I can't imagine a better case of piss poor planning. Did he not have it arranged, or did they renege on the deal?

I've been looking in on this rather bemusedly for the past few weeks. I don't really understand the background or who 'the main players' on this forum are but this popped up this morning:
'Solo' flying poster girl is brought down by claims that she had co-pilot | Daily Mail Online

Thanks for that link, clareprop.
It was only a matter of time before the mainstream media picked up on it.

I think she really sealed her fate when she started bad-mouthing Sam Rutherford last year (who, up till then, had kept publicly quiet).
She was just so high on the idea that her deceits had sucked in 'everybody that mattered' that her self-delusion knew no bounds.

Even that caveat that she'd recently plastered on the front page of her website is again one big lie from start to finish.
Just a modified lie, that's all.
That woman has no shame.


"The Spirit of Artifice", indeed.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/...7415934076.jpg
They used the Sydney arrival,picture with Ewald clearly in the front seat. I am still puzzled why she needed him on board for the last leg of the journey when there was clearly the risk he would be seen.
I suspect from what I have heard it was for navigational reasons.

I must say it actually took quite a lot of effort to get this story published and credit must go to Dave Jarvis for his tenacity.

Ewald was quite open and honest in his conversation with Dave Jarvis and admitted he was onboard throughout both the Africa trip and London to Sydney.
He is a fully fledged ATPL.

I see she unveiled the marker of Samuel Cody’s maiden British flight near the Aviator Hotel, in Farnborough last Wednesday.
http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/l...first-11549634

Tracey even had a go at piloting Cody’s plane on a simulator at the FAST Museum. She told Get Hampshire : “It was very hard - I crashed it.

Thanks also to Jay Sata - whose perseverance in the face of many, many people saying 'it's not important'.

Actually, it is important.

Well, blow me down!
Seems she'd managed to draw even the RAeS into her web of deceit as well.
I'd say there's going to be a bit of forehead-smacking and harrumphing going on in various hallowed halls over port and cigars tonight.
At the same time, certain dribbling old fools are going to be noticeable for their low profile for a little while, too, I'd think.
Or ... are they going to try to brass it out, as well?

And, of course, our mysterious MurielMary is going to have to put in a bit of overtime.
Sharpen your pencil, sweetie.
.

Credit to the mods of pprune for letting this run so the truth emerged.

Not a word on the other forum where normally they are quick to paste aviation stories that appear in the press.

It will be interesting to see if she fronts up at the Farnborough Air Show with the rebuilt Stearman.
https://s31.postimg.org/ufsd3pqff/image.jpg

It's news to DM readers but is hardly a story we haven't heard hundreds of times before, though, is it?

Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick, but......
 

I'm struggling to see the "professionalism" in Sam keeping quiet for so long.

This revelation, so long after the event, seems a bit, well, misplaced.

I'm pleased that he found his bottle, but it's a shame that it took so long for him to go looking for it.

If he had spoken up earlier, she might not have got the sponsorship to go this far, with our without a co-pilot.

I'm reminded of the whore who tells the police that she's been raped. When asked for details she said it was a week ago, and is reporting it now because she's only just found out that the guy's cheque has bounced.

As for Sam warning TCT that he would go public if she didn't stop lying, that's hardly a million miles away from her position.

She's the bigger crook here, but not the only one. There might have been quite a few people who knew this was a fraud, and went along with it while the going was good.

It wasn't the only time. he was in the habit of just lobbing up and expecting service. Pulled the same stunt on Ascension Island, which does not permit civil traffic. Reported he had some oil problem and made an unscheduled landing. Lo and behold, he needed fuel. Had planned direct from Walrus Bay to Recife, obviously knowing he couldn't make it, so pre planned an emergency.

Jon Johanson deserves credit for what he achieved.

A true lone pioneer and adventurer.

Perhaps his method of crossing the South Pole was not ticking the boxes for paper pushers but he made it.
He knew he would not get permission but what could they say when he radioed to land.

At least he was solo and had no entourage.

Maybe it was a flight to 'celebrate' Roald Amundsen or Captain Scott:ok:

As a friend of mine is always saying you are judged by your results.

@airpolice

Please don't believe everything you read - it was on the 15th June 2015 (almost a year before the crash) that I first went public with my concerns - and I'll post my warning/request email to her in a moment. No redaction apart from to remove her email address.

There is an element of client confidentiality which is important. Did I wait too long, perhaps - but I certainly wasn't expecting her to start getting awards (even to the extent of being proposed for a Birthday honour).

In any event, my warnings/requests were completely ignored - and even the statement recently placed on her website perpetuates a similar gap between fiction and reality.

Did I do enough, soon enough, perhaps not (we'll never know)?

From: Sam Rutherford [mailto:sam then the obvious then prepare2go.com]
Sent: 09 January 2015 13:35
Subject: Telling it straight

Dear Tracey,

I read today of your Bill Woodhams Trophy award. This follows some months of hearing second-hand your version of how I/we performed during the flight from Cape Town. We, on the other hand, have been maintaining a professional silence about your performance until now.

Firstly, let me clarify that due to our reputation in the industry being considerably better than yours, most of your comments reflect badly on you (rather than casting us in a bad light, which is presumably your intention). That being said, if we receive solid information that our business has been damaged (potential or actual contracts lost) due to malicious defamation – we will sue.

Secondly, the Bill Woodhams Trophy is awarded for feats of navigation. I can only assume that you didn’t tell them that:

• You flew all but four of the African legs with your 20K+ hours instructor.
• That on two of the four solo legs, you actually asked the ‘chase plane’ to lead you in as you were unsure of your ability to find them by yourself.

I was surprised and disappointed by this award:

1. That clearly no due-diligence was done by the LAA before it was presented to you.
2. That the runner-up missed out on this (well-deserved in their case) recognition.
3. You had the gall to accept it.

What’s done is done, but please be advised that if I hear of further awards presented on the basis of an incomplete picture of your ‘achievement’ then I will make my concerns public. So perhaps consider supplying a full, complete and correct version of events should anything else be offered?

Lastly, could I ask you to stop using the words:

• Solo (as not true)
• I had it harder than Lady Heath (as not true, and also an insult to her achievement)



Sam Rutherford.

I first saw this thread a few weeks ago and browsed with a modicum of interest. I didn't know much about the lady in question, her flying or many of the various organisations and institutions who were recognising her achievements. I then came to comments from some well-respected members who were querying whether this was becoming a witch-hunt or indeed, libellous. It would now appear the story was neither a witch-hunt, exaggerated or untrue. To me, it has brought home the sort of difficulties whistle-blowers must face. It's not only those who have done wrong who try to denigrate the person making the accusation or those who are embarrassed to have been 'taken in' but also people who just cannot believe such cheating would take place. From what I see, some large corporations, charities and professional aviation institutions need to take a look at the positions they have previously taken on this saga and make their feelings known before the Mail story gets wider attention.

http://web.archive.org/web/201502042...om/operations/

Two points if I may Sam.

(1) Anybody can nominate anybody else for an honour - frankly, even if true, it's an irrelevance. For all we know, you and I have both been nominated for OBEs by colleagues with an inflated view of our achievements, and Buck House turned us down because we didn't deserve them. It is certainly I'm sure true of numerous other people that neither of us know.

(2) If I were you, I'd remove your email address, and anybody else's, from these posts as it's just an invitation to spambots.

G

Hi GE,

1. Not irrelevant if she had been awarded one (whilst not at that level, the Masters Medal is an extremely prestigious award that will be awarded to her in October).

2. Thank you, done. I didn't want to tamper with it, but good advice...

Safe flights, Sam.

I see there is plenty of e cleaning occuring on google.

Someone (not me) has also been trying to post references to today's Mail article to update her wiki entry which was quickly removed.

Genghis,

It's all very well for somebody to have been nominated, and even considered, for an award.
Hopefully, just hopefully, there are checks and balances in place to ensure that such awards are properly considered and appropriate - rather than simply "at the discretion of ...".
How the Light Aircraft Association arrived at the conclusion that TCT merited their Bill Woodhams Trophy for a noteworthy "Feat of Navigation", I'd like to know.

Then, we have the Honourable Company of Air Pilots who, I understand, propose to bestow their Master's Medal at their annual awards night in October.
As a number of us saw earlier on this thread, TCT had been, gushingly, invited to be present at that event.
Just so it's clear to all, I'll quote from their Terms of Reference for Awards:

"The Master's Medal
Awarded to any person in aviation, at any time, for an act or other achievement in aviation considered worthy of the Medal, as soon as
the facts of the event are clear. (My bold).
This is intended to be an immediate award, made at the discretion of the Master and on the advice of the Trophies and Awards Committee."

We'll see, shall we?

Now I see in a post above, The Royal Aeronautical Society has been graciously honoured to have had that most distinguished Aviatrix, TCT, consent to unveil a monument to Britain's first 'solo aviator', Samuel Cody.
Aww ... Isn't that just so appropriate?

p.s. Guess where that unveiling was .... Yes, Farnborough... Does that come close to answering your earlier question, JS?
pps. I should add that the award SHE previously picked up at Farnborough was for Ewald's restoration of the Stearman.


Enough, I say!

Personally, I'm outraged at the lack of outrage. :)

I'm thinking big picture about what can be defended in TCT's behaviour, as described in this thread.

Honour? I can't find a way to defend the "honour" she has demonstrated in respect of misrepresentation, self aggrandizement, and accepting awards seemingly undeserved for the Stearman flying. I have no knowledge nor comment about other piloting she may have undertaken.

Airmanship? Chopped up a parked R44? Crashed on a planned departure over what appeared to be more or less level ground? Reported as requiring assistance in navigation while reported as using a GPS? I guess that other flights accomplished which were unremarkable are defendable, but then lots of pilots perform those every day, and without "history", so I'd rather defend them first.

Promotion of GA? Well, maybe. She's drawing attention to GA. Embarrassing attention in my opinion, but some say any press is good press. If so, maybe we can thank her for making the rest of us look better by comparison, while reminding the public that little planes can fly big places.

The big benefit from all of this? Quietly, some organizations are likely rethinking how awards and accolades are presented. That's a good thing - the people who most likely deserve them are more likely to receive them.