Danny42C

clunckdriver,
"Never let the facts spoil a good story" is, and always will be, the motivation of the hack journalist.

D.

Best way to read this Thread is (IMHO) to treat it as entertainment - sit back and enjoy !

9 lives

Page 133 has some good thinking points, and I have thought about them, again...

I agree, she has not overtly assaulted a person in a criminal way, and is not deserving of "hard time", but,

Uh, no. She defrauded otherwise well intentioned (if poor researching) people and organizations. If you peel back the smiles, event tents, and wine glasses from that, perhaps there could be a case for a criminal charge. White collar crime. I believe that falsely wearing military uniform/insignia could actually be a crime (it was successfully prosecuted in Canada in recent memory).

Citizens who know "the rules" are entitled to be outraged, when society's laws are assaulted - they're our laws! Wise ancestors decided in public venues that our society does not want to tolerate that kind of behaviour - they enacted laws against it. Society has a right (we pilots, and those who are/were military people) to object, and to not just blow it off, 'cause enough has been said.

It's not about the stocks in the town square (though a few hundred years ago it might have been), but our laws have reasoned penalties associated with the offense - beginning with "declare that you understand you must not do that, and stop doing it!".

I have not observed as much as a 10% from TCT that she realizes that she did wrong, and wants to make it right.

There is a fair and delicate balance to prevent a lynch mob. TCT has a right to not be lynched, or fearful of it - we are civilized. But, TCT has to realize that a very many entitled people (pilots and military) are very offended by what she has done, repeatedly, and apparently with no shame whatever. Those entitled pilots and military people have a right to expect society's support (or at least tolerance) while they pursue it being make right, and responsibility taken.

As for seeking/receiving money on false pretenses? That's not my area of expertise, but it sure looks fishy to me!

fwjc

I agree with much of what Canute is saying. There is some vitriol in here which isn't becoming and neither is it proportionate to the wrongdoings that we all feel have been carried out by TCT. The fact that she continues to perpetuate these with her continued spin doesn't help.

But I can categorically state that while TCT has messed up, I don't hate her. I actually like her as a person. My main feelings are of disappointment, sadness and betrayal.

Her behaviour has been unprofessional, her spin has continued to levels which only serve to show how much she has messed up. And as a prominent female pilot, her attitude and continued deceit has given the rest of the female pilot population a lot of ground to make back.

A while ago a prominent female pilot landed a vintage warbird wheels up. Her immediate response: "I messed up. And this is how I messed up" - followed by an examination of the human factors that contributed to her unfortunate mistake. In the small vintage airshow industry, that integrity and honesty gains far more kudos than smoke and mirrors and blaming everything and every one but yourself.

It's a shame that none of the outreach activities claimed by TCT are pictured or documented on her website. If even a few pictures and descriptions of these "Outreach" and "STEM promotion" were to be published, it would probably help.

It's also obvious why none of the display flying she claims she undertook as a "Shuttleworth Pilot" is pictured on her website. Instead there are pictures of her with various beautiful aeroplanes that she hasn't flown. Again, if she were to show the truth of her connection with the Collection, it wouldn't do her any harm.

I hope that CV's flight is carried out with dignity and honesty, and that the outreach opportunities are maximised and documented so we can see for ourselves the excellent work that I am sure CV can do.

So, from my own perspective, it's not hatred. Just disappointment and sadness.

It would be great to achieve a resolution on the matter of the wearing of the RAF wings. And after that I would leave her to sue the parties she claims have damaged her. That is when the whole situation will be sorted, as the truth will come out and be judged fairly.

Above The Clouds

With all the fore roar regarding the wearing of RAF wings, has anyone for one moment actually considered they maybe only there for advertising along with the other sponsors badges on her grow bag.



She doesn't wear any wings when in the official uniform of the RNR.



Equally comments in the media, changes to her wiki page are almost certainly being made by the PR team and not directly by TC-T herself, has anyone thought maybe she is not in control of the PR team as they are there to make money and TC-T could be a pawn in an otherwise money making machine hence no public comment from TC-T other than on a Facebook page and website that she probably doesn't edit or control.

Maybe a time for reflection.



.

Jonzarno

ATC

I have to say that didn't occur to me: so I Googled "RAF sponsorship logo" and don't think that this theory holds up.

BEagle

Even when I joined the RAF in the late '60s, it was quite normal for RAFC flight cadets to buy gilt metal RAF 'sweetheart' brooches for their girl friend / wife / mother (hopefully not all the same person, except perhaps in Norfolk).

So if some RAF friend had given her one, that would have been fair eno...

Perhaps I should rephrase that. If some RAF friend had given her a sweetheart brooch, that would have been fine by me. But the RAF flying badge she's wearing in all those Alice Cooper lookalike toothpaste adverts is totally inappropriate and she should remove it.

B Fraser

Many a word spoken in jest Mr BEagle !


Why is she wearing a uniform at all ? Who gave it to her ? Mrs F is an Hon Lt Cmdr and will never attempt to impersonate someone who has earned the rank.

Above The Clouds

If I remember correctly the original concept for the TC-T flight to Australia was a re-enactment of the flight under taken by Amy Johnson in 1930.


Do we get our knickers in such a twist when people re-enact other known historical events as in the picture below were obviously the RAF wings worn were not earned.






.

Good Business Sense

You know I just keep thinking ................ if Ewald wasn't in the aircraft with her there would be no problem ........ why did he have to be there ? Why did he not ride in the other aircraft ?

When she was warned about it mid "expedition" why not take him out of the front seat rather than stop calling it a solo flight ????

.... they obviously couldn't take him out for some reason!

pulse1

I must admit that, for some time now, I have been worried that the delving into the minutiae of TCT's life and flight details are giving her PR team the opportunity to do what they are very good at. As soon as it suits them, they will present the posters on this thread as desperate, angry losers who are having to scrape the barrel to find anything to justify their attempts to destroy the reputation of TCT. It gives them the opportunity to dismiss the real issues for which there is ample solid evidence already on this thread.

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

No, because they are not trying to persuade anyone that they are actually military personnel or indeed qualified pilots.

TCT is a pilot, her wearing RAF wings has a whole new meaning. It suggests she is an RAF (trained) pilot.

Earlier images show the wings on her right collar:Fine and dandy in my opinion, but once they migrated to her chest then the deception started. For me there is an intent to mislead.

Pulse1, again I hear what you are saying but it is the deception from day 1 and the reasons for the change to non-solo-but-let's-not-tell-anyone attitude that we are trying to get to the bottom of. We have her in her own words pushing the SOLO flight long after she knew it wasn't. No matter how good her PR team are, they cannot argue with what is on film.

The additional info that some have spoken about, myself included, just reinforces the fantasy she has built around herself to the point I really think she believes it.

Above The Clouds

I am sorry SWB but just because someone wears RAF wings on a blue grow bag in my mind does not imply or suggest to me they were RAF trained.

Now if she turned out in a full RAF uniform or a green grow bag wearing rank insignia sporting the same wings that would present a different image.

But actually when she does wear a green grow bag there are no wings to be seen.





.

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

That surprises me ATC.
I think there are many (a majority perhaps) that would disagree. Growbags come in many colours, military wings are distinctive, add th etwo together on someone who flies is it my fault for misunderstanding or their fault for giving a wrong impression?

Stanwell

And..
Add that to her claim that she was trained by military pilots in NZ (since shown to be a gross stretching of the truth) and what have you got?

hugh flung_dung

I couldn't resist the urge to come back and see whether the discussion had become a bit more sensible but, from a quick scan, it still seems to be bordering on the hysterical in some quarters. I agree with Canute and Pulse1 that the "Alice Cooper lookalike" (BEagle ) appears to have done much that is wrong and annoying (although even I am guilty of those sins at certain times ) but the relevant facts have already been unearthed so everything else is noise. Perhaps some people here should "take a chill pill" (as my kids would tell me in their teens) and find something more productive to do with their time.
That's it from me until I next have an irresistible urge to check-up on whether a more sober debate has developed.

HFD

PDR1

And I would say they would probably have a point. I think people are getting rather carried away with sanctimneous wankage here.

I had a set of those wings on my flying overalls even though I was just a lowly PPL. My girlfriend of the time gave them to me - she bought them from the giftshop at (IIRC) Hendon. Beneath these wings was a set of paratrouper wings (from a gift shop at one of the Normandy beaches), vaguely "justfied" by a few jumps as an air cadet and one charity jump. I also had an ETPS shoulder patch which someone got me from the giftshop at Boscombe. The ETPS batdge was transfered to my model flying jacket after I let my PPL lapse, and it's still there.

I'm fairly sure that they aren't absolutely identical with the "real things", but the wings she's wearing look more like the ones I had than the ones on the RAF uniforms/flying-kit I used to regularly see before the 2010 SDSR.

The RAF sell these badges as souvenirs to anyone who comes up with the requisite dosh - so I really don't think anyone can start whining when people who buy them actually start wearing them.

I really am begining to wonder if there is only a tiny grain of justified complaint here which this thread is wrapping in a king-sized container of mysoginistic twaddle. It's unprofessional, unseemly and ungentlemanly.

£0.02 supplied, YMMV,

PDR

Reverserbucket

But she states that she was military trained and in my eyes the wings therefore imply an affiliation to the Royal Air Force when in fact there is none. I doubt the re-enactors shown in the earlier image suggest that they may in fact be aircrew or imply they are in some way qualified any more than actors in a film playing the part of a uniformed member of the armed forces or other profession.

I'm curious about the Great Britain Campaign sponsorship depicted on the aircraft, and indeed the image that was used of her waving that I used to see at LHR and that's used as the banner of her Twitter homepage. Why is there no reference I can find on the visitbritain.com site to her or anywhere else of any affiliation between her and the campaign other than on her own site? The aircraft is adorned with the Union Flag logos and, as said, until recently, there were large images of her on Visit Britain advertising at Heathrow (Tim Peake is still up I believe, although haven't seen her in a while). Why does she wear RAF wings amongst her collection of sponsorship trinkets yet no Union Flag anywhere on her flying overalls? (I see the image A T C has posted of her green ones but that's not a common one is it? Or, at least it wasn't).

Will she be showing her support for the Royal Navy and Royal Marine Charities by attending any Remembrance Day observance this Sunday in her capacity as an Honorary Lieutenant Commander in the Royal Navy Reserve I wonder, perhaps as part of her outreach programme?

I have little doubt that she is manipulated to a certain extent by her PR team in the interests of the sponsors but I have no sympathy for her. She may well be somewhat naïve but I doubt she is ignorant to what she has done and there is a real sense of arrogance about her that I find wholly distasteful. She has reminded me of someone for a long time now but I couldn't quite think who until today. Anyone familiar with the 2009 Disney film 'Up' will recall the character of Charles Muntz, the idolised explorer in the airship who turns out to be not what he seems...

Chris Scott

Quote from Canute (my emphasis):
"All that happened is that she got undeserved adulation and respect.
Neither of these are finite quantities. Nobody else lost theirs because of her."

No, but she may have deprived others of the chance to obtain sponsorship for more authentic reenactments of pioneering flights. For example, brakedwell and others will remember Amanda Harrison's attempt to fund a genuinely solo flight to Australia in a Tiger Moth:

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post9151101

Quote from Canute:
"She is a bullsh1tter. A successful one. Nothing more."

Surely she and her team must have recognised some time ago that the game was up. Then the whole truth should have been told, together with some kind of limited acknowledgment of the failure to inform the media of the abandonment of the solo plan. That would have taken the wind out of our sails on PPRuNe! In not doing so, on the other hand, she continues bringing into disrepute light aviation in general, and British women pilots in particular.

It should be no disgrace that her flying skills are allegedly less remarkable than her talents as an articulate and entertaining public speaker, and her evident potential as a photogenic TV presenter. Had she adopted the latter role, acknowledging Ewald Gritsch as her co-pilot/instructor and giving due credit to him and the support team, she could have guided us viewers through her two journeys while contrasting the inspiring tales of her forbears' experiences - rather like Ray Mears has done on foot in remote parts of the world.

Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that the above role would have satisfied her overriding ambition. One is left with the impression that it's about her; not Mary Heath and Amy Johnson.

overstress

PDR1, you are entitled to your opinion, as someone who was awarded the RAF flying badge, it offends me (and probably 99% of my colleagues) when someone not entitled wears it, although I can see how you ended up with it on your overalls. They should only be worn if you passed the appropriate course.

You would make an exception for films, re-enactments, etc, but swanning around with them when not entitled is not the done thing.

AP1358 states:

overstress

Meldex, you can buy a kitchen knife on Amazon, but it's illegal to wander around in public with it....