Tracey Curtis-Taylor (Merged threads)
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonzarno.
If it makes you happy and the mods agree then by all means go ahead with a separate thread of questions. Yes, TCT’s PR team will see them as they are monitoring this forum as they do others however as Chris Martyr says they won’t respond.
If it makes you happy and the mods agree then by all means go ahead with a separate thread of questions. Yes, TCT’s PR team will see them as they are monitoring this forum as they do others however as Chris Martyr says they won’t respond.
Tabs please !
I really must add a lot of 747 time to my logbook if having a snooze can be counted.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Horsted Keynes, West Sussex.
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies JZ , I was under the impression that you meant one of those private threads like the airline ones , in which you would need a code to access it . [ RTFQ Chris ]
In the cold light of day , I can now see what you mean and agree entirely .
So, + 1 .
But give her the chance to respond to it by contacting a Mod.In the cold light of day , I can now see what you mean and agree entirely .
So, + 1 .
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that that is one possible outcome, perhaps even the most probable one. But if that is what does happen, they will only have themselves to blame if the LAA draws the conclusion I indicated in my post.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
A) she will not reply
B) she can still cite the occasionally intemperate criticism in this giant thread but ignore all the well presented and researched argument in it!
The only way to stop the award being re-instated is to win the vote at the LAA AGM.
If you are a LAA member, attend the meeting or more realistically, send in your proxy vote on the back of the address label of your next LAA magazine. The October magazine is apparently due to be delivered at the end of this week.
And remind all your LAA friends to use their vote!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no objections to this suggestion but feel it will not be effective because
A) she will not reply
B) she can still cite the occasionally intemperate criticism in this giant thread but ignore all the well presented and researched argument in it!
A) she will not reply
B) she can still cite the occasionally intemperate criticism in this giant thread but ignore all the well presented and researched argument in it!
B) Is sadly inevitable given what has gone before in this thread. My suggestion was aimed at focussing the debate on the facts of the case rather than all the emotion around it.
I carry no torch for Ms Curtis-Taylor, but some of the invective aimed at her and her supporters does IMHO go beyond the bounds of justifiable criticism. Undoubtedly her team will try to use that and the only way of addressing that is to keep the decision firmly based on the facts relating to what she did or didn’t do.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonzarno wrote:
"I carry no torch for Ms Curtis-Taylor, but some of the invective aimed at her and her supporters does IMHO go beyond the bounds of justifiable criticism. Undoubtedly her team will try to use that and the only way of addressing that is to keep the decision firmly based on the facts relating to what she did or didn’t do."
I agree entirely but I am not convinced that most LAA members know the facts at the moment.
It is up to us all, particularly LAA members, contributing to this thread, to try to make sure that as many other LAA members as possible get to know the facts in this matter before October 21st and use their votes accordingly!
If you think your suggestion with help with this, go ahead.
"I carry no torch for Ms Curtis-Taylor, but some of the invective aimed at her and her supporters does IMHO go beyond the bounds of justifiable criticism. Undoubtedly her team will try to use that and the only way of addressing that is to keep the decision firmly based on the facts relating to what she did or didn’t do."
I agree entirely but I am not convinced that most LAA members know the facts at the moment.
It is up to us all, particularly LAA members, contributing to this thread, to try to make sure that as many other LAA members as possible get to know the facts in this matter before October 21st and use their votes accordingly!
If you think your suggestion with help with this, go ahead.
I just read that as distinguishing it from local flights at various stops, which he's openly stated that he took sometimes. Seems quite straightforward to me, not like spin.
Even if Ewald had his hands tied behind his back, these were not a "solo" flights. In my book, he would have to have been unconscious for his presence to be ignored. A better question, also even less likely to be answered, is did he ever influence or overrule any of TCT's operational decisions?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if Ewald had his hands tied behind his back, these were not a "solo" flights. In my book, he would have to have been unconscious for his presence to be ignored. A better question, also even less likely to be answered, is did he ever influence or overrule any of TCT's operational decisions?
Nothing will change what she is and what she does. She can bluff about court action all she wants, but we all know she can't take that risk.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She could, and perhaps should, take legal action if she is slandered or libelled.
Her problem with attempting that is that she hasn't been slandered or libelled.
She lied, repeatedly. That can very easily be demonstrated to any Court. Exhibit A might be this:
It is abundantly clear that she was the spider at the centre of a web of deceit which caused countless major newspapers to publish rubbish about her flying solo from Africa; and to Oz; and across the USA. Any barrister worth his or her salt could bring a hundredweight of broadsheet and tabloid headlines to Court to show how all-encompassing the cheatery was.
Her problem with attempting that is that she hasn't been slandered or libelled.
She lied, repeatedly. That can very easily be demonstrated to any Court. Exhibit A might be this:
It is abundantly clear that she was the spider at the centre of a web of deceit which caused countless major newspapers to publish rubbish about her flying solo from Africa; and to Oz; and across the USA. Any barrister worth his or her salt could bring a hundredweight of broadsheet and tabloid headlines to Court to show how all-encompassing the cheatery was.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what it would take for a "supporter of our cause" to edit the backdrop at the AGM if she is to speak, and have her, once again, standing in front of the "Alone in an open cockpit" poster.
I have been thinking about Ewald's response to the question. From what I see, TCT can fly the aircraft (how well is not for me to say) but her lack of navigation skills has be brought into question before. I am reminded that the front seat of the a/c was fitted with navigational equipment (Ipad/garmin stuff) and when you look back at post-landing video that does show Ewald he is busy tidying away something in the cockpit. My thought is that he was indeed crew and was the navigator,(guide, and supporter) on these flights. This would answer the "crew" tick on the NTSB report. What it doesn't answer though are the similarities in flying hours prior to the crash - both logging P1 hours ??
Only way to put that to rest is to show the logbooks - and I am damned sure if it were me and I could silence critics by showing a logbook I would be doing so. That would take some of the heat out of all other arguments.
It troubles me that there are good people with good reputations which they are prepared to risk for her.
As for LAA thread: it might help if it were renamed. Any member logging in might skim past it as the title has nothing to do with what will happen on the 21st October.
Only way to put that to rest is to show the logbooks - and I am damned sure if it were me and I could silence critics by showing a logbook I would be doing so. That would take some of the heat out of all other arguments.
It troubles me that there are good people with good reputations which they are prepared to risk for her.
As for LAA thread: it might help if it were renamed. Any member logging in might skim past it as the title has nothing to do with what will happen on the 21st October.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give me a day or two and I'll produce my log books. They'll prove I flew Harriers in WW2, Spitfires in the Falklands, a Sopwith Camel in the Gulf War and the Space Shuttle to the shops.
The only way Ewald and TCT's logbooks could prove anything would be if they were read in conjunction with the aircraft logs, and which aircraft would that be exactly? 'The Spirit of Artifice' 1, 2 or however many other airframes the brass plaque has been stuck on?
The only way Ewald and TCT's logbooks could prove anything would be if they were read in conjunction with the aircraft logs, and which aircraft would that be exactly? 'The Spirit of Artifice' 1, 2 or however many other airframes the brass plaque has been stuck on?
Last edited by Right Hand Thread; 30th Sep 2018 at 18:49. Reason: Genius.
May be a silly question, but do civilian logbooks need to be countersigned on monthly / quarterly timescales as the mil ones are, or is it all down to the individual just keeping them as a record and nothing is cross-checked?
I thought the incident with the ATCO making up a series of logbooks and then getting a job as an airline pilot woke up the establishment.
I thought the incident with the ATCO making up a series of logbooks and then getting a job as an airline pilot woke up the establishment.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May be a silly question, but do civilian logbooks need to be countersigned on monthly / quarterly timescales as the mil ones are, or is it all down to the individual just keeping them as a record and nothing is cross-checked?
I thought the incident with the ATCO making up a series of logbooks and then getting a job as an airline pilot woke up the establishment.
I thought the incident with the ATCO making up a series of logbooks and then getting a job as an airline pilot woke up the establishment.
Moderator
This topic has received a thorough update here - thanks to contributors.
The topic for the near future seems to center on the upcoming vote at the LAA AGM on the merits, and possible reconsideration, of the award previously discussed for Ms. Curtis-Taylor. New posts on the topic of the merits of the award, and voting, are encouraged on the LAA AGM thread. Should any news beyond that become available relevant to this thread, certainly, reopening it will be considered.
Pilot DAR
The topic for the near future seems to center on the upcoming vote at the LAA AGM on the merits, and possible reconsideration, of the award previously discussed for Ms. Curtis-Taylor. New posts on the topic of the merits of the award, and voting, are encouraged on the LAA AGM thread. Should any news beyond that become available relevant to this thread, certainly, reopening it will be considered.
Pilot DAR
Moderator
In response to several requests, I have reopened this thread. New information relative to Ms. Curtis-Taylor's publicly promoted flying adventures may be posted here. Please avoid two things: Reposting/repeating information or emotion already posted on this thread, and, posting information which is directly related to the LAA AGM meeting, and decisions to be considered at that meeting.
PPRuNe is happy for good discussion. Less need to moderate posts, because the posters moderate themselves, is very appreciated!
PPRuNe is happy for good discussion. Less need to moderate posts, because the posters moderate themselves, is very appreciated!
This link to the Times from 2016 is headed with a commonly used picture of TCT and Ewald with an interesting caption...
Tracey Curtis-Taylor in her 1940s Boeing Stearman. As with other vintage aircraft all of the flying is done by the pilot in the rear
