PPRuNe Forums - 2018 Light Aircraft Association AGM award vote

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Private Flying (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying-63/)

- - 2018 Light Aircraft Association AGM award vote (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/613447-2018-light-aircraft-association-agm-award-vote.html)

Not being a member of the LAA (I'm not a UK resident), I watch from the outside. I watch in alarm at the thought that some members of the LAA somehow think there is a need to reconsider the issuance of the award which was revoked. The person making the motion writes:

Quote:

there was no evidence that even if she had practised the subterfuge of which she was accused the reputation of the LAA had been damaged.

Well judging by the dis satisfaction raised by members posting here, the reputation of the LAA is up for question if the award is restored! What does the LAA lose if the members vote to not issue an award they earlier voter to rescind? The LAA will gain the reputation for standing up in what they believe in if the members vote to withhold the award!

I read the award was:

Quote:

The citation was, "Award of the Bill Woodhams Trophy for a feat of navigation Tracey Curtis Taylor for her flight from Cape Town to Cairo in a Boeing Stearman a feat of navigation, aviation, tenacity and endurance."

Feat of navigation? Not really, when you have GPS and the latest databases in Ipads, available to both pilots, being supported by a chase plane, and with ground planning assistance! My colleague and I flew a Twin Otter Cairo to Johannesburg prior to the invention of GPS, using only charts and a magnetic compass, and that was not an unusual feat of navigation, so if a fully supported, multi pilot navigational exercise warrants issuance of an award for navigation, when other factors are dubious, I worry that the LAA is setting the bar a little low for issuance of an award! I think that not being able to navigate around a parked R44 should be reason enough to withdraw into the shadows with head held low, rather than return and make a fuss to have an award for navigation considered for reissuance!

And I will confirm that I'm not a troll, I've flown the route in question (as second pilot), flown many transcontinental trips as the only person in the plane, and always arrived where I intended to. And I have flown a Stearman. I have no personal grudge against Tracey, and indeed had not heard of her until reading the rather embarrassing Canadian newspaper article which revealed her trail of error and deception. I just don't like the thought of awards being issued to non deserving pilots! Tracey has earned right to call herself a pilot, and walk among we other pilots, but, for what I have read, has done nothing to distinguish herself to the level of being considered for an award issued by pilots! I think that Tracey should use the attention afforded her now to honour up, and truthfully answer some of the questions asked of her, to set the record straight. Following that, perhaps she'll just take a step back to be just a pilot, like the rest of us.

The FBO who sold her and her camera ship the “contaminated” fuel has something to say about it:

I have read the Motions on LAA site... I am still spitting feathers. I thought the LAA was a democratic Association and as such we get to choose how we wish to vote! If so why is Stewart Jackson telling us to vote in favour of the motions? They debacle was settled 2016 why is it being resurrected? Proxy votes are another issue I cant afford/ justify travelling to Turweston just to vote on an issue, I use my PROXY vote it should have the same clout as a personally delivered vote!
I am not normally angry but this really has got my blood boiling!!
John.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Right Hand Thread (Post 10265136)

The FBO who sold her and her camera ship the “contaminated” fuel has something to say about it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/AviatorOr...50878925479936

Lucky escape for the camera plane crew then? :rolleyes:

Wow!

The TCT supporting statement is REALLY worth reading.
It is a shame that once again there will be no explanation from any other view point allowed.
Not everyone reads Pprune.

Did she not accept an award for it being a Solo flight in Australia?
I have never met TCT, and I am no troll, but any normal reasonable person can spot the inconsistencies.
Other than “I accidentally said ‘solo’ at Herne Bay”, does she really believe there are no inconsistencies ?

What will happen if the motion isn’t carried? Will the vitriolic campaign against the LAA continue?

I’ve already stated what the ONLY solution is, give her and Ewald an Award for their flight. It’s the only way to keep everyone happy. Why don’t the LAA just do that and close the matter. TCT has stated IT WAS NOT SOLO, she did not do all the nav, the award was erroneous, give her and Ewald the award they deserve, it was an amazing flight after all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kghjfg (Post 10265200)

I'm not sure I could bring myself to call it 'amazing' when compared to people like Polly Vacher. Anyway, she lied about the flight and now, as the evidence from Mr Wiseman at Winslow shows, she appears to be trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes about 'fuel contamination'. The bluffing hasn't worked so now it's bluster. Quite frankly, her completely untrue statement that the Chairman of the LAA 'suggested' she raise the issue again is probably the lowest thing she has done. These are honorable chaps just interested in flying. They shouldn't have to waste their time dealing with someone demanding an award.

From the LAA Forum, a request from the Chairman

Quote:

Re: The Importance of Voting at OUR AGM .

https://services.lightaircraftassoci...ost_target.gifby Brian Hope » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:22 pm

Paul, in an earlier post you seem to think there won't be a proxy vote, and I see somebody on Pprune is under the same impression. The Proxy form is available on the AGM page and will also be on the reverse of the address sheet that comes with the magazine in a day or two. Can you please enlighten the guy on Pprune that he certainly can vote by proxy and it counts just the same as somebody's vote who attends the AGM in person.
Thanks.

Proxy form here http://www.lightaircraftassociation....ing%20Form.pdf

I heard the “dog ate my homework” one, but blaming the weather! Really?

“ I did once inadvertently speak of flying 'solo' at a damp, grey Herne Bay in September 2014 when a flying display I was scheduled to give was cancelled at the last minute because of the weather, and I had to make a short impromptu speech to a crowd of disappointed people. As soon as I finished I realised I'd omitted to credit my colleagues, but it was too late to get the film edited.”

Here, for those unable to look it up, is that statement that she put out, regarding the vote coming up soon.

Of particular interest, to me anyway, is the line "I am happy to explain more fully and answer any questions put in good faith by Members before or at the 2018 AGM."

That, as they say, is a belter, but it gets better, I have pasted in a few points, in Red, which I would hope that someone will ask Tracey, on the day, if she decides not to respond here.

Quote:

LAA AGM 2018. MOTION 1 Supporting statement by Tracey Curtis-Taylor. Mem No 035363 I am very grateful to Stewart Jackson for proposing and to Tim Wheeler for seconding the motion before you. The 2016 AGM resolution was hugely distressing for me; I have struggled with the consequences for the past two years. I do hope that Members will now agree that wrong was done in their name and will take the opportunity to put it right for the sake of the Association's good name. It is tempting to write many pages, but I'll confine myself to a brief statement. I am happy to explain more fully and answer any questions put in good faith by Members before or at the 2018 AGM. Since 2005 1 have been proud to be a member of the LAA, with its declared objective of 'making dreams fly'. I was thrilled to receive the Woodhams Award in 2014, the first woman aviator to be so honoured; and correspondingly devastated two years later not only to be the first recipient to have the award rescinded but also to be publicly condemned for bringing the Association into disrepute. Manipulation, muddle-headedness and misogyny seem all to have been factors. No sooner had the Woodhams Award been made in 2014 than I became the object of sustained abuse through the PPruNe social media forum, initiated by a sub-contractor on my 2014 African flight who had left the team early with a personal grievance. The story was spread that I had contrived to deceive the LAA Awards Committee, the aviation community and the broadcasting media by making fraudulent claims that I had flown my Stearman across Africa, following Lady Mary Heath's historic route, entirely on my own.

Such a claim would have been nonsense had I made it. You did make it, at least twice, on video.

The object of that and my later flights was to commemorate the historic achievements of the female pioneers, promoting not my achievements but theirs in order to inspire the coming generation of women aviators. It would have been impossible to undertake these filmed expeditions without extensive technical support, as I have repeatedly explained; various people Mostly it was Ewald, or is that not true? accompanied me in the Stearman for most of the legs of my flights.

I did once Twice inadvertently speak of flying 'solo' at a damp, grey Herne Bay in September 2014 when a flying display I was scheduled to give was cancelled at the last minute because of the weather, and I had to make a short impromptu speech to a crowd of disappointed people. As soon as I finished I realised I'd omitted to credit my colleagues, but it was too late to get the film edited. Can you show any evidence of trying since then?

Because it is all the evidence there is, All that has been made public so far anyone seeking to persuade you that I'm a liar will direct you to the YouTube clip of this one speech, as opposed to numerous occasions on which I make clear my gratitude to the crews that supported me. Having requested the information this year from the LAA, I now know that from early 2016 the Board received a succession of emails demanding my public disgrace. The sources were evidently the same as those of the ongoing PPruNe campaign; some of them joined our Association. A long-standing member, who has since told me he got his information from PPruNe, was eventually persuaded to front a hostile motion for the AGM; it was submitted to the Board on 19 September, only just in time to be considered for the agenda. That day the Royal Navy Royal Marines Charity received emails from the same sources, complaining that I should not be the guest speaker at a Navy fund-raising event, because I was about to be disgraced by a LAA motion that was to be presented at the AGM and was 'expected to pass easily'. I learned of this from the Marines Charity a few days later. I suspect that many poeple think that you should not be allowed to take part in such events, until you stop masquerading as a Commander, and use the title Lieutenant Commander, as has been bestowed upon you.

As I now know from the Minutes of the LAA Board, the draft motion included references to the company that sponsored my Africa flight that the Board was advised were libellous. However, the Chairman — not the Secretary — took it upon himself to rewrite it forthwith. This was permissible but not mandatory under the LAA Articles; I would question whether it was appropriate in respect of a motion that was an overt personal attack on a Member. Such a motion was hardly typical of our AGM, perhaps unique; but it was put on the agenda and sent out without accompanying explanation. I was away on a speaking tour of schools in China for three weeks before the AGM; but having become aware of the motion I wrote a statement, asking that it be circulated to members with the agenda; it wasn't. Hard copy was available only on the day of the meeting, by which time proxy voting on an unprecedented scale ensured the passage of the motion regardless of the overwhelming opposition of those who actually attended and heard the arguments. My understanding is that those present were not in fact able to hear the arguments, only your side of it.

It is evident from recent study of the redacted proxy voting forms — supplied at my request — that some members were puzzled by the motion to strip me of the Woodhams Award, but it seems likely that most assumed that it was one of a list of proposals endorsed by the Chairman and Board for which they would vote en bloc. An unusually large number of proxy ballots was returned — it is my understanding that at most AGMs there are more members present than there are proxies — including several on which the only vote cast was for the motion and a few on which the stamped date of receipt was earlier than the date on which they were officially circulated. Such oddities can doubtless be explained; but both at the AGM and within the Board unease and embarrassment were expressed both at the way in which a very personal motion had been passed, and the misogynistic, out-of-touch image of the LAA thereby projected. I don't think that the resignation of the Secretary shortly afterwards was coincidental. And while the LAA Board made no formal admission that anything was less than perfect, its discomfort with what had happened is apparent from changes made soon after the 2016 AGM to the rules on motions, so that in future six weeks' notice would be required. I will say no more. You will, I hope, agree with me that righting a wrong and putting this dismal affair behind us is in the Association's best interests; if you do not, so be it. Whether or not you choose to believe me, I do assure you that my Stearman flights were and are less about me personally than about celebrating the past achievements of female aviators and promoting the future of women in the skies. I trust that Members see this objective as being in accord with the high ideals of the Light Aircraft Association to which we all belong. You make much of being a member and about this being "Our" association. I wonder if you might enlighten everyone with details of how many LAA AGMs you have attended, and what other events you have participated in, to further the aims of the LAA?

So, for the benefit of Tracey, here are the three questions that the "baying mob" [sic] on PPRuNe have settled on as being the most pressing points for you to explain:

1. What is the reconciliation between Ms Curtis-Taylor's well documented claim to have flown her African flight "solo". Please see the video clip published earlier in which she personally makes that claim, and her subsequent public statement that the flight was not solo?

2. Given the above, what was she doing in the picture of her, published several times earlier in this thread, standing in front of a huge picture depicting the route and claiming she had been "Alone in an open cock-pit [sic] plane"?

3. By what authority, and with what qualification, does she wear RAF wings?

#3Questions

For my own interest, I would like to ask, who was on board the Stearman when it took off for Australia, and where was the first landing after that take off? You must remember the departure I am describing, the much celebrated party, of which a video is knocking around the internet, showing just you in the aircraft, leaving old blighty to fly to the colonies. If the ATC recording transcript should show 2 POB declared, would that be an error, or is there an explanation you want to share with us? At what point on that journey did Ewald get in to the Stearman?

I know that many others will want to take you up on your generous and exciting offer to answer any questions, so I won't press you here for details of why the FAA & NTSB forms about Winslow don't add up, when we look at your hours and Ewald's hours, or why your expensive lawyers have yet to force the fuel company at Winslow to stop contradicting your claim that the fuel was bad. Nor will I push the point about how an engine failure at 50 feet on a 6,000 feet runway should be easy to survive, for even a solo PPL student, never mind someone who has "as much experience of flying Stearmans as any one else in the world".

I'm not yet ready to be disappointed that you are unable to find it in your heart to apologise to the controller who got the blame for you not being able to iPad map read around restricted airspace. I can even ignore the frightening of the whales and the "having to fly 50 feet from a cliff" or whatever pish it was that you rambled on about, while pretending to be a professional pilot.

No, I'll settle for the three questions being answered, and maybe a hint as to when you might accept that the game is up.

I can honestly say, hand on heart, that if you were a bloke, not a hint of this would have changed. This is not about you being a woman with a crowd of misogynists giving you a hard time, it's about you being a little vague with the facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kghjfg (Post 10265200)

With respect, giving an award to Ewald is most certainly not the ONLY solution. In fact it is not a solution at all.

We have seen that Ewald is just as guilty of maintaining the charade as she is.
Sam posted about the diversion approaching Baragwanath so as to avoid a throng of onlookers maybe spotting that the Stearman had two pilots in it. Sound familiar? Just like the departure from UK where TCT did leave solo (for the benefit of the cameras) but headed straight to France (no doubt with a support plane and Ewald inside it) flying with her. There upon landing the Stearman goes to 2 POB, anyone care to guess at who the other POB would have been? He is as complicit as she is and as such should not be shown any favours.

The only solution to make this go away is for TOTAL honesty from TCT and team and a withdrawal of the LAA motion.

She can start by listing all of the legs flown in all three flights and name the person sat up front on each leg.
Bring aircraft and pilot logbooks (hers and Ewalds) to the LAA where they can be verified as a true record of the flights by people who know what they should say.
She can bring along the copies of ALL correspondence that went out to the press prior to, and during the flights, especially the vast array of the "please don't use SOLO in your articles, as I am horrified that you are doing this" ones.
She can bring along the SD cards that were in the GoPro cameras on the aircraft at Winslow. She has said herself that the cameras were always running to get film footage.

Will any of the above happen? ...I am not holding my breath.

She has tried to dismiss the Herne Bay video as a slip of the tongue. I think that it is so ingrained in her psyche that she could not help herself. If she was genuinely horrified having that word used she would not have used it, and to say that it was a last minute speech could be excused if it was first time, but she has given very similar speeches at all points on her travels. She truly believes that she is special and I have never seen anyone so desperate for recognition, admiration, and reward. Quite sad really, and a bit like Chris Martyr, I am starting to feel sorry for her; it was all dying down but she just couldn't resist resurrecting it.

I saw this general message from Brian Hope on LAA Forum. Seems there has been confusion over proxy votes being counted. ALL proxy votes count just as if you are at the meeting.

Brian Hope wrote:Can you please enlighten the guy on Pprune that he certainly can vote by proxy and it counts just the same as somebody's vote who attends the AGM in person.
Thanks.

EDITED TO ADD
Apologies to Airpolice for bumping an EXCELLENT post above.

Sorry for double post but this struck a chord ...

"I did once inadvertently speak of flying 'solo' at a damp, grey Herne Bay in September 2014 when a flying display I was scheduled to give was cancelled at the last minute because of the weather, and I had to make a short impromptu speech to a crowd of disappointed people. As soon as I finished I realised I'd omitted to credit my colleagues, but it was too late to get the film edited. Because it is all the evidence there is, anyone seeking to persuade you that I'm a liar will direct you to the YouTube clip of this one speech, as opposed to numerous occasions on which I make clear my gratitude to the crews that supported me."

Explain this then please...direct copies of one of the responses I received where I queried directly with the press on what was said, by whom, and if there was any chance of a misunderstanding. It is NOT just the video that I have.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6293ccffc5.jpg

Whatever the outcome of the vote one thing that cannot be undone is the effect this all had on another pilot's planned solo flight. Anyone remember Amanda Harrison?

She was trying to raise funds for a solo flight, UK to Australia, when the media started to report TCT's 'solo' flight which effectively killed Amanda's flight off. After all, nobody was going to sponsor her when it had just been done by someone else.

So much for being all about helping women in aviation.

One's breath is taken away by Ms Taylor's attempt to sweep the 'solo video' under the carpet. One could be generous and say that there may be circumstances where a throwaway line is taken out of context , however, the statements made in the video are deliberate, emphasized and repeated claims to an action that is held in the highest regard by any pilot - going solo. No pilot I know would make such a statements 'by mistake', whatever the weather!

"I did once inadvertently speak of flying 'solo' at a damp, grey Herne Bay"

Let's not forget the numerous Wikipedia pages that made the same error. While we're at it, there was the website author who implied that they did not understand what solo meant. Then there's the "solo" press releases from Boeing who know nothing about aviation, the numerous articles written by journalists who attended the down-route junkets, getting their copy first-hand and the infamous slides that accompanied the presentation. All of this took years to notice...….apparently.

What rotten luck. That's almost as unlucky as finding the only training aircraft in the world that cannot be flown from both cockpits.

My first solo certificate still hangs in a frame in the downstairs loo. It clearly states that the flight was conducted without the presence of an instructor.

Earlier in this thread there is a justification of Ms Curtis-Taylor’s actions that she herself wrote on the LAA forum and which was subsequently posted here. It contains the assertion, amongst other things, that:

“I am not a liar”.

For the last couple of years, Ms Curtis-Taylor has been asked Three Questions that go to the heart of that assertion. Many here will be familiar with them, as is Ms Curtis-Taylor (as I said elsewhere: I have had it confirmed by a senior and well respected member of the GA community who has spoken in her favour here, that he gave them to her at my request).

I will not repost them verbatim, but if what she claims is true,then:

1. Clearly her claim in the Hearne Bay video that the flight she is describing was solo must be true (Question 1);

2. As is the claim of a solo flight on the presentation slide posted repeatedly in the original thread (Question 2)

3. She has earned the right to wear RAF wings and can tell us the basis on which they were awarded and by whom. (Question 3).

These questions remain unanswered, and cast serious doubt on what is being claimed. She has yet to explain these three apparent contradictions of her assertion and I invite her to address them, either here or in person on the floor at the LAA AGM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonzarno (Post 10265817)

For me the word “alone” is more difficult to explain away because that one word is an unambiguous statement that there wasn’t an aircraft owner/commercial pilot/navigator/instructor/member of the support crew/passenger in the aircraft. Of course it is possible that she never noticed the inadvertent inclusion of the word when she prepared the slide or when she was standing in front of it and the audience had left before she could make a correction..................

To perhaps move toward the "avoidance of doubt" regarding the allegation of fuel contamination at Winslow, may I suggest you might like to follow the "Talk " section of her Wiki page for some considered opinions beyond the much altered main "Article" q.v:

"Is there any reason the NTSB did not simply say "it was avgas"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)"

"Probably because the more technical term as used in the US is 100 low lead or, '100 l-l'. Whatever, it's the most common type of fuel used in aircraft. The report goes on to say that the gascolator and bowl were free of debris. That is pretty much saying 'there was no fuel contamination in that aircraft.' Had there been the slightest suspicion on the day, all aircraft that had used the same pump would have been warned.Nothing of that order took place. The main article is incorrect.80.12.59.81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 4 October 2018 "

Seems like we're far from the LAA's meeting. Wasn't there already a thread about this person and her claim(s) to fame?

Thanks for the review of the history of the concerns relating to an AGM topic posters. Let's focus on the meeting itself, matters relating to the expected topics of discussion there, and LAA member's feelings about the topics on the agenda. I know it's a fine line... do your best!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan Olieslagers (Post 10266095)

Seems like we're far from the LAA's meeting. Wasn't there already a thread about this person and her claim(s) to fame?

I was just wondering Jan. Will you be attending the meeting and voting? If not will you be voting by proxie?

Look at my location, B&W: I am not in the UK, nor do I fly a G-reg. I do belong to my local counterpart - but haven't ever attended their annual meeting.

I struggle to see how explaining to somebody that a members association's democratic decision about an award with no cash value can reasonably be the focus of legal action.

G

With the caveat that I am not a lawyer:

The LAA have a constitution that allows any member to request a motion to be put to the membership at a public meeting.

Such a motion (not initiated by the directors) was properly proposed and voted on according to the articles of association.

A further motion has now been put to the membership, which again will be voted on by the membership - the directors have no other action they can take.

What would be the case for any action against the Association?

That has been my question too! So why are the Board getting so upset unless there is something more sinister going on!!!!

The Association has been threatened with legal action - see the Chairman's statement. That's why the Board is "upset".

Hoodie, I read the Statement but if all was above board then there was nothing to worry or get upset about! What could the legal action be, the motion was read a vote was taken democracy was enacted a result was gained end of story, Lawyers cant interfere with democracy in this country unless there is some law broken!! Unless am I missing something!!

S205-18F asks the same question I have... What potential legal action can be worrisome if the association follows it's membership's voting on a motion?

If I were Tracey, I would be mortified at the prospect of being associated with legal action over an award. How embarrassing! How could she ever look at the award with pride, were it to be returned to her!?!

I do not believe that the awards committee would have given the award had they known at the time it was not solo. They have themselves clarified that they believed it had been solo, and described the situation as a "deception".

I believe that that there must have been somebody more deserving of the award (who had actually done what they said they had done).

Having lawyers write multiple threatening letters to both the LAA and individuals in it (whilst falsely describing them as vindictive and mysognistic), in an effort to sell a new film, is not right.

The whitewash, spin and lies continue unabated (changing statements, changing wikipedia pages, refusing to answer the difficult questions), and will only get worse if the decision is reversed.

1-6. For.
7. Against.
8. Against.

If you want an award/prize/certificate/recognition etc. - you have to have actually done what you said you had done. Anything else is called cheating.

I’m certainly no lawyer either but I do seem to get the **** sued out of me all the time, so have picked up a few hard earned lessons along the way. I thought to raise a legal action you had to have a quantifiable claim for loses, as there is no cash value in this award the claim would have to be for consequential damages incurred by the allegedly unfair and very public rescinding of the trophy. So I assume TCT could perhaps claim the loss of reputation has impeded her speaking circuit or film earnings potential and as Ewald alluded to in his letter to Sam that this issue has had a ongoing financial impact on his income too. Seems a bit of a stretch to me, but you know what those low rent, ambulance chasing lawyer bastards are like when they get going.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9 lives (Post 10266662)

How could she ever look at the award with pride, were it to be returned to her!?!

She won’t even be able to do that. As with many such awards they are for a year, on loan if you like. That boat sailed two years ago and it will be on someone else’s mantelpiece instead of hers and Ewald’s.

I assume there’ll be a certificate though, to be hung in the downstairs bog. “What? Oh that old thing? Oh, I got it for somethingorother. Can’t remember now, I have so many. I do recall having to scream and scream and make myself sick to get it though”.

I sent my proxy vote by email to the LAA office, received a receipt confirmation.

rog747, that's not so much an inappropriate post as a major misreading of the situation.

The Motions are on the table simply because the LAA constitution says that any Member may propose a Motion and so long as it is in accordance with the Articles then it will put to the membership.

The LAA would be worthy of criticism if they did not allow a properly constituted Motion to be heard. The fact that the Motions have been tabled is a positive indication of the democratic nature of the LAA, not an indication that they have somehow been cowed.

Also, if you read the material on the LAA website carefully you will see that it was not TCT who "deemed some part of the LAA's past comment as libellous" leading to "the LAA agreeing to Motion to have the comment removed" - that didn't happen at all.

What happened was that the LAA deemed an element of the 2016 Motion to be libellous (against TCT, presumably) and it was agreed by the LAA Board to delete that element and inform the proposer that had been done.

There is enough misinformation already flying around about all this that we should all carefully read the statements made by all involved and represent them properly in these discussions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodie (Post 10266761)

rog747, that's not so much an inappropriate post as a major misreading of the situation.

The Motions are on the table simply because the LAA constitution says that any Member may propose a Motion and so long as it is in accordance with the Articles then it will put to the membership.

The LAA would worthy of criticism if they did not allow a properly constituted Motion to be heard. The fact that the Motions have been tabled is a positive indication of the democratic nature of the LAA, not an indication that they have somehow been cowed.

Also, if you read the material on the LAA website carefully you will see that it was not TCT who "deemed some part of the LAA's past comment as libellous" leading to "the LAA agreeing to Motion to have the comment removed" - that didn't happen at all.

What happened was that the LAA deemed an element of the 2016 Motion to be libellous (against TCT, presumably) and it was agreed by the LAA Board to delete that element and inform the proposer that had been done.

There is enough misinformation already flying around about all this that we should all carefully read the statements made by all involved and represent them properly in these discussions.

Thank you very much - It is a hugely complex situation - I've removed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Rutherford (Post 10266721)

I sent my proxy vote by email to the LAA office, received a receipt confirmation.

+1 and I do hope this will be the end of the whole sorry saga, but then again we thought that in 2016.

If this really gains traction and is re-awarded, it is purely done by fear of legal action and would be utterly misplaced.

In 1989, Tony Smith flew his Jungmann from Darwin to Sherburn. Solo. With no GPS, as it didn't exist at the time.
Now that was deserving of awards.
What we are discussing here isn't at all.

From the LAA forum;

Quote:

Re: The Importance of Voting at OUR AGM .

https://services.lightaircraftassoci...ost_target.gifby Tracey Curtis-Taylor » Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:41 pm

‘It’s an ambush’ writes one enraged participant on this string; ‘and I hate my association being used in this way’. Indeed: we shouldn’t be in the situation we are now in.

So imagine how I felt in 2016 to discover just before the LAA AGM that it was being used for the culmination of months of nasty social media abuse against me. 75% of those who attended the meeting and heard me speak voted against a hostile and personal motion but it passed by virtue of an unprecedented volume of proxy votes. A post of 02 October 2018 on this forum indicates how that could be accomplished.

My statement has gone out, along with Stewart’s. In the light of subsequent posts, I merely add the following:
• You will find in the Minutes of the LAA Board of 23 September 2016 that the hostile motion was written by the Chairman. Stewart and I argue that he did not deal with this sorry saga with appropriate impartiality. True, an in-house report produced in April 2018 found his actions beyond reproach; unfortunately it has been kept secret, with no indication of the evidence or reasoning that led to this conclusion.
• In a letter of 17 January 2018 the Chairman did indeed suggest that if I wasn’t happy with my treatment, I should bring the motion. This was in response to repeated requests not that the vote be overturned but that the processes which led to it be reviewed. Yes, they came from a solicitor and yes, they were eye-wateringly expensive. Does anyone who has a solicitor write a letter thereby have a ‘legal team’? Don’t be silly.
• The Woodhams Award is not a competitive prize, it’s an accolade. Even if the allegations against me were true (and they are not), the 2016 motion was petty and vindictive.

I appreciate the Secretary’s action in proposing a motion restoring the Woodhams Award and thereby complementing Stewart’s, and hope you will support both. Though I am prepared to defend myself against foul accusations, do bear in mind that neither motion is about what I did or didn’t do; they are about the manner in which the LAA conducted itself.

Be aware that the use of proxy votes can be a tool used by both those in favour and against the motions.

Sad, oh so sad.
I see the word accolade is used. Which of the two definitions is TCT focused on? 1 or 2?
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....aad5f7dfa0.jpg

Quote:

Even if the allegations against me were true (and they are not)

So why do you still refuse to answer the Three Questions? :confused:

Pick the fights that you might win.

Quote:

Though I am prepared to defend myself against foul accusations, do bear in mind that neither motion is about what I did or didn’t do; they are about the manner in which the LAA conducted itself.

So, now it becomes clearer that this is no longer about whether she was solo or not.

This (campaign) is all about internal processes at the LAA.

Quote:

Re: The Importance of Voting at OUR AGM .

Quote:

by Tracey Curtis-Taylor » Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:41 pm

I think that the higher message is here - "OUR". LAA members, look at the bigger picture!

Quote:

Be aware that the use of proxy votes can be a tool used by both those in favour and against the motions

Wise words, it sounds like the vote could be close, and Tracey is worried that she has to supplement the basis of the decision.

I think of the fuss about the US vote for their judge lately, 49/51 the media tells us. People are pouring all of their emotion into a fight to the philosophical death on the vote on the judge, and with apparent reason! One side loses, and there will be great anger! The populous is whipped into a frenzy about it - it is important!

An Award?! A vote to restore an award taken away by member vote?! And Tracey would allow "HER" LAA to fight about it?! She would rather have 51% of the LAA members [re]award her an award she really does not seem to deserve. She would willingly allow 49% of the members feel horrible about their participation in the LAA!

King Solomon is about to make a decision, and Tracey is struggling to be in the center of it, about to let the baby be cut in half over it! Tracey will happily take away a half from an angry LAA, rather than to allow a unified LAA to exist. To Tracey, Tracey getting a pat on the back is more important than "HER" LAA. To me, that says it all!