PPRuNe Forums

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)

Gonzo 28th Sep 2018 20:51

Wiki seems to accept the LAA's 'about our members' bios.

Where does that information come from? Is it provided by each member themselves?

airpolice 28th Sep 2018 21:31


Originally Posted by Gonzo (Post 10261121)
Wiki seems to accept the LAA's 'about our members' bios.

Where does that information come from? Is it provided by each member themselves?

Just like rest of Wiki, anyone can write, or delete, anything.

Jonzarno 28th Sep 2018 21:47

As this thread seems once again to be broadening into discussion of things other than the basic facts of what Ms Curtis-Taylor did or didn’t do: I’d like to make the point that this actually helps her to hide from the justified criticisms and simple questions that she continues to refuse to address.

Firstly, she can rely on anyone coming to the thread not being prepared to wade through the thousands of posts here.

Secondly, she can, and already does, use the ad-hominem posts that attack her personally her as “proof” of her claims that she is being trolled here.

I have a suggestion. Given that there is reasonably free speech here on PPrune, and people obviously want to continue venting at her, I think it would be a good idea to put all the reasoned questions she has been asked here, and any new ones, into a separate thread.

Obviously, people should be asked not to post anything else to it, and the Mods should enforce that (less really is more in this case!) and, as Saab Dastard has already asked, all of the questions and any posts should be couched in moderate language and stick rigidly to the facts. At the same time, this thread could continue as a vehicle for people to discuss other aspects of the case.

Ms Curtis-Taylor could be advised of the new thread’s existence, the reason for it being set up separately from this one, and asked to respond.

Those attending the LAA meeting, or voting by proxy, can then draw upon her answers, or lack of them, in making their arguments in any discussion there and in deciding how to vote.

My £.02




Gonzo 28th Sep 2018 22:16


Originally Posted by airpolice (Post 10261156)
Just like rest of Wiki, anyone can write, or delete, anything.

Sorry, I meant in terms of the LAA member bios, not wiki, who writes the LAA member bios?

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY 28th Sep 2018 23:08


Originally Posted by Jonzarno (Post 10261165)
As this thread seems once again to be broadening into discussion of things other than the basic facts of what Ms Curtis-Taylor did or didn’t do: I’d like to make the point that this actually helps her to hide from the justified criticisms and simple questions that she continues to refuse to address.

Firstly, she can rely on anyone coming to the thread not being prepared to wade through the thousands of posts here.

Secondly, she can, and already does, use the ad-hominem posts that attack her personally her as “proof” of her claims that she is being trolled here.

I have a suggestion. Given that there is reasonably free speech here on PPrune, and people obviously want to continue venting at her, I think it would be a good idea to put all the reasoned questions she has been asked here, and any new ones, into a separate thread.

Obviously, people should be asked not to post anything else to it, and the Mods should enforce that (less really is more in this case!) and, as Saab Dastard has already asked, all of the questions and any posts should be couched in moderate language and stick rigidly to the facts. At the same time, this thread could continue as a vehicle for people to discuss other aspects of the case.

Ms Curtis-Taylor could be advised of the new thread’s existence, the reason for it being set up separately from this one, and asked to respond.

Those attending the LAA meeting, or voting by proxy, can then draw upon her answers, or lack of them, in making their arguments in any discussion there and in deciding how to vote.

My £.02




+10
This gets my support.

Chris Martyr 29th Sep 2018 17:05


Originally Posted by Jonzarno (Post 10261165)
Those attending the LAA meeting, or voting by proxy, can then draw upon her answers, or lack of them, in making their arguments in any discussion there and in deciding how to vote.

Trust me JZ , there will be no opportunity whatsoever to discuss anything openly at the forthcoming AGM !

There wasn't in 2016 and there won't be this time either . The only people given free-rein to speak then were Tracey & Team . To avoid the whole thing descending into total disruption , everyone else was asked to stay quiet ..

The only person allowed to speak was Barry Tempest when he was requested to propose the motion .
There is usually a Q & A session after the AGM matters have all been attended to , which Tracey & Co. didn't stay for . Why should she ??? They were only discussing LAA matters !

Instead , she went off to the Aviator Bar with her chums from a little further up the food chain .

I know,,,,,,,I was there !

Jonzarno 29th Sep 2018 17:29

Well, I would have thought that the existence of the thread I suggested could be made known to the meeting together with a clear statement that Ms Curtis-Taylor has been made aware of it and any answers or lack of them. I don’t see how doing that allows that meeting to “descend into total disruption”.

Surely it’s better for people to make their minds up based on some objective facts rather than the invective that has flowed in both directions over the last couple of years?

Sam Rutherford 29th Sep 2018 17:51

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.

Haraka 29th Sep 2018 18:10

An association is, by definition in the Oxford Dictionary, "a group of people organised for a joint purpose" .

It would appear that the LAA ( of which I am not a member) is being confronted by a member whose personal agenda is demonstrably at variance with such a "joint purpose".


I suggest that one remedial course of action would be to move to expel any member manifestly suborning the purposes of such a group for personal motives.

airpolice 29th Sep 2018 18:34


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.

Leaving aside the allegations of deceit, I find that hard to believe.

Flying with another, more experienced pilot, it makes sense to "take a wee break" now and then and have the other pilot take the strain, even if only to take photographs or map read. I'm sure that most of us do it.

So, since she has stated that she was not solo, why is it so important to them to say he didn't ever do it. What was the point in him being there, if not to hold the stick during a comfort break?

piperboy84 29th Sep 2018 18:41


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.

Well folks there you have it, from the horses mouth, she done 100% of the flying, the sole pilot, alone, PIC, flight commander, sol,,,, Er singlehanded!

Well done that woman.

Null Orifice 29th Sep 2018 19:17


Originally Posted by piperboy84 (Post 10261773)


Well folks there you have it, from the horses mouth, she done 100% of the flying, the sole pilot, alone, PIC, flight commander, sol,,,, Er singlehanded!

Well done that woman.

Is this reflected in both his and hers logbook entries?

India Four Two 29th Sep 2018 19:49

Apparently not, according to the hours reported to the FAA in the wake of the Winslow “fuel contamination incident “.

Right Hand Thread 29th Sep 2018 21:09


Originally Posted by India Four Two (Post 10261813)
Apparently not, according to the hours reported to the FAA in the wake of the Winslow “fuel contamination incident “.


Point of order.

TCT’s elves that hover over her Wiki page have gone to great lengths to point out that the NTSB report did not identify fuel contamination, this despite TCT herself having stated that it was.

These are of course the same PR elves, part of the claque, who argue that media quotes of TCT saying that she was “sole” pilot and the Herne Bay video should not be referred to on Wiki as they contradict each other.

Chris Martyr 29th Sep 2018 21:51


Originally Posted by Jonzarno (Post 10261727)
I would have thought that the existence of the thread I suggested could be made known to the meeting

John , I know for a fact that we both sing from the same hymn sheet . I also have full admiration for the restraint and decorum that you have shown throughout all this tawdry and awful business.
But a separate thread on here , regardless of where it is placed , will have no influence whatsoever on the group of people from whom we would like a response . They simply do not do this sort of thing !
You have told me yourself that you are not an LAA member [ well hurry up and join , OK ] But unfortunately old boy , I don't really think that Team Tracey have it in THEIR agenda to address anything that has been brought up on any forum ! Remember , they are a lot better connected than us 'little people'.

There are connections which need to be severed here . Until that is done , we can only rely on our own initiatives and resources .

They will turn up on Oct21st , Hang around for the outcome , and then disappear. If the outcome suits them ; they'll be looking for redress . If the outcome doesn't suit them ; they'll still be looking for redress........It's lose/lose. And some people need to be hanging their heads in shame over all this !

Jonzarno 30th Sep 2018 01:25

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.




piperboy84 30th Sep 2018 01:55


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.




One post in a locked thread called Questions for TCT, brief and pointed questions that are numbered. No waffle, no bs, no opinions. Make it easy to find and read.

Jonzarno 30th Sep 2018 02:01


One post in a locked thread called Questions for TCT, brief and pointed questions that are numbered. No waffle, no bs, no opinions. Make it easy to find and read.
Yes! :ok: But give her the chance to respond to it by contacting a Mod.

megan 30th Sep 2018 03:24


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
To belabour the point a little, a certain UK lass of some notoriety made a statement that serves equally well to Ewald's, "Well, he would say that wouldn't he". Believable? Not in the slightest.

Checklist Charlie 30th Sep 2018 03:32

Sam Rutherford posted:

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.
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


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:03.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.