2018 Light Aircraft Association AGM award vote

[airpolice]

The only winners will be lawyers, and the losers will be LAA members like me.

As has been stated above, it seems a safe guess that most voters have by now made up their minds, and those of a wavering disposition, expecting to make a decision based on her performance on the day, will probably see through what are considered by many, to be lies and embarrassing truths, on the day.

In terms of relevance to the general membership, we now have the LAA (by paying rent?) making plans to use a larger venue for the AGM and using, to my limited knowledge unprecedented, measures to verify the votes.

All of this is costing money, which either might not have been raised from people compelled to use the LAA to allow the flight of Permit aircraft, or better still, be put to a better use, such as supporting home builders and educating the next generation of enthusiastic Pilots & Engineers.

There is a real difficulty in supporting the notion that one group in this "debate" is wrong, but clearly, the membership need to speak up, and tell the people steering the LAA, what they want. On a personal note, I am sad that the people concerned don't seem to have their moral compass sufficiently aligned, with the truth and embarrassment, to make their own decisions in this matter.

In very simplistic terms, I think that what the common voter will want their subs spent on, will be more expenses covered for the many examiners, and fewer dinners with prizes for the connected few.

However, I might be wrong. I've been wrong before. I recall the day well, it was a Thursday afternoon, in the summer of 1977, under the ground in Northumberland, and I caused two Lightnings to intercept an airliner.

[tescoapp]

looking in from the side shall we say... this "crap" is not unusual for a flying club. Its happened so many times before and usually ends up nobody wins and the club ends up failing even if it does the right thing from a moral POV

They need to spin off the aircraft certification side of things as a side entity and leave the mess behind.

[blueandwhite]

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

For anybody who isn't going in person, today's the last day to get your voting form to the LAA office in Turweston.

They will accept an emailed scanned form.

G

but will TCT? or will that be protested at the AGM. Got to be a good chance of a challenge to all emailed forms and yet more excuses for a Judicial Review. Not that I think she would really do that.

[hoodie]

A Judicial Review? No chance, according to someone in the legal profession somewhere else - probably the long thread on here.

This is a quote from the Courts & Tribunal Judiciary website:

Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviewsthe lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

The bold is mine.

The LAA is not a Public Body, it is a private Association.

Her threat therefore surely is an empty one. She either knows that, and doesn't care so long as it has an effect, or she is ignorant. Neither are things to be proud of.

[Oldpilot55]

I find her stance boorish and more than arrogant. She was caught out repeatedly yet likes to twist her past inexactitudes. She was on our ITV Calendar (Local news, Lincs) tonight bleating about how badly she had been treated by the LAA.
I am sick of her and how she is trying to bring a reputable organisation, the LAA into disrepute.

[kghjfg]

Out of interest, I am wondering what everyone will do when TCT gets the award back?

I don’t know the exact details of how it’s going to happen, but I do know she’s not deliberately set herself up to look stupid when the furore was very nearly forgotten and THE thread had been locked.

Think about it from the other end, start from the premise that it has been returned, and then think of a story of how it happened. It is possible.

I have bought a large pack of popcorn, this doesn’t end on Sunday. The ramifications will be interesting to say the least.

[piperboy84]

Out of interest, I am wondering what everyone will do when TCT gets the award back

Well I for one will doff my cap to her in admiration and wish her well. Because anyone who can publicly bull**** that much for that long, and in spite of incontrovertible evidence of the truth being established still fights her corner and prevails, is a winner in this world. Yes a narcissistic sociopathic winner, but a winner none the less.

[BEagle]

Oldpilot55 wrote:

She was on our ITV Calendar (Local news, Lincs) tonight bleating about how badly she had been treated by the LAA.

ITV Calendar News? Presumably the same organisation which made this report 3 years ago: Adventurer begins 13,000-mile solo bi-plane flight from Britain to Australia in footsteps of Amy Johnson - ITV News

[Mike Flynn]

She claimed she was embarking on a solo flight from Africa in this video clip at 1:53.
Real Economy Report

Clearly another slip of the tongue.

[Fitter2]

Interesting video clip. I note she informs us that 'there is no AvGas in Africa', which will come as a great shock to several of my friends who must wonder what they have been filling their C172 and C182 tanks with all these years. Maybe that was just another 'slip of the tongue'...

[Haraka]

Also: "The An-2 is the biggest single-engine biplane ever built." I guess the "Real Economy" in the "Report" could well be construed as again applying pretty generally to the facts.

[Mike Flynn]

It appears there is going to be a big turnout for this years event.

Steve Slater has posted this on the LAA forum.

by SteveSlater » Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:50 am
Due to an unprecedented interest, we have moved to a larger venue at Sywell for the LAA AGM. It will now take place on Sunday 21st October 2018 at Sywell Aerodrome in Hangar 2 which can be accessed via the Club Room (off the Bar Lounge).

You will need to pre-register before attending the AGM. You can do this on the day in the Club Room. Staff will be on hand as from 1000 to check your membership and issue voting cards and wristbands. Please ensure you bring your membership card with you.

In answer to a recently asked question: If you have made a postal vote but wish to attend and vote in person, we will make arrangements for you to cancel your postal vote when you sign in.

If you wish to have lunch on-site, Sywell will provide baguettes which can be pre-ordered upon arrival and ready for collection at 1230.

Programme for the Day:

1030 Tea/coffee
1045 Welcome from Brian Davies, LAA Chairman
1100 Presentation of LAA Service Awards
1130 Illustrated talk by Phil Dunnington on his long-distance flights in his Beechcraft 18, carrying a hot-air balloon, flying in locations where no-one has ever flown a balloon before.
1230 Lunch Break and Members’ ‘Show and Tell’ (with a special RAF 100 line-up including we hope, a Spitfire!)
1330 Presentation of LAA Rally Awards
1400 Annual General Meeting
1430 Members’ Forum. An opportunity for members to discuss issues and ideas with the Board.
1530 Thanks and closure of the meeting.

We hope to see you there!

[Cows getting bigger]

Chaps, I think some are missing the wood because of the trees. They way I see things tomorrow's discussion isn't about solo/sole etc, it is about process and whether the 2016 motion and associated vote was valid. It wouldn't wholly surprise me if, in the cold light of day, the LAA finds that it didn't follow an appropriate course of action.

So, assuming that is the case and therefore the award is reinstated, where does that leave everyone? Firstly, I suspect a few honourable people may feel that they will have to fall on their swords, some of the less honourable should do the same but probably will not. I think the LAA will also wise-up and decide it wants to avoid any similar confrontation in the future. Finally, and I truly believe this, I hope that the LAA will identify an individual or two and politely rescind their membership of the Association in accordance with para 9a of the Association's Rules:

9 MEMBERS’ CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE LAA
9a Individual Membership
In the event of any member being charged with conduct which the Board may consider prejudicial to the LAA, the member may be called before the Board and failing an explanation satisfactory to the Board, may be cautioned, suspended, required to resign, or be expelled as the Board, in their absolute discretion, may determine. The member has the right to appeal the decision, and should do so to the LAA President or Vice President, in writing, setting out their reasons for appeal, within one month. The President or Vice President will advise the LAA Board of their findings and the LAA Board may reconsider its decision.

[Above The Clouds]

Originally Posted by Cows getting bigger

Chaps, I think some are missing the wood because of the trees. They way I see things tomorrow's discussion isn't about solo/sole etc, it is about process and whether the 2016 motion and associated vote was valid. It wouldn't wholly surprise me if, in the cold light of day, the LAA finds that it didn't follow an appropriate course of action.

So, assuming that is the case and therefore the award is reinstated, where does that leave everyone? Firstly, I suspect a few honourable people may feel that they will have to fall on their swords, some of the less honourable should do the same but probably will not. I think the LAA will also wise-up and decide it wants to avoid any similar confrontation in the future. Finally, and I truly believe this, I hope that the LAA will identify an individual or two and politely rescind their membership of the Association in accordance with para 9a of the Association's Rules:

CGB, depending on the results tomorrow in your view would that also include TCT falling on her sword or having her membership rescinded ?

[Cows getting bigger]

Above The Clouds, I actually think many elements of the above are completely independent upon the outcome of the vote. The noise created by this issue far outweighs the relative (in)significance of the award. "Conduct prejudicial" is what springs to mind. Do people really need to make extremely public statements regarding the alleged bias of their members' association?

I think my point is that we need to be careful in allowing personalities and possible grievances to influence procedure. If the procedure wasn't followed then that needs to be addressed and put right. In the same breath, if members have not behaved in the spirit of the organisation (in this case the Association Rules), then they must be held to account for their actions. The LAA, by reopening the issue and going back to a vote, is playing fair so why the need to go public (BBC radio etc)? On the other hand, do we really need to regurgitate, at any opportunity, every single suggestion of inappropriate use of the word 'solo' and the apparent deceit?

Dave Mole's motion makes better reading than Stewart Jackson's. However, in hindsight, perhaps Mole's motion should have been to refer the award back to the Awards Committee for reconsideration in light of the original nomination and subsequent factual information? Of course, once the award element is resolved, if the Board decides to engage with the less honourable member(s) regarding Rule 9a it is highly likely that Stewart Jackson, as Vice-President, will have to recuse himself from any potential appeal.

It's a mess, all of it. For that there are one or two who should be ashamed.

[hoodie]

It's history now, but referring such a contentious issue back to a volunteer Awards Committee would hardly have been fair on them, and they might reasonably have refused. It would have put them in an impossible position, and (hindsight again) probably damaged the LAA then as much as this reincarnation has done now. Anyway, it would not have addressed the high feelings amongst a significant proportion of the membership.

Forget the minutiae of process and procedure. The LAA Board did absolutely the correct thing in 2016 and referred the issue back to the members. Since it was the members who voted on the issue then, it can only be the members who vote on essentially the same thing this time.

I certainly agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph CGB and especially your last sentence. I'd add "on both sides". If only the case had been made by addressing the specifics of the complaints in a reasoned and sensible manner, rather than via lawyers, forums and the media.

Whatever happens tomorrow, let that be an end to it for the LAA.

[airpolice]

Originally Posted by Cows getting bigger

It's a mess, all of it. For that there are one or two who should be ashamed.

Just for the benefit of anyone else who wants some clarity, are you suggesting that this award to TC-T, and the disquiet felt by some members, should never have been mentioned?

[Cows getting bigger]

I’m suggesting that the TCT Woodhams Trophy affair has become very public which has done the LAA no good. We can apportion blame for that publicity in whatever proportions we perceive. It could also be argued that the public outing of an apparent charlatan should have been kept separate to the LAA’s internal, members’ deliberations over one of its awards. Many (most?) here are not members of the LAA and whilst they may have an opinion, it is only an opinion.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

At the moment I'm having problems logging onto the LAA forum, but a chat with a lawyer (I have some dodgy friends) brought up the Misrepresentation Act of 1967. In gaining the Bill Woodham Trophy and the HCAP award, and the honorary doctorate and the honorary commission in the RN, getting all the sponsorship cash to go off on her jollies she has claimed they were to be "solo" Everything was going towards her reality TV career and her book and the earnings she would have from them. My legal friend thinks that a criminal prosecution for misrepresentation would be reasonable if there was a complainant. Before the trips she claimed "solo". Artemis, Boeing et al stumped up the cash, after the trips she still claimed "solo" and garnered a stack of honours and awards. All of which increased her marketability, and therefore upped her potential earnings on the speaking/motivation reality T.V. circuit

Her claims that everyone else got it wrong are setting a defence of innocent misrepresentation, but actually that defence falls down for her claims after after 2016. Someone on one of these threads recently asked "what crime has been committed?" well possibly a large sized fraud. And if that isn't bringing the LAA into disrepute I struggle to see what else is.

On her recent radio interview she claimed a "30 year career in aviation." How did she achieve that on a PPL? I've been flying for a living for 30 years, privately for 8 before that, I've had to hold 2 ATPL's for my career as you can't earn as a PPL, but then Tracy and reality are poles apart. Your 30 year career in self-promotion and reality TV you mean?

With her vile, boorish attitude to GA, the LAA and the LAA membership T C-T has alienated a lot of people, a couple of whom (I'm not one) are prepared to pursue a private prosecution for misrepresentation if their approach to the police for criminal action is not successful.

SND

[Legalapproach]

The Misrepresentation Act 1967 relates to misrepresentation that could give rise to civil not criminal proceedings. The criminal law would involve s2 of the Fraud Act 2006. In order to found criminal liability the following matters would have to be satisfied:

• A representation must be made
• The representation must be known to be false
• The representation must be dishonestly made
• The person making the representation must intend to gain something, or intend that the person receiving it loses something

What surprises me is that Ms Curtis-Taylor is so keen to get the award re-instated. If I was in her position (and I'm not although I did once fly a Pitts S-1 solo from UK to Italy and back ( would have been a bit of a job to do other than solo) armed only with a map and a compass (pre-GPS days)) I would have been inclined to say "If that's your attitude you can stuff your award" and walk away - to paraphrase Groucho Marks "I wouldn't want to have an award from an organisation that would be prepared to give me one"