Pilot nicknamed 'Biggles' jailed for 19 years
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot nicknamed 'Biggles' jailed for 19 years
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it any wonder some of the authorities call for further restrictions?
With these types within our our numbers consider ourselves lucky that we can still fly abroad without having to go to customs airports.
With these types within our our numbers consider ourselves lucky that we can still fly abroad without having to go to customs airports.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Breighton Airfield
Age: 29
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite annoyed with the way that aircraft was confiscated. It was originally planned for it to go to Doncaster, an FAA holder friend of mine offered to ferry it to Doncaster for the police, but got turned down and the aircraft got disembled and shipped by road in the end. Was a beautiful aircraft, great condition. Full IR kit including weather radar and pressurised. All LED lights. Shame to see that its still in bits.
They did the same thing with G-HOLA at Bagby. A very nice Dakota.
Plenty of offers to fly it to Doncaster. They ended up pulling it to pieces and carting it off on a trailer. Needless Vandalism. No less.
Plenty of offers to fly it to Doncaster. They ended up pulling it to pieces and carting it off on a trailer. Needless Vandalism. No less.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They did the same thing with G-HOLA at Bagby. A very nice Dakota
You've got to hand it to those drug smugglers with there IFR equipped P210's and Dakotas, They've got good taste and like nice kit.
The US drug cops would never destroy a prefectly good aircraft, they'd flog it off to the highest bidder and use the proceeds to buy more crime fighting equipment.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having had the police and forensic scientists digging all around it maybe the authorities wouldn't let it fly for liability or airworthy reasons?
Does anyone know the process the police go through? I presume numerous panels will be removed and even inside the wings will be checked for drugs
Who does this ? do they use licensed engineers in the whole process?
Pace
Does anyone know the process the police go through? I presume numerous panels will be removed and even inside the wings will be checked for drugs
Who does this ? do they use licensed engineers in the whole process?
Pace
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The police have no intention of letting anything get in the way of them when investigating crimes, even if there is no pressing reason to do an inspection quickly they will just press ahead without any regard to the chance of recovering money by selling the asset.
So in answer to your question the chances of getting an aircraft engineer to help in the search of an aircraft are almost nil, they will just rip the thing apart and sell it as scrap once the investigation is finnished.
I even know of a case where the police and airline security department installed video equipment in the cargo bay of an airliner without any input from the technical department of the airline. This of course was a totally unauthorised modification that breached a fireproof compartment. The practice was stopped only when the equipment was discovered during the troubleshooting of an unconnected system, and the technical department removed the unauthorised modification.
So in answer to your question the chances of getting an aircraft engineer to help in the search of an aircraft are almost nil, they will just rip the thing apart and sell it as scrap once the investigation is finnished.
I even know of a case where the police and airline security department installed video equipment in the cargo bay of an airliner without any input from the technical department of the airline. This of course was a totally unauthorised modification that breached a fireproof compartment. The practice was stopped only when the equipment was discovered during the troubleshooting of an unconnected system, and the technical department removed the unauthorised modification.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that is the case then the aircraft could not be flown out without a complete inspection by a licensed engineer and the relevant authorisations.
There would also be no valid insurance.
The other point worth considering is where the aircraft is seized? In a bigger airport its likely there would be hangers and even maybe a licensed maintenance unit but if its seized on some small strip there maybe neither.
To move it from its seizure point to somewhere more suitable for the police to inspect it would put any evidence found in jeopardy of being used as evidence even if a police pilot flew it to an inspection site.
So I am sure you are right. Once on the ground the police will regard the aircraft not as an aircraft but as a piece of ground bound hardware which might contain evidence and to let anyone remove that hardware police or otherwise would give a good case that the evidence had been tampered with.
After the inspection it would then be up to a licensed engineer to certify the aircraft for flight again
Pace
There would also be no valid insurance.
The other point worth considering is where the aircraft is seized? In a bigger airport its likely there would be hangers and even maybe a licensed maintenance unit but if its seized on some small strip there maybe neither.
To move it from its seizure point to somewhere more suitable for the police to inspect it would put any evidence found in jeopardy of being used as evidence even if a police pilot flew it to an inspection site.
So I am sure you are right. Once on the ground the police will regard the aircraft not as an aircraft but as a piece of ground bound hardware which might contain evidence and to let anyone remove that hardware police or otherwise would give a good case that the evidence had been tampered with.
After the inspection it would then be up to a licensed engineer to certify the aircraft for flight again
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These pilots have no place in GA. They have rightly lost their assets.
Anyone who thinks they can pick up a cheap aircraft from the police proceeds falls into the same category in my opinion.
Anyone who thinks they can pick up a cheap aircraft from the police proceeds falls into the same category in my opinion.
Some of us lament the trashing of perfectly good aircraft for no good reason.
Nothing to do with picking up cheap aircraft.
The Dakota was a lovely aircraft. It was gone over by a forensics team in a secure hangar. It was then stuck outside and left to the elements, before being pulled to bits and carted off. It was a travesty.
The operation which led to the aircraft being seized was an even bigger cock-up, but that's another story. Pats on the back, when a boot up the rear would have been far more appropriate. I'll stop before I say too much.
Nothing to do with picking up cheap aircraft.
The Dakota was a lovely aircraft. It was gone over by a forensics team in a secure hangar. It was then stuck outside and left to the elements, before being pulled to bits and carted off. It was a travesty.
The operation which led to the aircraft being seized was an even bigger cock-up, but that's another story. Pats on the back, when a boot up the rear would have been far more appropriate. I'll stop before I say too much.
Last edited by Flyingmac; 13th Feb 2016 at 19:12.
So 3wheels, where would you draw the line regarding trashing the aircraft?
Stearman?, Spitfire?, Bizjet?, 737? I can't get my head round your 'Blame the Aircraft' stance.
Frankly, as a lover of all things that fly, and a member of the RSPCA, I find your ranting offensive.
Stearman?, Spitfire?, Bizjet?, 737? I can't get my head round your 'Blame the Aircraft' stance.
Frankly, as a lover of all things that fly, and a member of the RSPCA, I find your ranting offensive.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just through interest does anyone know who meets the cost of putting the aircraft back into the state it was in before the examination if nothing is found and the suspicion is found to be false ?
Pace
Pace