Tracey Curtis-Taylor

[Paul Catanach]

But.....but......I've made a 320 slide PowerPoint presentation and leaflets and a working model and......



On the other hand I have the attention span of a goldfish.

[Trevor Harvey]

I'm looking forward to a good read of all the forums on Saturday evening / Sunday.
Keep up the good work guys, and then let's get back to sensible aviation.

[samrutherford]

For those of you attending, but still undecided, this (redacted) exchange (reply is from the Editorial Compliance team) might be of interest (taken from Pprune if you want the full version, words are not mine):




For the information of all on here, and a solid piece of evidence, I contacted the Telegraph to clarify the "quote" that was published in their newspaper as far back as October 2015.

Here is a copy of my email to them:

Quote:
Dear Sir, I am writing to ask for clarification regarding a quotation in a Telegraph article 1 October 2015.

The article, written by Nicola Harley, was:
Female pilot starts epic solo flight to copy Amy Johnson
Part way down the page we see a body of text in quotation marks and attributed to the pilot Tracey Curtis-Taylor.
"When I was younger I was told by the military that I couldn't join because I'm a woman, and now look at me - I'm flying to the other side of the world on my own."
Tracey Curtis-Taylor

The link to the article is here : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviatio ... hnson.html



I have now had a response from The Telegraph:

Quote:
Our Ref: 1046482

21 October 2016

Dear *******,

Thank you for your recent communication to The Telegraph.
Further to your enquiry, I have liaised with the journalist who has confirmed that they are the exact quotes.

Yours sincerely,

Katie Archer
Editorial Compliance Executive

Telegraph Media Group

[samrutherford]

This statement recently appeared on the Bird in a Biplane website:

STATEMENT

A small number of recent articles about my flights have suggested or implied that I have misrepresented or have sought to mislead people into believing that I undertook my flights alone and without support.  I am considering taking legal action against the individuals who were the sources for these articles as I consider them to be part of a course of conduct designed to cause damage and distress.

The facts are:

I have never made false assertions about the nature of my flights and I dismiss the suggestion that they are "mired in controversy".  Any controversy that has arisen has been as a result of the actions of the individuals referred to above.

As I have stated previously, I began with the intention of trying to fly the Africa flight solo (as the original descriptive materials from Nylon films show) but a combination of elements resulted in fundamental changes being made to the nature of that expedition.  Several people flew with me on multiple legs between Cape Town and the UK.  These included sponsors, film crew and my engineer, Ewald Gritsch.  

The expedition was project managed by Nylon Films and they controlled the expedition website 'Cape Town to Goodwood' and its promotional information and sub-contractors. I have never sought to mislead anyone about the way that my flights were undertaken. It is clear from what I say about the Africa flight and subsequent expeditions that they were not solo flights and that I was accompanied by a support crew.

Ewald Gritsch is not my flying instructor and nor did  he fly my aeroplane at any material time (click here to see statement from Ewald Gritsch himself). Specifically, he did not fly my aeroplane instead of me during any of the flights comprising the Africa, Australia or US expeditions. Ewald's primary role in all of these expeditions has been to provide engineering, technical and flight planning support.  He is my principal crew and the only person who is fully qualified to look after the aeroplane in what have been some very testing circumstances.  I say “material time” above because he has flown my aeroplane for the purposes of providing engineering and technical support and for recreational purposes.
As a result of the difficult experiences in Africa we adopted an entirely different approach for the Australia and US expeditions. These were managed through my company, Bird in a Biplane.  At no time was there any suggestion that these later expeditions were solo flights, although some of the press coverage erroneously reported that they were.  I cannot control what other people say about what I do, whether it be in the media or otherwise.  

Ewald and I undertook all of the logistical planning for the UK to Australia flight and with the support of one of my principal sponsors, Boeing, and the Britain is Great Campaign, were able to build an extensive outreach programme around the expedition, connecting with young people and raising the profile of women in aviation around the world.   This will feature prominently in the documentary film which is currently being edited.

I consider the real achievement of the past five years not just a flying feat, but the sustained effort of raising the funding and building the network of international support for my outreach programme which made the whole programme possible.

Tracey Curtis-Taylor
www.birdinabiplane.com

[Barry Tempest]

The LAA AGM was attended by a record number of members on a fine Autumn day. The motion to rescind the award of the 2014 "Bill Woodhams" trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor was passed by a sizeable majority. Barry Tempest spoke to the motion, Harry Hopkins spoke on behalf of the LAA awards committee giving the background to the award and Tracey Curtis-Taylor spoke against the motion.
The AGM was admirably chaired by Brian Davies.
I hope this will bring to an end an unsavoury contretemps on social media. The matter is closed.

[Paul Catanach]

I would like to thank Brian Davies for maintaining a neutral stance and controlling the meeting which had a huge potential for becoming drawn out and contentious. Okay, so he declared his own preference at the outset but he's a member too and in that capacity perfectly entitled to do so. It was also little more than a passing comment which I doubt most in the room even noticed.

I think some in the room were befuzzled by the whole 'solo or not?' thing which had absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.

I was a little confused by the announcement "there will be no debate" closely followed by a series of speakers against the motion with only one person, Barry Tempest, being allowed to speak in favour. No matter, it's done now and the LAA can get back to doing the best for the membership.

[ChampChump]

[quote="Paul Catanach"]But.....but......I've made a 320 slide PowerPoint presentation and leaflets and a working model and......



Never mind. We'll have a special fly-in to view them...

[Barry Tempest]

The prize giving element of the AGM reminded me of the Rally at Kemble in, I think, 2000 when I was presented with the "Pete Clark" trophy for my contribution to aviation safety. Having a few celebratory beers in the marquee afterwards Andy Sephton remarked " I think your heart problem last year was the reason - it kept you out of the air for a bit.........!!!!!!!!!!"

[Paul Catanach]

Never mind. We'll have a special fly-in to view them...

Please, gawd, no.

Well, a fly-in maybe.


By the way, your absence was noted today.

[Nigel Hitchman]

I went to the AGM today to meet friends, see what aircraft turned up and listen to the Lancaster Pilot's talk.
I knew of TCTs flights, that she flew with someone else and there were support aircraft, I also knew there was this motion to rescind her award, but I hadn't been on this forum for a few months, or pprune for years, so knew nothing of the background behind the motion.

I do know some of the people on the awards committee and some of the people who do the judging and know they do it as volunteers and to the best of their ability. I know they often have very few nominations whether for service awards or in aircraft judging in some catagories at the Rally. Indeed I had sometimes asked why a certain aircraft hadn't won an award at Rallys of old, to be told that it was because it hadn't entered for judging, so only those who had entered had been judged and an inferior aircraft had won. So be it, its only a bit of fun anyway. I won the "Best Robin" trophy once or twice, cant remember, because my rented club aircraft was the only one to be entered!!
Harry Hopkins was the volunteer incharge of the judging, he made a statement at the AGM, he said there had been no nominations for the Bill Woodhams Trophy that year, but then when discussing it, one of the judging committee suggested TCT's flight from Africa, so they awarded the Trophy to her.

Fair enough, I say, there were no other nominations, it is quite a feat to fly from South Africa to the UK, whatever light aircraft you are flying in and whether you have a support aircraft, someone else in your aircraft, use GPS or whatever. Sure there might have been other more deserving flights, but no one nominated them.

by reading some of the comments on here (I haven't read PPrune) its as though people think there were many nominations and there was a complex process gone through where the awards committee scrutinized in great detail every entry and TCT only won because the wool was pulled over their eyes. It would also seem that some consider this award to be extremely important and prestigious, like winning an Oscar or an Olympic gold medal, or it seems like that the effort they put in trying to get the award rescinded. For me it is just a bit of fun, doesn't really matter, then again I couldn't care less who wins an Oscar either, if I like the film then its good, whoever is in it, or whatever they won!

Barry read his statement at the AGM, I agree its certainly not the same feat as Amy Johnson, Lady Heath or others and as Barry said, they did their flights solo, he thinks the award should be for a solo flight which this was not. (But the award doesn't state that it is for a solo flight.)

The vast majority of the people in the room (I guess 70 or 80) voted like me against the motion, I think there were 6 or 7 who voted for it. I imagine many like me didn't know anything about the internet forum campaign and I guess many like me thought it was a great flight, whether supported or not and a good achievement. Something most of us have never done.
We were amazed and shocked when the result was reported and that the motion was carried due to the Proxy votes (around 120 I think).
Clearly there had been a campaign to get people to vote by proxy to pass the motion. Nothing illegal in that, but it does show that a very small pressure group can get its own way on something just by influencing a few people, when the rest of the association members, who may have another view (or not care) don't bother to vote. The majority of people in the room were clearly upset not only by the decision, but by the whole subject of rescinding an award.

To my mind this has brought the association into disrepute far more than the original award.

So what next? I think Im going to propose a motion for the next AGM that the winner of best RV at the 2003 Rally is overturned and we win instead because ours was better and we did more of the work ourselves, doesn't matter that we didn't enter it for judging, the judges should know better! (sorry to whoever won in 2003 who Im sure really deserved it!)

Or on the other hand lets just say that the volunteers on the judging committee have absolute authority and their decision is final and if you don't like it volunteer to do it yourself.

[samrutherford]

Hi Nigel,

If I can extract a part of your post: "knew nothing of the background behind the motion."

If you have the energy and time (!), then analysis of the background might explain more clearly why so many voted to rescind - and indeed might prompt you to change your position. Might.

Best regards, Sam.

[Bill McCarthy]

Just a small but important point - was TCT asked to leave the room whilst the in house vote was taken and how many abstentions were there to the motion.

[Paul Catanach]

No, she was not asked to leave.

Abstentions, I missed that part when my phone buzzed.

[ChampChump]

Clearly there had been a campaign to get people to vote by proxy to pass the motion. Nothing illegal in that, but it does show that a very small pressure group can get its own way on something just by influencing a few people, when the rest of the association members, who may have another view (or not care) don't bother to vote.

No campaign at all that I know of. Those of us who thought we might not get to the AGM and cared enough about voting (on all the motions) voted by proxy. Mine went snail mail, after much consideration of everything I could find & consider, not simply on the basis of pprune's huge thread. I suspect many folk had never heard of her until very recently. Had I been at the AGM and had only the statements reported to me, together with the printed statements, I might well have thought it was a fuss about nothing.

She has had some interesting flights and if I'd done the same I'd be quite pleased, too, but that's not quite the point. The PR machine has been working hard throughout and to claim therefore that she has no control over the press reports is somewhat disingenuous, to my mind.

I'm glad she loves old aeroplanes. I just wish the lady would go off and enjoy some flying for its own sake. The people I admire don't seek to advertise being role models. They just are.

[ChampChump]

Never mind. We'll have a special fly-in to view them...

Please, gawd, no.

Well, a fly-in maybe.


By the way, your absence was noted today.

I wouldn't have arrived until it was time to go. Morning weather was, well,