ALL MEMBERS ! Please fill out those proxy forms..!!

[Paul Catanach]

What a pity we're time barred from to proposing a vote of confidence in our Chairman and the Awards Committee.

Next year anyone?

[dmarti32]

I have returmed my proxy forms to HQ and will await the result of the final vote.

I can't help but wonder how much scrutiny TCT's achievements would stand if compare to those of Sheila Scott in the Comanche. I must try and dig out my copy of her book. Sheila and Ann Welch were two Ladies who inspired me to persue my aviation dreams.

Regards
Dave

[mikehallam]

Hardly fair Paul,
We are the LAA. Yes all of us and many work as volunteers for our benefit.
Folks' posts are getting rather like that of a certain divisive character.
On a very positive note, posted Permit forms 2nd class mail Saturday, Permit received by email today.
Now that is OUR LAA.

mike blown.

[Chris Martyr]

On a very positive note, posted Permit forms 2nd class mail Saturday, Permit received by email today.
Now that is OUR LAA. mike blown.

Quite right Mike...

Whilst all this has been raging on today , I've been idly bimbling around at about 1,600' gazing at the beautiful South Downs and the patchwork quilt of different greens and earthen shades in my lovely little homebuild that I constructed , maintain and fly myself. I am as solo as it gets !

Yes , there are certain actions of a certain person[s] that make me a bit grouchy . Those people are not my people !

But as you say Mike : THIS is our LAA !....

[Paul Catanach]

Hardly fair Paul,
We are the LAA. Yes all of us and many work as volunteers for our benefit.
Folks' posts are getting rather like that of a certain divisive character.
On a very positive note, posted Permit forms 2nd class mail Saturday, Permit received by email today.
Now that is OUR LAA.

mike blown.

Whooooaaahhh, easy tiger. Re-read my post. Carefully.

Then go to Specsavers.


(I wasn't suggest a vote of NO confidence, quite the opposite).

[Mike Cross]

This is a sorry state of affairs, no doubt brought about by the ineptitude of well-meaning individuals.

Strewart Jackson's supporting statement says that "The 2016 AGM resolved that Tracey brought the Association into disrepute because she falsely claimed she had flown alone on her long-haul biplane flights, and that she should therefore be stripped of her 2014 Woodhams Award." The motion put to the meeting as shown in the draft minutes published on the Website was "6. Motion for rescinding of the award of the Bill Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor." If that was indeed the motion that was put then Stewart Jackson's statement and the actions of whoever cleared it for publication are equally disgraceful.

The award is a recognition of achievement and was made on the basis of information available at the time. There has been no evidence that I have seen of any submission by or on behalf of Tracey that was relied on by those who decided to make the award and which has subsequently been proved to be untrue.

That said, a written statement by Tracey along the lines of "The flights were a team effort throughout and I regret any impression given by the publicity team that all of the flights were performed solo." would have been welcome. Her statement "The story was spread that I had contrived to deceive the LAA Awards Committee, the aviation community and the broadcasting media by making fraudulent claims that I had flown my Stearman across Africa,following Lady Mary Heath's historic route, entirely on my own. Such a claim would have been nonsense had I made it." Is disingenuous, she's known all along that this is the impression that was being given and that people were objecting to it. She had ample opportunity to provide clarity. It is to be expected however that contracts exist between her and those who had a financial stake in the venture (e.g. sponsors, the TV production company etc) the wording of which might cause problems for her were she to make such a statement. We all recognise that "reality TV" is of course not "reality" it's scripted and is produced as an entertainment for the viewer.

It's a sorry mess from which no-one comes out with any credit. My personal view is:-

1. Getting the whole enterprise together was a huge achievement.
2. Her detractors can rest assured that their voices have been well and truly heard and should now pipe down. Their point has been made.
3. The board could have handled the 2016 resolution much better.
4. If the 2016 minutes that I have linked to above are accurate then Stewart Jackson's statement is untrue, motion 1 should be withdrawn, and he and the Board should consider his position.
5. Tracey has to a large extent been the author of her own misfortune. I understand the commercial desire of the production crew and sponsors to present the enterprise as a solo flight but it was her choice to sign up with them.
6. I'll vote for motion 2, not because I think Tracey is blameless but because I think the decision made in 2016 was not based on sufficient evidence, should have been decided by the people who originally made the award after consideration of any new evidence, and was therefore wrong.

Mike

[Bill McCarthy]

Mike - you say she blames the publicity team for the “solo” flight. We have heard time and time again from herself that she made the “solo” flight. There are other words - alone, open cockpit, my Stearman, instruments etc etc. It’s getting out of hand so much I need to pass a motion of another kind !!

[samrutherford]

Hi Mike,

Just a little feedback for your number 5.

She didn't sign up with the sponsors and film crew, they signed up with her. She sold them 'solo' - because this is more interesting/valuable. We received the same pitch when she asked us to help her with her 'solo flight across Africa'.

The sponsors and crew were all taken by surprise when, on day two, it ceased to be solo.

In case it's relevant.

[[email protected]]

As ever Paul Catanach has elegantly and wittily summarised the situation. My proxy is in the post, today

[T Wilcock]

..........

Both sides in this sorry saga have been guilty of misleading statements and exaggerations, but neither really concern me. This issue should never have been dealt with via a members motion. The board themselves have stated the motion ‘came as a surprise’. They should not have been put in this position. It should have been addressed and resolved long before we got to the AGM. It was a serious misjudgement for this issue to be dealt with by being proposed and seconded via a members motion and has directly led to where we are today. It is also entirely illusory to state that 159 votes is representative of the will of the membership of the LAA. However, as a member of the LAA, the resulting unwanted publicity and damage to the LAA is a concern of mine.

.......

Whatever the outcome this year, this needs to be an end to it, and if that requires reform of the articles, so be it.

I have been giving this matter a lot of thought. Thank you, Dominic, for writing the letter I was going to sit down to write tonight - I agree with the totality of it (and it's better than what I would have written!). The 2016 motion was a mistake in two respects (and I say this now, though I voted for it at the time). Firstly I don't believe anyone is raising any question about the actions of the Awards Committee - they were working with the information they had at the time. It was therefore wrong for the proposer to say that "the award has brought our organisation into disrepute". Any disrepute would belong to anyone who might have caused the Committee to be misled ("Fool me once, shame on you..."), not to the organisation. Secondly the Association has a procedure for making awards - the Awards Committee, recommending to the Board. The motion cut across that procedure - a reasonable motion would have proposed that the Committee and Board reconsider the award - which would have left responsibility for action where it should lie.

I am not here considering the pros and cons of what was said about TCT's journey. It is probably of little interest to the vast majority of LAA members who look to the Association to focus on supporting their flying. Unfortunately, again vigorous activity on social media will probably result in an outcome which once more cuts across the responsibilities of the Board and Awards Committee, and once more will be based on the views of a tiny percentage of the LAA membership.

Trevor Wilcock

[Mike Cross]

Bill. I did not say she blamed the publicity team, I suggested that a clear statement by her that she was not solo and that she regretted any impression given to the contrary by the publicity team would have been welcome. I'm not defending her action or lack thereof, she seems unable to openly admit what everyone knows.

Sam, your reply is welcome, and perhaps reinforces my feelings. When I said she signed up to them, I simply meant that she entered into contracts. If, as you imply, it was pitched as a solo flight but not delivered as such then it would be likely that this would cause contractual issues. Those with a financial stake in the success of the enterprise would not want it downgraded into something less of a story. However I am sure that you would agree with me that no pilot should be coerced into making a flight that they are not comfortable undertaking by financial, media, or any other pressure.

I respect your position and your honesty. The message has been received, clearly understood and accepted. The objective has been achieved, I feel it's time now to call off the dogs.

Trevor, I agree with you, it should have been sent back to the committee.

Mike

[Chris Martyr]

Now,,,where is this young Connolly chap ? He needs to go to Sir's study for some remedial therapy .

The issue of whether the award should be rescinded should have been dealt with by the LAA Awards Group and by them alone. Why Mr Tempest and Mr Martyr chose to take on this crusade themselves is unknown.

Dominic ; you make me sound like some awful old curmudgeon , not quite in behold of his full faculties . [I'm not quite there yet]

But I am very glad that you raised this . Mike Cross also asked a similar question . I hesitate to say this : But the separate TC-T thread from 2016 that was doing exactly what this thread is doing now [yawn] did pose that exact same question.

The chaps of the awards committee come out of this as totally blameless . Regrettably , they were most certainly stuck between an extremely hard rock and even harder piece of rock as regards the award. There were people in some very high places looking to get this one secured . Had I been in the awards committee's shoes , I probably would've done the exact same thing .
The reason why "Mr Tempest and Mr Martyr" were put into the position they were , was because one of the chaps in the awards committee told us on this very forum to take it up as a motion at the AGM !
I cannot be bothered to 'cut n paste' . I don't need to . The answer is here ! [if you're looking for a good cure for insomnia]

Re: Dominic's "do I have some monopoly on the voting". I wish I bloody well did !..

Not , to condition peoples minds though Dominic , but just to get the view of the REAL majority .
As far as I am concerned , the outcome of the Oct 21st vote is virtually meaningless . But I really do wish that more of the members would give us a clue. As I said prior to 2016's vote . Whichever way the vote goes , I will accept it with grace and dignity .

Unfortunately though , now it is all back again and with slightly more sinister intentions , the grace and the dignity is a bit hard to find . She is now looking to take her case right up to the Chairman's doorstep and has high-pedigree backing , lurking on hot stand-by if need be .

The very reason I am urging ALL MEMBERS to be counted , isn't to send Tracey off with a bloody nose , but to get a realistic figure of who thinks what !

Also Dominic , I agree entirely that the Articles of Association need revisiting . But not the way Tracey tried to do it in 2016 ! Halfway through the meeting ????

Please please don't go falling for this "nasty misogynistic minority" ploy of hers . As for the plea to "call the dogs off" . That does rather insult people who partake in normal, lawful , enjoyable use of PtF type aeroplanes .

There is also another angle from which all this needs to be looked at . It is from the viewpoint of a certain regulatory body . They are the ones who could really put an influence on this . That could hurt all of us .

But being as this has now become more of a soap-opera , I will leave that until a later date .

[Tracey Curtis-Taylor]

Rutherford is an unreliable witness in the matter of our Africa expedition. He was paid over 50,000 euros to manage the logistics comprising two aircraft and eight crew from Cape Town to Goodwood. Most of his actions were deemed to be incompetent and unsafe by the rest of the crew. We parted company on bad terms and he has pursued his campaign of vengeance ever since.

Rutherford is incorrect when he states that the sponsors and film crew signed me up. The opposite is true. I was connected with Rutherford in 2011 and personally paid him an upfront fee to scope out the expedition. My project manager introduced Annette Porter, the film director, in 2012 as she was prepared to help fund the filming. I found the sponsors and that took three years of hard work. The sponsors were happy for me to fly the expedition in any way and with whom I wanted, including them. To suggest that I mislead them is libellous. No references or endorsements were ever given to Rutherford. He made several separate appeals to my principle sponsor but they too ignored him.

With regards to the 'solo' issue: it was clear from the beginning that parts of the flight would be solo and others not. Rutherford implies that I was always flying with Ewald Gritsch which is also not true. In the formation flight through the Rift Valley and over the flamingos which featured in The Aviatrix documentary, I had Caroline O'Donnell from Artemis Investments as my passenger. Annette Porter flew several legs over 1200 miles with me; I also flew with other people for the purpose of the film story. All of these flights were filmed. Significantly, I was also going to take Rutherford on a leg with me at his request but when the flight planning problems surfaced in Cape Town - no proper maps, no charts, no VTC's, no VFR procedures, no AIP - which was part of Rutherford's logistical remit, I changed my mind.

The overriding consideration in all of this was safety. I took people with me not just to share the fantastic experience but because it was safer. And safety was a very big concern in Africa with the failure of the logistical support and the conflict and pressures which this caused for all of us.

I suggest that everyone focus on the real issue at hand. I was given an annual award by the LAA which I did not seek and it was not for a solo flight. That award was then taken back in a manipulated and flawed process two years later. It was a lapse in the duty of care the Association should have towards
it's members. I have been an LAA member for nearly fifteen years. Rutherford joined in April 2016 for reasons which are now all too clear.

I sincerely hope that decency and a sense of justice prevails among the wider membership beyond what is conveyed by a handful of misguided people on this forum.

[samrutherford]

Rutherford is an unreliable witness in the matter of our Africa expedition.


Um, pot calling kettle!!?? Broadening this slightly, perhaps you could answer the questions, rather than shouting and screaming, lies and aggression? There are some very serious accusations which have gone without any sort of response.


He was paid over 50,000 euros to manage the logistics comprising two aircraft and eight crew from Cape Town to Goodwood.


Possibly correct, I don't have the accounts to hand. That was within budget, and the service was delivered. Worth noting that this is not (unfortunately) for my pocket, I had two people in our Ops rooms working on this (and they, and their costs) need to be paid.


Most of his actions were deemed to be incompetent and unsafe by the rest of the crew.


And we have your word on this? You've hardly shown yourself to be competent and safe... On the Africa trip, nobody got hurt, and everything was in the right place at the right time - not sure what I was additionally supposed to provide.


We parted company on bad terms

Ah, another version of this story. It is no longer 'sacked and left early', it has become 'bad terms'. Finally, a correct version. I should point out that it is Tracey who was angry, not I - it didn't need two sides apparently.


and he has pursued his campaign of vengeance ever since.

No, I kept silent for a very long time. It was only after you started being presented for awards (and I contacted you TWICE asking to politely decline the awards) that I went public.


Rutherford is incorrect when he states that the sponsors and film crew signed me up. The opposite is true.


I agree that you signed them up. Read my earlier post more carefully.

I was connected with Rutherford in 2011 and personally paid him an upfront fee to scope out the expedition.


Again, we delivered what was asked. You're welcome!

My project manager introduced Annette Porter, the film director, in 2012 as she was prepared to help fund the filming. I found the sponsors and that took three years of hard work. The sponsors were happy for me to fly the expedition in any way and with whom I wanted, including them. To suggest that I mislead them is libellous. No references or endorsements were ever given to Rutherford. He made several separate appeals to my principle sponsor but they too ignored him.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this paragraph, but suffice to say that there was considerable surprise and disappointment when the journey suddenly ceased to be solo (without any prior notice being given by Tracey). Libellous? Given the lack of action over the last four years, it seems clear that whilst what I have been saying is damaging, it is accurate and true.

With regards to the 'solo' issue: it was clear from the beginning that parts of the flight would be solo and others not.


Still not true. Amazing that you keep pushing this. It's just not true.

Rutherford implies that I was always flying with Ewald Gritsch which is also not true.


I've not implied anything. I have stated clearly that Ewald was in the plane for 40 of 44 flights in Africa.

In the formation flight through the Rift Valley and over the flamingos which featured in The Aviatrix documentary, I had Caroline O'Donnell from Artemis Investments as my passenger. Annette Porter flew several legs over 1200 miles with me; I also flew with other people for the purpose of the film story. All of these flights were filmed.


I've never said you didn't take other passengers for little local flights - all I have said is that for the enroute ones, nearly all of them had Ewald in front (not the disingenuous 'various people' line you have been putting out for a while). Annette's 1200 miles were in Europe, not in Africa.

Significantly, I was also going to take Rutherford on a leg with me at his request


I never asked to fly with you (but would have accepted if asked). I don't know why this lie is so important to you.


but when the flight planning problems surfaced in Cape Town - no proper maps, no charts, no VTC's, no VFR procedures, no AIP - which was part of Rutherford's logistical remit, I changed my mind.


You changed your mind because you thought I had advised the film company that Ewald wasn't needed (they were looking to save money). At least, that's what you told me in Dongola, Sudan! For reference, and as I told you then, I did not advise them that Ewald wasn't needed. I didn't know, so I advised them to ask Ewald if he was needed. Charts etc. were all there - but what is a VTC?

The overriding consideration in all of this was safety. I took people with me not just to share the fantastic experience but because it was safer. And safety was a very big concern in Africa with the failure of the logistical support and the conflict and pressures which this caused for all of us.


You took an instructor with you, for 40 of 44 flights. I agree completely that this made your flights easier and safer - but it also made them very much not solo!

I suggest that everyone focus on the real issue at hand. I was given an annual award by the LAA which I did not seek and it was not for a solo flight. That award was then taken back in a manipulated and flawed process two years later. It was a lapse in the duty of care the Association should have towards
it's members. I have been an LAA member for nearly fifteen years. Rutherford joined in April 2016 for reasons which are now all too clear.


You tried, and received multiple awards because you were telling the world it would be, and was, flown solo. My feeling is that the deceit makes you ineligible for any award (regardless of whether what you actually did has merit or not). You lied - that's not something that should be honoured with any sort of accolade. I have strong feelings about that, not about you.

I sincerely hope that decency and a sense of justice prevails among the wider membership beyond what is conveyed by a handful of misguided people on this forum.


Your motions are before the AGM...

[samrutherford]

And because it merits a little separation:

Tracey, please answer the many questions/accusations/allegations that have gone unanswered on these pages, and on Pprune.

This is your opportunity to correct all these 'foul accusations'. The absence of response (accurate and honest would be best) is giving fuel to these threads.

You say that everyone else is wrong and you are right - prove it.