2018 Light Aircraft Association AGM award vote

[XV666]

Two interesting points on the LAA Forum: a change of title for the thread, now the third iteration "ALL MEMBERS! Please fill out those proxy forms..!!" which would have been done by a moderator of that forum.

And the latest contribution from Miss Curtis-Taylor:

Re: ALL MEMBERS ! Please fill out those proxy forms..!!

by Tracey Curtis-Taylor » Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:07 am

Rutherford is an unreliable witness in the matter of our Africa expedition. He was paid over 50,000 euros to manage the logistics comprising two aircraft and eight crew from Cape Town to Goodwood. Most of his actions were deemed to be incompetent and unsafe by the rest of the crew. We parted company on bad terms and he has pursued his campaign of vengeance ever since.

Rutherford is incorrect when he states that the sponsors and film crew signed me up. The opposite is true. I was connected with Rutherford in 2011 and personally paid him an upfront fee to scope out the expedition. My project manager introduced Annette Porter, the film director, in 2012 as she was prepared to help fund the filming. I found the sponsors and that took three years of hard work. The sponsors were happy for me to fly the expedition in any way and with whom I wanted, including them. To suggest that I mislead them is libellous. No references or endorsements were ever given to Rutherford. He made several separate appeals to my principle sponsor but they too ignored him.

With regards to the 'solo' issue: it was clear from the beginning that parts of the flight would be solo and others not. Rutherford implies that I was always flying with Ewald Gritsch which is also not true. In the formation flight through the Rift Valley and over the flamingos which featured in The Aviatrix documentary, I had Caroline O'Donnell from Artemis Investments as my passenger. Annette Porter flew several legs over 1200 miles with me; I also flew with other people for the purpose of the film story. All of these flights were filmed. Significantly, I was also going to take Rutherford on a leg with me at his request but when the flight planning problems surfaced in Cape Town - no proper maps, no charts, no VTC's, no VFR procedures, no AIP - which was part of Rutherford's logistical remit, I changed my mind.

The overriding consideration in all of this was safety. I took people with me not just to share the fantastic experience but because it was safer. And safety was a very big concern in Africa with the failure of the logistical support and the conflict and pressures which this caused for all of us.

I suggest that everyone focus on the real issue at hand. I was given an annual award by the LAA which I did not seek and it was not for a solo flight. That award was then taken back in a manipulated and flawed process two years later. It was a lapse in the duty of care the Association should have towards
it's members. I have been an LAA member for nearly fifteen years. Rutherford joined in April 2016 for reasons which are now all too clear.

I sincerely hope that decency and a sense of justice prevails among the wider membership beyond what is conveyed by a handful of misguided people on this forum.

[9 lives]

Rutherford is an unreliable witness

Hmmm, being called "unreliable" by a person demonstrated to be repeatedly dishonest, doesn't sound all that bad! I'm certain that Tracey has a motivation exaggerate, I don't see Sam being similarly motivated. Sam just seems to want to set the record straight.

manage the logistics comprising two aircraft and eight crew from Cape Town to Goodwood.

'Seems to erode the notion of a "navigation feat" for Tracey in my mind...

With regards to the 'solo' issue: it was clear from the beginning that parts of the flight would be solo and others not.

Clear to Tracey from the beginning? It seems that she was the person referring to the flights being solo in a predominate way.

The overriding consideration in all of this was safety. I took people with me not just to share the fantastic experience but because it was safer. And safety was a very big concern in Africa with the failure of the logistical support and the conflict and pressures which this caused for all of us.

Hmmm again; for fights I have flown where "safety was a very big concern", I flew with the fewest people aboard, preferably solo, so as not to expose other people to a less safe flight - particularly not carrying non pilots/crew members with a role! If Tracey was concerned about the safety of the flight, I can't see how carrying a passenger would make the flight safer! Perhaps another more experienced pilot should have flown the flight instead - oh, wait....

Despite Tracey's repeated reference to outreach in encouraging women into aviation, that does not seem to have been included in the most recent passage. "Film" gets mentioned a lot though!

I do hope that LAA members familiarize themselves well with these details prior to deciding on how to vote at the upcoming AGM! Perhaps Tracey could directly answer the three questions asked by interested members earlier, that might help put some minds to ease for voting!

[strake]

Ms Curtis-Taylor keeps using the word 'libelous' when describing Sam Rutherford's recollections yet does nothing about it except make threats. Given the evidence already seen, I would suggest she is herself starting to libel people.

I now see in her statement that 'parts of the flight would be solo, others not'. I seem to recall a number of 'personal statements' from Ms Curtis-Taylor on her website outraged that anyone would think the flights would have any element of solo flying at all in them.

Curiouser and curiouser

[Sam Rutherford]

@Fred

Tracey has answered one of your points herself. What was 'sacked and left early' has become 'left on bad terms'.

Can I suggest that time will similarly reveal the (in)accuracy of other things you may have heard?

[rog747]

I feel TCT using the LAA Members AGM forum for her own slanging match by her continuing personal feud with another LAA member (the ex contractor on her SA Trip) and knocks the LAA Board surely is an abuse of such a platform, clearly upsets the other Members, and again sees the LAA being brought into an unwanted spotlight, and perhaps into disrepute.

I have never seen such a show - It's awful.
Why does the LAA board not haul her in for a formal warning, and advise her to desist her behaviour - Failure to do so should perhaps include expulsion from the Society.

[Lind1795]

Completely agree with rog747 in post #225. Tracey is doing the LAA a disservice but most of all she is doing herself a disservice. I was hoping she might see sense but there seems to be no chance of that. Shame.

[Genghis the Engineer]

TCT's post above is interesting - as basically she admits that she paid somebody else to do most of the legwork of the "remarkable feat of navigation" for which she was originally given the award.

G

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

As more information is surfacing which is not directly appropriate for this thread I ask that the other one is reopened so this one can remain focused on the LAA side of the saga.

On that note, having read TCT's latest we have yet another version of events. It is clear to me that NOTHING which comes from BiaB can be trusted. Again no questions have been answered just more avoidance. What I find totally bizarre is this statement

"The overriding consideration in all of this was safety. I took people with me not just to share the fantastic experience but because it was safer. "
How can taking Anette Porter or Caroline O'Donnell along in the front seat make it safer? Unless of course you had doubts about the safety of them flying in the chase plane (tongue firmly in cheek here).

We know that local sorties were flown that were not part of the overall A to Z routing, why did you choose these passengers and not a local female student who you wanted to encourage into aviation?

Rutherford implies that I was always flying with Ewald Gritsch which is also not true. In the formation flight through the Rift Valley and over the flamingos which featured in The Aviatrix documentary, I had Caroline O'Donnell from Artemis Investments as my passenger. Annette Porter flew several legs over 1200 miles with me; I also flew with other people for the purpose of the film story.
Not true at all. Sam has always said that Ewald was with you for 40 of the 44 legs. So that leaves 4 legs where he was not plus the odd local jaunt betwix.

To para-phrase this from TCT "I sincerely hope that decency and a sense of justice prevails among the wider membership beyond what is conveyed by a handful of misguided people on this forum."
Agreed: I count amongst the misguided those who have been sent across to argue on her behalf.

Simple solution: Answer the questions, show the proof.

[piperboy84]

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

TCT's post above is interesting - as basically she admits that she paid somebody else to do most of the legwork of the "remarkable feat of navigation" for which she was originally given the award.

G

Exactly, I've been on a handful of solo long x country flights of a few thousand kilometers, multi day journeys as a private pilot in a slow single.The hardest part is sitting in the hotel in the morning agonising over those route & weather go or no-go decisions. You stress the hell out of yourself second guessing your choices and understanding of weather and route info available. It's you and you alone that are making those calls. Getting hand fed how, where and when to do the flight leaves only adherence to the plan which in TCT's case the chase plane can provide guidance and supervision on. Auctually flying the aircraft is a simple case of following your PPL training for a SEP day vfr flight. Nothing remarkable and certainly no great feat. Now buggering about in a drafty hangar on cold wintery nights for several years riveting and screwing together a pile of metal then actually having the bottle to go airborne with it, as many LAA members do, that to me is a remarkable feat worthy of recognition (or possibly commitment for phsyciatric evalation)

[HolyMoley]

Strangely, my post referred to above has disappeared, perhaps due to insufficient text on my part. I was replying to a previous poster’s assertion that if the original award was made on the basis of the information then available, the award should be reinstated. I invited comparison between this and an honorary degree given to Lance Armstrong, which was rescinded after his dishonesty was uncovered.


Nothing 'strange' about it: you referenced a link which was commented upon (and I agree) as being more suitable to the closed thread and this is, and should remain, a thread about the LAA AGM.

Senior Pilot

[Pilot DAR]

I have reopened the original Tracey Curtis-Taylor thread as requested, to provide a place for discussion of Ms. Curtis-Taylor's publicly promoted flying adventures. Please make the best use of each thread, in assuring that the post you wish to make is placed most appropriately in one or the other thread. Please avoid repeating information as much as possible.

[Right Hand Thread]

Originally Posted by oscarisapc

Factual arguments for and against the motions on this basis should have been invited and presented to the membership in writing in advance, so that members who take an interest but cannot attend in person can consider them and register their vote. On such an important issue, taking verbal and emotional arguments at a meeting and relying on a show of hands based on who can attend is not going to satisfy anyone.

A point that has seemingly been overlooked by the LAA board.

It is all very lopsided. Three supporting motions that would reinstate the award have been sent to the membership. NONE have been sent explaining the background and why those who do use forums and other media believe they know the truth of the matter.

I wonder if, should the motions succeed, this will subsequently be called into question?

[Union Jack]

Originally Posted by suninmyeyes

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.

Since it is readily available online, and might be helpful, there would appear to be no bar to repeating exactly what was minuted in respect of Item 6 at the LAA AGM on 22 Oct 16, together with some highlighting in red, together with my personal observations in bold red, namely:

MINUTES OF 2016 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
OF THE LIGHT AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION LIMITED
Sywell Aerodrome. Sunday 22nd October 2016.

"6. Motion for rescinding of the award of the Bill Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor.Proposed by Barry Tempest (member no 017423), seconded by Chris Martyr (member no. 022516).

The Chair allocated Barry two minutes to present his full motion and any other comments.

The Chair then invited Harry Hopkins in his role as Chairman of the Awards Committee, to respond.

Tracey Curtis-Taylor read a prepared statement, also available in written form, and pointed out that two other written submissions were available from Ewald Gritsch and from Barry Latter from the Museum of Flight in Seattle. Can anyone elaborate on what they contained?

TC-T submitted that she had not claimed to make a solo flight, and that any such claims came from members of her team and not approved by her. She's certainly been given every opportunity to refute these third party "claims" She also stated that the Motion had only been raised 18 months after the award had been made, following an orchestrated series of personal attacks that had threatened her reputation. Interesting - Character is what you are, whilst reputation is what you get. In her opinion the LAA was merely being used as a vehicle for these attacks.

There was then a period allocated to discussion from the floor. Manuel Queroz stated that the achievement, whether solo or not, marked an ‘unbelievable journey’. He certainly got that right!

Tim Allibone, a newly joined member, and Phillip Lowry, suggested that the proxy votes be excluded as those making their vote in that manner had not been able to hear both sides of the argument. Demonstrating a curiously naive understanding of the meaning of a proxy vote, a system used perfectly routinely and properly by companies and organisations many thousands of times a year, by definition without the voter being able to hear what is said at an AGM. The Chair responded that as Proxy Voting is included in the Articles of the Association, it should be allowed. A further query on the eligibility of proxy votes by Peter Andrews was similarly answered.

At this point the Motion was voted upon.

Votes From Floor Proxy Votes TOTAL

In favour of motion 17 106 123

Votes against 57 8 65

In addition the Chair had 36 proxy votes available to be allocated at his discretion. He elected that these be allocated to the majority. Which, as has already been said, made no difference to the outcome The total in favour of the motion was therefore 159 votes and the motion was therefore carried. The matter is now closed." If only..... Now why does Brexit come to mind?

Recalling that this all started with some difference in opinion between events in England and France perhaps, as an Honorary RNR Lieutenant Commander, the significance of the date of 21 October should not be lost on Tracey - could it be her Trafalgar?

I should also apologise if I have not been clever enough to get the columns for the voting figures correctly lined up in the submitted version.

Jack

[Haraka]

One of the gripes often expressed on PPRuNe is that the Press often lift discussion topics from these sites for more widespread publication and dissemination.
Coincidentally, one of the gripes now being expressed on the LAA site vis-a-vis this current matter, is that their general membership are only exposed to their own magazine's perforce extremely limited coverage and are therefore largely uninformed regarding the wider perspective and its implications.
The ground seems now to be well laid to provide a golden opportunity for an opportunistic scribe to produce an ongoing vibrant popular press exposé , which doubtless would in some form or other find itself communicated to those rank and file LAA members who continue to remain largely in the dark regarding the current shenanigans.
These good people might then be encouraged,even if they do not access the on-line sites, to vote according to their consciences on this divisive matter now confronting their organisation.

[gasax]

This whole business is a horrible mess. The inability of the LAA committee to display any backbone and so yielding to TC-Ts threats demonstrates the typical behaviour of the blazer brigade. Turn up for a free meal or to hob nob with the 'great and the good' but when asked to defend their actions they run away and then set their stooges up to try and manipulate LAA processes to make it all go away.

The big problem is that given all of this discussion and publicity, even if they get their way and it is re-awarded - their actions or perhaps inaction to act in the best interest of the association rather than avoid any personal responsibility will result in damage to the LAA. When faced with a fraudster the defence is the truth. Ignorant bullies will always threaten legal action, the chances of it actually happening is near zero - lies hate a little light.

I personally hate the politics which have distracted the LAA (nee PFA) since the coup against Underhill, but it has continued as people in these committees seem much more interested in fancy dinners than homebuilt aircraft. The technical side works and benefits large numbers of people - the rest? A vote of no confidence against the current committee seems like a very good way of sorting them out. Perhaps firstly Stewart Jackson. The bigger question is how to actually get a motion for the AGM accepted TCT seems to be suitably connected - what about the rest of us?

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

If I were at the LAA in a position of leadership or authority I would produce copies of any letters received which threaten legal action. I am surprised that a) this has not happened, and b) why no member has asked to see it (them).

If a direct threat letter exists then show us this sword of Damocles that is hanging over the LAA, what it says and what it demands. If no such legal threat has been made, then say so.

[S205-18F]

SWB The question has been asked on the LAA site we are awaiting an answer... I suspect we might not be indulged!!

[gasax]

There is a staggering posting on the LAA - David Mole's motion is because he thinks that is what she wants!!!!
Well who would have guessed! Quite why the legal advisor would recommend this to the membership remains cloaked. The seconder of the Stewart Jackson, works for Boeing. TCT's major sponsor was - yep Boeing.

So is this what the LAA committee are running scared of? How about a little honesty?

[Jodelman]

The above post is a staggering misrepresentation of what David Mole said. Read his post carefully and the reason for the motion he put forward becomes crystal clear.

[airpolice]

The important point here is whether or not the "legal threats" were directed to the board of the LAA or the LAA in general?

Where only the board are cited, then it is a matter for them; but if the association is in the firing line, then I would suggest that all "shareholders" in the LAA are entitled, and indeed compelled by law, to be made aware of the specifics.

I foresee this dragging on for another year, and some member raising a motion, ten months from now, to suggest that the LAA distance the membership and association, from TC-T, Prince Michael of Kent and anyone on the board or committee within the LAA who still supports her case. I say this on the basis of the obvious deceit, dishonest statements and thoroughly objectionable behaviour involved. I speak not of what she has been alleged by others to have done, but the actions claimed in statements that she has made in public.

Do the general membership feel comfortable having as their Patron, a man who so obviously approves of what TC-T has done?

I am sure that a suitable untainted figure, if a Patron is in fact desired by the membership, could be found. I freely admit that I remain somewhat in the dark regarding the benefits & role of a Patron, in current times.

Taking a cue from TC-T and wanting to dispel the notion of the LAA being old men in blazers, perhaps we should ask Simon Cowell to take on the roll, as he is clearly a modern man with much public influence, and certainly has a lot more money than Prince Michael of Kent. There is also the benefit that he would appear likely to be immune to the rather dubious "charms" of TC-T.