PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   RV10 VH-BUY Stolen from Bacchus Marsh (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/612866-rv10-vh-buy-stolen-bacchus-marsh.html)

The Banjo 2nd Sep 2018 07:35

This youtube video was obviously made in sweeter times.

https://youtu.be/x3kp0StQINE

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

PDR1 2nd Sep 2018 07:51


Originally Posted by The name is Porter (Post 10239264)
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 2nd Sep 2018 08:39


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 10238741)
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 2nd Sep 2018 09:07

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 2nd Sep 2018 09:30

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 2nd Sep 2018 09:45

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 2nd Sep 2018 23:09

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 3rd Sep 2018 00:25

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

The name is Porter 3rd Sep 2018 09:44

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 3rd Sep 2018 09:57


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 3rd Sep 2018 09:58

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 3rd Sep 2018 10:09

TNIP: Are you sure the aircraft was flown away?

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

PDR1 3rd Sep 2018 10:09


Originally Posted by The name is Porter (Post 10240085)
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 3rd Sep 2018 10:14

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

PDR1 3rd Sep 2018 10:22


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 10240113)
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 3rd Sep 2018 10:35


Originally Posted by Pinky the pilot (Post 10240093)
BTW; What is the difference between a Lawyer and a European Carp?:confused::E

One is a scum sucking bottom dweller...

Pinky the pilot 3rd Sep 2018 10:39


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 3rd Sep 2018 10:43


[B]ut the individuals are (as I understand it) joint owners of the company
Hmmm. 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 3rd Sep 2018 10:46


Originally Posted by TNIP
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.


Originally Posted by TNIP
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.


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.

As is the fact it was possibly not flown anywhere.


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?

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 3rd Sep 2018 10:50

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:11.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.