take for instance the ONE posting by TWOMEMBER. I would say it is rather defamatory and very one sided.
My views on the Huey and its people (Owners & Opposition) have always been my own candid opinion and will remain so.
Good posting Eddie.
Good idea Bert, but this is South Africa, not the USA, and SA does not have a NTSB, only a couple of lawnmower mechanics.
Its amazing how much attention the truth attracts, and how few people like the truth!
Take for instance the ONE posting by TWOMEMBER. I would say it is rather defamatory and very one sided.
My views on the Huey and its people (Owners & Opposition) have always been my own candid opinion and will remain so.
Good posting Eddie.
Good idea Bert, but this is South Africa, not the USA, and SA does not have a NTSB, only a couple of lawnmower mechanics.
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Seeing that the moderators are now keen to expose pprune posters, why don't they just expose the whole lot? That way we will all know who's who in the zoo."
The rules are clear in this regard. A real name should not be used unless it already in the public domain. Any abuse of these rules is unacceptable and will be stopped.
The rules are clear in this regard. A real name should not be used unless it already in the public domain. Any abuse of these rules is unacceptable and will be stopped.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quote Bert off the bogus parts forum
"keep in mind what Lu mentioned were AB205s, 206s. Those were probably manufactured in Italy by Augusta under contract and certifable aircraft, vs. those made in the states by Bell. Basically AB (augusta-Bell) were Civilian aircraft in Military paint.
Same thing in Germany. Dornier had a contract and made Hueys, but they were certified.
If the Huey in the Cape were either one of those, we wouldnt be having this discussion. They would be certifiable aircaft and everyone would be happy."
Surprise surprise!!!
What if I tell that 90 percent of the parts fitted to the flying Huey have AB part numbers and serial numbers and that in fact 4 of the Huey's at Helibase are actually AB 205's with 212 parts. This Huey was in fact fully maintained and overhauled by an Agusta subsidiary in Ethiopia. I have original documents (copies on file at SACAA) to prove this!
Fact:-
ZU-CVC (Huey 1) has in fact had almost all of the time related items replaced including installation of a NEW certified set of 212 part number main rotor gearbox and swash plate. The engine was overhauled by South East Asia aviation and only had a couple hundred hours in service when this machine started flying in Cape Town.
The blades were in fact removed three weeks ago because the 1 blade is short on time and the 2 year life of the TT straps is up!
Tail rotor components have also been upgraded due to advise from other operators and personal experience.
Why would I buy parts from NAC & Placo or parts logistics or IAP if I know that Bert has a scrapyard right there near home.
Again I repeat that anyone is or was always welcome to fly with the Huey back to Helibase and come and look for themselves. In fact the CAA themselves brought an inspector from Bristow to find all was in order.
BUT go home and read parts 94, 96 of the aviation legislation which clearly states that you may apply your own standards and maintenance procedures and use home made or non certified parts.
Why then did I apply both the military and civilian standards to the Huey and adopt military serviceing schedules to ensure the safety of the machine.
Because 14 people ride in that machine every day and even though I work for someone else I care enough to go there in my spare time to enforce those standards. The military specify a 7 page daily inspection which is not done on civilian aircraft. That inspection has been done every day and signed by an authorised person or inspector.
As To comments about the actual flying Francois took the trouble to invite high time Huey pilots from various operations to fly the Huey and give advise on characteristics of the machine.
One more comment. If I find a Eurocopter part that can replace the Bell part and give me better performance or safety and is easier to buy is it a "bogus" part. Bell helicopter created a problem for themselves and we also are affected because they wont sell parts for their machine to anyone including their own law enforcement agencies!.
"keep in mind what Lu mentioned were AB205s, 206s. Those were probably manufactured in Italy by Augusta under contract and certifable aircraft, vs. those made in the states by Bell. Basically AB (augusta-Bell) were Civilian aircraft in Military paint.
Same thing in Germany. Dornier had a contract and made Hueys, but they were certified.
If the Huey in the Cape were either one of those, we wouldnt be having this discussion. They would be certifiable aircaft and everyone would be happy."
Surprise surprise!!!
What if I tell that 90 percent of the parts fitted to the flying Huey have AB part numbers and serial numbers and that in fact 4 of the Huey's at Helibase are actually AB 205's with 212 parts. This Huey was in fact fully maintained and overhauled by an Agusta subsidiary in Ethiopia. I have original documents (copies on file at SACAA) to prove this!
Fact:-
ZU-CVC (Huey 1) has in fact had almost all of the time related items replaced including installation of a NEW certified set of 212 part number main rotor gearbox and swash plate. The engine was overhauled by South East Asia aviation and only had a couple hundred hours in service when this machine started flying in Cape Town.
The blades were in fact removed three weeks ago because the 1 blade is short on time and the 2 year life of the TT straps is up!
Tail rotor components have also been upgraded due to advise from other operators and personal experience.
Why would I buy parts from NAC & Placo or parts logistics or IAP if I know that Bert has a scrapyard right there near home.
Again I repeat that anyone is or was always welcome to fly with the Huey back to Helibase and come and look for themselves. In fact the CAA themselves brought an inspector from Bristow to find all was in order.
BUT go home and read parts 94, 96 of the aviation legislation which clearly states that you may apply your own standards and maintenance procedures and use home made or non certified parts.
Why then did I apply both the military and civilian standards to the Huey and adopt military serviceing schedules to ensure the safety of the machine.
Because 14 people ride in that machine every day and even though I work for someone else I care enough to go there in my spare time to enforce those standards. The military specify a 7 page daily inspection which is not done on civilian aircraft. That inspection has been done every day and signed by an authorised person or inspector.
As To comments about the actual flying Francois took the trouble to invite high time Huey pilots from various operations to fly the Huey and give advise on characteristics of the machine.
One more comment. If I find a Eurocopter part that can replace the Bell part and give me better performance or safety and is easier to buy is it a "bogus" part. Bell helicopter created a problem for themselves and we also are affected because they wont sell parts for their machine to anyone including their own law enforcement agencies!.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KK writes:"Surprise surprise!!!
What if I tell that 90 percent of the parts fitted to the flying Huey have AB part numbers and serial numbers and that in fact 4 of the Huey's at Helibase are actually AB 205's with 212 parts. This Huey was in fact fully maintained and overhauled by an Agusta subsidiary in Ethiopia."
The saying is "That Dog wont Hunt." 90% of the parts is like saying a little pregnant. In this game its all or none. Starting with an Airframe that came from Bell, for the Military. Transmission, for the Military. Engine, Lycoming for the Military. You can put new stuff on it till the cows come home and that wont change the fact that from what has been posted here (Rumors<<<) you cannot show a complete History on the Airframe, major components and that extra 10%.. (Complete History is like from the time it came out of the box to present) I saw the Data Plates and Im not buying your statement that they were made in Italy or under contract to Augusta-Bell
212 part numbers on a 205 is acceptable, but in some cases requires an STC.
"BUT go home and read parts 94, 96 of the aviation legislation which clearly states that you may apply your own standards and maintenance procedures and use home made or non certified parts."
That when applied to the Huey is Scary to say the least. Im certainly glad you didnt mention it before I flew it.
"Because 14 people ride in that machine every day and even though I work for someone else I care enough to go there in my spare time to enforce those standards. The military specify a 7 page daily inspection which is not done on civilian aircraft. That inspection has been done every day and signed by an authorised person or inspector."
One word...>>> Who?( Authorized to me, means certified and licensed by the CAA )
"As To comments about the actual flying Francois took the trouble to invite high time Huey pilots from various operations to fly the Huey and give advise on characteristics of the machine."
Bluntly, in one Ear and out the other.
"One more comment. If I find a Eurocopter part that can replace the Bell part and give me better performance or safety and is easier to buy is it a "bogus" part. Bell helicopter created a problem for themselves and we also are affected because they wont sell parts for their machine to anyone including their own law enforcement agencies!. "
First Eurocopter as I know it does not make replacment parts for Bell. If they did and it met specs, it would not be considered "Bogus"
Second, your wrong. Bell will sell you anything for a B205, which other than the Tail Rotor Assembly is much the same. What you do with it is your business. The Problem as I see it in this case is that the price is staggering. Why buy new when you can find other stuff?
I think Kennel Keeper should stay on the porch as everytime he looks for the bone, he just digs his hole deeper. Its only going to result in someone in SA giving him the Bone. There comes a time when Silence is Golden.....
What if I tell that 90 percent of the parts fitted to the flying Huey have AB part numbers and serial numbers and that in fact 4 of the Huey's at Helibase are actually AB 205's with 212 parts. This Huey was in fact fully maintained and overhauled by an Agusta subsidiary in Ethiopia."
The saying is "That Dog wont Hunt." 90% of the parts is like saying a little pregnant. In this game its all or none. Starting with an Airframe that came from Bell, for the Military. Transmission, for the Military. Engine, Lycoming for the Military. You can put new stuff on it till the cows come home and that wont change the fact that from what has been posted here (Rumors<<<) you cannot show a complete History on the Airframe, major components and that extra 10%.. (Complete History is like from the time it came out of the box to present) I saw the Data Plates and Im not buying your statement that they were made in Italy or under contract to Augusta-Bell
212 part numbers on a 205 is acceptable, but in some cases requires an STC.
"BUT go home and read parts 94, 96 of the aviation legislation which clearly states that you may apply your own standards and maintenance procedures and use home made or non certified parts."
That when applied to the Huey is Scary to say the least. Im certainly glad you didnt mention it before I flew it.
"Because 14 people ride in that machine every day and even though I work for someone else I care enough to go there in my spare time to enforce those standards. The military specify a 7 page daily inspection which is not done on civilian aircraft. That inspection has been done every day and signed by an authorised person or inspector."
One word...>>> Who?( Authorized to me, means certified and licensed by the CAA )
"As To comments about the actual flying Francois took the trouble to invite high time Huey pilots from various operations to fly the Huey and give advise on characteristics of the machine."
Bluntly, in one Ear and out the other.
"One more comment. If I find a Eurocopter part that can replace the Bell part and give me better performance or safety and is easier to buy is it a "bogus" part. Bell helicopter created a problem for themselves and we also are affected because they wont sell parts for their machine to anyone including their own law enforcement agencies!. "
First Eurocopter as I know it does not make replacment parts for Bell. If they did and it met specs, it would not be considered "Bogus"
Second, your wrong. Bell will sell you anything for a B205, which other than the Tail Rotor Assembly is much the same. What you do with it is your business. The Problem as I see it in this case is that the price is staggering. Why buy new when you can find other stuff?
I think Kennel Keeper should stay on the porch as everytime he looks for the bone, he just digs his hole deeper. Its only going to result in someone in SA giving him the Bone. There comes a time when Silence is Golden.....
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Bert for the good advise.
I am departing to quieter pastures to participate in restoration of other toys where real parts and real money is available and where one can work in peace without criticism other than the judges at EAA.
I think my contribution to the Huey is over.
As A Final statement on this Huey forum I wish to thank all of those people who contributed over the last 5 years with advise and encouragement and who all made the fight worth burning the midnight oil. I will still run outside to look even if its only a CHC 212. Long live the Huey!!!
Watch the Pprune for new project postings.
I am departing to quieter pastures to participate in restoration of other toys where real parts and real money is available and where one can work in peace without criticism other than the judges at EAA.
I think my contribution to the Huey is over.
As A Final statement on this Huey forum I wish to thank all of those people who contributed over the last 5 years with advise and encouragement and who all made the fight worth burning the midnight oil. I will still run outside to look even if its only a CHC 212. Long live the Huey!!!
Watch the Pprune for new project postings.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you know ...a good point from Eddie. Sounds like the SPCA is knocking on the door.
I think it is time to put this to rest and I see no reason to inject anymore of my drivel here. Everything has been asked and answered at least twice and it wont change history.
Before going I would like to pose a question. There has been about 130+ postings and over 4600 hits on this thread alone.
What has been accomplished and who is reading this.
The only accomplishment that I see is about a dozen folks who normally get along, have pretty much severed ties.
Now as to the postings, they were made by a few and with viewings, probably account for lets say 1000 of the hits. That means there are 3000+ hits by whom??
Well, heres my best guess.
1. Bell Helicopters has a stake in this and Im sure watches it like a Hawk.
2. FAA/CAA, you know thats a fact...
3. Lawyers, We couldnt have a mess like this without them. Guarantee, some are on the fence waiting to see who has the deepest pockets.
4. Huey Owner, you bet. I met the guy and he seemed to be a pleasant dude, and I dont think he got a ton of money from being stupid. He certainly pulled off something that many others couldnt. Also for all you out there who kicked him around on a personal note, I will take my bet to Vegas that you will hear from him down the road.
5. Tourism Industry. have too be in there somewhere. Its big money all over the world and this could be a big knock in the Cape area. Anything that has been questioned for safety, they stay away from like the Plague.
6. Elvis........Hell yes, dont know the man, but it sounds like (rumors) this has cost him a few rand and he hasnt even flown it. Funny thing is the real Elvis made more money last year DEAD, than all of us will make in a lifetime..Thank you very much.
7. SA Helicopter Operators, certainly they are watching, as they know that this will affect them as to how much or how little the CAA has for power in the end. It will determine how close they have to monitor their own operations.
8. The News Media...you bet someone has been drooling in their cereal for a story.
Im sure there are more that should be mentioned, someone else can have a go.
Most Everyone here agrees, as to long live the Huey......Done correctly. IF someone wants to continue to haul in some money on a project like this they are going to have to do it in a different manner. Its going to take money to get it done, and it certainly should require that they work with, not against the SACAA as difficult as that may be. First suggestion is to stay away from a Surplus Huey and do up a B205. Most including some here wont know the difference.
Enough said
Bom Dia
I think it is time to put this to rest and I see no reason to inject anymore of my drivel here. Everything has been asked and answered at least twice and it wont change history.
Before going I would like to pose a question. There has been about 130+ postings and over 4600 hits on this thread alone.
What has been accomplished and who is reading this.
The only accomplishment that I see is about a dozen folks who normally get along, have pretty much severed ties.
Now as to the postings, they were made by a few and with viewings, probably account for lets say 1000 of the hits. That means there are 3000+ hits by whom??
Well, heres my best guess.
1. Bell Helicopters has a stake in this and Im sure watches it like a Hawk.
2. FAA/CAA, you know thats a fact...
3. Lawyers, We couldnt have a mess like this without them. Guarantee, some are on the fence waiting to see who has the deepest pockets.
4. Huey Owner, you bet. I met the guy and he seemed to be a pleasant dude, and I dont think he got a ton of money from being stupid. He certainly pulled off something that many others couldnt. Also for all you out there who kicked him around on a personal note, I will take my bet to Vegas that you will hear from him down the road.
5. Tourism Industry. have too be in there somewhere. Its big money all over the world and this could be a big knock in the Cape area. Anything that has been questioned for safety, they stay away from like the Plague.
6. Elvis........Hell yes, dont know the man, but it sounds like (rumors) this has cost him a few rand and he hasnt even flown it. Funny thing is the real Elvis made more money last year DEAD, than all of us will make in a lifetime..Thank you very much.
7. SA Helicopter Operators, certainly they are watching, as they know that this will affect them as to how much or how little the CAA has for power in the end. It will determine how close they have to monitor their own operations.
8. The News Media...you bet someone has been drooling in their cereal for a story.
Im sure there are more that should be mentioned, someone else can have a go.
Most Everyone here agrees, as to long live the Huey......Done correctly. IF someone wants to continue to haul in some money on a project like this they are going to have to do it in a different manner. Its going to take money to get it done, and it certainly should require that they work with, not against the SACAA as difficult as that may be. First suggestion is to stay away from a Surplus Huey and do up a B205. Most including some here wont know the difference.
Enough said
Bom Dia
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: All around
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA Lost Case!!!
After an abundently clear case of sheer legal incompetance, our intrepid CAA lost their case in the high court against Gary today!!! This again shows that the CAA is a toothless tiger, attempting to do right in a world where, who is paid, is worth more than who is right.
The huey is not airworthy and should not fly, whether airworthy or not, for commercial purposes, and the rest remains unsaid.....
The huey is not airworthy and should not fly, whether airworthy or not, for commercial purposes, and the rest remains unsaid.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town (where else?)
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for the delay, but missed this article yesterday as too darn busy at work :
Cape Times:
:Cape Times:
Huey helicopter parts war hits high court
December 1, 2004
By Fatima Schroeder
The owners of the Huey helicopter operating from the V&A Waterfront have taken the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to the Cape High Court for the return of the helicopter's airframe seized by the CAA after a precautionary landing last month.
But the CAA has lodged a counter-application for the return of the helicopter's engine that the director of Helicopter and Marine Services, which owns the aircraft, allegedly unlawfully removed after the landing.
The CAA says it is statutorily obliged to investigate the engine, but director Gary van der Merwe denies it was illegally removed. His counsel told the court he needs the frame so he can make money flying tourists during the Christmas season.
Helicopter and Marine Services leases the aircraft to the Huey Extreme Club.
In an affidavit Van der Merwe said the Huey took off on an exercise on November 20 this year and decided to return to the heliport at Culemborg. At a few metres above ground level the engine backfired and a precautionary landing had to be made.
The area was declared an accident scene and it was arranged for CAA officials from Pretoria to investigate. The officials photographed the Huey on the scene and made notes.
The next morning, Van der Merwe, an employee and an aircraft maintenance engineer removed the engine from the airframe in order to inspect it at the company's premises.
But CAA accident investigator Francois de Bruyn protested.
The two later agreed that De Bruyn would investigate the engine at the company's premises but when he failed to arrive, Van der Merwe dismantled it.
Van der Merwe later learnt that police were investigating the removal of the engine and that the airframe had been removed.
The CAA says it is statutorily obliged to perform an investigation into the engine and that the club and Helicopter and Marine Services were hampering this.
They are demanding the return of the engine and say the airframe cannot be returned unless the investigation is completed. But this cannot be done unless the engine is returned.
Van der Merwe said the engine backfiring was so insignificant that it did not warrant an investigation.
Justice John Foxcroft has reserved judgment.
December 1, 2004
By Fatima Schroeder
The owners of the Huey helicopter operating from the V&A Waterfront have taken the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to the Cape High Court for the return of the helicopter's airframe seized by the CAA after a precautionary landing last month.
But the CAA has lodged a counter-application for the return of the helicopter's engine that the director of Helicopter and Marine Services, which owns the aircraft, allegedly unlawfully removed after the landing.
The CAA says it is statutorily obliged to investigate the engine, but director Gary van der Merwe denies it was illegally removed. His counsel told the court he needs the frame so he can make money flying tourists during the Christmas season.
Helicopter and Marine Services leases the aircraft to the Huey Extreme Club.
In an affidavit Van der Merwe said the Huey took off on an exercise on November 20 this year and decided to return to the heliport at Culemborg. At a few metres above ground level the engine backfired and a precautionary landing had to be made.
The area was declared an accident scene and it was arranged for CAA officials from Pretoria to investigate. The officials photographed the Huey on the scene and made notes.
The next morning, Van der Merwe, an employee and an aircraft maintenance engineer removed the engine from the airframe in order to inspect it at the company's premises.
But CAA accident investigator Francois de Bruyn protested.
The two later agreed that De Bruyn would investigate the engine at the company's premises but when he failed to arrive, Van der Merwe dismantled it.
Van der Merwe later learnt that police were investigating the removal of the engine and that the airframe had been removed.
The CAA says it is statutorily obliged to perform an investigation into the engine and that the club and Helicopter and Marine Services were hampering this.
They are demanding the return of the engine and say the airframe cannot be returned unless the investigation is completed. But this cannot be done unless the engine is returned.
Van der Merwe said the engine backfiring was so insignificant that it did not warrant an investigation.
Justice John Foxcroft has reserved judgment.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SA
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what's the latest?
Rumour has it that Gary won his Court case with costs against the SACAA, but no one has posted any information here, and neither have the newspapers carried any story. Apparantly the judge ruled that the SACAA was harrassing him with all their actions, and that they should return his helicopter.
Someone told me today that the helicopter is back at the Helibase, and that they were putting it together and that it should be ready for flight again soon.
Does anyone have any info on this?
Rumour has it that Gary won his Court case with costs against the SACAA, but no one has posted any information here, and neither have the newspapers carried any story. Apparantly the judge ruled that the SACAA was harrassing him with all their actions, and that they should return his helicopter.
Someone told me today that the helicopter is back at the Helibase, and that they were putting it together and that it should be ready for flight again soon.
Does anyone have any info on this?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town (where else?)
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cape Times: December 6, 2004
Huey to fly again as owners win legal war
'CAA acted unlawfully'
By Fatima Schroeder
Just in time for the busy tourism season in the Mother City, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) must return the airframe of a Vietnam War helicopter seized after a precautionary landing last month.
The owners of the aircraft, Helicopter and Marine Services, and the Huey Extreme Club have been embroiled in a legal battle with the CAA.
The owners and club, which were in possession of the aircraft's engine, wanted the airframe returned to them, but the CAA, which had the airframe, lodged a counter-application demanding the engine in order to conduct an investigation.
The owner wanted the airframe returned so that he could make money flying tourists during the Christmas season.
The helicopter is one of 10 000 manufactured by the Bell Helicopter company for the US military during the war in Vietnam.
In court papers the CAA claimed that Helicopter and Marine Services director Gary van der Merwe illegally removed and dismantled the engine after the precautionary landing, hampering its statutory obligations to investigate it.
In his affidavit Van der Merwe said the Huey took off on an exercise on November 20 and decided to return to the heliport at Culemborg.
But a few metres above the ground the engine backfired and a precautionary landing had to be performed at Cape Town International Airport.
The CAA said it was statutorily obliged to investigate the state of the engine.
In Thursday's judgment Justice John Foxcroft said: "Far from Mr Van der Merwe's conduct in removing his company's engine from the helicopter being unlawful, (the CAA's) confiscation of the helicopter airframe was itself unlawful since it was not backed by the appropriate statutory authority."
He added that CAA aircraft accident investigator Francois de Bruyn did not have the authority to confiscate the airframe and was only meant to assist an investigator-in-charge.
De Bruyn "had no authority to remove the helicopter in the first place" and Helicopter and Marine Services was entitled to the return of its property.
There was no evidence that the engine was ever lawfully in the CAA's control, although "they certainly had the right to inspect it".
"Helicopter and Marine Services had tendered full inspection of the engine a number of times but the CAA had refused to take up the offer, maintaining it was conditional upon the return of the airframe".
The CAA had no right to hold the airframe and should have accepted the tender to inspect the engine. There was accordingly no substance in the counter-application.
Judge Foxcroft ordered that the airframe be returned and dismissed the counter-application.
'CAA acted unlawfully'
By Fatima Schroeder
Just in time for the busy tourism season in the Mother City, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) must return the airframe of a Vietnam War helicopter seized after a precautionary landing last month.
The owners of the aircraft, Helicopter and Marine Services, and the Huey Extreme Club have been embroiled in a legal battle with the CAA.
The owners and club, which were in possession of the aircraft's engine, wanted the airframe returned to them, but the CAA, which had the airframe, lodged a counter-application demanding the engine in order to conduct an investigation.
The owner wanted the airframe returned so that he could make money flying tourists during the Christmas season.
The helicopter is one of 10 000 manufactured by the Bell Helicopter company for the US military during the war in Vietnam.
In court papers the CAA claimed that Helicopter and Marine Services director Gary van der Merwe illegally removed and dismantled the engine after the precautionary landing, hampering its statutory obligations to investigate it.
In his affidavit Van der Merwe said the Huey took off on an exercise on November 20 and decided to return to the heliport at Culemborg.
But a few metres above the ground the engine backfired and a precautionary landing had to be performed at Cape Town International Airport.
The CAA said it was statutorily obliged to investigate the state of the engine.
In Thursday's judgment Justice John Foxcroft said: "Far from Mr Van der Merwe's conduct in removing his company's engine from the helicopter being unlawful, (the CAA's) confiscation of the helicopter airframe was itself unlawful since it was not backed by the appropriate statutory authority."
He added that CAA aircraft accident investigator Francois de Bruyn did not have the authority to confiscate the airframe and was only meant to assist an investigator-in-charge.
De Bruyn "had no authority to remove the helicopter in the first place" and Helicopter and Marine Services was entitled to the return of its property.
There was no evidence that the engine was ever lawfully in the CAA's control, although "they certainly had the right to inspect it".
"Helicopter and Marine Services had tendered full inspection of the engine a number of times but the CAA had refused to take up the offer, maintaining it was conditional upon the return of the airframe".
The CAA had no right to hold the airframe and should have accepted the tender to inspect the engine. There was accordingly no substance in the counter-application.
Judge Foxcroft ordered that the airframe be returned and dismissed the counter-application.