Some of the points you raised have been answered by others, probably more succinctly than I am about to do, before I saw your post but for the avoidance of doubt and the benefit of anyone who doesn't know why that slide was significant and recently became even more so, here's my response. (I hope 'snipping' your post doesn't look like deliberate quoting out of context, if so I'd be happy to revert to any aspect). Bear with me, this is going to be wordy.
The beginning of this issue was publicised prior to the 2016 AGM. Those voting either by proxy, post or in person all had the opportunity to avail themselves of the large amount of Miss Curtis-Taylor's publicity (if they could keep up with the changes) and the highlighted contradictions and inaccuracies in her versions by the 'nay' camp. The 'pro' publicity was spread far wider by the international media than the few (3?) forums/outlets available to the 'nay' camp. Members obviously felt they had seen and heard enough to cast a vote. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck.......P5151 wrote: She is though correct to make the case that the proxy votes were made without hearing her defence. No one in their right mind can call this a fair hearing if decisions are made without hearing both sides. I worked in law enforcement for over 30 years and am frankly appalled that people have cast votes against her without a proper hearing.
Since then Miss Curtis-Taylor has had two years to set the record straight yet as you admit she has done little in that regard. Sure, there have been new 'explanations' including the morphing of "solo" into "sole" then "sole manipulator of the controls". When that was poo-pooed we were told (in The Times article) that the Stearman does not have a full set of controls in the cockpit so anyone sitting there could only "jiggle the stick around a bit, it doesn't do anything" (or words to that effect). Of course the photographs taken in Cape Town put the lie to that statement confirming as they did that the Stearman had a full set of controls in both cockpits.
Only recently, again after two years, we had her website designer pop up out of nowhere and gallantly fall on his sword. After all this time he would have us believe that he "gilded the lily" when building the Bird in a Biplane website and added the word 'solo' of his own accord. From this, we are to believe, the world's media drew the conclusion that the flight was solo. Hundreds of reporters in India, Africa, Indonesia, Middle East, Australia, Europe and the US all got the word solo not from their one-to-one interviews with Miss Curtis-Taylor or her media releases but the BiaB website. Likewise her sponsors. Boeing, Artemis etc. They were all careless enough not to ask the person at the heart of this whether or not she was solo, they simply read her website and took it at face value?
We are told that Miss Curtis-Taylor was "horrified" when she realised that this had happened. (Not sufficiently horrified to set the record straight with a single press release though).
The Herne Bay video and the "slip of the lip". Twice? Really?
Is the solo aspect a red herring? no, it was designed to make the flight look more difficult. When nobody questioned it Miss Curtis-Taylor was happy to bandy it about and accept awards, some even with that word on them. When the inconvenient truth emerged suddenly it wasn't meant to be solo at all.
Likewise the sexist angle. Happy to trade as 'Bird in a Biplane' and attract sponsorship for being a woman yet suddenly the victim of sexism when the jig is up. I have yet to hear one female pilot defend this.
Have I been fortunate enough to fly a newly rebuilt, vintage aircraft kitted out with multiple GPS devices and iPads, with an ATPL/instructor in the front cockpit, a chase aircraft (that sometimes led the way) with a team devoted to doing my flight planning, heavy lifting and 'fixing' from the tip of Africa to the UK, all expenses paid? No. However I did operate for several years as a bush pilot in Australia. Day in day out, truly solo in a clapped-out, single engine Cessna. In the dry season the temperature was in the 40's (C), in the wet it was mid-30's with proper monsoon weather. If it wasn't dust and smoke from bush fires it was squall lines of CBs with no option not to fly. Single handedly loading and unloading baggage, parcels, freight day and night. Hand pumped refuelling from drums at dusty or swampy (seasonal) strips hundreds of miles from what laughingly passed for the nearest town. Single pilot, own flight planning, own fuelling, no autopilot, GPS or weather radar with almost all comms via HF. (Ever tried using HF? You should, in five minutes you'll want to stab pencils into your ears). In between flights living in a succession of dongas (portakabins) or dozing in the aircraft, waiting for some similarly employed poor bugger to turn up in his/her knackered Cessna and swap freight. It wasn't as glamorous as a trip sponsored by a 5-star hotel chain and nor was it newsworthy (although half a tonne of newspapers were a regular load) but I think it gives me an insight into what it takes to operate an unsophisticated aircraft alone in a harsh environment.P5151 wrote:I am asking myself how many of her critics have made a flight which comes anywhere close to what she did, have you?
To borrow a phrase from friends north of the border, here's where more of the sleekit business comes in. For two years Miss Curtis-Taylor was asked why 'that' slide bore the words "...alone in an open cock-pit" but answer came there none. Then, in a similar fashion to the gallant website designers revelation Miss Curtis-Taylor claimed during a radio interview last week that the route depicted was an homage to Lady Heath's flight. If true that has to be the most tenuous link ever with the only similarity being the departure point on the same continent, everything else about it had to do with the BiaB trip and guess what? We STILL never got an answer to the "alone" question! Talk about spin.P5151 wrote:As I understand there has been no attempt to claim that what TCT did copied in its entirety the original flight...... please correct me if I am wrong.
C'monnnnnn Steve, c'monnnnnnn. Now you're really playing devil's advocate. What pilot is going to sit there for 40 out of 44 sectors and NOT touch the controls, or tune a radio, or tweak a GPS, or offer an opinion on weather avoidance? Besides, given the original solo claim surely it is for Miss Curtis-Taylor to prove that he did not? Even then, it's not all about touching the controls. It's about that awesome feat of navigation, tenacity and endurance being the work of a single person.P5151 wrote:Of course having another pair of eyes in the cockpit helps, if that pair of eyes is also a capable pilot even better, no one can dispute that. Can anyone though provide evidence that any of the people in the aeroplane with her did much of the flying for her? Can anyone prove she did not fly on any of the legs?
(My bold).P5151 wrote:I still think it was a fantastic achievement by all concerned...
"All", as in several or many people. Not just the one and to be frank although a triumph over bureaucracy and an example of tenacity in the face of some difficult cultures and a terrifying amount of paperwork nothing like the ventures of truly solo pilots previously acknowledged.
I agree, but does that mean we should lower the bar and reward things that are not as they were told or for a bit of not-so reality television?P5151 wrote:Lady Heaths flight, like Alex Henshaws flight were truly fantastic the likes of them are rarely going to be seen again.
I think you are being rather chivalrous not to mention generous in your choice of words. I agree wholeheartedly with your view on this point though.P5151 wrote:It seems to me that TCT is her own worst enemy in that she has supplied evidence in contradictory statements made about the flight, she has made the situation worse by attacking people within the LAA.
P5151 wrote:Perhaps, the difference between me and many members is that for over 30 years I was dealing with obnoxious people who’s character I did not like much, but my career required I give them a fair hearing before deciding whether to make a case against them.
Quite right too and as someone who has several family members in law enforcement I agree that's the way it should be. So can I now ask you to put your copper's head back on for a moment and tell me. Whenever you were interviewing a suspect how often did they 'suddenly' recall an alibi, or that their mate was driving their car that night or that the last version of events they gave you wasn't quite right in the face of some new evidence? What, in 30 years, did you think of someone who did that or, at a later stage, produced a surprise witness with 'evidence' never mentioned before?
Innocent people are generally desperate to talk and their initial statement usually remains unchanged, no?
