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)

Mike Flynn 12th Aug 2016 19:58

I challenge any of my critics to find any background to Tracey Curtis Taylor and her pre Artemis days.

All you read everywhere originates from her PR machine.


Try finding out about her pre 2013 flying.

Google her on Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracey_Curtis-Taylor

Well I have and it appears our "Aviatrix" has been a bit economical with the truth.

When she destroyed the R44 at Goodwood last year she only had 1430 hours in her log book.Pilot Tracey Curtis-Taylor bidding to emulate Amy Johnson hits a parked helicopter | Daily Mail Online

But Tracey Curtis Taylor ,the so called Bird in a Biplane, claims she was an instructor at Ardmore, Auckland New Zealand , was trained by military pilots when she joined The NZ Warbirds , and has been flying for thirty years?

However the news from NZ is different.

She left NZ around the year 2000.

Prior to that all I can find is she was initially a ground course instructor in Met at Ardmore Flying School and then became an actual flight instructor.

She only ever had a C-Cat instructor rating which had limited privileges, her instructing job was short lived as she lasted 18 months or so. So why did she not gain any hours? 1430 hours over a claimed 30 year flying career as a pilot and inspirational speaker?

I have discovered the only serious job TCT ever had in New Zealand was working for a company called "Air Logistics" in Auckland where she was a sales rep and not a pilot.

Her hours over the years suggest very little flying as per the accident report last year. https://assets.publishing.service.go...6200_12-15.pdf

Her South Africa to UK and UK to Australia publicity events suggested solo flights while the reality is in my opinion she has never done a long cross country flight alone.

Since the rebuilt Spirit of Artemis returned to Farnborough it has remained on the ground while TCT has driven to PR events.

Why would an 'aviatrix' with spirit and adventure want to drive when they can fly.

Could it be Ewald is not available?

The honorary doctorate from Portsmouth might be interesting for the polytechnic to justify when facts are checked as a Freedom of Information application is underway.

One credit I will give her is not many pilots get Prince Michael (cousin of the UK Queen Elizabeth) to turn up at so many of their pre flights.

Even fewer get to dine with him:ok:

Put this in to your google browser..prince michael tracey curtis taylor :D

Different days and suits...does he know this woman?

This first picture looks a bit close proximity to royalty you have just met;)


SATCOS WHIPPING BOY 12th Aug 2016 23:11

I thought the same as Billie Bob. To me it looks like the award is still there.

In the article posted by Jay Sata (#1077) there is a link to a pdf document. TCT is still listed on there to receive the a Master's Medal. https://www.airpilots.org/file/2365/...nners-2016.pdf

Is that an old link? The main release is dated 12 Aug.


Stanwell 13th Aug 2016 02:00

Isn't that a great phrase?
"In due course".
We breathlessly await the outcome of the deliberations of so many wise men.

Genghis the Engineer 13th Aug 2016 08:08

Honorary doctorates are worth precisely nothing - they are a mechanism for universities to have someone who looks glamorous sitting in graduation ceremonies. Frankly, I would just ignore it - Pompey Poly is a very minor institution in any case.

Universities award people who matter other things. I sat in on the ceremonies where Boris Johnson got an honorary doctorate, and from GA Dr. Tony Segal got an honorary fellowship - at the same university. There was no doubt that the former was pure show, and the latter pure substance.


Sam Rutherford 13th Aug 2016 09:05

From that the heading of the list where she's mentioned with Tim Peake:

"For Outstanding Courage or Devotion to Duty in the Air"


It does appear we were optimistic about the HCAP's ability to admit a mistake. Ah well...

Jetblu 13th Aug 2016 09:21

The whole TCT saga has been quite fascinating. All it has endorsed for me is that 'fraud, deceit and corruption' is still live and kicking in certain circles, yet described and applauded in a way to insult a normal persons intelligence.

There's a saying.."You can't beat the system"

Whilst I think it is right to strive to put a wrong back to right, here, I think will be just be banging our heads against a wall.

Stanwell 13th Aug 2016 10:24

Can people not see that the slogan "GREAT Britain", plastered on the side of the Spirit of Artifice, is worthy of a Monty Python skit.
That sponsorship goes back to a now-disgraced former Minister of the Crown.
The same as I imagine Her Maj is doing, there are many of the loyal subjects out here in the Colonies, sitting by the window, slowly shaking our heads.

Mike Flynn 13th Aug 2016 10:29

A few posts back I questioned her links with Portsmouth.

I missed this.

Off to Portsmouth today. I never went to university and it’s always been a slight source of regret for me, so to receive this degree from University of Portsmouth is a tremendous honour, especially as I have a strong connection to Portsmouth as I am also an Honorary Officer with the Royal Navy ‪#‎aviation‬
So that explains her " strong connection" with Portsmouth.

It will be interesting to see how she arranges all these awards to fit her double barrelled name.

No mention of an ex spouse on her wiki bio despite using his surname.

Perhaps I should add it?

There is also the misleading statement "undertakes global flights in vintage aircraft."

Some sound advice from respected UK aviator Bob Crowe on her Facebook comments.

Bob Crowe
Definition: Solo - a flight in which the aircraft pilot is unaccompanied. End of.

Yes when we fly solo we have the backup of a team that can range from the engineer who prepared the aircraft to the latest electronic aids on board but solo means nobody else on board the aircraft and specifically not one who has access to the flight controls.

Well done Tracey but stop milking the public, take more care when taxying and pay attention to WAT limitations.

Checklist Charlie 13th Aug 2016 10:49

As if the creative use of language by her is not enough it is topped by the stupid gullibility of those supporting, encouraging and rewarding her. It is hard to believe this whole story as it is just too weird to be true.

Surely there are people in the UK that aren't blinded by the bluff and bulldust and can see through this farce. As clever as the Monty Python people are, I doubt even they could imagine anything as wayout as the Spirit of Artifice and its novel activities.


Sam Rutherford 13th Aug 2016 10:50

Actually, from her own quote:

Doctorate, not degree
Royal Naval Reserve, not Royal Navy

But, again, who's counting...

Fantome 13th Aug 2016 10:56

solo means nobody else on board the aircraft and specifically not one who has access to the flight controls.
maybe more precise to word it - 'nobody else on board the aircraft - period.'

As clever as the Monty Python people are, I doubt even they could imagine anything as wayout as the Spirit of Artifice and its novel activities.
hear the objection from the ghost of Graham Chapman , immaculately dressed army officer with swagger stick . .. . "Too silly. . .. too silly for words.."

Sam Rutherford 13th Aug 2016 10:58

Curious that on a pilot forum there can be any confusion about the definition of 'solo'.

It's really simple: Alone in the aircraft.

That's it, no more complicated than that.

Mike Flynn 13th Aug 2016 11:13

I must admit TCT and her flying is a surreal saga.

It reminds me of the hype when Lady Sarah Ferguson claimed to have learnt to fly.
There are no pictures anywhere of her ever flying alone although she did a solo press call at RAF Benson. After she was given a ppl she never flew again.

I was told at the time by someone at Benson there was never any plan for her to actually use the licence.

Here she is describing her flying with former CNN chat show host Larry King.

KING: Where -- how did you come to learn to fly a helicopter?

FERGUSON: Well, when I married Prince Andrew, he was a pilot, and so I couldn't understand a word he talked about because he -- they all talk in navex (ph) and abbreviations, certainly in the services. So I thought the only way to do it was to learn, so I learned. And it was the most difficult thing I've ever done, I think.

KING: Why a helicopter.

FERGUSON: Well, I suppose because it's so versatile. You know, it's like me. You can go anywhere. You don't have to have a runway, you can just sneak over fields and look and see what's going on. And you can chase rabbits from the air, you know?

KING: I just flew in one a couple weeks ago to see my face in a cornfield. And I'm shocked. And I still don't buy the principle, how they go straight up...


KING: ... and stand still, almost.

FERGUSON: You have to -- how you learn to hover is the most extraordinary feeling. It's like sitting on top of a bull. How do you manage to hover an aircraft on top of a bull?

KING: And they make a lot of noise.

FERGUSON: Yes, they make an awful lot of noise. But the great thing is, is that it gives you the freedom. And you're in the sky as you're flying around, but it's -- I would never do it again on my own.
CNN.com - Transcripts

The whole transcript is worth reading if you have the time. Lady Sarah seems to be on another planet.

Gertrude the Wombat 13th Aug 2016 11:38

Originally Posted by Sam Rutherford (Post 9472455)
Actually, from her own quote:

Doctorate, not degree

Eh? A doctorate is a degree.

Sam Rutherford 13th Aug 2016 11:59

Sorry, yes - but it would be nice for her to actually call it by the same name as the University that gave it to her.

Similar to when she describes herself as Cdr when in fact she is a Lt.Cdr.

But yes, she's not incorrect in calling it a degree.

Gertrude the Wombat 13th Aug 2016 13:44

Originally Posted by Sam Rutherford (Post 9472525)
Sorry, yes - but it would be nice for her to actually call it by the same name as the University that gave it to her.

Similar to when she describes herself as Cdr when in fact she is a Lt.Cdr.

But yes, she's not incorrect in calling it a degree.

To digress slightly, dunno about other places, but at Cambridge the honorary MA can be regarded as higher status than the honorary doctorate ('cos it's give to fewer people and for more specific reasons), which is the other way around from the earned versions of those degrees. But as they're far more common one would assume that someone claiming to have an "honorary degree" had an honorary doctorate not an MA.

Here's an "only-in-Cambridge" honorary degree story, if you haven't seen it before:

Road sweeper to receive Cambridge University honorary degree - Telegraph

(I went to Allan's ceremony, so he had at least one familiar face in the Senate House.)

Sam Rutherford 13th Aug 2016 14:30

Thanks - I wasn't aware of the differences (or similarities).

Or that, apparently, it doesn't matter if she (or anyone) call it doctorate or degree - in the same way as airplane or aeroplane I guess?

GQ2 13th Aug 2016 15:22

Harsh Words.
Oh dear. I've not read every post on here, but I'm rather saddened at the tenor of much of the comment. I'm not commenting to specifically defend the lady in question, but I would like to make a few general points to put the often quite rude and cynical comments here into some sort of factual perspective.
Firstly, even in the real pioneering days before the war, not everyone had access to unlimited personal wealth to fund their little adventures. Sponsorship was commonplace, and yes, even then, sponsors wanted - quite reasonably - their 'Pound Of Flesh'. Often, pilots would set-out already in debt. Success, fame of some sort, was required to stimulate interest for newsreels, radio, lectures, articles and books, as well as paid talks and personal-appearances etc. Sound familiar...????? You bet.
People also often forget just how meteoric progress was after the Great War. All the serious pioneering flights really took place in the 1920's. As we move into the 1930's, flights are made, more typically, for self aggrandisement. That is not a criticism - merely a fact. Many - some may say most, of the 'epic' flights made during the 1930's didn't prove anything, other than the skill or boldness/recklessness of the crews. The five years or so between 1934 and 1939 were a complete game-changer. By the start of the war, aircraft were being built in Canada and then the US - and ferried to the ETO. Firstly by experienced Ferry Command Crews, then by kids who had very few hours. Ironically, some of those 1930's pilots who had gained so much fame/publicity, were involved, at first, with this ferrying, and almost forgotten. Some, like Scott and Mollison and Johnson to die, miserably in obscurity during and after the war. Their recent exploits of taking weeks to fly somewhere in canvas biplanes eclipsed by the routine of flying the Atlantic in large metal a/c with RNAV, in a few hours, by kids hardly out of school who were probably virgins without even a Driving Licence.
The point here is that technology had already far surpassed the a/c the 1930's 'Pioneers' were using, even by the outbreak of the war in 1939. Not all, but generally.
Imperial Airways were already serving the Commonwealth, and in the US, a very efficient and technically advanced network of aircraft, airlines and mail routes were well-established (Read E.K Gann for the full SP.). That is not in any way to diminish the flights of the 1930's lone fliers - it's just a basic fact commonly overlooked, that even back in the 1930's, many of these flights were not 'proving' anything. They were seeking self-agrandisement. Nor was sponsorship absent.
When the war ended in 1945, aviation was totally and utterly transformed from only ten years before. Gone were the canvas biplanes. We had pressurised a/c, jet-engines, RNAV, networks of paved airfields. The days of the lone pioneers in ordinary light aircraft 'proving' anything were over. Utterly.
Fast forward to today. Eighty years or so later, that we can exceed the performances of the pre-war jockeys is a given. In strict terms, there is nothing left to prove. All the flying is easier, GPS alone has ensured that. Time has moved-on. The 1920's and '30's has long gone - and even the pilots themselves, but at least we can read their accounts and marvel at the exploits of that earlier age.
So what of today. Do we belittle individuals because they didn't carry out a flight in accordance with how it was in 1921 or 1934...? We should not - it's 2016 FFS. Why take risks that today we would regard as stupid and reckless. One known sick engine, no radios, no dinghy, no life-jackets over the Shark-infested Sea of Timor...? But hey, in 1934, Scotty was wearing his 'Plus Fours' - and a flat-cap...!
One sometimes sees suggestions that perhaps modern facilities should be eschewed to make a flight more 'authentic/real/valid' etc. This argument disappears up it's own trouser leg. Where does one draw the line.....? Are we trying to belittle the achievements of the past..?
I think we should accept the achievements of the past. They stand. They proved their points in the context of the time. What does it prove to emulate them today, using the same methodology? Nothing whatsoever - the point was long made. Would one be trying to prove oneself 'better' than the original actors...? That would be pretty egotistical and pathetic to be sure.
If on the other hand, people just want to go out and have an adventure, fine - please don't knock them by churlish comparisons. Equally, don't be too harsh on those having to please sponsors. (Remember, even the great CWA Scott was to be seen 'modelling' the clothes of his sponsors - and looking very awkward too....!).
Those who fly know the score. They know just how different were the circumstances eighty years ago - and that is enough. That folks today should still wish to makes epic flights in light aircraft, we should celebrate, not denigrate them because they didn't conform to some fetishistic, anoraky standard of emulation.
As I said at the outset, I'm really speaking in general terms here, not specifically about this Ms.Taylors flight. (I also suspect that some of the derogatory comments made in this thread were not even made by pilots.).
Lastly, as a couple of others have pointed-out, there are many bold flights made today - and yet they receive nary a mention. Several people flew to Oshkosh from the UK this year, one solo in an RV, from Sleap I think (Well-done that man...!). The real achievement today, is that such flights should be so much safer - and hardly require comment... :)

Jetblu 13th Aug 2016 15:47


Upon your own admittance to having not read the thread, you really should.

This is not about TCT's flying in the 21st Century. We have no evidence here of her own flying. [other than two reports of her trashing two perfectly serviceable machines through negligence] The only evidence we have here is that two [2] pilots were in the cockpit 99.5% of the time. One [1] pilot being the owner, allegedly with excess of 20,000 hours.

Whilst you donate many paragraphs from the thirties on wards. Much happened in that same era which is also still quite common today.

Misrepresentation Act 1967.

Mike Flynn 13th Aug 2016 18:20

Thanks for that picture Above the Clouds. One I have missed.

If you zoom in on "passenger " Ewald you can see his ipad resting on the coming.

All times are GMT. The time now is 16:10.

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.