As this thread seems once again to be broadening into discussion of things other than the basic facts of what Ms Curtis-Taylor did or didn’t do: I’d like to make the point that this actually helps her to hide from the justified criticisms and simple questions that she continues to refuse to address.

Firstly, she can rely on anyone coming to the thread not being prepared to wade through the thousands of posts here.

Secondly, she can, and already does, use the ad-hominem posts that attack her personally her as “proof” of her claims that she is being trolled here.

I have a suggestion. Given that there is reasonably free speech here on PPrune, and people obviously want to continue venting at her, I think it would be a good idea to put all the reasoned questions she has been asked here, and any new ones, into a separate thread.

Obviously, people should be asked not to post anything else to it, and the Mods should enforce that (less really is more in this case!) and, as Saab Dastard has already asked, all of the questions and any posts should be couched in moderate language and stick rigidly to the facts. At the same time, this thread could continue as a vehicle for people to discuss other aspects of the case.

Ms Curtis-Taylor could be advised of the new thread’s existence, the reason for it being set up separately from this one, and asked to respond.

Those attending the LAA meeting, or voting by proxy, can then draw upon her answers, or lack of them, in making their arguments in any discussion there and in deciding how to vote.

My £.02

Sorry, I meant in terms of the LAA member bios, not wiki, who writes the LAA member bios?

Well, I would have thought that the existence of the thread I suggested could be made known to the meeting together with a clear statement that Ms Curtis-Taylor has been made aware of it and any answers or lack of them. I don’t see how doing that allows that meeting to “descend into total disruption”.

Surely it’s better for people to make their minds up based on some objective facts rather than the invective that has flowed in both directions over the last couple of years?

Well folks there you have it, from the horses mouth, she done 100% of the flying, the sole pilot, alone, PIC, flight commander, sol,,,, Er singlehanded!

Well done that woman.

Apparently not, according to the hours reported to the FAA in the wake of the Winslow “fuel contamination incident “.

Point of order.

TCT’s elves that hover over her Wiki page have gone to great lengths to point out that the NTSB report did not identify fuel contamination, this despite TCT herself having stated that it was.

These are of course the same PR elves, part of the claque, who argue that media quotes of TCT saying that she was “sole” pilot and the Herne Bay video should not be referred to on Wiki as they contradict each other.

Chris, the point I’m trying to make with my suggestion is that it puts Ms Curtis-Taylor and her team on the spot and nails them to answering specific factual questions rather than arguing that it’s all “a witch hunt”.

I think it is important that those who would deny her the award, if that is justified, should do so on the basis of fact and from the moral high ground. At the moment, the weight of argument as expressed in this thread is overwhelmingly critical of her attitude, behaviour and personality rather than seeking answers to the specific factual assertions that form the questions that lie at the heart of this issue, but to which she still provides no answer.

As I said in my earlier post: it is easy for her to hide behind the huge volume of posts that don’t pursue the facts.

My suggestion was intended to reverse that and focus a bright and direct light on those factual issues and ensure that they are the main basis for the decision because you can’t really bullish!t the answers to them: they are, as it says on the tin, matters of fact.

If we do as I suggest, they have three choices:

1. They answer the questions and convince the meeting that they are right.

In that case they deserve the award and it should be returned.

Of course they might use this channel to present what I believe are called “alternative facts” and people can judge them on those once they have stopped laughing.

2. They apologise for having “unintentionally” misled everyone and accept that the award won’t be returned.

In that case, they don’t get the award back, but at least they regain some respect from those of us who are big enough to accept such an apology and move on (I certainly would be happy to do that!).

3. They don’t reply.

In that case, the meeting should draw its own conclusions. For me, failing to reply either demonstrates a contempt for the LAA or is a tacit admission that the allegations are correct. In either case the award would not be returned and any press reaction would be countered by a simple response setting out what was done and why, together with the fact that they ignored it.

That focusses the attention clearly on the facts of the case and is more likely to end up with a just outcome than the alternative which is to go into the meeting with the thread unchanged, have her claim that she is being trolled citing the myriad posts here, many of which are ad hominem attacks, and give her a great screen behind which she can hide.

It also avoids any negative press reaction as they can hardly play the injured party if they have been given the chance to respond and have spurned it.

I’ll close this post with a request that those supporting the idea say so, or if people don’t support it say that and say why. I’d also be grateful for a “sign from above” if starting another thread in this saga along the lines I suggest would be acceptable to the Mods and if they are happy to police it as I originally suggested.

One post in a locked thread called Questions for TCT, brief and pointed questions that are numbered. No waffle, no bs, no opinions. Make it easy to find and read.

Yes! But give her the chance to respond to it by contacting a Mod.