bose-x

I do not give opinions about legal matters except in very restricted circumstances which I consider to be appropriate.

As a statement of fact, not legal opinion, the letter was sent to the Registered office address of 'BIRD IN A BIPLANE LIMITED'.

Feel free to contact Companies House suggesting that it removes the Registered office address of that company from its official website.
I'd be "genuinely interested" to know their response.

bose-x

Generally, I agree with everything that you have to say. I normally even support your views. Here, on this, I do not, and I will tell you why...

If this was 'bar chatter' and the bird came along telling us that she did a solo flight and we knew better, we would tell her where to go and laugh at her. That scenario is not applicable here. She has gone public, taken undeserved awards and making money with speeches. Jay, has just gone public here and I am not aware that his efforts are for financial reward.

The woman has [in my opinion] stick her finger up to those in the know and blatantly mis-sold the story for a financial benefit. As I said on the other thread, deceit is deceit whichever way you want to spell it.

I feel for Jay in a way. Everyone has their own 'pet hates' and this is obviously his. I don't like Songs of Praise but I wouldn't dare write to the BBC and ask them to ditch it. I simply turn the channel to something of my own taste. Funnily enough, the people that were trying to shut Jay/Old Pilot up have decided to follow him here, so i do concur with the mob mentality with you on that one.

I suspect, and I don't know, that Jay thought by flagging up the issue on the forums something would get done by putting the wrong back to right.
The principle is right and just. He's come to an aviation forum regarding an aviation issue hoping that someone who needs to see it will, so you can follow his logical concept to that point.



The danger with what she has done, is evident here, and some people will not be gagged for what they believe in. Take Hillsborough as a general example.

I suspect, and I could be wrong, but many flying instructors are also hoping that TCT's promotion of introducing more female pilots could be a money spinner for them too. Who knows ;)

I wasn't aware that the letter had been stolen. I know Jay has her address but I cannot believe for one minute that he has broken in.

I suspect that a copy has been passed to him by someone.


For that matter, I cannot see the letter being marked as private and confidential either.

EDIT The danger is bose, she wants to live by the sword, but that has 2 blades.

Where is she anyway?

I'm sorry, bose-x, I can't agree with your "one individual" assertion.

There were many of us on this forum who'd noted and commented on TCT's posturing and deceitful claims long before JS came along with his additional material.
While some out there might find it perfectly acceptable to use such means for self-aggrandisement and monetary gain, I'm afraid that many of us within the aviation industry (both current and former), certainly do not.

For someone to blatantly try to position themself, by devious means, among the aviation greats is not just unacceptable, but reprehensible.
.

Given that I was fairly robust - indeed, I used the very words "Shut Up" - to Jay Sata (in what was fairly obviously his 'Old Pilot' persona) on another forum, I suspect you may be thinking of people including me here. Not least since I have also posted on this thread. (I didn't "follow" - I've been here a while).

I think it only appropriate to point out that anybody looking at that Flyer forum will be aware that I certainly was not closing down the point being made. Neither, in fact, was anybody else including Ian S - as evidenced by the fact that posts have not been deleted, only closed. They are still all available to view.

The objection, rather, was that the SAME point, without any further information or detail other than the basic complaint itself, was being made over and over again in newly created threads in a short period of time and was getting extremely boring and pointlessly repetitive.

It is pointless behaviour IMO, since the basic complaint appears valid as I have said several times elsewhere; TC-T's claims seem disingenuous at best. However, a complaint only needs to be made once and then left until further information comes to light.

This thread, eventually (not the case when it was begun), now does perhaps have more information (and I don't mean dubiously copied correspondence - I mean apparent firm info from NZ and elsewhere).

The point is fairly simple: Provide supportable information and build up a case. Saying the same thing 10 times doesn't mean you have 10 times more evidence; it just serves to annoy people.

Also, rumour and innuendo isn't evidence, and self-defeatingly simply serves to obscure any actual relevant evidence that you may have.

So, one last time: I'd say there likely is a moral case to be made: A repetitive scattergun witch-hunt like this one isn't the way to prosecute it.

Everybody has their own style of execution, you have yours, I have mine, Jay has his and so on.

If he decides to duplicate his posts ten times, that is a matter for him, not us.
He may have dementia for all we know, I doubt it, but possible. On the other hand, bringing your pet squirrel along as support to get your message across may be something a bit more serious than dementia. but you did, and as far as I can see, the happy clappy brigade joined in.

Here, it is different, we are having a discussion and airing our views about a serious GA deception. It is hoped that juniors are not following this thread and believing that deceit is ok and they could/might just get away with it if they have a pair.

I strongly disagree with this.

A forum is not a playground solely for the posters - it is at least as much, and arguably more due to relative numbers if nothing else, for the readers too.

Posting duplicates which detract from a forum's ambience and value is typically considered as bad as spamming - I'd suggest it is spamming - and Internet etiquette frowns on that for good reason.

(And to no-one's surprise, I have no squirrel)

Disagree as much as you like, you are entitled to your own opinion as much as I am to mine, so probably best to agree to disagree on that one.

In the meantime, I look forward to receiving Jay's potentially duplicating posts and having my memory refreshed to save me from keep scrolling back.
If it's not new news, I will simply ignore. Nothing hard in that, is there.

"The Embellishment of my Life" by TCT
 

At least TCT's re-enactment of AJ's flight was accurate in some respects.
Quote from the "MALAY MAIL" online 8/6/16.

Q: Is your journey today easier or more difficult compared with Amy Johnson’s in 1930?
A: Amy basically crashed her way to Australia as she was trying to beat a world record. (She took 19 days, didn’t succeed at bettering Bert Hinkler’s record of 16 days). She had no radio, no restrictions, no air space to contend with.

Unfortunately this quote from the "3G CLASSIC AVIATION" website is a gross exaggeration.

In 2013, 85 years later, Tracey Curtis-Taylor, a pilot with vast experience flying historic airplanes all over the planet and moreover one of the Shuttleworth Collection display pilots, will recreate this flight in a specially restored Stearman biplane.

This woman is delusional and perhaps should be pitied?

Dave W


IMHO it should be left to the moderators to decide what should or should not be permitted.

If you think a thread is boring/repetitive, don't bother reading it.

canopener


"This woman is delusional"


Obviously. I fail to see how any sane person could genuinely believe that they would successfully pull this one off unnoticed,

Well, OK.

As the man said, we're all entitled to our opinion.

I don't understand why self-promoting females make such a big fuss about flying an aircraft.

You don't need a toggle & two to fly an aeroplane or a helicopter. You just don't. You don't need the forearm muscles of Popeye to push and pull on a stick or a yoke, nor do you need the thigh muscles of a rugger scrum prop forward to push one end or the other of a rudder bar. There are plenty of products which enable females to play tennis and swim throughout the lunar month, so that's not a barrier to wimmin aviating either.

I sort of understand why eyebrows were raised when women rode bicycles and flew long distances unescorted in the 1920s, but in the 21st century such admiration is absurd and quite literally patronising.

It's conspicuous that the pompous dining society has deleted the male from its 'award' of a so-called "medal" from the crew of two who did the Africa and Strine trips. One wonders what the overwhelmingly male contingent of the puffed up pricks of that mutual ego-stroking society are compensating for.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. As long as the group is collectively steering this thread, avoiding the extremes, and not "crossing a line", for myself, I'm content to be an observer. I'm happier to not have to moderate this, so it has maximum opportunity for discussion. I've read all of the posts with interest, and see merit in both points of view.

We don't, and don't have to all agree about this, but common courtesy is appreciated - no one has murdered anyone. Let the discussion continue, with the basic courtesy we would show each other, and TCT, were we to be discussing this all in person.

I see a side benefit to this discussion, in that entities who may be involved in evaluating aviation accomplishments, may be quietly considering. That's good!

As a point of observation, once anyone has become the registered owner of an aircraft or a company director, the given address is in the public domain. If you know where to look, the information can be found very quickly. In my view, it was "bad form" to publish the letters where the address was readable. It did not however reveal any personal details that cannot be found by other means.


There are a few snippets on YouTube which tell the story. One thing that I find puzzling is that the "camera operator" in the front cockpit does not appear to be filming key events such as the celebrated arrival in Australia. If any portion of the flight was to be filmed from the front seat then surely it would be the arrival and reception to mark the completion of the epic "solo" endeavour. Has anyone seen a picture of the "camera operator" at work ?

Can you see anything from the front seat? I though that's why the pilot sat in the back when flying ,,, dare I say it,, SOLO :E

Pilot DAR ! A moderator who is actually a voice of moderation. Impressive and very likeable.

What is the matter with some of you ? Is it envy? Jealousy? Spite? Whatever the motivation, the kind of heavyweight, character assassination that is so prevalent on this subject is demeaning and puerile to the practitioners. In heaven's name, desist !

If there is nothing remotely kind that one can write about this person then, write nothing. Remember the Biblical injunction: "Be sure your sins will find you out", it might well apply to the person concerned.

Exactly.
In my case, I'm just jealous that this TCT character seems to be better at bullsh1t than me, that's all.
You can now go back to your newspaper. :ok:

Yup! 'Seems that's happening!

Unlike the rest of the drivel in CK's post.

Capt Kremmin

Nice try! I guess your next piece will be about five loaves of bread and a couple of fish. :)

Its not about envy, jealousy or spite, is it. It is about the lengths that this woman actually went to by claiming a prize by deceit, surrounding an alleged 'solo' flight, despite warnings to tone down the deceitful content.

If she had just found another male mug to sponsor her RTW flight with her instructor/aircraft owner, in aid of encouraging more female pilots to the scene, she would have been given a big thumbs up, [well from me anyway] but it's much more than that, isn't it.

Following on from that deceit, she has allegedly stolen the opportunity from another female who was going to enact AJ's flight in a Tiger Moth.

If your reasoning for our vocal concerns were credible or plausible, we wouldnt have been encouraging the other woman, would we.

What a pity "The Invisible Man" wasn't available for this flight.......:rolleyes:

Jack

I spent a very happy hour or so flying a Stearman from the front seat and this included tail chasing other Stearmans and my one and only attempt at formation flying. I don't remember ever thinking that my view particularly restricted me in what I was trying to do.

Meldrex

"That is taking it a bit too far"


Well I'm not convinced it is. I have been hunting for Amanda Harrison's message but if my memory serves me correctly, it went along the lines of this....

"I told TCT about my SOLO flight recreating Amy Johnsons flight. The next thing I knew was that she had taken/stolen my idea whilst I was still in the process of sponsorship/preparations."

Amanda may even be following this thread, in which case she may tell us exactly.

In the meantime, I've copied a link for those that may not know about the genuine and bona fide attempt of the SOLO flight.

http://www.sponsorfinder.co.uk/asset...da_sponsor.pdf

I see that all posts about the inappropriate medal award have been deleted by the censors here.

That's a pity. There was some good truth being posted here.

Apparently the bull**** of the bull****ter at the heart of the lies about her "Solo" endeavours has triumphed over Truth here, as well as at a pomp-filled proposed dinner occasion.

That's sad.

It's sad because it distorts and corrupts what independent aviation is actually about.

Might this broad statement have captured a greater theme than intended? There is more than just one moderator "caring for" this thread. I am not aware of any collaboration, nor intent to restrict discussion away from medal awards.

Bear in mind, that sometimes a post is seen to contain some useful information, and perhaps, a short passage which cannot be allowed to remain. Mods do not generally edit a post. Thus, and otherwise useful and informative post may be removed because of one short passage (or release of private information) which could not be allowed to remain. If in doubt, an original poster might wish to repost, with dubious material no longer included, perhaps the remainder of the repost would be entirely welcomed. Just a thought....

I am not going to post anything else at this stage but thanks for the invitation Pilot DAR.

I think by now regular readers will know that I know more than I post but what I post has substance.
.

I am not going to comment anymore.

Niccolo Machiavelli 1469 - 1527

Gee whiz, make my role difficult eh?

Claiming solo is not true.

And I agree with your post but Ian could have been a little bit more proactive.

I find the flying magazines a bit tedious because we read the regurgitated press releases for years plus the cliched 'air to air' shot on the cover every month.

When a big story like this emerges they don't want to know.

There was no reason to shut down the thread on TCT and Ewald .

It was just pressure from a few regulars who now see the Flyer forum as part of ther daily tedium.

If you don't believe me look at those with high numbers of posts.

The general trend is for all magazines,not just flying, to be a bit of a 'Groundhog Day'

How often have you looked at an airport or newsagents stand and decided 'read it all before' and walked away with nothing.

Sometimes I feel reading any magazine is like a glossy expensive version of the Metro.

Jay

What would you prefer on the front of an aviation magazine if not a shot of an aeroplane flying?

If I'm reading between the lines correctly as far as Jay Sata's last post is concerned, I'm thinking that this could be a bit of a hollow victory for GA. :(

There is never a victory for GA.

In the national press it is perceived to be a pastime of the wealthy who periodically come to grief when they run out of luck,lack of experinece or fuel and crash.

It fills space with lineage and pictures of aircraft wrecks.

The higher level is when very rich people crash expensive ex military aircraft.

I am not going to be drawn in to comment on TCT anymore but suffice to say her 'Tribute to Amy Johnson' must have burnt over £1 million of someones cash.

Nice work if you can get it.

Let us us just see how this story pans out.

How about a bit of imagination?

I saw a beautifully crisp, clear and colourful image of a Stearman not long ago.
It was posed in front of an equally colourful, but somewhat second-hand, R44.
Perhaps an editor might consider that one as an attention-getter.

You will never see that on the front cover of any magazine apart from Private Eye:ok:

The problem these days is that we are all way in front of magazine editors and what they can write in a glossy twelve times a year.

Sure they have nice trips here there and everywhere to check out aircraft no one will ever buy.

I bought Pilot decades ago partly for the aircraft adverts.

AFORS has taken that market from them.

I don't need to be reminded I need a Breitling watch or all the other expensive stuff I can buy on ebay for half the price.

The letters page was another area I bought Pilot 30 years ago plus the stuff from Alan Bramson.

I can get all that and more from the internet in seconds
now.

Then of course we have the carousel of editors who move from magazine to magazine.

Dave Calderwood,Philip Whiteman etc.

If you look at the cost of any glossy magazine and check out what is editorial and advertorial then you pay a lot for very little original text.

I suspect I am opening another can of worms as we put one to bed elsewhere.

You may have a point, JS but, in a former life, I did spend a bit of time in magazine publishing.

Things are, of course, much tougher these days and so one's news-stand presence must attract the attention of the potential purchaser.
Of course the full-page Breitling, Boeing and Cessna ads, together with the 'in depth' advertorials inside, bring in essential revenue, but..
First, you've got to move the product itself.

Now, I do believe (and I'm sure my Art Director would have agreed with me) that the picture we're talking about, as a magazine cover, is a winner.
It ticks all the boxes.
It contains all the essential ingredients guaranteed to attract not only aviation enthusiasts, but potential advertisers as well.
Leaving aside for a moment the subliminal depiction of two complementary aspects of past and present day aviation being so forcefully attracted to each other, the picture itself conveys an atmosphere, at the same time, both dynamic and serene.
Then, apart from dramatically depicting everything from the ruggedness of Boeing and Hamilton Standard's products, it opens a gateway opportunity for the suppliers of plexiglass products and airframe refinishing goods to showcase their wares.

The cover would then draw attention to the gripping features inside.
I can see it now..

EXCLUSIVE!
TRACEY: Her Story.
The secret women's guide to success in any chosen field.

WITCH HUNT!
Jealous and vindictive men pursue our Tracey.


I tell you, it'd just walk off the news-stands.