Tracey Curtis-Taylor

[Alan Kilbride]

Sorry for resurrecting this thread.
I have one or two questions that may be worth discussing before I make my decision on the way I vote.

Has Ms Taylor responded to the accusations. (Indeed has she been contacted officially?)
Have any of her sponsors, support team or other crew been contacted for their response?
What written evidence is available to support either side?

I note that on other media, there are a relatively small number who seem to have expert knowledge of her flying history and accuse her of many things not even relevant to the flights for which the trophy was awarded.(CPL) (Display Pilot) (Flying instructor) or lack of such etc.

I for one think this is deteriorating into a witch hunt and some of the protagonists need to calm down. Shouting louder doesn't make them right, nor indeed does telling the same story more than 4 or 5 times.

Apart from Sam Rutherford, I have no idea who the other more vociferous accusers are, yet we are expected to vote based on the only information we have.

I do hope this won't promote the response I expect, but I am a grown up and can take it.

For the record, unless I get more information I have made up my mind which way I will be voting.
At our local Airfield we will be debating this today.

[Daniel Scott]

The TCT website and Wiki make no mention of solo endeavours or navigating with only a road map and a home made compass, of course she has loads of support, how else would you fly a 1930s biplane around the world. In the reports of her adventures I have seen, the support has been obvious.
I am sure her awards were given in good faith and most likely received in good faith. What she is doing is at worst harmless and much more interesting than anything I've done. Therefore do not vote to take back the award.
Page one of this thread - some one expresses an opinion different from mine. Interesting and not necessarily wrong.
Page five- seems to me to be misogynist passive aggressive trolling that should have stayed on Pprune.

Daniel Scott.

[Paul Catanach]

Scott.

The danger of relying upon Wiki and the BirdInabiplane (sic) website is that both have been heavily edited throughout this sorry saga. The solo/navigation claims were made on many occasions in many places, Miss Curtis-Taylor and/or her supporters altered them when questions were asked. There are several people who know how to do such things who kept copies and will gladly let you have them should you wish.

Nobody is suggesting the award was given in anything other than good faith, indeed many people have expressed that sentiment clearly. The fact is that a large number of people, not just the LAA, were hoodwinked.

What has become clear is that claims were made that portrayed the venture as something it was not. We were all led to believe that this was a solo venture undertaken using the most basic of navigation techniques, both claims have been emphatically disproven. As is often the case with these things once a couple of lies are exposed many more follow so it is unsurprising that people have picked at the numerous loose threads.

I have first hand experience of this lady's claims and my kindest interpretation would be 'fanciful'.

[samrutherford]

If you have the time, the Pprune thread does give an enormous amount of detail into the difference between what was done, and what was claimed to have been done.

You do need to sidestep the unpleasant/unnecessary and improper comments - but these do not negate the actual facts laid out in full technicolor there. There are a lot of them...

I think the clearest indication is that she has never posted anything there (or indeed on any other forum) to refute the allegations (notwithstanding that changes are made to her website/facebook page shortly after damaging links are posted on these same forums). In short, the damage limitation continues apace.

One statement appeared briefly on her website, which was also inaccurate/incomplete (as per the dissection on Pprune) and has since been removed completely.

The awards committee believed she had done the flight solo when they made the award - they believed this because that was the story being spun.

Deliberately. The response is that 'I didn't say that, the journalists got it wrong'. What, all of them, again and again, over months...?

Had the committee known the real situation, I do not believe she would have been awarded the Bill Woodhams Trophy for a feat of navigation.

[Chris Martyr]

Dear oh dear Alan , hope none of the 'cut n paste' boys who frequent some of them other forums get to read this .

Has Ms Taylor responded to the accusations. (Indeed has she been contacted officially?)
Have any of her sponsors, support team or other crew been contacted for their response?
What written evidence is available to support either side?

The person in question wanted us all to believe that she had flown solo from Cape Town to Goodwood , using only basic, traditional navigation tools. I.E. chart , plotter and chinagraph. That is why she has received the accolades that she has. It has subsequently been shown beyond reasonable doubt that what was believed then was not quite the truth.
I am not in the slightest bit interested in how HCAP , Royal Navy, Royal Marines, AWPA or any of the other organisations that have been mentioned, deal with this .

I for one think this is deteriorating into a witch hunt

Not on here it isn't ! The debate on here , like most other debates on here has been conducted in a most civilised manner and I believe that the majority would agree that the LAA award should be rescinded in order to spare the LAA any further embarrassment.

. What she is doing is at worst harmless and much more interesting than anything I've done. Therefore do not vote to take back the award. Daniel Scott.

Hmm,,real solid grounds there Daniel for retaining what is a most prestigious award . That really does insult certain other, far more deserving candidates.
Anyone on this forum and also many many thousands not on this forum could have done what she did.
Follow a magenta line from SA to UK, stopping off for pre-planned hotel accommodation and fuel , all paid for by multi-billion dollar global backers. You don't even need a PPL , coz you've got a nice friendly, highly experienced Austrian chap with an Instructor rating sitting in the front.
But I will leave it to yourself and your conscience which way you choose to vote.
Oh and Alan,,,...The place where you and your chums will be debating this afternoon , am I right in thinking that it's not exactly a million miles away from the birthplace of a certain other lady aviator.
Make sure you do her memory justice now mate.

[Alan Kilbride]

Yes Chris, not at all far away.

Indeed the LAA forum has not lowered itself to a Witch hunt and I am proud that we don't resort to things like that.

I am of course referring to other forums, which have been repetitive to a point where just clicking on any of the myriad of pages will tell the story almost in full to a point where it is unnecessary to read the other 80 odd.

I do intend to do justice to Amy when I vote. I just want to vote for the right reasons.

The debate we had at our Club today was quite interesting in more ways than one. There were some who were minded to vote against the motion purely because of the amount of repetitive postings. Some weren't happy that other people were brought into it.

Yet the motion is to rescind the Trophy because it was earned under false pretenses. Let's leave it that way and if EVIDENCE is available, then please post that. Yes I have read the PPrune forum and yes I have read every page.

My questions are still relevant and still not been answered.

Thanks
Alan

[cirrusvfr]

Alan , you cannot have failed to see this ?

[Alan Kilbride]

No, I have seen it.

God knows how many times on the same thread. Please try to understand what I am asking. I have seen pictures of her cozying up to Royalty, Senior Naval and RAF officers. Waving her arms like a banshee while posing by "her" Stearman. I have heard her on the Radio and seen her on TV. I have not yet seen any debate over this. Has she been contacted and asked for a response? Have her sponsors been approached for comments? Has the Media team been brought to account?

Alone in an open cockpit Aeroplane could be construed as being alone in a seat. I know I am being pedantic, but I have no desire to destroy a person, which I believe may happen if the award is rescinded. The snowball effect of this will be huge. Yes she is probably a Walter Mitty who believes in her own self publicity and craves media attention much like the Jeremy Kyle Chavs who have no idea they are being ridiculed for wanting their 10 minutes of fame.
I assume she has been informed of the motion and if she is too important to bother to reply, then that would seal it, but I want to see the defense as well as the prosecution.

Just trying to tell me which way to vote won't help either.

Who is Jay Sata? Who is Stanwell? etc. Who are the accusers? I don't know them from Adam. How can I make an informed decision?

You may think I am being precious about this, but it's my vote and I take it seriously. Not only will Ms Taylor be outed, but all the supporting actors too. I will admit my vote after the AGM.

Alan

[samrutherford]

Has she been contacted and asked for a response? Yes - "no comment".
Have her sponsors been approached for comments? Yes - "no comment".
Has the Media team been brought to account? No, they don't reply to requests to comment.

Perhaps more simply, no comment/response on any of the forums where this is being discussed... No response at all (even though her website reacts to posts made (removal of the word 'solo' mainly), so the forums are clearly being read).

The only response was her briefly available 'official statement', copies of which you have no doubt seen, which was anything other than the 'coming clean' it was supposed to be. The ill-judged use of the word 'sole' being probably the most obvious aspect.

[Alan Kilbride]

Thanks Sam

[Chris Martyr]

Who is Jay Sata? Who is Stanwell? etc. Who are the accusers?
Alan

WHO CARES,,,,,,,,,,As far as the LAA are concerned ,these people are merely contributors to another forum. I have to say , I'm not really concerned with cyber lynch mobs, but I am concerned with the LAA's excellent 70 year old reputation for representing us ordinary people and the flying that WE do .

And that doesn't concern the lobster thermidore brigade and their 'smoke and mirrors' achievements !

I think it's brilliant Alan that you lads got around and had a debate over this matter and from what you say, it sounds like you may just be in agreement with quite a few others on this one. Don't let all the other stuff cloud your judgement , it's not about burning people at the stake , it's about shaking off this ball and chain that has become metaphorically attached to the LAA's ankles .

I look forward to Oct 22nd . To meet you if nothing else .

[Alan Kilbride]

[Brian Hope]

Has anybody else here wondered when revelation descends into vilification and ultimately bullying?
What has TC-T done that warrants the unbelievable levels of vitriole that have been expressed towards her, thankfully not to a great extent on this forum but certainly on others? She didn't fly solo but said that she was going to. That's the long and the short of it.
Now supporters of the campaign are attempting to rescind an award presented by the LAA to her two years ago to 'save the save the Association from acute embarrassment.' My BS radar does tend to twitch a bit at that I'm afraid.
If anybody believes a successful rescinding of the award will end this dreadful campaign then think on, it will no doubt be greeted as a magnificent victory. There are other organisations that have made awards that are similarly under attack, so TC-T will be subjected to yet more personal abuse by people who, in the main, hide behind pseudonyms.
There are ways and means, and there are levels of behaviour towards a fellow human-being that are acceptable to the man on the Clapham omnibus. I'd like to think he has a sense of proportion and would seriously consider whether he wanted to be remotely associated with this sorry state of affairs.

[samrutherford]

Dear Brian,

You post: She didn't fly solo but said that she was going to. That's the long and the short of it.

Actually, it isn't.

She said she was going to, then said she had. (Cape Town to Goodwood)

Then we had the UK-Australia trip. She/her PR team/her sponsors said she was going to do it solo, and then said she had done it solo. Of course, we all know that Ewald was there (again).

You've presumably seen the certificate happily received her from the AWPA when she arrived in Sydney?

There is a recurring theme here...

The copious amounts of retroactive removal of the word 'solo' (all in the public domain by using historical searches) should be proof enough that things are not as they should be.

I do not have a personal vendetta against Ms.Curtis-Taylor - I do have an issue with anyone receiving accolades for achievements they have not actually achieved. This becomes even more of an issue when the misinformation is deliberate...

[Paul Catanach]

Sam's last paragraph pretty much sums it up for me.

Is her behaviour the end of the world? No. Is it deliberately dishonest for gain? Undoubtedly.

Brian, I think your BS-ometer might need recalibration. We're not talking about a simple slip of the tongue here, these were planned and cynical attempts to mislead people and gain from that. By anybody's moral compass it should not be right, doesn't sit well with me and by exercising a vote I may be able to help put that wrong right.

Furthermore, having endured one of her talks in which she regales the audience with accounts of her flights I can vouch for them being wholly unconvincing. Breathy tales of derring-do that may fool members of the local Womens Institute after a jam-making competition they don't bear scrutiny by anyone with the merest ounce of knowledge of the topic. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors.

I agree that elsewhere some people seem to have become somewhat fixated. I don't care about those places or people. I'm only interested in us here and who we are seen to endorse.