I think we can draw a comparison with the bigginsac post currently running.

Within hours of the first, critical, post, LBHA signed up and wrote their (other) side of the story (thus proving there is one). After MONTHS and many, many thousands of views - not one word here from TCT.

Still waiting on a reply from Heli to my question...

Sam, your post seemed to be rhetorical and included your response to your own question: it wasn't apparent that you were awaiting a response from me. Does she deserve the Master's Medal; in my opinion, no. But the decision of the HCAP is made by the Master on the advice of the T & A Committee who would be aware of issues that you and I may not be, and may have an ultimate citation to the award which will become public in November at the presentation.

But my post relating to the repetitive nature of the posts here stands: the same old photos, the same old comments lead to this thread becoming a hamsterwheel and loss of credibility, and even worse a lack of influence on events.

Stanwell, along with a few others you have chosen to attack the HCAP in a derogatory manner, without recognising the longstanding contributions made by the Honourable Company (and previously the GAPAN) to aviation and to aviators. Not all members agree with this medal award, but in the scheme of achievements over the years it is not something over which to die in a ditch. You're from Oz: have you ever approached HCAPA or seen their contributions to aviation in Australia? Would you call them deserving of your (deleted) comment about "back-slapping benevolence and vexillology"?

The HCAP is bigger than the individual, and not deserving of the spiteful and vitriolic comments made by many on this thread.

I agree! Although the thread seems to address a very legitimate and real issue; and some of the evidence presented seems pretty conclusive: the regular posters to it are no longer strengthening their arguments by simply repeating them and dragging other extraneous factors into the thread.

IMHO, you would have a better chance of correcting this apparent wrong by concentrating purely on getting HCAP to address the central question of whether Ms Curtis-Taylor's "achievement" actually did what it said on the tin. All the other stuff, whilst a rattling good read :E, just blurs the focus on the central issue of whether or not the award is justified.

...Is true.

I'm sure that TCT, and perhaps the HCAP would be delighted if this topic faded into the past, and was forgotten. They could go on about their mutual and independent business, and put the past behind them. The sheer volume of discussion here (even if repetitive) is an indication that some people, for reasons they have stated, would like to see the honour of achievements correctly recognized.

The HCAP acting as the "bigger than the individual" has the opportunity to consider the impact on their image based upon their actions. They are, of course, entitled to award whatever to whomever, and accountable only to themselves, and other award recipients for their decisions. Those of us who are not associated with them have no right to expect our opinions to be considered in their decisions.

But at a more basic level, the term "pilot", as broad as it is, denotes a person of some achievement. Conferring honours on top of that could be seen to value or devalue the respect earned to simply call one's self a pilot. Established entities do all pilots a good service by carefully researching, and vetting whom is awarded what, and why.

whether this situation can be resolved remains open. The benefit, however, of the visibility here, is that people/entities will probably do their background checks better in the future before awarding or reporting aviation achievments. Just like reading accident reports, and thinking to yourself "I could have done that", the public visibility of this situation should keep organizations and the media sharp in the future.

Inside information, perhaps. Yes, the group should unanimously uphold the decision, but I hope that internally, big warning lights are flashing if respected members disapprove of voluntary action proposed by others. To me, the award would be an above doubt honour - this situation sure seems to have lots of doubt! No one should die in a ditch over this, but the relevance of the HCAP award will be spotlighted a little depending upon their choice of recipients.

The tactic " sole pilot " of the Spirit of Artemis via media consultants is not going to work as they cannot deny there was another more experienced pilot on board with Tracey Curtis Taylor on all her flights.

Even if she did pole it all the way Ewald Gritsch built the aircraft and I am sure he helped with the navigation and aircraft managment. The chase plane was also along side for both expeditions.

There is no way she can prove her "sole pilot" claim.

This story cannot be buried as that approach tends to be counter productive.

As regular readers of this thread will recognise I refuse to let this charade be buried in the mists of time.

Artemis Investments and TCT might wish for the whole story to disappear.

The HCAP,The LAA and Prince Michael might be happy if these discussions just fade away.

However the logical approach is to just retract her awards based on facts known. Ewald Gritsch was in the aircraft from South Africa to Sydney, a fact she never admits in her "inspirational" speeches and media interviews.

No person is bigger than the organisation unless Tracey Curtis Taylor (plain Tracey Curtis before married and divorced NZ aero pilot Steve Taylor) manages to buck the trend.

Maybe the HCAP feel that they owe Prince Michael of Kent the right to give her a Masters Medal hence this letter?
(The address is her limited company in the public domain.https://www.endole.co.uk/company/077...?page=contacts)



If the HCAP want to avoid further embarrassment before reading more of her background in newspapers they need to decide how to resolve this issue.

My advice is dump her.

The words in the letter from The Master, '....which, by all accounts,...' would seem to give a face saving get-out clause if required.

"By all accounts .."
I'd previously taken note of the use of that phrase myself, clareprop.
By all of which accounts?
The non-stop stream of fanciful press releases from the TCT publicity machine?
.

Perhaps a way out for HCAP would be to present Ewald with an identical medal for the same achievement. That would devalue the award but they have already done that haven't they?

Sticky?
 

Quote from Jonzarno:
"Although the thread seems to address a very legitimate and real issue; and some of the evidence presented seems pretty conclusive: the regular posters to it are no longer strengthening their arguments by simply repeating them and dragging other extraneous factors into the thread."

Perhaps the incentive is that, in the absence of closure in the form of any public acceptance of their accusations by the key players in this charade - let alone any sign of contrition - Ms Curtis-Taylor's critics must and will continue their campaign. That leaves them with the perennial problem that PPRuNe threads quickly descend out of sight in the listings unless elevated by frequent postings.

If the overall veracity of the arguments is beyond reasonable doubt, one possible solution would be to make this thread a Sticky...

Make it sticky
 

Great idea.....until we hear directly from TCT with answers to legitimate questions!

Everyone is welcomed to contribute if they wish. The thread will reside in the list based upon it's own merits and participant's interest.

I suggested this many months ago.

The HCAP did then consider adding Ewald to the award but the 'sponsors insisted' that it should be Tracey as sole recipient.

(oops, there's that word again)

The quotes above are the exact words used in their reply to me. I don't believe that they have as much room for manoeuvre as might be thought.

Perhaps there is little merit of a special award to Ewald, as a very experienced pilot flying a decently equipped aircraft a long distance is not particularly noteworthy...

Forgive my ignorance. What do TCT's sponsors have to do with the awarding of a HCAP medal? I thought the HCAP was an independent body which made it's own mind up?

I thought that the HCAP was an "Honourable" body which made it's own mind up.

The lie is well and truly exposed now.

CC

THAT particular big fib may well have been exposed, CC - but there's still a number of other gross deceits that warrant attention.
And not just on her part, either.

This may have been linked somewhere on the thread before so mods, delete if necessary. I haven't seen it previously but it does beg the question whether the reporter, Mark Austin, is aware of the fact TCT has retracted her solo claim since he interviewed her in January?
British pilot Tracey Curtis Taylor days away from completing 13,000 mile solo flight - ITV News

I don't know for sure, but the way I read it this was referring to the sponsors of the award itself and not to the sponsors of TCT's trip.

The more I read about this the more distasteful I find it. I have always believed that deceitful behaviour carries consequences yet despite the blindingly obvious evidence, in this case it would appear that contrary to my belief, this deceit is met with significant personal reward. I see similarities between Tracey Curtis's exploits and those of the self-publicising narcissists seen on 'popular' television programs such as 'Celebrity Big Brother' and 'Keeping up with the Kartrashians' or perhaps an older version of 'Made in Chelsea'? but with some flying involved.

What a poor role model for all those women she purports to be encouraging when in-fact, there is only one woman in aviation that this façade promotes the interests of.