Tracey Curtis-Taylor (Merged threads)

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Those are the questions I have been asking for over and above Jonzarno's ones.

In addition I would like answers to the following

- When exactly did the sponsorship requests begin?
- What did the investors THINK they were getting?
- When was it decided that these would not be a solo flights?
- Why was the solo aspect dropped?
- Were the sponsors informed of this material change?
- If so, when?
- Why was it felt necessary that the front seat would be occupied for the vast majority of the journey by Ewald?
- What steps did TCT take to correct the many SOLO headlines?
- Where is the evidence to show this even happened?
- Why, many months after the return to the UK, was TCT perpetuating the SOLO claim?

I have just been reading posts over on the LAA forum. Some are saying that the motion should be thrown out but it is too late for that. Doing so would now be undemocratic; the motion has been tabled and it is down to the membership to decide.

What I find odd is why the VP has put this motion forward. Any member can submit a motion and TCT is an LAA member. Is it because she would have been dismissed straight away? Is it because there has been external pressure put on the LAA to revisit (legal threats perhaps).
Eitherway it is for members to decide both those who will vote by proxy and those who turn up on the day. The crucial point is that proxy votes are just as valid as those cast in person. To this end I trust that the LAA will present as much information as possible to ALL members and prevent any last-minute ambushing at Sywell.

The members also need to be aware of the possible outcomes.
Motion rejected: TCT remains without the award. I suggest to prevent further challenges that the decision includes a full and final decision caveat. Unless TCT can come up with solid evidence to support her in the future then the decision stands.
Motion carried: TCT is vindicated and this paves the way for legal damages to be claimed from the LAA.

As I see it there is NOTHING to support the second option. If there were it would have been public by now. I think the press-releases from BiaB pushed the solo aspect, certainly the sponsorship requests will have done because I cannot see any sponsor jumping in to throw millions at a dual jolly to satisfy one persons dream; sponsorship doesn't work like that. When solo flights have occurred it has been with a little subterfuge later on. Wasn't it Goodwood to Le Touquet solo but Ewald was quickly back in the front seat as ballast? He was there at the departure and followed in another aircraft or perhaps more accurately they met up airborne and she followed the other plane into France.

It is down to the LAA membership to decide for themselves. There is tons of evidence to support what is said on here and other forums, but little to zero to counter any of it from BiaB. I am going to wait and see the exact motion wording and then leave it to them to decide which path is morally correct.