MidlifeC (#4113),

makes the case well (my congratulations to his daughter). Many moons ago, BBC "Look North" filled a vacant evening slot with a similar tale of a 16 year old girl first-soloing in a glider.

Downwind (she was doing perfectly well, and would land nicely and safely), the presenter thought to add some extra drama to his spiel.: "No power on Earth can help her now !" he gasped.

That is the essence of "Solo". - and what this fuss is all about,

A repeat of post by Jay (# 1076) where he put up a copy of a post from TCT's FB page.Much has been made of the "solo"bit, but what about the "circumnavigation" claim? As I posted in the Spitfire Circumnavigation thread the FAI defines circumnavigation asDoes the woman use a different dictionary to the rest of us?

If the LAA put any consideration into reviewing the award they're nuts. Feat of navigation? Using a GPS? If so, the award should be shared with the airline crews who flew her on her Sydney, Australia to Seattle leg of the trip. Then again, perhaps she was on the flight deck navigating, but that would have meant putting down the champagne and canapés.

Editing errors are a fact of journalistic life. But back in the day when The Times still thought of itself as a newspaper of record, print and broadcast journalists were taught about the necessity of maintaining what was called a 'sceptical balance'. The better ones still do.

An old-time sub who was doing his job properly would either have spiked this story without a second thought on the basis that it was entirely lacking in any such thing or sent it back for a rewrite. In newsroom terms it's nothing more than a boil of a blatant puff piece.

Here's a link to a document where both occupants describe themselves as flight crew and state their hours prior to the Winslow accident. That event is curiously described as only an incident but hey ho, just another slip of the pen. Pages 5 and 6 show the time claimed in the capacity as "crew".

https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/59000-59...012/594566.pdf

The moment this thread went away, T C-T doubled down by raising the issue again.


Apart from the two apparently commissioned pieces in The Times and the critical Daily Mail report, it surprises me that no professional journalist has picked-up on this story. It would seem to be an interesting subject: pilot with considerable sponsorship claims to have flown expedition solo in video, doesn't correct hundreds of press reports that she flew the expedition solo, after being called-out on her claims, removes pages from her website (see waybackmachine.com) that clearly state she flew solo and is frequently shown in the company of another pilot on her expedition flights. When asked to explain by various male and female pilots including ex-Civil Aviation Authority members, proven aviation record breaking achievers and the person who actually planned her expedition, her defense and that of her supporters, is to blame misogyny, jealousy and now 'bad PR' but notice, they never address the actual evidence. Add to this the fact that, despite all her outrage and having threatened to take legal action, she hasn't. QED.

Having also read the number of largely critical comments posted on the on-line version of that "Times " article , I wondered if, in fairness, the good lady might also have followed up to clarify her current position regarding that divisive LAA issue.
Indeed she has linked herself to the piece in question, on 'Twitter"apparently, as can be seen via Google:

"Thank you for all the wonderful support I've received over this appalling miscarriage of justice. I am now focused on the LAA AGM next month when the new motion is brought."

Pretty unequivocal, I would have thought.

Indeed. A nice item for Private Eye's back pages, one might think...

"An appalling miscarriage of justice". Really?

More likely an ideal opportunity to promote the upcoming blockbuster movie which has now backfired massively.

Let her take it to court then if we're all lying...put the evidence on the table and see whether it's an 'appalling miscarriage of justice' or not.

Time for the Truth – a Statement

Hello, I’m Nick Adams, I built and maintain Tracey’s website and I am the person who typed most of the wording.I know about computers, networking, website building/hosting, football and tennis but very little about flying.It was me that introduced the ‘solo’ element in the wording on the website which appears to have been picked up by various media who probably knew as much as I do (or maybe even less).The site was mainly built from sketchy inputs from Tracey and her team. Not surprising as she had far more pressing and urgent stuff to attend to and of course, is away quite a lot flying around the world. We did strive for accuracy but on the odd occasion I maybe gilded the lily a little.Anyway, I can assure you that she was pretty horrified when she saw my mistake and we worked hard to remove all references to that dreaded word!So basically all you shameful people who have been posting these vile and abusive comments here have been barking up the wrong tree as it’s me that is mainly responsible, however unwittingly.I think you owe Tracey an apology but from some of the vitriol I have read here I doubt if that will be forthcoming.Anyway, personally I am very proud to have been associated with Tracey and her team.If any of you are interested in your own website don’t hesitate to get in touch.Best regards

Nick Adams

Well Nick, you have just shot yourself and your web-building business well and truly in the foot. Do you think anyone is going to trust your business ever again? Your little gaff has had serious consequences.

Sorry Tracey for the misunderstanding.

(Actually that was just a slip of the keyboard; what I actually meant to say was I don't believe a bloody word of it. Nothing truthful has come from BiB. and just for the record it is NOT just about the word SOLO. There are plenty of other untruths and dodgy shenanigans surrounding her.

It's probable that it was a mere "slip of the tongue". Tracey is good at them .
So where did this "MoJ" take place then , was it at a crown court hearing somewhere ? The Old Bailey maybe ? Errmm no ,,,,. in a little old wooden hut on an aerodrome .
I was there too and despite the fact that everyone in attendance knew exactly why they were there , only ONE person was allowed to stand up and hold court . Us hoi-polloi were requested to "let her have her say" . Afterwhich , her team requested that because it was only the people in the room who had heard her correct version , then only the people in the room should be eligible to vote . i.e. They were attempting to fiddle the vote ! It should be pointed out that Curtis-Taylor had brought a substantial entourage along with her , in order that the expected showing of hands would go heavily in her favour . All she had to do was wipe out the effect of the by-proxy voters and she was home and dry.
Another point which needs to be addressed at this AGM is security [ more of our money, to be thrown in the shredder ] because at 2016's AGM , not one single person requested to see my membership card , same also with others I spoke to . Which begs the question , how many of Team Tracey's cohorts in attendance actually were members ?

So if we are going to be re-visiting the scene of a miscarriage of justice , then I think we can probably work out who the principal mis-carrier will be . I also has grave misgivings about the venue , Sywell's Cirrus Room . It was bursting at the seams in 2016 , with many folk having to stand . Now that she is being given licence to completely overshadow yet another LAA-AGM , I can see a logistical nightmare on the horizon.
There are one or two of a certain organisation's higher order , who really do want to take a good , long and hard look in the mirror over this !

Only just seen nickswebs contribution . Nick mate , you seem to have overlooked the importance of preceding that load of drivel with :
" For the Avoidance of Doubt " ...

Your words, Nick?

Or hers?

Is she ready to 'fess up to a lengthy campaign of misleading the gullible media and public? Or not?

Ah. OK. Now I think you've answered my question, Nick.

How did you hoodwink one or more very senior figures in the conspicuous finance house who spent oodles and oodles of boodle promoting and enabling her now apparent lies?

How did you do that, Nick? On your own?

You would be one very clever dude if you did that without her Ladyship's knowledge.

I greatly look forward to you telling us some more believable stuff, Nick.

Mr Adams sir,

Thank you for putting yourself in a position where questions can be asked. You say that you wrote much of the material on the website. Did you also write the slide presentation where the "alone" claim was made ? Did TCT not see it before delivering the presentation ? Surely it would have been spotted and she would have been "pretty horrified", correcting the error immediately. I can't honestly believe any normal person stands in front of an audience and delivers a presentation without first knowing their material.

There are countless articles in the press where the word solo is repeated. You know as well as I do that most articles are largely cut and pasted from carefully crafted press releases. I doubt if many journos would bother to do their own research so I doubt that any errors you made on a web site resulted in countless misleading articles. You say that you know about football. If I were to describe a goal as a "solo effort", you would understand that the player created and scored the goal without the participation of a team mate. I know diddly squat about sailing but I know what a solo yachtsman is. Claiming you do not fully understand the term is rather "gilding the lily".

Did you also write the Wikipedia pages ?

Ahhhh, the old 'A big boy did it and ran away' defence.



https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c260a14581.jpg

According to waybackmachine (an archive system of websites), the first mention of 'solo' flight was in March 2013. There the mentions remained until removed in 2016. She therefore took three years to become 'pretty horrified'. While you may be the technician, she is the owner of the site and therefore responsible for it so I'm afraid falling on your sword (or being pushed onto it) carries little weight.
As has been mentioned, she also claimed flying solo by omission. If she was so horrified by the word, why did she happily accept certificates, awards and press releases for four years, which clearly state she was solo, without once trying to correct the situation?
Finally, I and I am sure most people on this site, will happily give Ms Curtis-Taylor a fulsome apology if you or she would explain exactly in which part of the video below she is 'horrified' as she personally claims, on two occasions, that her flights were solo.
I look forward to your comment.

I first went public because of the awards (after privately asking Tracey just to stop accepting them, twice). Frankly, I wasn't too bothered about the press articles and talks. It was about the people who would have won the awards had they not been given to her (people who had actually done what they said they had done).

I'm moving on. It's now clear that she has no problem asking others to put their reputations and integrity on the line by supporting her mendacious version of events.

Anyone else either on that train, or thinking of climbing aboard - you may wish to reconsider. There's no happy ending for this one, it's headed for the wall and it's going to be nasty.

Just when it had run out of steam as well... Did you see what I did there? :)

It might be worth reminding the world that:

I
WAS
THERE

It may become necessary to release more into the public domain than is currently known if the cover-up (and coercing of innocents) continues...

One slip of the tongue?

Aw c'mon!

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....29c1322766.jpg

She's got one hell of a slippery tongue.

How the hell did she get those sponsors?

How does she keep them?

Dear Tracey
 

Thank you Mr. Adams for presenting your perspective on this discussion, that was a responsible thing for you to do, and I respect that.

Whether Ms. Curtis-Taylor created a misunderstanding with her choice and direction, or perhaps was the unwitting victim of your and other's embellishments, remains open for discussion I suppose. That said, it appears that a number of pilots and others interested in aviation have been offended by the final outcome of Ms. Curtis-Taylor's publicity (and indeed, her own spoken words). Those people also have the right to have their point of view considered. Ms. Curtis-Taylor has had an ample opportunity, whether here, or through other means of communication, to clear the air, by correcting errors of which she became/is aware about her adventure, and associated publicity.

During protracted discussion and posts, I recall a poster sort of summing up what many posters seemed to want to have clarified (it became what was discussed as: "The three questions"):

There is still an opportunity for Ms. Curtis-Taylor to offer clarity to the perception many people obviously hold, and which offends them. Ms. Curtis-Taylor has recently sought publicity of this topic, where really it had faded into history, and I had closed the thread for lack of any new discussion points. However, a newspaper article, and reopening discussion about an LAA award, which discussion obviously was endorsed by Ms. Curtis-Taylor, is a new discussion point here. In the absence of any effort at clarity from Ms. Curtis-Taylor thus far, other people are equally welcome to post how they feel about Ms. Curtis-Taylor's continued pursuit of publicity and an award.

Ms. Curtis-Taylor is welcomed to post here to present her perspective, and perhaps clear up some misunderstandings, or, Ms. Curtis-Taylor may contact a moderator here by PM, if doing so would make things easier for her to find a path. I'm sure that Ms. Curtis-Taylor, and members of our flying community, would both be very happy if the facts of her adventures could be agreed by all. After all, we all here already have in common a desire to promote aviation!

The man says it well.

He knows of what he speaks.

Oh boy! Let it rip, gal.

Please please here, let's note that it's not about the LAA.

It's about so so much more, even beyond that group.

Nor even the other one.

It's about the honesty, or otherwise, of a group or groups of assessors who dress up in the livery of dressers and diners who dignify such lies as she has promulgated, and those who promote her lies in substitute for truth. Or those who might do, in their own image.

She lied when she persuaded people that she flew solo from one arse of Africa to another. Just a lie. Nothing more.

She lied when she persuaded people that she flew solo from one arse of America to another. Just a lie. Nothing more.

She lied when she persuaded people that she flew solo from one arse of the Earth to her own bank account. Just a lie. Nothing more.

It's what she does.

Gawd bless 'er and all who sail with her.

She cannot help herself, at every opportunity she has to mention men and how unfortunate women are. Oh then there's me, me, me and did I mention me ? The audience look riveted :rolleyes:

Posted on youtube 2 days ago.

Didn't expect to log on and see myself in the background of a video on PPRUNE :p

Nick Adams, nice to see that you're willing to stick your head above the parapet so to speak, but your claim that it was you who introduced the "solo" word and TCT was "pretty horrified" on finding out requires explanation.

It begs the question, as has been asked by others, why did she use the word on the Herne Bay video? It's a simple question which should have a simple answer.

Regards

A WARNING TO ALL

Prior to making the above post I cast an eye over Nick Adams web site. Since then when I turn on the relevant computer I am unable to launch any of my browsers (Firefox and Edge). Is this a tactic TCT has now resorted to? How is it done? Coincidental events?

Edited to add that I now find the relevant computer will not allow me to access "settings".

F.A.O. All the good folk on here ;
Let us just try to see through 'website boy' shall we . He has obviously been sent in to 'stir things up a bit' . A certain person is hoping that sending in a troll to lob a few depth charges in will result in the thread getting locked off .
The person in question has used this 'sending in the clowns' tactic before . It didn't work then either and her stooge was shown the door.

I , like Jonzarno , just want to see those 3 x simple little questions answered . And when she does answer them to JZ's satisfaction , I will delete every post I've written here about her .

A couple of questions:

- Did you write her speech too, with the "solo" word?
- Did you create the sides too, with the "alone in the cockpit" words?

Is she "pretty horrified" enough to sue you for all the damage you caused?

In the fourth statement, and subsequently, the line has been 'sole pilot'. Now that it is established that Ewald was in the aircraft for very nearly all of the flights of all of the trips it might be interesting to examine this relationship/role a little more closely.

Starting with looking at this: https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/59000-59499/59012/594566.pdf

So, three questions arising from this are:

1. Why has Ewald completed the 'Other Flight Crew' section, and not 'passenger'? He clearly hadn't been told the 'sole pilot' plan before May 2016. Oops.
2. Given that he was 'Other Flight Crew', in what capacity was he operating?

And then, the big one, number three, they both logged six hours in the preceding 24 in the same type. This, I believe, only leaves a few options:

1. The aircraft was actually flown a total of 12 hours in the previous 24h. Six by each of them at different times.
2. Ewald was flying another Stearman whilst Tracey was flying his.
3. Ewald shouldn't have been logging the time (single pilot plane, and Tracey was PIC)?
4. Ewald was PIC and Tracey was logging PICUS?
5. Ewald was logging Instructor time and Tracey was logging PIC (or dual) depending what system she was following?
6. They've both been logging PIC?
7. Another option? https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2017/Dick_2%20-%20(2017)%20Legal%20Interpretation.pdf

The results of positive answers to each question are:

1. Unlikely. :)
2. Very, very unlikely.
3. Not legal.
4. Doesn't fit the 'sole pilot' story.
5. Doesn't fit the 'he's not my instructor', nor the 'sole pilot' stories.
6. Not legal.
7. Ah, must be somewhere here.

So, for the avoidance of doubt, I think that three logbooks (from the aircraft, Tracey and Ewald, covering all three trips) should be presented at the AGM for inspection. They are legal documents, less prone to 'he said, she said' and so what better way to demonstrate that she's right and we're all wrong?

What LAA members need to be asking their board is why this has come about. I would start with:

'Have there been any conversations involving m'learned friends (or threats of such)?'





Follow the money.