RV10 VH-BUY Stolen from Bacchus Marsh

[The name is Porter]

If you or anyone you know, knows the whereabouts of VH-BUY an RV10, please PM. The aircraft was removed from a hangar at Bacchus Marsh without the consent of the aircraft builder, Andrew McIntosh. Further, Andrew was conducting maintenance on the aircraft at the time and the maintenance has not been recorded on the MR or the Build Log Books. The aircraft is un-airworthy and has been flown in that state.

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.

[bloodandiron]

So... not long before we see an RV-10 in the Middle East with an ISIS logo stamped on it...

[TBM-Legend]

So... not long before we see an RV-10 in the Middle East with an ISIS logo stamped on it...

Bet you wouldn't say that if you lost aircraft [or pushbike]

Theft is theft...

[Lead Balloon]

Wow - a rather ambitious theft. Either that, or plain stoopid...

PS: TNIP - By any chance is the suspect thief known to the builder? Who has legal title to the aircraft?

[Bend alot]

"Andrew was conducting maintenance on the aircraft at the time and the maintenance has not been recorded on the MR or the Build Log Books."

From this statement it appears the aircraft had a MR, from your comment I assume it is a valid MR.

Andrew may be the one to answer some very serious questions by the regulator!

Careful to throw rocks in public places when you have windows on the field.

[The name is Porter]

The aircraft is subject to legal dispute. The aircraft was having maintenance done on it by the 51% builder of the aircraft. If it was flown it was flown in an un-airworthy state. Everyone who knows the 2 owners knows that one of them built 90% of it and the other tells everyone he built it.

Suffice to say, the aircraft was removed in an un-airworthy state, voiding insurance etc.

[Lead Balloon]

Good luck with your legal dispute. Having it in public, in the view of a regulator which feeds on easy targets, is probably going to be counter-productive for you.

[The name is Porter]

I welcome the regulators involvement. This matter has been reported to them.

[Wizofoz]

Best of luck- but are you sailing a little close to the libel wind by saying the aircraft was "stolen"?

[Lead Balloon]

Let me guess, TNIP: You reckon the respective percentages of effort put into the build determines the respective ownership percentages of the aircraft. Are you sure you’re not joint owners? No doubt there’ll be a detailed agreement setting out the ownership arrangements...

So far you’ve managed to defame the other owner, throw your insurance under the bus and devalue the aircraft.

Partnerships that go pear-shaped are a very rich vein for lawyers. Not so for the estranged partners.

Much of the damage done by this thread has already been done, but I’d suggest you consider deleting it.

[Squawk7700]

Personally I wouldn’t use the word “stolen” in this context.

The situation is like splitting up with your wife. She leaves in the car that you jointly own and you don’t know where she is or who she’s camping with.

Pretty stressful none the less.

[Sunfish]

I hope there was a throttle lock fitted or CASA (?) may prosecute.

[Clare Prop]

Aviation Transport Security Regulations 4.72 4.72 covers security for unattended aircraft

CAR 42 covers the airworthiness requirements.

[YPJT]

Notwithstanding the maintenance issue. If the other party has taken the aircraft without your knowledge but otherwise had lawful access to it i.e. keys to access the hangar, proven part ownership etc then this is a civil matter.
Call your lawyer.

[Clare Prop]

Breaches of the ATSRs and CARs however are not a civil matter!

[Lead Balloon]

The other owner may have completed and certified, or arranged for the completion and certification of, the maintenance....

The other owner may have had keys to the throttle/mixture lock and ignition...

There are usually at least two sides to every story.

My prediction: The lawyers will own the aircraft before anything happens from a regulatory perspective.

[The name is Porter]

Let me guess, TNIP: You reckon the respective percentages of effort put into the build determines the respective ownership percentages of the aircraft. Are you sure you’re not joint owners? No doubt there’ll be a detailed agreement setting out the ownership arrangements...

No, the aircraft is owned 50% by each 'owner' in a company structure. One of the 'owners' removed the director of the company (another person) and appointed himself as the director of the company (whilst the other owner was in hospital having open heart surgery). Unfortunately there is not a detailed ownership agreement.

So far you’ve managed to defame the other owner, throw your insurance under the bus and devalue the aircraft.

It is not defamation if it is all true information. The other party is welcome to monitor and download the activity of this thread and pass on to his lawyers. He will be embarrassed when this goes to court. There is a great deal of un-lawful activity that has taken place.

As far as de-valuing the aircraft goes, this is not a factor. It was an aircraft built for personal use.

The insurance company must be informed when an aircraft is in this state, they will be. The regulator must be informed, they have been. The Police have been informed.

Partnerships that go pear-shaped are a very rich vein for lawyers. Not so for the estranged partners.

Both parties have lawyered up, bring it on.

Much of the damage done by this thread has already been done, but I’d suggest you consider deleting it.

Why? The aircraft must be located for the following reasons:

Maintenance has been performed on the aircraft by the named, legal builder of the aircraft as per the Certificate of Airworthiness. This maintenance has not been able to be logged on either the MR or the aircraft's logbooks. This is a serious situation. If the aircraft has been moved from the airfield, the aircraft's ADSB function has possibly been disabled, illegal.

The aircraft must be located for those and other reasons. I re-iterate, if anyone knows the whereabouts of this aircraft, report it to the Bachhus Marsh Police or myself via PM.

[Clare Prop]

No, the aircraft is owned 50% by each 'owner' in a company structure. One of the 'owners' removed the director of the company (another person) and appointed himself as the director of the company (whilst the other owner was in hospital having open heart surgery).

There is due process to follow for change to office bearers in a company. Has a Power of Attorney been abused?

Unfortunately there is not a detailed ownership agreement.

Presumably you are both shareholders in this Company setup?

Good luck, this looks like a feeding frenzy for lawyers. Hope you find the aeroplane.

[Lead Balloon]

No, the aircraft is owned 50% by each 'owner' in a company structure. One of the 'owners' removed the director of the company (another person) and appointed himself as the director of the company (whilst the other owner was in hospital having open heart surgery). Unfortunately there is not a detailed ownership agreement.Sounds like a company owns the aircraft.

You’re aware that the shareholders of a company do not own the assets of the company?

How many shares have been issued by the company, and who holds them?

[Bend alot]

Where are the MR and Log Books now?

Did the MR have an endorsement that rendered the aircraft U/S?

[The Banjo]

This youtube video was obviously made in sweeter times.

https://youtu.be/x3kp0StQINE

The relationship may have deteriorated somewhat since then....

[PDR1]

This is a serious situation. If the aircraft has been moved from the airfield, the aircraft's ADSB function has possibly been disabled, illegal.


Unless it was move by road, of course.

PDR

[kaz3g]

Wow - a rather ambitious theft. Either that, or plain stoopid...

PS: TNIP - By any chance is the suspect thief known to the builder? Who has legal title to the aircraft?

Theft, in Victorian Law, is the unlawful appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it: s72 Crimes Act.

the “unlawful” bit of the appropriation might be a hurdle to proving theft if the person taking the goods had keys to the hangar and aircraft. The question of the maintenance release is not relevant to this in my view and the 51% build is only relevant to who can perform it. The corporation would need to try to make out theft if it can but to me it is a messy civil matter with some
potential aviation law thrown in.

kaz

[Aussie Bob]

Blimey :sad:
Gotta love PPrune, where else would we see such a soapie. A high performance aircraft, a clash of ego's, whoever would have thunk it? But wait, there's more, company involvement, lawyers appointed and this:
Both parties have lawyered up, bring it on.

I think you may be about to find out the hard way; the only winners will be the legal fraternity ...

[Squawk7700]

You know the saying... legal advice from the Internet is worth exactly what you paid for it, no matter how convincing it would seem.

One of the posters on here couldn't be trusted with their legal advice as far as they could be thrown down into the deepest part of the grand canyon.

[Aussie Bob]

I must add to my post above which is somewhat "tongue in cheek" I am very sad to see this going on for both parties. I watched the video linked previously, it appears the honeymoon is well and truly over. I hope it is resolved satisfactorily and quickly for all involved.

[Tankengine]

I was accused of stealing an aircraft once, also one the other party declared “unairworthy”

However the lawyer I was working for won in court. We had a lame do a new MR before flight.

Messy situations.

[Alpha Whiskey Bravo]

Are you sure it isn't just in another hangar at Bacchus and not flown somewhere else like Yarawonga?

[The name is Porter]

I haven't stated anything on this thread that won't be brought up in a court of law. The other party can go their hardest with defamation/libel, whatever.

I state again, I am the nominated person on the CofA that can perform maintenance on this aircraft. I was in the act of performing maintenance when the MR was removed from the aircraft. The aircraft was then removed from the hangar without my knowledge. Stolen, not stolen, whatever your interpretation of company law. The fact remains that the aircraft was possibly flown without a clearing endorsement being recorded on the MR or the logbook. There is also the possibly that the ADSB was disabled on the aircraft to prevent the aircraft being tracked. I ask you, and it will be asked legally, if the removal of this aircraft from Bacchus Marsh was legitimate, why was the ADSB disabled? And how is this going to be justified to the regulator?

[Pinky the pilot]

the only winners will be the legal fraternity ...

Sadly, that is about the truth of it an' all, Aussie Bob!

BTW; What is the difference between a Lawyer and a European Carp?:confused::E

[Bend alot]

As far as VH-XXX is concerned as a LAME I can perform maintenance on it.

As you don't seem to have the MR, you can not say with certainty that is was not cleared before it may have flown.

The MR may give reason for ADSB being disabled it may even be on a PUS attached to the current MR and awaiting to be put in the Logbooks ( that MUST be given to a person that intends to do maintenance on the aircraft when asked).

This maintenance can even be preservation maintenance that may be required during a long court battle.

Refusing to give up the log books may be worse than the flight without other directors approval.

[Lead Balloon]

TNIP: Are you sure the aircraft was flown away?

Pinky: The difference is you can eradicate carp...

[PDR1]

I ask you, and it will be asked legally, if the removal of this aircraft from Bacchus Marsh was legitimate, why was the ADSB disabled? And how is this going to be justified to the regulator?

IANAL, but...

Perhaps it was moved by road, in which case the avionics wouldn't be powered-up. Perhaps it was merely pushed to another place on the airfield where it remains, either in a different hangar or even under a tarp. If you want to prove to a court that it was flown illegally then you will need to prove that it was flown - this will need be to a criminal standard of proof ("beyond reasonable doubt") and not just the civil "balance of probabilities" standard, remember. You are merely asserting that it was illegally flown based on conjecture. No regulator would pass that to criminal procedings, so forget it.

As to the rest - this is just a dispute between joint owners of an asset. If you want to bankrupt yourself then by all means take it to court, but you'd be better off just trying to resolve your differences outside the legal system. If you can no longer talk to eachother in a grown-up manner without fisticuffs then try an arbitrator - it will be much cheaper. If you go into a court WITHOUT having exhausted the alternatives then a judge may simply decide that you are vexatious and punish you for it (by way of awarding costs to the other party).

Seriously - grow up and talk to your partner. Don't fight your battles here because it just makes you look childish.

€0.00003 supplied,

PDR

[Lead Balloon]

The individuals are not joint owners. VHBUY Pty Ltd ACN 600 287 956 is the owner (so far as I can tell).

[PDR1]

The individuals are not joint owners. VHBUY Pty Ltd ACN 600 287 956 is the owner (so far as I can tell).

True, but the individuals are (as I understand it) joint owners of the company. They have a dispute anbout the conduct of the company which they are better resolgving through discussion or arbitration rather than the courts. The way they are going the most likely outcome will be the forced selling of the aeroplane to pay-off the legal costs.

PDR

[nonsense]

BTW; What is the difference between a Lawyer and a European Carp?:confused::E

One is a scum sucking bottom dweller...

[Pinky the pilot]

The difference is you can eradicate carp...


Yers, Lead Balloon, but not the correct answer!

Nonsense has the correct first part of the answer! Which really gives the whole bit away actually.:ok:

[Lead Balloon]

[B]ut the individuals are (as I understand it) joint owners of the companyHmmm. I’d suggest that meticulous care should be taken when using phrases like “joint owners”. If the individuals each own one or more shares in the company, the individuals are just holders of company shares, not “joint owners of the company”.

Of course, it is possible that the individuals are joint owners of shares...

[KRviator]

I state again, I am the nominated person on the CofA that can perform maintenance on this aircraft.But you are not the only person who can perform maintenance on the aircraft, correct? Any LAME can sign off on it...

If it were me, and I was serious enough, I'd drain the tanks, cut off the wings with a grinder, load them and the fuse onto a flatbed to Upper Bumphuck and spend $20k on a new set of QB wings from Vans in a few months time.

The aircraft was then removed from the hangar without my knowledge.To where? Until you know that, the rest of your allegations and suppositions are just that. You have no proof of anything, other than your RV is not where you left it.

The fact remains that the aircraft was possibly flown without a clearing endorsement being recorded on the MR or the logbook.As is the fact it was possibly not flown anywhere.

There is also the possibly that the ADSB was disabled on the aircraft to prevent the aircraft being tracked. I ask you, and it will be asked legally, if the removal of this aircraft from Bacchus Marsh was legitimate, why was the ADSB disabled?I ask you - and it will be asked legally (sorry... ;-P) - Can you prove the ADS-B was disabled? Doesn't sound like it at the moment... An awful lot of conjecture and dirty laundry being aired in public, IMHO...

[Lead Balloon]

Great post, KR.

Only one correction: [Y]our RV is not where you left it.VHBUY Pty Ltd’s RV is not where TNIP left it.

[Squawk7700]

I once went to the airport to get out my plane of the hangar, only to realise that I left it at another airport the last time I flew it. I hadn’t been drinking either.

[Capt Fathom]

I once went to the airport to get out my plane of the hangar, only to realise that I left it at another airport the last time I flew it.
You should be fine. Avmed don’t read Pprune. :E

[Derfred]

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.

[Slatye]

This is a serious situation. If the aircraft has been moved from the airfield, the aircraft's ADSB function has possibly been disabled, illegal.

I'm curious about whether it's actually illegal. CASA says:

9E.2 Subject to paragraph 9E.3, an aircraft:
(a) that is:
(i) first registered on or after 6 February 2014; or
(ii) modified by having its transponder installation replaced on or after
6 February 2014; and
(b) that is operated:
(i) in Class A, B, C or E airspace; or
(ii) above 10 000 feet above mean sea level in Class G airspace;
must carry a serviceable Mode S transponder that meets the standards:
(c) for Mode S transponder equipment — in subsection 9C; and
(d) for ADS-B transmission — in a clause or clauses of Appendix XI as follows:
(i) clauses 2 and 5 of Part B; or
(ii) clause 7 of Part C; or
(iii) clause 8 of Part C.
Note The requirement is for aircraft to be fitted with a Mode S transponder with ADS-B OUT
capability. That does not mean that ADS-B OUT transmission is also required under this paragraph. It
means that, with the later connection of compatible GNSS position source equipment, ADS-B OUT can
be transmitted as well as Mode S SSR responses.

Seems to me that if you stay in Class G airspace, you're absolutely fine to go without a Mode S transponder (or, for that matter, any transponder). Even if you're in Class A, B, C, or E airspace, you don't have to transmit ADS-B OUT messages. As far as I can tell, simply failing to turn on the GPS receiver will neatly eliminate any ADS-B tracking by disabling your position output; ATC will still be able to track you just like they always have done with Mode-C transponders. I can't actually see anything that requires the transponder to be turned on (you just have to carry it), although I suspect that CASA would not be amused if you flew into Sydney with a brand new Mode-S transponder (still in its box) on the back seat.

[Clare Prop]

Re the police, a stolen aircraft would be something for the Feds, who would want to know why it wasn't secured.

[Derfred]

I can't actually see anything that requires the transponder to be turned on

Exactly, as I was saying, although I’m happy to be re-educated by any rule changes that may have occured since I last looked this up :)

[Derfred]

Re the police, a stolen aircraft would be something for the Feds, who would want to know why it wasn't secured.
Is it a stolen aircraft?
So far it appears to be a game of hide’n’seek between two star-crossed lovers, the eventual reconciliation of which, according to most on this thread, will spell the death of both families, and all will be punished.

[onehitwonder]

We leased the 182 to an operator who never paid, despite signing the lease and sending fraudulent screenshots of remittances.

Federal police didn’t want a bar of it as it’s not there scope

state police then went for theft and fraud, became a full blown interstate police operation and eventually extradited interstate to face charges.

take it up with your local CIB

[CaptainMidnight]

Seems to me that if you stay in Class G airspace, you're absolutely fine to go without a Mode S transponder (or, for that matter, any transponder).

AIP ENR 1.6-7:
7. AIRCRAFT TRANSPONDER
7.1 Operation of SSR Transponders
7.1.2 Unless advised otherwise by ATC, pilots of Mode 3A or Mode S transponder equipped aircraft operating in Australian airspace must activate their transponders, and where a Mode C capability is also available it must be activated simultaneously with Mode 3A.


AIP GEN 1.5-13:
6.1.3 ADS-B Equipment
6.1.3.2 An aircraft, which is fitted for serviceable ADS-B transmitting equipment that complies with an approved equipment configuration, must operate the equipment continuously during the flight in all airspace at all altitudes unless the pilot is directed or approved otherwise by ATC.

[Aussie Bob]

Further to what Captain Midnight said, I have flown in aircraft where it is not possible to simply turn off the ADSB, I would assume VH-BUY was the same. If you want it off you need to tamper with it or fly with all avionics off.

[Sunfish]

on a dynon skyview installation you generally have. a seperate CB for the xpdr just so it is independent.

[KRviator]

on a dynon skyview installation you generally have. a seperate CB for the xpdr just so it is independent.No Skyview in the recently removed RV. Looks to be a Garmin G3X with a GTX330ES transponder driven by a GTN750.

One thing I don't get... What's with the guarded TRIM Norm/Off/Reverse switch? Even fully deflected, the RV-9, while decidedly uncomfortable, is easily managed. Surely a misrigged trim would A) be picked up during the before-flight inspections and B) not be serious enough to warrant a permanent (red guarded) switch on the panel?
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7371/12429182193_8c69c178f5_z.jpg
Photo from AndyMac's Flickr album.

[Capt Fathom]

No wonder it was easily nicked. The key was left hanging on the compass! :}

[NCANinja]

As passionate aviators we love our aircraft.. Well, those of us that don’t spend too much time on forums do.
Anyway, I think what TNIP is getting at is that he is just trying to locate an aircraft which he built and cares greatly about as anyone who built an aeroplane will know how much blood, sweat and tears goes into them and if anyone has any info which may help him would be appreciated..
I’m new to this computer scene but not so new to aviation. What happened to passionate aviators helping one another? Or am I just old fashioned..

[The name is Porter]

So, over a number of posts it has been established that if an aircraft has ADSB fitted, it must be turned on in all airspace in all cases of flight.

If a radio is fitted, it must be used.

Once again, the aircraft has had maintenance performed on it, not completed, not able to be recorded on the MR or the Logbooks. The MR was removed from the aircraft to prevent it being flown. An approach was made to obtain the logbooks and it was denied. A LAME cannot sign off maintenance that I performed if they haven't spoken to me, don't know what that maintenance was.

Again, if you know where this aircraft is, report it to the Police quoting my name.

I will not knowingly allow an aircraft to take to the air knowing it is not airworthy.

[YPJT]

Your mate can't hide forever. Wait until he sticks his head above the parapet and ask him where it is.

[Lead Balloon]

TNIP: You seem convinced that the aircraft was flown. Why? If I’d seen the aircraft anywhere in recent times, I would have said so, here. I suspect others would be the same. None of us any dog in this fight.

If it was flown, isn’t it possible that a LAME issued a fresh MR? And it’s worth reading the entirety of the context of those AIP provisions the Captain quoted. In aviation, there are always exemptions and exceptions and exclusions tucked away somewhere...

[andrewr]

The use of ADSB to attempt to track another party in a legal dispute is one of the reasons people are concerned about the privacy implications of having the data publicly available.
That is not what ADSB is intended for.

[CaptainMidnight]

The use of ADSB to attempt to track another party in a legal dispute is one of the reasons people are concerned about the privacy implications of having the data publicly available.
Tracking is also available from SSR transponders. FR24 etc display both ADS-B and SSR-derived signals.

Anything that radiates an RF signal can be detected and tracked.

[The name is Porter]

If it was flown, isn’t it possible that a LAME issued a fresh MR?

Lead, I don't think you're getting the point? How does a LAME know what components of the aircraft I was working on? Unless the LAME did a full and comprehensive annual. The individual that removed the aircraft from the hangar is on CCTV. There was no evidence of any 'fresh 100 hourly' taking place on CCTV.

I continue to say 'if' ........................... 'if' .......................the aircraft was flown out of this aerodrome, the ADSB must have been disabled.

Why?
Why is it being hidden?

I also continue to say: I...............was................performing............... ........maintenance.......................on................ ......the ..................aircraft......................at.......... ..........the.......................time.................... .....it..................was................removed......... .............from......................the.................. ......hangar.

That maintenance has not been recorded or cleared on the MR or the logbooks.

An attempt was made today to change the the insurance details on the aircraft i.e. change it to another companies name. The insurance company refused to change the details unless all parties were consulted, at least some organisations have gumption.

The evidence continues to build.

The bell will toll.

[KRviator]

Lead, I don't think you're getting the point? How does a LAME know what components of the aircraft I was working on? Unless the LAME did a full and comprehensive annual. The individual that removed the aircraft from the hangar is on CCTV. There was no evidence of any 'fresh 100 hourly' taking place on CCTV.

I continue to say 'if' ........................... 'if' .......................the aircraft was flown out of this aerodrome, the ADSB must have been disabled.

Why?
Why is it being hidden?

I also continue to say: I...............was................performing............... ........maintenance.......................on................ ......the ..................aircraft......................at.......... ..........the.......................time.................... .....it..................was................removed......... .............from......................the.................. ......hangar.

That maintenance has not been recorded or cleared on the MR or the logbooks.

An attempt was made today to change the the insurance details on the aircraft i.e. change it to another companies name. The insurance company refused to change the details unless all parties were consulted, at least some organisations have gumption.

The evidence continues to build.

The bell will toll.So let it toll. Why get on here and whinge about your companies missing RV? And do you really thing spelling it out liiikkkeee......thiiiiisss...... in an attempt to suggest those that have been following along at home are somewhat denser than your average 2x4 will achieve anything?

You say you have him on CCTV. Fine. Congratulations. We're all very happy for you. Because now you can take it to the fuzz and let the wallopers do what they are paid for. Whinging here on Prune about you not being able to sign off on the MR when what you are are really wanting to do is get back at your former partner and get 'your' -10 back ain't going to do sweet FA, except provide endless entertainment for the rest of us.

Anyway, how do you know a LAME didn't satisfy himself the aircraft was airworthy and was willing to sign off on a new MR? An RV isn't exactly a complex aircraft. Placard the transponder as INOP as he can't see the RAD43 certification and away it goes. OR perhaps doesn't go. Who really knows? :}

[Squawk7700]

The fact that you removed the MR from the aircraft to stop it being flown suggests that you knew that this was a possibility. Removing the prop may have been a better option ! (or maybe a wheel)

[Aussie Bob]

An attempt was made today to change the the insurance details on the aircraft i.e. change it to another companies name. The insurance company refused to change the details unless all parties were consulted, at least some organisations have gumption.

Well the answer is simple then, just lodge a claim on insurance that the aircraft has been stolen, collect the payout and move on. Hopefully it was insured for a reasonable sum. You keep telling us it was stolen. Must be true.

[Sunfish]

the directors of the company that owns the aircraft must make formal notification to the police and insurers that the aircraft has been stolen, period. Not to do that exposes the directors to the crime of "misprision of a felony"- you must report a presumed theft.

What happens afterwards is anyone's guess, but you must report suspected crime.

imho, if the aircraft ain't found - criminal offence.

imho it is found - civil case.

if you know that somebody knows where the aircraft is, but ain't tellin, you need a writ from the court freezing movement and putting the aircraft under the control of the court which means anyone who touches. it is in contempt of court.

....or, call your local bikies;(

[gerry111]

....or, call your local bikies;(


I thought Melbournians got that Mick Gatto bloke to mediate these sorts of disputes..

[Lead Balloon]

TNIP: You continue to say that you were performing maintenance on the aircraft at the time it was was removed from the hangar, but that’s not true (no ..... matter ..... how ..... many ..... full ..... stops .... you .... put .... between .... the .... words.....). What actually happened was that you started some maintenance, you left the hangar before that maintenance was completed and when you came back the aircraft was not in that hangar.

In any event, let’s assume there’s an aircraft in a hangar and someone is doing maintenance on it. Before that maintenance is completed, the person has a heart attack and dies. Nobody knows what maintenance was being performed or where it was up to. Are you seriously suggesting that the aircraft can never be flown again? Nobody is qualified to inspect the aircraft and certify it airworthy? Seriously?

It’s just a f*cking RV10. It’s not an SR71.

[packapoo]

Have to admit - entertaining reading with my morning coffee.....

[The Connie Returns]

Have to admit - entertaining reading with my morning coffee.....

What's entertaining is how aggro everyone is getting.

From what I understand, this thread started as a request for information along the lines of "if anyone knows where this plane is, please let me know"....

...from which this Soap Opera has started!

[havick]

Have to admit - entertaining reading with my morning coffee.....

Almost as entertaining as the Robert Weaver threads.

[Art Smass]

Almost as entertaining as the Robert Weaver threads.


.....you don't think he..:}

[PinkusDickus]

Without looking at the ownership structure, the aircraft may be protected from resale if it's on the Personal Property Securities Register which can be done by the majority owner This means if it's sold to a buyer who doesn't do their due diligence the title of the property does pass. It's not too late to register and it should refer to all serial number of engine, instruments, radios (and ADSB) in the event that it's stripped and sold for parts.

Aircraft can be easily spirited away and hidden anywhere in Australia. I know someone who'd like to locate the whereabouts of VH-IOD PA31-350 and VH-ALT PA30 which if I understand correctly, were somehow related to an insolvency or similar.

The Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) is a national online register that can provide information to help protect consumers when they are buying personal property such as cars, boats or artworks (not including land or buildings).What is the PPSR? PPSR (https://www.ppsr.gov.au/what-personal-property-securities-register-ppsr)https://www.ppsr.gov.au/what-personal-property-securities-register-ppsr

[Capt Quentin McHale]

TNIP,

I'm curious, what exactly was the unfinished maintenance?

McHale. https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

[The Connie Returns]

I thought Melbournians got that Mick Gatto bloke to mediate these sorts of disputes..

Well....in this case perhaps that would be the best idea.
Not sure I can see anyone else getting involved.

[The Connie Returns]

Is it a stolen aircraft?
So far it appears to be a game of hide’n’seek between two star-crossed lovers, the eventual reconciliation of which, according to most on this thread, will spell the death of both families, and all will be punished.

Yes....sounds like all will be punished, the lawyers are most likely to be the winners here.

One has to suspect however that someone removing an aircraft, disabling monitoring and hiding it....well...it looks pretty sneaky. One can't help but suspect that they are up to no good.

[The name is Porter]

The fact that you removed the MR from the aircraft to stop it being flown suggests that you knew that this was a possibility. Removing the prop may have been a better option ! (or maybe a wheel)

It was not I that removed the MR.

[The name is Porter]

Personal Property Securities Register

Interesting, one day you will all know the story, it's an eye opener.

[PDR1]

Interesting, one day you will all know the story, it's an eye opener.

No thanks - I'm washing my hair that decade.

PDR

[PDR1]

TNIP,

I'm curious, what exactly was the unfinished maintenance?

McHale. https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

From the sounds of it - oiling the canopy hinges, putting nitrogen in the tyres, topping up thje ashtrays or similar. Just something that one of the "owners" could use to deny the other "owner" any use of their toy by declaring it "undergoing maintenance".

PDR

[PDR1]

It was not I that removed the MR.

So you are now saying the other party has the MR? Surely that means that it COULD have been worked on by a normal LAME?

PDR

[Capt Quentin McHale]

TNIP,

In case you missed my question, and I'm still curious, what EXACTLY was the unfinished maintenance?

McHale.https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

PDR1.... bit of a mystery, but you may be on the money!!!!

[holdingagain]

There was a dead Chieftain at Cairns 18 months ago, looked like IOD

[PDR1]

Maybe he was incorporating the AD about emergency flux capacitator fuctionals after that accident in america a few days ago...

Personally I'm of the view that the correct place for metaphorical smelly clothing is the metaphorical laundry. All this thread is doing is showing the downside of shared ownership schemes where one or more of the sharers starts behaving like a prat.

PDR

[The name is Porter]

From the sounds of it - oiling the canopy hinges, putting nitrogen in the tyres, topping up thje ashtrays or similar. Just something that one of the "owners" could use to deny the other "owner" any use of their toy by declaring it "undergoing maintenance".

yep, that's it, that's what I was doing.

[The name is Porter]

Personally I'm of the view that the correct place for metaphorical smelly clothing is the metaphorical laundry. All this thread is doing is showing the downside of shared ownership schemes where one or more of the sharers starts behaving like a prat.

Why add to the thread then?

[The name is Porter]

In case you missed my question, and I'm still curious, what EXACTLY was the unfinished maintenance?

I'll forward you the report that's been sent to the Federal Police if you like?

[Aussie Bob]

I'll forward you the report that's been sent to the Federal Police if you like?
Why don't you just tell us briefly?

What is sad about this thread is that it is obvious a partnership has gone sour. Both parties no doubt feel very wronged. I note there is only one party on this thread and am sure the other has some very valid points. I am suggesting you both sit down in guided mediation and work it out correctly. It would be interesting to hear "the other side" and why such a drastic measure was undertaken.

As far as the MR and the non use of ADSB go, IMHO they are both non events that will result in zero in a court.

[haydnc]

EAA's Video archive has a good webinar on aircraft partnerships:

KEEPING THE PEACE IN PARTNERSHIPS- A GUIDE TO AIRCRAFT CO-OWNERSHIP (http://www.eaavideo.org/detail/video/5803143411001/webinar--keeping-the-peace-in-partnerships--a-guide-to-aircraft-co-ownership?autoStart=true&q=partner)

I found it interesting.

[Clare Prop]

I remember years ago in a place far, far away a meeting of a syndicate who owned a lovely aeroplane ending when ambulances had to be called to deal with some broken glass related injuries.
A partnership is a ship designed to sink.

[Central Skies]

I remember years ago in a place far, far away a meeting of a syndicate who owned a lovely aeroplane ending when ambulances had to be called to deal with some broken glass related injuries.
A partnership is a ship designed to sink.

Sadly this one was always doomed to fail.

Real shame - looks like a lovely aeroplane.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
As a general observation, based on years on the scene, but group ownership of whatever form and legal structure, seem to work quite well in New Zealand, but all too often end in tears, with much financial loss, in Australia.
This is just another for the records.
Tootle pip!!

[TBM-Legend]

Personal issues aired in a public forum! Please explain the purpose of this rant as it is possibly a civil/criminal matter..

[Central Skies]

The plot thickens....

Looks like VH-BUY (the company) is no longer the owner of VH-BUY (the aircraft)

Alas TNIP....your ship may have sailed

[megan]

FLYTECH SOLUTIONS PTY LTD 5 Kyle Way BACCHUS MARSH VIC 3340 Australia
Well, he now knows which door to knock on.

[Lead Balloon]

From CASA’s aircraft register FAQs:An entry in the Australian Civil Aircraft Register or a certificate of registration for an aircraft must not be viewed as conclusive evidence of the existence of a legal or beneficial property interest in the aircraft. This is clearly stated on the certificate of registration and in CASR 47.055. Financial interests in an aircraft can only be confirmed through whatever legal and commercial mechanisms are available outside of CASA. CASA does not require any proof of ownership with an application to become a registration holder. However, the applicant legally declares that they are the owner of the aircraft.

Parties with a financial interest in an Australian aircraft should ensure that they hold legally accepted documents to prove their entitlement to the aircraft (such as bills of sale, financial contracts, etc).

[Bksmithca]

TNIP,

I'm curious, what exactly was the unfinished maintenance?

McHale. https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Capt
If he told us here than the other AME would know what needs to be fixed and it could Fly again

BK

[The name is Porter]

12,330 views.

Threats of defamation proceedings.

Tip offs of where the RV10 has been hidden. One could ask if party's were acting with integrity or honesty why has it been hidden?

The bell will toll.

[megan]

I see FLYTECH are also the registration holder for VH-SIS, an AMERICAN CHAMPION AIRCRAFT CORP 8KCAB, registered operator DANDY AIRCRAFT PTY LTD PO Box 704 BACCHUS MARSH VIC 3340 Australia.

[Aussie Bob]

Tip offs of where the RV10 has been hidden. One could ask if party's were acting with integrity or honesty why has it been hidden?

High time you blokes sorted yourselves out. I would bet my good Bose headset that the party that currently holds possession of the aircraft don't think they have stolen it. Without the "other sides" story I remain totally neutral. You don't convince me Mr. Porter.

[AbsoluteFokker]

For the last 10 years aircraft are only worth engine+prop value.

Anything else is a bonus to the seller.

Used to be different but economics now prevail.

Aircraft valuations will continue to be a bone of contention between aircraft shareholders/funders and this is probably such a bone. Many bones to be had this year alone.

[Horatio Leafblower]

TNIP I know both parties in this dispute and normally would drink with both of you but this is a bad look.

It's unbecoming of both of you. You and the other party need to deal with it out of the public view.

[The Connie Returns]

Sounds like nothing but an ugly ****fight now.

Lesson: trust no one.

[Central Skies]

Leafblower

[ I know both parties in this dispute and normally would drink with both of you but this is a bad look.]

A well intended word of advice: when it comes to the younger of the two in this dispute, best advice: cut all ties, turn and run, run, run....before the mofo burns you like he has every other poor bastard he has before you

It would appear that TNIP did not see through his BS and manipulations until all was too late

[megan]

What does Mick Gatto charge for his dispute resolution oversight?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Re. defo., some of you certainly like to live dangerously!!
Tootle pip!!

[cowl flaps]

I can see one of the TV Networks making this into a mini-series.
Add a pinch of dramatisation and embellishment here and there, and bingo !

[Horatio Leafblower]

Central Skies,
With all due respect I refrained from making statements about the character of either gentleman and did so deliberately. It's all a bad look and your post is too.

[Plazbot]

Why am I not surprised. Took every opportunity to slay his mates in ATC and then this.

[Central Skies]

Central Skies,
With all due respect I refrained from making statements about the character of either gentleman and did so deliberately. It's all a bad look and your post is too.

Leafblower
Entitled to your opinion. Can only respect that.

From my perspective, I would appreciate a warning if I were getting into dealings with some such shonk.
Sadly no one these days seems to have conviction to call out bad behaviour.

[The name is Porter]

Horatio,

I posted on this forum to locate an aircraft I built from scratch and had a financial interest in, it's reach is far and wide, it is after all an aviation website. It appears that people have drawn their own conclusions, some people want to identify themselves, so be it.

I really don't mind what peeps say about me (Plazbot, et al). Go your hardest. In the court of public opinion I'm happy to be judged.

Seeing as people want to bring up both parties actions, it's all in black and white. And will be resolved soon enough.

[IFEZ]

Dear oh dear. Can I respectfully suggest that the two protagonists in this sh*t fight refrain from making any further posts..? And same goes for others who feel the need to sink the boot in with personal attacks. It's starting to become a tad unedifying don't you think..?

[The Connie Returns]

There's 10,000,000 reasons why I win. :)


Such grace in victory.
Now that is a gentleman. :D

I'll remember the name.

[The name is Porter]

Unedifying...............

You think?

[KRviator]

VH-BUY is exactly where it belongs. :)Go on, don't keep us in suspense! Where is it? :}

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Enough! *click*