greeners

Absolutely spot on!

Midlifec

nickswebs

Hi everybodyApparently I’m only allowed to make 5 posts in 24 hours so I have to consolidate my replies into a single response. Hopefully this will be acceptable but please don’t hesitate to let me know if there are any points that you feel I haven’t covered.To: arketip ( #4165)
Q. Did you write her speech too, with the "solo" word?
A. No, I didn’t
Q. Did you create the sides too, with the "alone in the cockpit" words?
A. If it’s on the website then I probably did
Q. Is she "pretty horrified" enough to sue you for all the damage you caused?
A .I hope not, but we have a good relationship so I think it’s pretty unlikely To: Chris Martyr ( #4164)
Q. Let us just try to see through 'website boy' shall we. He has obviously been sent in to 'stir things up a bit'
A. No, my involvement is completely my own. I just don’t like bullies. Do you?To: Jonzarno (#4163)
Q. You seem to be having a go at lots of other posters here: why haven’t you insulted me? I’m feeling left out.....
A. Sorry, I didn’t realise that you were involved. Who are you and what do you want to know?To: megan (#4162)
Q. Prior to making the above post I cast an eye over Nick Adams web site. Since then when I turn on the relevant computer I am unable to launch any of my browsers (Firefox and Edge). Is this a tactic TCT has now resorted to? How is it done? Coincidental events?
A. I wish I was that clever. Don’t be paranoid. If you can drop your laptop round then I could probably fix it but I see your location is “Location: N/A” and I don’t know whether or not that’s close to Western Australia. p.s. I fix laptops for nothing for nice people – do you qualify?Q. why did she use the word on the Herne Bay video? It's a simple question which should have a simple answer.
A. Sorry, I don’t know. How could I? I’m just a humble webperson . . . To: Heli (#4160)
Q. nickswebs.com has this testimonial for someone’s jewellery site
A. Guilty as charged! I built an earlier website for Tracey. Sorry.To: Sam Rutherford ( #4143)
Q. Anyone else either on that train, or thinking of climbing aboard - you may wish to reconsider. There's no happy ending for this one, it's headed for the wall and it's going to be nasty.
A. To be honest I’m not sure how to take this. It seems like an implied threat but of course, I may be mistaken. Please would you publicly clarify whether or not it is and if so, maybe you could be more explicit?To: Midlifec (#4169)
Q. Dear Nick, I think you’ll find that it’s the “adverse consequences of speaking the truth” on Tracey’s part that have brought this whole sad affair to where it is.
A. Sorry Mid Life if that was not clear – my reply referred to the point from “SATCOS WHIPPING BOY ” (sic) in which he opined that “. . Nick, you have just shot yourself and your web-building business well and truly in the foot. Do you think anyone is going to trust your business ever again? Your little gaff has had serious consequences.” My reply was intended to say that I couldn’t care less because my personal values of honesty and integrity were far more important than my global website operation. If I don’t get any more clients as a result then so be it. Hopefully that covers the most recent questions and comments but please don’t hesitate to let me know if there are any points that you feel are not covered.

Sam Rutherford

Q. Anyone else either on that train, or thinking of climbing aboard - you may wish to reconsider. There's no happy ending for this one, it's headed for the wall and it's going to be nasty.
A. To be honest I’m not sure how to take this. It seems like an implied threat but of course, I may be mistaken. Please would you publicly clarify whether or not it is and if so, maybe you could be more explicit?

Not a threat at all, and I still don't read my words that way.

My view is simply that there is no happy ending on this one - and thus my advice that forewarned is forearmed before you, or anyone else, attach yourselves to it. After that, we're all adults so fill your boots!

I was actually ON the Africa trip, I was there - as you probably know. I KNOW (not hearsay or rumour) everything about this whole sorry saga - and I KNOW what is and isn't true.

I’m afraid that there is only ONE person responsible for anything/everything from now on, and that is Tracey. As of a month ago, the story was dead (long overdue). Completely gone, and quickly forgotten. No more posts, no more nastiness – finished.

There is only one reason that the thread has been re-opened, the vitriol released – and that is Tracey’s decision to go back to the LAA and get The The Times to write a puff-piece about it (it even ends with a link to her film trailer??!!).

So, I’m afraid, whilst I had some sympathy in the past for the treatment she has received, I have NONE now. The fire was dying embers, she added the petrol all by herself (solo).

There’s nobody else to point at, nobody else to blame, it’s not someone else’s fault. An enormous error of judgement – as five minutes on any forum will demonstrate clearly. Even her supporters are wondering why she wanted to bring this all up again.

nickswebs

Jonzarno

Pilot DAR

Nick, your willingness to address people's questions is admirable, and although we don't expect everyone to agree all the time, the discussion is good. As can be seen from the discussion (though yes, it's a long one now!), many pilots have been offended with what appears to be repeated attempts by Ms. Curtis-Taylor to steer the perception of events toward advancing her image. Essentially, taking credit, where credit may not be due. Though to a non pilot this may not seem too serious, to those who have earned the privilege of calling themselves a pilot, or member of the military, it is important. Thus, you could be forgiven for following along unknowingly in some embellishment, but Ms. Curtis-Taylor should be more acquainted with perception. Certainly after the protracted discussion here, and requests for Ms. Curtis-Taylor to come forward and make things right, she knows that there is a problem she could make right with a portion of the aviation community. Your defending against perceived bullying is admirable, and be assured, the mods are watching this thread carefully, and bullying will not be tolerated. Good discussion about worthy points of concern, however, is welcomed.

Ms. Curtis-Taylor has much greater publicity since her Stearman flights, than before. It is obvious that she sought out that publicity - repeatedly. Was the end result publicity what she wanted? That's up to her to decide, perhaps based upon her sense of the desirability of good vs not so good publicity, but in any case, Ms. Curtis-Taylor is much more widely known now! I had closed this thread some time back, as, at that time, there was little reason to allow it to continue. The whole situation could have quietly drifted unresolved into people's distant memories. But it seems that Ms. Curtis-Taylor acted recently to attract more publicity, and reopen discussion. That action, is, in and of itself, discussion worthy, and there's lots of background material.

Nick, your discussion points are welcomed, and I'll hope that the other participants here will keep in mid your perspective, as you consider theirs!

For those who are pleased to have a working relationship with Ms. Curtis-Taylor, of course, enjoy that relationship! For those who have unresolved concerns about truth in promotion, and how that could affect the future image of a sector of aviation, discussion is fair....

Sam Rutherford

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...20your%20boots

Midlifec

Right Hand Thread

Cazalet33

The adverse consequences are a result of her not telling the truth, Nick.

She lied and lied and lied.

It wasn't only the bogus "solo" trip through Africa.

It wasn't only the bogus "solo" trip to Oz.

It wasn't only the bogus "solo" trip across the US.

It wasn't only the bogus claim to have flown that Stearman (either of them, though that's another matter) around the world.

It was about accepting the plaudits and medals which were showered upon her by gullible people while she knew that it was all bullsheet.

It was about her lying and denying her own bullsheet.

It was about deceitfulness. It was about a spectacular failing of personal integrity.

farsouth

piperboy84

B Fraser

Hello Nick,

I do not believe that the presentation is on TCTs website although I may be wrong. If you did write those words then you would probably have remembered TCT "being horrified" and requesting that you change them without delay. As the unfortunate photo shows, she appeared to be quite happy delivering those words so what are we to conclude ? Editing powerpoint only takes a moment and I'm sure as an IT professional, you will agree that she could have sorted it out herself.

I presume that you did not write the press releases that caused newspapers around the globe to repeat the almighty whopper. You have to ask "how did such an almighty mistake get repeated time, time and time again ?". I can't imagine for a moment that TCT failed to read all news articles and magazine features. After all, there were many hours to while away sitting in a comfy seat on an airliner or waiting for better weather.

Similarly, I presume that you did not write the Wikipedia pages that went uncorrected for years. Are we to expect another fall-guy to step forward ?

addendum....

It seems that sponsors were being duped as well. I doubt that any hard nosed business would part with cash unless they were very clearly informed as to what they were getting. ExecuJet clearly thought they were supporting a solo venture. As their business is aviation, there is little chance that they do not understand the meaning of the word.

https://xtoday.news/en/2015/10/execu...lo-expedition/

hoodie

Seems to me that if there have been then this is essential information for the LAA membership to know about in advance of the AGM and any vote.

If that info is held back, but it affects the presentation of the motion or the outcome of any vote, and it is subsequently revealed then the consequences for the LAA committee would be dire.

I can see nothing good for the LAA coming from opening all this again after it was legitimately dealt with in 2016.

Danny42C

farsouth (#4172),

Did my first 60 hours on the Stearman (Us PT-17) as my Primary Trainer in the U.S.A.A.C in 1941 (under the "Arnold" Scheme for RAF LACs). It had full dual controls in both cockpits. Only difference was in the panel - they'd taken our ASIs out of the rear (student) cockpits, so we could learn to fly "by the seat of our pants". As none of us had flown before, we felt no pain (what you've never had, you never miss), so we thought all aircraft were flown like that.

Don't know what T.C-T. means: you would have to ask her, I'm afraid.

The (Boeing) Stearman was simple, very strong, and easy to fly. Like its contemporary, the Tiger Moth, it will go on flying for ever. Did you read the "Times" blurb about a rough, tough, "he-man's" aircraft ? - All baloney !

Danny.

clareprop

As you will see from above, the same thing is happening as it did with the last supporter of Ms Curtis-Taylor - answers and comments to everything other than the core questions outlined in previous posts. The reality is that there will never be a an answer to those questions because they refer to evidence that is obviously proof of intention to deceive. Mr Adams et al have of course seen the press releases, the presentations and watched the video and will have formed exactly the same opinion as everyone else. The difference is that while we are claiming that it is cast-iron proof, they will be trying to bury it, ignore it or expunge it from the consciousness of their supporters. All that can be hoped is that a responsible third party in the media picks up the story and writes a balanced article where Ms Curtis-Taylor is offered the opportunity to respond directly to the claims.

Pilot DAR

The Stearman I have flown (from the front) had controls and instruments in both cockpits sufficient for VFR flight from either cockpit. I'm sure that Stearmans differ across the production range, but... If I were the umpteen thousand hour ATPL instructor, who was also in charge of building up the aircraft, to ride front cockpit to the the lesser experience solo pilot in the back, I'd certainly be assuring that there were full dual controls and instruments in the front - Just in case of a rough running engine in Winslow, or some such challenging situation! I would be very surprised to learn that this particular Stearman could not be flown equally well from the front or rear cockpits.

DownWest

The Stearman is/was a basic trainer, so has, as standard, all the flight controls duplicated in both cockpits. Apart from that, I doubt that a high time commercial pilot and owner of the a/craft would want to sit in with no chance to correct a low time private pilot's possible errors. I suppose he could just do the Nav.... though there might have been insurance considerations after the early parts of the first SA flight.

Looking at the CV of the Times journalist, it appears he is a pilot too. Which makes the article even more surprizing.

OOPs, My slow typing and distractions got me in after Pilot Dar with the same ideas.

strake

With reference to limited flying controls, there's a selection of Stearman's shown on Ewald's site. I'm no expert on the type and maybe the aircraft in question is different, but all shown here clearly have dual controls:

Boeing Stearman