RV10 VH-BUY Stolen from Bacchus Marsh
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Blimey 
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:
I think you may be about to find out the hard way; the only winners will be the legal fraternity ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
However the lawyer I was working for won in court. We had a lame do a new MR before flight.
Messy situations.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,969
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
the only winners will be the legal fraternity ...
BTW; What is the difference between a Lawyer and a European Carp?
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.
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.
TNIP: Are you sure the aircraft was flown away?
Pinky: The difference is you can eradicate carp...
Pinky: The difference is you can eradicate carp...
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
The individuals are not joint owners. VHBUY Pty Ltd ACN 600 287 956 is the owner (so far as I can tell).
PDR
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,969
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
The difference is you can eradicate carp...
Nonsense has the correct first part of the answer! Which really gives the whole bit away actually.
[B]ut the individuals are (as I understand it) joint owners of the company
Of course, it is possible that the individuals are joint owners of shares...
Originally Posted by TNIP
I state again, I am the nominated person on the CofA that can perform maintenance on this aircraft.
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.
Originally Posted by TNIP
The aircraft was then removed from the hangar without my knowledge.
Originally Posted by TNIP
The fact remains that the aircraft was possibly flown without a clearing endorsement being recorded on the MR or the logbook.
Originally Posted by TNIP
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?
Great post, KR.
Only one correction:
VHBUY Pty Ltd’s RV is not where TNIP left it.
Only one correction:
[Y]our RV is not where you left it.