PPRuNe Forums - Tracey Curtis-Taylor (Merged threads)

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Private Flying (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying-63/)

- - Tracey Curtis-Taylor (Merged threads) (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/579030-tracey-curtis-taylor-merged-threads.html)

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?

As Nick has now so eloquently explained, it appears that we are all owe you an apology for believing that you had a hand in the misrepresentation of your web presence when it seems Nick made the repeated simple mistake. No doubt many of us will apologise if and when YOU explain the appearances by you on camera where the solo message lie was reiterated........ I for one am waiting, perhaps we can show some clips on the evening of the LAA AGM and you can explain yourself then.

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"):

Quote:

I would be interested in a reasoned response from the lady herself to the following:

1. What is the reconciliation between Ms Curtis-Taylor's well documented claim to have flown her African flight "solo". Please see the video clip published earlier in this thread:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ml#post9559074

in which she personally makes that claim, and her subsequent public statement that the flight was not solo?

2. Given the above, what was she doing in the picture of her, published several times earlier in this thread, standing in front of a huge picture depicting the route and claiming she had been "Alone in an open cock-pit [sic] plane"?

3. By what authority, and with what qualification, does she wear RAF wings?

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!

Quote:

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.

The man says it well.

He knows of what he speaks.

Quote:

There is still an opportunity for Ms. Curtis-Taylor to offer clarity to the perception many people obviously hold, and which offends them.

Oh boy! Let it rip, gal.

@ Pilot Dar

Thank you for your post: it encapsulates the argument perfectly.

Yet again, Ms Curtis Taylor has the opportunity personally to address the questions being asked of her.

As the person who originally posted the “Three Questions”, can I just make the following points:

1. I know for a fact, having had it confirmed to me in person at a face to face discussion, that Ms Curtis Taylor was personally made aware of them by a well respected member of the GA community who has actually spoken frequently here and elsewhere in support of her.

2. Despite that, and despite being encouraged to do so frequently. She has decided not to answer.

3. Her silence on them is deafening.

That said: I hope that Ms Curtis-Taylor attends the LAA meeting, answers the questions to everyone’s satisfaction, and has her award restored.

On the other hand, if she doesn’t: I suspect that I echo the thoughts of pretty much everyone here that her attempt to get this award back should receive the unanimous raspberry that such a refusal will deserve.

It is her call......

Thank you Mr Adams for your post, in which I note you included your skill sets, when compiling that lists did you perhaps omit Herne Bay based ventriloquist?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by piperboy84 (Post 10255789)

Thank you Mr Adams for your post, in which I note you included your skill sets, when compiling that lists did you perhaps omit Herne Bay based ventriloquist?

is the lowest form of wit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cazalet33 (Post 10255606)

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.

i don't understand any of the points you are making here

My statement is very clear and straightforward

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Martyr (Post 10255582)

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 " ...

I don't know who you are but fairly sure I'm not your mate

Quote:

Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY (Post 10255579)

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.

Thanks for pointing out the adverse consequences of stating the truth but I won't be losing any sleep over it .....and btw, there is no need to swear thank you
Nick

A quick and underwhelming look at the host site of nickswebs.com has this testimonial for someone’s jewellery site:

Quote:

"Nick deserves a Nobel Prize for his genius in the field of website construction and support. As a complete technophobe, my website has happened in spite of me almost entirely due to his endless patience, great good humour and commitment to achieving fantastic results. I can't recommend him highly enough."
Tracey Curtis-Taylor

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".

@Nickwebs

You seem to be having a go at lots of other posters here: why haven’t you insulted me? I’m feeling left out..... :{

#3Questions

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 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickswebs (Post 10255883)

My statement is very clear and straightforward

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:

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.
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:

The aircraft was actually flown a total of 12 hours in the previous 24h. Six by each of them at different times.
Ewald was flying another Stearman whilst Tracey was flying his.
Ewald shouldn't have been logging the time (single pilot plane, and Tracey was PIC)?
Ewald was PIC and Tracey was logging PICUS?
Ewald was logging Instructor time and Tracey was logging PIC (or dual) depending what system she was following?
They've both been logging PIC?
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:

Unlikely. :)
Very, very unlikely.
Not legal.
Doesn't fit the 'sole pilot' story.
Doesn't fit the 'he's not my instructor', nor the 'sole pilot' stories.
Not legal.
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.