RV10 VH-BUY Stolen from Bacchus Marsh
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RV10 VH-BUY Stolen from Bacchus Marsh
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.
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.
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?
PS: TNIP - By any chance is the suspect thief known to the builder? Who has legal title to the aircraft?
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 1st Sep 2018 at 09:14. Reason: Added the PS.
"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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Suffice to say, the aircraft was removed in an un-airworthy state, voiding insurance etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Aviation Transport Security Regulations 4.72 4.72 covers security for unattended aircraft
CAR 42 covers the airworthiness requirements.
CAR 42 covers the airworthiness requirements.
Last edited by Clare Prop; 2nd Sep 2018 at 01:47.
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.
Call your lawyer.
Breaches of the ATSRs and CARs however are not a civil matter!
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 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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Much of the damage done by this thread has already been done, but I’d suggest you consider deleting it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?