2018 Light Aircraft Association AGM award vote

[Mike Flynn]

This year taking place at Sywell 21st October 2018.

Anyone know what is on the agenda?

I am hearing rumours.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Website says AGM documentation to be added in due course.
I have heard the rumours too and if they are true then a certain thread on here will have been closed prematurely and unpleasantness will overshadow the event. Hopefully, if the rumours are true, the LAA execs will see sense and kick the hinted at motion into the bin.

[Chris Martyr]

Funny that !
Down my way the old jungle drums seem to be beating out a rather strange message too . Seems to be something like ; 'Raging forest fire now calm and under control , but unwise person now want throw petrol on'.

Question: You go through a real bad spell , eventually though , there is light . A talk at a rally is pretty well received , that very same weekend , a forum thread that has hovered above like a guillotine blade is made safe.

Now ,,,,what would your next move be . Surely it WOULDN'T be to remove the lock-pin from the guillotine blade would it ?

[Planemike]

Please will someone "in the know" decode this for the rest of us..... Thank you.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Very frustrating, indeed, "we want to talk about something but we won't talk about it publicly, we don't even want to say what it is". If they cannot speak out - which may be justified - why begin about it at all, on a public forum? Now it sounds like either they want do distribute panic, or at least alarm, or they are hoping to get private messages.

PS what's "AGM"? It is not in the glossary of my AIP. "All Gone Mad"? "Above Ground Minimally"? :)

[Genghis the Engineer]

Annual General Meeting; most organisations that are either charitable, or group owned in the UK are legally required to have one. It's nothing to do with aviation, as a concept.

G

[Forfoxake]

I presume they are talking about the possibility of an attempt at the LAA Annual General Meeting to re-instate the LAA award rescinded from T C-T a couple of years back.

I was at her talk at the rally and, had I not known what I know from the PPRuNe thread, I might have been impressed. She is a very engaging speaker!

However, although she never said the word solo at any point, and mentioned the contribution of her back-up crew on several occasions, I did note that she never mentioned that another pilot was in the biplane at any point.

Only in the case of the Winslow crash, did she mention that another member of the crew was up front but she said that she was flying. She put the cause of this crash down to loss of power due to contaminated fuel.

[POBJOY]

I really hope the 'membership' do not get hung up on this, and stick to matters that are important to the LAA and their continued good work in promoting homebuilding and operating elderly machines.
A TV hyped situation should not even be allowed to come under discussion as it has nothing to do with the association or its reason to exist.
Down here in the far west a member has just flown a machine that he started 11 years ago. This was built from scratch plans and is an absolute gem with looks and performance to match.(that's what it is all about)
TV endorsed side shows are a waste of space and should not be given the time of day.
The LAA as was the PFA before is an amazing operation that we should be proud of; it has superb tech expertise, plus inspires, and encourages all comers to get involved in such a way that is world class.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

...
Only in the case of the Wimslow crash, .... She put the cause of this crash down to loss of power due to contaminated fuel.

So that lie is perpetuated. Not what the NTSB concluded as far as I recall and I am sure the fuellers at Winslow will be interested to hear they are still getting the blame.

@pobjoy, yes, this should never have come up to LAA in the first place and certainly should not be allowed to detract from the work they do.

[Jan Olieslagers]

So @Forfoxake guessed right? Why now admit it implicitly, instead of stating so explicitly from the beginning?

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Because I for one didn't want this thread to turn into a part 2 of the other one. Hopefully that will reopen soon and this one can go on to discussing LAA AGM topics.

[Planemike]

100% agree with POBJOY. The business of the LAA/PFA should be supporting the building and flying of recreational aeroplanes......

[Mike Flynn]

100% agree with POBJOY. The business of the LAA/PFA should be supporting the building and flying of aeroplanes......
I must say I agree.

[Chris Martyr]

If this matter is allowed to proceed to AGM level , then the LAA is doing a dis-service to its membership .
This topic was concluded in 2016 via the correct channels and has since been considered as 'case closed'.


The LAA is a wonderful organisation. It allows ordinary people to build , operate and maintain their own aeroplanes . As well as being part of some great network of knowledge and experience , plus the opportunity to partake in as many fantastic Summer events as you can shake a stick at .

This person has already hi-jacked a previous AGM , an AGM in which those attending had the privilege to be addressed by some extremely interesting and fine , worthy people .

The LAA is about its membership ! And not the ego of one rather self-centred person .

[rarelyathome]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tracey-curtis-taylor-who-brought-down-the-bird-in-a-biplane-l2663fjs2?shareToken=f17b837505ef962869647ab8be2149d7

[Dan Dare]

I am very disappointed they are revisiting this farce. I may be minded to cease membership in protest if they even waste AGM time debating this, never mind if they reinstate the award. The PFA/LAA has a long history of advancing aviation and should be embarrassed at getting tangled up in this.

[Mike Flynn]

It certainly looks like being an entertaining event.I see Chris Martyr has posted on the LAA forum.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x738/1_f3_f936_a_0_e3_c_4786_a528_5_a5_a72962_d47_83b897c9ff36f5d 7f8ac0b7aad2a06707b7b7300.jpg

[Pilot DAR]

As I have reopened the original thread regarding Ms. Curtis-Taylor, I will invite discussion on that topic to reside there. I don't want to truncate discussion about the AGM, of other topics warrant that discussion, however, I'd prefer to close this thread if it has no separate purpose.

Does anyone wish to have this thread kept open for AGM discussion on "other" topics of the LAA?

[Marchettiman]

As I have reopened the original thread regarding Ms. Curtis-Taylor, I will invite discussion on that topic to reside there. I don't want to truncate discussion about the AGM, of other topics warrant that discussion, however, I'd prefer to close this thread if it has no separate purpose.

Does anyone wish to have this thread kept open for AGM discussion on "other" topics of the LAA?

As we have not yet received formal notice of the AGM, nor its agenda (promised with the October edition of the magazine), I think it only fair that this thread does remain open until the topics listed for discussion are announced to the membership.....unless The Times tomorrow has more news about the LAA AGM!

[Planemike]

As I have reopened the original thread regarding Ms. Curtis-Taylor, I will invite discussion on that topic to reside there. I don't want to truncate discussion about the AGM, of other topics warrant that discussion, however, I'd prefer to close this thread if it has no separate purpose.

Does anyone wish to have this thread kept open for AGM discussion on "other" topics of the LAA?

I would prefer this thread remained open. I have refused to read the T C-T thread for some months now on principle.
As stated earlier by myself and others the PFA/LAA should stick to matters pertaining to building and flying of recreational aircraft. Please may we have some form of statement from the LAA.

[Mike Flynn]

Anyone know what else is on the agenda apart from this?

[Chris Martyr]

Well actually J-S , there will be a talk by Phil Dunnington . www.gonewiththewind.uk.com (http://www.gonewiththewind.uk.com) Check him out , not only did he fly a Beech 18 around the world , but he took an air balloon with him for a bit of between flying light entertainment .

A brilliant read and a totally worthwhile guest-speaker .

A pity that attendees will have to endure the other bit of 'light entertainment that the LAA will be forcing upon us .

Still no comment though as of yet.

[RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike]

Phil D. is an extremely experienced hot-air balloon pilot, and a jolly entertaining speaker.

[Chris Martyr]

Having been a PFA/LAA member for 27yrs , I have to say that reading the agenda of the AGM in The Times is something of a first. Who would have thought that PF/LA magazine would have been trumped by a newspaper with such provenance . Nothing like mixing it with the right people is there chaps .
If LAA's Vice Prez is acting under his own instincts , then he will surely be contemplating the wisdom of this Gerald Ratner-like gesture . Although it does rather make one wonder if there is a bit of leverage being applied from 'upon High' [capital H intended]

If none of the above is true , then it would be very , very wise to drop the matter completely !

From a members view , let's take a look at the most likely outcomes here .
Option 1 : [ and the most likely] Motion voted out . Humiliation for Tracey , but LAA come out of it relatively unscathed.
Option 2 : Motion is carried . Tracey seen as unwelcome pariah in GA world . LAA reviled as being complicit.
Option 3 : Proposal dropped forthwith like a hot brick . Tracey slightly inconvenienced , LAA now able to continue doing what it is brilliant at , membership all now happy .
Please tell me I'm not the only one to see this !

If however , there is interference from 'upon High' , then it does have to be borne in mind that the democratic process in this case does still apply. It applied in 2016 , and will apply again in 2018 ! There may be posh people at the top . But us plebs still outnumber you .

Please feel free to tell me if I'm wrong !

[Above The Clouds]

I have supported the LAA through membership for years as I believe in its core values for supporting light aircraft aviation, however if this decision is over turned and the award that was obtained by TCT through deceit is re-instated I will be ending my membership with the LAA.

[Cows getting bigger]

This could get tricky. A significant proportion of the LAA membership is there out of necessity; they need to belong due to the airworthiness requirement for their aircraft and are therefore a captive audience. To play politics with that membership is wrong. This reminds me of the ‘vote until you give the right answer’ style of politics. It is so wrong.

The LAA should stick with it’s core responsibilities.

[Above The Clouds]

This could get tricky. A significant proportion of the LAA membership is there out of necessity; they need to belong due to the airworthiness requirement for their aircraft and are therefore a captive audience. To play politics with that membership is wrong. This reminds me of the ‘vote until you give the right answer’ style of politics. It is so wrong.

The LAA should stick with it’s core responsibilities.

My aircraft is Annex II so I am a cash cow to the LAA only because I believe in their core values towards general aviation. If I leave because of their misguided decision making and stop supporting them through membership fee's it is no loss to myself, the committee need to look long and hard as to how they will deal with this scenario as I am pretty sure its not only myself supporting the LAA like this.

[Stampe]

Same as above long standing LAA member but moved from permit to certified aircraft many years ago.I remain a member out of loyalty and to support the aims of the association.Should this decision be reversed I would likely not renew my membership.I call on association members to become involved to stop this attempt to move the association away from its proper business serving the aviation needs of its membership.Regards Stampe

[megan]

Just an observer on the other side of the world, but as I posted on the TCT thread, if the LAA go down this route they're nuts. A vote has been had, result obtained, end of.

[Right Hand Thread]

Perhaps a further motion is required. Removal from the Board any member seeking to railroad the membership into rescinding a decision already concluded?

it seems to me that some people think the LAA is their train set, to do with as they will so as to satisfy/glorify their chums. I think (hope) they are in for a shock.

You can also add me to the list of those who will resign if this is not dropped.

[Sam Rutherford]

Phil's talk will be great (we did the Trans-Atlantic support for him). There's a programme about it coming up next month!

I can confirm that at no stage was the Beech flown solo, but Allie did achieve a first female solo balloon flight in Greenland!

[kghjfg]

Remember last time when they tried to remove the postal vote?

This time there will be a motion tabled, only those in the room will be able to vote, the room will have been pre packed with TCT supporters. (as it was last time)

Face it, she is getting the award back. She has many friends in the LAA.

You think the LAA will miss you or I? There are plenty of pilots who cannot leave if they want their aircraft to continue flying.

I expect this behaviour from H(sic)CAP, but not the LAA.

[Chuck Glider]

Remember last time when they tried to remove the postal vote?

This time there will be a motion tabled, only those in the room will be able to vote...Not according to this from Brian Hope editor of the LAA magazine Light Aviation.https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpBB3/styles/prosilver-embed/imageset/icon_post_target.gif (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?p=25740#p25740)by Brian Hope (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=155) » Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:17 am
Just to clear up another misunderstanding that some seem to have, Proxy votes and votes at the meeting have equal stature.
The magazine, AGM details and Proxy forms have now gone to press, the Proxy form as usual being printed on the reverse of the magazine address sheet. It should be with members late next week.

Full post:- here (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5519&start=30#p25740)

[ak7274]

Where dId you get the information that postal votes won't count?
First I have heard of it.
As far as I am aware there are no significant changes to the voting at this AGM that make this "assumptiom" believable.

[kghjfg]

Aren’t there mechanisms to table new motions at the meeting itself, which will then be voted on by the people in the room only?

Ask yourself, why would TCT be attending if it was obvious it would just be a rerun of the last attempt. There must be a new plan.

[Planemike]

Aren’t there mechanisms to table new motions at the meeting itself, which will then be voted on by the people in the room only?

Ask yourself, why would TCT be attending if it was obvious it would just be a rerun of the last attempt. There must be a new plan.


I am not a lawyer, nor am an expert on the constitution of the LAA. I have been a PFA/LAA member for over 40 years.
My understanding is that resolutions have to be submitted 42 days before the meeting and will certainly not be accepted at the meeting.
It is to be hoped that the result of this years vote will be precisely the same as it was in 2016. I have seen nothing to suggest that it will be different. No new evidence has been presented to suggest T C-T is any more deserving of the award now than she was back in 2016.
The whole matter is a distraction and total waste of the time and resources for the LAA. It should concentrate on its core function, helping members to build and restore aircraft for recreational use.

[airpolice]

Years from now, when the LAA has been discredited, abandoned and replaced by a more fit for purpose, non political statutory body, with associated fees for aircraft owners... we will be able to point to this farce and see where the rot took hold.

The tail is wagging the dog here, and it has to stop.

[Forfoxake]

No update yet on AGM information page on LAA website:


The Annual General Meeting of the Light Aircraft Association Ltd

will be held on

Sunday 21st October 2018

at

Sywell Aerodrome, The Cirrus Suite, Northants

The 2018 LAA AGM will be held in the Cirrus Room in the Aviator Hotel at Sywell Aerodrome, Northampton on Sunday 21st October. The actual AGM forms only part of a full day’s entertainment for LAA members. The program for the day will be announced nearer the time.

AGM documentation



To be added in due course.



Notices of Motions and Candidates for Directorships of the LAA

Notices of Motion of any kind and notification to stand for election to the Board of Directors must be received by LAA HQ no later than Sunday 9th September. Notifications to stand for the Board must be presented by a proposer and seconder, both of whom must be beneficial shareholders. The candidate, who must have been a beneficial shareholder of at least two years, also needs to express their desire to stand in writing. Nomination Form can be found here (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/AGM/nomination document.docx).

Proxy Voting

Whilst we hope to get a large and enthusiastic audience for the AGM, clearly not everybody is able to attend. However, that does not preclude you from being able to vote because we have a proxy voting system in place. On the reverse side of the address page of the October magazine, a proxy form will list the candidates and the motions that will be put to the AGM.

Membership cards

Please note that to attend the AGM you must be a current member of the LAA. Please ensure you have your membership card with you.
To vote at the AGM you must be a beneficial shareholder of the LAA. Unless you have specifically opted out, you will be a beneficial shareholder by default if you are a current member.

Getting to Sywell



If you are coming by road there are directions on the Sywell website at www.sywellaerodrome.co.uk/location (http://www.sywellaerodrome.co.uk/location) or you can use the postcode NN6 0BN in your satnav.

You are welcome to fly in to Sywell, normal PPR procedures apply (see the Sywell website for details) but landing fees will be waived if you are attending the AGM.

June 2018

[Right Hand Thread]

Ask yourself, why would TCT be attending if it was obvious it would just be a rerun of the last attempt. There must be a new plan.

You’re right. In the absence of a cunning, new plan only a glutton for punishment would pitch up hoping to get a different result to the 2016 AGM. What is different this year is that:

1. An expensive lawyer is working for TCT.
2. An expensive PR company is working for TCT.
3. Both have been haranguing the LAA for some months now.
4. At least one LAA Board member appears to support her argument, having submitted the proposal himself on TCT’s behalf.


Now I would be very surprised if TCT is risking a second rebuff because one board member has expressed sympathy for her cause so what else has been said and done between 1, 2, 4 and the rest of the LAA board? The answer is we don’t know because the board aren’t telling the membership.

[Pilot DAR]

The long running thread on the topic of Ms. Curtis-Taylor's flying and public relations has been closed, as the recent news was well discussed there. Discussion on the merits and upcoming voting relative to the LAA award considered for Ms. Curtis-Taylor is welcomed on this thread.

[Senior Pilot]

To back up Pilot DARs post, this thread will run to cover the 2018 LAA AGM.

It should not be considered a repository for repeating posts already made (some frequently) on the currently closed T C-T thread: such posts will be deleted if copied over to this thread.

[Chris Martyr]

It should not be considered a repository for repeating posts already made (some frequently) on the currently closed T C-T thread: .

Hear Hear !
The moderation team on PPRuNe have been extremely understanding and amenable in allowing this topic to run. I for one am very grateful for that !
The agenda for the LAA-AGM 2018 will become public in the next few days , and I'm sure that many await with interest to see how the wording of a certain proposal looks.

[kghjfg]

It is within the power of the LAA to fix this AND please everyone from all sides.

Add Ewald to the award.

The original award was for an amazing flight, originally thought to be solo, removed because the award was wrong.

(They can’t give me an award for going to the moon, because I haven’t)

The flight was still amazing, so simply give the award to Ewald AND TCT.

They’ll get the award they deserve, no one can say it’s not true or misleading. Everyone will be happy.

I wonder if that’s what they are going to do. Everyone would postal vote FOR that. They’d walk it, and everyone would be happy. Including TCT and Ewald surely?

[piperboy84]

It is within the power of the LAA to fix this AND please everyone from all sides.

Add Ewald to the award.

The original award was for an amazing flight, originally thought to be solo, removed because the award was wrong.

(They can’t give me an award for going to the moon, because I haven’t)

The flight was still amazing, so simply give the award to Ewald AND TCT.

They’ll get the award they deserve, no one can say it’s not true or misleading. Everyone will be happy.

I wonder if that’s what they are going to do. Everyone would postal vote FOR that. They’d walk it, and everyone would be happy. Including TCT and Ewald surely?
Don't forget Sam, he should get an award too, for the logistics and getting the bags to the hotel promptly (most of the time anyway).

[pulse1]

Everyone would postal vote FOR that
I won't. You cannot just ignore the deceit and previous attempts to bully the LAA at the 2016 AGM and since. Neither do I think that a dual flight backed up by a support team is that amazing. Having watched the film of the African flight I think that the film crew are more deserving of an award. Mind you, if they were to include Sam Rutherford as well I might change my mind.:ok:

[9 lives]

The flight was still amazing, so simply give the award to Ewald AND TCT.

Wasn't the award for "Navigation"? I recall admissions of busting restricted airspace, low flying, flying in poor weather, and embarking without the required charts. Add that to following a magenta line, and was it really much of a flight in terms of award worthy navigation - for two pilots in a well equipped aircraft, - of whom one is an ATPL - being followed/lead by a chase plane?

[Checklist Charlie]

kghjfg (https://www.pprune.org/members/452440-kghjfg) wants to Add Ewald to the award.

Why? by his own 'admission" he just sat there and did nothing!

No, I don't think he is deserving of inclusion in an award.

CC

[Right Hand Thread]

Don't forget Sam, he should get an award too, for the logistics and getting the bags to the hotel promptly (most of the time anyway).

And don’t forget the refueller at Ogudugu.

kghjfg. I think you’re being too kind. This was a deliberate and repeated matter of deception that, when exposed, was denied many, many times. I certainly wouldn’d vote for anything other than the result obtained in 2016. In the words of George Bush Jnr ‘Fool me once shame on ummmmm fool you twice ahhhhhhh.......what was the question?’

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Pulse1 sums it up. A dual trip is nothing really special these days, especially when it is funded by giants of the aviation industry.

Would the suggestion to add Ewald to the award just to save face mean that he too should get an Honorary military rank, a University Doctorate, a Master's Medal etc etc?

I do find it amusing when I read the numerous misogyny claims from TCT.. She forgets that the award was given to her and withdrawn because of the lies, not because the LAA suddenly realised it had given it to a woman in error.

Although I can see some of the reasons for closing the other thread (keeping it focused on the upcoming LAA vote), we must not forget that this goes far deeper than just misleading the LAA. The other groups got around it with changing citation text to meet what with what happened and placated TCT; the LAA quite rightly stood its ground. I hope they maintain their dignity and do so again.

[kghjfg]

H(sic)CAP changed the wording in their award a number of times till they got it acceptable/right.
Adding Ewald to the award was just one suggestion.

TCT has confirmed she wasn’t solo hasn’t she? An award to TCT and Ewald, TCT as sole pilot, Ewald as the passenger.
You can give out awards for flights with passengers, you can get an award for being a passenger.

I don’t think Sam should be added to the award, it wasn’t an award for logistics, if the LAA think Sam should get an award, then fine, but that’s a DIFFERENT award.


Or, just give them a NEW award / recognition, that’s not voted for by the members is it?

So, the members can vote on whether to reinstate the original award, that’ll probably be “no”, but then she’ll receive the new award with its slightly different wording.

It’s just going to be like H(sic)CAP isn’t it?

[9 lives]

Or, just give them a NEW award / recognition, that’s not voted for by the members is it?

Why? In the light of day, and the truths of the flight being known after the fact, what is particularly award worthy about this flight? Why would it be so important to the LAA that they be trying to make an award fit compromised circumstances? Just don't give the award, it's much easier!

[Mike Flynn]

Can someone from the LAA give us some background on the late Bill Woodham and why he has an annual award?

Am I correct in understanding Colin Hales has won it twice flying his homebuilts?

[XV666]

It is worth following the LAA forum and this thread, https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5519, which has recently been retitled to emphasise to LAA members the importance of voting at their AGM.

Posts to date are certainly unsupportive of the motion brought by the Vice President of the LAA!

[Sam Rutherford]

For the avoidance of doubt, the suggestion that I be added to the award was a joke.

At least, I very much hope it was!

[Chuck Glider]

It is worth following the LAA forum and this thread, https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5519, which has recently been retitled to emphasise to LAA members the importance of voting at their AGM.

Posts to date are certainly unsupportive of the motion brought by the Vice President of the LAA!
Well we have a spare in the person of John Brady, in case anything happens to VP Jackson. :E

[gasax]

Well LAA members certainly need to vote on the basis of very well known facts. It is almost inconceivable that TCT would succeed (although we have yet to see the exact terminology of the motion). From my point of view there then needs to be some housekeeping on the LAA's part. The first element is a vote of 'no confidence' in Stewart Jackson'. On the LAA website he is stated to be a director. Amongst the duties of a director are to exercise 'due diligence' inI discharging their duties - a difficult thing to justify if you are supporting a proven 'untruth'.

Then I think that the award of prizes for events or achievements which the blazer brigade believe are worthy needs to be re-considered. An LAA member flying an LAA aircraft maybe - but how can a sponsored dual flight with well-publicised errors and mistakes be worthy of a prize? How can it be worthy of re-consideration? It seems the LAA board need to either grow a backbone or get out of meaningless dinners and prizes.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

I wonder how many times the motion wording has changed since its first submission to LAA, changed to perhaps counter or avid any points raised in these and LAA forum pages.

Any sensible person would do the right thing for the benefit of all parties and simply withdraw the motion- the matter would be closed and everyone could move on to more positive things . If it goes ahead, it will end in tears for at least one side (vote against TCT) and perhaps both (vote for TCT). If she gets the vote then it won't end there, I can guarantee that.

[ChampChump]

T CT has posted on the LAA website. AIUI, forum conventions mean quoting it here isn't something I'm happy to do but members will no doubt wish to read it.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

It is a shame that she won't post here. Straight answers to straight questions. No trolling, no malicious squabbles just the TRUTH.

[Senior Pilot]

T CT has posted on the LAA website. AIUI, forum conventions mean quoting it here isn't something I'm happy to do but members will no doubt wish to read it.

Since the LAA Forum is publicly accessible, I have no issues about cut and pasting the post by T C-T since it is directly pertinent to this thread. I trust that responses here (if any) will be measured and polite without reverting to the repetitive posts on the now closed thread.

Re: The Importance of Voting at OUR AGM . (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5519&start=75#p25792)https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpBB3/styles/prosilver-embed/imageset/icon_post_target.gif (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?p=25792#p25792)by Tracey Curtis-Taylor (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=11565) » Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:02 pm

I am sorry that the 2018 AGM is confronted by a motion about me. It comes at the suggestion of the Chairman. I felt that the process whereby massed proxy votes at the 2016 AGM stripped me of the Woodhams Award on the never explained grounds that I had ‘brought the LAA into disrepute’ was deeply flawed. 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.
Since the LAA was notified in September 2018 of a motion asking members to agree that what was done in their name in 2016 was wrong, the PPruNe chat forum has been awash with repetitious and abusive messages from a small group of trolls with an impressive capacity for hatred. They are incensed that the Times dared to publish a feature on the LAA and myself by a journalist specialising in aviation matters. Nasty stuff about me previously run by the Daily Mail and the Sun evidently troubled them less.
This obsessive discussion – slightly moderated in language – has now transferred itself to the LAA forum where some twelve angry men have spent the last two weeks agreeing with each other. Expressions of outrage that the previously expressed democratic will of the membership that I be disgraced would be subverted by the motion sit rather oddly with this message posted on 2 October 2018 about how to defeat it: “If every contributor to this thread can galvanise five LAA members and ensure those votes are posted (collect/post them yourselves if you have to), it's job done. Many of us are in groups where our co-owners are compelled to be LAA members. Use that disadvantage to our advantage”.
I have made a statement on the motion which will, I hope, be seen by all members; but just to correct a few of the bilious fantasies being peddled on this forum:
• I am not a liar, nor in the habit of taking credit for the other people’s achievements.
• I have never solicited an award from the LAA or any other organisation.
• I do not have the backing of a ‘PR machine’ or ‘legal team’, nor do I possess an influential ‘entourage’ of ‘establishment’ figures. ‘Tracey & Co’ are imaginary foes; if the trolls really think they are the proles they utterly deceive themselves.
• I have no agenda to subvert the LAA. The object of Stewart Jackson’s motion is to clear my name of allegations gratuitously made against me and the LAA’s name of being vindictive and misogynistic, and move on.
• The claim made in a message of 20 September that the passing of the motion would be followed by ‘all manner of other undesirable actions being brought to bear’ is arrant nonsense.

[clareprop]

Answering questions that haven't been asked or responding to accusations that haven't been made has become a bit of a hackneyed technique but still quite effective at pushing focus away from the real subject matter for those who haven't followed it closely.

[The Old Fat One]

Reading that post, I would like to think the Pprune Moderators would like to express an opinion.

I have been a member of Pprune for 15 plus years and in all that time I have tried to obey the rules of the site, whilst expressing my opinion of all matters aviation, in which I was professionally involved for 29 years, with professional experience (lots of it) in search and rescue, sea survival, human factors, flying operations and the training and development of young aviators (and plenty of other things too.) Once, early on, I strayed over the line and was a tad too sarcastic, and received a minor rap on the knuckles...since then I have a clean rap sheet over many years.

Here's my point

the PPruNe chat forum has been awash with repetitious and abusive messages from a small group of trolls with an impressive capacity for hatred.

That's self-evidently untrue.

Pprune Moderators do not allow abusive message (or anything even close to them). They never have, such comments are moderated off and the posters are sanctioned.

small group of trolls with an impressive capacity for hatred.

That's self-evidently untrue.

Pprune Moderators do not allow hatred on the site. And it's not a small group, there are I would guess hundreds of contributors to this thread. "Trolls" are we? Airline pilots, flying instructors, military aviators, some of whom are female, professional people with a love and passion for aviation (and perhaps also with a love and passion for the truth.)

...LAA’s name of being vindictive and misogynistic. Misogynistic...what does she call herself again...The Bird in a Biplane, well I guess irony is lost there then?

Anyway I digress, Her public comments paint a pretty damning and unjust picture of the Pprune forum. Are the moderators not inclined to post a rebuttal or perhaps even contact the LAA and refute her remarks? Or does her reach stretch this far?

[Haraka]

[QUOTE I am not a liar,][/QUOTE

It says it all.
However, it is up to the members of the LAA to reflect and vote accordingly at their AGM.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Thank you TOFO, it hasn't been nice being subject to this kind of vitriol after years of volunteering keeping the trolls away (and often getting a great deal of abuse from them as well as a result).

Also, Pprune Chat was disabled about 12 years ago so not sure where these trolls with their immense capacity for hyperbole, sorry, hatred, are lurking.

Could you point me to where the post is that has that quote? Thanks!

[The Old Fat One]

You are welcome. It's just above( #60) posted by one of your fellow mods and copied from the LAA Forum.

[airpolice]

Perhaps a member ought to raise an agenda item for the next meeting, to suggest that the association should be divorced from the back slapping and award giving "business" that has evolved into this mess.

The statutory requirement to be aligned with a body which provides technical expertise, should not compel an owner to be party to political and PR based events.

As a driver, I can decide whether or not I join the AA, but I have no choice in complying with the rules laid down by the DVLA. That means I can drive my vehicles, without being part of the business that sells books on every subject under the sun, and wants to pester the membership with offers for holiday insurance.

I see nothing wrong in the LAA giving scholarships and awards, apart from the legislative requirement for being part of that, simply because I want to fly a Permit aircraft.

[Planemike]

Perhaps a member ought to raise an agenda item for the next meeting, to suggest that the association should be divorced from the back slapping and award giving "business" that has evolved into this mess..

Why?? Over the years the PFA/LAA has handed out awards to hundreds of individuals. This is the first time I can recall there being any serious controversy or dispute. Why do away with an award system because one "bad apple" has turned up in the barrel ?? Throw out the "bad apple" not the barrel.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

You are welcome. It's just above( #60) posted by one of your fellow mods and copied from the LAA Forum.

Ah I see it now, Thanks!

[9 lives]

suggest that the association should be divorced from the back slapping and award giving "business" that has evolved into this mess.

This. It appears that the award issuing business has degenerated into a person making a big fuss to get patted on the back. It's one thing to be offered a commendation by your peers, it's a whole other thing to go on the offensive to get it (or in this case get it restored) - that's just embarrassing! It sounds to me that Tracey would like to stand at the door at the AGM, and ask every member walking in: "would you please give me an award?". I can't imagine the lack of personal self esteem which enables that! As I understand it, the only value this award can offer the recipient is one of public perception. If the recipient has yanked it away from the LAA by coercion, rather than grace, has it retained any value? Would the award to be return with a statement of: "Fine. He's your darned award back."? Where's the pride in that for anyone?

If the LAA cannot distinguish itself by giving awards of merit, with pride, and large agreement within the group, the award should not be given - let alone regiven! I recall that the Nobel committee declined to present a particular award this year, as there was a recent scandal to do with a recipient, good on them! If the path of an award is tainted, it should not be given, any organization must maintain it's proud public image in general, over the desires of one member, and perhaps a few supporters!

[mikehallam]

It does unnecessarily taint the award which is after all a memorial to Bill Woodhams.

mike hallam.

[Planemike]

It does unnecessarily taint the award which is after all a memorial to Bill Woodhams. mike hallam.

Exactly the problem is NOT the LAA or its award system. It is the recipient of one of those awards.

[airpolice]

Exactly the problem is NOT the LAA or its award system. It is the recipient of one of those awards.

According to her, she was happy to leave it alone. However now the LAA has started proceedings, to do what remains a mystery, and therefore is far from being without blame in the course of this all coming to the attention of the public once more.

[Mariner9]

. Misogynistic...what does she call herself again...The Bird in a Biplane, well I guess irony is lost there then?

To be fair, "Bird in a Biplane" is a reasonable attempt at alliteration. "Bird and a Bloke in a Biplane" would be even better, of course.

[Clare Prop]

Bird is derogatory. May as well have been Babe or Bint in a Biplane.

[Chris Martyr]

I am almost starting to feel a tad sympathetic towards her now . All this is really starting to mightily close in on her . The outcome of this AGM vote , whichever way it goes will do neither her nor the LAA any good whatsoever . It literally is a ticking time bomb now and I have just finished my post on LAA's forum with an appeal to see sense before Oct21st !

The self-induced stress that Ms Curtis-Taylor is now under is further magnified by the Winslow AZ incident.
Fuel contamination ? No way ! An aircraft which refuelled at the same time and was flying in proximity to the a/c in question suffered no such defect.
How can an engine quit at 50' AGL and the pilot not get it back on the runway ? Winslow's runways are 5,000' and 7,500' in length .
Plus the issue with the 2 x P1's.

I think that Tracey should be given the chance to start September 2018 all over again .

[Haraka]

How can an engine quit at 50' AGL and the pilot not get it back on the runway ? Winslow's runways are 5,000' and 7,500' in length .


I was under a complete misapprehension about Winslow untlI I looked it up on Google Earth.
From her account I had somehow imagined it to be a tightish dirt strip, surrounded by some obstructions ,with their being refuelled from a simple pump, possibly under poor supervision technically.
29 (IIRC) is the fully paved runway they took off from and it has about 6,000 ft. between the piano keys. Even taking into account density altitude effects ( and I have landed "firmly" on one unforgettable occasion due to not fully appreciating this ) something doesn't quite gel.
But ,there again, of course, I wasn't there

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

The AGM documentation and Motions are now on the LAA pages for all to read.

[India Four Two]

I've just read the Motions:

Welcome to the Light Aircraft Association (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/AGM/2018/agm_2018.html)

Motion 1 is indeed strangely worded - hence David Mole's Motion 2 and his justification: "I am concerned that the Motion which has been advanced over Stewart Jackson's name is unclearly worded,"

29 (IIRC) is the fully paved runway they took off from and it has about 6,000 ft. between the piano keys.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1049x684/screen_shot_2018_10_03_at_11_07_56__96f28e0ef4ce73027eb9a87f 44b4f417c36fdb7a.png

[SFCC]

My flabber has never been so gasted that this utter nonsense has reared up again.
She is a Charlatan of the highest order and in my view (we're all entitled to one) has no place being re-awarded this pot.

I will continue to watch, open-mouthed, as this unfolds.

If she IS re-awarded, I would discontinue my LAA membership, other than the small detail that I need to be a member to get a permit on my aeroplane.

And by the way...MY aeroplane means it belongs to me. Not my instructor/mentor/second pilot/passenger/bla bla.

[Haraka]

"I am concerned that the Motion which has been advanced over Stewart Jackson's name is unclearly worded,"

Then Mr. Mole goes on to say:
"It is true to say that the Woodhams award to Tracey Curtis-Taylor was made by the LAA Awards Group, chaired by Harry Hopkins, on the basis of her flight to South Africa in a Stearman biplane.
IIRC that mistake has appeared before in print.

[9 lives]

Not being a member of the LAA (I'm not a UK resident), I watch from the outside. I watch in alarm at the thought that some members of the LAA somehow think there is a need to reconsider the issuance of the award which was revoked. The person making the motion writes:

there was no evidence that even if she had practised the subterfuge of which she was accused the reputation of the LAA had been damaged.

Well judging by the dis satisfaction raised by members posting here, the reputation of the LAA is up for question if the award is restored! What does the LAA lose if the members vote to not issue an award they earlier voter to rescind? The LAA will gain the reputation for standing up in what they believe in if the members vote to withhold the award!

I read the award was:

The citation was, "Award of the Bill Woodhams Trophy for a feat of navigation Tracey Curtis Taylor for her flight from Cape Town to Cairo in a Boeing Stearman a feat of navigation, aviation, tenacity and endurance."

Feat of navigation? Not really, when you have GPS and the latest databases in Ipads, available to both pilots, being supported by a chase plane, and with ground planning assistance! My colleague and I flew a Twin Otter Cairo to Johannesburg prior to the invention of GPS, using only charts and a magnetic compass, and that was not an unusual feat of navigation, so if a fully supported, multi pilot navigational exercise warrants issuance of an award for navigation, when other factors are dubious, I worry that the LAA is setting the bar a little low for issuance of an award! I think that not being able to navigate around a parked R44 should be reason enough to withdraw into the shadows with head held low, rather than return and make a fuss to have an award for navigation considered for reissuance!

And I will confirm that I'm not a troll, I've flown the route in question (as second pilot), flown many transcontinental trips as the only person in the plane, and always arrived where I intended to. And I have flown a Stearman. I have no personal grudge against Tracey, and indeed had not heard of her until reading the rather embarrassing Canadian newspaper article which revealed her trail of error and deception. I just don't like the thought of awards being issued to non deserving pilots! Tracey has earned right to call herself a pilot, and walk among we other pilots, but, for what I have read, has done nothing to distinguish herself to the level of being considered for an award issued by pilots! I think that Tracey should use the attention afforded her now to honour up, and truthfully answer some of the questions asked of her, to set the record straight. Following that, perhaps she'll just take a step back to be just a pilot, like the rest of us.

[Right Hand Thread]

The FBO who sold her and her camera ship the “contaminated” fuel has something to say about it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/AviatorOrv/status/1044950878925479936

[S205-18F]

I have read the Motions on LAA site... I am still spitting feathers. I thought the LAA was a democratic Association and as such we get to choose how we wish to vote! If so why is Stewart Jackson telling us to vote in favour of the motions? They debacle was settled 2016 why is it being resurrected? Proxy votes are another issue I cant afford/ justify travelling to Turweston just to vote on an issue, I use my PROXY vote it should have the same clout as a personally delivered vote!
I am not normally angry but this really has got my blood boiling!!
John.

[Jonzarno]

The FBO who sold her and her camera ship the “contaminated” fuel has something to say about it:



https://mobile.twitter.com/AviatorOrv/status/1044950878925479936

Lucky escape for the camera plane crew then? :rolleyes:

[kghjfg]

Wow!

The TCT supporting statement is REALLY worth reading.
It is a shame that once again there will be no explanation from any other view point allowed.
Not everyone reads Pprune.

Did she not accept an award for it being a Solo flight in Australia?
I have never met TCT, and I am no troll, but any normal reasonable person can spot the inconsistencies.
Other than “I accidentally said ‘solo’ at Herne Bay”, does she really believe there are no inconsistencies ?

What will happen if the motion isn’t carried? Will the vitriolic campaign against the LAA continue?

I’ve already stated what the ONLY solution is, give her and Ewald an Award for their flight. It’s the only way to keep everyone happy. Why don’t the LAA just do that and close the matter. TCT has stated IT WAS NOT SOLO, she did not do all the nav, the award was erroneous, give her and Ewald the award they deserve, it was an amazing flight after all.

[clareprop]

Wow!

The TCT supporting statement is REALLY worth reading.
It is a shame that once again there will be no explanation from any other view point allowed.
Not everyone reads Pprune.

Did she not accept an award for it being a Solo flight in Australia?
I have never met TCT, and I am no troll, but any normal reasonable person can spot the inconsistencies.
Other than “I accidentally said ‘solo’ at Herne Bay”, does she really believe there are no inconsistencies ?

What will happen if the motion isn’t carried? Will the vitriolic campaign against the LAA continue?

I’ve already stated what the ONLY solution is, give her and Ewald an Award for their flight. It’s the only way to keep everyone happy. Why don’t the LAA just do that and close the matter. TCT has stated IT WAS NOT SOLO, she did not do all the nav, the award was erroneous, give her and Ewald the award they deserve, it was an amazing flight after all.


I'm not sure I could bring myself to call it 'amazing' when compared to people like Polly Vacher. Anyway, she lied about the flight and now, as the evidence from Mr Wiseman at Winslow shows, she appears to be trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes about 'fuel contamination'. The bluffing hasn't worked so now it's bluster. Quite frankly, her completely untrue statement that the Chairman of the LAA 'suggested' she raise the issue again is probably the lowest thing she has done. These are honorable chaps just interested in flying. They shouldn't have to waste their time dealing with someone demanding an award.

[XV666]

From the LAA Forum, a request from the Chairman

Re: The Importance of Voting at OUR AGM . (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5519&start=105#p25815)

https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpBB3/styles/prosilver-embed/imageset/icon_post_target.gif (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?p=25815#p25815)by Brian Hope (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=155) » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:22 pm

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.


Proxy form here http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/AGM/2018/08%202018%20AGM%20Proxy%20Voting%20Form.pdf

[piperboy84]

I heard the “dog ate my homework” one, but blaming the weather! Really?

“ I did once inadvertently speak of flying 'solo' at a damp, grey Herne Bay in September 2014 when a flying display I was scheduled to give was cancelled at the last minute because of the weather, and I had to make a short impromptu speech to a crowd of disappointed people. As soon as I finished I realised I'd omitted to credit my colleagues, but it was too late to get the film edited.”

[airpolice]

Here, for those unable to look it up, is that statement that she put out, regarding the vote coming up soon.


Of particular interest, to me anyway, is the line "I am happy to explain more fully and answer any questions put in good faith by Members before or at the 2018 AGM."

That, as they say, is a belter, but it gets better, I have pasted in a few points, in Red, which I would hope that someone will ask Tracey, on the day, if she decides not to respond here.

LAA AGM 2018. MOTION 1 Supporting statement by Tracey Curtis-Taylor. Mem No 035363 I am very grateful to Stewart Jackson for proposing and to Tim Wheeler for seconding the motion before you. The 2016 AGM resolution was hugely distressing for me; I have struggled with the consequences for the past two years. I do hope that Members will now agree that wrong was done in their name and will take the opportunity to put it right for the sake of the Association's good name. It is tempting to write many pages, but I'll confine myself to a brief statement. I am happy to explain more fully and answer any questions put in good faith by Members before or at the 2018 AGM. Since 2005 1 have been proud to be a member of the LAA, with its declared objective of 'making dreams fly'. I was thrilled to receive the Woodhams Award in 2014, the first woman aviator to be so honoured; and correspondingly devastated two years later not only to be the first recipient to have the award rescinded but also to be publicly condemned for bringing the Association into disrepute. Manipulation, muddle-headedness and misogyny seem all to have been factors. No sooner had the Woodhams Award been made in 2014 than I became the object of sustained abuse through the PPruNe social media forum, initiated by a sub-contractor on my 2014 African flight who had left the team early with a personal grievance. 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. You did make it, at least twice, on video.

The object of that and my later flights was to commemorate the historic achievements of the female pioneers, promoting not my achievements but theirs in order to inspire the coming generation of women aviators. It would have been impossible to undertake these filmed expeditions without extensive technical support, as I have repeatedly explained; various people Mostly it was Ewald, or is that not true? accompanied me in the Stearman for most of the legs of my flights.

I did once Twice inadvertently speak of flying 'solo' at a damp, grey Herne Bay in September 2014 when a flying display I was scheduled to give was cancelled at the last minute because of the weather, and I had to make a short impromptu speech to a crowd of disappointed people. As soon as I finished I realised I'd omitted to credit my colleagues, but it was too late to get the film edited. Can you show any evidence of trying since then?

Because it is all the evidence there is, All that has been made public so far anyone seeking to persuade you that I'm a liar will direct you to the YouTube clip of this one speech, as opposed to numerous occasions on which I make clear my gratitude to the crews that supported me. Having requested the information this year from the LAA, I now know that from early 2016 the Board received a succession of emails demanding my public disgrace. The sources were evidently the same as those of the ongoing PPruNe campaign; some of them joined our Association. A long-standing member, who has since told me he got his information from PPruNe, was eventually persuaded to front a hostile motion for the AGM; it was submitted to the Board on 19 September, only just in time to be considered for the agenda. That day the Royal Navy Royal Marines Charity received emails from the same sources, complaining that I should not be the guest speaker at a Navy fund-raising event, because I was about to be disgraced by a LAA motion that was to be presented at the AGM and was 'expected to pass easily'. I learned of this from the Marines Charity a few days later. I suspect that many poeple think that you should not be allowed to take part in such events, until you stop masquerading as a Commander, and use the title Lieutenant Commander, as has been bestowed upon you.

As I now know from the Minutes of the LAA Board, the draft motion included references to the company that sponsored my Africa flight that the Board was advised were libellous. However, the Chairman — not the Secretary — took it upon himself to rewrite it forthwith. This was permissible but not mandatory under the LAA Articles; I would question whether it was appropriate in respect of a motion that was an overt personal attack on a Member. Such a motion was hardly typical of our AGM, perhaps unique; but it was put on the agenda and sent out without accompanying explanation. I was away on a speaking tour of schools in China for three weeks before the AGM; but having become aware of the motion I wrote a statement, asking that it be circulated to members with the agenda; it wasn't. Hard copy was available only on the day of the meeting, by which time proxy voting on an unprecedented scale ensured the passage of the motion regardless of the overwhelming opposition of those who actually attended and heard the arguments. My understanding is that those present were not in fact able to hear the arguments, only your side of it.

It is evident from recent study of the redacted proxy voting forms — supplied at my request — that some members were puzzled by the motion to strip me of the Woodhams Award, but it seems likely that most assumed that it was one of a list of proposals endorsed by the Chairman and Board for which they would vote en bloc. An unusually large number of proxy ballots was returned — it is my understanding that at most AGMs there are more members present than there are proxies — including several on which the only vote cast was for the motion and a few on which the stamped date of receipt was earlier than the date on which they were officially circulated. Such oddities can doubtless be explained; but both at the AGM and within the Board unease and embarrassment were expressed both at the way in which a very personal motion had been passed, and the misogynistic, out-of-touch image of the LAA thereby projected. I don't think that the resignation of the Secretary shortly afterwards was coincidental. And while the LAA Board made no formal admission that anything was less than perfect, its discomfort with what had happened is apparent from changes made soon after the 2016 AGM to the rules on motions, so that in future six weeks' notice would be required. I will say no more. You will, I hope, agree with me that righting a wrong and putting this dismal affair behind us is in the Association's best interests; if you do not, so be it. Whether or not you choose to believe me, I do assure you that my Stearman flights were and are less about me personally than about celebrating the past achievements of female aviators and promoting the future of women in the skies. I trust that Members see this objective as being in accord with the high ideals of the Light Aircraft Association to which we all belong. You make much of being a member and about this being "Our" association. I wonder if you might enlighten everyone with details of how many LAA AGMs you have attended, and what other events you have participated in, to further the aims of the LAA?



So, for the benefit of Tracey, here are the three questions that the "baying mob" [sic] on PPRuNe have settled on as being the most pressing points for you to explain:


1. What is the reconciliation between Ms Curtis-Taylor's well documented claim to have flown her African flight "solo". Please see the video clip published earlier in which she personally makes that claim, and her subsequent public statement that the flight was not solo?

2. Given the above, what was she doing in the picture of her, published several times earlier in this thread, standing in front of a huge picture depicting the route and claiming she had been "Alone in an open cock-pit [sic] plane"?

3. By what authority, and with what qualification, does she wear RAF wings?

#3Questions

For my own interest, I would like to ask, who was on board the Stearman when it took off for Australia, and where was the first landing after that take off? You must remember the departure I am describing, the much celebrated party, of which a video is knocking around the internet, showing just you in the aircraft, leaving old blighty to fly to the colonies. If the ATC recording transcript should show 2 POB declared, would that be an error, or is there an explanation you want to share with us? At what point on that journey did Ewald get in to the Stearman?

I know that many others will want to take you up on your generous and exciting offer to answer any questions, so I won't press you here for details of why the FAA & NTSB forms about Winslow don't add up, when we look at your hours and Ewald's hours, or why your expensive lawyers have yet to force the fuel company at Winslow to stop contradicting your claim that the fuel was bad. Nor will I push the point about how an engine failure at 50 feet on a 6,000 feet runway should be easy to survive, for even a solo PPL student, never mind someone who has "as much experience of flying Stearmans as any one else in the world".

I'm not yet ready to be disappointed that you are unable to find it in your heart to apologise to the controller who got the blame for you not being able to iPad map read around restricted airspace. I can even ignore the frightening of the whales and the "having to fly 50 feet from a cliff" or whatever pish it was that you rambled on about, while pretending to be a professional pilot.

No, I'll settle for the three questions being answered, and maybe a hint as to when you might accept that the game is up.

I can honestly say, hand on heart, that if you were a bloke, not a hint of this would have changed. This is not about you being a woman with a crowd of misogynists giving you a hard time, it's about you being a little vague with the facts.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Wow!

The TCT supporting statement is REALLY worth reading.
It is a shame that once again there will be no explanation from any other view point allowed.
Not everyone reads Pprune.

Did she not accept an award for it being a Solo flight in Australia?
I have never met TCT, and I am no troll, but any normal reasonable person can spot the inconsistencies.
Other than “I accidentally said ‘solo’ at Herne Bay”, does she really believe there are no inconsistencies ?

What will happen if the motion isn’t carried? Will the vitriolic campaign against the LAA continue?

I’ve already stated what the ONLY solution is, give her and Ewald an Award for their flight. It’s the only way to keep everyone happy. Why don’t the LAA just do that and close the matter. TCT has stated IT WAS NOT SOLO, she did not do all the nav, the award was erroneous, give her and Ewald the award they deserve, it was an amazing flight after all.




With respect, giving an award to Ewald is most certainly not the ONLY solution. In fact it is not a solution at all.

We have seen that Ewald is just as guilty of maintaining the charade as she is.
Sam posted about the diversion approaching Baragwanath so as to avoid a throng of onlookers maybe spotting that the Stearman had two pilots in it. Sound familiar? Just like the departure from UK where TCT did leave solo (for the benefit of the cameras) but headed straight to France (no doubt with a support plane and Ewald inside it) flying with her. There upon landing the Stearman goes to 2 POB, anyone care to guess at who the other POB would have been? He is as complicit as she is and as such should not be shown any favours.

The only solution to make this go away is for TOTAL honesty from TCT and team and a withdrawal of the LAA motion.

She can start by listing all of the legs flown in all three flights and name the person sat up front on each leg.
Bring aircraft and pilot logbooks (hers and Ewalds) to the LAA where they can be verified as a true record of the flights by people who know what they should say.
She can bring along the copies of ALL correspondence that went out to the press prior to, and during the flights, especially the vast array of the "please don't use SOLO in your articles, as I am horrified that you are doing this" ones.
She can bring along the SD cards that were in the GoPro cameras on the aircraft at Winslow. She has said herself that the cameras were always running to get film footage.

Will any of the above happen? ...I am not holding my breath.

She has tried to dismiss the Herne Bay video as a slip of the tongue. I think that it is so ingrained in her psyche that she could not help herself. If she was genuinely horrified having that word used she would not have used it, and to say that it was a last minute speech could be excused if it was first time, but she has given very similar speeches at all points on her travels. She truly believes that she is special and I have never seen anyone so desperate for recognition, admiration, and reward. Quite sad really, and a bit like Chris Martyr, I am starting to feel sorry for her; it was all dying down but she just couldn't resist resurrecting it.


I saw this general message from Brian Hope on LAA Forum. Seems there has been confusion over proxy votes being counted. ALL proxy votes count just as if you are at the meeting.

Brian Hope wrote: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.

EDITED TO ADD
Apologies to Airpolice for bumping an EXCELLENT post above.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Sorry for double post but this struck a chord ...

"I did once inadvertently speak of flying 'solo' at a damp, grey Herne Bay in September 2014 when a flying display I was scheduled to give was cancelled at the last minute because of the weather, and I had to make a short impromptu speech to a crowd of disappointed people. As soon as I finished I realised I'd omitted to credit my colleagues, but it was too late to get the film edited. Because it is all the evidence there is, anyone seeking to persuade you that I'm a liar will direct you to the YouTube clip of this one speech, as opposed to numerous occasions on which I make clear my gratitude to the crews that supported me."

Explain this then please...direct copies of one of the responses I received where I queried directly with the press on what was said, by whom, and if there was any chance of a misunderstanding. It is NOT just the video that I have.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1681/e_mail_1_60f821c539f2fa34525c121773983a6293ccffc5.jpg

[Right Hand Thread]

Whatever the outcome of the vote one thing that cannot be undone is the effect this all had on another pilot's planned solo flight. Anyone remember Amanda Harrison?

She was trying to raise funds for a solo flight, UK to Australia, when the media started to report TCT's 'solo' flight which effectively killed Amanda's flight off. After all, nobody was going to sponsor her when it had just been done by someone else.

So much for being all about helping women in aviation.

[strake]

One's breath is taken away by Ms Taylor's attempt to sweep the 'solo video' under the carpet. One could be generous and say that there may be circumstances where a throwaway line is taken out of context , however, the statements made in the video are deliberate, emphasized and repeated claims to an action that is held in the highest regard by any pilot - going solo. No pilot I know would make such a statements 'by mistake', whatever the weather!

[B Fraser]

"I did once inadvertently speak of flying 'solo' at a damp, grey Herne Bay"

Let's not forget the numerous Wikipedia pages that made the same error. While we're at it, there was the website author who implied that they did not understand what solo meant. Then there's the "solo" press releases from Boeing who know nothing about aviation, the numerous articles written by journalists who attended the down-route junkets, getting their copy first-hand and the infamous slides that accompanied the presentation. All of this took years to notice...….apparently.

What rotten luck. That's almost as unlucky as finding the only training aircraft in the world that cannot be flown from both cockpits.

My first solo certificate still hangs in a frame in the downstairs loo. It clearly states that the flight was conducted without the presence of an instructor.

[Jonzarno]

Earlier in this thread there is a justification of Ms Curtis-Taylor’s actions that she herself wrote on the LAA forum and which was subsequently posted here. It contains the assertion, amongst other things, that:

“I am not a liar”.

For the last couple of years, Ms Curtis-Taylor has been asked Three Questions that go to the heart of that assertion. Many here will be familiar with them, as is Ms Curtis-Taylor (as I said elsewhere: I have had it confirmed by a senior and well respected member of the GA community who has spoken in her favour here, that he gave them to her at my request).

I will not repost them verbatim, but if what she claims is true,then:

1. Clearly her claim in the Hearne Bay video that the flight she is describing was solo must be true (Question 1);

2. As is the claim of a solo flight on the presentation slide posted repeatedly in the original thread (Question 2)

3. She has earned the right to wear RAF wings and can tell us the basis on which they were awarded and by whom. (Question 3).

These questions remain unanswered, and cast serious doubt on what is being claimed. She has yet to explain these three apparent contradictions of her assertion and I invite her to address them, either here or in person on the floor at the LAA AGM.

[runway30]

Earlier in this thread there is a justification of Ms Curtis-Taylor’s actions that she herself wrote on the LAA forum and which was subsequently posted here. It contains the assertion, amongst other things, that:

“I am not a liar”.

For the last couple of years, Ms Curtis-Taylor has been asked Three Questions that go to the heart of that assertion. Many here will be familiar with them, as is Ms Curtis-Taylor (as I said elsewhere: I have had it confirmed by a senior and well respected member of the GA community who has spoken in her favour here, that he gave them to her at my request).

I will not repost them verbatim, but if what she claims is true,then:

1. Clearly her claim in the Hearne Bay video that the flight she is describing was solo must be true (Question 1);

2. As is the claim of a solo flight on the presentation slide posted repeatedly in the original thread (Question 2)

3. She has earned the right to wear RAF wings and can tell us the basis on which they were awarded and by whom. (Question 3).

These questions remain unanswered, and cast serious doubt on what is being claimed. She has yet to explain these three apparent contradictions of her assertion and I invite her to address them, either here or in person on the floor at the LAA AGM.

For me the word “alone” is more difficult to explain away because that one word is an unambiguous statement that there wasn’t an aircraft owner/commercial pilot/navigator/instructor/member of the support crew/passenger in the aircraft. Of course it is possible that she never noticed the inadvertent inclusion of the word when she prepared the slide or when she was standing in front of it and the audience had left before she could make a correction..................

[Haraka]

To perhaps move toward the "avoidance of doubt" regarding the allegation of fuel contamination at Winslow, may I suggest you might like to follow the "Talk " section of her Wiki page for some considered opinions beyond the much altered main "Article" q.v:

"Is there any reason the NTSB did not simply say "it was avgas"? Martinevans123 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Martinevans123) (talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Martinevans123)) 20:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)"

"Probably because the more technical term as used in the US is 100 low lead or, '100 l-l'. Whatever, it's the most common type of fuel used in aircraft. The report goes on to say that the gascolator and bowl were free of debris. That is pretty much saying 'there was no fuel contamination in that aircraft.' Had there been the slightest suspicion on the day, all aircraft that had used the same pump would have been warned.Nothing of that order took place. The main article is incorrect.80.12.59.81 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.12.59.81) (talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.12.59.81&action=edit&redlink=1)) —Preceding undated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures) comment added 16:49, 4 October 2018 "

[Jan Olieslagers]

Seems like we're far from the LAA's meeting. Wasn't there already a thread about this person and her claim(s) to fame?

[Pilot DAR]

Thanks for the review of the history of the concerns relating to an AGM topic posters. Let's focus on the meeting itself, matters relating to the expected topics of discussion there, and LAA member's feelings about the topics on the agenda. I know it's a fine line... do your best!

[blueandwhite]

Seems like we're far from the LAA's meeting. Wasn't there already a thread about this person and her claim(s) to fame?

I was just wondering Jan. Will you be attending the meeting and voting? If not will you be voting by proxie?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Look at my location, B&W: I am not in the UK, nor do I fly a G-reg. I do belong to my local counterpart - but haven't ever attended their annual meeting.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I struggle to see how explaining to somebody that a members association's democratic decision about an award with no cash value can reasonably be the focus of legal action.

G

[Fitter2]

With the caveat that I am not a lawyer:

The LAA have a constitution that allows any member to request a motion to be put to the membership at a public meeting.

Such a motion (not initiated by the directors) was properly proposed and voted on according to the articles of association.

A further motion has now been put to the membership, which again will be voted on by the membership - the directors have no other action they can take.

What would be the case for any action against the Association?

[S205-18F]

That has been my question too! So why are the Board getting so upset unless there is something more sinister going on!!!!

[hoodie]

The Association has been threatened with legal action - see the Chairman's statement. That's why the Board is "upset".

[S205-18F]

Hoodie, I read the Statement but if all was above board then there was nothing to worry or get upset about! What could the legal action be, the motion was read a vote was taken democracy was enacted a result was gained end of story, Lawyers cant interfere with democracy in this country unless there is some law broken!! Unless am I missing something!!

[9 lives]

S205-18F asks the same question I have... What potential legal action can be worrisome if the association follows it's membership's voting on a motion?

If I were Tracey, I would be mortified at the prospect of being associated with legal action over an award. How embarrassing! How could she ever look at the award with pride, were it to be returned to her!?!

[Sam Rutherford]

I do not believe that the awards committee would have given the award had they known at the time it was not solo. They have themselves clarified that they believed it had been solo, and described the situation as a "deception".

I believe that that there must have been somebody more deserving of the award (who had actually done what they said they had done).

Having lawyers write multiple threatening letters to both the LAA and individuals in it (whilst falsely describing them as vindictive and mysognistic), in an effort to sell a new film, is not right.

The whitewash, spin and lies continue unabated (changing statements, changing wikipedia pages, refusing to answer the difficult questions), and will only get worse if the decision is reversed.

1-6. For.
7. Against.
8. Against.

If you want an award/prize/certificate/recognition etc. - you have to have actually done what you said you had done. Anything else is called cheating.

[piperboy84]

I’m certainly no lawyer either but I do seem to get the **** sued out of me all the time, so have picked up a few hard earned lessons along the way. I thought to raise a legal action you had to have a quantifiable claim for loses, as there is no cash value in this award the claim would have to be for consequential damages incurred by the allegedly unfair and very public rescinding of the trophy. So I assume TCT could perhaps claim the loss of reputation has impeded her speaking circuit or film earnings potential and as Ewald alluded to in his letter to Sam that this issue has had a ongoing financial impact on his income too. Seems a bit of a stretch to me, but you know what those low rent, ambulance chasing lawyer bastards are like when they get going.

[Right Hand Thread]

How could she ever look at the award with pride, were it to be returned to her!?!


She won’t even be able to do that. As with many such awards they are for a year, on loan if you like. That boat sailed two years ago and it will be on someone else’s mantelpiece instead of hers and Ewald’s.

I assume there’ll be a certificate though, to be hung in the downstairs bog. “What? Oh that old thing? Oh, I got it for somethingorother. Can’t remember now, I have so many. I do recall having to scream and scream and make myself sick to get it though”.

[Sam Rutherford]

I sent my proxy vote by email to the LAA office, received a receipt confirmation.

[hoodie]

rog747, that's not so much an inappropriate post as a major misreading of the situation.

The Motions are on the table simply because the LAA constitution says that any Member may propose a Motion and so long as it is in accordance with the Articles then it will put to the membership.

The LAA would be worthy of criticism if they did not allow a properly constituted Motion to be heard. The fact that the Motions have been tabled is a positive indication of the democratic nature of the LAA, not an indication that they have somehow been cowed.

Also, if you read the material on the LAA website carefully you will see that it was not TCT who "deemed some part of the LAA's past comment as libellous" leading to "the LAA agreeing to Motion to have the comment removed" - that didn't happen at all.

What happened was that the LAA deemed an element of the 2016 Motion to be libellous (against TCT, presumably) and it was agreed by the LAA Board to delete that element and inform the proposer that had been done.

There is enough misinformation already flying around about all this that we should all carefully read the statements made by all involved and represent them properly in these discussions.

[rog747]

rog747, that's not so much an inappropriate post as a major misreading of the situation.

The Motions are on the table simply because the LAA constitution says that any Member may propose a Motion and so long as it is in accordance with the Articles then it will put to the membership.

The LAA would worthy of criticism if they did not allow a properly constituted Motion to be heard. The fact that the Motions have been tabled is a positive indication of the democratic nature of the LAA, not an indication that they have somehow been cowed.

Also, if you read the material on the LAA website carefully you will see that it was not TCT who "deemed some part of the LAA's past comment as libellous" leading to "the LAA agreeing to Motion to have the comment removed" - that didn't happen at all.

What happened was that the LAA deemed an element of the 2016 Motion to be libellous (against TCT, presumably) and it was agreed by the LAA Board to delete that element and inform the proposer that had been done.

There is enough misinformation already flying around about all this that we should all carefully read the statements made by all involved and represent them properly in these discussions.


Thank you very much - It is a hugely complex situation - I've removed it.

[Above The Clouds]

I sent my proxy vote by email to the LAA office, received a receipt confirmation.

+1 and I do hope this will be the end of the whole sorry saga, but then again we thought that in 2016.

[SFCC]

If this really gains traction and is re-awarded, it is purely done by fear of legal action and would be utterly misplaced.

In 1989, Tony Smith flew his Jungmann from Darwin to Sherburn. Solo. With no GPS, as it didn't exist at the time.
Now that was deserving of awards.
What we are discussing here isn't at all.

[XV666]

From the LAA forum;

Re: The Importance of Voting at OUR AGM . (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5519&start=135#p25853)

https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpBB3/styles/prosilver-embed/imageset/icon_post_target.gif (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?p=25853#p25853)by Tracey Curtis-Taylor (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=11565) » Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:41 pm

‘It’s an ambush’ writes one enraged participant on this string; ‘and I hate my association being used in this way’. Indeed: we shouldn’t be in the situation we are now in.

So imagine how I felt in 2016 to discover just before the LAA AGM that it was being used for the culmination of months of nasty social media abuse against me. 75% of those who attended the meeting and heard me speak voted against a hostile and personal motion but it passed by virtue of an unprecedented volume of proxy votes. A post of 02 October 2018 on this forum indicates how that could be accomplished.

My statement has gone out, along with Stewart’s. In the light of subsequent posts, I merely add the following:
• You will find in the Minutes of the LAA Board of 23 September 2016 that the hostile motion was written by the Chairman. Stewart and I argue that he did not deal with this sorry saga with appropriate impartiality. True, an in-house report produced in April 2018 found his actions beyond reproach; unfortunately it has been kept secret, with no indication of the evidence or reasoning that led to this conclusion.
• In a letter of 17 January 2018 the Chairman did indeed suggest that if I wasn’t happy with my treatment, I should bring the motion. This was in response to repeated requests not that the vote be overturned but that the processes which led to it be reviewed. Yes, they came from a solicitor and yes, they were eye-wateringly expensive. Does anyone who has a solicitor write a letter thereby have a ‘legal team’? Don’t be silly.
• The Woodhams Award is not a competitive prize, it’s an accolade. Even if the allegations against me were true (and they are not), the 2016 motion was petty and vindictive.

I appreciate the Secretary’s action in proposing a motion restoring the Woodhams Award and thereby complementing Stewart’s, and hope you will support both. Though I am prepared to defend myself against foul accusations, do bear in mind that neither motion is about what I did or didn’t do; they are about the manner in which the LAA conducted itself.


Be aware that the use of proxy votes can be a tool used by both those in favour and against the motions.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Sad, oh so sad.
I see the word accolade is used. Which of the two definitions is TCT focused on? 1 or 2?
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/739x416/accolade_e2d9ff469c2a2b0a7294996918212daad5f7dfa0.jpg

[Jonzarno]

Even if the allegations against me were true (and they are not)

So why do you still refuse to answer the Three Questions? :confused:

[airpolice]

Though I am prepared to defend myself against foul accusations, do bear in mind that neither motion is about what I did or didn’t do; they are about the manner in which the LAA conducted itself.

So, now it becomes clearer that this is no longer about whether she was solo or not.

This (campaign) is all about internal processes at the LAA.

[9 lives]

Re: The Importance of Voting at OUR AGM . by Tracey Curtis-Taylor » Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:41 pm

I think that the higher message is here - "OUR". LAA members, look at the bigger picture!

Be aware that the use of proxy votes can be a tool used by both those in favour and against the motions

Wise words, it sounds like the vote could be close, and Tracey is worried that she has to supplement the basis of the decision.

I think of the fuss about the US vote for their judge lately, 49/51 the media tells us. People are pouring all of their emotion into a fight to the philosophical death on the vote on the judge, and with apparent reason! One side loses, and there will be great anger! The populous is whipped into a frenzy about it - it is important!

An Award?! A vote to restore an award taken away by member vote?! And Tracey would allow "HER" LAA to fight about it?! She would rather have 51% of the LAA members [re]award her an award she really does not seem to deserve. She would willingly allow 49% of the members feel horrible about their participation in the LAA!

King Solomon is about to make a decision, and Tracey is struggling to be in the center of it, about to let the baby be cut in half over it! Tracey will happily take away a half from an angry LAA, rather than to allow a unified LAA to exist. To Tracey, Tracey getting a pat on the back is more important than "HER" LAA. To me, that says it all!

[Right Hand Thread]

So, now it becomes clearer that this is no longer about whether she was solo or not.

This (campaign) is all about internal processes at the LAA*.




* In other words another attempt to deflect from the real issues of deception.


We've seen indignation. We've seen threats. We've seen 'woe is me'. We've seen the sacrificial website designer falling on his sword. When is TCT going to realise that answers, truthful answers, are the only thing that will make this go away?

As for her being ambushed at the 2016 AGM what did she want, written warning from each of her fellow members advising her of how they intended to vote? Isn't that the same as her not telling the membership that she and her entourage were going to be there to try to negate entirely legal proxy votes?

Her referral to "our LAA" is just bull. She has no interest in the Association whatsoever other than what awards she can force from it to prop up her bizarre 'turn of the last century' view of the world and how those awards will look on the movie poster. Her treatment of Brian Davies has been nothing short of abominable and her language, as 9 lives says, gives the game away. It's all about her.

[piperboy84]

75% of those who attended the meeting and heard me speak voted against a hostile and personal motion but it passed by virtue of an unprecedented volume of proxy votes. A post of 02 October 2018 on this forum indicates how that could be accomplished.

Ah yes, but that was all before the discovery of the Herne Bay video and also prior to confirmation of Ewald being smuggled across the channel in the Piper Archer (or more appropriately Pathfinder)

[Midlifec]

If indeed this is “all about internal processes at the LAA* and she has no interest in the award then the motion should have been written in a completely different manner or she should have pressed her rock solid case in the background, with the lawyers. Seeking to divide those of us who form the active body of the LAA by having a divisive and controversial vote will ensure only that the bitter taste of her lies and obfuscation are carried forward. If you wish to change process for the future then bringing the LAA into disrepute is not the way to do it, this smacks of internal axe grinding at high level within the LAA combined with the need for Tracey to garner limelight in advance of the new film. My vote is cast and no further last minute contributions by Tracey will sway that, in great part because it is plain to see that she simply doesn’t understand the meaning of the word honest. I tried to explain the whole sorry saga and difference between solo and sole to my 14 year old daughter that flys solo (That’s alone, unaccompanied, on her own Tracey)and she simply said “ if she wasn’t alone in the cockpit then she wasn’t solo” simple really Tracey, you lied and even the young women you apparently seek to inspire can see right through you.

My daughter has just come back to me and said, Tracey is an “Equivocator”, I had to look it up but it’s Tracey to a tee.

[Jonzarno]

Tracey is an “Equivocator”

Shouldn’t that be “Equivocatrix”....... ;):O

[Midlifec]

Shouldn’t that be “Equivocatrix”....... ;):O

i think it’s plain to see that she has no care for the truth or anyone or anything but herself. She is now doing a massive disservice to light aviation, something I suspect for which she will never now be forgiven.

[A and C]

With so many pressing issues facing light aviation why on earth are all these people spending all this time worrying about this woman and her exploits.

To be quite frank the LAA has bigger fish to fry.

[nickswebs]

The award did not mention solo
You're all barking up the wrong tree
: )

[Sam Rutherford]

@Nick.

The LAA awards committee have confirmed that they believed it to have been solo, and one of the people present has described what she did as a 'deception'. His choice of words.

Explain why Ewald had to get out of the Stearman before landing in front of a big crowd in Baragwanath if dual was not an issue?

It was sold to the world before, during and after as solo. It wasn't. Any attempt to re-write history will fail.

[nickswebs]

Wrong



again

[Sam Rutherford]

Explain why Ewald had to get out of the Stearman before landing in front of a big crowd in Baragwanath if dual was not an issue?

[hoodie]

The 2016 Motion to Rescind (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/2016/Magazine/Oct/AGM.pdf) did not mention the word "solo" either:

Motion To rescind the award of the Bill Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor in 2014.
Proposer: Barry Tempest FRAeS
Seconder: Chris Martyr
Concerning the award of the Bill Woodhams I wish to propose a motion for the AGM. It concerns the recent award of the Bill Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor in respect of flights from South Africa and to Australia. In my considered opinion the award of this trophy by the LAA has brought our organisation into disrepute. I urge the Association to reconsider its decision and to rescind the award

[nickswebs]

Explain why Ewald had to get out of the Stearman before landing in front of a big crowd in Baragwanath if dual was not an issue?

THE AWARD DID NOT MENTION THE S WORD!

[rusty sparrow]

It seems this woman has a massive sense of entitlement and is bullying the LAA.

[9 lives]

Explain why Ewald had to get out of the Stearman before landing in front of a big crowd in Baragwanath if dual was not an issue?

'Just guessing... Because the award is:

The citation was, "Award of the Bill Woodhams Trophy for a feat of navigation Tracey Curtis Taylor for her flight from Cape Town to Cairo in a Boeing Stearman a feat of navigation, aviation, tenacity and endurance."

Perhaps the presence of an ATPL second pilot (who never touched the controls:rolleyes:), in a very well equipped cockpit, probably acting a as a navigator, removed the "feat of navigation" value of the award to Tracey! And, the issuance of an award for navigation under those circumstances would bring the LAA into disrepute! The quoted citation does read "her" flight, not "their" flight.

[Right Hand Thread]

The award did not mention solo
You're all barking up the wrong tree
: )


Nick.

If the solo issue isn't an issue, why was it so important that you had to join this forum and tell us you were the one to first say it?

It was me that introduced the ‘solo’ element in the wording on the website which appears to have been picked up by various media.....<snip>..... I maybe gilded the lily a little.....

As Sam says, the awards committee believe the flights to have been solo and that was obviously a part of their deliberation. In addition there's the 'feat of navigation' which turned out to be nothing more than following half a dozen very accurate GPS devices while a far more experienced pilot sat in the other (fully equipped) cockpit. Is that your fault too?


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/365x259/spirit_of_jcb_small_01d09b72ecab5cc3f1132a53d503b66f4d91d666 .jpg




(Edit: I really must hit 'Send' sooner, 9 lives beat me to it.)

[S205-18F]

Hi Sam,,
for information have you read D Moles post in LAA forum re Email proxy votes!!
John.

[blueandwhite]

THE AWARD DID NOT MENTION THE S WORD!



So if SOLO is so unimportant can you explain two things.
1) why did E get out?
2) Why do you keep on about it to the exclusion of everything else?


edit to add - and why did she say it?

[blueandwhite]

I see she is posting on the LAA forum. She claims the judicial review was not her or her teams idea. I'd love to ask her if that means she is NOT threatening a judicial review.

I cant ask as I'm not registered on the LAA forum. Maybe I should register.

[Right Hand Thread]

blueandwhite


I think you need to be an LAA member to join their forum. If you're not you could post your question(s) here, most people seem to be reading both and maybe someone will ask the question(s) for you.

Then again, TCT and her team seem not to have answered a single question thus far so I wouldn't hold your breath.

[runway30]

Before you get too excited, judicial review applies only to public bodies. Whilst it could be argued that the duties of a public body are delegated to the LAA by the CAA, I don’t think that you could argue that the delegated authority covers the giving of awards. In any event the Court could not change the decision of the membership it could only tell the LAA to run the process according to the Rules of the LAA. Any lawyers with a view?

[Colibri49]

Received the latest issue of the magazine today with enclosed proxy voting form. Near the top it states: Please read the notes on 'How to fill in the Proxy Form' on our website, www.laa.uk.com (http://www.laa.uk.com). Blowed if I can find that and I don't want to spoil my vote, so someone please direct me to that information, or advise me on whether to use a tick or a cross in each box.

How can we be confident that our proxy votes particularly against motions 7. and 8. won't magically "disappear" before the votes get counted, or am I being too cynical?

As someone who earned a military pilot's brevet (wings) the hard way and who sincerely enjoys sharing flight deck responsibilities with women ex service pilots who equally deservingly got their wings, I take utmost exception to anyone who undeservingly wears what we men and women worked so hard to achieve.

[Right Hand Thread]

Nickswebs, a quick question for you.

Did you by any chance work on the Boeing website, specifically their press release, and did you gild the lily there too?

From the Boeing website:

CAPE TOWN, South Africa, Nov. 4, 2013 – With support from Boeing [NYSE: BA], pilot Tracey Curtis-Taylor has taken off on a 7,000-mile (11,000-kilometer) solo journey.....

Boeing: Boeing Supporting Curtis-Taylor's S. Africa-to-UK Flight in Vintage Biplane (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-Supporting-S-Africa-to-UK-Flight-in-Vintage-Biplane)

[XV666]

Staying on the thread topic, the LAA AGM, there are a few historical threads on the LAA Forum which are pertinent and worth calling to members' notice before this years AGM:

Tracy Curtis Taylor - separation truth and talk (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4837)

Tracy Curtis-Taylor (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4873)

Where Brian Hope made this prescient comment

If anybody believes a successful rescinding of the award will end this dreadful campaign then think on, it will no doubt be greeted as a magnificent victory.

A vote of thanks to Brian Hope (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4974https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4955)

And of note is this previous thread, LAA-AGM. 22ndOct 2016 (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4974) which has this optimistic comment in the OP of 4th Oct 2016:

There is no need to re-kindle anything from the past in this thread as I think it's all been said [about a million times ]
This is the chance to put it to bed for good ! Thanks for reading this.

There has been no previous response from Ms C-T to any previous thread or comment on the LAA Forums until this latest discussion. (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5519&start=165)

[9 lives]

This newspaper article from May 20, 2016 remains relevant, in particular the second last paragraph:

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/after-arizona-desert-crash-critics-of-british-pilot-say-they-want-the-truth-behind-famous-flights

I'm sure that this Canadian newspaper has no axe to grind with Tracey, but rather reports the facts revealed by their reporter's investigation of the story.

[ChampChump]

Received the latest issue of the magazine today with enclosed proxy voting form. Near the top it states: Please read the notes on 'How to fill in the Proxy Form' on our website, www.laa.uk.com (http://www.laa.uk.com). Blowed if I can find that and I don't want to spoil my vote, so someone please direct me to that information, or advise me on whether to use a tick or a cross in each box.

How can we be confident that our proxy votes particularly against motions 7. and 8. won't magically "disappear" before the votes get counted, or am I being too cynical?

As someone who earned a military pilot's brevet (wings) the hard way and who sincerely enjoys sharing flight deck responsibilities with women ex service pilots who equally deservingly got their wings, I take utmost exception to anyone who undeservingly wears what we men and women worked so hard to achieve.

On the form itself it states "Please indicate which way you wish your proxy to vote by ticking the appropriate box alongside each Resolution."

[B Fraser]

The letters from TCT's legal team (or an individual, it matters not) are an interesting point. I have a little bit of experience where a club ended up going down the legal route however it involved a charity so there were legal frameworks. It appears to me that in this scenario, there is no real difference to an allotment society removing an award for growing the largest carrot following the discovery that artificial methods had been used. I suspect that the recipients of the letters are slightly rattled however in my personal view, they should feel safe in advising the authors to take a hike. If the LAA, or indeed the membership, decide to respond by phone in writing then there would be a cost involved for the legal team to read and reply to every communication. That cost would be picked up by their client.

[Haraka]

In anticipation of the LAA AGM :
I note 9 lives ​​​​​​reference above,i.e. https://nationalpost.com/news/world/...famous-flights (https://nationalpost.com/news/world/after-arizona-desert-crash-critics-of-british-pilot-say-they-want-the-truth-behind-famous-flights)
I also note the ongoing avoidance by "Team Tracey" or whatever's acknowledgement or response to the "3 Questions", among any other explanations of certain examples of seemingly anomalous conduct . However, apparently tangential topics continue to be pursued incessantly,such as alleged misogyny in the LAA.
All this leads me to infer what seems to be a somewhat lame attempt to mimic the classic defence tactic before a jury, in the light of powerful prosecution evidence:

"Obfuscate, confuse and confound"

We will perhaps see ,come 21st October,how successfully this avenue of approach has been exploited.

Or not.

[Sam Rutherford]

Signing off...

Until this was all re-ignited last month, my previous post was July (asking that everyone move on, that Tracey be left to carry on with her life), and then before that was November 2017.

When Tracey kicked it all off again, I was drawn back in.

Since then we have seen that questions remain unanswered - indeed the only response is aggression and deflection. Either on these pages or via lawyers, in public or in the shadows. The deceit continues, the whitewashing, the bullying...

Fundamentally, I guess it's down to whether this type of behaviour is deserving of our/your support (indeed honour) or not.

My vote is made, the AGM will show whether I'm in the majority or minority.

Safe Flights! Sam.

[Chuck Glider]

One wonders if in the lead up to Tracey's Stewart Jackson proxy motion the LAA saw a spike in their new membership numbers.
You know, if this is all about money to be made off the film a few thousand quid in one-time-only membership fees for a proxy vote block might be considered a good investment.

Not saying this is the case, just wondering why Tracey would rake over the dying embers of the fire at this time unless there was a cunning plan.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

I am now going to wait and see what develops over the coming days. It is clear to me that TCT will not answer any of the direct questions because to do so would reveal the extent of the lies.

This whole thing is about far more than just the use of the word SOLO, that is just the tip of a very large and sordid iceberg, it is about all the lies that sit behind all three flights. Hiding Ewald away, blaming others for the confusion, deliberate acts to make it something it was not, lack of airmanship, zero integrity etc.

TCT is dividing the LAA for her own aims. I must stress that it is important that EVERY member casts a vote based upon what THEY see, and have seen these past years. I would urge them to make a decision rather than leaving it to the Chairman to allocate on the day. I say this for two reasons;

1. It protects the Chairman from future accusations of favouritism (of either side) and
2. it prevents the Chairman from being put under pressure by high-ranking supporters (from either side).

Finally, just to lighten the mood on a dull Sunday morning, I think I have seen the cover to the latest book.

Have a good weekend all.
SWB


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x704/the_fantastic_journey_ad332bf19016726c0a3a374fdb6ac3e6975e05 41.jpg

[Flyingmac]

My wife, also an aircraft owner and LAA member, didn't bother to vote last time round. This time she's demanded I copy the proxy form for her.
She's filled it in and it's currently en-route. No prize for guessing which way she's voted.

[Planemike]

How can we be confident that our proxy votes particularly against motions 7. and 8. won't magically "disappear" before the votes get counted, or am I being too cynical? .
Not in the least Colibri. I have a concern about the voting arrangements themselves. This a ballot that the LAA are running themselves so do wonder if a). there could be some way of "doctoring" the results or b). will T C-T and her legal team/lawyer call into the question the validity of the poll.? In my view it would have been preferable to have some independent outside body such as the Electoral Reform Society run the poll. That way the ballot papers go nowhere near the LAA offices or indeed its officials. Too late for that now, of course. Should add I have confidence in the LAA and its officers but the whole thing needs to be seen to be demonstrably above reproach.

For most voluntary societies fairly informal polls work well enough, providing there is trust in the system and the folk who operate it. Sadly the LAA has become entangled with some mighty devious people or maybe just one person. In that situation trust could easily break down. Gives me no pleasure to say that.

[Haraka]

Submitted to the LAA forum just now from T C-T:
Dear Sam

In answer to yours of early Saturday morning, the 2018 motions mean what the words say. I don't think this forum is the place to respond in detail to your untrue allegations or to go into the reasons why your professional role in the 2013 Africa flight did not go well and you subsequently directed your bitterness against me.

As you know, since 2015, you and your friend Mike Flynn, a journalist now based in Thailand, who posts on PPruNe as 'Jay Sata', have waged a campaign of abuse against me. In addition to the stream of bile on PPruNe you variously bombarded the Air League, the Honorary Company of Air Pilots (you wrote to every chapter around the world), the RAeS, Women in Aviation and numerous other organisations involved in my outreach programme with destructive personal messages. You even contacted the ex-husband from whom I parted company with over twenty years ago in your efforts to promote an agenda of character assassination.

I admit to being caught unawares by the motion at the 2016 AGM to rescind the Woodhams Award and condemn me for bringing the LAA into disrepute. I didn't realise that having joined the Association in April of that year you had sent a string of emails to the Board demanding my disgrace, and had eventually found angry men willing to propose and second.

It was a remarkable and unprecedented achievement to get a motion humiliating a named individual carried almost entirely by proxy votes and it's understandably irritating to you and your friends that she should be so unreasonable as to seek justice. Why can't this damned woman accept the kicking she got and stay in the gutter where she belongs?

I refer to my post #147 above:

Q.E.D. ?

[clareprop]

Dear Sam
In answer to yours of early Saturday morning, the 2018 motions mean what the words say. I don't think this forum is the place to respond in detail to your untrue allegations or to go into the reasons why your professional role in the 2013 Africa flight did not go well and you subsequently directed your bitterness against me.
As you know, since 2015, you and your friend Mike Flynn, a journalist now based in Thailand, who posts on PPRuNe as 'Jay Sata', have waged a campaign of abuse against me.

Presuming this means verbal abuse, it's only abuse if it's not true. Apart from an empty threat, no legal action has been taken against Mr Rutherford so one is able to draw a conclusion from that.

In addition to the stream of bile on PPRuNe you variously bombarded the Air League, the Honorary Company of Air Pilots (you wrote to every chapter around the world), the RAeS, Women in Aviation and numerous other organisations involved in my outreach programme with destructive personal messages. You even contacted the ex-husband from whom I parted company with over twenty years ago in your efforts to promote an agenda of character assassination.

I haven't seen any 'bile' from Mr Rutherford just sensible questions, supported by evidence, which have never been answered.

I admit to being caught unawares by the motion at the 2016 AGM to rescind the Woodhams Award and condemn me for bringing the LAA into disrepute. I didn't realise that having joined the Association in April of that year you had sent a string of emails to the Board demanding my disgrace, and had eventually found angry men willing to propose and second.

I sincerely doubt Mr Rutherford 'demanded' anything. On these pages, he has always been remarkably restrained in his comments.

It was a remarkable and unprecedented achievement to get a motion humiliating a named individual carried almost entirely by proxy votes and it's understandably irritating to you and your friends that she should be so unreasonable as to seek justice.

If the allegations that have been made are true (as supported by the evidence we have all seen in videos, still-shots and the media), how can that be 'seeking justice'? And again, an irrelevant diversion - a proxy vote is as good a vote as any other. They are used millions of times a year all over the world.

Why can't this damned woman accept the kicking she got and stay in the gutter where she belongs?

Why can't this woman answer the questions put to her about her claims?

As far as I'm concerned, when someone starts making random personal attacks without any evidence to support the statements made, they are trying to deflect the spotlight from the real issue.

[9 lives]

Submitted to the LAA forum just now from T C-T:
Dear Sam

In answer to yours of early Saturday morning, the 2018 motions mean what the words say. I don't think this forum is the place to respond in detail ......

It sounds to me that the LAA forum must be the perfect place to respond to concerns of the participants in that association!

I admit to being caught unawares by the motion at the 2016 AGM to rescind the Woodhams Award and condemn me for bringing the LAA into disrepute. I didn't realise that having joined the Association in April of that year you had sent a string of emails to the Board demanding my disgrace, and had eventually found angry men willing to propose and second.

So Tracey has been a pilot for umpteen years, yet joined the LAA only the same year as the motion to rescind the award to her? I take that to mean that she was not an LAA member when she initially received their award? Her term as a member would then seem to be only the brief period during which much more established members of the LAA reconsidered their first decision. Perhaps this last minute, low investment participation, which focused nearly entirely on objecting to the decision made by the majority of more invested members has made some of those members angry! Their gender is not relevant!

It sounds to me that "sending strings of emails... demanding" is an activity common to both members of the LAA, and Tracey. So she should not be surprised that this tactic is being applied to support interests which she does not share. It appears to me that when she withdrew to the shadows, the interest expressed in her fizzled, and indeed, discussions were closed. It appears to me that it is Tracey's "emails" which have re lit the fire at the LAA.

I've seen so many situations where the actions of an association are pretty well unanimous. It's so nice that so often an association can take action which represents the collective desire of its members. If it becomes apparent that there is large disagreement on the action to be taken, the association must be very careful and objective to assure that the member's votes are accurately recorded!

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Doesn't she ever stop? Do she and her supporters realise the damage they could do to the LAA, and in doing so how much damage they could do to GA in this country? I've been flying since I was a kid, professionally for a bit over 30 years, aviation is the most balanced, equality driven pastime or profession. Nobody cares if you've got lumps in your jumper or your trousers, you are a pilot, be you a new PPL or an old lag ATPL. For all of the time I've been flying I've been a member of the PFA/LAA as that was where my GA heart is and always will be. I own a permit aircraft, so use all the LAA services, If the 2016 decision is overturned then the LAA will, in my opinion be as dishonest as T C-T, and as this and other threads have stated, ability is varied amongst all pilots, but honesty should not be. If the LAA pursue this course will the rank and file membership be able to trust the Executive Committee, or the Chief Executive ever again? Will the CAA be able to trust the LAA to carry out it's duties, or will there always be a question mark over the honesty of the organisation as a whole?

I first met T C-T during the build up to the Africa trip, she struck me as someone very full of herself, and downright rude to people who were of no use to her, a real Me! Me! Me! character. Well get this Tracy, the aviation worldwide is about Us! Us! Us! those of us who fly for the love of it, those who scrape together what they can for a few hours a year, those who spend years building or restoring their own aeroplanes, those who give their time, aircraft and money on "outreach programmes" to bring on the youth element, people who make the spare seats in their aircraft available to others less fortunate and share with them the joy of flying. Every day people are flying far more interesting and challenging flights than yours, usually without a support crew or chase plane, usually because they want to make the flights for them, not to make publicity out of the movie rights.

A long time ago I worked as a ferry pilot (Cessna 208's and 206's from the factory to Africa) I met a wonderful German lady, a wife and mother who's job was ferrying big Pipers either way, I'm ashamed I can't remember her name, but pre-IPad when GPS was very new she went once or twice a month, unsung across the Atlantic, alone in an aircraft with nowhere near the navigation equipment you had, But I suppose Fraulien in a Cherokee doesn't have the right sound to it, and by the way, ladies flying biplanes (and I know a few) are not Birds in Biplanes, they are pilots in biplanes. So please stop the insults calling us all mysoginists, we aren't, you seem to want to hang onto a past that went a long time ago.

Please Tracy, do aviation in general and the LAA in particular a favour, drop it, I don't want to see the LAA split by a nasty, powerful vote against you, if you carry on like this, your aviation legacy will go from bad to utterly toxic.

As well as voting against this motion I have also written to the Honours Committee attaching these threads, because you are definitely not fit for any form of award, or honour at all.

SND

[S205-18F]

SND
It would appear she has no worries what so ever as to the damage she can potentially do to the LAA and GA aviation her only worry is to get recognition, this has been all too evident all the way through the posts both here and the LAA forum. The me me me scenario certainly appears to be the case and other things like spitting the dummy and throwing the toys out of the pram come to mind!! I suspect she is used to getting her own way by bullying and harassing people (Legal letters) into giving her what she wants!! Well I for one dont give way to bullies and it just increases my resolve to make sure they get their just deserve..
I think a letter to the Honours Committee is a great idea She certainly has shown herself as being totally unsuitable for any titles...
John

[9 lives]

I can remember as a youth, eagerly waiting to earn my PPL, so I could join my national equivalent of the LAA. I was a proud member for decades. But, As I saw changes in leadership, and actually paid attention at meetings as to the reduction in effective leadership, and association senior members who thought that it was about them, I became disillusioned. I left the association. Apparently, I was not the only person who held the senior leaders in disdain, I was told that in the following two years, the association had about a 25% reduction in membership.

Happily, that association has had a complete leadership change, and I am very impressed with the future I see for it, I have joined again. But it shows me that the members can, and will speak with their membership renewals. The LAA leaders would be wise to remember that is it the membership base which is important, rather than the interests of a few (perhaps) prominent individuals, particularly when the interest of an individual is for them self, and not even for the association benefit anyway!

[hoodie]

If the 2016 decision is overturned then the LAA will, in my opinion be as dishonest as T C-T, and as this and other threads have stated, ability is varied amongst all pilots, but honesty should not be. If the LAA pursue this course will the rank and file membership be able to trust the Executive Committee, or the Chief Executive ever again? Will the CAA be able to trust the LAA to carry out it's duties, or will there always be a question mark over the honesty of the organisation as a whole

It is imperative that, for the future well-being of the LAA, we are all clear that the outcome of the vote has nothing whatsoever with the Association's Board. The vote outcome will be the Membership's view, not theirs.

If we say that an overturning of the decision shows the LAA to be dishonest then we will be not only being unfair on the LAA Board - who are simply following the Articles of the Association - but we are also wrongly saying that following due process is untrustworthy - when in fact it is precisely the opposite.

Following fair process, regardless of the outcome, is precisely what we should be expecting from the LAA. And that's what we are getting, so far as I can see.

This situation is difficult for the LAA. I think that we should be acknowledging them and supporting that, rather than throwing rocks.

[clareprop]

This may possibly be off-thread in which case I am happy to delete but I do think it is an example of the duplicity which runs through the whole saga. I have picked this up from a Wikipedia discussion on the Arizona crash.

BiaB website current page quote: 'The engine suffered a partial power loss, most likely caused by contaminated fuel, which was sufficient to stop it flying at the high density altitude of 7000ft.'

NTSB Probable cause conclusion:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The partial loss of engine power during takeoff initial climb in high-density altitude conditions for reasons that could not be determined because a postaccident examination of the airplane and engine revealed no anomalies.

References: BiaB: Tracey Curtis Taylor - Aviatrix, Adventurer, Inspirational Speaker (http://www.birdinabiplane.com/usa2017/)
NTSB: https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20160511X13726&key=1

[DownWest]

It is imperative that, for the future well-being of the LAA, we are all clear that the outcome of the vote has nothing whatsoever with the Association's Board. The vote outcome will be the Membership's view, not theirs.

If we say that an overturning of the decision shows the LAA to be dishonest then we will be not only being unfair on the LAA Board - who are simply following the Articles of the Association - but we are also wrongly saying that following due process is untrustworthy - when in fact it is precisely the opposite.

Following fair process, regardless of the outcome, is precisely what we should be expecting from the LAA. And that's what we are getting, so far as I can see.

This situation is difficult for the LAA. I think that we should be acknowledging them and supporting that, rather than throwing rocks.

Quite, though why this came up again is entirely down to one person.(though there might be a couple of other interested parties) I hope the membership use due judgment and bin it..
I really can't see why it is still carrying on. Desperation? The film can't be a blockbuster? Bit of interest from non aviation groups, But?

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Clareprop and Airpolice. Duplicity and blaming others has been part and parcel of the charade since the year dot.

I was not happy with the fuel contamination story for two reasons.

1. It was too convenient an answer which removed any blame from TCT/Ewald
2. That Stearman had several Go-Pro Cameras on it. They are clearly visible in the BiaB published images AND in the others I received from someone who was at Winslow. IF things had happened as TCT claimed then we would have seen footage by now. So why not?

With that in mind I contacted Winslow. Upshot is this from an e-mail I received from Orville Wiseman. I wasn't going to post it but, as you will see, Orville asked me to pass it on. I am also aware that he has asked TCT to stop with the contaminated fuel story. For the avoidance of doubt Tracey, I have many similar e-mails where I have asked direct questions and received direct answers.

Thank you for the information.

As someone that has worked tirelessly in this industry for two decades building a new start up from the ground up I take offense to her comments. I consider them to be without merit and as such to be slanderous. It would not be outside my actions to consider hiring an attorney to pursue this after I have more information. Feel free to pass that along.

Also, as the founder of an aviation company with multiple locations having dispensed over ten million gallons of aviation fuels into a variety of aircraft including military, airline, medivac, law enforcement, fire suppression, corporate and private flight operations, I take great pride in the fact that we have never has a fuel related incident or accident.

Furthermore, the aircraft sustained substantial damage making it an accident not an incident. I am going to contact the NTSB and FAA about that as well.

I will no longer tolerate being her scapegoat in all of this!
O.G. Wiseman
President & Founder

I have the e-mails, all content can be verified, there are no lies, no smoke and mirrors, just a clear statement that what TCT says happened is not what the NTSB and the fuelers say.

[Mike Flynn]

I had intended to step back from this issue having better things to do with my time.

However Tracey Curtis Taylor today posted this as part of a statement on the LAA website refering to posts made by Sam Rutherford and myself.
As you know, since 2015, you and your friend Mike Flynn, a journalist now based in Thailand, who posts on PPRuNe as 'Jay Sata', have waged a campaign of abuse against me. In addition to the stream of bile on PPRuNe you variously bombarded the Air League, the Honorary Company of Air Pilots (you wrote to every chapter around the world), the RAeS, Women in Aviation and numerous other organisations involved in my outreach programme with destructive personal messages. You even contacted the ex-husband from whom I parted company with over twenty years ago in your efforts to promote an agenda of character assassination.

The full statement has been posted previously but I have never posted anything on Pprune that is not in the public domain.

As a journalist and pilot of 35 years I have never embellished the truth.

Tracey finds the truth and fiction hard to define and continued to claim on Wiki to have be part of a Russian flight crew despite having no Russian licence.

However she omits her true humble background on the wiki entry.
Daredevil aviator back on home ground ? (http://www.cwherald.com/a/archive/daredevil-aviator-back-on-home-ground.423772.html)


The legal threats against the Light Aviation Association are frankly appalling.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

The discussion here greatly affects the LAA.


Derek lamb has posted on the LAA forum, I cannot reply there but I can do so here.

In amongst the strong feelings on the forum I think there should be room for an alternative view. Our association is dedicated to recreational flying. Flying for fun and sport. Mixing with people who share our love of flying. To hold something like this together we have to make sure everyone is treated fairly in the best sporting tradition. Yet all members ultimately know that Tracey Curtis-Taylor, a long-standing member, wasn’t treated fairly and we need to look at that.

Do they know that? An assumption that is not borne out by the feelings expressed so far.

Two years ago we didn’t quite appreciate how a targeted internet campaign could destroy a person’s reputation, doing damage way beyond any claimed misdemeanour. When you’re in the cross-hairs of a nasty online campaign waged by a small number of people with an objective of causing damage there is no way out, no-one to appeal to for a just hearing.

Plenty of opportunity to answer genuine questions but all we have seen is diversion/deflection/obfuscation. Targeted internet campaign, of course targeted as TCT was the one who kept up the lies. Two years ago you had not heard her say SOLO. I found the damning Herne Bay video after the LAA vote! It would have been nice to have done so beforehand.

So how did this all come about? Four years ago in 2014 the Awards group decided to award the Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor. Like other awards over the years it wasn’t contentious and attracted no further attention for nearly a year and a half. Then a nasty and vicious campaign started against her on the internet forums. David Mole in his motion says there was apparently a serious falling out between her and her support, but that cannot be our concern. Why did the allegations take so long to surface? And why were they relevant since they weren’t the basis for the award? Who knows, but it culminated in a member’s motion for the 2016 AGM. The upshot was the motion on the proxy voting form posted with the magazine for reconsideration and rescinding of the award for bringing the LAA into disrepute. No evidence whatsoever was presented, and Tracey was given no opportunity to defend herself to proxy voters.



Wrong Derek, this all came about when TCT / BiaB tried to promote a solo flight of great achievement. When the solo aspect could not continue yet was still promoted, advertised and awards accepted on that premise those of us with an ounce of integrity felt something needed to be done. Long before the LAA AGM. Also, we poundstretcher-shopping-internet-trolling-proles did not resurrect this. TCT did with the "woe-is-me" piece in the Times, you know the one, it had a link to the upcoming film at the end of it! TCT started this off again, not us.

At the AGM members listened to Barry Tempest present his motion, Harry Hopkins as Awards chair explained the reasoning of his group and their investigation of the allegations. He recommended voting against it, and Tracey had the opportunity to defend herself. The members present voted overwhelmingly for her. But it had already been decided by the weight of proxy voters who had heard none of the arguments or evidence. Fewer than 100 members attend the AGM on average and in addition there are usually around 40-50 proxy votes. In 2016 the votes of the attendees were swamped by nearly treble the usual number of proxy votes. That guaranteed that the votes of those present were irrelevant. There was uproar on the floor when the result was announced, shouts of Disgraceful! and a large number of members got up and walked out.

What evidence did TCT really give? As mentioned, the Herne Bay video showed her repeating twice the SOLO claim. But as I said in an earlier post it wasn’t just about the solo aspect. It was all the other mis-truths and lies by omission.

They almost certainly thought that what had happened did not meet the LAA’s principle of fairness and justice. And it is probably what drove Tracey to keep plugging away for a review.

The LAA has the ability to punish members who act inappropriately, and in turn is duty-bound to support members against unfair allegations. When there were allegations that Tracey had brought the LAA into disrepute the board could have called her in if they felt there were grounds to it. Those who have said that the matter should have been resolved this way rather than at an AGM vote are absolutely right. Instead she was left to press her defence herself. If she had not been robust in doing it, I am certain the motions for reinstatement would not be going to this year’s AGM.

The way I read it, TCT has brought the LAA into disrepute by raising this again. I still believe the LAA was right the first time and it is a real shame that HCAP didn’t see this too

So now we’re in the situation where we have two motions before the AGM. A Vice President, the Company Secretary and the Chairman all indicate support for reinstatement. The difference between the motions appears to hinge on whether it was mishandled by the board. In my mind there is no question that was the case, and I was a member of it so I need to accept responsibility for its decisions too.

We need to admire Stewart Jackson for acting with his conscience with his motion to redress a wrong and reverse the 2016 motion. It was a very brave thing to do. I too am ashamed of what was done in the LAA’s name. If there’s criticism of the LAA it’s not misplaced. There is no wrong to redress.

It’s time to look at ourselves. Our numbers are declining as the older members die out, and our average age of 60 is increasing by nearly a year every year. We are almost all men. This matter has done our standing serious damage amongst outsiders. It’s no wonder we’re seen as aviation’s old boys club. The next generation is not signing up, and without them we have no future.

Remember it’s a sport. You don’t withdraw an award years after the event based on a nasty online campaign.

There is that phrase again, a nasty online campaign…asking for the truth is wrong is it?

The Awards committee looked closely at allegations and decided there weren’t grounds for withdrawal. It was pushed through by proxy voters who hadn’t heard the arguments. It has damaged our reputation and made us look misogynistic. We need to be generous and fix it by voting for both motions. Even if you normally don’t vote, please do so this year. Our association’s future well-being could just depend on it. Let’s play the game in a way that makes us attractive to young women and men, and encourages them to join us.

Young men and women can see what you reward, is it any wonder that decent people don’t want to join in?

Derek Lamb

[Jan Olieslagers]

The discussion here greatly affects the LAA. Leaving that as may be - I don't know and I don't really care - I expect this thread to be about the annual meeting, and perhaps about the vote on one single point of the agenda.

It seems unacceptable to me that this thread is misused as an alternative to discuss the root of the matter; the original thread on this forum having been closed, probably for good reason. And now you even admit to abusing this forum to continue a discussion from another one.

Moderators, you are rapidly loosing credibility, in my appreciation at least.

[Mike Flynn]

I am also not a member of the LAA but if rich people can come in and hoover up awards where does that leave the association?

Tracey Curtis Taylor is no home builder like Colin Hales flying across hostile environment alone and crashing in Japan.

She had a multi million pound sponsorship in a brand new aircraft with the engineer and 20,000 hour commercial pilot up front doing the navigation and watching the T’s and P’s. A kid of 12 could have done it.

Now she wants to take the LAA to court if they refuse to give back a small memorial trophy.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Are you suggesting lies are common practice, and well tolerated, elsewhere? But, again, truth and honesty (or otherwise) in this person's words and acts ought to be discussed separately, and they were - until that thread was closed.

As for me not being a UK pilot, you did state you are not an LAA member yourself, didn't you? Perhaps I am even closer than you, belonging at least to the local counterpart to the LAA? Are you sure you understand matters better?

And, err, if you really are not an LAA member, what is your concerm, at all? Except some generalities like "truth to parole", nice enough, but they could be questioned with many in the UK (and elsewhere), even outside the tearworthy Berxit mess.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Leaving that as may be - I don't know and I don't really care - I expect this thread to be about the annual meeting, and perhaps about the vote on one single point of the agenda.

It seems unacceptable to me that this thread is misused as an alternative to discuss the root of the matter; the original thread on this forum having been closed, probably for good reason. And now you even admit to abusing this forum to continue a discussion from another one.

Moderators, you are rapidly loosing credibility, in my appreciation at least.

Jan, check the title of the thread mate. It is not a general LAA one (the LAA forum has its own pages). This is the 2018 LAA AGM Award Vote. Hence anything relevant to that is appropriate. The moderators are watching and doing a cracking job. This thread is where we non-LAA members can answer points raised on the LAA thread.

[Sam Rutherford]

Jan is concerned that this thread risk becoming exactly like the other, closed, one.

I think his concern is justified, and so everyone should bear that in mind before posting.

[Mike Flynn]

The big question for the LAA is what has TCT done to further access to low funded aviation for newcomers?

Her trips have been at the high end of GA. A brand new Stearman witn high end hotels taking 3 months with a million dollar budget for a trip Amy Johnson did nearly ninety years ago alone and without ground support in just 21 days.

So what award will she get from the LAA? The Bill Woodham navigation award for nav she never did?Awarded following threats to the chairman? For low flying or flying in fog without an instrument rating? Or admitting busting restricted airspace?

She could quite easily fund a few flying scholarships.

However I see no evidence of her flying in the UK in 2018.

Frankly if the LAA committee roll over and give this woman, who happily accepted a solo award in Sydney, any sort of recognition apart from one for duplicity the they need to resign.

[airpolice]

Jan is concerned that this thread risk becoming exactly like the other, closed, one.

I think his concern is justified, and so everyone should bear that in mind before posting.

Sam, I think that you have a point, and maybe even this is the wrong place for such an important topic.

This subject is obviously important to all members of the LAA, present and future, and as such I think it unfortunate that there has not been, as far as I am aware, a mass mailing to all members explaining all that is known, and all that is hidden, on the topic.


To allow those members less familiar with this farce to get a grip on the facts, such a mailshot might serve the LAA well.

My understanding of the LAA Forum is that all members have access to it. So, in terms of people who use pprune, but not the LAA Forum, someone is barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps the desire of some people to have this, and the other, thread, is to allow anonymous contributions. In which case, this forum serves a very useful purpose as evidence might not come to light without a protection of anonimiity.

On that topic, why can't we get another whistleblower from the support crews on her other trips?


I ask this, in order to provide clarity to the LAA Members reading this, and yet to decide how to vote in the AGM.

[ArthurG]

I am proud to be an LAA member. I value what it does for GA and for me. I have read the various arguments here with interest, but until I received the LAA voting form and the text of the motions I was unsure of how I might vote. Now it's all quite clear.

TCT threatened this organisation with legal action. Some members want to give this person an award. I don't understand their viewpoint, nor do I wish to. I wouldn't give a medal to someone who declared war on me.

I will be voting against both motions.

[Mike Flynn]

Does the Chairman have to reveal where his allocated batch of votes go?

If he has been threatend by lawyers will that influence his use of the of the proxy votes?

Will the LAA Chairman reveal the lawyers threatening letters sent to him?

[suninmyeyes]

Derek Lamb wrote “It has damaged our reputation and made us look misogynistic.” I don’t think restoring the award will repair the LAA’s reputation. I don’t think the LAA did anything wrong in the first place, they issued an award without knowing the real background and then rescinded it based on members votes when the full facts came to light. I despair if they want to give the rescinded award back to Tracey to avoid looking misogynistic.

Derek also wrote “The Awards committee looked closely at allegations and decided there weren’t grounds for withdrawal. It was pushed through by proxy voters who hadn’t heard the arguments.” I am confused here. Am I mistaken in thinking the award was for “a feat of navigation, aviation, tenacity and endurance" which actually involved the use of GPS, another pilot on board and a back up team? If I am wrong please enlighten me. What were the arguments that those present at the LAA AGM were apparently aware of that all the proxy voters and Pprune viewers who have read probably far more background information were not?

I would be delighted if the LAA could change my mind and convince me that Tracey is fully deserving of the award.

[hoodie]

I would be delighted if the LAA could change my mind and convince me that Tracey is fully deserving of the award.

It would be wrong of the LAA to do that, and there has been no indication that they even intend to try.

It is for Ms Curtis-Taylor to do that. Unfortunately there has been precious little effort applied to actually addressing the requested facts and people's opinions. Instead, all I see is bluster, avoidance and misdirection.

Addressing facts and opinions over the past 2 years would have been a far better use of time than instructing solicitors to gain the result she wishes, in my view.

Sadly we now see here and elsewhere LAA members attacking one another and the board, with strange conspiracy theories and envious comments about "the rich and powerful" supposedly pulling strings.

Those attacks are a far more serious outcome fro the LAA than whether or not a particular gewgaw is awarded or not.

Unfortunately the future of the Association seems to be a secondary concern in some quarters - and I don't mean solely Ms C-T. :(

[canopener]

For those of you that haven't worked it out I'm Tracey's ex husband Steve Taylor and given the latest flurry of forum activity pending the LAA AGM I think it is timely for me to come clean and identify myself.I have no desire to fuel the spontaneous self combustion of Tracey nor do I hold any grudge or harbour bitterness toward Tracey.My posts on the other thread were made to give a truthful account of Tracey's incredibly embellished claims,after all I was there for some of it and I wasn't wearing rose coloured spectacles.
I was made aware of Tracey's feats of aviation a few years ago when my younger brother,who lives in the UK, sent me an email to the effect that "your ex-missus has just crashed in to a chopper". A little research lead me here and the rest is history so to speak.
I have in the past contacted both "Jay Sata" and Sam Rutherford to give them a bit of support considering they were having to endure the wrath of Tracey so it is not true that she says:

As you know, since 2015, you and your friend Mike Flynn, a journalist now based in Thailand, who posts on PPRuNe as 'Jay Sata', have waged a campaign of abuse against me. In addition to the stream of bile on PPRuNe you variously bombarded the Air League, the Honorary Company of Air Pilots (you wrote to every chapter around the world), the RAeS, Women in Aviation and numerous other organisations involved in my outreach programme with destructive personal messages. You even contacted the ex-husband from whom I parted company with over twenty years ago in your efforts to promote an agenda of character assassination.

Over and out "the ex-husband"....for now.

[ShortfinalFred]

On and On this goes, one of the nastiest threads (in all its various mutations) on this board in the years its been running.

Part of the origin lies in a dispute between a team running an expedition that hired one of the lead protagonists in this mountain of vilification, and that person's performance on the job that the team stated that they were not satisfied with. That fact does rather colour his response, and yet this is ignored. That might be the more understandable if it were not for allegations that he also seems to have further alleged 'history' as regards his performance, with some participants of a subsequent rally through Africa he organised alleging several deficiencies in the way it was run.....

If the protagonist in so much of what has followed was minded to, and was advised he had a case to do so, he could have sued the TCT organisation, or the person herself, for breach of contract and that, arguably, would have been a fairer route than this never ending campaign, but, as far as I am aware, he has not. That has to say something about it all.

Just occasionally a contrarian view can perhaps be put. There is a real case that the LAA membership restore this award - it is of course now superseded by subsequent recipients. This has the makings of a saga that will not stop, unsurprising when what is at stake is the utter evisceration of personal reputations. There has to be a time to draw a line under this, and now is that time.

[megan]

Remember it’s a sport. You don’t withdraw an award years after the event based on a nasty online campaign Just to point out that yes you can. The list of Olympic medal winners who have had them withdrawn. Then there is Lance Armstrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stripped_Olympic_medals

Nothing nasty Fred, it's a bunch of folk who place store in honesty and truth, rather than subterfuge and lies..

[Sam Rutherford]

@ShortfinalFred

Part of the origin lies in a dispute between a team running an expedition that hired one of the lead protagonists in this mountain of vilification, and that person's performance on the job that the team stated that they were not satisfied with. That fact does rather colour his response, and yet this is ignored. That might be the more understandable if it were not for allegations that he also seems to have further alleged 'history' as regards his performance, with some participants of a subsequent rally through Africa he organised alleging several deficiencies in the way it was run.....

If the protagonist in so much of what has followed was minded to, and was advised he had a case to do so, he could have sued the TCT organisation, or the person herself, for breach of contract and that, arguably, would have been a fairer route than this never ending campaign, but, as far as I am aware, he has not. That has to say something about it all.


I'm guessing you're talking about me? Tracey has stated that she wasn't satisfied with my performance, but:
I delivered exactly what I had been paid to deliver.
I wasn't working for Tracey.
She hasn't actually explained what, exactly, she was unhappy about (see point 1 perhaps?).
There were more than just 'several' deficiencies on the VintageAirRally Crete2Cape - but we did at least get from Crete to Cape in the way we said we were going to do it!

Why (on what grounds) would I want to sue anyone to do with regard to Tracey's Africa trip? Until now the only reason I can think of is libel/slander - but she's very careful to only talk nastily about me behind my back (not in public) so this is difficult. There has been no breach of contract - we delivered. We were paid.

Feel free to elaborate on your post if there's more...

As I have already written several times, I only went public after Tracey refused TWO private requests from me to politely refuse awards (for something she hadn't done). There was, and is, no 'dispute' between us (particularly now that she has admitted that Ewald was up front for very nearly every flight of all the trips).

Feel free to put your name at the bottom of your post as well...

[ShortfinalFred]

A 'bunch of folk'...who seem not to want to recognise a strong motive by one protagonist to destroy the other. It can be alleged, a strong commercial motive. By someone who, it could also be alleged, is not exactly in a 'glass house' themselves when it comes to professionalism. Someone who has waged an incessant, even obsessive, campaign in a most personal way for years subsequently.

Why did the team dismiss your services Mr Rutherford? If you delivered 'exactly what you'd been paid to deliver'? That just doesn't make sense. There was some dispute, wasn't there? My name is Fred, BTW...

I would repeat, its time to draw a line under this and the LAA have a way to do that before them that I would commend, as stated in the motions attached with the paperwork sent out for the AGM.

[Sam Rutherford]

Why did the team dismiss your services Mr Rutherford?

I wasn't dismissed. I left with everyone else from Crete at the end of the contract. This is another falsehood that Tracey has been spouting for months/years.

If you delivered 'exactly what you'd been paid to deliver'? That just doesn't make sense.

Correct - it doesn't make sense because it's not true.

There was some dispute, wasn't there?

Yes. We were asked to get visas for Libya (so we asked our Libyan partner to pay for and get the visas). When the decision was taken to skip Libya, the film company didn't want to pay for the visas "we don't need them, as we're not going to Libya" - we had to explain that they had been paid for, whether needed or not (that's how visas work). Unfortunately we ended up having to take them to court (where we won).

My name is Fred, BTW...

Thank you. Have we ever met?

[Clare Prop]

Is this film still in post production, is there going to be an epilogue featuring TCT the victim of the LAA and the internet trolls of Pprune? A martyr for all those women who were barred from an aviation career for lack of a suitable mentor...oh wait...

After all it would be a neat little twist for a producer trying to sell a slightly damaged product.

Is the AGM open to members only or will there be lights, camera and sound crew present? I'm guessing iPhone hand held wobblecam wouldn't make the final cut.

Always look for the hidden agenda and follow the money....good luck with your AGM and I feel for the office bearers on this occasion. Stick to due process, keep your powder dry.

There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about. could have been written for this occasion!

[canopener]

Jay Sata's post #163 deserves some attention particularly the article written in the local newspaper from Tracey's home town.

“I started on basic training aircraft but very quickly got into flying vintage stuff,” she told the Herald.She began to earn a living as a flying instructor and by getting involved with aerial photography and mapping and other aspects of commercial flying.

(The flying instructor job was terminated by her employer after a fairly brief sojourn.Getting involved in aerial photography means "I was a sales rep for an aerial mapping company" driving around in a Toyota Corolla...no flying in this job.As for other "aspects of commercial flying" there were none.)

At the same time she joined syndicates with shared ownership of historic aircraft, developing her skills and expertise in this specialist area.

(Tracey did own a share in a little scaled down SE5A homebuilt and flew it a bit until another syndicate member wrote it off.She,briefly,had a share in a Piper Cub and also flew that a little but these are hardly "historic aircraft". I gave her a share in a NA Harvard, NZ1078, and taught her to fly it and she flew it competently but certainly never displayed it or became proficient in aerobatics or did any formation flying.This hardly constitutes "developing her skills and expertise in this specialist area".)

“That way I could have a share in the most exotic aeroplanes that I wouldn’t have access to normally,” she explained.

(There is nothing "exotic" about these aeroplanes let alone being the "most exotic".)

Returning permanently to the UK in 1997, Tracey became the first female pilot to be based at the historic Shuttleworth Collection.

(What Tracey means is that she had her own aeroplane,the Ryan,hangared at Shuttleworth.She was never a Shuttleworth collection pilot, which one could easily believe after reading her bio on her website.)

Economy with the truth is prevalent with most that is written about Tracey and her exploits....I could go on.

[megan]

A 'bunch of folk'...who seem not to want to recognise a strong motive by one protagonist to destroy the other. It can be alleged, a strong commercial motive. Oh, we recognise alright, the protagonist, as you put it, is one Tracy Curtis Taylor who has a strong commercial motive to spin a yarn to further her standing in the UK's upper class, and flog a video/movie to enhance her bank balance. Compare TCT's narrative with that of canopener, who is being economical with the truth? It's not canopener.

[Lind1795]

This is all incredibly sad. It is very uncomfortable to observe someone's vainglorious attempts to regain an award that was rightly rescinded. Please Tracey withdraw from this campaign. You will be doing something far better in withdrawing than continuing this bitter battle. You would also find that others would appreciate you and credit you for doing so. Is that not better than this ill advised crusade which is so devastating? This is an awful time for the LAA as a whole and the members do not deserve what is happening to their organisation. Please desist.

[ShortfinalFred]

No, Mr Rutherford, we've not met. I've not met either of the two contenders in this spiral of doom. From those who HAVE met you and been on the end of your intense, angry, lobbying there comes a sense that what you relay in your last post just cannot be true, and a sense, an allegation if you will, that there is much, much more to this than meets the eye on your part. As for your rally - people talk in aviation and the rumour, or allegation, (this is a rumour board after all), is that the 'Africa Affair' comprised serious deficiencies and, it has been said to a colleague, I was told,: "it's matter of time before someone is killed on one of these jaunts".

Lind is right in on thing, this IS incredibly sad, and overly personal too. A person who has had their entire life dragged across social media will, I am sure, pursue this to their last day and, yes, the LAA can expect that to continue I would imagine - what has the individual concerned got left to lose? The award was 'rightly rescinded', you say? Surely then the committee that made it should have resigned en masse in the face of the proxy vote, comprised, it would appear, of quite some new members enrolled seemingly for just this purpose? Did the award state it was for solo flying? Does the LAA endorse its members navigating across international boundaries with a compass and a map? Surely then, the committee itself is answerable here too?

Boeing really don't care I suspect. Seen from their point of view, there is a need over the next twenty years for 600,000 new commercial pilots and not a clue where they will come from, especially in less developed parts of the world. As far as they are concerned, women need, MUST, be part of the answer to this fact that threatens their business. A picture of a woman in a plane, better yet a Boeing product, in the media in parts of the world where their advertising cannot reach due to the wide cultural gap now between the USA and many Muslim countries is all they wanted from sponsoring that trip, in the hope that if that picture were to spark a single woman to pursue aviation then that spark may light a small flame that may inspire others too.

There are more aspects to this than meets the eye, on your part too, Mr Rutherford. The LAA want it to end and have outlined two ways for that to happen. I think there are people who agree with the carefully reasoned motions and that it would be best to draw a line under this protracted affair by voting for one or the other. The award is now superseded anyway by the passage of time. Enough is enough.

[B Fraser]

Does the LAA endorse its members navigating across international boundaries with a compass and a map?

I would have thought that the Bill Woodhams trophy awarded for "feats of navigation" would be just that. Stopwatches, chinagraph pencils and whizz wheels would be allowed too but multiple GPS systems and colour screens ? I do recall the good lady being quoted in numerous articles claiming that the aircraft was equipped with just basic instruments however photographs show that this is patently untrue. I also recall it being said by someone who was on the trip that she did none of the planning.

Then there's the episode where she busted restricted airspace, flew over the local bigwig's house and blamed it on the local controller. Who put that in the public domain ?

[airpolice]

LAA AGM 2018 MOTION 1

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.

LAA AGM 2018 MOTION 2

That the Woodhams Trophy awarded to Tracey Curtis-Taylor in 2014 be reinstated.


Let's just remind everyone of the two motions on the table.

The membership is being asked to overturn the democratic vote, taken two years ago, to rescind an award, with that action being based on what was known then, compared to what was known when the Awards Committee decided to give her the award.

The membership is also, as a separate process, being asked to reinstate the award.

Up until this point, an outsider might think that the LAA had behaved well. Looking at the timeline..

Trip is aggressively advertised, world wide and clearly, as a solo venture.
Then it was flown with a Pilot in the other seat for most of it, but the LAA did not know that.
The award was considered and bestowed.

Then...

The initial reports of lies came to the surface.
The membership, having been made aware of the lies, decided to rescind the award.
More lies became common knowledge.

At this point it was obvious to everyone, that it was not TC-T who had brought the LAA into disrepute, but the awards committee, but they had done so in good faith, and without all of the facts. They had been deceived and when that deception was uncovered, the problem was fixed. Perhaps the senior management of the LAA could have taken a stronger position to defend the reputation of the association, that's subjective.

To an outside observer, it looked as if the LAA had righted a wrong by rescinding the Woodhams Trophy.

Now, the whole sorry mess has been stirred up again, and I don't think that T C-T is an important part of this phase. she has not raised a motion at the AGM, other people have.

This is now about the LAA standing up for what's right. Do the members really want to be part of an association which rewards a clearly fraudulent escapade? There are just too many "problems" with her story, for the whole "adventure" to be taken seriously and rewarded with accolade which suggests there is some merit in such a big jamboree pretending to be one pilot, alone against the elements.

So, a wrong was done, and has been righted. If the LAA can't put this behind them, then the association is in deep trouble. Leadership is required here, in the form of a strong message from the top, to nail their colours to the mast. In the event that this becomes a crisis of confidence in the leadership, then so be it.

The membership of the LAA must be allowed (whether or not they choose to do so...) to select leaders based on the way forward that the leadership candidates have stated as their chosen path. This is about more than TC-T, it is about finding out, and going along with, what the majority of members want. I am not aware of the LAA making members aware of the known facts of the case. That strikes me as an omission which would have been the result of some consideration.

My view is that it is unfortunate that time seems to be against the membership having a third motion, to propose that things are good as they are, regarding the 2016 vote to rescind, and that this should be an end to the matter.

Such a third motion might attract enough votes to establish a true sense of the feeling at a grassroots level. Maybe what's needed is compulsory voting.

Whatever happens, the LAA needs an end to this.

[Right Hand Thread]

"it's matter of time before someone is killed on one of these jaunts".


While one of the two parties you mention does have a habit of crashing aircraft I do not think it is Mr Rutherford.


...it would appear, of quite some new members enrolled seemingly for just this purpose?

Perhaps you could share your evidence for this accusation?

I suppose people are entitled to join the LAA if they wish so if true there is nothing improper or illegal about it. Just as if Miss Curtis-Taylor’s supporters were to do the same this time around. They might even be able to reclaim the joining fee from the film company on expenses. Maybe the LAA should be keeping an eye open for proxy votes with a whiff of celluloid about them (or something worse).

[Right Hand Thread]

Then there's the episode where she busted restricted airspace, flew over the local bigwig's house and blamed it on the local controller. Who put that in the public domain ?


That and the deliberate busting of controlled airspace at Victoria Falls. Miss Curtis-Taylor freely, and rather gleefully, told me about that herself.

[clareprop]

Did the award state it was for solo flying?

It didn't need to. It was a presumed given that it was a solo flight because of the massive media reporting, website statement from BiaB and personal commentary from the pilot in question that is was solo. There are plenty of social media comments from people who were shocked to finally find it wasn't a solo flight. There is too much evidence in the public domain now for this whole affair to be considered as anything other than a deceit. A deceit which supporters of T C-T never refer to or try to explain. Instead, they seek to blame the LAA and its members or make accusations against people who have simply asked the right questions.
Anyway, I am now off to follow in the footsteps of Bert Hinkler, the first person to fly solo to Australia. I will have a 'back-up team' (British Airway's) and will be 'reaching out' on various occasions during my flight - mainly for another glass of wine. By the time I get back, this saga will hopefully be over one way or the other. Courage! The truth will always out.

[draglift]

Clare Prop, At least Tracey is not making accusations against you. It seems to be only male pilots she is blaming.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tracey-curtis-taylor-who-brought-down-the-bird-in-a-biplane-l2663fjs2

I find the accusations very irritating. She is trying to turn it into a sexist male pilots against female pilot thing when I don’t believe it is anything of the sort.

[Forfoxake]

It didn't need to. It was a presumed given that it was a solo flight because of the massive media reporting, website statement from BiaB and personal commentary from the pilot in question that is was solo. There are plenty of social media comments from people who were shocked to finally find it wasn't a solo flight. There is too much evidence in the public domain now for this whole affair to be considered as anything other than a deceit. A deceit which supporters of T C-T never refer to or try to explain. Instead, they seek to blame the LAA and its members or make accusations against people who have simply asked the right questions.
Anyway, I am now off to follow in the footsteps of Bert Hinkler, the first person to fly solo to Australia. I will have a 'back-up team' (British Airway's) and will be 'reaching out' on various occasions during my flight - mainly for another glass of wine. By the time I get back, this saga will hopefully be over one way or the other. Courage! The truth will always out.

I sincerely hope you are right, clareprop, and LAA members will decisively reject Post-truth politics:Post-truth politics is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored (Wikipedia).

[Sam Rutherford]

@Fred

I am happy to repeat that everything I wrote, and have written, is absolutely accurate. Feel free to go back to your sources, and then come back here. I have nothing to hide, no hidden agenda.

It really is, and always has been, about accepting awards gained falsely. Such as claiming to have climbed Everest solo, but then it being shown to not have been solo. Still an achievement, but not 'as sold'.

With regard to your accident analogy, I'd use the same Everest example. It is of course safer to stay at home.

People are free to decide whether it (anything) is worth the risk.

Finally, it is Tracey who started this, and only Tracey who can decide when it ends.

[S205-18F]

It will end at AGM i would hope one way or another!! I have just received my magazine and read the AGM sheet its very informative I have understood more about events but looks like there is a serious rift in the LAA management. I hope I am wrong.
John.

[Flyingmac]

There is a big difference between what is promoted and what is assumed



Confronted by "Alone in an open cockpit" and Solo, what would you assume?

[Midlifec]

Who could blame the LAA awards committee for believing she made the flight solo, a quick search of the BBC news site today shows an article headed “Female pilot to attempt solo flight from Britain to Australia” dated 2nd Oct 2015. There are a number of such articles still available on line- are we to believe that all of the media misunderstood or that somebody misled them. I have failed to find a single article or media correction other than when the matter blew up in 2016. Somebody was very happy for the solo myth to be perpetrated and even when busted by her aviation peers, tried to use the word “sole”, just in case you haven’t noticed Tracey, there is no such thing in normal aviation parlance as “sole pilot” and even if there was - it wouldn’t seem to apply if accompanied by the holder of a valid licence and rating on the subject aircraft. Quite aside from that, she appears to have told the BBC that she would only be using “basic flying instruments that were used 70 years ago”, this simply wasn’t true. (See my daughters comment re Equivocation earlier in this thread if you wish to quibble instruments vs nav kit)
I post this not to revisit the recurrent themes of this matter but to guide those undecided LAA members in carrying out their own due diligence in deciding how to deal with this matter- one thing is for sure though, I don’t think the LAA have done anything improper and as a member I find this whole palaver distasteful. One last note, re Sam R, I don’t know him and we have never met but I deal with aviation matters every day at work and have many years experience at reading statements from pilots, Sam has not changed tack or message since this matter first surfaced and answers questions promptly and in a manner that can be verified, I know who I trust.

[ShortfinalFred]

Au contraire Mister Rutherford, it is you that has initiated and sustained this affair and you do protest too much, methinks - it can be alleged that you appear to have motives that transcend the 'search for truth' and that there is much more to this than meets the eye. It is alleged that you have, I am reliably informed, lobbied people with the most intense, ad hominem personal attacks if they do not accede to everything you want, and you have, it seems to me, sustained this thing far beyond what is reasonable, such that is has descended into a level of personal vilification that I am sure I am not alone in being uncomfortable with. You are not a disinterested, impartial observer in this affair, and there is something about your conduct that could be alleged to not ring true in all of this. I would add, anyone who has had the professional misfortune to have to listen to two ex-spouses disagree about absolutely anything will say that objectivity is the last thing you are going to get, from EITHER party. It's a new low that this forum has sunk to this kind of thing.

The LAA are offering a way to draw this to a close. People should take it. There is a valid counter argument that justice was not served at the original meeting in a variety of ways for the reasons set out in the current AGM paperwork. The awards committee, you and others are effectively saying, did not do their due diligence - they can't have done or the award should never, you say, have been made. They should all then, as a starter, have resigned the moment the vote was taken as it was. The senior management of the LAA should have resigned subsequently as well over such a badly handled process. There are statements in the paperwork that also make that clear, and indeed a poster above calls for this.

There is a further reform that needs to happen then: the LAA must be stripped of its role as a regulator of light aviation. People MUST belong to it if they operate at a certain level of aircraft ownership as the LAA has taken over from the CAA in that sector. This makes such an award have a significance it ought not to have when you are meant to be dealing with an impartial regulator. Either the LAA is a membership body that can make awards, counsel, advise and warn, or it is a regulator. It ought not to be both. It is standing into danger here. Arguably, the CAA as the Government appointed aviation regulatory body should be adequately resourced to review and license all aviation in the UK: an impartial body, open to advice and input from all - the LAA, the BGA, AOPA etc etc., but this is no longer the case. I for one do not want to belong to an organisation that perpetuates such a woeful saga, and yet I HAVE TO if I am to fly a certain category of aeroplane.A potential outcome from this endless process would be a demand that people not be shackled to a body that is both 'de jure' regulator and a selector of individuals for recognition, and that reform of the LAA itself is needed.

The LAA want this to stop. What might be called 'The Rutherford Route' is a near guarantee, it seems to me, that it wont. The LAA have offered a way to end this and people might like to consider taking it. Enough is enough.

[nickswebs]

Confronted by "Alone in an open cockpit" and Solo, what would you assume?

That's EXACTLY the point!

You have all been duped like sacrificial sheep when you just don't know the facts

Nick

[Sam Rutherford]

Hi Fred,

I will repeat that your assumptions/allegations about me are wrong - and suggest you actually go back to the sources telling you otherwise to check.

I don't understand the "two ex-spouses" line?

I also disagree about the lack of objectivity (from me, at least). I have been entire objective throughout. Still am.

What you are calling the Rutherford Route would be better named the Curtis-Taylor route. She is the one who has been demonstrably fabricating tales throughout, I have not. This whole thing was dead and gone until she decided to resurrect it - not I.

I'm intrigued by the level of animosity you seem to hold for me, given that we've never met and you yourself accept that your position is based on hunch/hearsay.

I would ask you again to do a little more research (start with the demonstrable items such as whether I was sacked, what the court case was about), and then perhaps form your opinion of me? That would seem to be the objective way forward?

Feel free to post any more questions here, I will, as always, answer them correctly, promptly and truthfully.

[9 lives]

A person who has had their entire life dragged across social media ......

Tracey's entire life has not been dragged across social media!!:ugh: Tracey has vigorously pushed it forward in front of herself at every possible opportunity, and apparently horribly inaccurately at that! Indeed, this very website closed the previous thread discussing her life, and Tracey's recent actions in again seeking publicity have reopened the discussion of her transgressions. The previous thread (now closed) really was discussion for the sake of discussion, THIS thread is more important, as it seems that Tracey's actions in attempting to draw attention to herself could actually do harm to the LAA membership!

If Tracey would like to thought of as a victim in this whole sorry saga, she should honour up, truthfully answer the questions asked of her, apologize for her shameless self promotion, and take a few steps back. Then, I'm certain, her life would be very much less "across social media".

In light of the passionate attention this has drawn, and the implications upon the LAA membership, I hope that word of Tracey's deceptions is spread as far and wide across social media, as she has enabled! That way, members will have a fair opportunity to consider the relevant information before they vote!

Though Sam Rutherford's information is very enlightening, I find Steve Tayor's information to be most useful in confirming my belief's of Tracey's prevarication. Not only because Steve has provided the information, but because it is not the first time this background information has been presented. These historic details fill in blanks very well, and confirm an overall trend of lies pushed out into the social media by Tracey!

[Sam Rutherford]

@Nick

This is something we agree on, Tracey has duped an awful lot of people. Bit tough calling them 'sacrificial sheep', but if that's how you want to describe them then that's your right.

For facts, do please remember that I have been involved since 2011, and was on the Africa trip - I have something of an insight to how it 'went down'.

[Nige321]

Au contraire Mister Rutherford, it is you that has initiated and sustained this affair and you do protest too much, methinks - it can be alleged that you appear to have motives that transcend the 'search for truth' and that there is much more to this than meets the eye. It is alleged that you have, I am reliably informed, lobbied people with the most intense, ad hominem personal attacks if they do not accede to everything you want, and you have, it seems to me, sustained this thing far beyond what is reasonable, such that is has descended into a level of personal vilification that I am sure I am not alone in being uncomfortable with.
If you care to actually read the other thread you will find that it isn't Sam who initiated and sustained anything.
Read it, the whole thing was closed until TCT reopened it by bullying the LAA

There is a further reform that needs to happen then: the LAA must be stripped of its role as a regulator of light aviation.
My God, the lunatics really are running the asylum...

If there's one thing the LAA need to do it's stick to engineering and promotion and forget trophy awarding...

Oh, and Fred? (Fred who? At least we know who Sam is...) - Are you one of Tracy's foot soldiers.

[ShortfinalFred]

Mister Rutherford. To paraphrase a witness at a well known trial, "You would say that, wouldn't you". I hold no agenda except that I've become very uncomfortable with the level of personal abuse that this affair has generated online, and have met people who are stunned at your lobbying tactics. The vehemence of these, and the attacks on personal integrity they allege were made by you, is at odds with the persona you present here. There is a valid counter argument to be made here in relation to the LAA and it has received almost no airing, not entirely unsurprising when the internet forum arena nearly always descends into a negative spiral of accusation within moments of a topic appearing

Ex-spouses: Courts up and down the country are full of ex-spouses, slogging it out. An objective opinion from either is very rarely heard. It seems a sad day that this forum has now descended into one where this kind of thing is used to justify one side or another.

[Sam Rutherford]

Hi Fred,

Can I suggest that your continued posting here is similar to my postings/lobbying earlier? It's something you feel is not correct, and shouldn't go unchallenged? Sure it's easy to abandon, but sometimes it's a case of trying to right a wrong - and needs/has no greater/deeper aim.

Then, please, you have heard some demonstrably false things about me - this must at a minimum bring some level of uncertainty to the sources of your information?

Ask them again if I was sacked and left the expedition early? Simple question, simple answer (only the truth is at odds with what Tracey has been telling people).

[Planemike]

There is a further reform that needs to happen then: the LAA must be stripped of its role as a regulator of light aviation. People MUST belong to it if they operate at a certain level of aircraft ownership as the LAA has taken over from the CAA in that sector. This makes such an award have a significance it ought not to have when you are meant to be dealing with an impartial regulator. Either the LAA is a membership body that can make awards, counsel, advise and warn, or it is a regulator. It ought not to be both. It is standing into danger here. Arguably, the CAA as the Government appointed aviation regulatory body should be adequately resourced to review and license all aviation in the UK: an impartial body, open to advice and input from all - the LAA, the BGA, AOPA etc etc., but this is no longer the case. I for one do not want to belong to an organisation that perpetuates such a woeful saga, and yet I HAVE TO if I am to fly a certain category of aeroplane.A potential outcome from this endless process would be a demand that people not be shackled to a body that is both 'de jure' regulator and a selector of individuals for recognition, and that reform of the LAA itself is needed. .

I have been an LAA/PFA member for 40 plus years. I do not have a license, nor am I building an aircraft. I can however see no merit in handing over regulation of Permit aircraft to the CAA. I am certain owners of permit aircraft would be paying vastly higher fees to the CAA than they do to the LAA. Paying NO fees will NEVER be an option. The LAA is a member run organization where costs are scrutinized by the members. The CAA has no such scrutiny and requires everything "gold plated" with the attendant cost. Leave the LAA to get on with its job which by and large it does pretty well. Are you suggesting the work the BGA and the BMAA should also pass to the CAA?. I don't think you will get many takers.....

What is wrong with the LAA handing out awards? Many people have been so honoured by the PFA/LAA over the years and have taken pride in receiving those awards.

The problem is T C-T ....... Not the LAA.

PS Seems you are free to choose the expensive CAA route if you so wish. I did not realize that option was available. (see msg # 207 below)

[Blink182]

Fred, at a risk of going off topic a bit;
As I understand it you are quite at liberty to operate a Permit to Fly aircraft outside the auspices of the LAA.
The CAA can administer a PtF aircraft if you so desire, you have just got to accept their costs and procedures . See CAP733

[Fitter2]

Dear 'shortfinalFred'

I have followed this thread and the previous one with a degree of amusement and bemusement.

What I do know is that everything Sam Rutherford has posted on this matter here can be verified by independent sources. I have never seen anything from him that could be construed as mud-slinging.

I also have observed a real degree of personal attacks on Sam, who uses his real name' by anonymous individuals, attacks that can be demonstrated to contain false information, and also a refusal to answer simple questions about Ms Curtis-Taylor's activities addressed to her and her supporters, which if satisfactorily answered with independently verifiable evidence would have closed the matter long ago. Instead, there appears to have been a campaign of deliberate confusion and I believe anyone following what is independently verifiable would know whose views hold water.

The management of the LAA appear to have behaved impeccably within the constitution, and continue to support genuine aviators.

I am not a member of the LAA, but know where my vote would be placed if I were.

F2

[Cows getting bigger]

Personal view.

90%+ of TCT's adventures should be embraced as a positive for GA. Regardless of the amount of support and/or seats occupied, it must be recognised that dragging a Stearman so far was a notable endeavour. Unfortunately, there is a bitter pill here. For whatever reason, TCT (I'll be benevolent, it could be her media support team) did not resist the various poorly informed assertions that it was a solo flight. Indeed, there is enough factual evidence to support accusations that TCT intentionally fuelled such assertions; there was absolutely no need.

So, after the event(s)we have a set of flights and a few queries about how the solo element had been assumed/peddled. Once highlighted, an honourable individual may well have stuck their hand up and acknowledged that the spin machine had spun a bit too much; very easy to do. Instead, and for whatever reason, this was not done and escalated into a members' club trophy issue that really isn't worthy of argument outside of the club. To be revisited after 2+ years is just complete nonsense and , for that, I believe TCT is being somewhat mischievious.

Turning to misogyny etc. Well, forgive me but anyone who uses a sales pitch of "Bird in a Biplane" immediately puts them selves on dodgy ground if they subsequently look to play a sexism card. You simply cannot cherry-pick the times where you want to use gender to an advantage and then turn around and accuse others of using gender as a means of belittling.

A final thought. I sort of agree with SFF's view on the role of the LAA. Their prime business must be overseeing regulation of permit aircraft for the CAA. To become embroiled in this nonsense is worrisome. The vultures should stop circling, TCT should just fess-up and the LAA should manage such issues at an appropriate level. Meanwhile, I can't help but wonder what Bill Woodhams would have thought about all this noise? We're losing our way here people.

[Genghis the Engineer]

To be fair, it seems unlikely that the LAA people embroiled in this, are the same LAA people who administer permit aeroplane building and permit revalidations.

G

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Just a point that may have been lost in the dust.
The LAA voting form has binary responses to eight resolutions/motions. If a member is not attending the meeting then they simply tick the box for either FOR or AGAINST.
If a member cannot attend and is unsure of how to vote, (perhaps insufficient information or knowledge) then they can elect a PROXY to vote on their behalf. Normally that PROXY is the Chairman but it does not have to be. You are allowed to name another PROXY on the returned voting form who can cast a vote on the day on behalf of the member.

My advice if you remain undecided and are using the PROXY option, is to nominate a named colleague to vote on your behalf. This removes any burden on the Chairman; both at the meeting and at any future re-hashings.

In 2016, the Chairman elected to appoint the PROXY votes in favour of rescinding the award. He could equally have allocated them to the against vote; the outcome would have been the same with a majority vote to rescind the award.
HTH
SWB

[Pilot DAR]

Please avoid speculation on the identity of posters. Posters are entitled to anonymity if that is their choice.

[Right Hand Thread]

The awards committee, you and others are effectively saying, did not do their due diligence

No. They/we are not, it is clear that they were misled just like the rest of us. The awards committee have no apology to make.

[Thud105]

Apologies DAR, you are of course correct - I was out of order. SATCO, I took your advice re previous posts and am minded to agree with you. I guess with all the speculation, confusion, 'alternative facts' half-truths and downright lies I got a bit hornswoggled!

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Apologies DAR, you are of course correct - I was out of order. SATCO, I took your advice re previous posts and am minded to agree with you. I guess with all the speculation, confusion, 'alternative facts' half-truths and downright lies I got a bit hornswoggled!


We are all getting hornswoggled :-) (another great word which is wholly appropriate)

I have edited my post to stay on the right side of Pilot DAR ;-)

[9 lives]

Hey, LAA members,

Quote:Originally Posted by Flyingmac https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10268698#post10268698)Confronted by "Alone in an open cockpit" and Solo, what would you assume?That's EXACTLY the point!

You have all been duped like sacrificial sheep when you just don't know the facts

Nick

Someone's trying to distract again...

What's the LAA award for? "navigation..."? "Solo" is not a factor in this award, don't be distracted!

On the face of it, would the LAA members like to feel that their organization has made an award for "navigation", when the flight awarded was flown with multiple advanced navigation aids, second pilot assistance, ground planning assistance, and a chase plane? If those factors in a flight still allow that flight to be awarded a navigation award, I think the LAA should print up a lot of those awards, as there will be many deserving pilots who have accomplished long flights with less assistance, who should be similarly awarded!

[runway30]

Hey, LAA members,



Someone's trying to distract again...

What's the LAA award for? "navigation..."? "Solo" is not a factor in this award, don't be distracted!

On the face of it, would the LAA members like to feel that their organization has made an award for "navigation", when the flight awarded was flown with multiple advanced navigation aids, second pilot assistance, ground planning assistance, and a chase plane? If those factors in a flight still allow that flight to be awarded a navigation award, I think the LAA should print up a lot of those awards, as there will be many deserving pilots who have accomplished long flights with less assistance, who should be similarly awarded!

Speaking as someone who used to be a member of an Awards Committee for another body, I don’t think that any of the assistance precludes the making of an award so long as all of those facts were made known to the Committee at the time. If further facts came to light subsequently then the matter should have been referred back to the Committee making the award. I don’t think that playing this out at an AGM, not only once but twice, is to the credit of anyone.

[jez d]

There is a further reform that needs to happen then: the LAA must be stripped of its role as a regulator of light aviation. People MUST belong to it if they operate at a certain level of aircraft ownership as the LAA has taken over from the CAA in that sector. This makes such an award have a significance it ought not to have when you are meant to be dealing with an impartial regulator. Either the LAA is a membership body that can make awards, counsel, advise and warn, or it is a regulator. It ought not to be both. It is standing into danger here. Arguably, the CAA as the Government appointed aviation regulatory body should be adequately resourced to review and license all aviation in the UK: an impartial body, open to advice and input from all - the LAA, the BGA, AOPA etc etc., but this is no longer the case. I for one do not want to belong to an organisation that perpetuates such a woeful saga, and yet I HAVE TO if I am to fly a certain category of aeroplane.A potential outcome from this endless process would be a demand that people not be shackled to a body that is both 'de jure' regulator and a selector of individuals for recognition, and that reform of the LAA itself is needed.

I think you have it 'tail about prop'. There is absolutely no chance that the CAA would welcome LAA PtF aircraft back under their regulatory wing, and I know for a fact that they would be only too pleased to see those Permit aircraft remaining on their books handed over to the LAA, or some other Competent Authority. Whether the LAA, as a Competent Authority, should be giving out awards is a interesting question, however, and perhaps could be debated in future, as one thing that is certain is that no one will benefit from this current debacle, no matter what the end result is. The best that can be hoped for is damage limitation.

[canopener]

Mister Rutherford. To paraphrase a witness at a well known trial, "You would say that, wouldn't you". I hold no agenda except that I've become very uncomfortable with the level of personal abuse that this affair has generated online, and have met people who are stunned at your lobbying tactics. The vehemence of these, and the attacks on personal integrity they allege were made by you, is at odds with the persona you present here. There is a valid counter argument to be made here in relation to the LAA and it has received almost no airing, not entirely unsurprising when the internet forum arena nearly always descends into a negative spiral of accusation within moments of a topic appearing

Ex-spouses: Courts up and down the country are full of ex-spouses, slogging it out. An objective opinion from either is very rarely heard. It seems a sad day that this forum has now descended into one where this kind of thing is used to justify one side or another.

FYI Fred,Ex-spouses we may be but this is not some matrimonial slogging match.The only reason I've taken to posting on this forum is to clear the fog that has engulfed Tracey's recollection of the past.Every thing I have stated is 100% factual,no embellishment,no exaggeration,no stretching of the truth....all of her employment in NZ can be confirmed,the name of the supermarket where she stacked shelves,the restaurant where she waited tables,the flying school she was fired from,the aerial mapping and photography company she sales rep'd for.
One of my early posts on the other thread exposed the gross exaggeration on her website bio,you see Fred I was there for a lot of the content of that early bio stuff and most of it is shear fabrication.There is no animosity,no bitterness,no acrimony,no resentment on my part.....I just don't like BS'ing bullies.
Over and out......for now.Steve Taylor NZ.

[oscarisapc]

Oh dear! What a mess! I am a retired aviator and no longer a member of the LAA for which I still retain a strong sense of loyalty and gratitude for many years of fun flying. I also enjoyed Tracey Curtis Taylor’s original film on TV and my only reaction was envy at her opportunity to fly such a wonderful machine across Africa. I say this because I have no dog in this fight but I can’t see how this saga is going to end well for anyone. What is due to happen at the AGM on October 21 is, in effect, an appeal against previous process. Who said what to whom and where is not the issue. The question to be decided is about the original decision to award the Bill Woodhams trophy in 2014. If the trophy was awarded properly by the Awards Committee in the light of all known facts, then no matter what others think about it, the resolution to rescind it was wrong and it should be reinstated with an apology. If it was awarded improperly on the basis of wrong information which, if corrected, would have altered the outcome, then the resolution of October 2016 should stand. Logically, only one of those outcomes is possible. These are the matters of fact that should be addressed at the AGM. Factual arguments for and against the motions on this basis should have been invited and presented to the membership in writing in advance, so that members who take an interest but cannot attend in person can consider them and register their vote. On such an important issue, taking verbal and emotional arguments at a meeting and relying on a show of hands based on who can attend is not going to satisfy anyone.

[XV666]

Two interesting points on the LAA Forum: a change of title for the thread, now the third iteration "ALL MEMBERS! Please fill out those proxy forms..!!" which would have been done by a moderator of that forum.

And the latest contribution from Miss Curtis-Taylor:

Re: ALL MEMBERS ! Please fill out those proxy forms..!! (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5519&start=210#p25940)https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpBB3/styles/prosilver-embed/imageset/icon_post_target.gif (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?p=25940#p25940)by Tracey Curtis-Taylor (https://services.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/phpbbforum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=11565) » Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:07 am

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.

[9 lives]

Rutherford is an unreliable witness

Hmmm, being called "unreliable" by a person demonstrated to be repeatedly dishonest, doesn't sound all that bad! I'm certain that Tracey has a motivation exaggerate, I don't see Sam being similarly motivated. Sam just seems to want to set the record straight.

manage the logistics comprising two aircraft and eight crew from Cape Town to Goodwood.

'Seems to erode the notion of a "navigation feat" for Tracey in my mind...

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

Clear to Tracey from the beginning? It seems that she was the person referring to the flights being solo in a predominate way.

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.

Hmmm again; for fights I have flown where "safety was a very big concern", I flew with the fewest people aboard, preferably solo, so as not to expose other people to a less safe flight - particularly not carrying non pilots/crew members with a role! If Tracey was concerned about the safety of the flight, I can't see how carrying a passenger would make the flight safer! Perhaps another more experienced pilot should have flown the flight instead - oh, wait....

Despite Tracey's repeated reference to outreach in encouraging women into aviation, that does not seem to have been included in the most recent passage. "Film" gets mentioned a lot though!

I do hope that LAA members familiarize themselves well with these details prior to deciding on how to vote at the upcoming AGM! Perhaps Tracey could directly answer the three questions asked by interested members earlier, that might help put some minds to ease for voting!

[strake]

Ms Curtis-Taylor keeps using the word 'libelous' when describing Sam Rutherford's recollections yet does nothing about it except make threats. Given the evidence already seen, I would suggest she is herself starting to libel people.

I now see in her statement that 'parts of the flight would be solo, others not'. I seem to recall a number of 'personal statements' from Ms Curtis-Taylor on her website outraged that anyone would think the flights would have any element of solo flying at all in them.

Curiouser and curiouser

[Sam Rutherford]

@Fred

Tracey has answered one of your points herself. What was 'sacked and left early' has become 'left on bad terms'.

Can I suggest that time will similarly reveal the (in)accuracy of other things you may have heard?

[rog747]

I feel TCT using the LAA Members AGM forum for her own slanging match by her continuing personal feud with another LAA member (the ex contractor on her SA Trip) and knocks the LAA Board surely is an abuse of such a platform, clearly upsets the other Members, and again sees the LAA being brought into an unwanted spotlight, and perhaps into disrepute.

I have never seen such a show - It's awful.
Why does the LAA board not haul her in for a formal warning, and advise her to desist her behaviour - Failure to do so should perhaps include expulsion from the Society.

[Lind1795]

Completely agree with rog747 in post #225. Tracey is doing the LAA a disservice but most of all she is doing herself a disservice. I was hoping she might see sense but there seems to be no chance of that. Shame.

[Genghis the Engineer]

TCT's post above is interesting - as basically she admits that she paid somebody else to do most of the legwork of the "remarkable feat of navigation" for which she was originally given the award.

G

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

As more information is surfacing which is not directly appropriate for this thread I ask that the other one is reopened so this one can remain focused on the LAA side of the saga.

On that note, having read TCT's latest we have yet another version of events. It is clear to me that NOTHING which comes from BiaB can be trusted. Again no questions have been answered just more avoidance. What I find totally bizarre is this statement

"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. "
How can taking Anette Porter or Caroline O'Donnell along in the front seat make it safer? Unless of course you had doubts about the safety of them flying in the chase plane (tongue firmly in cheek here).

We know that local sorties were flown that were not part of the overall A to Z routing, why did you choose these passengers and not a local female student who you wanted to encourage into aviation?

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.
Not true at all. Sam has always said that Ewald was with you for 40 of the 44 legs. So that leaves 4 legs where he was not plus the odd local jaunt betwix.

To para-phrase this from TCT "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."
Agreed: I count amongst the misguided those who have been sent across to argue on her behalf.

Simple solution: Answer the questions, show the proof.

[piperboy84]

TCT's post above is interesting - as basically she admits that she paid somebody else to do most of the legwork of the "remarkable feat of navigation" for which she was originally given the award.

G
Exactly, I've been on a handful of solo long x country flights of a few thousand kilometers, multi day journeys as a private pilot in a slow single.The hardest part is sitting in the hotel in the morning agonising over those route & weather go or no-go decisions. You stress the hell out of yourself second guessing your choices and understanding of weather and route info available. It's you and you alone that are making those calls. Getting hand fed how, where and when to do the flight leaves only adherence to the plan which in TCT's case the chase plane can provide guidance and supervision on. Auctually flying the aircraft is a simple case of following your PPL training for a SEP day vfr flight. Nothing remarkable and certainly no great feat. Now buggering about in a drafty hangar on cold wintery nights for several years riveting and screwing together a pile of metal then actually having the bottle to go airborne with it, as many LAA members do, that to me is a remarkable feat worthy of recognition (or possibly commitment for phsyciatric evalation)

[HolyMoley]

Strangely, my post referred to above has disappeared, perhaps due to insufficient text on my part. I was replying to a previous poster’s assertion that if the original award was made on the basis of the information then available, the award should be reinstated. I invited comparison between this and an honorary degree given to Lance Armstrong, which was rescinded after his dishonesty was uncovered.


Nothing 'strange' about it: you referenced a link which was commented upon (and I agree) as being more suitable to the closed thread and this is, and should remain, a thread about the LAA AGM.

Senior Pilot

[Pilot DAR]

I have reopened the original Tracey Curtis-Taylor thread as requested, to provide a place for discussion of Ms. Curtis-Taylor's publicly promoted flying adventures. Please make the best use of each thread, in assuring that the post you wish to make is placed most appropriately in one or the other thread. Please avoid repeating information as much as possible.

[Right Hand Thread]

Factual arguments for and against the motions on this basis should have been invited and presented to the membership in writing in advance, so that members who take an interest but cannot attend in person can consider them and register their vote. On such an important issue, taking verbal and emotional arguments at a meeting and relying on a show of hands based on who can attend is not going to satisfy anyone.



A point that has seemingly been overlooked by the LAA board.

It is all very lopsided. Three supporting motions that would reinstate the award have been sent to the membership. NONE have been sent explaining the background and why those who do use forums and other media believe they know the truth of the matter.

I wonder if, should the motions succeed, this will subsequently be called into question?

[Union Jack]

Derek Lamb wrote “It has damaged our reputation and made us look misogynistic.” I don’t think restoring the award will repair the LAA’s reputation. I don’t think the LAA did anything wrong in the first place, they issued an award without knowing the real background and then rescinded it based on members votes when the full facts came to light. I despair if they want to give the rescinded award back to Tracey to avoid looking misogynistic.

Derek also wrote “The Awards committee looked closely at allegations and decided there weren’t grounds for withdrawal. It was pushed through by proxy voters who hadn’t heard the arguments.” I am confused here. Am I mistaken in thinking the award was for “a feat of navigation, aviation, tenacity and endurance" which actually involved the use of GPS, another pilot on board and a back up team? If I am wrong please enlighten me. What were the arguments that those present at the LAA AGM were apparently aware of that all the proxy voters and Pprune viewers who have read probably far more background information were not?

I would be delighted if the LAA could change my mind and convince me that Tracey is fully deserving of the award.

Since it is readily available online, and might be helpful, there would appear to be no bar to repeating exactly what was minuted in respect of Item 6 at the LAA AGM on 22 Oct 16, together with some highlighting in red, together with my personal observations in bold red, namely:

MINUTES OF 2016 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
OF THE LIGHT AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION LIMITED
Sywell Aerodrome. Sunday 22nd October 2016.

"6. Motion for rescinding of the award of the Bill Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor.Proposed by Barry Tempest (member no 017423), seconded by Chris Martyr (member no. 022516).

The Chair allocated Barry two minutes to present his full motion and any other comments.

The Chair then invited Harry Hopkins in his role as Chairman of the Awards Committee, to respond.

Tracey Curtis-Taylor read a prepared statement, also available in written form, and pointed out that two other written submissions were available from Ewald Gritsch and from Barry Latter from the Museum of Flight in Seattle. Can anyone elaborate on what they contained?

TC-T submitted that she had not claimed to make a solo flight, and that any such claims came from members of her team and not approved by her. She's certainly been given every opportunity to refute these third party "claims" She also stated that the Motion had only been raised 18 months after the award had been made, following an orchestrated series of personal attacks that had threatened her reputation. Interesting - Character is what you are, whilst reputation is what you get. In her opinion the LAA was merely being used as a vehicle for these attacks.

There was then a period allocated to discussion from the floor. Manuel Queroz stated that the achievement, whether solo or not, marked an ‘unbelievable journey’. He certainly got that right!

Tim Allibone, a newly joined member, and Phillip Lowry, suggested that the proxy votes be excluded as those making their vote in that manner had not been able to hear both sides of the argument. Demonstrating a curiously naive understanding of the meaning of a proxy vote, a system used perfectly routinely and properly by companies and organisations many thousands of times a year, by definition without the voter being able to hear what is said at an AGM. The Chair responded that as Proxy Voting is included in the Articles of the Association, it should be allowed. A further query on the eligibility of proxy votes by Peter Andrews was similarly answered.

At this point the Motion was voted upon.

Votes From Floor Proxy Votes TOTAL

In favour of motion 17 106 123

Votes against 57 8 65

In addition the Chair had 36 proxy votes available to be allocated at his discretion. He elected that these be allocated to the majority. Which, as has already been said, made no difference to the outcome The total in favour of the motion was therefore 159 votes and the motion was therefore carried. The matter is now closed." If only..... Now why does Brexit come to mind?

Recalling that this all started with some difference in opinion between events in England and France perhaps, as an Honorary RNR Lieutenant Commander, the significance of the date of 21 October should not be lost on Tracey - could it be her Trafalgar?

I should also apologise if I have not been clever enough to get the columns for the voting figures correctly lined up in the submitted version.

Jack

[Haraka]

One of the gripes often expressed on PPRuNe is that the Press often lift discussion topics from these sites for more widespread publication and dissemination.
Coincidentally, one of the gripes now being expressed on the LAA site vis-a-vis this current matter, is that their general membership are only exposed to their own magazine's perforce extremely limited coverage and are therefore largely uninformed regarding the wider perspective and its implications.
The ground seems now to be well laid to provide a golden opportunity for an opportunistic scribe to produce an ongoing vibrant popular press exposé , which doubtless would in some form or other find itself communicated to those rank and file LAA members who continue to remain largely in the dark regarding the current shenanigans.
These good people might then be encouraged,even if they do not access the on-line sites, to vote according to their consciences on this divisive matter now confronting their organisation.

[gasax]

This whole business is a horrible mess. The inability of the LAA committee to display any backbone and so yielding to TC-Ts threats demonstrates the typical behaviour of the blazer brigade. Turn up for a free meal or to hob nob with the 'great and the good' but when asked to defend their actions they run away and then set their stooges up to try and manipulate LAA processes to make it all go away.

The big problem is that given all of this discussion and publicity, even if they get their way and it is re-awarded - their actions or perhaps inaction to act in the best interest of the association rather than avoid any personal responsibility will result in damage to the LAA. When faced with a fraudster the defence is the truth. Ignorant bullies will always threaten legal action, the chances of it actually happening is near zero - lies hate a little light.

I personally hate the politics which have distracted the LAA (nee PFA) since the coup against Underhill, but it has continued as people in these committees seem much more interested in fancy dinners than homebuilt aircraft. The technical side works and benefits large numbers of people - the rest? A vote of no confidence against the current committee seems like a very good way of sorting them out. Perhaps firstly Stewart Jackson. The bigger question is how to actually get a motion for the AGM accepted TCT seems to be suitably connected - what about the rest of us?

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

If I were at the LAA in a position of leadership or authority I would produce copies of any letters received which threaten legal action. I am surprised that a) this has not happened, and b) why no member has asked to see it (them).

If a direct threat letter exists then show us this sword of Damocles that is hanging over the LAA, what it says and what it demands. If no such legal threat has been made, then say so.

[S205-18F]

SWB The question has been asked on the LAA site we are awaiting an answer... I suspect we might not be indulged!!

[gasax]

There is a staggering posting on the LAA - David Mole's motion is because he thinks that is what she wants!!!!
Well who would have guessed! Quite why the legal advisor would recommend this to the membership remains cloaked. The seconder of the Stewart Jackson, works for Boeing. TCT's major sponsor was - yep Boeing.

So is this what the LAA committee are running scared of? How about a little honesty?

[Jodelman]

The above post is a staggering misrepresentation of what David Mole said. Read his post carefully and the reason for the motion he put forward becomes crystal clear.

[airpolice]

The important point here is whether or not the "legal threats" were directed to the board of the LAA or the LAA in general?

Where only the board are cited, then it is a matter for them; but if the association is in the firing line, then I would suggest that all "shareholders" in the LAA are entitled, and indeed compelled by law, to be made aware of the specifics.

I foresee this dragging on for another year, and some member raising a motion, ten months from now, to suggest that the LAA distance the membership and association, from TC-T, Prince Michael of Kent and anyone on the board or committee within the LAA who still supports her case. I say this on the basis of the obvious deceit, dishonest statements and thoroughly objectionable behaviour involved. I speak not of what she has been alleged by others to have done, but the actions claimed in statements that she has made in public.

Do the general membership feel comfortable having as their Patron, a man who so obviously approves of what TC-T has done?

I am sure that a suitable untainted figure, if a Patron is in fact desired by the membership, could be found. I freely admit that I remain somewhat in the dark regarding the benefits & role of a Patron, in current times.

Taking a cue from TC-T and wanting to dispel the notion of the LAA being old men in blazers, perhaps we should ask Simon Cowell to take on the roll, as he is clearly a modern man with much public influence, and certainly has a lot more money than Prince Michael of Kent. There is also the benefit that he would appear likely to be immune to the rather dubious "charms" of TC-T.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

There is a staggering posting on the LAA - David Mole's motion is because he thinks that is what she wants!!!!
Well who would have guessed! Quite why the legal advisor would recommend this to the membership remains cloaked. The seconder of the Stewart Jackson, works for Boeing. TCT's major sponsor was - yep Boeing.

So is this what the LAA committee are running scared of? How about a little honesty?

I have just read through those and have written a lengthy post which I may or may not publish here, there re one or two points I need to check first.

But does anyone else find this rather odd. From TCT's supporting statement.

Having requested the information this year from the LAA, I now know that from early 2016 the Board received a succession of emails demanding my public disgrace. The sources were evidently the same as those of the ongoing PPruNe campaign; some of them joined our Association

Yet information highly pertinent to making a reasoned judgement on how to vote and why you will vote that way is not being given to the association members. To some extent I can see where Mr Mole is coming from but I fear he is missing the point.

All the members know is that TCT has threatened legal action/ made legal threats (however it is worded). Without knowing what those threats are means that the members unable to make a decision on how best to respond and protect the LAA.

Let me use the following examples to express my point.
Example 1: " Get my award back or I will sue you for £750,000 damages".
Example 2: " Get my award back or I will resign my LAA membership and seek legal advice to get reimbursement of my membership fees".

Both of these in the blind would be classed as threats of legal action against the LAA. However, how the members would vote in either example would be vastly different.

............................

Separate thought. I think that real caution is warranted on how this mess is resolved. On several occasions TCT has threatened legal action but this has come to nothing. The reason being that there is a stack of evidence out there, compiled over the past 4 years or so, which shows "our" side of the argument and she has not shown anything to back her claims. She cannot claim to have never misled anyone when there is ample written, audio, and video evidence to counter such a claim.

However, if she is given the award back then she has an ace to play; she can genuinely claim that she was right and "we" were wrong (on this point only) but that might be enough for her to seriously consider seeking redress. This could be a substantial financial claim: In the first instance that claim would be against the LAA.

[hoodie]

How could anybody hope reasonably to succeed in a legal claim against an Association simply because the officers of the association authorised (as they are bound to do) a democratic vote in line with its formal Articles, and the result of that vote then went against the complainant?

It doesn't seem a credible concern.

A far more damagjng outcome for the LAA is being seen in this thread and on their own forum, where members are turning on each other and some Board members - often, it seems, because those individuals hold a different opinion regarding TCT, and doing so is seen by some as a form of Class conspiracy.

The greater damage to the Association now isn't being done by TCT. It is being done unintentionally by other members via unsupported accusations against the LAA Executive.

It is very sad.

[clareprop]

Having arrived 'down-under' following my navigation to Australia (courtesy of BA), I thought I check-in on the latest. My first port of call was the LAA forum where I read a somewhat surprising note from the company secretary. Now I may be wrong and the articles of association for the LAA are very specific but statements such as, 'Board members are obliged by the rules to keep the proceedings of the Board confidential. ' raises my eyebrows. This is the LAA we're talking about, not a FTSE100 company. One of the prime duties of board members is to exercise accountability to shareholders - or in this case, paying members. That means briefings when necessary ie in extraordinary circumstances (!) and a comprehension of and responsibility for the interests of the shareholders.
Other organisations with power vested in them by the CAA such as the BPA, BHGPA and the BGA are completely open with websites where members and the public can easily see minutes of executive meetings and AGM's. The only exception is with disciplinary issues. At times like this,the best option is always to be open and transparent - especially to the people who pay for the organisation in the first place- otherwise, as can already be seen on the LAA site, questions of impartiality start being raised.

[pilotmike]

Let me use the following examples to express my point.
Example 1: " Get my award back or I will sue you for £750,000 damages".
Example 2: " Get my award back or I will resign my LAA membership and seek legal advice to get reimbursement of my membership fees".

Both of these in the blind would be classed as threats of legal action against the LAA. However, how the members would vote in either example would be vastly different.

Why should they be treated vastly differently? As far as I can see, in both your hypothetical examples, they would both be threats - indeed blackmail - which would both be construed to have the clear sole intention to reverse an action voted upon by the members of the LAA, for compelling reasons to them at the time.

The only difference would be the sum involved in the threat. As no legal action appears to have been initiated on its own merits (and everyone needs to ask the very serious question "why not"?), adding the threats doesn't seem the best way to win the hearts and support of a group of voters.

Ask yourself the questions:

a) is it likely the LAA feels threatened by the threat of being sued, and should voting LAA members feel threatened to vote in her favour just to appease her whims?

b) if she resigns her LAA, who would be bothered in the slightest?

Neither threat would be in the least bit tempting to the average, intelligent, principled LAA member.

[rog747]

This all getting totally out of hand - If I were Chairman, or on the Board I would seek to have an EGM, postpone the AGM to have a crisis meeting as to the strategy and
handling of this mess --- now a very delicate matter that is seemingly about to implode the Society and it's membership.

I first of all would want TCT suspended from the LAA and haul her in (alone) for a meeting to ask her the pertinent Q's that for so long have remained unanswered - these are pivotal to the Award being again honored to her (or not)

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

I work as a technical consultant within the firework industry, an industry which receives many claims for damages / injury each year. My role is to deal with these claims as efficiently as possible. They range from replacing damaged clothing to serious property damage and personal injury - yet all follow a very similar format when it comes to what evidence is available. In a great deal of cases it is easier to settle the claim for smaller amounts as a "goodwill gesture" rather than wasting many man-hours fighting the various companies corners - even when we know we are right. This frees up resources to put to the bigger battles.


Ask yourself the questions:

a) is it likely the LAA feels threatened by the threat of being sued, and should voting LAA members feel threatened to vote in her favour just to appease her whims?

b) if she resigns her LAA, who would be bothered in the slightest?

Neither threat would be in the least bit tempting to the average, intelligent, principled LAA member.

Given the background to my thoughts above and applying the same train of thought to the two points quoted .
For a) we would be 100% certain to stand our ground and fight our corner, whereas for b) we would be almost 100% certain to settle "out of court" to reduce costs.

I won't know how best to act if I do not know what the customer is seeking by way of recompense. Knowing the threat and being able to take the path of least resistance for us makes sense.

[airpolice]

This all getting totally out of hand - If I were Chairman, or on the Board I would seek to have an EGM, postpone the AGM to have a crisis meeting as to the strategy and
handling of this mess --- now a very delicate matter that is seemingly about to implode the Society and it's membership.

I first of all would want TCT suspended from the LAA and haul her in (alone) for a meeting to ask her the pertinent Q's that for so long have remained unanswered - these are pivotal to the Award being again honored to her (or not)

Just for the sake of intelligent debate, and I would not want to pre-judge... what on earth could she say in such a meeting that a reasonable person would accept?

What words might explain, in a reasonable fashion, the overpowering evidence that she is unfit to be honoured, in any way, by her aviation peers?

That's a serious question. Do any of you really think that there exists, deep in the fog, a Rabbit so awesome, that if pulled out of the hat, would make sense?

[rog747]

Just for the sake of intelligent debate, and I would not want to pre-judge... what on earth could she say in such a meeting that a reasonable person would accept?

What words might explain, in a reasonable fashion, the overpowering evidence that she is unfit to be honoured, in any way, by her aviation peers?

That's a serious question. Do any of you really think that there exists, deep in the fog, a Rabbit so awesome, that if pulled out of the hat, would make sense?

Fair point - As I said above TCT should answer the Q's that members want to know the answer to -

What could she say? well, for her to -
Apologize for bringing the LAA into disrepute (again), make it clear to her how this is upsetting and damaging to the membership and to the Society, plus the costs that she is causing by having to arrange the AGM around her and her antics.
Apologize for suggesting misogyny by the Society. (Her own tagline is Bird in a biplane)
Apologize for abusing the Society's Members AGM forum for pursuing a personal feud with another member on it.

I am sure I can add more - she is totally out of order and I cannot understand how she has run roughshod through, and around the Society.
She should have been reined in.

Once a level playing field is established with her - then and only then, should the Society and its members then decide whether the Award is suitable to be again honoured to her or not.

[Mike Cross]

LAA needs to extricate itself from this mess. To my mind the solution is simple and revolves around ONE question, which I, as a member, pose below.
We appoint people to make decisions on our behalf. If we are unhappy with their performance there should be a motion of no confidence, which, if passed ought to result in the person(s) concerned stepping down or being removed from their post.
The awards committee made a decision based on information available to them at the time. They later revisited their decision and decided it should stand. Their decision was then overturned by a vote at the 2016 AGM.

The ONE simple question that I suggest should be addressed is “Was it right to allow the decision of the awards committee to be overturned in this way?” The answer to that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights and wrongs of the spat between the two principals and their supporters.

If you start with that question, rather than the intricacies of the argument between the protagonists (which is no business of the LAA) it's easy.

To my mind it was wrong to allow the decision to be overturned in this way, in the same way that it would be wrong to allow a decision by the CEO or our airworthiness experts to be overturned by a simple majority at an AGM.

LAA should not be involving itself in the wider argument.

[Jonzarno]

I am not a member of the LAA, so I make this point respectfully and with a certain amount of diffidence.

The whole history of the original award, it’s withdrawal and the failure of Ms Curtis-Taylor to address the questions asked of her have surely brought the LAA into disrepute. That is very sad because the overwhelming majority of its members are honourable pilots, who just want to get on with having their aircraft approved, go flying and enjoy the other benefits of their membership.

It is difficult to assign the cause of such disrepute to anything other than Ms Curtis-Taylor’s original alleged actions and her failure to address them properly.

In that connection, the suggestion in a recent post that the LAA Board should ask her the questions directly and personally is a good one and is, perhaps, the only way to “lance the boil”, provided they insist on clear, specific and unambiguous answers, and then publish them to the membership.

If she fails to respond properly, it is difficult to see any justification for the award being returned nor any basis on which she could remain a member of the association.

If that were to happen, based on the facts as we know them, although I am not a lawyer, I can see no basis on which a legal challenge could succeed and IMHO it would just end up with the plaintiff losing a great deal of money as the defence would simply be a recounting of the established facts and a statement that the plaintiff had been given every opportunity to address the criticisms of her actions and had refused to do so.