Tracey Curtis-Taylor (Merged threads)
Canute.
Perhaps if headers such as this on her website:
This reprint of an article from The Times explains some of the facts of her epic journeys and how the media has been misinformed by certain people trying to damage her reputation.
Plus the ongoing obfuscation exercise on her Wiki site:
Plus the sending of at least one solicitor's threatening letter naming individuals:
all "ceased and desisted", then I would agree with you.
Perhaps if headers such as this on her website:
This reprint of an article from The Times explains some of the facts of her epic journeys and how the media has been misinformed by certain people trying to damage her reputation.
Plus the ongoing obfuscation exercise on her Wiki site:
Plus the sending of at least one solicitor's threatening letter naming individuals:
all "ceased and desisted", then I would agree with you.
I have to agree with Canute's post. Much of the recent material in this thread is peripheral to the main issue. If anything it detract from the case against her not enhances it..
What matters most is whether there is an attempt to perpetuate or reinvent the deception. The proposed film of the flight should make interesting viewing. One imagines there will be numerous air to air shots of the Stearman over various scenic backgrounds - showing two people on board ? Unless Ewald has been digitally enhanced out of existence.
What matters most is whether there is an attempt to perpetuate or reinvent the deception. The proposed film of the flight should make interesting viewing. One imagines there will be numerous air to air shots of the Stearman over various scenic backgrounds - showing two people on board ? Unless Ewald has been digitally enhanced out of existence.
Canute, I do see where you are coming from on this and sackcloth and beaten is not the aim, nor should it be. However, it goes beyond a simple case of a risk taker telling tales.
We are talking about an event that involves millions of pounds in sponsorship, it draws in the Royal Family, it undermines every single person that has attempted to do similar feats, it undermines every honourary award issued and blackens the whole aviation community (Pilots/ATCOs/Engineers).
And for what? To fund some bird's flight of fancy. (I feel I can use that derogatory term as it is how she portrays herself).
There will be many on here who will take umbrage at your "who cares if she wears RAF wings" - I'll tell you who SHOULD care, and that is every single pilot who has earned the right to wear them. The point is pilots do know about this but the public do not, like it or not she is held in the same light as you.
The low-flying, airspace busts, and general disregard for authority are secondary issues but they highlight her attitude to aviation in general. They do also highlight that her versions of events are at best stretched truth-wise, at worst downright lies to avoid further investigation.
She has had two (that we know of) close calls, the third will come and she may not be so lucky.
I (we) have given her plenty of chances to come clean and regain some respect but she doesn't. She just redirects the blame onto a third party, be that a former team member, the press, aviation groups, or black ATCOs.
I accept that opinion will be divided on this and everyone is entitled to their opinion
We are talking about an event that involves millions of pounds in sponsorship, it draws in the Royal Family, it undermines every single person that has attempted to do similar feats, it undermines every honourary award issued and blackens the whole aviation community (Pilots/ATCOs/Engineers).
And for what? To fund some bird's flight of fancy. (I feel I can use that derogatory term as it is how she portrays herself).
There will be many on here who will take umbrage at your "who cares if she wears RAF wings" - I'll tell you who SHOULD care, and that is every single pilot who has earned the right to wear them. The point is pilots do know about this but the public do not, like it or not she is held in the same light as you.
The low-flying, airspace busts, and general disregard for authority are secondary issues but they highlight her attitude to aviation in general. They do also highlight that her versions of events are at best stretched truth-wise, at worst downright lies to avoid further investigation.
She has had two (that we know of) close calls, the third will come and she may not be so lucky.
I (we) have given her plenty of chances to come clean and regain some respect but she doesn't. She just redirects the blame onto a third party, be that a former team member, the press, aviation groups, or black ATCOs.
I accept that opinion will be divided on this and everyone is entitled to their opinion
Canute, it's not just about her. By calling herself a "bird" she has denigrated female pilots everywhere and made us all look like silly little things who can't do anything ourselves.
I'm sure some of the Waltishness could have been overlooked if she had, say, raised money for charity or scholarships but it was all about her and her sponsors. Listening to a motivational speaker and having your pic taken with royal mates doesn't pay for lessons like a scholarship does.
I'm sure some of the Waltishness could have been overlooked if she had, say, raised money for charity or scholarships but it was all about her and her sponsors. Listening to a motivational speaker and having your pic taken with royal mates doesn't pay for lessons like a scholarship does.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Bath
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless Ewald has been digitally enhanced out of existence.
If that were to happen, I'm guessing the deceitful misrepresentations would get driven to the dock even faster.
Bear in mind, the SOLO claim was only made at the outset before some in-house minor changes.
If that were to happen, I'm guessing the deceitful misrepresentations would get driven to the dock even faster.
Bear in mind, the SOLO claim was only made at the outset before some in-house minor changes.
Oh and when it comes to 'courage" seeing her wear those wings as if she has the same right to wear them as people like my uncle who flew Lysanders over enemy lines at night with just the moon to navigate by, perhaps we'll see her with the DSO and bar and the DFC soon?
I would say all these things to her face if she was here.
canute she has insulted a lot of people.
I would say all these things to her face if she was here.
canute she has insulted a lot of people.
Guest
Posts: n/a
When everybody thought she was great and not fibbing, I heard nobody complaining about her describing herself as a bird. Not a single complaint about the denigration of the fair gender. It was just considered to be self-deprecation on her part.
Now that she has annoyed everybody, people are scouring around looking for reasons to hate her more.
There is no reason to hate her at all.
She hurt nobody.
All that happened is that she got undeserved adulation and respect.
Neither of these are finite quantities. Nobody else lost theirs because of her.
The adulation and respect are gone. Job done.
I posed a few pages back about reading Jon Ronson's book about Public shaming. I highly recommend reading it. (don't care if you buy it, feel free to get it off a torrent) It might make some reconsider their actions.
Forgive the slight diversion, but the much missed Coffman Starter partly answered the question about PMK here in 2013. - Archimedes
Much obliged Archimedes, both to you and the greatly missed Coff in absentia, for the enlightenment. Interesting to note that HRH Prince Michael was barely out of Sandhurst at the time, aged 20, and that he is not shown in Army Lists as either "pl" or "ph", which does indeed seem to suggest a less than full course of Service flying training.
By contrast, I'm quite taken by the fact that HRH The Duke of Cambridge resolutely only wears RAF wings when in either RAF or Army uniform, but never AFAIK in naval uniform when worn after becoming fully qualified on a shared type of aircraft.
Jack
Much obliged Archimedes, both to you and the greatly missed Coff in absentia, for the enlightenment. Interesting to note that HRH Prince Michael was barely out of Sandhurst at the time, aged 20, and that he is not shown in Army Lists as either "pl" or "ph", which does indeed seem to suggest a less than full course of Service flying training.
By contrast, I'm quite taken by the fact that HRH The Duke of Cambridge resolutely only wears RAF wings when in either RAF or Army uniform, but never AFAIK in naval uniform when worn after becoming fully qualified on a shared type of aircraft.
Jack
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere nice
Age: 51
Posts: 213
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canute
I don't think people really hate her: I certainly don't. I do think she is making the situation worse for herself by continuing to try to spin the facts - which do seem to be very well documented - to paint herself as blameless and misunderstood.
If she would just stand up and own up, people would probably accept that and everyone could just move on. Of course, the longer it takes for her to do that, the harder it gets.
On the specific of the RAF wings: it's not just those who have earned them who object. I have not earned them and therefore would never wear them; but, as I have posted before here, I have shared a cockpit with several veterans who did do so in harder and more dangerous circumstances than I, you or Miss Curtis-Taylor can imagine; and I find it offensive that anyone could pretend to belong to the same class of aviator as them.
I don't think that to be unreasonable, nor that I am alone in that sentiment.
I don't think people really hate her: I certainly don't. I do think she is making the situation worse for herself by continuing to try to spin the facts - which do seem to be very well documented - to paint herself as blameless and misunderstood.
If she would just stand up and own up, people would probably accept that and everyone could just move on. Of course, the longer it takes for her to do that, the harder it gets.
On the specific of the RAF wings: it's not just those who have earned them who object. I have not earned them and therefore would never wear them; but, as I have posted before here, I have shared a cockpit with several veterans who did do so in harder and more dangerous circumstances than I, you or Miss Curtis-Taylor can imagine; and I find it offensive that anyone could pretend to belong to the same class of aviator as them.
I don't think that to be unreasonable, nor that I am alone in that sentiment.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Bath
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know rugmuncher. I was doing a 'TCT'. 
She is clearly a liar, but in a circle who relish that type of 'outreach deceit' 'inspirational' & 'risk-taking' qualities.
That said, much has to be said for gross misrepresentation. It can actually produce awards and provide a nice lucrative income [if you happen to know the right people].
She is clearly a liar, but in a circle who relish that type of 'outreach deceit' 'inspirational' & 'risk-taking' qualities.
That said, much has to be said for gross misrepresentation. It can actually produce awards and provide a nice lucrative income [if you happen to know the right people].
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Jonzarno put it most aptly. I don't think any decent human being would hate another. It's the naughty things she's said and done that people find so offensive. I try very hard to live by JC's words; he that is without sin cast the first stone but I can see how a type of hatred can build up in otherwise decent, honest and truthful people who read of TCT's exploits.
Guest
Posts: n/a
On the specific of the RAF wings: it's not just those who have earned them who object. I have not earned them and therefore would never wear them; but, as I have posted before here, I have shared a cockpit with several veterans who did do so in harder and more dangerous circumstances than I, you or Miss Curtis-Taylor can imagine; and I find it offensive that anyone could pretend to belong to the same class of aviator as them.
I don't think that to be unreasonable, nor that I am alone in that sentiment.
I don't think that to be unreasonable, nor that I am alone in that sentiment.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If hatred is not what I am reading here, then I hate to think what some of you would do to someone you actually hated.
She is a bullsh1tter. A successful one. Nothing more.
She's not a paedophile or rapist.
I think perhaps some have got carried away as if this is some sort of game. A whodunit quest. This is a real person who has hurt nobody.
Did she deserve to be outed?
Oh god yes.
The rest....?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I disagree. There is nothing simulated, self- or otherwise, about how I feel. I'm sorry that you can not understand this.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canute
Yes, I misread what you wrote. But I'm afraid I still don't agree with you.
My objection to what she is doing by wearing those wings is entirely justifiable in light of what I know at first hand from people who really have earned them.
If don't care about that, that is your privilege and I respect it even if I think you are wrong, but equally please don't criticise me for exercising mine.
I suggest that we agree to differ
Yes, I misread what you wrote. But I'm afraid I still don't agree with you.
My objection to what she is doing by wearing those wings is entirely justifiable in light of what I know at first hand from people who really have earned them.
If don't care about that, that is your privilege and I respect it even if I think you are wrong, but equally please don't criticise me for exercising mine.
I suggest that we agree to differ
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think those female pilots in this neck of the planet are the most angry of all over her outright fraud, as one said to me ,"This sort of shit puts us back fifty years, I hope I don't see her on my aircraft!" Its not about whether she is a child molester, its about the total breach of trust and deception of those who make a GENUINE living in aviation. She and her cohorts be they royalty or senior officers, deserve to be exposed for what they are, at the least bloody fools, at the worst cheats, and thieves of the worst kind. If this mess is not exposed in all the media it has been published in as the gospel truth then we can expect of repeats of such nonsense in the future of "Lindbergh was the first to fly the Atlantic" which is guaranteed to piss of Brits no end. The only positive thing to come out of this is it might get the media folks a little more attentive in checking facts before repeating such nonsense as facts!
