June 11 2016 was the very first time she stated the flights weren't solo. Since then she has produced 'statements' nearly every month but they still don't explain why since 2014 she had stated she was alone, kept inferring she was alone and didn't trouble to correct media statements that purported her to be alone. She keeps referring to these statements in her rebuttal as if they magically make everything clear but as they are only four months old, they are meaningless.

As we know the nub of the problem is that word solo. What made the feats of historical famous female aviators great was that they conducted their flights on their own. If they hadn't been solo we may well not know who they were today.


Now in all the press releases before the trip it is stated that it was going to be a solo flight and it was this little fact that made the expedition special. If from the outset it was publicised that she would have another pilot with her and a well resourced support aircraft following behind the jaunt would have hardly merited a mention in specialist aviation press let alone the national media.


Once it was decided to change the terms of the flight in such a significant way TCT and her PR team should have immediately issued a statement correcting what the objective of the trip was. But there is not a mention of this and of course no corrections were made when the press published incorrect details as they had received no information to the contrary.


This little PR trick has been perfected by politicians in recent years. I first noticed it with PM T Blair, he would announce some popular new policy and it would be lauded in the press and he would get great acclaim for his dealings with the matter. Then a couple of years later you would realise that he had never carried out the actions he had promised. If the press noticed and questioned why, the politician would simply say that he had been thwarted by the judges or the EU or some other excuse. Meanwhile he had benefited from the good publicity his policy announcement had generated.


Welcome to the modern world based on PURE SPIN

Ahem!
"Over the sea, I was flying at 10 feet or below over breeding whales".

As had been suggested elsewhere, this woman needs help.
Quite aside from any aviation safety and regulation issues...
A quote from a typical and internationally agreed Government Wildlife Management regulation:

"There are also restrictions on the height that aircraft can operate around whales. Fixed wing aircraft should fly no closer than 300 metres (1000ft) from a whale."

Dear Tracey, You clearly believe that you are dealing with idiots here, or otherwise this statement was designed to bolster support from within your diminishing fan base. Obviously you are disappointed (you got caught) but nobody is suggesting that the expedition should have been executed as a "solo" venture, even though you had advertised it as such. The reason that this farce is being played out is because (1) you claimed it would be carried out "solo," (2) inferred later that it had been carried out "solo' and then (3), when the facts became clear, you attempted to deflect criticism by redefining the meaning of "solo."

You appear to me to be an intelligent lady, but the writer of your PR statements appears to be on a different planet, or possibly deranged. Who writes this stuff?

The answer to that question is Tim Kelly Media.

If you ask me he has made a mess of this for his client and the sponsors.

Two comments from the radio article, one of which may be quite telling.

She accuses the Entebbe ATCO for turning her into restricted airspace, may I remind her that it is the PILOTS responsibility, not ATC. My instinct tells me that this just might be one of those limited occasions where Ewald was not up front; I cannot see him not knowing what was around him. Can anyone verify if this was at the end of one such "solo" legs; if so then it certainly outlines one of the reasons for EG "holding her hand" so to speak.

She mentions something about engine failure and how she would land on a road if necessary. Really? Seeing as she wasn't even capable of landing on the remaining runway at Winslow. By her own words she was at 50ft having accelerated and climbed normally.
Can anyone confirm just how much runway should have been in front of her? (I think I saw something about this earlier)...OR... was there more to the crash that we are not being told. Was she perhaps flying to impress.

Just a thought or two.

Winslow Arizona (KINW) has two runways of around 7000 ft but it is almost 5000ft amsl. This might have caught a few people out but having flown previously flown through Central Africa there should have been some awareness of density altitude.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...16LA106&akey=1

Thank you TL.

So given a density altitude of about 7,223 feet and a pressure altitude of 4,757 feet.
A 300hp Stearman, two POB and an assumed full fuel load, just how much runway would have been ahead of her as she lost power at 50ft in a normal climb?

Would any sensible pilot, given the conditions, elect for mid-point departure? (I would doubt it)

Would you expect this to end in nothing more than a brown-trouser moment, or would it result in some let's-save-the-day heroics avoiding power-lines, which I estimate to be a further 2500ft away to the right of the climb-out lane.

It seems that even Wikipedia has had enough - the banner across TCT's page is threatening deletion "according to Wikipedia's deletion policy.

How the mighty have fallen!

"How the mighty have fallen."
I'm afraid that TCT was only ever a 'legend in her own lunchtime'.
That news does, however, give me a little faith in an organisation that I'd supported.

Hardly an example to follow.
 

Having read this thread from Post #1 and followed the entire, sorry saga from Day #1 I have refrained from commenting thus far. Frankly the evidence is there for all to see as far as the solo claim is concerned, likewise the laughable suggestion that TCT warrants an award for navigation.

What I will comment on though is her being held up as a shining example. Having not only read and heard her tales of derring-do on various media and heard her speak first hand I think her tales deserve closer scrutiny. Others have already commented on this but several things strike me when reading my own notes from one of her speeches.

I used bold to highlight the use of the term "we" and her claim to have been allowed to overfly possibly the most sensitive site in the Middle East. I'd need to see compelling proof of a clearance to believe that. While relating the low-level flight over the Red Sea TCT claimed to have flown along some cliffs "...less than half a wing-span from the rock face...".

I have heard her tell this story three times but the quote above is exactly that, a word-for-word account. What struck me during the telling was her utter dismissal of the ATC officer. I also found it appalling when she cofessed...

So not only did she take someone's word that it would be acceptable to fly at low-level into an aera where there are high levels of traffic with very specific procedures but she also had not taken the time to study the charts for the airfield.

Then the Entebbe incident where she/they infringed a no-fly zone.

Again, my bold. Once again that attitude of smug superiority toward an official who has (quite rightly) chastised her for breaking rules. But what this particular quote highlights is her claim elsewhere that this was the fault of ATC. In other versions (and to this one to a degree) she suggests that ATC vectored her into the prohibited area yet her she clearly states that she "...did some sightseeing..." while again admitting to not having the appropriate charts.

Are HCAP still happy to give their awards to a pilot of this calibre?

I have to admit that there have been some really articulate,intelligent and entertaining posts made since the LAA AGM outcome.It will certainly be interesting to see how the HCAP meeting goes today.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I've got to thinking about TCT's recent behaviour,specifically, since her first attempts of damage control on 11 June 2016.There has been a concerted effort since then to try and mitigate the BS spouted by both her and the PR team,weasel words,redefining solo flight,introduction of the term"sole pilot",etc. Could it be that the SPONSORS have actually had enough and called in their support or more specifically their Moolah.This would explain the threats of legal action and the seeking of damages because I don't think our intrepid aviatrix would have the means to repay the large amount involved as it's all been spent.When your back is against the wall it's time to get nasty.......just a thought.

@stanwellA disgraceful act of gung ho arrogance, stupidity and ignorance, if true. The Stearman is a very noisy aircraft, especially when at high power, and at such close range this will very likely have deafened the whales, permanently. So how would they then navigate, Tracey, as they don't have GPS to assist them? What on God's earth was the thinking behind subjecting these unsuspecting creatures to such an onslaught of assaults on their senses?

Everything I read about, and particularly attributed to have been said by, this woman does nothing whatsoever to endear me to her or her claimed cause.

From all the evidence, particularly the recent quoted boasts about her dealings with authorities in other countries after having flouted their laws and regulations, they all appear to be giving the same message: two fingers to the lot of you, I just don't care what damage I do whilst having my bit of fun!... but woe betide anyone who dares to tarnish my reputation.

Barry Tempest appears to have it spot on when he said:I truly hope HCAP re-examine the evidence, have a really serious think about the message they will be sending by endorsing her for her airmanship, and do the correct thing.

I must say, her Wiki page needs a fast internet connection to keep up with the changes. It's nothing like it used to. It almost (almost) reads like what actually happened rather than what TC-T and/or her PR team would like us to think happened. But that is at 22:25Z on 26th October.

But I have a question, what does TC-T have to do to get the mob off her back? The old fashioned methods of burning at the stake and ducking in the village pond have been prohibited for a quite a while. I ask because the end appears to be in sight. Her revised cake recipe and recent poor press has tarnished her brand. As unprofessional and as hopelessly over-exaggeratingly as she has been, I believe that if she is given a clear and easy way out she might take it, even if just to save her as yet un-released (& probably unsold) film and her speaking income.

Her threat legal action has to be hollow. Only a thumping win will restore her credibility but the chance of that happening is close to zero. A court case will end up with even more public humiliation. Will she be sensible and take an easy way out?

PM

If the HCAP MM goes ahead then the best thing TCT can do is to graciously decline the award.
If she thinks losing the LAA BW award is embarrassing, imagine having a second one rescinded; it would be disastrous, whereas demonstrating a little bit of integrity, humility, and some respect for her peers might just do her reputation a little bit of good.

I understand it is confirmed TCT is not attending the Honourable Company of Air Pilots awards Banquet.

It is very unusual for a recipient of a major award not to attend.

HRH Prince Andrew ,the Grand Master, will also not be attending.

Given your post Jay I just had a look at the HCAP site and can find no mention of TCT. Poor search skills on my part, or ........?

Here is the citation from the HCAP site. Importantly it describes Ewald as the co-pilot and states it was not a solo flight. That of course is the point we have all been making for many months.

Thanks for that, JS.
So .. the HCAP have now pruned it down to just what a shining example she is to young women, hmm?
Other women pilots might have differing views on that.

p.s. The phrase "clutching at straws" comes to mind.
.

This paragraph is pure spin.

No mention of young men being inspired by Ewald.

None of this explains the deliberate attempt to edit him out of all press coverage or accept the solo certificate from the Australian Women Pilots Association.