I suppose that also means TC-T has not changed her original story. Does it also perhaps mean the originally alleged fraud and lies continue as well?

CC

I wasn’t aware of that, but don’t understand why repeating the programme should preclude repeating the unanswered questions relating to it. Also, with respect, I would not describe those questions as “moans”.

In relation to the flight that is the subject of this programme, and in light of the video evidence contained in it, it seems entirely reasonable that Ms Curtis-Taylor should be asked to explain the image contained in this post:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ml#post9942685

If those wanting a simple answer to this, and the other questions that have been asked, choose to keep sailing round “the buoy”, it is only in the hope that eventually the girl will own up!

I see our intrepid adventurer is due to give the Andrew Humphrey Memorial Lecture at the Royal Aeronautical Society on 16 November. Expect it will be a sell out....

Whichever way the cat jumps, this is still "The Best Show in Town !"

I really am quite offended to be called a jackal

I watched the programme several years ago and was convinced at the end that this was a solo flight. It is good to learn that Ewald was not a pilot but merely a passenger dumped in the front due to lack of space elsewhere. I wonder what his role would have been in the supporting aircraft if there had not been such a basic miscalculation of payload in the beginning......

"...an early decision was taken on the Africa trip for her to carry a passenger because there was insufficient payload capacity in the supporting aircraft to carry everyone and the filming equipment."

This is not correct.

There was plenty of capacity in the C208 for everyone and everything.

Additionally, the "early decision" was made by Tracey, without consultation with anyone else (apart from Ewald). Myself, the film crew, director - we were all taken completely by surprise.

Continuing the correction theme. Whilst I very definitely had a falling out with Tracey (!), it was not a commercial falling out as I never had any commercial relationship with her.

The only commercial relationship we had was with the production company. We did have a problem after the journey when they refused to reimburse us for for the money we had spent getting the Libyan visas "because we never went to Libya and so didn't use them". Despite explaining at length that this is not how it works (!), we were forced to take legal action. They then paid up (plus costs).

Oh Dear! I seem to think that this is the second time that Mr Holloway has tried to end this matter and has possibly made it worse.

That comment would really annoy me if it was directed at me. Says more about Mr Holloway than it does about Jay Sata.

Assume?? How dare journalists assume that Tracy was presenting the truth while standing in front of that famous graphic of her SOLO flight and even more so, her infamous presentation at Herne Bay?

Oh Dear....
Poor old Terry is at it again. Frankly , I can't be bothered to cut and paste all the howlers out of this one . There are just so many !
But as soon as you see someone discrediting so many of his adversaries as he's done ,then it's a sure sign that yet more straws are being clutched at.
Jay-Sata.
Sam Rutherford.
PPRuNe Moderators.
The LAA.
All the journalists covering TC-T's solo epic.
Were we ALL wrong ?
Then to describe the contributors on here who simply want a small number of perfectly reasonable questions answered as "jackals".
I am as tired of this thread as Ms Curtis-Taylor is. Except I'm not the one who could shut it all down by simply being straight with people .

That would have been a logical conclusion from the early days of the Africa flight when she could have explained why Ewald climbed on board what was promoted as a solo flight Chris.

Terry has asked me to remove the post with his quote to which he initially agreed was OK.

We exchange friendly emails and I respect his opinions so I have removed it.

Hence some of the above posts might now seem out of context.

My recent complaint to the BBC was that they have shown this old movie again, despite what we all now know about TC-T.

TCT turned her logbook into a fiction novel, conned some hedge funders, told porkies to the press and public and bigged herself up to the WRI and other groups.

Do you think Tracey Curtis Taylor could climb in to a Piper single engined Commanche and fly around the world solo with no GPS in 189 hours in 34 days?

Sheila Scott did in 1966.

http://www.redditchadvertiser.co.uk/...und_the_world/

Jay, like Ms Scott there are many aviators that have done serious long distance solo flights that make TC-T's efforts look petty.

I was fortunate to know Freda Thompson, fly with her and laugh at her stories of her 1934 UK-Australia solo flight.

Those pioneers like Freda would be appalled at the disrepute that TC-T has brought upon our profession.

A short bio of Freda Mary Thompson Biography - Freda Mary Thompson - Australian Dictionary of Biography

CC

Let's not get carried away. There are very, very many modern pilots who could do this. The hard part of flying around the world is not the flying; it's the logistics and bureaucracy. If you just rustle up a load of money from sponsors or mum and dad, and get a handling company to do that for you, then the trip is very straightforward! It's still very cool though.

It's reached the point where with the passage of time, the lies and deceit don't really concern me anymore. They have been proved. There is one poster connected to TC-T who has continually encouraged us all to move on, nothing to see here etc. I suggest his efforts would be better applied if the poster advised TC-T to stop giving speeches and making appearances, remove her Facebook page and website and then like her, this thread would just go away.

The response from the BBC
 

That's what the corporation think is a suitable response to my complaint. They have ignored the deceit and missed the point that to recreate a solo flight, you would need to fly to solo.

I'm reminded of the famous M R-D riposte.

In this case :

" Well they would, wouldn't they? "

They ain't got time to worry about what TCT did or didn't do, they're way to busy down at the post office mailing all their employees payroll checks to Mauritius.

As someone who worked as both producer and presenter at the BBC here is my advice.

Contact Feedback on R4.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006slnx/contact

The production team are impartial and are always looking for slightly unusual topics to brighten up the usual raft of complaints.(News,soaps etc)

What they are looking for is considered comment regarding the complaint that a programme may be misleading.

Don’t blame the Beeb
 

Actually, I don’t think the programme itself was misleading, at least not deliberately so (with the caveat that I only watched the second half).

As the BBC response quoted in the earlier post said: as far as the producers were concerned all they claimed to be doing was recreating Mary Heath’s journey and I can well believe that they would not see the importance of the distinction between solo or non-solo. I don’t believe that they ever actually claimed that the flight was solo; and I don’t think that THEY have tried actively to deceive.

All of the hard, and as yet unanswered, evidence against Ms Curtis-Taylor has actually come from her directly and, whilst apparently very persuasive none of the following......

. The Hearne Bay video
. The on stage presentation in front of the big picture
. Pictures of her wearing RAF wings.
. The withdrawal of the LAA award

...... actually featured in the programme and all happened after the journey and the filming had finished.

Presumably the BBC would justify that by saying that these controversies arose some time after the flight was finished, and had no bearing on what they saw as their objective which was to follow the route of Mary Heath’s flight within the constraints of ca 48 minutes of TV.

Seen through the eyes of non-pilot viewers, and based on the content of the film alone, they can reasonably claim that they did actually achieve that.

Of course when you look beyond that at the things that weren’t in the film, it’s another story. Perhaps they would like to make a sequel? :O