Originally Posted by
The name is Porter
It is suspected the aircraft's avionics was manipulated to turn the ADSB off so it couldn't be tracked. Yet another illegal action by whomever removed the aircraft.
I’m not familiar with the avionics in the aircraft in question, but I find this an interesting statement (without prejudice to the rest of the situation).
I would assume that flying with ADSB “off” would merely involve choosing not to (or neglecting to) turn the transponder “on”. Hard to define that as “manipulating the aircraft’s avionics”. Even harder to define that as an “illegal action”.
Forgive me if I’m asking the obvious... It’s been a long time since I’ve flown VFR, but I didn’t think flying VFR in class G airspace required ADSB.
Although... is there an aviation regulation that states that a transponder (with or without ADSB), if fitted and serviceable, must be operating? If so then a complicit LAME might be required to have ensured the transponder was U/S to avoid regulatory non-compliance. But if the intent was to hide the aircraft, a regulatory misdemeanour is probably not going to help you any.
How does the OP know that ADSB was off? Simply no record on FR24? Or has further effort been taken? What about Mode C radar tracking? Has Airservices been contacted for tracking information? What about primary radar tracking? Bacchus is pretty close to a major radar head.
Sorry for the questions, but if it’s being used as evidence of nefarious intent, I find it interesting (the thread having recently devolved to carp jokes).
Of more interest though, is why does the aggrieved party feel that they need a private investigation (which this thread obviously is) to locate the aircraft? If, as has been stated, that lawyers for both parties have been engaged, then they must be in some form of communication (if only via lawyers). Does the aggrieved party wish to locate the aircraft simply to “steal it back”? If they succeed, hopefully the ADSB is still U/S
Having said that, I fully understand that if a joint asset (even if owned under corporate title) comes into dispute between the parties, then possession of the asset could be an advantage if the dispute takes a long time to resolve. It could also be supposed that the party in possession of the asset will be less likely to agree to mediation on mutually agreeable terms (given that they are enjoying the sole use of or even income from the asset and depriving the other party of same). Particularly so for a depreciating asset. I picture the childless couple, one disappears with the Porsche. After 3 years of mediation and family court, the court determines the Porsche must be sold and the proceeds split 50/50. Meantime, the “thief” got to drive the Porsche for 3 years and on liquidation was now worth half what it was.
So what do I do if I see the aircraft at a local field? Do I trust you? I don’t know you. But you did give the option of providing the info to the cops, not you directly. That gives you credibility... good call.
If I find it, I will call the cops. As I said, I don’t fly VFR, but I have plenty of family and friends who do, in several states. And I know a few LAME’s too.
Good luck, it must be a horrible turn of events in what was probably a lifelong dream for your friend. I’d like to think you can’t knock off an aeroplane in Australia and get away with it.