Tracey Curtis-Taylor (Merged threads)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: LSZH, oder in der Nähe
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all - I just popped a quick "How To..." on the Computer/Internet Issues & Troubleshooting sub-forum, in case anyone has the need/desire to (f'rinstance) capture a web page and archive it, lest it disappear without trace and be lost for ever.
How to Archive a Web Page
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crankyme:
On this site, I'm sure you will find some stale ale mob but on this thread you'll find, amongst others:
Second world war fighter pilots
Test pilots
Military pilots
Commercial pilots
Ferry pilots
Engineers
High court judges
Specialist publication journalists
and many others.
They have reached their level of experience through hard work, hard to gain qualifications and perseverance.
Possibly that's why they don't like to see a chancer fooling the public.
Why don't you all get back to your pipe, slippers and stale ale and let the high achievers get on with their lives!
Second world war fighter pilots
Test pilots
Military pilots
Commercial pilots
Ferry pilots
Engineers
High court judges
Specialist publication journalists
and many others.
They have reached their level of experience through hard work, hard to gain qualifications and perseverance.
Possibly that's why they don't like to see a chancer fooling the public.
sorry to say she had me fooled - i really thought she was doing it solo a la Amy Johnson and lady heath 
Kind of misses the point of what a "high achiever" is. It grossly undermines those who are, and have reached their position with their integrity intact.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guys, l'm pleased that we are starting to hear from those who want to share another side of the story, and their opinions. We may not agree with what they write, but it may encourage more of the believers to look at and consider the evidence. Welcome them, and who knows, one day Tracey might even put in an appearance and answer a few questions.
Thread Starter
She has issued a new statement.
1. This statement is made in response to commentary appearing in the media concerning the Light Aircraft Association (“LAA”) and the rescission of the Bill Woodhams Trophy which was made to me in 2014 in respect of the Cape Town to Cairo flight that year for a “feat of navigation, aviation, tenacity and endurance.”
2. The circumstances of the rescission are as follows:
a. The AGM of the LAA was held 21 October 2016 at Sywell Aerodrome in Northamptonshire. The first public reference to the agenda which included the motion “for the Review of the Woodhams’ Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor” was on 4 October 2016 and was brought by two members - Barry Tempest and Chris Martyr. Prior to the AGM over 100 proxy votes had been cast in favour of the motion, along with proxy votes on the resolutions at the meeting, following the online media campaign referred to below.
b. At the AGM itself there was a broadly-based lack of knowledge among members present about this motion, the fact that I had made any previous public statements, or the fact that proxy votes had already been cast. It was suggested to the Chairman of the meeting (LAA Chairman, Brian Davies) that in the circumstances the motion should be held over to another meeting to allow a full discussion – but this was refused. At the meeting, members expressed their discomfort and that an injustice was being carried out. Of the members actually present at the meeting (about 70), the overwhelming majority voted against the motion or abstained, but the motion was nevertheless carried by the proxy votes previously cast.
3. I have stated publicly previously (11 June 2016) that I am deeply disappointed at the comments coming from a particular source making false assertions that my flight expeditions should have been executed as solo flights – and that I have claimed them as such. I have previously stated they were not “solo flights”. They are all about a collaborative team effort and celebrating the brilliant achievements of women like Amy Johnson and Lady Heath who made history when aviation was in its infancy.
4. The source referred to is Sam Rutherford who was initially a flight planning and logistics sub-contractor to the Africa expedition. By the end of that flight our logistics and flight planning were withdrawn from Mr Rutherford and brought in-house. Mr Rutherford was not engaged further by the BIAB expeditions from UK to Australia, or across USA.
5. Mr Rutherford has engaged in an online media campaign to discredit me and the BIAB team members by making false assertions concerning the expeditions and the roles of team members. I have previously stated publicly that I consider this to be part of a course of conduct designed to cause damage and distress. Mr Rutherford’s campaign is also promoted by his associate, Mike Flynn (who also operates under the pseudonym, Jay Sata) in the press and in online forums, and in particular Pprune. The actions of Mr Rutherford are now the subject of legal proceedings and have been reported to the police. Sam Rutherford is a member of the LAA – he was not present at the AGM but was represented by his proxy, Chris Martyr (see above).
6. I have received many expressions of support at the AGM referred to above (where I was present in person), from supporters of my flying and outreach programmes, and from my sponsors and affiliates, for which I am very grateful.
Tracey Curtis-Taylor
24 October 2016"
2. The circumstances of the rescission are as follows:
a. The AGM of the LAA was held 21 October 2016 at Sywell Aerodrome in Northamptonshire. The first public reference to the agenda which included the motion “for the Review of the Woodhams’ Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor” was on 4 October 2016 and was brought by two members - Barry Tempest and Chris Martyr. Prior to the AGM over 100 proxy votes had been cast in favour of the motion, along with proxy votes on the resolutions at the meeting, following the online media campaign referred to below.
b. At the AGM itself there was a broadly-based lack of knowledge among members present about this motion, the fact that I had made any previous public statements, or the fact that proxy votes had already been cast. It was suggested to the Chairman of the meeting (LAA Chairman, Brian Davies) that in the circumstances the motion should be held over to another meeting to allow a full discussion – but this was refused. At the meeting, members expressed their discomfort and that an injustice was being carried out. Of the members actually present at the meeting (about 70), the overwhelming majority voted against the motion or abstained, but the motion was nevertheless carried by the proxy votes previously cast.
3. I have stated publicly previously (11 June 2016) that I am deeply disappointed at the comments coming from a particular source making false assertions that my flight expeditions should have been executed as solo flights – and that I have claimed them as such. I have previously stated they were not “solo flights”. They are all about a collaborative team effort and celebrating the brilliant achievements of women like Amy Johnson and Lady Heath who made history when aviation was in its infancy.
4. The source referred to is Sam Rutherford who was initially a flight planning and logistics sub-contractor to the Africa expedition. By the end of that flight our logistics and flight planning were withdrawn from Mr Rutherford and brought in-house. Mr Rutherford was not engaged further by the BIAB expeditions from UK to Australia, or across USA.
5. Mr Rutherford has engaged in an online media campaign to discredit me and the BIAB team members by making false assertions concerning the expeditions and the roles of team members. I have previously stated publicly that I consider this to be part of a course of conduct designed to cause damage and distress. Mr Rutherford’s campaign is also promoted by his associate, Mike Flynn (who also operates under the pseudonym, Jay Sata) in the press and in online forums, and in particular Pprune. The actions of Mr Rutherford are now the subject of legal proceedings and have been reported to the police. Sam Rutherford is a member of the LAA – he was not present at the AGM but was represented by his proxy, Chris Martyr (see above).
6. I have received many expressions of support at the AGM referred to above (where I was present in person), from supporters of my flying and outreach programmes, and from my sponsors and affiliates, for which I am very grateful.
Tracey Curtis-Taylor
24 October 2016"
4. The source referred to is Sam Rutherford who was initially a flight planning and logistics sub-contractor to the Africa expedition. By the end of that flight our logistics and flight planning were withdrawn from Mr Rutherford and brought in-house. Mr Rutherford was not engaged further by the BIAB expeditions from UK to Australia, or across USA.
There is a big difference between these two possibilities.
l'm pleased that we are starting to hear from those who want to share another side of the story, and their opinions. We may not agree with what they write, but it may encourage more of the believers to look at and consider the evidence.
b. At the AGM itself there was a broadly-based lack of knowledge among members present about this motion, the fact that I had made any previous public statements, or the fact that proxy votes had already been cast. It was suggested to the Chairman of the meeting (LAA Chairman, Brian Davies) that in the circumstances the motion should be held over to another meeting to allow a full discussion – but this was refused. At the meeting, members expressed their discomfort and that an injustice was being carried out. Of the members actually present at the meeting (about 70), the overwhelming majority voted against the motion or abstained, but the motion was nevertheless carried by the proxy votes previously cast.
I would suggest that had the voting members at the meeting who had a "broadly-based lack of knowledge.......about this motion" been aware of the "case for the motion to rescind", rather than just the, no doubt eloquently expressed but evasive "case against", then the vote would have been even more overwhelmingly for the motion.
(And for those supporters who will no doubt say that the proxy voters did not have a chance to hear the defence, it is out there on her media streams, and has failed to convince).
Thread Starter
The Times story is behind a paywall.
It appears the LAA is run by blokes.
It appears the LAA is run by blokes.
A British adventurer who won an award for flying solo on an 8,000-mile trip has been stripped of the trophy after it was alleged that she had a co-pilot on some legs of her journey.
Tracey Curtis-Taylor, the self-styled “Bird in a Biplane” who is described on her website as an “aviator, adventurer and inspirational speaker”, had the Bill Woodhams Trophy, which was awarded to her after she had flown from Cape Town to Britain in 2013, removed following a vote held by the Light Aircraft Association (LAA) on Saturday.
Ms Curtis-Taylor, 54, was stripped of the trophy at the association’s annual meeting at Sywell aerodrome, Northamptonshire, where members claimed that she had misled the public over her exploits. By 123 votes to 65, they voted for her to lose the award.
Last night Ms Curtis-Taylor said that she had never claimed to have conducted solo flights and had acknowledged that it was a “collaborative team effort”.
“It’s disgusting what has happened,” she said. “There was a palpable unease in the meeting, which was in a room full of men and just three women.”
She said that she felt “very let down by the LAA”, adding: “They have allowed themselves to be manipulated.”
Ms Curtis-Taylor, a former waitress who grew up in Canada and has lived in New Zealand, had just returned home from a two-week trip to China when she attended the AGM the next day.
She was mired in controversy after it was alleged that Ewald Gritsch, her flight instructor, had revealed that he had occupied the forward cockpit of her 1942 Boeing Stearman for most of the legs of her journeys.
Mr Gritsch dismissed claims that he had made such allegations and said that Ms Curtis-Taylor was “the sole pilot on all her expedition flights”.
Sam Rutherford, her former logistics manager, also allegedly said that Ms Curtis-Taylor had been guilty of embellishing the truth and that she had flown only four of the 36 legs from Cape Town to Goodwood, West Sussex, on her own.
Ms Curtis-Taylor previously hit back at the allegations, saying: “It is clear from what I say about the Africa flight and subsequent expeditions that they were not solo flights and that I was accompanied by a support crew. Ewald’s primary role in all these expeditions has been to provide engineering, technical and flight planning support.”
Barry Tempest, a member of the LAA, who proposed that her award be withdrawn, said: “I am delighted the award has been rescinded. I have the greatest respect for women pilots but I think Tracey Curtis-Taylor has not done a lot to further their case.
“I think that she is a boastful lady who needs bringing down a peg or two.”
Steve Slater, head of the LAA, said: “The award was made in good faith but in the light of what has emerged since . . . it is fair to say maybe we would have made a different decision.”
Share
Tracey Curtis-Taylor, the self-styled “Bird in a Biplane” who is described on her website as an “aviator, adventurer and inspirational speaker”, had the Bill Woodhams Trophy, which was awarded to her after she had flown from Cape Town to Britain in 2013, removed following a vote held by the Light Aircraft Association (LAA) on Saturday.
Ms Curtis-Taylor, 54, was stripped of the trophy at the association’s annual meeting at Sywell aerodrome, Northamptonshire, where members claimed that she had misled the public over her exploits. By 123 votes to 65, they voted for her to lose the award.
Last night Ms Curtis-Taylor said that she had never claimed to have conducted solo flights and had acknowledged that it was a “collaborative team effort”.
“It’s disgusting what has happened,” she said. “There was a palpable unease in the meeting, which was in a room full of men and just three women.”
She said that she felt “very let down by the LAA”, adding: “They have allowed themselves to be manipulated.”
Ms Curtis-Taylor, a former waitress who grew up in Canada and has lived in New Zealand, had just returned home from a two-week trip to China when she attended the AGM the next day.
She was mired in controversy after it was alleged that Ewald Gritsch, her flight instructor, had revealed that he had occupied the forward cockpit of her 1942 Boeing Stearman for most of the legs of her journeys.
Mr Gritsch dismissed claims that he had made such allegations and said that Ms Curtis-Taylor was “the sole pilot on all her expedition flights”.
Sam Rutherford, her former logistics manager, also allegedly said that Ms Curtis-Taylor had been guilty of embellishing the truth and that she had flown only four of the 36 legs from Cape Town to Goodwood, West Sussex, on her own.
Ms Curtis-Taylor previously hit back at the allegations, saying: “It is clear from what I say about the Africa flight and subsequent expeditions that they were not solo flights and that I was accompanied by a support crew. Ewald’s primary role in all these expeditions has been to provide engineering, technical and flight planning support.”
Barry Tempest, a member of the LAA, who proposed that her award be withdrawn, said: “I am delighted the award has been rescinded. I have the greatest respect for women pilots but I think Tracey Curtis-Taylor has not done a lot to further their case.
“I think that she is a boastful lady who needs bringing down a peg or two.”
Steve Slater, head of the LAA, said: “The award was made in good faith but in the light of what has emerged since . . . it is fair to say maybe we would have made a different decision.”
Share
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: LSZH, oder in der Nähe
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll splain you:
Attached are two files.
* In the first file, someone apparently made a _"solo open-cockpit biplane flight from Cape Town to Goodwood".
* In the second, someone apparently made an "___ open-cockpit biplane flight from Cape Town to Goodwood".
* The two files are chronologically separated by less that seven weeks.
* The two files apparently represent the same flight.
* The two files represent archives of the same page on the same website.
* The website is apparently that of the person who apparently made the flight.
Got it, now? * In the first file, someone apparently made a _"solo open-cockpit biplane flight from Cape Town to Goodwood".
* In the second, someone apparently made an "___ open-cockpit biplane flight from Cape Town to Goodwood".
* The two files are chronologically separated by less that seven weeks.
* The two files apparently represent the same flight.
* The two files represent archives of the same page on the same website.
* The website is apparently that of the person who apparently made the flight.
@airpolice
It seems that T C-T has a lot to 'thank' MurielMary for, as she appears to have over-claimed on behalf of T C-T throughout her prolific Wiki edits to big up T C-T's achievements. She also appears to have lost all sense of balance and impartiality in her editing, possibly swayed by a pro-female-achievers agenda which was documented earlier in this thread.
It is incredible that MurielMary - and other apparently expert Wiki editors - were keen to have such snippets such as "She has a twin sister" added to a site which expressly discourages autobiographical content. Another over-zealous editor of the truth erased reference to T C-T colliding with a parked helicopter on the basis that it is "Surely not notable". How can such an avoidable collision not be notable in a Wiki built about an aviator who is about to receive another prestigious award from HCAP on the basis that:
?
This same one-sided agenda and lax approach to rigorous editing has ensured T C-T's 'Career' section is completely blank for the first 30 working years of her life until the age of 46, when a brief list of attending air displays somehow constitutes her career in its entirety. Others removed this on the basis that it could be interpreted as a thinly veiled CV, but the more persistent proponents of T C-T's 'achievements' repeatedly undid the edit, trying to give the impression that T C-T has made a lifelong career out of display flying.
A career is 'a job or profession that someone does for a long time', implying earning a living wage from such endeavour. How can occasionally turning up at an airshow or two have supported her until the big sponsors dug deep to fund her well publicised jollies around the world? How can it then be misconstrued into being a career?
Just saying!
Edited to add: "AviationHistory', a highly active editor who erases true if embarrassing facts from the same Wiki page at every opportunity, has again changed the status of the R44 that T C-T taxied into (The collision could have been avoided if the pilot of N56200 had ensured that the area into which it taxied was clear of obstructions, either by observation, or the use of wing-walkers or marshallers.) from Written off to merely damaged, in defiance of the CAA register which records it as "De-registered. Destroyed."
Is this another severe case of damage limitation? If so, I think she and her supporters are going to have to become true experts at it for them to survive this avalanche of facts coming to light which ruin the wonderful, glossy story that has been sold.
So, can nobody help me with interpreting the Wiki edit from January?
Quote:
In 2013, Curtis-Taylor flew a 13,000km solo flight from Cape Town, South Africa, to England
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ldid=699034926
I think it looks like MurielMary who defends T C-T wrote that bit.
Quote:
In 2013, Curtis-Taylor flew a 13,000km solo flight from Cape Town, South Africa, to England
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ldid=699034926
I think it looks like MurielMary who defends T C-T wrote that bit.
It is incredible that MurielMary - and other apparently expert Wiki editors - were keen to have such snippets such as "She has a twin sister" added to a site which expressly discourages autobiographical content. Another over-zealous editor of the truth erased reference to T C-T colliding with a parked helicopter on the basis that it is "Surely not notable". How can such an avoidable collision not be notable in a Wiki built about an aviator who is about to receive another prestigious award from HCAP on the basis that:
...you displayed ... commendable airmanship.... I am so very pleased that you, as an Upper Freemen[sic] of our Company, have safely achieved this feat which is deservedly worthy of the award.
This same one-sided agenda and lax approach to rigorous editing has ensured T C-T's 'Career' section is completely blank for the first 30 working years of her life until the age of 46, when a brief list of attending air displays somehow constitutes her career in its entirety. Others removed this on the basis that it could be interpreted as a thinly veiled CV, but the more persistent proponents of T C-T's 'achievements' repeatedly undid the edit, trying to give the impression that T C-T has made a lifelong career out of display flying.
A career is 'a job or profession that someone does for a long time', implying earning a living wage from such endeavour. How can occasionally turning up at an airshow or two have supported her until the big sponsors dug deep to fund her well publicised jollies around the world? How can it then be misconstrued into being a career?
Just saying!
Edited to add: "AviationHistory', a highly active editor who erases true if embarrassing facts from the same Wiki page at every opportunity, has again changed the status of the R44 that T C-T taxied into (The collision could have been avoided if the pilot of N56200 had ensured that the area into which it taxied was clear of obstructions, either by observation, or the use of wing-walkers or marshallers.) from Written off to merely damaged, in defiance of the CAA register which records it as "De-registered. Destroyed."
Is this another severe case of damage limitation? If so, I think she and her supporters are going to have to become true experts at it for them to survive this avalanche of facts coming to light which ruin the wonderful, glossy story that has been sold.
Last edited by pilotmike; 25th Oct 2016 at 14:57.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to the issue over whether or not Ewald was a pilot, instructor or whatever, given his experience and skills it makes the handling of the Stearman a lot easier having him there.
Even chatting over the intercom, some pearls of wisdom passed to her and, where necessary, talking her through the approach and landing, as instructors do all the time, makes it much less stressful and, in this case, less worthy of note than if she were truly solo.
I look forward to the court case - can we book tickets?
Even chatting over the intercom, some pearls of wisdom passed to her and, where necessary, talking her through the approach and landing, as instructors do all the time, makes it much less stressful and, in this case, less worthy of note than if she were truly solo.
I look forward to the court case - can we book tickets?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bunch of self righteous hasbeens who've done nothing in your lives in your mummies spare rooms spewing out your invective and abuse
Having read absolutely every post in this thread, I observe that the theme of the thread has been reactive, rather than proactive. No one has "gone after" TCT for something she might have done, but rather called up ample evidence of deception and misinformation she had repeatedly done, and allowed to remain, long after doubt was raised.
I suspect that moderation has played a role in this thread avoiding being abusive, rather regulating it to be factual only. The evidence of statements and accusations made in this thread, is also easily found in the thread.
TCT has had ample opportunity and incentive to clear up misunderstanding, and make retractions, and it appears that there has been some very weak effort at this (so she knows she should). However, for what I have seen as objective, very multi sourced information, TCT has never really said "I did the wrong thing, and I apologize". Instead, there seems to be a smearing of terminology which could be seen as an attempt to allow an altered understanding among the less informed.
We pilots know what "solo" means, there is no doubt. We pilots know the honour of proudly wearing wings one has earned - and honouring other achievers by not wearing wings nor a uniform that you have not. A person is included well in a larger group, if they do not attempt to unfairly include themselves in a smaller group undeservingly. Those of us with integrity do not accept awards which are blatantly issued on the basis of untruthful information - we quietly decline and return them for correction.
In context, TCT has not murdered anyone, and does not deserve a span of jail time for her misleading. But rather the frequent high energy outreach based on multiple layers of deception sends a horrible message to those impressionable people new to aviation, that deceiving and misleading your way up is okay to do! No, it is not!
If TCT were a pilot under my charge, I would have prevented her public presence of "outreach" long ago. A chopped up R44, a wrecked Stearman, both needless waste of aircraft. Thank goodness her engine was okay the first time, but she did it in the second! This kind of cavalier attitude toward piloting is not what we want to appear in outreach for piloting! Low flying, busting airspace, poor planning about fuel and routing are the very things we good pilots try our best to avoid, and certainly do not embellish and publicize!
In my opinion as a four decades pilot, TCT does not and should not be representing piloting, and reaching out, with her current display of skill and integrity. If she would take a step back and withdraw her blurred assertions, perhaps we proud pilots could also take a step back. But, society does not allow an offender to continue to offend, while blurring the offense with ongoing shifting, just because of the offender's proposed altruistic objectives, or gender! An offense is an offense, and I am offended that TCT wants the public, and pilots to be, to think that the way she commits aviation is the way to go. It is not!
Thread Starter
Thank you for the thought and effort put in to your post Stepturn.
Honesty and integrity still means a lot to some in this modern world where so called reality tv blurs the lines between fact and fiction.
Honesty and integrity still means a lot to some in this modern world where so called reality tv blurs the lines between fact and fiction.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
b. At the AGM itself there was a broadly-based lack of knowledge among members present about this motion, the fact that I had made any previous public statements, or the fact that proxy votes had already been cast.
It was only because of the controversy that was known to all members of the LAA that the matter was brought to a vote. You were given the opportunity to set out your side of the story months ago, but apart from some odd and confusing statements that attempted to redefine the meaning of "solo," neither you or your PR team would comment or respond to questions. You chose not to take part in the debate until the day of the vote where, graciously, you were given the chance to state your case. By all accounts you trotted out the same old message and said your bit. The vote took place and you lost by a very wide margin.
It is crass of you to assume that those who voted by proxy were uninformed. There was a democratic process played out according to the rules. You came second. What are you suggesting now....that we vote again, and perhaps again until you win? Get real, wake up and smell the coffee. Stamping your feet is not going to solve the underlying problem here.
stepturn well written and understood
i cannot fathom why TCT and her PR team would have wanted this to go like it has
fame?
arrogance?
money?
i cannot fathom why TCT and her PR team would have wanted this to go like it has
fame?
arrogance?
money?
Strake
On this site, I'm sure you will find some stale ale mob but on this thread you'll find, amongst others:
On this site, I'm sure you will find some stale ale mob but on this thread you'll find, amongst others:
When someone books out for a solo flight there's sort of an understanding for ATC that its just one person on board.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCT is trying, foolishly, to ride a semantic tightrope here and her claim never to have herself described her flights as solo (there seems precious little, if any evidence that she did) may, just, be technically correct.
What is so unacceptable is her continued behaviour around that denial.
She is riding a highly lucrative wave that has been whipped up by her PR team and which is based on a falsehood that they have knowingly and deliberately perpetuated instead of correcting. The falsehood may not have been uttered by her, that is largely irrelevant if she continues not only to ride the wave but to continue promoting herself by egging the media on uncorrected in the full knowledge that it is all built on an untruth. Every time a media report referring to "solo" was published they effectively lied by failing to correct it. And correct it they seem never to have done, not once. That is pure collusion. TCT herself has repeatedly been asked in interviews/talks about her "solo" trip and has replied correcting all sorts of trivial detail, but never the word "solo" as far as we know. Thus she is fully implicated in the multiple, long term perpetration of an outright lie whether she spoke the words or not. Those that published it in good faith are merely innocent victims duped into peddling incorrect info by the conscious and deliberate omission of any correction.
The wretched woman continues to protest her innocence re claims of solo despite popping words like "sole" into her publicity, "emulating" someone whose claim was flying solo. Her crime may not be actual false claims to solo but rather running a years long scam based on others being encouraged to say so and instead of correcting their error, encouraging more and more of it. There is a cynicism in such an approach that really grates with most of us, I think, a cynicism that tries to dupe us by an enthusiastically promoted con by proxy while claiming complete and bewildered innocence.
Another example of this mindset are the claims to have "displayed" at Farnborough, RIAT and others on multiple occasions. Perhaps, semantically one could argue this is not literaly an untruth, but everyone understands that "displaying" at an airshow means flying in it, not having a stall there selling stickers, interviews and bragging. And when the claim relating to sticker stalls at a list of international events includes just one minor social flyby (Cowes Regatta, hardly an airshow) to enable the sentence to be preceeded by "static and/or flying display" at blah blah blah the words so carefully chosen not to be legalistically untrue just shriek the carefully planned intention to mislead, if not deceive.
In a way these continued, years long attempts to rake maximum advantage from widespread misinformation which you had assiduously cultivated in others, or had allowed others to cultivate unchecked that represents a far, far more cynical intent to deceive than someone who merely took advantage from a one-off fib. This extended wilful deception by refusal to correct an untruth while busily promoting it and taking full advantage of it is a very nasty thing to do indeed.
TCT should be under no illusions how the public feel about trickery like this and shouldn't be surprised at the results which will continue for some time I suspect. Continuing to assert innocence at this stage is as pointless as it is infantile.
What is so unacceptable is her continued behaviour around that denial.
She is riding a highly lucrative wave that has been whipped up by her PR team and which is based on a falsehood that they have knowingly and deliberately perpetuated instead of correcting. The falsehood may not have been uttered by her, that is largely irrelevant if she continues not only to ride the wave but to continue promoting herself by egging the media on uncorrected in the full knowledge that it is all built on an untruth. Every time a media report referring to "solo" was published they effectively lied by failing to correct it. And correct it they seem never to have done, not once. That is pure collusion. TCT herself has repeatedly been asked in interviews/talks about her "solo" trip and has replied correcting all sorts of trivial detail, but never the word "solo" as far as we know. Thus she is fully implicated in the multiple, long term perpetration of an outright lie whether she spoke the words or not. Those that published it in good faith are merely innocent victims duped into peddling incorrect info by the conscious and deliberate omission of any correction.
The wretched woman continues to protest her innocence re claims of solo despite popping words like "sole" into her publicity, "emulating" someone whose claim was flying solo. Her crime may not be actual false claims to solo but rather running a years long scam based on others being encouraged to say so and instead of correcting their error, encouraging more and more of it. There is a cynicism in such an approach that really grates with most of us, I think, a cynicism that tries to dupe us by an enthusiastically promoted con by proxy while claiming complete and bewildered innocence.
Another example of this mindset are the claims to have "displayed" at Farnborough, RIAT and others on multiple occasions. Perhaps, semantically one could argue this is not literaly an untruth, but everyone understands that "displaying" at an airshow means flying in it, not having a stall there selling stickers, interviews and bragging. And when the claim relating to sticker stalls at a list of international events includes just one minor social flyby (Cowes Regatta, hardly an airshow) to enable the sentence to be preceeded by "static and/or flying display" at blah blah blah the words so carefully chosen not to be legalistically untrue just shriek the carefully planned intention to mislead, if not deceive.
In a way these continued, years long attempts to rake maximum advantage from widespread misinformation which you had assiduously cultivated in others, or had allowed others to cultivate unchecked that represents a far, far more cynical intent to deceive than someone who merely took advantage from a one-off fib. This extended wilful deception by refusal to correct an untruth while busily promoting it and taking full advantage of it is a very nasty thing to do indeed.
TCT should be under no illusions how the public feel about trickery like this and shouldn't be surprised at the results which will continue for some time I suspect. Continuing to assert innocence at this stage is as pointless as it is infantile.
Last edited by noflynomore; 25th Oct 2016 at 15:11.
In clarification, I completed my contract on the Cape Town to Goodwood trip (leaving in Crete with the rest of the crew) as planned.
It seems that Tracey's recollection is inexact on this point.
It seems that Tracey's recollection is inexact on this point.
She said that she felt “very let down by the LAA”, adding: “They have allowed themselves to be manipulated
Steve Slater, head of the LAA, said: “The award was made in good faith but in the light of what has emerged since . . . it is fair to say maybe we would have made a different decision.”