Mr Holloway Sir,


Welcome back. My good friend Mr Cough knows you and if he says you are a decent chap then that's good enough for me.


I can't quite accept that having a minor royal as a very close friend brings no advantages. Let's take for instance the photo below from TCT's own website. Unless Uber have branched out, I don't know of any other organisation that would have laid on a Lynx for TCT plus friend to whisk her from Battersea to Middle Wallop.


http://www.birdinabiplane.com/images/jan15.jpg


We can then examine the various awards that have been bestowed. When you dig slightly deeper, the same name keeps cropping up. Is it just coincidence or do all roads lead to Rome ? My line of work teaches me that there is no such thing as coincidence.


Can I ask you to find out who gave her the RAF wings and did that person tell her it was ok for her to wear them ? Does that person hold an honorary senior RAF rank ? Does that person by sheer coincidence, (and who would have believed it ?) also hold an honorary senior rank in the Royal Navy Reserve ? A definitive answer would be most welcome so we can stop the speculation.

Terry Holloway

What utter nonsense.

Whilst the sponsors may have already been in place at the juncture of this particular photo, the sponsors would have known that Prince Michael was on board.
She would have banged that drum in the same fashion as 'alone/solo'

The awards are all based upon her connections, with some having influence in those organisations.

You do sound like a decent chap but I don't think that you will be able to insult our intelligence here on this one.

Two points, if I may..
"Prince Michael manages his own consultancy business .." (Wikipedia).
"He also spends time running his successful consultancy business. (PMK Official website).
(My bolds)

Secondly..
Boeing United Kingdom Limited and Boeing Defence UK Limited don't sound terribly like US companies to me.

At this point I don't think it's important how she got here, its what she done when she arrived with all the solo,alone Herne Bay vid nonsense firmly established . I suspect the real scam is when you start peeling the onion on the "Outreach". What's the chances that BIAB and Artemis never forked over a dime or delivered anything tangible whatsoever at all to the deprived kids, neglected women and endangered animals she photo op'd with along the way. It would appear the extent of her outreach was delivering a monologue about herself to groups, some of whom were established charities supported by donations from others. But is there any evidence she or Artemis actually did any outreach in the common definition of the word other than her "chats" the veracity and accuracy of which we all know about.

Welcome back Terry, any chance you could source just one kid that got a scholarship, or one woman who got a micro loan to become self sufficient, or even one poacher patrol that got a donation towards night vision goggles or their aircraft annual from BIAB or Artemis during the outreach part of the "expeditions"? that is after all what she's being feted for now.

I recall Sam mentioned in an earlier post that one of his duties was to act as a sort of Paymaster General for the African trips expenses. Was there ever a time Sam where Tracey, PR guy Kelly and the Artemis rep sat you down with your expedition chequebook and payments ledger and said " Right Sam where are we on this outreach thing from a financial perspective, how much have we spent, and how much have we committed from the budget so far"

I'd imagine that if as HCAP and RAeS have recognised that a major focus of these trips was outreach then I want to be the first to congratulate them on the success of those of efforts based on proof of course and not some fuzzy notion of supposedly having delivered.

As I understand it the Boeing sponsorship came from the US, but the UK team managed the PR.
I can't comment on the Prince Michael consultancy because I don't know. He certainly doesn't have any link to Marshall or The Air League, and I don't believe there is a Boeing connection.

Like it or not but what I said earlier is true in my experience of working very closely with the Royal Household.
Of course some people will be impressed by "Royal connections", but I do not believe that applies to either Artemis or Boeing.
I don't believe TCT had any contact or links to Prince Michael prior to the SA trip, by which time the two sponsors had been secured.

It would have been the other way round! I assume the Army laid on a Lynx to take Prince Michael to Middle Wallop, and she accompanied him.
I can absolutely assure you that a Royal connection/ patron does not influence any awards in The Air League, and I am quite certain that applies equally in HCAP LAA, and RAeC.

I've not seen her "wearing" RAF wings but from a conversation with a chum I believe the Royal Navy gave her Navy wings, which go with her "Honorary" rank in the RN. There was a suggestion that an old (WW2) set of wings were given to her for good luck which may have been loosely pinned to the lapel of her flying suit as a talisman. Most people (including me!) will see nothing wrong with that, because it's not a pretense of something else.

You have a wonderful sense of humour Terry, you certainly made me chuckle.... (welcome back by the way, your input is both welcome and entertaining).

It matters not whether the uber-lynx was for HRH PM or for TCT; the question remains why did she tag along in the first place. Bottom line is she got a free ride due to her connection with HRH PM


If the Royal Patron suggests to any of the above that someone may be worth a pat on the back, I doubt very much it plays no part in influencing a decision, the influence may be small, it may be large, but it WILL have an influence.


You seem to have lost the fighter-pilot eyesight Terry. Maybe you have sand in your eyes; an image you quoted from one of Jay's posts shows her wearing the wings. They are RAF wings although it was earlier believed they were FAA ones, I have not seen her wear FAA wings on her naval uniform.

At one point she did have them on her right lapel (I accept this could be a good luck trinket and have no issue with that). However, she now wears them on her left chest as if they are issued for completing RAF pilot training: Anyone who has earned their wings should rightly be offended at this, likewise anyone who has family who have EARNED the right to wear a brevet.

Re the wings, I really couldn't make them out and I really do need to see a better photo! The chum (who I mentioned in the earlier post about RN wings) made the point that as an ex fleet air arm pilot he and others were outraged that TCT had been given Navy wings and thus I assumed that is what is on her left breast. If they were awarded to her she is entitled, of course, to wear them. Like many others I believe such wings should be properly earned, but if the services decide to give them out in such a way that's really up to them.

And therein lies the rub, Terry; you make assumptions based on the comments of 'chums' whereas others, having examined the evidence come to a quite different conclusion. Have you never heard the old adage "Don't assume, Check", a favourite of various RAF flight safety posters of your era?

There you go Terry. A clear image of "Walt-wings".

And before you respond with "..but they could be on anyone, where is the proof it is TCT?" I have included another clear image, and no, the woman shown is not a look-a-like/impersonator/stunt double: It is TCT wearing an RAF brevet. ;)

Just one small part of this monumental fantasy.

That could not be clearer. Thank you! Pre 1952 (wire?) wings, which predate her. Presumably a talisman which she referred to in a statement. The MoD ceremonial office should be able to explain the legal position on wearing historic insignia. Personally I wouldn't wear something (like those wings) which could lead to criticism by others, but dressed like that she is hardly posing as an RAF pilot. Those who go to the Goodwood meetings every year, and elsewhere, dressed in the full modern uniform with wings are rather more guilty of being imposters. There is a post elsewhere on Prune about uniforms and surpriseingly that has attracted little comment, whereas those who seek to continue to vilify TCT on this thread appear to be eager to unearth anything - however remote - which will sustain their unkind campaign, which many find unpleasant and unnecessary. As I said when I first joined this thread hasn't she suffered enough? What is the end game?

Good morning Terry,

I think for most people that is very simple - an honest answer to the clear questions that have been posted multiple times on this thread and elsewhere.

For me, some sound evidence of the outreach activities that have been deemed award-worthy would also be welcomed.

A hundred times, yes.

Arguably, that would turn her from a Wilhelmina Mitty, to a worthwhile person who promotes aviation, who just has an unfortunate habit of bigging her flying achieves up a bit.

G

I'd have to ask Terry, what has she suffered? That she has been shown to be economical with the truth? Others would be so unkind as to say that she lies about her achievements. TCT baked the cake, if the taste is not to her liking then there is not much we can do about it.

Hear hear!

If TCT emerged from under her aircraft dusty, and smelling of fuel, while teaching a group of aviation minded young people how a pre flight inspection is done, and then missed her lunch, because she stayed to answer questions all afternoon, I would have more patience for other aspects of her presentation.

Though I'm not keen on a "end justifies the means" approach to life, if TCT could show that some embellishment really opened up a more broad opportunity for more effective outreach, which was accomplished, I would feel less need to see her called to account for what are obvious misrepresentations elsewhere.

As an officer with the air cadets, I wear RAF uniform to work sometimes. My rank isn't even honorary (though it is acting). As a PPL I'd love to have some wings to wear. But I accept I can't.

What's the difference?

+100

There is your answer Terry. And as for the call for sympathy...that went out the window when she started threatening folk with the police/solicitors.

I confess I don't know why she is bothering with all this flying stuff anyway...she seems perfectly qualified for a career in politics...

Obscure
Threaten
Deny

Nailed on future PM if you ask me.

I earned a set of RAF "wings" the hard way. I was required to wear them on my RAF uniforms and flying overall for just under twenty years.

Now I'm a civilian pilot (have been so for twenty years), I do not wear RAF wings (and never have done so since leaving the RAF) because it's inappropriate to wear them on civilian clothing.

To wear them on an unearned basis on civilian clothing is doubly inappropriate. Ms. TCT has been asked more than once why she thinks she is entitled to wear them (via email as well as here). She never answers. In my opinion she is now somewhat worse than a Walt. At least most Walts admit to being wrong once rumbled.

Terry H. you are entitled to your opinion about who should wear RAF wings and who shouldn't. No-one would deny that you are an accomplished pilot in your own right but you didn't earn them either, so you can't be expected to understand how strongly people who did might object to them being worn as "trinkets". Especially by someone who claims to have been trained by RAF pilots, probably hoping to fool some folk that she's RAF qualified.

ShyTorque,

Plus 1.

For me the wings are a minor point but I can understand why it annoys so many. An RAF brevet can only be earned by a combination of hard work and tested ability. There is no easy way to get them, which is why they have a certain kudos. The "solo" claim, apart from being a downright lie is also minor. The most important issue for me is TC-T's blatant disregard for rules, regulations and common sense and her insistence on flying wherever she likes and at any height and then having the gall to brag about it in her talks. If she is to lead and inspire others she should set a positive example beyond reproach. I also doubt the extent of her "outreach" and worse, if any of her potential proteges ever followed her example of air(wo)manship there is a damn good chance they would end up dead (or in prison) - assuming they didn't have a 20,000 hour pilot in the other seat. But worse than any of the above, several formerly prestigious institutions appear to feel that her talks about reckless flying should be rewarded. That is inexcusable.

Very true! When I train newer pilots, I remind myself that my duty is to resist "fooling around" in a plane, and teaching and living it the right way, so that is the standard I demonstrate. The "do as I say, not as I do", really really does not work in piloting!

TCT has some apologizing to her peers to do with this subject.