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

[Paul Catanach]

Brian.

Thank you for the clarification. It is at odds with Miss Curtis-Taylor’s version of events but perhaps that is what is what the membership and Board needed to see.

I can only imagine the aggravation and stress you have experienced over the last two years in dealing with this, for what it’s worth you have my support and that of every other member I know.

[DarrenL]

What an unfortunate, unnecessary and unsavoury turn of events this all is. I haven't really had a dog in this fight up until now, life is short with so much else to see and do. However - this as posted earlier:

• I do not have the backing of a ‘PR machine’ or ‘legal team’,

Seems to me, to be at a little at odds with this in the Chairman's Personal statement:

Within weeks of the Motion being passed, the LAA received a letter from Tracey Curtis-Taylor's lawyers, requesting that we reverse the decision of the AGM which, of course, we could not do. This was
followed by a further three letters, culminating in a threat of legal action against the LAA and/or its officers.

To be honest, it's gotten my back up a bit. I don't know all the details (I suspect that there are few who do). But I can't condone the LAA's time being taken up responding to (in my view baseless) legal threats when it should be focussed on sustaining our hobby. That is after all, why we are here. I am affronted that someone should even consider that course of action over something like this, especially when their own actions appear to me to have caused the predicament in the first place. So whilst I have never attended the AGM or voted on matters before - the Association appears to run as it needs without my interference - I shall certainly be voting by proxy this year. I only wish that I was in the country to attend.

I hope that this is then the end of it and that common sense and decency prevails. GA doesn't need this kind of theatre.

[Brian Hope]

Paul, in an earlier post you seem to think there won't be a proxy vote, and I see somebody on Pprune is under the same impression. The Proxy form is available on the AGM page and will also be on the reverse of the address sheet that comes with the magazine in a day or two. Can you please enlighten the guy on Pprune that he certainly can vote by proxy and it counts just the same as somebody's vote who attends the AGM in person.
Thanks.

[Alan Kilbride]

.
"Postby Tracey Curtis-Taylor » Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:02 pm

I am sorry that the 2018 AGM is confronted by a motion about me. It comes at the suggestion of the Chairman."


It seems Brian is being used as a bit of a pawn in this.
Thank you for posting Brian. It means a lot to me and others too I hope.

[BobD]

The Chairman was not prepared to consider the possibility that his actions and those of the Board before, during and after the AGM might have been anything less than exemplary; he issued the challenge.

The statement above brings the integrity of the Chairman and the Board into question. As someone who was at the 2016 AGM, I can confirm that the actions of the Chairman in the running of the AGM were indeed exemplary. The only “less than exemplary” incident I witnessed was the attempt by a colleague of T-C-T to circumvent the constitution of the LAA by having the proxy votes disallowed, a suggestion that was quite rightly immediately stamped on by the Chairman.

I now see my vote at this AGM not only as a re-affirmation of the vote I made at the 2016 AGM, but also as my support for the LAA, in the face of the implied suggestion the LAA has done anything that is, or was un-constitutional.

[Jonathan Holland]

This whole thing is a complete waste of the LAA’s time and resources - things they just don’t have in abundance.

Why an individual would want to make such an embarrassing spectacle of herself is something that only she can answer, but I do wish someone would take her spade away from her, as the hole she is digging is getting rather cringeworthy.

Her behaviour warrants having her membership taken away from her. It’s embarrassing for the LAA, and egos like hers bring nothing to the establishment, or aviation in general.

[Paul Catanach]

Paul, in an earlier post you seem to think there won't be a proxy vote, and I see somebody on Pprune is under the same impression. The Proxy form is available on the AGM page and will also be on the reverse of the address sheet that comes with the magazine in a day or two.

Evening Brian

I was about to write "No I didn't" but skimmed back through the thread and found this:

As for proxy votes, so what? Are members who are unable to attend to be discounted? Not everyone is retired or can afford the cost of travelling to Sywell or a day off work. Why should they lose their vote?

Sorry if I've confused things but those were rhetorical questions based upon comments made by others who seemed the think the proxy votes in 2016 skewed the result and should have been discounted. Just to be clear I agree with our Chairman's stance, in 2016 and now, that proxy votes are as valid as those cast in the room and I have have seen nothing to suggest that they would be blocked this time around.

Can you please enlighten the guy on Pprune that he certainly can vote by proxy and it counts just the same as somebody's vote who attends the AGM in person.
Thanks.

I'd like to help Brian but I hung up my PPRuNe persona (Flintstone) about nine years ago (I just had to Google my own username there to find out when it was). I've only been reading there as a visitor since this unpleasantness re-surfaced, I don't post. Maybe one of our other members can oblige?

[ChampChump]

Nothing I have read in the AGM Motions has made me think differently. I have just two quick points:

I have read a lot of words about proxy voting, as if this was unique to the LAA (I doubt Nationwide expects all its 15 million members to turn up at the AGM) and some hints that many were not 'proper', morally, though accepted as legal, because they only voted for one motion. Not guilty, personally, but is that relevant? Perhaps those ballot papers were made by those content with or indifferent to the remaining agenda. It doesn't matter.

The misogyny claims are arrant nonsense. The award wasn't given with any regard to gender, nor was it rescinded so. There are more men than women in aviation, but it's a meritocracy.

What a massive waste of time & effort.

[Marchettiman]

I have conflicting views on the motions that have been put to the AGM, in one way it is simple, but au contraire highly complex.

The simple question is this. If an award of the Bill Woodham Trophy was contemplated to Ms Curtis-Taylor by the LAA Board today, with all of the information about the flight (or was it a performance) that is available in the public domain, would she now be the successful recipient?

The highly complex aspects are much more difficult to summarise, but I will do my best. They centre on how a member of an organisation of enthusiasts in a discipline such as grass roots light aviation should behave and regard that association and his/her fellow members.

First of all I have to recall some of the members’ public statements:

“I don’t think for one second that I would have received the treatment I have had from the LAA if I had been a male”

“He never flew the plane. The Stearman is not even fully dual. You can take the stick and follow it around but he’s not flying it”

“I’ve had 35 years flying these kind of aeroplanes. I’m as experienced as anyone in the world”

“The solo thing becomes totally irrelevant when you’re actually there”

“I did once speak inadvertently of flying “solo” at a damp, grey Herne Bay...when a flying display I was scheduled to give was cancelled”

“I do not have the backing of a “PR Team” or “legal team”....

“It is evident from recent study of the redacted proxy voting forms- supplied at my request-.......”

There are many more which can be found in various newspaper articles and internet forums, but to my mind the most relevant was to refer by inference to the LAA as “the old men’s club of British Light Aviation” in the online article published by The Times.

I will refrain from commenting on the above quotes, I have my own view on their veracity and intent, but for Ms Curtis-Taylor to claim that she has no legal team, please read the next paragraph.

Our Chairman’s statement published today reveals that Ms Curtis-Taylor’s lawyers had written four letters to the Board following the 2018 decision, requesting that the decision of the membership be reversed, culminating with a threat of legal action against the Association and/or its Officers. This was followed , says our Chairman, by Tracey making a formal complaint of wrongful and discriminatory actions by him, as Chairman of the LAA. He stood aside honourably until a formal enquiry exonerated him, in I am sure, every member’s (-1) view correctly, but at what cost to the LAA’s real purpose?

Motion 1 is insupportable and I am afraid that despite David Mole’s conciliatory appeal to support Ms Curtis-Taylor so too is Motion 2.

I have to return to the simple question; would we now support the Bill Woodham Trophy award to Ms Curtis-Taylor, knowing what we now know?

[stenny]

An excellent summary Graham!

T C-T blusters a lot but never answers the basic questions about her "exploits"! Any viewing or listening to her interviews leaves one with the strong impression of what she tries to portray about herself - she doesn't misspeak but is very precise about her exploits. Unfortunately to the ears of someone knowlegable in aviation, they are toe curlingly embarrassing. Perhaps her exploits are only aimed at the ignorant public and therefore do not deserve industry ackowledgement? The LAA would be well advised to rebuff this bullying.

Alistair Stenhouse 024467

[dmcnicholl]

From the documentation available online there are two motions relevant to this matter.
Motion 1 by Stewart Jackson titled: The Annual General Meeting acknowledges that its resolution of October 2016 to rescind the award of the Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor was unjustified and inappropriate to the values of the Light Aircraft Association.
Motion 2 by David Mole titled: That the Woodhams Trophy awarded to Tracey Curtis-Taylor in 2014 be reinstated.

Brian Davies, Chairman, in his personal statement urges us to reject Motion 1 and approve Motion 2 but for those of the membership with an interest in this matter what is the practical difference between these two actions?
Voting against Motion 1 avoids criticism of the association's actions in 2016 which, from what I have read, is fair but voting for Motion 2 allows Miss Curtis-Taylor the trophy and that I understood to be the bone of contention all along.

So I come to the same conclusion as Marchettiman that neither motion is supportable but whichever way this goes I hope it will never again be revisited.

[edited to add] With the Chairman's revelation that it is Miss Curtis-Taylor herself who is behind this rehash it is a pity that she does not follow more closely the example of one of her inspirations, Amy Johnson, of who's understated way of dealing with adversity she spoke in her address to the Museum of Flight in New Zealand. (Available on YouTube)

[jangiolini]

It puzzles me that we as members of the association voted on a perfectly legitimate motion which had a legitimate outcome! How can lawyers demand that the Board reverse a democratic decision and threaten the Board with sanction! This sounds like Bullying tactics and if so shame on them and shame on TCT! I was under the impression that they have no authority to demand this unless its illegal in some shape or form. Are we becoming an Orwellian Society!
My question is, what were the lawyers demanding and or accusing the Board of?
TCT said she has no legal team so is she fibbing or the Board fibbing?
John.

[jollyrog]

It's curious (actually it's not, but you know what I mean) that she hasn't followed through with her legal threats against the LAA, or anyone else. There's enough material on the Web and even in print that if she has been libelled, she could have had a field day by now.

My mind is made up. I voted by proxy to withdraw the award in 2016 and I plan to make the trip to Sywell this time to vote against both motions in person.

[Trevor Harvey]

And perhaps Tracey would care to explain how this fits with her statement:

Flying towards Baragwanath (JLPC), Tracey and Ewald in the Stearman. I was with the film crew in the C208.

I was suddenly asked to find a diversion airfield as large crowds were expected there and she was supposed to be alone.

With help from the Ops room in Brussels we diverted, Ewald jumped out (and into the C208), and Tracey was able to land at Baragwanath solo in the aircraft.

Why the need to do this if it was 'known all along'?

Up until now I was not aware of this piece of blatant deception.
If this is true, and I wouldn't think Sam Rutherford is going to invent this at this time in the fiasco, then it's an even bigger nail in the box.
Where was the diversion to?
Are there records of this landing/take off or was it done at some deserted dirt strip that can be denied?

[PaulSS]

I certainly will not be following the Chairman's thoughts on Motion 2 because, in my view, she didn't deserve the trophy in the first place, let alone be awarded it a second time.

Ignoring the lies about solo flight, what did she actually do that was worthy of any sort of acclaim? Let's pretend for one moment that she did actually fly the aircraft. Big deal Climbing into a machine which has been lovingly cared for by others (who know their job), chucking a few waypoints into a GPS (supplied by an ops team that know their job) and following a line on a plethora of GPS devices is neither ground breaking, advancing the cause of anyone other than herself or any more than a jolly paid for by others.

To try and justify her grandstanding as something to encourage female pilots is really quite insulting and is obvious to anyone that it was all to please the sponsors who paid for her self-serving jaunt. There are plenty of genuine, ground breaking, female pilots who deserve recognition for the feats they achieved; Tracey is not one of them.

An example to female aviators would avoid smacking into parked helicopters and would have an idea about density altitude......as well as understanding what 'solo' means.

I just hope my two 'no' votes arrive in time.