Plane Share Dispute

[rookiepilot]

Keep in mind, 95% of folks will drive 20 minutes across town, and wait another hour in line, to save 10c / litre on gas. (Or for a chance for a free rapid covid test)

Boggles the mind.

Move on.

[Loon-A-Tic]

Yeah, and that's exactly the kind of missing-the-point idiot thinking that keeps the airplane grounded for two and a half years, and everyone gives up flying.

I'm afraid your "logic" escapes me but I'm OK with that

[photofly]

Yeah, and that's exactly the kind of missing-the-point idiot thinking that keeps the airplane grounded for two and a half years, and everyone gives up flying.

I'm afraid your "logic" escapes me but I'm OK with that

So who's suffering, in the standoff that exists at the moment, and will continue to exist? It's not the one out of six who doesn't care about an airworthy airplane, and is happy in marginal weather. In fact, the more unattractive it is for the others to fly, the better. That person don't need to give a hoot what the others think, and they can fly as much as they like. Subsidized by the investment of the other five. It is they who are missing out.

Pay up.

[digits_]

Yeah, and that's exactly the kind of missing-the-point idiot thinking that keeps the airplane grounded for two and a half years, and everyone gives up flying.

I'm afraid your "logic" escapes me but I'm OK with that

Even if the 6th member intentionally damaged the plane, and even if it can be proved, it could likely take a long time by the time the lawyers are done. And even then you're not guaranteed to get any money or make more than you spent.

So there are 2 options: you can pay off member 6th, pay to undo the damage and fly your plane next month.
Or, you can go the lawyer route, have the plane tied up while you are fighting over who has to pay what, and not fly your plane for many months, possibly years. In the end you could 'win', but even then you haven't been able to fly your plane for a long time. Which defeats the purpose of owning the plane in the first place.

[Loon-A-Tic]

Yeah, and that's exactly the kind of missing-the-point idiot thinking that keeps the airplane grounded for two and a half years, and everyone gives up flying.

I'm afraid your "logic" escapes me but I'm OK with that

Even if the 6th member intentionally damaged the plane, and even if it can be proved, it could likely take a long time by the time the lawyers are done. And even then you're not guaranteed to get any money or make more than you spent.

So there are 2 options: you can pay off member 6th, pay to undo the damage and fly your plane next month.
Or, you can go the lawyer route, have the plane tied up while you are fighting over who has to pay what, and not fly your plane for many months, possibly years. In the end you could 'win', but even then you haven't been able to fly your plane for a long time. Which defeats the purpose of owning the plane in the first place.

I don't think the OP had an issue with paying but Number 6 is failing to realized the "renewed" value of the airframe as a result of her/his actions.

[photofly]

They don't want to sell, and don't care.

[AirFrame]

If it's not airworthy, could you pay someone to make it airworthy again, and put a lien on his share of the plane to cover the costs? ie. you'd be out the cost to make the plane "whole" again, but you'd have a way to recoup the money down the road?

[digits_]

I'm afraid your "logic" escapes me but I'm OK with that

Even if the 6th member intentionally damaged the plane, and even if it can be proved, it could likely take a long time by the time the lawyers are done. And even then you're not guaranteed to get any money or make more than you spent.

So there are 2 options: you can pay off member 6th, pay to undo the damage and fly your plane next month.
Or, you can go the lawyer route, have the plane tied up while you are fighting over who has to pay what, and not fly your plane for many months, possibly years. In the end you could 'win', but even then you haven't been able to fly your plane for a long time. Which defeats the purpose of owning the plane in the first place.

I don't think the OP had an issue with paying but Number 6 is failing to realized the "renewed" value of the airframe as a result of her/his actions.

Possibly, but that doesn't change anything to what I wrote.

[TG]

Suck it up, pay what she’s asking, and write a better agreement next time. One sixth of the difference in price between what she thinks the plane is worth and what you all do, split five ways, is less than one tenth of the extra costs you’ll end up paying any other way out.

/\ What he said

Exactly...


I'm curious about the "Unapproved Mods" though....I hope it's not about external Go-Pro mounts

[WANP]

Just want to see what other ideas maybe you guys have here that could help my situation.

I own 1/6 of a plane and unfortunately the 5/6 of us would like to kick this one person out due to the fact that this individual has been making unsafe decisions I.E flying in not optimal weather, unapproved modifications, etc.

Since our agreement doesn’t state a way to kick out someone or to resolve conflict we are currently stuck and don't know what to do…

We’ve tried to offer to buy their share of the plane but they are asking waaaay above market price and thats not worth it. Also we did bring up the option to sell the plane completely and split the money as well. Since this is a Civil matter TC doesn’t have any say in this matter.

So right now we are at a standstill, no one can fly the plane.

What can we do?

Thanks.

It has been nearly 4 months since the OP posted this.
Interesting that he has not come back to answer questions, or offer an update.

Define "not optimal weather". Optimal by who's standards. I am 44, with 26 years of flying experience, and I will take off into weather that some people wouldn't. Then again, when I feel the weather is too bad for my comfort level, others still take off and fly into it, and are fine. Maybe you need perfectly clear skies, and max visibility, but not everyone else does to feel safe. I personally have flown in rain, snow, high winds, and more. Then again a short grass strip, or small lake on floats is something that brings me joy, not dread. What about these "unapproved modifications". Unapproved by you, Transport Canada, or who? What are the modifications?

If you 5 are so upset by it all, he agreed to sell his share, so buy him out. I doubt that he is asking for 5 million dollars, so just do it.

Why are you not flying it? C of A been pulled, or you 5 just being bullies, and saying that no one can fly it then, till you get your way. I took off with a canoe strapped to my floats several times, but once a guy who was also a pilot, told me that under no circumstances would he ever do that, and I was making an unapproved mod, and would crash. Yet I left that day, and many more days, with my canoe, and have never crashed.
We all have different comfort levels, experience, and more factors that can play into a scenario. What is comfortable with the 1 guy, may not feel like it to some. But does that make him wrong? Not necessarily, but you were as vague as you could possibly be OP. Come back, tell us what has happened so far, what these mods were, and just how bad this weather was.
Was it half mile vis, winds gusting to 90 knots, severe icing, and 500' ceiling? Or 3 miles vis, winds gusting to 25, rain, and 4000' ceiling? Did he install a stripper pole and disco ball, and drill through the hull to install the bolts that hold them? Or add a go pro, intercom splitter box to plug in 4 head sets instead of just 2, or what?