Quite, though why this came up again is entirely down to one person.(though there might be a couple of other interested parties) I hope the membership use due judgment and bin it..
I really can't see why it is still carrying on. Desperation? The film can't be a blockbuster? Bit of interest from non aviation groups, But?

Clareprop and Airpolice. Duplicity and blaming others has been part and parcel of the charade since the year dot.

I was not happy with the fuel contamination story for two reasons.

1. It was too convenient an answer which removed any blame from TCT/Ewald
2. That Stearman had several Go-Pro Cameras on it. They are clearly visible in the BiaB published images AND in the others I received from someone who was at Winslow. IF things had happened as TCT claimed then we would have seen footage by now. So why not?

With that in mind I contacted Winslow. Upshot is this from an e-mail I received from Orville Wiseman. I wasn't going to post it but, as you will see, Orville asked me to pass it on. I am also aware that he has asked TCT to stop with the contaminated fuel story. For the avoidance of doubt Tracey, I have many similar e-mails where I have asked direct questions and received direct answers.

Thank you for the information.

As someone that has worked tirelessly in this industry for two decades building a new start up from the ground up I take offense to her comments. I consider them to be without merit and as such to be slanderous. It would not be outside my actions to consider hiring an attorney to pursue this after I have more information. Feel free to pass that along.

Also, as the founder of an aviation company with multiple locations having dispensed over ten million gallons of aviation fuels into a variety of aircraft including military, airline, medivac, law enforcement, fire suppression, corporate and private flight operations, I take great pride in the fact that we have never has a fuel related incident or accident.

Furthermore, the aircraft sustained substantial damage making it an accident not an incident. I am going to contact the NTSB and FAA about that as well.

I will no longer tolerate being her scapegoat in all of this!
O.G. Wiseman
President & Founder

I have the e-mails, all content can be verified, there are no lies, no smoke and mirrors, just a clear statement that what TCT says happened is not what the NTSB and the fuelers say.

The discussion here greatly affects the LAA.


Derek lamb has posted on the LAA forum, I cannot reply there but I can do so here.

In amongst the strong feelings on the forum I think there should be room for an alternative view. Our association is dedicated to recreational flying. Flying for fun and sport. Mixing with people who share our love of flying. To hold something like this together we have to make sure everyone is treated fairly in the best sporting tradition. Yet all members ultimately know that Tracey Curtis-Taylor, a long-standing member, wasn’t treated fairly and we need to look at that.

Do they know that? An assumption that is not borne out by the feelings expressed so far.

Two years ago we didn’t quite appreciate how a targeted internet campaign could destroy a person’s reputation, doing damage way beyond any claimed misdemeanour. When you’re in the cross-hairs of a nasty online campaign waged by a small number of people with an objective of causing damage there is no way out, no-one to appeal to for a just hearing.

Plenty of opportunity to answer genuine questions but all we have seen is diversion/deflection/obfuscation. Targeted internet campaign, of course targeted as TCT was the one who kept up the lies. Two years ago you had not heard her say SOLO. I found the damning Herne Bay video after the LAA vote! It would have been nice to have done so beforehand.

So how did this all come about? Four years ago in 2014 the Awards group decided to award the Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor. Like other awards over the years it wasn’t contentious and attracted no further attention for nearly a year and a half. Then a nasty and vicious campaign started against her on the internet forums. David Mole in his motion says there was apparently a serious falling out between her and her support, but that cannot be our concern. Why did the allegations take so long to surface? And why were they relevant since they weren’t the basis for the award? Who knows, but it culminated in a member’s motion for the 2016 AGM. The upshot was the motion on the proxy voting form posted with the magazine for reconsideration and rescinding of the award for bringing the LAA into disrepute. No evidence whatsoever was presented, and Tracey was given no opportunity to defend herself to proxy voters.



Wrong Derek, this all came about when TCT / BiaB tried to promote a solo flight of great achievement. When the solo aspect could not continue yet was still promoted, advertised and awards accepted on that premise those of us with an ounce of integrity felt something needed to be done. Long before the LAA AGM. Also, we poundstretcher-shopping-internet-trolling-proles did not resurrect this. TCT did with the "woe-is-me" piece in the Times, you know the one, it had a link to the upcoming film at the end of it! TCT started this off again, not us.

At the AGM members listened to Barry Tempest present his motion, Harry Hopkins as Awards chair explained the reasoning of his group and their investigation of the allegations. He recommended voting against it, and Tracey had the opportunity to defend herself. The members present voted overwhelmingly for her. But it had already been decided by the weight of proxy voters who had heard none of the arguments or evidence. Fewer than 100 members attend the AGM on average and in addition there are usually around 40-50 proxy votes. In 2016 the votes of the attendees were swamped by nearly treble the usual number of proxy votes. That guaranteed that the votes of those present were irrelevant. There was uproar on the floor when the result was announced, shouts of Disgraceful! and a large number of members got up and walked out.

What evidence did TCT really give? As mentioned, the Herne Bay video showed her repeating twice the SOLO claim. But as I said in an earlier post it wasn’t just about the solo aspect. It was all the other mis-truths and lies by omission.

They almost certainly thought that what had happened did not meet the LAA’s principle of fairness and justice. And it is probably what drove Tracey to keep plugging away for a review.

The LAA has the ability to punish members who act inappropriately, and in turn is duty-bound to support members against unfair allegations. When there were allegations that Tracey had brought the LAA into disrepute the board could have called her in if they felt there were grounds to it. Those who have said that the matter should have been resolved this way rather than at an AGM vote are absolutely right. Instead she was left to press her defence herself. If she had not been robust in doing it, I am certain the motions for reinstatement would not be going to this year’s AGM.

The way I read it, TCT has brought the LAA into disrepute by raising this again. I still believe the LAA was right the first time and it is a real shame that HCAP didn’t see this too

So now we’re in the situation where we have two motions before the AGM. A Vice President, the Company Secretary and the Chairman all indicate support for reinstatement. The difference between the motions appears to hinge on whether it was mishandled by the board. In my mind there is no question that was the case, and I was a member of it so I need to accept responsibility for its decisions too.

We need to admire Stewart Jackson for acting with his conscience with his motion to redress a wrong and reverse the 2016 motion. It was a very brave thing to do. I too am ashamed of what was done in the LAA’s name. If there’s criticism of the LAA it’s not misplaced. There is no wrong to redress.

It’s time to look at ourselves. Our numbers are declining as the older members die out, and our average age of 60 is increasing by nearly a year every year. We are almost all men. This matter has done our standing serious damage amongst outsiders. It’s no wonder we’re seen as aviation’s old boys club. The next generation is not signing up, and without them we have no future.

Remember it’s a sport. You don’t withdraw an award years after the event based on a nasty online campaign.

There is that phrase again, a nasty online campaign…asking for the truth is wrong is it?

The Awards committee looked closely at allegations and decided there weren’t grounds for withdrawal. It was pushed through by proxy voters who hadn’t heard the arguments. It has damaged our reputation and made us look misogynistic. We need to be generous and fix it by voting for both motions. Even if you normally don’t vote, please do so this year. Our association’s future well-being could just depend on it. Let’s play the game in a way that makes us attractive to young women and men, and encourages them to join us.

Young men and women can see what you reward, is it any wonder that decent people don’t want to join in?

Derek Lamb

Leaving that as may be - I don't know and I don't really care - I expect this thread to be about the annual meeting, and perhaps about the vote on one single point of the agenda.

It seems unacceptable to me that this thread is misused as an alternative to discuss the root of the matter; the original thread on this forum having been closed, probably for good reason. And now you even admit to abusing this forum to continue a discussion from another one.

Moderators, you are rapidly loosing credibility, in my appreciation at least.

Are you suggesting lies are common practice, and well tolerated, elsewhere? But, again, truth and honesty (or otherwise) in this person's words and acts ought to be discussed separately, and they were - until that thread was closed.

As for me not being a UK pilot, you did state you are not an LAA member yourself, didn't you? Perhaps I am even closer than you, belonging at least to the local counterpart to the LAA? Are you sure you understand matters better?

And, err, if you really are not an LAA member, what is your concerm, at all? Except some generalities like "truth to parole", nice enough, but they could be questioned with many in the UK (and elsewhere), even outside the tearworthy Berxit mess.

Jan, check the title of the thread mate. It is not a general LAA one (the LAA forum has its own pages). This is the 2018 LAA AGM Award Vote. Hence anything relevant to that is appropriate. The moderators are watching and doing a cracking job. This thread is where we non-LAA members can answer points raised on the LAA thread.

Jan is concerned that this thread risk becoming exactly like the other, closed, one.

I think his concern is justified, and so everyone should bear that in mind before posting.

Sam, I think that you have a point, and maybe even this is the wrong place for such an important topic.

This subject is obviously important to all members of the LAA, present and future, and as such I think it unfortunate that there has not been, as far as I am aware, a mass mailing to all members explaining all that is known, and all that is hidden, on the topic.


To allow those members less familiar with this farce to get a grip on the facts, such a mailshot might serve the LAA well.

My understanding of the LAA Forum is that all members have access to it. So, in terms of people who use pprune, but not the LAA Forum, someone is barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps the desire of some people to have this, and the other, thread, is to allow anonymous contributions. In which case, this forum serves a very useful purpose as evidence might not come to light without a protection of anonimiity.

On that topic, why can't we get another whistleblower from the support crews on her other trips?


I ask this, in order to provide clarity to the LAA Members reading this, and yet to decide how to vote in the AGM.

I am proud to be an LAA member. I value what it does for GA and for me. I have read the various arguments here with interest, but until I received the LAA voting form and the text of the motions I was unsure of how I might vote. Now it's all quite clear.

TCT threatened this organisation with legal action. Some members want to give this person an award. I don't understand their viewpoint, nor do I wish to. I wouldn't give a medal to someone who declared war on me.

I will be voting against both motions.

It would be wrong of the LAA to do that, and there has been no indication that they even intend to try.

It is for Ms Curtis-Taylor to do that. Unfortunately there has been precious little effort applied to actually addressing the requested facts and people's opinions. Instead, all I see is bluster, avoidance and misdirection.

Addressing facts and opinions over the past 2 years would have been a far better use of time than instructing solicitors to gain the result she wishes, in my view.

Sadly we now see here and elsewhere LAA members attacking one another and the board, with strange conspiracy theories and envious comments about "the rich and powerful" supposedly pulling strings.

Those attacks are a far more serious outcome fro the LAA than whether or not a particular gewgaw is awarded or not.

Unfortunately the future of the Association seems to be a secondary concern in some quarters - and I don't mean solely Ms C-T. :(

For those of you that haven't worked it out I'm Tracey's ex husband Steve Taylor and given the latest flurry of forum activity pending the LAA AGM I think it is timely for me to come clean and identify myself.I have no desire to fuel the spontaneous self combustion of Tracey nor do I hold any grudge or harbour bitterness toward Tracey.My posts on the other thread were made to give a truthful account of Tracey's incredibly embellished claims,after all I was there for some of it and I wasn't wearing rose coloured spectacles.
I was made aware of Tracey's feats of aviation a few years ago when my younger brother,who lives in the UK, sent me an email to the effect that "your ex-missus has just crashed in to a chopper". A little research lead me here and the rest is history so to speak.
I have in the past contacted both "Jay Sata" and Sam Rutherford to give them a bit of support considering they were having to endure the wrath of Tracey so it is not true that she says:

As you know, since 2015, you and your friend Mike Flynn, a journalist now based in Thailand, who posts on PPRuNe as 'Jay Sata', have waged a campaign of abuse against me. In addition to the stream of bile on PPRuNe you variously bombarded the Air League, the Honorary Company of Air Pilots (you wrote to every chapter around the world), the RAeS, Women in Aviation and numerous other organisations involved in my outreach programme with destructive personal messages. You even contacted the ex-husband from whom I parted company with over twenty years ago in your efforts to promote an agenda of character assassination.

Over and out "the ex-husband"....for now.

On and On this goes, one of the nastiest threads (in all its various mutations) on this board in the years its been running.

Part of the origin lies in a dispute between a team running an expedition that hired one of the lead protagonists in this mountain of vilification, and that person's performance on the job that the team stated that they were not satisfied with. That fact does rather colour his response, and yet this is ignored. That might be the more understandable if it were not for allegations that he also seems to have further alleged 'history' as regards his performance, with some participants of a subsequent rally through Africa he organised alleging several deficiencies in the way it was run.....

If the protagonist in so much of what has followed was minded to, and was advised he had a case to do so, he could have sued the TCT organisation, or the person herself, for breach of contract and that, arguably, would have been a fairer route than this never ending campaign, but, as far as I am aware, he has not. That has to say something about it all.

Just occasionally a contrarian view can perhaps be put. There is a real case that the LAA membership restore this award - it is of course now superseded by subsequent recipients. This has the makings of a saga that will not stop, unsurprising when what is at stake is the utter evisceration of personal reputations. There has to be a time to draw a line under this, and now is that time.

Just to point out that yes you can. The list of Olympic medal winners who have had them withdrawn. Then there is Lance Armstrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Olympic_medals

Nothing nasty Fred, it's a bunch of folk who place store in honesty and truth, rather than subterfuge and lies..

@ShortfinalFred

Part of the origin lies in a dispute between a team running an expedition that hired one of the lead protagonists in this mountain of vilification, and that person's performance on the job that the team stated that they were not satisfied with. That fact does rather colour his response, and yet this is ignored. That might be the more understandable if it were not for allegations that he also seems to have further alleged 'history' as regards his performance, with some participants of a subsequent rally through Africa he organised alleging several deficiencies in the way it was run.....

If the protagonist in so much of what has followed was minded to, and was advised he had a case to do so, he could have sued the TCT organisation, or the person herself, for breach of contract and that, arguably, would have been a fairer route than this never ending campaign, but, as far as I am aware, he has not. That has to say something about it all.


I'm guessing you're talking about me? Tracey has stated that she wasn't satisfied with my performance, but:

1. I delivered exactly what I had been paid to deliver.
2. I wasn't working for Tracey.
3. She hasn't actually explained what, exactly, she was unhappy about (see point 1 perhaps?).

There were more than just 'several' deficiencies on the VintageAirRally Crete2Cape - but we did at least get from Crete to Cape in the way we said we were going to do it!

Why (on what grounds) would I want to sue anyone to do with regard to Tracey's Africa trip? Until now the only reason I can think of is libel/slander - but she's very careful to only talk nastily about me behind my back (not in public) so this is difficult. There has been no breach of contract - we delivered. We were paid.

Feel free to elaborate on your post if there's more...

As I have already written several times, I only went public after Tracey refused TWO private requests from me to politely refuse awards (for something she hadn't done). There was, and is, no 'dispute' between us (particularly now that she has admitted that Ewald was up front for very nearly every flight of all the trips).

Feel free to put your name at the bottom of your post as well...

A 'bunch of folk'...who seem not to want to recognise a strong motive by one protagonist to destroy the other. It can be alleged, a strong commercial motive. By someone who, it could also be alleged, is not exactly in a 'glass house' themselves when it comes to professionalism. Someone who has waged an incessant, even obsessive, campaign in a most personal way for years subsequently.

Why did the team dismiss your services Mr Rutherford? If you delivered 'exactly what you'd been paid to deliver'? That just doesn't make sense. There was some dispute, wasn't there? My name is Fred, BTW...

I would repeat, its time to draw a line under this and the LAA have a way to do that before them that I would commend, as stated in the motions attached with the paperwork sent out for the AGM.

Why did the team dismiss your services Mr Rutherford?

I wasn't dismissed. I left with everyone else from Crete at the end of the contract. This is another falsehood that Tracey has been spouting for months/years.

If you delivered 'exactly what you'd been paid to deliver'? That just doesn't make sense.

Correct - it doesn't make sense because it's not true.

There was some dispute, wasn't there?

Yes. We were asked to get visas for Libya (so we asked our Libyan partner to pay for and get the visas). When the decision was taken to skip Libya, the film company didn't want to pay for the visas "we don't need them, as we're not going to Libya" - we had to explain that they had been paid for, whether needed or not (that's how visas work). Unfortunately we ended up having to take them to court (where we won).

My name is Fred, BTW...

Thank you. Have we ever met?

Is this film still in post production, is there going to be an epilogue featuring TCT the victim of the LAA and the internet trolls of Pprune? A martyr for all those women who were barred from an aviation career for lack of a suitable mentor...oh wait...

After all it would be a neat little twist for a producer trying to sell a slightly damaged product.

Is the AGM open to members only or will there be lights, camera and sound crew present? I'm guessing iPhone hand held wobblecam wouldn't make the final cut.

Always look for the hidden agenda and follow the money....good luck with your AGM and I feel for the office bearers on this occasion. Stick to due process, keep your powder dry.

There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about. could have been written for this occasion!

grammer
 

Jay Sata's post #163 deserves some attention particularly the article written in the local newspaper from Tracey's home town.

“I started on basic training aircraft but very quickly got into flying vintage stuff,” she told the Herald.She began to earn a living as a flying instructor and by getting involved with aerial photography and mapping and other aspects of commercial flying.

(The flying instructor job was terminated by her employer after a fairly brief sojourn.Getting involved in aerial photography means "I was a sales rep for an aerial mapping company" driving around in a Toyota Corolla...no flying in this job.As for other "aspects of commercial flying" there were none.)

At the same time she joined syndicates with shared ownership of historic aircraft, developing her skills and expertise in this specialist area.

(Tracey did own a share in a little scaled down SE5A homebuilt and flew it a bit until another syndicate member wrote it off.She,briefly,had a share in a Piper Cub and also flew that a little but these are hardly "historic aircraft". I gave her a share in a NA Harvard, NZ1078, and taught her to fly it and she flew it competently but certainly never displayed it or became proficient in aerobatics or did any formation flying.This hardly constitutes "developing her skills and expertise in this specialist area".)

“That way I could have a share in the most exotic aeroplanes that I wouldn’t have access to normally,” she explained.

(There is nothing "exotic" about these aeroplanes let alone being the "most exotic".)

Returning permanently to the UK in 1997, Tracey became the first female pilot to be based at the historic Shuttleworth Collection.

(What Tracey means is that she had her own aeroplane,the Ryan,hangared at Shuttleworth.She was never a Shuttleworth collection pilot, which one could easily believe after reading her bio on her website.)

Economy with the truth is prevalent with most that is written about Tracey and her exploits....I could go on.

Oh, we recognise alright, the protagonist, as you put it, is one Tracy Curtis Taylor who has a strong commercial motive to spin a yarn to further her standing in the UK's upper class, and flog a video/movie to enhance her bank balance. Compare TCT's narrative with that of canopener, who is being economical with the truth? It's not canopener.

This is all incredibly sad. It is very uncomfortable to observe someone's vainglorious attempts to regain an award that was rightly rescinded. Please Tracey withdraw from this campaign. You will be doing something far better in withdrawing than continuing this bitter battle. You would also find that others would appreciate you and credit you for doing so. Is that not better than this ill advised crusade which is so devastating? This is an awful time for the LAA as a whole and the members do not deserve what is happening to their organisation. Please desist.

No, Mr Rutherford, we've not met. I've not met either of the two contenders in this spiral of doom. From those who HAVE met you and been on the end of your intense, angry, lobbying there comes a sense that what you relay in your last post just cannot be true, and a sense, an allegation if you will, that there is much, much more to this than meets the eye on your part. As for your rally - people talk in aviation and the rumour, or allegation, (this is a rumour board after all), is that the 'Africa Affair' comprised serious deficiencies and, it has been said to a colleague, I was told,: "it's matter of time before someone is killed on one of these jaunts".

Lind is right in on thing, this IS incredibly sad, and overly personal too. A person who has had their entire life dragged across social media will, I am sure, pursue this to their last day and, yes, the LAA can expect that to continue I would imagine - what has the individual concerned got left to lose? The award was 'rightly rescinded', you say? Surely then the committee that made it should have resigned en masse in the face of the proxy vote, comprised, it would appear, of quite some new members enrolled seemingly for just this purpose? Did the award state it was for solo flying? Does the LAA endorse its members navigating across international boundaries with a compass and a map? Surely then, the committee itself is answerable here too?

Boeing really don't care I suspect. Seen from their point of view, there is a need over the next twenty years for 600,000 new commercial pilots and not a clue where they will come from, especially in less developed parts of the world. As far as they are concerned, women need, MUST, be part of the answer to this fact that threatens their business. A picture of a woman in a plane, better yet a Boeing product, in the media in parts of the world where their advertising cannot reach due to the wide cultural gap now between the USA and many Muslim countries is all they wanted from sponsoring that trip, in the hope that if that picture were to spark a single woman to pursue aviation then that spark may light a small flame that may inspire others too.

There are more aspects to this than meets the eye, on your part too, Mr Rutherford. The LAA want it to end and have outlined two ways for that to happen. I think there are people who agree with the carefully reasoned motions and that it would be best to draw a line under this protracted affair by voting for one or the other. The award is now superseded anyway by the passage of time. Enough is enough.

I would have thought that the Bill Woodhams trophy awarded for "feats of navigation" would be just that. Stopwatches, chinagraph pencils and whizz wheels would be allowed too but multiple GPS systems and colour screens ? I do recall the good lady being quoted in numerous articles claiming that the aircraft was equipped with just basic instruments however photographs show that this is patently untrue. I also recall it being said by someone who was on the trip that she did none of the planning.

Then there's the episode where she busted restricted airspace, flew over the local bigwig's house and blamed it on the local controller. Who put that in the public domain ?

Going through the motions:
 

LAA AGM 2018 MOTION 1

The Annual General Meeting acknowledges that its resolution of October 2016 to rescind the award of the Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor was unjustified and inappropriate to the values of the Light Aircraft Association.

LAA AGM 2018 MOTION 2

That the Woodhams Trophy awarded to Tracey Curtis-Taylor in 2014 be reinstated.


Let's just remind everyone of the two motions on the table.

The membership is being asked to overturn the democratic vote, taken two years ago, to rescind an award, with that action being based on what was known then, compared to what was known when the Awards Committee decided to give her the award.

The membership is also, as a separate process, being asked to reinstate the award.

Up until this point, an outsider might think that the LAA had behaved well. Looking at the timeline..

Trip is aggressively advertised, world wide and clearly, as a solo venture.
Then it was flown with a Pilot in the other seat for most of it, but the LAA did not know that.
The award was considered and bestowed.

Then...

The initial reports of lies came to the surface.
The membership, having been made aware of the lies, decided to rescind the award.
More lies became common knowledge.

At this point it was obvious to everyone, that it was not TC-T who had brought the LAA into disrepute, but the awards committee, but they had done so in good faith, and without all of the facts. They had been deceived and when that deception was uncovered, the problem was fixed. Perhaps the senior management of the LAA could have taken a stronger position to defend the reputation of the association, that's subjective.

To an outside observer, it looked as if the LAA had righted a wrong by rescinding the Woodhams Trophy.

Now, the whole sorry mess has been stirred up again, and I don't think that T C-T is an important part of this phase. she has not raised a motion at the AGM, other people have.

This is now about the LAA standing up for what's right. Do the members really want to be part of an association which rewards a clearly fraudulent escapade? There are just too many "problems" with her story, for the whole "adventure" to be taken seriously and rewarded with accolade which suggests there is some merit in such a big jamboree pretending to be one pilot, alone against the elements.

So, a wrong was done, and has been righted. If the LAA can't put this behind them, then the association is in deep trouble. Leadership is required here, in the form of a strong message from the top, to nail their colours to the mast. In the event that this becomes a crisis of confidence in the leadership, then so be it.

The membership of the LAA must be allowed (whether or not they choose to do so...) to select leaders based on the way forward that the leadership candidates have stated as their chosen path. This is about more than TC-T, it is about finding out, and going along with, what the majority of members want. I am not aware of the LAA making members aware of the known facts of the case. That strikes me as an omission which would have been the result of some consideration.

My view is that it is unfortunate that time seems to be against the membership having a third motion, to propose that things are good as they are, regarding the 2016 vote to rescind, and that this should be an end to the matter.

Such a third motion might attract enough votes to establish a true sense of the feeling at a grassroots level. Maybe what's needed is compulsory voting.

Whatever happens, the LAA needs an end to this.

It didn't need to. It was a presumed given that it was a solo flight because of the massive media reporting, website statement from BiaB and personal commentary from the pilot in question that is was solo. There are plenty of social media comments from people who were shocked to finally find it wasn't a solo flight. There is too much evidence in the public domain now for this whole affair to be considered as anything other than a deceit. A deceit which supporters of T C-T never refer to or try to explain. Instead, they seek to blame the LAA and its members or make accusations against people who have simply asked the right questions.
Anyway, I am now off to follow in the footsteps of Bert Hinkler, the first person to fly solo to Australia. I will have a 'back-up team' (British Airway's) and will be 'reaching out' on various occasions during my flight - mainly for another glass of wine. By the time I get back, this saga will hopefully be over one way or the other. Courage! The truth will always out.

I sincerely hope you are right, clareprop, and LAA members will decisively reject Post-truth politics:

@Fred

I am happy to repeat that everything I wrote, and have written, is absolutely accurate. Feel free to go back to your sources, and then come back here. I have nothing to hide, no hidden agenda.

It really is, and always has been, about accepting awards gained falsely. Such as claiming to have climbed Everest solo, but then it being shown to not have been solo. Still an achievement, but not 'as sold'.

With regard to your accident analogy, I'd use the same Everest example. It is of course safer to stay at home.

People are free to decide whether it (anything) is worth the risk.

Finally, it is Tracey who started this, and only Tracey who can decide when it ends.

It will end at AGM i would hope one way or another!! I have just received my magazine and read the AGM sheet its very informative I have understood more about events but looks like there is a serious rift in the LAA management. I hope I am wrong.
John.

Confronted by "Alone in an open cockpit" and Solo, what would you assume?

Who could blame the LAA awards committee for believing she made the flight solo, a quick search of the BBC news site today shows an article headed “Female pilot to attempt solo flight from Britain to Australia” dated 2nd Oct 2015. There are a number of such articles still available on line- are we to believe that all of the media misunderstood or that somebody misled them. I have failed to find a single article or media correction other than when the matter blew up in 2016. Somebody was very happy for the solo myth to be perpetrated and even when busted by her aviation peers, tried to use the word “sole”, just in case you haven’t noticed Tracey, there is no such thing in normal aviation parlance as “sole pilot” and even if there was - it wouldn’t seem to apply if accompanied by the holder of a valid licence and rating on the subject aircraft. Quite aside from that, she appears to have told the BBC that she would only be using “basic flying instruments that were used 70 years ago”, this simply wasn’t true. (See my daughters comment re Equivocation earlier in this thread if you wish to quibble instruments vs nav kit)
I post this not to revisit the recurrent themes of this matter but to guide those undecided LAA members in carrying out their own due diligence in deciding how to deal with this matter- one thing is for sure though, I don’t think the LAA have done anything improper and as a member I find this whole palaver distasteful. One last note, re Sam R, I don’t know him and we have never met but I deal with aviation matters every day at work and have many years experience at reading statements from pilots, Sam has not changed tack or message since this matter first surfaced and answers questions promptly and in a manner that can be verified, I know who I trust.

Au contraire Mister Rutherford, it is you that has initiated and sustained this affair and you do protest too much, methinks - it can be alleged that you appear to have motives that transcend the 'search for truth' and that there is much more to this than meets the eye. It is alleged that you have, I am reliably informed, lobbied people with the most intense, ad hominem personal attacks if they do not accede to everything you want, and you have, it seems to me, sustained this thing far beyond what is reasonable, such that is has descended into a level of personal vilification that I am sure I am not alone in being uncomfortable with. You are not a disinterested, impartial observer in this affair, and there is something about your conduct that could be alleged to not ring true in all of this. I would add, anyone who has had the professional misfortune to have to listen to two ex-spouses disagree about absolutely anything will say that objectivity is the last thing you are going to get, from EITHER party. It's a new low that this forum has sunk to this kind of thing.

The LAA are offering a way to draw this to a close. People should take it. There is a valid counter argument that justice was not served at the original meeting in a variety of ways for the reasons set out in the current AGM paperwork. The awards committee, you and others are effectively saying, did not do their due diligence - they can't have done or the award should never, you say, have been made. They should all then, as a starter, have resigned the moment the vote was taken as it was. The senior management of the LAA should have resigned subsequently as well over such a badly handled process. There are statements in the paperwork that also make that clear, and indeed a poster above calls for this.

There is a further reform that needs to happen then: the LAA must be stripped of its role as a regulator of light aviation. People MUST belong to it if they operate at a certain level of aircraft ownership as the LAA has taken over from the CAA in that sector. This makes such an award have a significance it ought not to have when you are meant to be dealing with an impartial regulator. Either the LAA is a membership body that can make awards, counsel, advise and warn, or it is a regulator. It ought not to be both. It is standing into danger here. Arguably, the CAA as the Government appointed aviation regulatory body should be adequately resourced to review and license all aviation in the UK: an impartial body, open to advice and input from all - the LAA, the BGA, AOPA etc etc., but this is no longer the case. I for one do not want to belong to an organisation that perpetuates such a woeful saga, and yet I HAVE TO if I am to fly a certain category of aeroplane.A potential outcome from this endless process would be a demand that people not be shackled to a body that is both 'de jure' regulator and a selector of individuals for recognition, and that reform of the LAA itself is needed.

The LAA want this to stop. What might be called 'The Rutherford Route' is a near guarantee, it seems to me, that it wont. The LAA have offered a way to end this and people might like to consider taking it. Enough is enough.

Facts!
 

Hi Fred,

I will repeat that your assumptions/allegations about me are wrong - and suggest you actually go back to the sources telling you otherwise to check.

I don't understand the "two ex-spouses" line?

I also disagree about the lack of objectivity (from me, at least). I have been entire objective throughout. Still am.

What you are calling the Rutherford Route would be better named the Curtis-Taylor route. She is the one who has been demonstrably fabricating tales throughout, I have not. This whole thing was dead and gone until she decided to resurrect it - not I.

I'm intrigued by the level of animosity you seem to hold for me, given that we've never met and you yourself accept that your position is based on hunch/hearsay.

I would ask you again to do a little more research (start with the demonstrable items such as whether I was sacked, what the court case was about), and then perhaps form your opinion of me? That would seem to be the objective way forward?

Feel free to post any more questions here, I will, as always, answer them correctly, promptly and truthfully.