2018 Light Aircraft Association AGM award vote
Join Date: May 2011
Location: France
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is imperative that, for the future well-being of the LAA, we are all clear that the outcome of the vote has nothing whatsoever with the Association's Board. The vote outcome will be the Membership's view, not theirs.
If we say that an overturning of the decision shows the LAA to be dishonest then we will be not only being unfair on the LAA Board - who are simply following the Articles of the Association - but we are also wrongly saying that following due process is untrustworthy - when in fact it is precisely the opposite.
Following fair process, regardless of the outcome, is precisely what we should be expecting from the LAA. And that's what we are getting, so far as I can see.
This situation is difficult for the LAA. I think that we should be acknowledging them and supporting that, rather than throwing rocks.
If we say that an overturning of the decision shows the LAA to be dishonest then we will be not only being unfair on the LAA Board - who are simply following the Articles of the Association - but we are also wrongly saying that following due process is untrustworthy - when in fact it is precisely the opposite.
Following fair process, regardless of the outcome, is precisely what we should be expecting from the LAA. And that's what we are getting, so far as I can see.
This situation is difficult for the LAA. I think that we should be acknowledging them and supporting that, rather than throwing rocks.
I really can't see why it is still carrying on. Desperation? The film can't be a blockbuster? Bit of interest from non aviation groups, But?
Clareprop and Airpolice. Duplicity and blaming others has been part and parcel of the charade since the year dot.
I was not happy with the fuel contamination story for two reasons.
1. It was too convenient an answer which removed any blame from TCT/Ewald
2. That Stearman had several Go-Pro Cameras on it. They are clearly visible in the BiaB published images AND in the others I received from someone who was at Winslow. IF things had happened as TCT claimed then we would have seen footage by now. So why not?
With that in mind I contacted Winslow. Upshot is this from an e-mail I received from Orville Wiseman. I wasn't going to post it but, as you will see, Orville asked me to pass it on. I am also aware that he has asked TCT to stop with the contaminated fuel story. For the avoidance of doubt Tracey, I have many similar e-mails where I have asked direct questions and received direct answers.
Thank you for the information.
As someone that has worked tirelessly in this industry for two decades building a new start up from the ground up I take offense to her comments. I consider them to be without merit and as such to be slanderous. It would not be outside my actions to consider hiring an attorney to pursue this after I have more information. Feel free to pass that along.
Also, as the founder of an aviation company with multiple locations having dispensed over ten million gallons of aviation fuels into a variety of aircraft including military, airline, medivac, law enforcement, fire suppression, corporate and private flight operations, I take great pride in the fact that we have never has a fuel related incident or accident.
Furthermore, the aircraft sustained substantial damage making it an accident not an incident. I am going to contact the NTSB and FAA about that as well.
I will no longer tolerate being her scapegoat in all of this!
O.G. Wiseman
President & Founder
I have the e-mails, all content can be verified, there are no lies, no smoke and mirrors, just a clear statement that what TCT says happened is not what the NTSB and the fuelers say.
I was not happy with the fuel contamination story for two reasons.
1. It was too convenient an answer which removed any blame from TCT/Ewald
2. That Stearman had several Go-Pro Cameras on it. They are clearly visible in the BiaB published images AND in the others I received from someone who was at Winslow. IF things had happened as TCT claimed then we would have seen footage by now. So why not?
With that in mind I contacted Winslow. Upshot is this from an e-mail I received from Orville Wiseman. I wasn't going to post it but, as you will see, Orville asked me to pass it on. I am also aware that he has asked TCT to stop with the contaminated fuel story. For the avoidance of doubt Tracey, I have many similar e-mails where I have asked direct questions and received direct answers.
Thank you for the information.
As someone that has worked tirelessly in this industry for two decades building a new start up from the ground up I take offense to her comments. I consider them to be without merit and as such to be slanderous. It would not be outside my actions to consider hiring an attorney to pursue this after I have more information. Feel free to pass that along.
Also, as the founder of an aviation company with multiple locations having dispensed over ten million gallons of aviation fuels into a variety of aircraft including military, airline, medivac, law enforcement, fire suppression, corporate and private flight operations, I take great pride in the fact that we have never has a fuel related incident or accident.
Furthermore, the aircraft sustained substantial damage making it an accident not an incident. I am going to contact the NTSB and FAA about that as well.
I will no longer tolerate being her scapegoat in all of this!
O.G. Wiseman
President & Founder
I have the e-mails, all content can be verified, there are no lies, no smoke and mirrors, just a clear statement that what TCT says happened is not what the NTSB and the fuelers say.
Thread Starter
I had intended to step back from this issue having better things to do with my time.
However Tracey Curtis Taylor today posted this as part of a statement on the LAA website refering to posts made by Sam Rutherford and myself.
The full statement has been posted previously but I have never posted anything on Pprune that is not in the public domain.
As a journalist and pilot of 35 years I have never embellished the truth.
Tracey finds the truth and fiction hard to define and continued to claim on Wiki to have be part of a Russian flight crew despite having no Russian licence.
However she omits her true humble background on the wiki entry.
Daredevil aviator back on home ground ?
The legal threats against the Light Aviation Association are frankly appalling.
However Tracey Curtis Taylor today posted this as part of a statement on the LAA website refering to posts made by Sam Rutherford and myself.
As you know, since 2015, you and your friend Mike Flynn, a journalist now based in Thailand, who posts on PPRuNe as 'Jay Sata', have waged a campaign of abuse against me. In addition to the stream of bile on PPRuNe you variously bombarded the Air League, the Honorary Company of Air Pilots (you wrote to every chapter around the world), the RAeS, Women in Aviation and numerous other organisations involved in my outreach programme with destructive personal messages. You even contacted the ex-husband from whom I parted company with over twenty years ago in your efforts to promote an agenda of character assassination.
As a journalist and pilot of 35 years I have never embellished the truth.
Tracey finds the truth and fiction hard to define and continued to claim on Wiki to have be part of a Russian flight crew despite having no Russian licence.
However she omits her true humble background on the wiki entry.
Daredevil aviator back on home ground ?
The legal threats against the Light Aviation Association are frankly appalling.
Last edited by Mike Flynn; 8th Oct 2018 at 08:30.
The discussion here greatly affects the LAA.
Derek lamb has posted on the LAA forum, I cannot reply there but I can do so here.
In amongst the strong feelings on the forum I think there should be room for an alternative view. Our association is dedicated to recreational flying. Flying for fun and sport. Mixing with people who share our love of flying. To hold something like this together we have to make sure everyone is treated fairly in the best sporting tradition. Yet all members ultimately know that Tracey Curtis-Taylor, a long-standing member, wasn’t treated fairly and we need to look at that.
Do they know that? An assumption that is not borne out by the feelings expressed so far.
Two years ago we didn’t quite appreciate how a targeted internet campaign could destroy a person’s reputation, doing damage way beyond any claimed misdemeanour. When you’re in the cross-hairs of a nasty online campaign waged by a small number of people with an objective of causing damage there is no way out, no-one to appeal to for a just hearing.
Plenty of opportunity to answer genuine questions but all we have seen is diversion/deflection/obfuscation. Targeted internet campaign, of course targeted as TCT was the one who kept up the lies. Two years ago you had not heard her say SOLO. I found the damning Herne Bay video after the LAA vote! It would have been nice to have done so beforehand.
So how did this all come about? Four years ago in 2014 the Awards group decided to award the Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor. Like other awards over the years it wasn’t contentious and attracted no further attention for nearly a year and a half. Then a nasty and vicious campaign started against her on the internet forums. David Mole in his motion says there was apparently a serious falling out between her and her support, but that cannot be our concern. Why did the allegations take so long to surface? And why were they relevant since they weren’t the basis for the award? Who knows, but it culminated in a member’s motion for the 2016 AGM. The upshot was the motion on the proxy voting form posted with the magazine for reconsideration and rescinding of the award for bringing the LAA into disrepute. No evidence whatsoever was presented, and Tracey was given no opportunity to defend herself to proxy voters.
Wrong Derek, this all came about when TCT / BiaB tried to promote a solo flight of great achievement. When the solo aspect could not continue yet was still promoted, advertised and awards accepted on that premise those of us with an ounce of integrity felt something needed to be done. Long before the LAA AGM. Also, we poundstretcher-shopping-internet-trolling-proles did not resurrect this. TCT did with the "woe-is-me" piece in the Times, you know the one, it had a link to the upcoming film at the end of it! TCT started this off again, not us.
At the AGM members listened to Barry Tempest present his motion, Harry Hopkins as Awards chair explained the reasoning of his group and their investigation of the allegations. He recommended voting against it, and Tracey had the opportunity to defend herself. The members present voted overwhelmingly for her. But it had already been decided by the weight of proxy voters who had heard none of the arguments or evidence. Fewer than 100 members attend the AGM on average and in addition there are usually around 40-50 proxy votes. In 2016 the votes of the attendees were swamped by nearly treble the usual number of proxy votes. That guaranteed that the votes of those present were irrelevant. There was uproar on the floor when the result was announced, shouts of Disgraceful! and a large number of members got up and walked out.
What evidence did TCT really give? As mentioned, the Herne Bay video showed her repeating twice the SOLO claim. But as I said in an earlier post it wasn’t just about the solo aspect. It was all the other mis-truths and lies by omission.
They almost certainly thought that what had happened did not meet the LAA’s principle of fairness and justice. And it is probably what drove Tracey to keep plugging away for a review.
The LAA has the ability to punish members who act inappropriately, and in turn is duty-bound to support members against unfair allegations. When there were allegations that Tracey had brought the LAA into disrepute the board could have called her in if they felt there were grounds to it. Those who have said that the matter should have been resolved this way rather than at an AGM vote are absolutely right. Instead she was left to press her defence herself. If she had not been robust in doing it, I am certain the motions for reinstatement would not be going to this year’s AGM.
The way I read it, TCT has brought the LAA into disrepute by raising this again. I still believe the LAA was right the first time and it is a real shame that HCAP didn’t see this too
So now we’re in the situation where we have two motions before the AGM. A Vice President, the Company Secretary and the Chairman all indicate support for reinstatement. The difference between the motions appears to hinge on whether it was mishandled by the board. In my mind there is no question that was the case, and I was a member of it so I need to accept responsibility for its decisions too.
We need to admire Stewart Jackson for acting with his conscience with his motion to redress a wrong and reverse the 2016 motion. It was a very brave thing to do. I too am ashamed of what was done in the LAA’s name. If there’s criticism of the LAA it’s not misplaced. There is no wrong to redress.
It’s time to look at ourselves. Our numbers are declining as the older members die out, and our average age of 60 is increasing by nearly a year every year. We are almost all men. This matter has done our standing serious damage amongst outsiders. It’s no wonder we’re seen as aviation’s old boys club. The next generation is not signing up, and without them we have no future.
Remember it’s a sport. You don’t withdraw an award years after the event based on a nasty online campaign.
There is that phrase again, a nasty online campaign…asking for the truth is wrong is it?
The Awards committee looked closely at allegations and decided there weren’t grounds for withdrawal. It was pushed through by proxy voters who hadn’t heard the arguments. It has damaged our reputation and made us look misogynistic. We need to be generous and fix it by voting for both motions. Even if you normally don’t vote, please do so this year. Our association’s future well-being could just depend on it. Let’s play the game in a way that makes us attractive to young women and men, and encourages them to join us.
Young men and women can see what you reward, is it any wonder that decent people don’t want to join in?
Derek Lamb
Derek lamb has posted on the LAA forum, I cannot reply there but I can do so here.
In amongst the strong feelings on the forum I think there should be room for an alternative view. Our association is dedicated to recreational flying. Flying for fun and sport. Mixing with people who share our love of flying. To hold something like this together we have to make sure everyone is treated fairly in the best sporting tradition. Yet all members ultimately know that Tracey Curtis-Taylor, a long-standing member, wasn’t treated fairly and we need to look at that.
Do they know that? An assumption that is not borne out by the feelings expressed so far.
Two years ago we didn’t quite appreciate how a targeted internet campaign could destroy a person’s reputation, doing damage way beyond any claimed misdemeanour. When you’re in the cross-hairs of a nasty online campaign waged by a small number of people with an objective of causing damage there is no way out, no-one to appeal to for a just hearing.
Plenty of opportunity to answer genuine questions but all we have seen is diversion/deflection/obfuscation. Targeted internet campaign, of course targeted as TCT was the one who kept up the lies. Two years ago you had not heard her say SOLO. I found the damning Herne Bay video after the LAA vote! It would have been nice to have done so beforehand.
So how did this all come about? Four years ago in 2014 the Awards group decided to award the Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor. Like other awards over the years it wasn’t contentious and attracted no further attention for nearly a year and a half. Then a nasty and vicious campaign started against her on the internet forums. David Mole in his motion says there was apparently a serious falling out between her and her support, but that cannot be our concern. Why did the allegations take so long to surface? And why were they relevant since they weren’t the basis for the award? Who knows, but it culminated in a member’s motion for the 2016 AGM. The upshot was the motion on the proxy voting form posted with the magazine for reconsideration and rescinding of the award for bringing the LAA into disrepute. No evidence whatsoever was presented, and Tracey was given no opportunity to defend herself to proxy voters.
Wrong Derek, this all came about when TCT / BiaB tried to promote a solo flight of great achievement. When the solo aspect could not continue yet was still promoted, advertised and awards accepted on that premise those of us with an ounce of integrity felt something needed to be done. Long before the LAA AGM. Also, we poundstretcher-shopping-internet-trolling-proles did not resurrect this. TCT did with the "woe-is-me" piece in the Times, you know the one, it had a link to the upcoming film at the end of it! TCT started this off again, not us.
At the AGM members listened to Barry Tempest present his motion, Harry Hopkins as Awards chair explained the reasoning of his group and their investigation of the allegations. He recommended voting against it, and Tracey had the opportunity to defend herself. The members present voted overwhelmingly for her. But it had already been decided by the weight of proxy voters who had heard none of the arguments or evidence. Fewer than 100 members attend the AGM on average and in addition there are usually around 40-50 proxy votes. In 2016 the votes of the attendees were swamped by nearly treble the usual number of proxy votes. That guaranteed that the votes of those present were irrelevant. There was uproar on the floor when the result was announced, shouts of Disgraceful! and a large number of members got up and walked out.
What evidence did TCT really give? As mentioned, the Herne Bay video showed her repeating twice the SOLO claim. But as I said in an earlier post it wasn’t just about the solo aspect. It was all the other mis-truths and lies by omission.
They almost certainly thought that what had happened did not meet the LAA’s principle of fairness and justice. And it is probably what drove Tracey to keep plugging away for a review.
The LAA has the ability to punish members who act inappropriately, and in turn is duty-bound to support members against unfair allegations. When there were allegations that Tracey had brought the LAA into disrepute the board could have called her in if they felt there were grounds to it. Those who have said that the matter should have been resolved this way rather than at an AGM vote are absolutely right. Instead she was left to press her defence herself. If she had not been robust in doing it, I am certain the motions for reinstatement would not be going to this year’s AGM.
The way I read it, TCT has brought the LAA into disrepute by raising this again. I still believe the LAA was right the first time and it is a real shame that HCAP didn’t see this too
So now we’re in the situation where we have two motions before the AGM. A Vice President, the Company Secretary and the Chairman all indicate support for reinstatement. The difference between the motions appears to hinge on whether it was mishandled by the board. In my mind there is no question that was the case, and I was a member of it so I need to accept responsibility for its decisions too.
We need to admire Stewart Jackson for acting with his conscience with his motion to redress a wrong and reverse the 2016 motion. It was a very brave thing to do. I too am ashamed of what was done in the LAA’s name. If there’s criticism of the LAA it’s not misplaced. There is no wrong to redress.
It’s time to look at ourselves. Our numbers are declining as the older members die out, and our average age of 60 is increasing by nearly a year every year. We are almost all men. This matter has done our standing serious damage amongst outsiders. It’s no wonder we’re seen as aviation’s old boys club. The next generation is not signing up, and without them we have no future.
Remember it’s a sport. You don’t withdraw an award years after the event based on a nasty online campaign.
There is that phrase again, a nasty online campaign…asking for the truth is wrong is it?
The Awards committee looked closely at allegations and decided there weren’t grounds for withdrawal. It was pushed through by proxy voters who hadn’t heard the arguments. It has damaged our reputation and made us look misogynistic. We need to be generous and fix it by voting for both motions. Even if you normally don’t vote, please do so this year. Our association’s future well-being could just depend on it. Let’s play the game in a way that makes us attractive to young women and men, and encourages them to join us.
Young men and women can see what you reward, is it any wonder that decent people don’t want to join in?
Derek Lamb
The discussion here greatly affects the LAA.
It seems unacceptable to me that this thread is misused as an alternative to discuss the root of the matter; the original thread on this forum having been closed, probably for good reason. And now you even admit to abusing this forum to continue a discussion from another one.
Moderators, you are rapidly loosing credibility, in my appreciation at least.
Thread Starter
I am also not a member of the LAA but if rich people can come in and hoover up awards where does that leave the association?
Tracey Curtis Taylor is no home builder like Colin Hales flying across hostile environment alone and crashing in Japan.
She had a multi million pound sponsorship in a brand new aircraft with the engineer and 20,000 hour commercial pilot up front doing the navigation and watching the T’s and P’s. A kid of 12 could have done it.
Now she wants to take the LAA to court if they refuse to give back a small memorial trophy.
Tracey Curtis Taylor is no home builder like Colin Hales flying across hostile environment alone and crashing in Japan.
She had a multi million pound sponsorship in a brand new aircraft with the engineer and 20,000 hour commercial pilot up front doing the navigation and watching the T’s and P’s. A kid of 12 could have done it.
Now she wants to take the LAA to court if they refuse to give back a small memorial trophy.
Last edited by Mike Flynn; 8th Oct 2018 at 08:31.
Are you suggesting lies are common practice, and well tolerated, elsewhere? But, again, truth and honesty (or otherwise) in this person's words and acts ought to be discussed separately, and they were - until that thread was closed.
As for me not being a UK pilot, you did state you are not an LAA member yourself, didn't you? Perhaps I am even closer than you, belonging at least to the local counterpart to the LAA? Are you sure you understand matters better?
And, err, if you really are not an LAA member, what is your concerm, at all? Except some generalities like "truth to parole", nice enough, but they could be questioned with many in the UK (and elsewhere), even outside the tearworthy Berxit mess.
As for me not being a UK pilot, you did state you are not an LAA member yourself, didn't you? Perhaps I am even closer than you, belonging at least to the local counterpart to the LAA? Are you sure you understand matters better?
And, err, if you really are not an LAA member, what is your concerm, at all? Except some generalities like "truth to parole", nice enough, but they could be questioned with many in the UK (and elsewhere), even outside the tearworthy Berxit mess.
Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 7th Oct 2018 at 20:52.
Leaving that as may be - I don't know and I don't really care - I expect this thread to be about the annual meeting, and perhaps about the vote on one single point of the agenda.
It seems unacceptable to me that this thread is misused as an alternative to discuss the root of the matter; the original thread on this forum having been closed, probably for good reason. And now you even admit to abusing this forum to continue a discussion from another one.
Moderators, you are rapidly loosing credibility, in my appreciation at least.
It seems unacceptable to me that this thread is misused as an alternative to discuss the root of the matter; the original thread on this forum having been closed, probably for good reason. And now you even admit to abusing this forum to continue a discussion from another one.
Moderators, you are rapidly loosing credibility, in my appreciation at least.
Last edited by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY; 7th Oct 2018 at 20:31. Reason: spelling
Thread Starter
The big question for the LAA is what has TCT done to further access to low funded aviation for newcomers?
Her trips have been at the high end of GA. A brand new Stearman witn high end hotels taking 3 months with a million dollar budget for a trip Amy Johnson did nearly ninety years ago alone and without ground support in just 21 days.
So what award will she get from the LAA? The Bill Woodham navigation award for nav she never did?Awarded following threats to the chairman? For low flying or flying in fog without an instrument rating? Or admitting busting restricted airspace?
She could quite easily fund a few flying scholarships.
However I see no evidence of her flying in the UK in 2018.
Frankly if the LAA committee roll over and give this woman, who happily accepted a solo award in Sydney, any sort of recognition apart from one for duplicity the they need to resign.
Her trips have been at the high end of GA. A brand new Stearman witn high end hotels taking 3 months with a million dollar budget for a trip Amy Johnson did nearly ninety years ago alone and without ground support in just 21 days.
So what award will she get from the LAA? The Bill Woodham navigation award for nav she never did?Awarded following threats to the chairman? For low flying or flying in fog without an instrument rating? Or admitting busting restricted airspace?
She could quite easily fund a few flying scholarships.
However I see no evidence of her flying in the UK in 2018.
Frankly if the LAA committee roll over and give this woman, who happily accepted a solo award in Sydney, any sort of recognition apart from one for duplicity the they need to resign.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This subject is obviously important to all members of the LAA, present and future, and as such I think it unfortunate that there has not been, as far as I am aware, a mass mailing to all members explaining all that is known, and all that is hidden, on the topic.
To allow those members less familiar with this farce to get a grip on the facts, such a mailshot might serve the LAA well.
My understanding of the LAA Forum is that all members have access to it. So, in terms of people who use pprune, but not the LAA Forum, someone is barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps the desire of some people to have this, and the other, thread, is to allow anonymous contributions. In which case, this forum serves a very useful purpose as evidence might not come to light without a protection of anonimiity.
On that topic, why can't we get another whistleblower from the support crews on her other trips?
I ask this, in order to provide clarity to the LAA Members reading this, and yet to decide how to vote in the AGM.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am proud to be an LAA member. I value what it does for GA and for me. I have read the various arguments here with interest, but until I received the LAA voting form and the text of the motions I was unsure of how I might vote. Now it's all quite clear.
TCT threatened this organisation with legal action. Some members want to give this person an award. I don't understand their viewpoint, nor do I wish to. I wouldn't give a medal to someone who declared war on me.
I will be voting against both motions.
TCT threatened this organisation with legal action. Some members want to give this person an award. I don't understand their viewpoint, nor do I wish to. I wouldn't give a medal to someone who declared war on me.
I will be voting against both motions.
Thread Starter
Does the Chairman have to reveal where his allocated batch of votes go?
If he has been threatend by lawyers will that influence his use of the of the proxy votes?
Will the LAA Chairman reveal the lawyers threatening letters sent to him?
If he has been threatend by lawyers will that influence his use of the of the proxy votes?
Will the LAA Chairman reveal the lawyers threatening letters sent to him?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Derek Lamb wrote “It has damaged our reputation and made us look misogynistic.” I don’t think restoring the award will repair the LAA’s reputation. I don’t think the LAA did anything wrong in the first place, they issued an award without knowing the real background and then rescinded it based on members votes when the full facts came to light. I despair if they want to give the rescinded award back to Tracey to avoid looking misogynistic.
Derek also wrote “The Awards committee looked closely at allegations and decided there weren’t grounds for withdrawal. It was pushed through by proxy voters who hadn’t heard the arguments.” I am confused here. Am I mistaken in thinking the award was for “a feat of navigation, aviation, tenacity and endurance" which actually involved the use of GPS, another pilot on board and a back up team? If I am wrong please enlighten me. What were the arguments that those present at the LAA AGM were apparently aware of that all the proxy voters and Pprune viewers who have read probably far more background information were not?
I would be delighted if the LAA could change my mind and convince me that Tracey is fully deserving of the award.
Derek also wrote “The Awards committee looked closely at allegations and decided there weren’t grounds for withdrawal. It was pushed through by proxy voters who hadn’t heard the arguments.” I am confused here. Am I mistaken in thinking the award was for “a feat of navigation, aviation, tenacity and endurance" which actually involved the use of GPS, another pilot on board and a back up team? If I am wrong please enlighten me. What were the arguments that those present at the LAA AGM were apparently aware of that all the proxy voters and Pprune viewers who have read probably far more background information were not?
I would be delighted if the LAA could change my mind and convince me that Tracey is fully deserving of the award.
Last edited by suninmyeyes; 7th Oct 2018 at 23:32. Reason: Removal of the word solo
It is for Ms Curtis-Taylor to do that. Unfortunately there has been precious little effort applied to actually addressing the requested facts and people's opinions. Instead, all I see is bluster, avoidance and misdirection.
Addressing facts and opinions over the past 2 years would have been a far better use of time than instructing solicitors to gain the result she wishes, in my view.
Sadly we now see here and elsewhere LAA members attacking one another and the board, with strange conspiracy theories and envious comments about "the rich and powerful" supposedly pulling strings.
Those attacks are a far more serious outcome fro the LAA than whether or not a particular gewgaw is awarded or not.
Unfortunately the future of the Association seems to be a secondary concern in some quarters - and I don't mean solely Ms C-T.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those of you that haven't worked it out I'm Tracey's ex husband Steve Taylor and given the latest flurry of forum activity pending the LAA AGM I think it is timely for me to come clean and identify myself.I have no desire to fuel the spontaneous self combustion of Tracey nor do I hold any grudge or harbour bitterness toward Tracey.My posts on the other thread were made to give a truthful account of Tracey's incredibly embellished claims,after all I was there for some of it and I wasn't wearing rose coloured spectacles.
I was made aware of Tracey's feats of aviation a few years ago when my younger brother,who lives in the UK, sent me an email to the effect that "your ex-missus has just crashed in to a chopper". A little research lead me here and the rest is history so to speak.
I have in the past contacted both "Jay Sata" and Sam Rutherford to give them a bit of support considering they were having to endure the wrath of Tracey so it is not true that she says:
As you know, since 2015, you and your friend Mike Flynn, a journalist now based in Thailand, who posts on PPRuNe as 'Jay Sata', have waged a campaign of abuse against me. In addition to the stream of bile on PPRuNe you variously bombarded the Air League, the Honorary Company of Air Pilots (you wrote to every chapter around the world), the RAeS, Women in Aviation and numerous other organisations involved in my outreach programme with destructive personal messages. You even contacted the ex-husband from whom I parted company with over twenty years ago in your efforts to promote an agenda of character assassination.
Over and out "the ex-husband"....for now.
I was made aware of Tracey's feats of aviation a few years ago when my younger brother,who lives in the UK, sent me an email to the effect that "your ex-missus has just crashed in to a chopper". A little research lead me here and the rest is history so to speak.
I have in the past contacted both "Jay Sata" and Sam Rutherford to give them a bit of support considering they were having to endure the wrath of Tracey so it is not true that she says:
As you know, since 2015, you and your friend Mike Flynn, a journalist now based in Thailand, who posts on PPRuNe as 'Jay Sata', have waged a campaign of abuse against me. In addition to the stream of bile on PPRuNe you variously bombarded the Air League, the Honorary Company of Air Pilots (you wrote to every chapter around the world), the RAeS, Women in Aviation and numerous other organisations involved in my outreach programme with destructive personal messages. You even contacted the ex-husband from whom I parted company with over twenty years ago in your efforts to promote an agenda of character assassination.
Over and out "the ex-husband"....for now.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: over the hill
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On and On this goes, one of the nastiest threads (in all its various mutations) on this board in the years its been running.
Part of the origin lies in a dispute between a team running an expedition that hired one of the lead protagonists in this mountain of vilification, and that person's performance on the job that the team stated that they were not satisfied with. That fact does rather colour his response, and yet this is ignored. That might be the more understandable if it were not for allegations that he also seems to have further alleged 'history' as regards his performance, with some participants of a subsequent rally through Africa he organised alleging several deficiencies in the way it was run.....
If the protagonist in so much of what has followed was minded to, and was advised he had a case to do so, he could have sued the TCT organisation, or the person herself, for breach of contract and that, arguably, would have been a fairer route than this never ending campaign, but, as far as I am aware, he has not. That has to say something about it all.
Just occasionally a contrarian view can perhaps be put. There is a real case that the LAA membership restore this award - it is of course now superseded by subsequent recipients. This has the makings of a saga that will not stop, unsurprising when what is at stake is the utter evisceration of personal reputations. There has to be a time to draw a line under this, and now is that time.
Part of the origin lies in a dispute between a team running an expedition that hired one of the lead protagonists in this mountain of vilification, and that person's performance on the job that the team stated that they were not satisfied with. That fact does rather colour his response, and yet this is ignored. That might be the more understandable if it were not for allegations that he also seems to have further alleged 'history' as regards his performance, with some participants of a subsequent rally through Africa he organised alleging several deficiencies in the way it was run.....
If the protagonist in so much of what has followed was minded to, and was advised he had a case to do so, he could have sued the TCT organisation, or the person herself, for breach of contract and that, arguably, would have been a fairer route than this never ending campaign, but, as far as I am aware, he has not. That has to say something about it all.
Just occasionally a contrarian view can perhaps be put. There is a real case that the LAA membership restore this award - it is of course now superseded by subsequent recipients. This has the makings of a saga that will not stop, unsurprising when what is at stake is the utter evisceration of personal reputations. There has to be a time to draw a line under this, and now is that time.
Last edited by ShortfinalFred; 7th Oct 2018 at 23:30. Reason: syntax
Remember it’s a sport. You don’t withdraw an award years after the event based on a nasty online campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Olympic_medals
Nothing nasty Fred, it's a bunch of folk who place store in honesty and truth, rather than subterfuge and lies..
@ShortfinalFred
Part of the origin lies in a dispute between a team running an expedition that hired one of the lead protagonists in this mountain of vilification, and that person's performance on the job that the team stated that they were not satisfied with. That fact does rather colour his response, and yet this is ignored. That might be the more understandable if it were not for allegations that he also seems to have further alleged 'history' as regards his performance, with some participants of a subsequent rally through Africa he organised alleging several deficiencies in the way it was run.....
If the protagonist in so much of what has followed was minded to, and was advised he had a case to do so, he could have sued the TCT organisation, or the person herself, for breach of contract and that, arguably, would have been a fairer route than this never ending campaign, but, as far as I am aware, he has not. That has to say something about it all.
I'm guessing you're talking about me? Tracey has stated that she wasn't satisfied with my performance, but:
Why (on what grounds) would I want to sue anyone to do with regard to Tracey's Africa trip? Until now the only reason I can think of is libel/slander - but she's very careful to only talk nastily about me behind my back (not in public) so this is difficult. There has been no breach of contract - we delivered. We were paid.
Feel free to elaborate on your post if there's more...
As I have already written several times, I only went public after Tracey refused TWO private requests from me to politely refuse awards (for something she hadn't done). There was, and is, no 'dispute' between us (particularly now that she has admitted that Ewald was up front for very nearly every flight of all the trips).
Feel free to put your name at the bottom of your post as well...
Part of the origin lies in a dispute between a team running an expedition that hired one of the lead protagonists in this mountain of vilification, and that person's performance on the job that the team stated that they were not satisfied with. That fact does rather colour his response, and yet this is ignored. That might be the more understandable if it were not for allegations that he also seems to have further alleged 'history' as regards his performance, with some participants of a subsequent rally through Africa he organised alleging several deficiencies in the way it was run.....
If the protagonist in so much of what has followed was minded to, and was advised he had a case to do so, he could have sued the TCT organisation, or the person herself, for breach of contract and that, arguably, would have been a fairer route than this never ending campaign, but, as far as I am aware, he has not. That has to say something about it all.
I'm guessing you're talking about me? Tracey has stated that she wasn't satisfied with my performance, but:
- I delivered exactly what I had been paid to deliver.
- I wasn't working for Tracey.
- She hasn't actually explained what, exactly, she was unhappy about (see point 1 perhaps?).
Why (on what grounds) would I want to sue anyone to do with regard to Tracey's Africa trip? Until now the only reason I can think of is libel/slander - but she's very careful to only talk nastily about me behind my back (not in public) so this is difficult. There has been no breach of contract - we delivered. We were paid.
Feel free to elaborate on your post if there's more...
As I have already written several times, I only went public after Tracey refused TWO private requests from me to politely refuse awards (for something she hadn't done). There was, and is, no 'dispute' between us (particularly now that she has admitted that Ewald was up front for very nearly every flight of all the trips).
Feel free to put your name at the bottom of your post as well...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: over the hill
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 'bunch of folk'...who seem not to want to recognise a strong motive by one protagonist to destroy the other. It can be alleged, a strong commercial motive. By someone who, it could also be alleged, is not exactly in a 'glass house' themselves when it comes to professionalism. Someone who has waged an incessant, even obsessive, campaign in a most personal way for years subsequently.
Why did the team dismiss your services Mr Rutherford? If you delivered 'exactly what you'd been paid to deliver'? That just doesn't make sense. There was some dispute, wasn't there? My name is Fred, BTW...
I would repeat, its time to draw a line under this and the LAA have a way to do that before them that I would commend, as stated in the motions attached with the paperwork sent out for the AGM.
Why did the team dismiss your services Mr Rutherford? If you delivered 'exactly what you'd been paid to deliver'? That just doesn't make sense. There was some dispute, wasn't there? My name is Fred, BTW...
I would repeat, its time to draw a line under this and the LAA have a way to do that before them that I would commend, as stated in the motions attached with the paperwork sent out for the AGM.
Last edited by ShortfinalFred; 8th Oct 2018 at 00:47. Reason: syntax, context.