I revised her occupation to gemmologist/public speaker and it has again reverted to pilot. This should not be a matter of debate because both the FAA and GBR licence held by Curtis-Taylor are on the FAA database, and it is not a licence that allows her to earn revenue from her flights. Her occupation also includes 'adventurer', which is debatable in itself, but the key point is that the Africa and Oz trips, undertaken in an FAA registered aircraft, with a private certifcate, cannot legally earn Curtis-Taylor any revenue. It is clear that some of the editors on this article are ignorant of the regulations as they pertain to licence privileges. The FAA have issued an Advisory Circular to clarify things. I will try and find the AC for other editors to reference. But it boils down to this: whatever the occupation of a private pilot is, it CANNOT be 'pilot'. Most pilots are fully aware of this simple and uncontroversial fact. I explained at some length the reasons for my proposed revision to her 'Occupation' before I made it. Whether or not Curtis-Taylor is using these flights as her de facto source of income, one thing is crystal clear - it is not legal to do so. Therefore her occupation cannot leaglly be 'pilot' nor, based on these flights, can it legally be 'adventurer'. Beck daross (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Care needs to be taken with some of the wilder claims that are starting to fly about. The paragraph above is a case in point.
Working as a "Pilot". The author of the above is quite wrong in saying one cannot earn any revenue while flying as a PPL. One cannot earn money (ie be paid for one's services as...) as pilot with a PPL but Tracy was not, as far as we know, employed and paid as pilot. That she was paid anything is probably in doubt as she set up the expedition and the income was allegedly from a film documentary. Even if she did earn money from the trip she'd quite correctly say it was for being expedition leader. The fact that she flew during the trip has no bearing on the matter unless she specifically took money for doing so. It would be a different matter if her contract stated "Pilot" as her position within the team of course. Remember, you can fly the company's Bizjet (even a 747) on company business on a PPL as long as that isn't the major part of your job and you are genuinely employed as something else, eg Chaufferur or Office Cleaner, but not as pilot.
Many people write books about their flying exploits, that's making money from flying by anyone's definition but doesn't require a CPL. If this were the case then every film or doco made with PPLs flying in them - and there must be hundreds, would fall foul of these rules too. They don't. Go figure.
Calling herself a Pilot or Adventurer cannot be illegal as long as you don't seek fraudulent advantage from doing so, ie charge someone for acting as such when not qualified. You can call yourself what you like, it ain't illegal.
I believe it is absolutely incorrect to suggest that her activities as we understand them required a CPL.
Let's keep our enthusiasm in check people, it helps the cause not one jot to go making wild and incorrect accusations and try to stick to facts, shall we? We are supposed to be pilots, after all, and we
should know the regs...