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.

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...

"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 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.

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

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

Aviation Transport Security Regulations 4.72 4.72 covers security for unattended aircraft

CAR 42 covers the airworthiness requirements.

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.

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

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.

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.

Both parties have lawyered up, bring it on.

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.

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.

This youtube video was obviously made in sweeter times.

https://youtu.be/x3kp0StQINE

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

Unless it was move by road, of course.

PDR

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

One is a scum sucking bottom dweller...

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:

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.

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.

As is the fact it was possibly not flown anywhere.

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...