Absolutely spot on!

Hi everybodyApparently I’m only allowed to make 5 posts in 24 hours so I have to consolidate my replies into a single response. Hopefully this will be acceptable but please don’t hesitate to let me know if there are any points that you feel I haven’t covered.To: arketip ( #4165)
Q. Did you write her speech too, with the "solo" word?
A. No, I didn’t
Q. Did you create the sides too, with the "alone in the cockpit" words?
A. If it’s on the website then I probably did
Q. Is she "pretty horrified" enough to sue you for all the damage you caused?
A .I hope not, but we have a good relationship so I think it’s pretty unlikely To: Chris Martyr ( #4164)
Q. Let us just try to see through 'website boy' shall we. He has obviously been sent in to 'stir things up a bit'
A. No, my involvement is completely my own. I just don’t like bullies. Do you?To: Jonzarno (#4163)
Q. You seem to be having a go at lots of other posters here: why haven’t you insulted me? I’m feeling left out.....
A. Sorry, I didn’t realise that you were involved. Who are you and what do you want to know?To: megan (#4162)
Q. 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?
A. I wish I was that clever. Don’t be paranoid. If you can drop your laptop round then I could probably fix it but I see your location is “Location: N/A” and I don’t know whether or not that’s close to Western Australia. p.s. I fix laptops for nothing for nice people – do you qualify?Q. why did she use the word on the Herne Bay video? It's a simple question which should have a simple answer.
A. Sorry, I don’t know. How could I? I’m just a humble webperson . . . To: Heli (#4160)
Q. nickswebs.com has this testimonial for someone’s jewellery site
A. Guilty as charged! I built an earlier website for Tracey. Sorry.To: Sam Rutherford ( #4143)
Q. 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.
A. To be honest I’m not sure how to take this. It seems like an implied threat but of course, I may be mistaken. Please would you publicly clarify whether or not it is and if so, maybe you could be more explicit?To: Midlifec (#4169)
Q. Dear Nick, I think you’ll find that it’s the “adverse consequences of speaking the truth” on Tracey’s part that have brought this whole sad affair to where it is.
A. Sorry Mid Life if that was not clear – my reply referred to the point from “SATCOS WHIPPING BOY ” (sic) in which he opined that “. . 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.” My reply was intended to say that I couldn’t care less because my personal values of honesty and integrity were far more important than my global website operation. If I don’t get any more clients as a result then so be it. Hopefully that covers the most recent questions and comments but please don’t hesitate to let me know if there are any points that you feel are not covered.

Q. 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.
A. To be honest I’m not sure how to take this. It seems like an implied threat but of course, I may be mistaken. Please would you publicly clarify whether or not it is and if so, maybe you could be more explicit?

Not a threat at all, and I still don't read my words that way.

My view is simply that there is no happy ending on this one - and thus my advice that forewarned is forearmed before you, or anyone else, attach yourselves to it. After that, we're all adults so fill your boots!

I was actually ON the Africa trip, I was there - as you probably know. I KNOW (not hearsay or rumour) everything about this whole sorry saga - and I KNOW what is and isn't true.

I’m afraid that there is only ONE person responsible for anything/everything from now on, and that is Tracey. As of a month ago, the story was dead (long overdue). Completely gone, and quickly forgotten. No more posts, no more nastiness – finished.

There is only one reason that the thread has been re-opened, the vitriol released – and that is Tracey’s decision to go back to the LAA and get The The Times to write a puff-piece about it (it even ends with a link to her film trailer??!!).

So, I’m afraid, whilst I had some sympathy in the past for the treatment she has received, I have NONE now. The fire was dying embers, she added the petrol all by herself (solo).

There’s nobody else to point at, nobody else to blame, it’s not someone else’s fault. An enormous error of judgement – as five minutes on any forum will demonstrate clearly. Even her supporters are wondering why she wanted to bring this all up again.

Nick, your willingness to address people's questions is admirable, and although we don't expect everyone to agree all the time, the discussion is good. As can be seen from the discussion (though yes, it's a long one now!), many pilots have been offended with what appears to be repeated attempts by Ms. Curtis-Taylor to steer the perception of events toward advancing her image. Essentially, taking credit, where credit may not be due. Though to a non pilot this may not seem too serious, to those who have earned the privilege of calling themselves a pilot, or member of the military, it is important. Thus, you could be forgiven for following along unknowingly in some embellishment, but Ms. Curtis-Taylor should be more acquainted with perception. Certainly after the protracted discussion here, and requests for Ms. Curtis-Taylor to come forward and make things right, she knows that there is a problem she could make right with a portion of the aviation community. Your defending against perceived bullying is admirable, and be assured, the mods are watching this thread carefully, and bullying will not be tolerated. Good discussion about worthy points of concern, however, is welcomed.

Ms. Curtis-Taylor has much greater publicity since her Stearman flights, than before. It is obvious that she sought out that publicity - repeatedly. Was the end result publicity what she wanted? That's up to her to decide, perhaps based upon her sense of the desirability of good vs not so good publicity, but in any case, Ms. Curtis-Taylor is much more widely known now! I had closed this thread some time back, as, at that time, there was little reason to allow it to continue. The whole situation could have quietly drifted unresolved into people's distant memories. But it seems that Ms. Curtis-Taylor acted recently to attract more publicity, and reopen discussion. That action, is, in and of itself, discussion worthy, and there's lots of background material.

Nick, your discussion points are welcomed, and I'll hope that the other participants here will keep in mid your perspective, as you consider theirs!

For those who are pleased to have a working relationship with Ms. Curtis-Taylor, of course, enjoy that relationship! For those who have unresolved concerns about truth in promotion, and how that could affect the future image of a sector of aviation, discussion is fair....

The adverse consequences are a result of her not telling the truth, Nick.

She lied and lied and lied.

It wasn't only the bogus "solo" trip through Africa.

It wasn't only the bogus "solo" trip to Oz.

It wasn't only the bogus "solo" trip across the US.

It wasn't only the bogus claim to have flown that Stearman (either of them, though that's another matter) around the world.

It was about accepting the plaudits and medals which were showered upon her by gullible people while she knew that it was all bullsheet.

It was about her lying and denying her own bullsheet.

It was about deceitfulness. It was about a spectacular failing of personal integrity.

Hello Nick,

I do not believe that the presentation is on TCTs website although I may be wrong. If you did write those words then you would probably have remembered TCT "being horrified" and requesting that you change them without delay. As the unfortunate photo shows, she appeared to be quite happy delivering those words so what are we to conclude ? Editing powerpoint only takes a moment and I'm sure as an IT professional, you will agree that she could have sorted it out herself.

I presume that you did not write the press releases that caused newspapers around the globe to repeat the almighty whopper. You have to ask "how did such an almighty mistake get repeated time, time and time again ?". I can't imagine for a moment that TCT failed to read all news articles and magazine features. After all, there were many hours to while away sitting in a comfy seat on an airliner or waiting for better weather.

Similarly, I presume that you did not write the Wikipedia pages that went uncorrected for years. Are we to expect another fall-guy to step forward ?

addendum....

It seems that sponsors were being duped as well. I doubt that any hard nosed business would part with cash unless they were very clearly informed as to what they were getting. ExecuJet clearly thought they were supporting a solo venture. As their business is aviation, there is little chance that they do not understand the meaning of the word.

https://xtoday.news/en/2015/10/execu...lo-expedition/

Seems to me that if there have been then this is essential information for the LAA membership to know about in advance of the AGM and any vote.

If that info is held back, but it affects the presentation of the motion or the outcome of any vote, and it is subsequently revealed then the consequences for the LAA committee would be dire.

I can see nothing good for the LAA coming from opening all this again after it was legitimately dealt with in 2016.

farsouth (#4172),

Did my first 60 hours on the Stearman (Us PT-17) as my Primary Trainer in the U.S.A.A.C in 1941 (under the "Arnold" Scheme for RAF LACs). It had full dual controls in both cockpits. Only difference was in the panel - they'd taken our ASIs out of the rear (student) cockpits, so we could learn to fly "by the seat of our pants". As none of us had flown before, we felt no pain (what you've never had, you never miss), so we thought all aircraft were flown like that.

Don't know what T.C-T. means: you would have to ask her, I'm afraid.

The (Boeing) Stearman was simple, very strong, and easy to fly. Like its contemporary, the Tiger Moth, it will go on flying for ever. Did you read the "Times" blurb about a rough, tough, "he-man's" aircraft ? - All baloney !

Danny.

As you will see from above, the same thing is happening as it did with the last supporter of Ms Curtis-Taylor - answers and comments to everything other than the core questions outlined in previous posts. The reality is that there will never be a an answer to those questions because they refer to evidence that is obviously proof of intention to deceive. Mr Adams et al have of course seen the press releases, the presentations and watched the video and will have formed exactly the same opinion as everyone else. The difference is that while we are claiming that it is cast-iron proof, they will be trying to bury it, ignore it or expunge it from the consciousness of their supporters. All that can be hoped is that a responsible third party in the media picks up the story and writes a balanced article where Ms Curtis-Taylor is offered the opportunity to respond directly to the claims.

The Stearman I have flown (from the front) had controls and instruments in both cockpits sufficient for VFR flight from either cockpit. I'm sure that Stearmans differ across the production range, but... If I were the umpteen thousand hour ATPL instructor, who was also in charge of building up the aircraft, to ride front cockpit to the the lesser experience solo pilot in the back, I'd certainly be assuring that there were full dual controls and instruments in the front - Just in case of a rough running engine in Winslow, or some such challenging situation! I would be very surprised to learn that this particular Stearman could not be flown equally well from the front or rear cockpits.

The Stearman is/was a basic trainer, so has, as standard, all the flight controls duplicated in both cockpits. Apart from that, I doubt that a high time commercial pilot and owner of the a/craft would want to sit in with no chance to correct a low time private pilot's possible errors. I suppose he could just do the Nav.... though there might have been insurance considerations after the early parts of the first SA flight.

Looking at the CV of the Times journalist, it appears he is a pilot too. Which makes the article even more surprizing.

OOPs, My slow typing and distractions got me in after Pilot Dar with the same ideas.

With reference to limited flying controls, there's a selection of Stearman's shown on Ewald's site. I'm no expert on the type and maybe the aircraft in question is different, but all shown here clearly have dual controls:

Boeing Stearman

I posted this almost 2 years ago, so it's possible that some of the links no longer work, but it's still germane:

I offer this only as a quick reference to assist anyone, like Nick, who might need a wee refesher course in what T C-T is all about.

The important bit is where there is an allegation that she was trying to taxy between two objects, but the photographs show an open field.

An interesting Daily Mail story from August 2015

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d981e01183.jpg

Reference the TCT Stearman and Dual Controls
 

You can decide for yourselves wether the aircraft she was flying had dual controls or not.

This is a picture of the rear cockpit of her aircraft taken in Africa.

http://www.birdinabiplane.com/galler...1/dsc00251.jpg

This is a picture of the front cockpit
http://www.stearman.at/pictures/rest...ips%20(10).JPG

In the majority of the articles, there is supporting pictorial evidence of the 'solo' expedition with photos which inconveniently show 2 people on board. Now we know this 2nd person to be the ATPL / instructor / owner Ewald Gritsch on board for the majority of those flight.

With such widespread pictorial evidence in the public domain, it would appear to be rather more than a mere 'uphill struggle' to reconcile all those ambitious solo claims to secure sponsorship with the inconvenient facts. What was she thinking, to believe it was wise to come back to berate everyone - the LAA in particular - for such an dreadful miscarriage of justice, and to think that she could rewrite history to claim her prize and restore her honour?

Perhaps the role of emotional support .. err . .. being ... ?
Sorry, I had sworn I'd never get involved in this thread - after 4000-odd entries I think I may be forgiven.

PB84: Ah yes, the STEM thing.

Her logic is absurd. Her attempt to associate herself with real achievers, such as the likes of Amy Johnson and Mary Heath, is damn nearly fraudulent.

If she had a degree or some such qualification in something like engineering, she might possibly be qualify to pose in that guise, but she hasn't. It's just a charade. A pretence.

It's almost as if she's trying to teach kids that they don't need to get a science degree or diploma if you've learned the art of bullshooting and charlatanry.

90 years ago it really was a big deal for a woman to fly around the world, or across a couple of continents, alone and without a support crew. Nowadays it's generally recognised that you really don't need a toggle and two between your legs to fly an aeroplane.

If she and her finance house sponsors really gave a toss about having more femme CPLs, they'd have sponsored a coupla hundred females (to the exclusion of males, but never mind) through a modular or integrated CPL course.

Well, you can clearly see the limited front cockpit controls: No IPAD!

Having finally gotten round to reading Fate is the Hunter by Ernest K Gann recently, I feel that one passage is particularly relevant to this whole affair.

The (civilian) pilot in question was searching for a C-87 (cargo Liberator), with a crew and 17 sick and injured passengers on board, which had crashed in the Canadian Arctic during WW2. He was flying another C-87 on instruments at night over unknown terrain when he lost two engines on the same side and lost access to the fuel on that side too.

As a result, he could not reach any recognised airport. However, he learned over the radio that there was a new field still under construction that he could just make. It was much too small for a C-87 but it did have a radio range. When he arrived over the airport, he was told that the short runway only had a few kerosene flares, the ceiling was far below limits, visibility was half a mile, or even less in heavy blowing snow, and the wind was strong across the runway.

Ernest K Gann continues, "True to his profession, McGuire said later it was a rotten instrument approach. He was referring to his minor technical misdemeanors as if they were important at the time. HIs critique deliberately skipped the fact that the aeroplane was flying askew, everything below was foreign to him including the nature of the terrain, and they had to lengthen the runway before the C-87 could be flown away again. Nor would be mention how he swept down through the squalls, caught a mere glimpse of the runway, then somehow squeezed the ship into it's limitations, and landed without scratching the staggering beast of an aeroplane. All of these things, he passed off as inconvenient tribulations which it would be in poor taste to discuss....... It was he who was fraudulent, anyone must understand, and the ultimate success was achieved in spite of his efforts rather than because of them."

11) Friends in high places

The full quote Sam is a great summary of log-book inspection needs and likely outcomes. There is another point I would be interested in too in those log books, in particular who flew the Stearman from Hungary to the UK back in July(?) 2013 and in what capacity. I am still not convinced that all is above board with regards to licencing and flying an N-reg across Europe months before the appropriate licences were issued. As far as memory serves me I understood it to be that neither of them were licenced to do so.

If I am wrong then I apologise now...however... anyone with more knowledge than I feel free to comment and allay my idle curiosity. The topic was raised back then but was lost/buried in the plethora of other very interesting posts.

Their FAA licences were issued on the same day: 23rd September 2013.

N-56200 was registered on the 26th of July 2013.

Thanks.

On what date was N56200 flown to UK? Would the disparity between dates and licences be an issue?

Bingo ! ! !
It is exactly this and this alone which is driving this rather unwelcome and extremely high profile [re]visitation of all these very tired and very old bits of information .

I do rather feel that we should hold back a little in our criticism of the LAA , as I have a sneaky feeling that they really don't want this any more than anyone else does ,. which makes me wonder what exactly is going on in Ms Curtis-Taylor's head .
I am not particularly worried about how this affects her future . But I do have considerable concern about the LAA's future , because this concerns 8,000 people [including me ]and not just one .

So if I may just hypothesise a little : Let's just assume that a legal firm takes her version at face value . Has she been "destroyed" by internet trolls ? Or was her reputation lying in tatters long before it ever came up at an LAA - AGM .
Are the people who have questioned her integrity actually "internet trolls" , or are they normal , decent , grass-roots flyers ?
I do actually know the answer to this one !
I have absolutely nothing to hide . I know that 'Martyr' is a bit of a funny old surname , but it's what's on my birth certificate and not a username.
I stood up and was counted in 2016 and will do so again in 2018 ,2019 , 2020 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[ just keep counting].


And for those in Tracey's camp who believe I am some sort of antagonistic bigot . Just come up and shake hands on Oct21st , I will be delighted to prove to you that I am nothing more than an ordinary rank & file LAA'er . Like quite a few others who have pursued this !

And each of the really great pilots I have been fortunate enough to know, amongst them Ray Hanna, Judith Chisholm and Stef Karwowski, have had one overwhelming characteristic in their personalities, a sense of humility especially when asked about their flying experiences and achievements. To them all awards and citations were more of an embarrassment than something to be fought over as though they are personal possessions.

When I read the quote from Ms Curtis-Taylor in The Times article "I’ve had 35 years flying these kind of aeroplanes. I’m as experienced as anyone in the world flying them.” I noted not only a lack of that essential quality, humility, but also a lack of any sense of reality. No doubt Ms Curtis-Taylor's fellow Stearman (and similar) aircraft pilots from around the world will be happy to acknowledge her world leading expertise in their field.

It is to the credit of LAA that they reconsidered their position when the extent of her deceit came to light. They rescinded the award.

They did the honourable thing.

Pity that HCAP didn't. A different set of values, I suppose.

At the last count, she had 450 hours on type. In 35 years.

Two crashes in 450 hours is not hugely impressive, is it?

When she pranged in Winslow she'd flown 2 hours solo in the previous 90 days and 3 hours solo in the previous 30 days. Not quite sure how that works, but those are the numbers she reported to the FAA/NTSB.

+10

There is a distinct lack of honour.
TCT purports to be a champion for the female cause (that ethos died years ago) and is set on a pedestal as a role model. All she inspires is a notion that the only way to the top is to lie, embellish,cheat, and manipulate: Hardly worthy of a role model title IMHO. This is why I thought, and still think, that those great institutions who have garnished her with rewards have been hoodwinked into doing so but are too embarrassed to act. In that I include Portsmouth Polytechnic and The Royal Naval Reserve organisations.

Nick Adams, when are we going to see your great admission of guilt up on the BiaB site? Perhaps doing so may convey two things; a genuine desire to take the blame for this small piece of the whole charade, and confirmation that you are indeed who you say you are.