2018 Light Aircraft Association AGM award vote
Why did the team dismiss your services Mr Rutherford?
I wasn't dismissed. I left with everyone else from Crete at the end of the contract. This is another falsehood that Tracey has been spouting for months/years.
If you delivered 'exactly what you'd been paid to deliver'? That just doesn't make sense.
Correct - it doesn't make sense because it's not true.
There was some dispute, wasn't there?
Yes. We were asked to get visas for Libya (so we asked our Libyan partner to pay for and get the visas). When the decision was taken to skip Libya, the film company didn't want to pay for the visas "we don't need them, as we're not going to Libya" - we had to explain that they had been paid for, whether needed or not (that's how visas work). Unfortunately we ended up having to take them to court (where we won).
My name is Fred, BTW...
Thank you. Have we ever met?
I wasn't dismissed. I left with everyone else from Crete at the end of the contract. This is another falsehood that Tracey has been spouting for months/years.
If you delivered 'exactly what you'd been paid to deliver'? That just doesn't make sense.
Correct - it doesn't make sense because it's not true.
There was some dispute, wasn't there?
Yes. We were asked to get visas for Libya (so we asked our Libyan partner to pay for and get the visas). When the decision was taken to skip Libya, the film company didn't want to pay for the visas "we don't need them, as we're not going to Libya" - we had to explain that they had been paid for, whether needed or not (that's how visas work). Unfortunately we ended up having to take them to court (where we won).
My name is Fred, BTW...
Thank you. Have we ever met?
Is this film still in post production, is there going to be an epilogue featuring TCT the victim of the LAA and the internet trolls of Pprune? A martyr for all those women who were barred from an aviation career for lack of a suitable mentor...oh wait...
After all it would be a neat little twist for a producer trying to sell a slightly damaged product.
Is the AGM open to members only or will there be lights, camera and sound crew present? I'm guessing iPhone hand held wobblecam wouldn't make the final cut.
Always look for the hidden agenda and follow the money....good luck with your AGM and I feel for the office bearers on this occasion. Stick to due process, keep your powder dry.
There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about. could have been written for this occasion!
After all it would be a neat little twist for a producer trying to sell a slightly damaged product.
Is the AGM open to members only or will there be lights, camera and sound crew present? I'm guessing iPhone hand held wobblecam wouldn't make the final cut.
Always look for the hidden agenda and follow the money....good luck with your AGM and I feel for the office bearers on this occasion. Stick to due process, keep your powder dry.
There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about. could have been written for this occasion!
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grammer
Jay Sata's post #163 deserves some attention particularly the article written in the local newspaper from Tracey's home town.
“I started on basic training aircraft but very quickly got into flying vintage stuff,” she told the Herald.She began to earn a living as a flying instructor and by getting involved with aerial photography and mapping and other aspects of commercial flying.
(The flying instructor job was terminated by her employer after a fairly brief sojourn.Getting involved in aerial photography means "I was a sales rep for an aerial mapping company" driving around in a Toyota Corolla...no flying in this job.As for other "aspects of commercial flying" there were none.)
At the same time she joined syndicates with shared ownership of historic aircraft, developing her skills and expertise in this specialist area.
(Tracey did own a share in a little scaled down SE5A homebuilt and flew it a bit until another syndicate member wrote it off.She,briefly,had a share in a Piper Cub and also flew that a little but these are hardly "historic aircraft". I gave her a share in a NA Harvard, NZ1078, and taught her to fly it and she flew it competently but certainly never displayed it or became proficient in aerobatics or did any formation flying.This hardly constitutes "developing her skills and expertise in this specialist area".)
“That way I could have a share in the most exotic aeroplanes that I wouldn’t have access to normally,” she explained.
(There is nothing "exotic" about these aeroplanes let alone being the "most exotic".)
Returning permanently to the UK in 1997, Tracey became the first female pilot to be based at the historic Shuttleworth Collection.
(What Tracey means is that she had her own aeroplane,the Ryan,hangared at Shuttleworth.She was never a Shuttleworth collection pilot, which one could easily believe after reading her bio on her website.)
Economy with the truth is prevalent with most that is written about Tracey and her exploits....I could go on.
“I started on basic training aircraft but very quickly got into flying vintage stuff,” she told the Herald.She began to earn a living as a flying instructor and by getting involved with aerial photography and mapping and other aspects of commercial flying.
(The flying instructor job was terminated by her employer after a fairly brief sojourn.Getting involved in aerial photography means "I was a sales rep for an aerial mapping company" driving around in a Toyota Corolla...no flying in this job.As for other "aspects of commercial flying" there were none.)
At the same time she joined syndicates with shared ownership of historic aircraft, developing her skills and expertise in this specialist area.
(Tracey did own a share in a little scaled down SE5A homebuilt and flew it a bit until another syndicate member wrote it off.She,briefly,had a share in a Piper Cub and also flew that a little but these are hardly "historic aircraft". I gave her a share in a NA Harvard, NZ1078, and taught her to fly it and she flew it competently but certainly never displayed it or became proficient in aerobatics or did any formation flying.This hardly constitutes "developing her skills and expertise in this specialist area".)
“That way I could have a share in the most exotic aeroplanes that I wouldn’t have access to normally,” she explained.
(There is nothing "exotic" about these aeroplanes let alone being the "most exotic".)
Returning permanently to the UK in 1997, Tracey became the first female pilot to be based at the historic Shuttleworth Collection.
(What Tracey means is that she had her own aeroplane,the Ryan,hangared at Shuttleworth.She was never a Shuttleworth collection pilot, which one could easily believe after reading her bio on her website.)
Economy with the truth is prevalent with most that is written about Tracey and her exploits....I could go on.
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.
Last edited by megan; 8th Oct 2018 at 23:40.
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: South
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is all incredibly sad. It is very uncomfortable to observe someone's vainglorious attempts to regain an award that was rightly rescinded. Please Tracey withdraw from this campaign. You will be doing something far better in withdrawing than continuing this bitter battle. You would also find that others would appreciate you and credit you for doing so. Is that not better than this ill advised crusade which is so devastating? This is an awful time for the LAA as a whole and the members do not deserve what is happening to their organisation. Please desist.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: over the hill
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, Mr Rutherford, we've not met. I've not met either of the two contenders in this spiral of doom. From those who HAVE met you and been on the end of your intense, angry, lobbying there comes a sense that what you relay in your last post just cannot be true, and a sense, an allegation if you will, that there is much, much more to this than meets the eye on your part. As for your rally - people talk in aviation and the rumour, or allegation, (this is a rumour board after all), is that the 'Africa Affair' comprised serious deficiencies and, it has been said to a colleague, I was told,: "it's matter of time before someone is killed on one of these jaunts".
Lind is right in on thing, this IS incredibly sad, and overly personal too. A person who has had their entire life dragged across social media will, I am sure, pursue this to their last day and, yes, the LAA can expect that to continue I would imagine - what has the individual concerned got left to lose? The award was 'rightly rescinded', you say? Surely then the committee that made it should have resigned en masse in the face of the proxy vote, comprised, it would appear, of quite some new members enrolled seemingly for just this purpose? Did the award state it was for solo flying? Does the LAA endorse its members navigating across international boundaries with a compass and a map? Surely then, the committee itself is answerable here too?
Boeing really don't care I suspect. Seen from their point of view, there is a need over the next twenty years for 600,000 new commercial pilots and not a clue where they will come from, especially in less developed parts of the world. As far as they are concerned, women need, MUST, be part of the answer to this fact that threatens their business. A picture of a woman in a plane, better yet a Boeing product, in the media in parts of the world where their advertising cannot reach due to the wide cultural gap now between the USA and many Muslim countries is all they wanted from sponsoring that trip, in the hope that if that picture were to spark a single woman to pursue aviation then that spark may light a small flame that may inspire others too.
There are more aspects to this than meets the eye, on your part too, Mr Rutherford. The LAA want it to end and have outlined two ways for that to happen. I think there are people who agree with the carefully reasoned motions and that it would be best to draw a line under this protracted affair by voting for one or the other. The award is now superseded anyway by the passage of time. Enough is enough.
Lind is right in on thing, this IS incredibly sad, and overly personal too. A person who has had their entire life dragged across social media will, I am sure, pursue this to their last day and, yes, the LAA can expect that to continue I would imagine - what has the individual concerned got left to lose? The award was 'rightly rescinded', you say? Surely then the committee that made it should have resigned en masse in the face of the proxy vote, comprised, it would appear, of quite some new members enrolled seemingly for just this purpose? Did the award state it was for solo flying? Does the LAA endorse its members navigating across international boundaries with a compass and a map? Surely then, the committee itself is answerable here too?
Boeing really don't care I suspect. Seen from their point of view, there is a need over the next twenty years for 600,000 new commercial pilots and not a clue where they will come from, especially in less developed parts of the world. As far as they are concerned, women need, MUST, be part of the answer to this fact that threatens their business. A picture of a woman in a plane, better yet a Boeing product, in the media in parts of the world where their advertising cannot reach due to the wide cultural gap now between the USA and many Muslim countries is all they wanted from sponsoring that trip, in the hope that if that picture were to spark a single woman to pursue aviation then that spark may light a small flame that may inspire others too.
There are more aspects to this than meets the eye, on your part too, Mr Rutherford. The LAA want it to end and have outlined two ways for that to happen. I think there are people who agree with the carefully reasoned motions and that it would be best to draw a line under this protracted affair by voting for one or the other. The award is now superseded anyway by the passage of time. Enough is enough.
Tabs please !
Then there's the episode where she busted restricted airspace, flew over the local bigwig's house and blamed it on the local controller. Who put that in the public domain ?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going through the motions:
LAA AGM 2018 MOTION 1
The Annual General Meeting acknowledges that its resolution of October 2016 to rescind the award of the Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor was unjustified and inappropriate to the values of the Light Aircraft Association.
LAA AGM 2018 MOTION 2
That the Woodhams Trophy awarded to Tracey Curtis-Taylor in 2014 be reinstated.
Let's just remind everyone of the two motions on the table.
The membership is being asked to overturn the democratic vote, taken two years ago, to rescind an award, with that action being based on what was known then, compared to what was known when the Awards Committee decided to give her the award.
The membership is also, as a separate process, being asked to reinstate the award.
Up until this point, an outsider might think that the LAA had behaved well. Looking at the timeline..
Trip is aggressively advertised, world wide and clearly, as a solo venture.
Then it was flown with a Pilot in the other seat for most of it, but the LAA did not know that.
The award was considered and bestowed.
Then...
The initial reports of lies came to the surface.
The membership, having been made aware of the lies, decided to rescind the award.
More lies became common knowledge.
At this point it was obvious to everyone, that it was not TC-T who had brought the LAA into disrepute, but the awards committee, but they had done so in good faith, and without all of the facts. They had been deceived and when that deception was uncovered, the problem was fixed. Perhaps the senior management of the LAA could have taken a stronger position to defend the reputation of the association, that's subjective.
To an outside observer, it looked as if the LAA had righted a wrong by rescinding the Woodhams Trophy.
Now, the whole sorry mess has been stirred up again, and I don't think that T C-T is an important part of this phase. she has not raised a motion at the AGM, other people have.
This is now about the LAA standing up for what's right. Do the members really want to be part of an association which rewards a clearly fraudulent escapade? There are just too many "problems" with her story, for the whole "adventure" to be taken seriously and rewarded with accolade which suggests there is some merit in such a big jamboree pretending to be one pilot, alone against the elements.
So, a wrong was done, and has been righted. If the LAA can't put this behind them, then the association is in deep trouble. Leadership is required here, in the form of a strong message from the top, to nail their colours to the mast. In the event that this becomes a crisis of confidence in the leadership, then so be it.
The membership of the LAA must be allowed (whether or not they choose to do so...) to select leaders based on the way forward that the leadership candidates have stated as their chosen path. This is about more than TC-T, it is about finding out, and going along with, what the majority of members want. I am not aware of the LAA making members aware of the known facts of the case. That strikes me as an omission which would have been the result of some consideration.
My view is that it is unfortunate that time seems to be against the membership having a third motion, to propose that things are good as they are, regarding the 2016 vote to rescind, and that this should be an end to the matter.
Such a third motion might attract enough votes to establish a true sense of the feeling at a grassroots level. Maybe what's needed is compulsory voting.
Whatever happens, the LAA needs an end to this.
The Annual General Meeting acknowledges that its resolution of October 2016 to rescind the award of the Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor was unjustified and inappropriate to the values of the Light Aircraft Association.
LAA AGM 2018 MOTION 2
That the Woodhams Trophy awarded to Tracey Curtis-Taylor in 2014 be reinstated.
Let's just remind everyone of the two motions on the table.
The membership is being asked to overturn the democratic vote, taken two years ago, to rescind an award, with that action being based on what was known then, compared to what was known when the Awards Committee decided to give her the award.
The membership is also, as a separate process, being asked to reinstate the award.
Up until this point, an outsider might think that the LAA had behaved well. Looking at the timeline..
Trip is aggressively advertised, world wide and clearly, as a solo venture.
Then it was flown with a Pilot in the other seat for most of it, but the LAA did not know that.
The award was considered and bestowed.
Then...
The initial reports of lies came to the surface.
The membership, having been made aware of the lies, decided to rescind the award.
More lies became common knowledge.
At this point it was obvious to everyone, that it was not TC-T who had brought the LAA into disrepute, but the awards committee, but they had done so in good faith, and without all of the facts. They had been deceived and when that deception was uncovered, the problem was fixed. Perhaps the senior management of the LAA could have taken a stronger position to defend the reputation of the association, that's subjective.
To an outside observer, it looked as if the LAA had righted a wrong by rescinding the Woodhams Trophy.
Now, the whole sorry mess has been stirred up again, and I don't think that T C-T is an important part of this phase. she has not raised a motion at the AGM, other people have.
This is now about the LAA standing up for what's right. Do the members really want to be part of an association which rewards a clearly fraudulent escapade? There are just too many "problems" with her story, for the whole "adventure" to be taken seriously and rewarded with accolade which suggests there is some merit in such a big jamboree pretending to be one pilot, alone against the elements.
So, a wrong was done, and has been righted. If the LAA can't put this behind them, then the association is in deep trouble. Leadership is required here, in the form of a strong message from the top, to nail their colours to the mast. In the event that this becomes a crisis of confidence in the leadership, then so be it.
The membership of the LAA must be allowed (whether or not they choose to do so...) to select leaders based on the way forward that the leadership candidates have stated as their chosen path. This is about more than TC-T, it is about finding out, and going along with, what the majority of members want. I am not aware of the LAA making members aware of the known facts of the case. That strikes me as an omission which would have been the result of some consideration.
My view is that it is unfortunate that time seems to be against the membership having a third motion, to propose that things are good as they are, regarding the 2016 vote to rescind, and that this should be an end to the matter.
Such a third motion might attract enough votes to establish a true sense of the feeling at a grassroots level. Maybe what's needed is compulsory voting.
Whatever happens, the LAA needs an end to this.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While one of the two parties you mention does have a habit of crashing aircraft I do not think it is Mr Rutherford.
I suppose people are entitled to join the LAA if they wish so if true there is nothing improper or illegal about it. Just as if Miss Curtis-Taylor’s supporters were to do the same this time around. They might even be able to reclaim the joining fee from the film company on expenses. Maybe the LAA should be keeping an eye open for proxy votes with a whiff of celluloid about them (or something worse).
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That and the deliberate busting of controlled airspace at Victoria Falls. Miss Curtis-Taylor freely, and rather gleefully, told me about that herself.
Did the award state it was for solo flying?
Anyway, I am now off to follow in the footsteps of Bert Hinkler, the first person to fly solo to Australia. I will have a 'back-up team' (British Airway's) and will be 'reaching out' on various occasions during my flight - mainly for another glass of wine. By the time I get back, this saga will hopefully be over one way or the other. Courage! The truth will always out.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clare Prop, At least Tracey is not making accusations against you. It seems to be only male pilots she is blaming.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...lane-l2663fjs2
I find the accusations very irritating. She is trying to turn it into a sexist male pilots against female pilot thing when I don’t believe it is anything of the sort.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...lane-l2663fjs2
I find the accusations very irritating. She is trying to turn it into a sexist male pilots against female pilot thing when I don’t believe it is anything of the sort.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It didn't need to. It was a presumed given that it was a solo flight because of the massive media reporting, website statement from BiaB and personal commentary from the pilot in question that is was solo. There are plenty of social media comments from people who were shocked to finally find it wasn't a solo flight. There is too much evidence in the public domain now for this whole affair to be considered as anything other than a deceit. A deceit which supporters of T C-T never refer to or try to explain. Instead, they seek to blame the LAA and its members or make accusations against people who have simply asked the right questions.
Anyway, I am now off to follow in the footsteps of Bert Hinkler, the first person to fly solo to Australia. I will have a 'back-up team' (British Airway's) and will be 'reaching out' on various occasions during my flight - mainly for another glass of wine. By the time I get back, this saga will hopefully be over one way or the other. Courage! The truth will always out.
Anyway, I am now off to follow in the footsteps of Bert Hinkler, the first person to fly solo to Australia. I will have a 'back-up team' (British Airway's) and will be 'reaching out' on various occasions during my flight - mainly for another glass of wine. By the time I get back, this saga will hopefully be over one way or the other. Courage! The truth will always out.
Post-truth politics is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored (Wikipedia).
@Fred
I am happy to repeat that everything I wrote, and have written, is absolutely accurate. Feel free to go back to your sources, and then come back here. I have nothing to hide, no hidden agenda.
It really is, and always has been, about accepting awards gained falsely. Such as claiming to have climbed Everest solo, but then it being shown to not have been solo. Still an achievement, but not 'as sold'.
With regard to your accident analogy, I'd use the same Everest example. It is of course safer to stay at home.
People are free to decide whether it (anything) is worth the risk.
Finally, it is Tracey who started this, and only Tracey who can decide when it ends.
I am happy to repeat that everything I wrote, and have written, is absolutely accurate. Feel free to go back to your sources, and then come back here. I have nothing to hide, no hidden agenda.
It really is, and always has been, about accepting awards gained falsely. Such as claiming to have climbed Everest solo, but then it being shown to not have been solo. Still an achievement, but not 'as sold'.
With regard to your accident analogy, I'd use the same Everest example. It is of course safer to stay at home.
People are free to decide whether it (anything) is worth the risk.
Finally, it is Tracey who started this, and only Tracey who can decide when it ends.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cumbernauld
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will end at AGM i would hope one way or another!! I have just received my magazine and read the AGM sheet its very informative I have understood more about events but looks like there is a serious rift in the LAA management. I hope I am wrong.
John.
John.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Age: 60
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who could blame the LAA awards committee for believing she made the flight solo, a quick search of the BBC news site today shows an article headed “Female pilot to attempt solo flight from Britain to Australia” dated 2nd Oct 2015. There are a number of such articles still available on line- are we to believe that all of the media misunderstood or that somebody misled them. I have failed to find a single article or media correction other than when the matter blew up in 2016. Somebody was very happy for the solo myth to be perpetrated and even when busted by her aviation peers, tried to use the word “sole”, just in case you haven’t noticed Tracey, there is no such thing in normal aviation parlance as “sole pilot” and even if there was - it wouldn’t seem to apply if accompanied by the holder of a valid licence and rating on the subject aircraft. Quite aside from that, she appears to have told the BBC that she would only be using “basic flying instruments that were used 70 years ago”, this simply wasn’t true. (See my daughters comment re Equivocation earlier in this thread if you wish to quibble instruments vs nav kit)
I post this not to revisit the recurrent themes of this matter but to guide those undecided LAA members in carrying out their own due diligence in deciding how to deal with this matter- one thing is for sure though, I don’t think the LAA have done anything improper and as a member I find this whole palaver distasteful. One last note, re Sam R, I don’t know him and we have never met but I deal with aviation matters every day at work and have many years experience at reading statements from pilots, Sam has not changed tack or message since this matter first surfaced and answers questions promptly and in a manner that can be verified, I know who I trust.
I post this not to revisit the recurrent themes of this matter but to guide those undecided LAA members in carrying out their own due diligence in deciding how to deal with this matter- one thing is for sure though, I don’t think the LAA have done anything improper and as a member I find this whole palaver distasteful. One last note, re Sam R, I don’t know him and we have never met but I deal with aviation matters every day at work and have many years experience at reading statements from pilots, Sam has not changed tack or message since this matter first surfaced and answers questions promptly and in a manner that can be verified, I know who I trust.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: over the hill
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Au contraire Mister Rutherford, it is you that has initiated and sustained this affair and you do protest too much, methinks - it can be alleged that you appear to have motives that transcend the 'search for truth' and that there is much more to this than meets the eye. It is alleged that you have, I am reliably informed, lobbied people with the most intense, ad hominem personal attacks if they do not accede to everything you want, and you have, it seems to me, sustained this thing far beyond what is reasonable, such that is has descended into a level of personal vilification that I am sure I am not alone in being uncomfortable with. You are not a disinterested, impartial observer in this affair, and there is something about your conduct that could be alleged to not ring true in all of this. I would add, anyone who has had the professional misfortune to have to listen to two ex-spouses disagree about absolutely anything will say that objectivity is the last thing you are going to get, from EITHER party. It's a new low that this forum has sunk to this kind of thing.
The LAA are offering a way to draw this to a close. People should take it. There is a valid counter argument that justice was not served at the original meeting in a variety of ways for the reasons set out in the current AGM paperwork. The awards committee, you and others are effectively saying, did not do their due diligence - they can't have done or the award should never, you say, have been made. They should all then, as a starter, have resigned the moment the vote was taken as it was. The senior management of the LAA should have resigned subsequently as well over such a badly handled process. There are statements in the paperwork that also make that clear, and indeed a poster above calls for this.
There is a further reform that needs to happen then: the LAA must be stripped of its role as a regulator of light aviation. People MUST belong to it if they operate at a certain level of aircraft ownership as the LAA has taken over from the CAA in that sector. This makes such an award have a significance it ought not to have when you are meant to be dealing with an impartial regulator. Either the LAA is a membership body that can make awards, counsel, advise and warn, or it is a regulator. It ought not to be both. It is standing into danger here. Arguably, the CAA as the Government appointed aviation regulatory body should be adequately resourced to review and license all aviation in the UK: an impartial body, open to advice and input from all - the LAA, the BGA, AOPA etc etc., but this is no longer the case. I for one do not want to belong to an organisation that perpetuates such a woeful saga, and yet I HAVE TO if I am to fly a certain category of aeroplane.A potential outcome from this endless process would be a demand that people not be shackled to a body that is both 'de jure' regulator and a selector of individuals for recognition, and that reform of the LAA itself is needed.
The LAA want this to stop. What might be called 'The Rutherford Route' is a near guarantee, it seems to me, that it wont. The LAA have offered a way to end this and people might like to consider taking it. Enough is enough.
The LAA are offering a way to draw this to a close. People should take it. There is a valid counter argument that justice was not served at the original meeting in a variety of ways for the reasons set out in the current AGM paperwork. The awards committee, you and others are effectively saying, did not do their due diligence - they can't have done or the award should never, you say, have been made. They should all then, as a starter, have resigned the moment the vote was taken as it was. The senior management of the LAA should have resigned subsequently as well over such a badly handled process. There are statements in the paperwork that also make that clear, and indeed a poster above calls for this.
There is a further reform that needs to happen then: the LAA must be stripped of its role as a regulator of light aviation. People MUST belong to it if they operate at a certain level of aircraft ownership as the LAA has taken over from the CAA in that sector. This makes such an award have a significance it ought not to have when you are meant to be dealing with an impartial regulator. Either the LAA is a membership body that can make awards, counsel, advise and warn, or it is a regulator. It ought not to be both. It is standing into danger here. Arguably, the CAA as the Government appointed aviation regulatory body should be adequately resourced to review and license all aviation in the UK: an impartial body, open to advice and input from all - the LAA, the BGA, AOPA etc etc., but this is no longer the case. I for one do not want to belong to an organisation that perpetuates such a woeful saga, and yet I HAVE TO if I am to fly a certain category of aeroplane.A potential outcome from this endless process would be a demand that people not be shackled to a body that is both 'de jure' regulator and a selector of individuals for recognition, and that reform of the LAA itself is needed.
The LAA want this to stop. What might be called 'The Rutherford Route' is a near guarantee, it seems to me, that it wont. The LAA have offered a way to end this and people might like to consider taking it. Enough is enough.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Fred,
I will repeat that your assumptions/allegations about me are wrong - and suggest you actually go back to the sources telling you otherwise to check.
I don't understand the "two ex-spouses" line?
I also disagree about the lack of objectivity (from me, at least). I have been entire objective throughout. Still am.
What you are calling the Rutherford Route would be better named the Curtis-Taylor route. She is the one who has been demonstrably fabricating tales throughout, I have not. This whole thing was dead and gone until she decided to resurrect it - not I.
I'm intrigued by the level of animosity you seem to hold for me, given that we've never met and you yourself accept that your position is based on hunch/hearsay.
I would ask you again to do a little more research (start with the demonstrable items such as whether I was sacked, what the court case was about), and then perhaps form your opinion of me? That would seem to be the objective way forward?
Feel free to post any more questions here, I will, as always, answer them correctly, promptly and truthfully.
I will repeat that your assumptions/allegations about me are wrong - and suggest you actually go back to the sources telling you otherwise to check.
I don't understand the "two ex-spouses" line?
I also disagree about the lack of objectivity (from me, at least). I have been entire objective throughout. Still am.
What you are calling the Rutherford Route would be better named the Curtis-Taylor route. She is the one who has been demonstrably fabricating tales throughout, I have not. This whole thing was dead and gone until she decided to resurrect it - not I.
I'm intrigued by the level of animosity you seem to hold for me, given that we've never met and you yourself accept that your position is based on hunch/hearsay.
I would ask you again to do a little more research (start with the demonstrable items such as whether I was sacked, what the court case was about), and then perhaps form your opinion of me? That would seem to be the objective way forward?
Feel free to post any more questions here, I will, as always, answer them correctly, promptly and truthfully.
