Huey saga set to land in court
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town (where else?)
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Huey in Capetown (including Huey down)
I reckon they should paint the Huey red 
From the Cape Times:
Filming of helicopter 'invading privacy'
March 25, 2004
By Fatima Schroeder
The Huey Extreme Club at Cape Town's V&A Waterfront has asked the Cape High Court for an interdict prohibiting its competitor from filming its operations, saying it is an invasion of its right to privacy.
The club is a voluntary association offering Vietnam War-era Huey helicopter flights to members from its V&A helipad.
The club launched the court application against Ernest McDonald, trading as Sport Helicopters, on February 9.
Judge President John Hlophe granted an interim order in terms of which McDonald undertook to stop filming any of the club's operations pending the outcome of the application.
It emerged yesterday that the filming allegedly started in December 2002 on a sporadic basis before occurring on a daily basis a year later.
The filming includes the embarking and disembarking of passengers, take-off, refuelling and the crew.
The club says members have objected to the filming and it fears its business and profitability will drop further.
The club's counsel Brian Pincus, SC, said McDonald's behaviour was an invasion of the club's right to privacy.
"Even if (McDonald's) reason for the filming was at one time bona fide, the Civil Aviation Authority, city council and the media were already aware of his complaints and objections and the continued filming has now gone beyond that which is reasonable for its stated purpose".
He asked for an interdict, pending the outcome of an action for damages already brought by the club against McDonald.
McDonald's counsel, Roelof van Riet, SC, said his client maintained that the Huey helicopter was conducted in an unsafe manner and against safety regulations.
The filming was in the public interest and if the court granted the interdict, the club would know that it was not being filmed and operate contrary to safety regulations.
Judge President Hlophe has reserved judgment.
And involving a related party
Asset unit has to return R1.15m
March 25, 2004
By Estelle Ellis
Johannesburg: What a difference a day makes - that's what the Asset Forfeiture Unit found out when it had to return R1.15 million to a businessman because it had not done its job timeously.
The unit also agreed to pay the man's legal costs, but had a demand of its own - it asked that the whole mess just be allowed to quietly go away.
National Prosecuting Authority spokesman Makhosini Nkosi said yesterday that the authorities were busy investigating how things had gone so horribly wrong. He said he was not aware of an instruction that the media could not be told about what happened.
But unit head Willie Hofmeyr said he was reluctant to comment as there was a settlement order - which was "fairly common in civil cases" - that it would not be discussed.
Last year, in a blaze of publicity, the unit applied to the Cape High Court for the preservation of R1.15 million in cash which had been confiscated by police at Cape Town International Airport.
The money belonged to businessman Gary van der Merwe of Wellness International, and was supposed to be delivered to Johannesburg businessman Jacobus van Heerden as payment for a life policy. It was transported by Johan Blignault, who carried it in two bags and a box. According to papers the money was confiscated because of Blignault's "evasive answers" that he had picked the money up "somewhere in an office in Bellville" (near Cape Town).
The court was told the Scorpions were investigating Van der Merwe for fraud, theft and contraventions of the Companies Act, and the unit said it was suspecting money-laundering.
Van der Merwe and Van Heerden denied any wrongdoing or that they were involved in money-laundering. They maintained that there was nothing illegal about conveying money of a sum of that magnitude.
In her judgment issuing the preservation order, Judge Shanaaz Meer said: "The conveyance of R1.15 million was in itself cause for suspicion, unusual and at the very least foolhardy in the current climate of crime. It provides grounds for reasonably suspecting something untoward, and the police acted reasonably in seizing the money."
To have the money forfeited to the state, the unit had to file papers within 90 days after the preservation order was obtained.
It filed its application after hours on day 90, but it only reached Van der Merwe's Cape Town attorneys on day 91 - one day too late, according to the letter of the law.
This led to an application by Van der Merwe's legal team that the state return the money. The unit told his legal team that it would return the money and pay the legal costs - estimated at several hundred thousand rands - and insisted that the whole unfortunate incident be kept under wraps.
Nkosi said he "can confirm that the Asset Forfeiture Unit withdrew the application for a confiscation order owing to technical reasons".
"There are currently internal efforts aimed at establishing the exact cause of the technical reasons which led to the withdrawal of the application," he said.
But Hofmeyr said that "the option to redo the case is still open to us".
"We have done so in a number of other cases," he said.
From the Cape Times:
Filming of helicopter 'invading privacy'
March 25, 2004
By Fatima Schroeder
The Huey Extreme Club at Cape Town's V&A Waterfront has asked the Cape High Court for an interdict prohibiting its competitor from filming its operations, saying it is an invasion of its right to privacy.
The club is a voluntary association offering Vietnam War-era Huey helicopter flights to members from its V&A helipad.
The club launched the court application against Ernest McDonald, trading as Sport Helicopters, on February 9.
Judge President John Hlophe granted an interim order in terms of which McDonald undertook to stop filming any of the club's operations pending the outcome of the application.
It emerged yesterday that the filming allegedly started in December 2002 on a sporadic basis before occurring on a daily basis a year later.
The filming includes the embarking and disembarking of passengers, take-off, refuelling and the crew.
The club says members have objected to the filming and it fears its business and profitability will drop further.
The club's counsel Brian Pincus, SC, said McDonald's behaviour was an invasion of the club's right to privacy.
"Even if (McDonald's) reason for the filming was at one time bona fide, the Civil Aviation Authority, city council and the media were already aware of his complaints and objections and the continued filming has now gone beyond that which is reasonable for its stated purpose".
He asked for an interdict, pending the outcome of an action for damages already brought by the club against McDonald.
McDonald's counsel, Roelof van Riet, SC, said his client maintained that the Huey helicopter was conducted in an unsafe manner and against safety regulations.
The filming was in the public interest and if the court granted the interdict, the club would know that it was not being filmed and operate contrary to safety regulations.
Judge President Hlophe has reserved judgment.
And involving a related party
Asset unit has to return R1.15m
March 25, 2004
By Estelle Ellis
Johannesburg: What a difference a day makes - that's what the Asset Forfeiture Unit found out when it had to return R1.15 million to a businessman because it had not done its job timeously.
The unit also agreed to pay the man's legal costs, but had a demand of its own - it asked that the whole mess just be allowed to quietly go away.
National Prosecuting Authority spokesman Makhosini Nkosi said yesterday that the authorities were busy investigating how things had gone so horribly wrong. He said he was not aware of an instruction that the media could not be told about what happened.
But unit head Willie Hofmeyr said he was reluctant to comment as there was a settlement order - which was "fairly common in civil cases" - that it would not be discussed.
Last year, in a blaze of publicity, the unit applied to the Cape High Court for the preservation of R1.15 million in cash which had been confiscated by police at Cape Town International Airport.
The money belonged to businessman Gary van der Merwe of Wellness International, and was supposed to be delivered to Johannesburg businessman Jacobus van Heerden as payment for a life policy. It was transported by Johan Blignault, who carried it in two bags and a box. According to papers the money was confiscated because of Blignault's "evasive answers" that he had picked the money up "somewhere in an office in Bellville" (near Cape Town).
The court was told the Scorpions were investigating Van der Merwe for fraud, theft and contraventions of the Companies Act, and the unit said it was suspecting money-laundering.
Van der Merwe and Van Heerden denied any wrongdoing or that they were involved in money-laundering. They maintained that there was nothing illegal about conveying money of a sum of that magnitude.
In her judgment issuing the preservation order, Judge Shanaaz Meer said: "The conveyance of R1.15 million was in itself cause for suspicion, unusual and at the very least foolhardy in the current climate of crime. It provides grounds for reasonably suspecting something untoward, and the police acted reasonably in seizing the money."
To have the money forfeited to the state, the unit had to file papers within 90 days after the preservation order was obtained.
It filed its application after hours on day 90, but it only reached Van der Merwe's Cape Town attorneys on day 91 - one day too late, according to the letter of the law.
This led to an application by Van der Merwe's legal team that the state return the money. The unit told his legal team that it would return the money and pay the legal costs - estimated at several hundred thousand rands - and insisted that the whole unfortunate incident be kept under wraps.
Nkosi said he "can confirm that the Asset Forfeiture Unit withdrew the application for a confiscation order owing to technical reasons".
"There are currently internal efforts aimed at establishing the exact cause of the technical reasons which led to the withdrawal of the application," he said.
But Hofmeyr said that "the option to redo the case is still open to us".
"We have done so in a number of other cases," he said.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town (where else?)
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huey back in the news!
Can you believe it 
now they want to take the Huey away
From the Cape Argus:
Businessman fights arrest warrant
May 24, 2004
By Karyn Maughan
A high-flying Cape Town businessman has applied for a Cape High Court order forcing police to tell him why he faced impending arrest.
Gary van der Merwe, the former chief executive of
WorldOnline, Wealth International Network and Wellness International Network, who is currently involved in the Huey Extreme Club, brought the urgent application to the high court on Thursday last week.
In papers before the court, Van der Merwe said his Johannesburg attorneys received a call from one Senior Superintendent M Cloete on Wednesday last week. During the call, Cloete informed the attorneys' secretary that the police had a warrant for Van der Merwe's arrest and the search and seizure of a helicopter "which he believed to be under my control".
Van der Merwe maintained that the helicopter in question in fact belonged to Helicopter and Marine Services.
Cloete asked that Van der Merwe report to Customs House at the Waterfront this morning, from where he would be arrested and taken to court.
According to Van der Merwe, Cloete indicated that the complainant in the case against him was the Civil Aviation Authority.
After communicating with his Cape Town advocate, Pete Mihalik, Van der Merwe said the police declined to furnish him with the warrants for his arrest until this morning.
"I do not know in terms of what Act or what Section I will be charged and ... have no idea on what grounds (Cloete) is relying to arrest me."
Van der Merwe argued that he had the right to "be informed of the exact nature of the charges against me and why I am going to be arrested and detained; prepare my case and defence for a bail application; challenge the lawfulness of my imminent arrest and detention and the search and seizure".
He further denied that he was guilty of any offence and said he believed that the CAA was using the criminal courts to "pursue a civil remedy" - after two failed civil cases against him in the high court.
In an order reached by agreement, the police handed over copies of the warrants for Van der Merwe's arrest and the seizure of the helicopter, while Van der Merwe promised to report to the police for arrest tomorrow morning.
l Van der Merwe first hit the headlines in April two years ago, when two of WIN's helicopters were involved in a mid-air collision at the V&A Waterfront.
The assets forfeiture unit returned R1.15m in cash to Van der Merwe last year, after the unit failed to file the paperwork necessary to have the money - discovered by police at Cape Town International Airport - forfeited to the State.
The money was transported by Johan Blignault, Van der Merwe's former business associate, in two bags and a box and was supposed to be delivered to Johannesburg businessman Jacobus van Heerden as payment for a life policy in March 2002.
Van der Merwe and Van Heerden denied any wrongdoing.
now they want to take the Huey away
From the Cape Argus:
Businessman fights arrest warrant
May 24, 2004
By Karyn Maughan
A high-flying Cape Town businessman has applied for a Cape High Court order forcing police to tell him why he faced impending arrest.
Gary van der Merwe, the former chief executive of
WorldOnline, Wealth International Network and Wellness International Network, who is currently involved in the Huey Extreme Club, brought the urgent application to the high court on Thursday last week.
In papers before the court, Van der Merwe said his Johannesburg attorneys received a call from one Senior Superintendent M Cloete on Wednesday last week. During the call, Cloete informed the attorneys' secretary that the police had a warrant for Van der Merwe's arrest and the search and seizure of a helicopter "which he believed to be under my control".
Van der Merwe maintained that the helicopter in question in fact belonged to Helicopter and Marine Services.
Cloete asked that Van der Merwe report to Customs House at the Waterfront this morning, from where he would be arrested and taken to court.
According to Van der Merwe, Cloete indicated that the complainant in the case against him was the Civil Aviation Authority.
After communicating with his Cape Town advocate, Pete Mihalik, Van der Merwe said the police declined to furnish him with the warrants for his arrest until this morning.
"I do not know in terms of what Act or what Section I will be charged and ... have no idea on what grounds (Cloete) is relying to arrest me."
Van der Merwe argued that he had the right to "be informed of the exact nature of the charges against me and why I am going to be arrested and detained; prepare my case and defence for a bail application; challenge the lawfulness of my imminent arrest and detention and the search and seizure".
He further denied that he was guilty of any offence and said he believed that the CAA was using the criminal courts to "pursue a civil remedy" - after two failed civil cases against him in the high court.
In an order reached by agreement, the police handed over copies of the warrants for Van der Merwe's arrest and the seizure of the helicopter, while Van der Merwe promised to report to the police for arrest tomorrow morning.
l Van der Merwe first hit the headlines in April two years ago, when two of WIN's helicopters were involved in a mid-air collision at the V&A Waterfront.
The assets forfeiture unit returned R1.15m in cash to Van der Merwe last year, after the unit failed to file the paperwork necessary to have the money - discovered by police at Cape Town International Airport - forfeited to the State.
The money was transported by Johan Blignault, Van der Merwe's former business associate, in two bags and a box and was supposed to be delivered to Johannesburg businessman Jacobus van Heerden as payment for a life policy in March 2002.
Van der Merwe and Van Heerden denied any wrongdoing.
GunsssR4ever
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Out there somewhere ...
Posts: 3,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope the HUEY is flying again soon FM 
Cape Town-based entrepreneur Gary van der Merwe appeared in the city's magistrate's court on Tuesday in relation to a charge under aviation legislation, his lawyer said.
Attorney Bradley Allison said the matter, which had to do with a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) order for the grounding of a Vietnam war-era helicopter owned by Van der Merwe, would continue on Wednesday.
Allison, speaking from Johannesburg, said he was not sure what arrangements had been approved by the court, but that his client was not being held.
Van der Merwe reported to police earlier in the day in terms of an agreement and had been formally arrested.
The court case comes in the wake of repeated bids by the CAA to get Van der Merwe to stop operating the helicopter, which is a regular sight in the airspace above Cape Town.
Allison said the arrest and court action were part of an "unwarranted campaign of harassment" by the CAA against his client.
Attorney Bradley Allison said the matter, which had to do with a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) order for the grounding of a Vietnam war-era helicopter owned by Van der Merwe, would continue on Wednesday.
Allison, speaking from Johannesburg, said he was not sure what arrangements had been approved by the court, but that his client was not being held.
Van der Merwe reported to police earlier in the day in terms of an agreement and had been formally arrested.
The court case comes in the wake of repeated bids by the CAA to get Van der Merwe to stop operating the helicopter, which is a regular sight in the airspace above Cape Town.
Allison said the arrest and court action were part of an "unwarranted campaign of harassment" by the CAA against his client.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This morning i saw something really, really awsome. TWO Huey's out on the pad (Helibase next to the N1). One without main rotor blades, but still looked good.
Regardless of all the allegations and sh
t that is going down, we take our hats off to Gary, Francois and the Huey crew.
Viva the Huey!
Regardless of all the allegations and sh
t that is going down, we take our hats off to Gary, Francois and the Huey crew.Viva the Huey!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the Huey saga continue's.
One can only but wonder when it's all going to end?
The SACAA allowed the Huey to fly unhindered for 13 months. No problem. They certified it for flight, they issued the CofA, they condoned the operation, and then suddenly, boom, they decide the Huey is now a danger to society, its unsafe, its unairworthy etc.
This helicopter, has flown in excess of 600 hours in the last 16 months, transported more than 6000 people safely, and to date has not injured or killed anyone.
So one can only but wonder what the agenda is? Gary has appeared in the local magistrate's Court for the last 3 days, charged criminally for "allegedly denying authorized officers access to his premises" in terms of Part 185 of the CARS, and operating the Huey in violation of an alleged "grounding order" issued by the CAA on January 7, 2004. This grounding order was issued the day after Gary denied the said officers access to his premises, and this denial of access, is the reason for the grounding. (Wonder what denial of access has to do with flight safety?)
This grounding order, is in contradiction to a High Court order granted in favour of the Huey Club, authorizing them to operate the Huey. Gary has thus followed the High Court order, and continued to operate the Huey.
Since the "unusual or irregular grounding order" of January 7th, the helicopter has flown an average of 30 hours per month. The CAA was at all times aware that the Huey was being flown. At no time whatsoever, did they do anything to stop it. They did not approach the High Court to contest the order ruled against them with costs during December of 2003, neither did they approach the High Court with an urgent application to ground the Huey due to unairworthiness, but instead joined the Waterfront Company in a High Court application in an attempt to ban the Huey from the Waterfront, which they lost with costs. They appealed, which they also lost with costs.
Now the Supreme Court of South Africa is none other than an independent, unbiased medium that has a mandate from the Government to dispense law. In other words, the High Court must determine or distinguish between what is right and wrong, and not take sides. Well, the rulings of the High Court in these matters were clear. The other parties were wrong, and the Huey party was right. End of story!
The CAA then decided to take on Gary and the Huey in the criminal court. Its such a pity. Instead of sitting round the table with the intent of finding suitable solutions, the CAA, as the regulatory authority, have decided not to engage in any dialogue with Gary, but to rather charge him criminally, with the hope that they can get him jailed, as he is a menace to society, a danger to the public, and most certainly a severe critic of the bureaucratic inefficiencies of the SACAA, which they don't like, and if they can get him removed from society, then the Huey won't fly. Dinkum, this is the mentality here.
One would have thought that by now, 10 years into the new democracy, this sort of behavior would have come to an end, but it is clear that old habits die hard. One upmanship, big ego's, the lack of reasonable judgement and the likes, have clearly spilled over from the actions of the old DCA to the "new" CAA. No wonder the SACAA is currently so dysfunctional.
"If you don't do as we tell you, we will ride you until your back is broken". We will haunt you, and ultimately destroy you."
It is due to this sort of mentality, that aviation is going backwards in this country, and people are afraid to speak out, in fear of reprisal. "Mmmmm, so you're the guy that critisized the CAA huh? Mmmmm, bad news for you mate, you've just failed your renewal test. Sorry!"
Do we really have to put up with this sort of immature behaviour? Believe you me, it happens!
We are all waiting in anticipation, to see which way the Cat or is it the CARS, are going to jump next.
Rumour also has it that they will be coming after me next.
Viva freedom of speech, Viva
One can only but wonder when it's all going to end?
The SACAA allowed the Huey to fly unhindered for 13 months. No problem. They certified it for flight, they issued the CofA, they condoned the operation, and then suddenly, boom, they decide the Huey is now a danger to society, its unsafe, its unairworthy etc.
This helicopter, has flown in excess of 600 hours in the last 16 months, transported more than 6000 people safely, and to date has not injured or killed anyone.
So one can only but wonder what the agenda is? Gary has appeared in the local magistrate's Court for the last 3 days, charged criminally for "allegedly denying authorized officers access to his premises" in terms of Part 185 of the CARS, and operating the Huey in violation of an alleged "grounding order" issued by the CAA on January 7, 2004. This grounding order was issued the day after Gary denied the said officers access to his premises, and this denial of access, is the reason for the grounding. (Wonder what denial of access has to do with flight safety?)
This grounding order, is in contradiction to a High Court order granted in favour of the Huey Club, authorizing them to operate the Huey. Gary has thus followed the High Court order, and continued to operate the Huey.
Since the "unusual or irregular grounding order" of January 7th, the helicopter has flown an average of 30 hours per month. The CAA was at all times aware that the Huey was being flown. At no time whatsoever, did they do anything to stop it. They did not approach the High Court to contest the order ruled against them with costs during December of 2003, neither did they approach the High Court with an urgent application to ground the Huey due to unairworthiness, but instead joined the Waterfront Company in a High Court application in an attempt to ban the Huey from the Waterfront, which they lost with costs. They appealed, which they also lost with costs.
Now the Supreme Court of South Africa is none other than an independent, unbiased medium that has a mandate from the Government to dispense law. In other words, the High Court must determine or distinguish between what is right and wrong, and not take sides. Well, the rulings of the High Court in these matters were clear. The other parties were wrong, and the Huey party was right. End of story!
The CAA then decided to take on Gary and the Huey in the criminal court. Its such a pity. Instead of sitting round the table with the intent of finding suitable solutions, the CAA, as the regulatory authority, have decided not to engage in any dialogue with Gary, but to rather charge him criminally, with the hope that they can get him jailed, as he is a menace to society, a danger to the public, and most certainly a severe critic of the bureaucratic inefficiencies of the SACAA, which they don't like, and if they can get him removed from society, then the Huey won't fly. Dinkum, this is the mentality here.
One would have thought that by now, 10 years into the new democracy, this sort of behavior would have come to an end, but it is clear that old habits die hard. One upmanship, big ego's, the lack of reasonable judgement and the likes, have clearly spilled over from the actions of the old DCA to the "new" CAA. No wonder the SACAA is currently so dysfunctional.
"If you don't do as we tell you, we will ride you until your back is broken". We will haunt you, and ultimately destroy you."
It is due to this sort of mentality, that aviation is going backwards in this country, and people are afraid to speak out, in fear of reprisal. "Mmmmm, so you're the guy that critisized the CAA huh? Mmmmm, bad news for you mate, you've just failed your renewal test. Sorry!"
Do we really have to put up with this sort of immature behaviour? Believe you me, it happens!
We are all waiting in anticipation, to see which way the Cat or is it the CARS, are going to jump next.
Rumour also has it that they will be coming after me next.
Viva freedom of speech, Viva
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town (where else?)
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Francois, missed you this morning ... 
Took these of the next Huey to fly
Next Huey to fly
Bit of overspray on side panel
Rubber band anyone?
Two birds together
Took these of the next Huey to fly
Next Huey to fly
Bit of overspray on side panel
Rubber band anyone?
Two birds together
Join Date: May 2004
Location: In my skin, strapped to my Helo...
Age: 47
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Francois
What do you mean they're coming after you next. Tell us more. I also hear there is another Huey on the way to the Waterfront???? Not through you guys, though.
What do you mean they're coming after you next. Tell us more. I also hear there is another Huey on the way to the Waterfront???? Not through you guys, though.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SA
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another Huey at the Waterfront? Oh come on Dual Driver! You must be kidding. The entire aviation fraternity in Cape Town has been waiting in anticipation for the "promised" Huey to hit the Cape Town shores.
You must remember that this Huey left the Houston Port on January 13th this year. (Littl Elvis' own words) Now a ship only takes 14 days from the USA to SA. So either the ship sank, or Littl Elvis is a "big teller of stories". The alleged Elvis' Huey has been enroute for Cape Town since July of last year, but to date no one has seen anything. These people live in their own littl world Dual Driver, and if you think about it carefully; "How can Elvis buy a Huey whilst he has been six feet under since August 1976 huh"? Makes you think huh?
You must remember that this Huey left the Houston Port on January 13th this year. (Littl Elvis' own words) Now a ship only takes 14 days from the USA to SA. So either the ship sank, or Littl Elvis is a "big teller of stories". The alleged Elvis' Huey has been enroute for Cape Town since July of last year, but to date no one has seen anything. These people live in their own littl world Dual Driver, and if you think about it carefully; "How can Elvis buy a Huey whilst he has been six feet under since August 1976 huh"? Makes you think huh?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dual Driver, I better take the 5th Amendment on that one, otherwise I may compromise myself. Nice pics Dean. The pic with the "overspray" is in actual fact not overspray. The window is masked with brown paper & tape, as the window frame was sprayed. The overspray you see is on the masking covering the glass.
Yip, Huey 774 is ready. The engine must just go in and the blades must be fitted. The SACAA must however, still come and inspect it prior to registration approval, and this of course, is subject to certain conditions.
774 must be one of the lowest time Hueys in the world. 2200TT since new and 470 hours since total rebuilt by Agusta. The helicopter was damaged in a hard landing during its service in Ethiopia, and Agusta rebuilt it. (New belly skins, new tanks, new skids etc.) Eddie initially, and Gert did a great job getting it to what it is now. New wiring looms, overhauled instruments, new seats etc. All done and ready to go.
Huey rules!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: In my skin, strapped to my Helo...
Age: 47
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Classic one, Clipboard!!!! I've been out of the loop for a while and only recently found out about the "proposed" Huey. All talk and no acton again, I suppose!! Mybe the ship hit an Iceberg...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps this may have some relevance to the SACAA thinking.
DCA/HELI/4 Ex-Military Helicopters – Finite Life Recording
Applicability: All ex-military helicopters operating with a Restricted or Special Category Certificate
of Airworthiness (including Wessex, Scout, Gazelle, OH-58 and UH-1 Series).
Requirement: To prevent finite life components inadvertently exceeding their safe lives accomplish
the following:
1. Examine aircraft records and verify that all finite-life limited components, as listed
in the applicable Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Maintenance Manual or
Schedule of Retirement Lives, are being tracked.
2. Ensure all finite life components have a serial number recorded in the aircraft
records. Any life limited components which are not identified by serial number, must
be removed from service.
(NZ Occurrence 04/1354 refers)
Compliance: Before 2 June 2004.
Effective Date: 26 May 2000
Prospector
DCA/HELI/4 Ex-Military Helicopters – Finite Life Recording
Applicability: All ex-military helicopters operating with a Restricted or Special Category Certificate
of Airworthiness (including Wessex, Scout, Gazelle, OH-58 and UH-1 Series).
Requirement: To prevent finite life components inadvertently exceeding their safe lives accomplish
the following:
1. Examine aircraft records and verify that all finite-life limited components, as listed
in the applicable Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Maintenance Manual or
Schedule of Retirement Lives, are being tracked.
2. Ensure all finite life components have a serial number recorded in the aircraft
records. Any life limited components which are not identified by serial number, must
be removed from service.
(NZ Occurrence 04/1354 refers)
Compliance: Before 2 June 2004.
Effective Date: 26 May 2000
Prospector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SA
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hiya Prospector, thanks for the info. The SACAA should be thinking along those lines, but they're not. They wrote Part 94 & Part 96, approved it, implimented it, partly removed it, re-wrote it, implimented it again, changed it again, issued AIC on it, and to this date, no-one really knows or understand what they mean. No one at the CAA can with certainty tell you exactly what is required. They're all confused.
Example??? The SACAA says OK, NTCA (Non type certified aircraft) can fly for commercial gain, but then at no time with more than 9 pax. Oohh hoo, big problem! A former military DC3 with 25 pax seats can now only fly with 9 pax. Is this normal or what?
A friend of mine who works for ICAO informed me that an ICAO delegation will be arriving in SA tomorrow for discussions with the SACAA, and some of these discussions will centre around NTCA operations. Hopefully something will be resolved.
Just heard via the grapevine that the Magistrate in the Huey matter ruled that the helicopter may fly.
Example??? The SACAA says OK, NTCA (Non type certified aircraft) can fly for commercial gain, but then at no time with more than 9 pax. Oohh hoo, big problem! A former military DC3 with 25 pax seats can now only fly with 9 pax. Is this normal or what?
A friend of mine who works for ICAO informed me that an ICAO delegation will be arriving in SA tomorrow for discussions with the SACAA, and some of these discussions will centre around NTCA operations. Hopefully something will be resolved.
Just heard via the grapevine that the Magistrate in the Huey matter ruled that the helicopter may fly.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about the black eye, but there are a few tails hanging between legs....will a trail of p ss.
Dualdriver, its been a long time since we last had a cold one.
Remember the helipad and the Missis phoning all the time...
Cheers
ss.Dualdriver, its been a long time since we last had a cold one.
Remember the helipad and the Missis phoning all the time...
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the Tower
Age: 61
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the hell is CAA`s story....I`ve just returned from a week-end in the Cape and had not 1..but 2 rides in the Huey...Francois flies the bird like a pro....no danger to people or public property....gives the pax a helluva ride and returns them all safely to the pad....the bird is in immaculate condition.....obviously well maintained.....as an ATC I see no problems with these flights.....I think some asshole is stirring.......
Francois...thanks...dit was MOERSE....gee hulle gas...!!!!
Francois...thanks...dit was MOERSE....gee hulle gas...!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The reason that the NZCAA has brought out this AD on ex military helicopters would appear to be based on the fact that three have disintegrated in the air thus far, 2 American and 1 Russian, with the loss of 6 lives. The Russian during log hauling operations, the two American on Agricultural Ops, but both during the ferry mode with no undue loadings.
Prospector
Prospector
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Logging was no doubt to to overstress on the tailboom. There have been more than one of those. Slinging a load of logs with a huey was not its designed intent and the tails have been breaking off due to structural fatigue. There is a mod out for this exact situation.
Agricltural OPs?? In the states. Im sure this translates to Fire Fighting as the Forest Service in the States is under the Department of Agriculture. Quick turnarounds and Heavy loads, make for high torque and stress.
None of these problems should arise by hauling pax. Heavy slingloads would be the problem.
Agricltural OPs?? In the states. Im sure this translates to Fire Fighting as the Forest Service in the States is under the Department of Agriculture. Quick turnarounds and Heavy loads, make for high torque and stress.
None of these problems should arise by hauling pax. Heavy slingloads would be the problem.
