|
Jonzarno. If it makes you happy and the mods agree then by all means go ahead with a separate thread of questions. Yes, TCT’s PR team will see them as they are monitoring this forum as they do others however as Chris Martyr says they won’t respond. |
Originally Posted by Sam Rutherford
(Post 10261744)
Ewald has just told me that he didn't touch the controls at any stage during any of the enroute legs of any of the three expeditions.
I really must add a lot of 747 time to my logbook if having a snooze can be counted. |
Originally Posted by Jonzarno
(Post 10261997)
Yes! :ok: But give her the chance to respond to it by contacting a Mod.
In the cold light of day , I can now see what you mean and agree entirely . So, + 1 . |
Originally Posted by Right Hand Thread
(Post 10262073)
Jonzarno. If it makes you happy and the mods agree then by all means go ahead with a separate thread of questions. Yes, TCT’s PR team will see them as they are monitoring this forum as they do others however as Chris Martyr says they won’t respond. |
Originally Posted by Jonzarno
(Post 10261985)
Chris, the point I’m trying to make with my suggestion is that it puts Ms Curtis-Taylor and her team on the spot and nails them to answering specific factual questions rather than arguing that it’s all “a witch hunt”. I think it is important that those who would deny her the award, if that is justified, should do so on the basis of fact and from the moral high ground. At the moment, the weight of argument as expressed in this thread is overwhelmingly critical of her attitude, behaviour and personality rather than seeking answers to the specific factual assertions that form the questions that lie at the heart of this issue, but to which she still provides no answer. As I said in my earlier post: it is easy for her to hide behind the huge volume of posts that don’t pursue the facts. My suggestion was intended to reverse that and focus a bright and direct light on those factual issues and ensure that they are the main basis for the decision because you can’t really bullish!t the answers to them: they are, as it says on the tin, matters of fact. If we do as I suggest, they have three choices: 1. They answer the questions and convince the meeting that they are right. In that case they deserve the award and it should be returned. Of course they might use this channel to present what I believe are called “alternative facts” and people can judge them on those once they have stopped laughing. 2. They apologise for having “unintentionally” misled everyone and accept that the award won’t be returned. In that case, they don’t get the award back, but at least they regain some respect from those of us who are big enough to accept such an apology and move on (I certainly would be happy to do that!). 3. They don’t reply. In that case, the meeting should draw its own conclusions. For me, failing to reply either demonstrates a contempt for the LAA or is a tacit admission that the allegations are correct. In either case the award would not be returned and any press reaction would be countered by a simple response setting out what was done and why, together with the fact that they ignored it. That focusses the attention clearly on the facts of the case and is more likely to end up with a just outcome than the alternative which is to go into the meeting with the thread unchanged, have her claim that she is being trolled citing the myriad posts here, many of which are ad hominem attacks, and give her a great screen behind which she can hide. It also avoids any negative press reaction as they can hardly play the injured party if they have been given the chance to respond and have spurned it. I’ll close this post with a request that those supporting the idea say so, or if people don’t support it say that and say why. I’d also be grateful for a “sign from above” if starting another thread in this saga along the lines I suggest would be acceptable to the Mods and if they are happy to police it as I originally suggested. A) she will not reply B) she can still cite the occasionally intemperate criticism in this giant thread but ignore all the well presented and researched argument in it! The only way to stop the award being re-instated is to win the vote at the LAA AGM. If you are a LAA member, attend the meeting or more realistically, send in your proxy vote on the back of the address label of your next LAA magazine. The October magazine is apparently due to be delivered at the end of this week. And remind all your LAA friends to use their vote! |
I have no objections to this suggestion but feel it will not be effective because A) she will not reply B) she can still cite the occasionally intemperate criticism in this giant thread but ignore all the well presented and researched argument in it! B) Is sadly inevitable given what has gone before in this thread. My suggestion was aimed at focussing the debate on the facts of the case rather than all the emotion around it. I carry no torch for Ms Curtis-Taylor, but some of the invective aimed at her and her supporters does IMHO go beyond the bounds of justifiable criticism. Undoubtedly her team will try to use that and the only way of addressing that is to keep the decision firmly based on the facts relating to what she did or didn’t do. |
Jonzarno wrote:
"I carry no torch for Ms Curtis-Taylor, but some of the invective aimed at her and her supporters does IMHO go beyond the bounds of justifiable criticism. Undoubtedly her team will try to use that and the only way of addressing that is to keep the decision firmly based on the facts relating to what she did or didn’t do." I agree entirely but I am not convinced that most LAA members know the facts at the moment. It is up to us all, particularly LAA members, contributing to this thread, to try to make sure that as many other LAA members as possible get to know the facts in this matter before October 21st and use their votes accordingly! If you think your suggestion with help with this, go ahead. |
Originally Posted by Checklist Charlie
(Post 10262022)
OK then lets take that on face value, he didn't touch the controls during any of the enroute legs, what about the departure and /or arrival legs of those flights?
The use of the word "enroute" smacks of a bit of clever spin, CC |
Even if Ewald had his hands tied behind his back, these were not a "solo" flights. In my book, he would have to have been unconscious for his presence to be ignored. A better question, also even less likely to be answered, is did he ever influence or overrule any of TCT's operational decisions?
|
Originally Posted by pulse1
(Post 10262385)
Even if Ewald had his hands tied behind his back, these were not a "solo" flights. In my book, he would have to have been unconscious for his presence to be ignored. A better question, also even less likely to be answered, is did he ever influence or overrule any of TCT's operational decisions?
Nothing will change what she is and what she does. She can bluff about court action all she wants, but we all know she can't take that risk. |
She could, and perhaps should, take legal action if she is slandered or libelled.
Her problem with attempting that is that she hasn't been slandered or libelled. She lied, repeatedly. That can very easily be demonstrated to any Court. Exhibit A might be this: It is abundantly clear that she was the spider at the centre of a web of deceit which caused countless major newspapers to publish rubbish about her flying solo from Africa; and to Oz; and across the USA. Any barrister worth his or her salt could bring a hundredweight of broadsheet and tabloid headlines to Court to show how all-encompassing the cheatery was. |
I wonder what it would take for a "supporter of our cause" to edit the backdrop at the AGM if she is to speak, and have her, once again, standing in front of the "Alone in an open cockpit" poster.
|
I have been thinking about Ewald's response to the question. From what I see, TCT can fly the aircraft (how well is not for me to say) but her lack of navigation skills has be brought into question before. I am reminded that the front seat of the a/c was fitted with navigational equipment (Ipad/garmin stuff) and when you look back at post-landing video that does show Ewald he is busy tidying away something in the cockpit. My thought is that he was indeed crew and was the navigator,(guide, and supporter) on these flights. This would answer the "crew" tick on the NTSB report. What it doesn't answer though are the similarities in flying hours prior to the crash - both logging P1 hours ??
Only way to put that to rest is to show the logbooks - and I am damned sure if it were me and I could silence critics by showing a logbook I would be doing so. That would take some of the heat out of all other arguments. It troubles me that there are good people with good reputations which they are prepared to risk for her. As for LAA thread: it might help if it were renamed. Any member logging in might skim past it as the title has nothing to do with what will happen on the 21st October. |
Give me a day or two and I'll produce my log books. They'll prove I flew Harriers in WW2, Spitfires in the Falklands, a Sopwith Camel in the Gulf War and the Space Shuttle to the shops. The only way Ewald and TCT's logbooks could prove anything would be if they were read in conjunction with the aircraft logs, and which aircraft would that be exactly? 'The Spirit of Artifice' 1, 2 or however many other airframes the brass plaque has been stuck on? |
May be a silly question, but do civilian logbooks need to be countersigned on monthly / quarterly timescales as the mil ones are, or is it all down to the individual just keeping them as a record and nothing is cross-checked?
I thought the incident with the ATCO making up a series of logbooks and then getting a job as an airline pilot woke up the establishment. |
Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
(Post 10262499)
May be a silly question, but do civilian logbooks need to be countersigned on monthly / quarterly timescales as the mil ones are, or is it all down to the individual just keeping them as a record and nothing is cross-checked?
I thought the incident with the ATCO making up a series of logbooks and then getting a job as an airline pilot woke up the establishment. |
This topic has received a thorough update here - thanks to contributors.
The topic for the near future seems to center on the upcoming vote at the LAA AGM on the merits, and possible reconsideration, of the award previously discussed for Ms. Curtis-Taylor. New posts on the topic of the merits of the award, and voting, are encouraged on the LAA AGM thread. Should any news beyond that become available relevant to this thread, certainly, reopening it will be considered. Pilot DAR |
In response to several requests, I have reopened this thread. New information relative to Ms. Curtis-Taylor's publicly promoted flying adventures may be posted here. Please avoid two things: Reposting/repeating information or emotion already posted on this thread, and, posting information which is directly related to the LAA AGM meeting, and decisions to be considered at that meeting.
PPRuNe is happy for good discussion. Less need to moderate posts, because the posters moderate themselves, is very appreciated! |
This link to the Times from 2016 is headed with a commonly used picture of TCT and Ewald with an interesting caption...
Tracey Curtis-Taylor in her 1940s Boeing Stearman. As with other vintage aircraft all of the flying is done by the pilot in the rear |
TCT admits in the article that she carried passengers 20% of the time and her ‘engineer’ 70% of the time. |
“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.” Also in her own words from an LAA forum she talks about carrying passengers. |
For information here's the pitch for the film. Doesn't mention solo.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160505...Graphic-Design |
Originally Posted by Hadley Rille
(Post 10269642)
For information here's the pitch for the film. Doesn't mention solo.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160505...Graphic-Design |
"She is an experienced stunt pilot.."
A stunt is something interesting that is done in order to attract attention and get publicity for the person or company responsible for it. In a bold promotional stunt for the movie, he smashed his car into a passing truck. 2. countable noun. (Collins Dictionary) Now its all beginning to make sense! |
Originally Posted by Hadley Rille
(Post 10269642)
For information here's the pitch for the film. Doesn't mention solo.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160505...Graphic-Design That is the 2016 version. This is a copy of her webpage taken a year earlier...paragraph 4 refers.... https://web.archive.org/web/20150323...80/operations/ This is taken from her website in February 2015 https://web.archive.org/web/20150204....com/speaking/ |
The links work for me. Here’s a quote from the Feb 2015 BiaB link, with that pesky four-letter “S” word again: Tracey is an amazing storyteller…and will spellbind any audience. Her solo open-cockpit biplane flight from Cape Town to Goodwood was the realisation of something beyond a dream. It encompassed great adventure and daring in some of the most spectacularly beautiful and dangerous parts of the world today. |
Beardy bloke in red trousers holding a glass of Sauvignon Blanc looks familiar. :hmm:
|
Likewise, her 2016 Website includes another 'slip of the tongue'. Funny how it's always the same one.
The Cape Town to Goodwood flight took two months to complete with 38 stops. Tracey was supported by a second aircraft; a Cessna Caravan provided by Phoenix Aviation of Nairobi, which carried a logistics manager, an engineer and a four-man film crew. In preparation for her solo flight across Africa, Tracey was invited to join a 3 man Russian crew ferry flying an old piston engined Antonov 2 biplane from Kiev to Cape Town. The aeroplane was donated by Utair for humanitarian work in South Africa and supported by ExecuJet. |
Originally Posted by Fitter2
(Post 10269797)
Likewise, her 2016 Website includes another 'slip of the tongue'. Funny how it's always the same one.
|
Originally Posted by India Four Two
(Post 10269785)
The links work for me. Here’s a quote from the Feb 2015 BiaB link, with that pesky four-letter “S” word again: |
Originally Posted by Midlifec
(Post 10269799)
The same slip all over the BBC news archive too, just search ‘Tracey Curtis Taylor’,how I wonder did they all get it so wrong.............. My complete silence since departing Cape Town might have raised a few eyebrows given my more expansive outpourings on the Ocean to Ocean blog when I flew with the Russian crew from Kiev to Cape Town earlier this year in an Antonov 2. I can only say that the physical and psychological demands are so much greater with a solo flight of this nature, added to which there is a huge filming programme running in parallel, that it is as much as I can do to deal with the day to day operations. |
From the archived BiaB web page: Her solo open-cockpit biplane flight from Cape Town to Goodwood was the realisation of something beyond a dream. |
Not much in today's posts here is really new. Let's not rehash the already posted information, it's too much to review for little value added. Please, before you post something on this thread, ask yourself, is it really new? If it can be found here already, it's not new. If the continuation of this thread cannot be for new, non LAA AGM information, it won't be serving much purpose.
|
Pilot DAR is right: for those wanting to expose the reality of what happened, a simple focus on the facts is all that is needed; everything else just provides those with a guilty conscience more cover to hide behind. # 3 Questions |
Perhaps this topic might be better served by a dedicated website, rather than repetition on here. Facts could be laid out, once each, for all to see.
This being an aviation related forum, maybe we should take a poll of how many people here think that rule breaking and telling lies about flying, as made glamorous by T C-T and therefore endorsed (big time) by the LAA and HCAP as well as by Prince Michael of Kent, is really acceptable. |
The waybackmachine never lies....
I don't think this has been seen before and presumably, our Trace can't blame the web designer for this one as she is responding personally to posts. From August 2015: https://web.archive.org/web/20150819...birdinabiplane |
More grist for the mill which, so far as I am aware, has not been posted before...... https://www.lonelyplanet.com/news/20...ear-old-plane/ which is entitled:
Meet the woman who is undertaking to fly solo across the US in this 74-year-old planeand starts:"Pilot Tracey Curtis-Taylor embarked yesterday on flying the 4,700 nautical mile historic US airmail route from Seattle to Boston, marking the third leg of her solo journey circumnavigating the world since 2013." and intriguingly continues: "It’s not for the faint-hearted, as Tracey is exposed to the elements, controls the airplane by stick-and-rudder flying, and orients herself with the help of a compass." So glad about the compass, although it clearly cannot have been that reliable in view of the considerable amount of, ahem, "deviation" around Winslow AZ..... Jack |
Nor is it accurate in referring to a circumnavigation for was the Stearman not crated and transported from continent to continent? In fairness that may have been the journalist getting a little over excited rather than our heroine telling fibs.
|
Originally Posted by Chuck Glider
(Post 10270664)
Nor is it accurate in referring to a circumnavigation for was the Stearman not crated and transported from continent to continent? In fairness that may have been the journalist getting a little over excited rather than our heroine telling fibs.
Where journalistic over-enthusiasm has been suspected, and subsequently questioned with that journalist, the answer is invariably "it is as was stated and is a direct quote / taken from a quote". TCT has often referred to "flying around the world". |
Let's be fair here, TCT is not the first individual who has had their achievements 'adjusted' by ignorant media. The tangible point should be that she has done little to correct reported inaccuracies.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:25. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.