Tracey's entire life has not been dragged across social media!!:ugh: Tracey has vigorously pushed it forward in front of herself at every possible opportunity, and apparently horribly inaccurately at that! Indeed, this very website closed the previous thread discussing her life, and Tracey's recent actions in again seeking publicity have reopened the discussion of her transgressions. The previous thread (now closed) really was discussion for the sake of discussion, THIS thread is more important, as it seems that Tracey's actions in attempting to draw attention to herself could actually do harm to the LAA membership!

If Tracey would like to thought of as a victim in this whole sorry saga, she should honour up, truthfully answer the questions asked of her, apologize for her shameless self promotion, and take a few steps back. Then, I'm certain, her life would be very much less "across social media".

In light of the passionate attention this has drawn, and the implications upon the LAA membership, I hope that word of Tracey's deceptions is spread as far and wide across social media, as she has enabled! That way, members will have a fair opportunity to consider the relevant information before they vote!

Though Sam Rutherford's information is very enlightening, I find Steve Tayor's information to be most useful in confirming my belief's of Tracey's prevarication. Not only because Steve has provided the information, but because it is not the first time this background information has been presented. These historic details fill in blanks very well, and confirm an overall trend of lies pushed out into the social media by Tracey!

@Nick

This is something we agree on, Tracey has duped an awful lot of people. Bit tough calling them 'sacrificial sheep', but if that's how you want to describe them then that's your right.

For facts, do please remember that I have been involved since 2011, and was on the Africa trip - I have something of an insight to how it 'went down'.

If you care to actually read the other thread you will find that it isn't Sam who initiated and sustained anything.
Read it, the whole thing was closed until TCT reopened it by bullying the LAA

My God, the lunatics really are running the asylum...

If there's one thing the LAA need to do it's stick to engineering and promotion and forget trophy awarding...

Oh, and Fred? (Fred who? At least we know who Sam is...) - Are you one of Tracy's foot soldiers.

Mister Rutherford. To paraphrase a witness at a well known trial, "You would say that, wouldn't you". I hold no agenda except that I've become very uncomfortable with the level of personal abuse that this affair has generated online, and have met people who are stunned at your lobbying tactics. The vehemence of these, and the attacks on personal integrity they allege were made by you, is at odds with the persona you present here. There is a valid counter argument to be made here in relation to the LAA and it has received almost no airing, not entirely unsurprising when the internet forum arena nearly always descends into a negative spiral of accusation within moments of a topic appearing

Ex-spouses: Courts up and down the country are full of ex-spouses, slogging it out. An objective opinion from either is very rarely heard. It seems a sad day that this forum has now descended into one where this kind of thing is used to justify one side or another.

Hi Fred,

Can I suggest that your continued posting here is similar to my postings/lobbying earlier? It's something you feel is not correct, and shouldn't go unchallenged? Sure it's easy to abandon, but sometimes it's a case of trying to right a wrong - and needs/has no greater/deeper aim.

Then, please, you have heard some demonstrably false things about me - this must at a minimum bring some level of uncertainty to the sources of your information?

Ask them again if I was sacked and left the expedition early? Simple question, simple answer (only the truth is at odds with what Tracey has been telling people).

I have been an LAA/PFA member for 40 plus years. I do not have a license, nor am I building an aircraft. I can however see no merit in handing over regulation of Permit aircraft to the CAA. I am certain owners of permit aircraft would be paying vastly higher fees to the CAA than they do to the LAA. Paying NO fees will NEVER be an option. The LAA is a member run organization where costs are scrutinized by the members. The CAA has no such scrutiny and requires everything "gold plated" with the attendant cost. Leave the LAA to get on with its job which by and large it does pretty well. Are you suggesting the work the BGA and the BMAA should also pass to the CAA?. I don't think you will get many takers.....

What is wrong with the LAA handing out awards? Many people have been so honoured by the PFA/LAA over the years and have taken pride in receiving those awards.

The problem is T C-T ....... Not the LAA.

PS Seems you are free to choose the expensive CAA route if you so wish. I did not realize that option was available. (see msg # 207 below)

Fred, at a risk of going off topic a bit;
As I understand it you are quite at liberty to operate a Permit to Fly aircraft outside the auspices of the LAA.
The CAA can administer a PtF aircraft if you so desire, you have just got to accept their costs and procedures . See CAP733

Dear 'shortfinalFred'

I have followed this thread and the previous one with a degree of amusement and bemusement.

What I do know is that everything Sam Rutherford has posted on this matter here can be verified by independent sources. I have never seen anything from him that could be construed as mud-slinging.

I also have observed a real degree of personal attacks on Sam, who uses his real name' by anonymous individuals, attacks that can be demonstrated to contain false information, and also a refusal to answer simple questions about Ms Curtis-Taylor's activities addressed to her and her supporters, which if satisfactorily answered with independently verifiable evidence would have closed the matter long ago. Instead, there appears to have been a campaign of deliberate confusion and I believe anyone following what is independently verifiable would know whose views hold water.

The management of the LAA appear to have behaved impeccably within the constitution, and continue to support genuine aviators.

I am not a member of the LAA, but know where my vote would be placed if I were.

F2

Personal view.

90%+ of TCT's adventures should be embraced as a positive for GA. Regardless of the amount of support and/or seats occupied, it must be recognised that dragging a Stearman so far was a notable endeavour. Unfortunately, there is a bitter pill here. For whatever reason, TCT (I'll be benevolent, it could be her media support team) did not resist the various poorly informed assertions that it was a solo flight. Indeed, there is enough factual evidence to support accusations that TCT intentionally fuelled such assertions; there was absolutely no need.

So, after the event(s)we have a set of flights and a few queries about how the solo element had been assumed/peddled. Once highlighted, an honourable individual may well have stuck their hand up and acknowledged that the spin machine had spun a bit too much; very easy to do. Instead, and for whatever reason, this was not done and escalated into a members' club trophy issue that really isn't worthy of argument outside of the club. To be revisited after 2+ years is just complete nonsense and , for that, I believe TCT is being somewhat mischievious.

Turning to misogyny etc. Well, forgive me but anyone who uses a sales pitch of "Bird in a Biplane" immediately puts them selves on dodgy ground if they subsequently look to play a sexism card. You simply cannot cherry-pick the times where you want to use gender to an advantage and then turn around and accuse others of using gender as a means of belittling.

A final thought. I sort of agree with SFF's view on the role of the LAA. Their prime business must be overseeing regulation of permit aircraft for the CAA. To become embroiled in this nonsense is worrisome. The vultures should stop circling, TCT should just fess-up and the LAA should manage such issues at an appropriate level. Meanwhile, I can't help but wonder what Bill Woodhams would have thought about all this noise? We're losing our way here people.

To be fair, it seems unlikely that the LAA people embroiled in this, are the same LAA people who administer permit aeroplane building and permit revalidations.

G

Just a point that may have been lost in the dust.
The LAA voting form has binary responses to eight resolutions/motions. If a member is not attending the meeting then they simply tick the box for either FOR or AGAINST.
If a member cannot attend and is unsure of how to vote, (perhaps insufficient information or knowledge) then they can elect a PROXY to vote on their behalf. Normally that PROXY is the Chairman but it does not have to be. You are allowed to name another PROXY on the returned voting form who can cast a vote on the day on behalf of the member.

My advice if you remain undecided and are using the PROXY option, is to nominate a named colleague to vote on your behalf. This removes any burden on the Chairman; both at the meeting and at any future re-hashings.

In 2016, the Chairman elected to appoint the PROXY votes in favour of rescinding the award. He could equally have allocated them to the against vote; the outcome would have been the same with a majority vote to rescind the award.
HTH
SWB

Please avoid speculation on the identity of posters. Posters are entitled to anonymity if that is their choice.

No. They/we are not, it is clear that they were misled just like the rest of us. The awards committee have no apology to make.

Apologies DAR, you are of course correct - I was out of order. SATCO, I took your advice re previous posts and am minded to agree with you. I guess with all the speculation, confusion, 'alternative facts' half-truths and downright lies I got a bit hornswoggled!

We are all getting hornswoggled :-) (another great word which is wholly appropriate)

I have edited my post to stay on the right side of Pilot DAR ;-)

Hey, LAA members,

Someone's trying to distract again...

What's the LAA award for? "navigation..."? "Solo" is not a factor in this award, don't be distracted!

On the face of it, would the LAA members like to feel that their organization has made an award for "navigation", when the flight awarded was flown with multiple advanced navigation aids, second pilot assistance, ground planning assistance, and a chase plane? If those factors in a flight still allow that flight to be awarded a navigation award, I think the LAA should print up a lot of those awards, as there will be many deserving pilots who have accomplished long flights with less assistance, who should be similarly awarded!

I think you have it 'tail about prop'. There is absolutely no chance that the CAA would welcome LAA PtF aircraft back under their regulatory wing, and I know for a fact that they would be only too pleased to see those Permit aircraft remaining on their books handed over to the LAA, or some other Competent Authority. Whether the LAA, as a Competent Authority, should be giving out awards is a interesting question, however, and perhaps could be debated in future, as one thing that is certain is that no one will benefit from this current debacle, no matter what the end result is. The best that can be hoped for is damage limitation.

FYI Fred,Ex-spouses we may be but this is not some matrimonial slogging match.The only reason I've taken to posting on this forum is to clear the fog that has engulfed Tracey's recollection of the past.Every thing I have stated is 100% factual,no embellishment,no exaggeration,no stretching of the truth....all of her employment in NZ can be confirmed,the name of the supermarket where she stacked shelves,the restaurant where she waited tables,the flying school she was fired from,the aerial mapping and photography company she sales rep'd for.
One of my early posts on the other thread exposed the gross exaggeration on her website bio,you see Fred I was there for a lot of the content of that early bio stuff and most of it is shear fabrication.There is no animosity,no bitterness,no acrimony,no resentment on my part.....I just don't like BS'ing bullies.
Over and out......for now.Steve Taylor NZ.

Oh dear! What a mess! I am a retired aviator and no longer a member of the LAA for which I still retain a strong sense of loyalty and gratitude for many years of fun flying. I also enjoyed Tracey Curtis Taylor’s original film on TV and my only reaction was envy at her opportunity to fly such a wonderful machine across Africa. I say this because I have no dog in this fight but I can’t see how this saga is going to end well for anyone. What is due to happen at the AGM on October 21 is, in effect, an appeal against previous process. Who said what to whom and where is not the issue. The question to be decided is about the original decision to award the Bill Woodhams trophy in 2014. If the trophy was awarded properly by the Awards Committee in the light of all known facts, then no matter what others think about it, the resolution to rescind it was wrong and it should be reinstated with an apology. If it was awarded improperly on the basis of wrong information which, if corrected, would have altered the outcome, then the resolution of October 2016 should stand. Logically, only one of those outcomes is possible. These are the matters of fact that should be addressed at the AGM. Factual arguments for and against the motions on this basis should have been invited and presented to the membership in writing in advance, so that members who take an interest but cannot attend in person can consider them and register their vote. On such an important issue, taking verbal and emotional arguments at a meeting and relying on a show of hands based on who can attend is not going to satisfy anyone.

Two interesting points on the LAA Forum: a change of title for the thread, now the third iteration "ALL MEMBERS! Please fill out those proxy forms..!!" which would have been done by a moderator of that forum.

And the latest contribution from Miss Curtis-Taylor:

Hmmm, being called "unreliable" by a person demonstrated to be repeatedly dishonest, doesn't sound all that bad! I'm certain that Tracey has a motivation exaggerate, I don't see Sam being similarly motivated. Sam just seems to want to set the record straight.

'Seems to erode the notion of a "navigation feat" for Tracey in my mind...

Clear to Tracey from the beginning? It seems that she was the person referring to the flights being solo in a predominate way.

Hmmm again; for fights I have flown where "safety was a very big concern", I flew with the fewest people aboard, preferably solo, so as not to expose other people to a less safe flight - particularly not carrying non pilots/crew members with a role! If Tracey was concerned about the safety of the flight, I can't see how carrying a passenger would make the flight safer! Perhaps another more experienced pilot should have flown the flight instead - oh, wait....

Despite Tracey's repeated reference to outreach in encouraging women into aviation, that does not seem to have been included in the most recent passage. "Film" gets mentioned a lot though!

I do hope that LAA members familiarize themselves well with these details prior to deciding on how to vote at the upcoming AGM! Perhaps Tracey could directly answer the three questions asked by interested members earlier, that might help put some minds to ease for voting!

Ms Curtis-Taylor keeps using the word 'libelous' when describing Sam Rutherford's recollections yet does nothing about it except make threats. Given the evidence already seen, I would suggest she is herself starting to libel people.

I now see in her statement that 'parts of the flight would be solo, others not'. I seem to recall a number of 'personal statements' from Ms Curtis-Taylor on her website outraged that anyone would think the flights would have any element of solo flying at all in them.

Curiouser and curiouser

@Fred

Tracey has answered one of your points herself. What was 'sacked and left early' has become 'left on bad terms'.

Can I suggest that time will similarly reveal the (in)accuracy of other things you may have heard?

I feel TCT using the LAA Members AGM forum for her own slanging match by her continuing personal feud with another LAA member (the ex contractor on her SA Trip) and knocks the LAA Board surely is an abuse of such a platform, clearly upsets the other Members, and again sees the LAA being brought into an unwanted spotlight, and perhaps into disrepute.

I have never seen such a show - It's awful.
Why does the LAA board not haul her in for a formal warning, and advise her to desist her behaviour - Failure to do so should perhaps include expulsion from the Society.

Completely agree with rog747 in post #225. Tracey is doing the LAA a disservice but most of all she is doing herself a disservice. I was hoping she might see sense but there seems to be no chance of that. Shame.

TCT's post above is interesting - as basically she admits that she paid somebody else to do most of the legwork of the "remarkable feat of navigation" for which she was originally given the award.

G

As more information is surfacing which is not directly appropriate for this thread I ask that the other one is reopened so this one can remain focused on the LAA side of the saga.

On that note, having read TCT's latest we have yet another version of events. It is clear to me that NOTHING which comes from BiaB can be trusted. Again no questions have been answered just more avoidance. What I find totally bizarre is this statement

"The overriding consideration in all of this was safety. I took people with me not just to share the fantastic experience but because it was safer. "
How can taking Anette Porter or Caroline O'Donnell along in the front seat make it safer? Unless of course you had doubts about the safety of them flying in the chase plane (tongue firmly in cheek here).

We know that local sorties were flown that were not part of the overall A to Z routing, why did you choose these passengers and not a local female student who you wanted to encourage into aviation?

Rutherford implies that I was always flying with Ewald Gritsch which is also not true. In the formation flight through the Rift Valley and over the flamingos which featured in The Aviatrix documentary, I had Caroline O'Donnell from Artemis Investments as my passenger. Annette Porter flew several legs over 1200 miles with me; I also flew with other people for the purpose of the film story.
Not true at all. Sam has always said that Ewald was with you for 40 of the 44 legs. So that leaves 4 legs where he was not plus the odd local jaunt betwix.

To para-phrase this from TCT "I sincerely hope that decency and a sense of justice prevails among the wider membership beyond what is conveyed by a handful of misguided people on this forum."
Agreed: I count amongst the misguided those who have been sent across to argue on her behalf.

Simple solution: Answer the questions, show the proof.

Exactly, I've been on a handful of solo long x country flights of a few thousand kilometers, multi day journeys as a private pilot in a slow single.The hardest part is sitting in the hotel in the morning agonising over those route & weather go or no-go decisions. You stress the hell out of yourself second guessing your choices and understanding of weather and route info available. It's you and you alone that are making those calls. Getting hand fed how, where and when to do the flight leaves only adherence to the plan which in TCT's case the chase plane can provide guidance and supervision on. Auctually flying the aircraft is a simple case of following your PPL training for a SEP day vfr flight. Nothing remarkable and certainly no great feat. Now buggering about in a drafty hangar on cold wintery nights for several years riveting and screwing together a pile of metal then actually having the bottle to go airborne with it, as many LAA members do, that to me is a remarkable feat worthy of recognition (or possibly commitment for phsyciatric evalation)

I have reopened the original Tracey Curtis-Taylor thread as requested, to provide a place for discussion of Ms. Curtis-Taylor's publicly promoted flying adventures. Please make the best use of each thread, in assuring that the post you wish to make is placed most appropriately in one or the other thread. Please avoid repeating information as much as possible.

A point that has seemingly been overlooked by the LAA board.

It is all very lopsided. Three supporting motions that would reinstate the award have been sent to the membership. NONE have been sent explaining the background and why those who do use forums and other media believe they know the truth of the matter.

I wonder if, should the motions succeed, this will subsequently be called into question?

Since it is readily available online, and might be helpful, there would appear to be no bar to repeating exactly what was minuted in respect of Item 6 at the LAA AGM on 22 Oct 16, together with some highlighting in red, together with my personal observations in bold red, namely:

MINUTES OF 2016 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
OF THE LIGHT AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION LIMITED
Sywell Aerodrome. Sunday 22nd October 2016.

"6. Motion for rescinding of the award of the Bill Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor.Proposed by Barry Tempest (member no 017423), seconded by Chris Martyr (member no. 022516).

The Chair allocated Barry two minutes to present his full motion and any other comments.

The Chair then invited Harry Hopkins in his role as Chairman of the Awards Committee, to respond.

Tracey Curtis-Taylor read a prepared statement, also available in written form, and pointed out that two other written submissions were available from Ewald Gritsch and from Barry Latter from the Museum of Flight in Seattle. Can anyone elaborate on what they contained?

TC-T submitted that she had not claimed to make a solo flight, and that any such claims came from members of her team and not approved by her. She's certainly been given every opportunity to refute these third party "claims" She also stated that the Motion had only been raised 18 months after the award had been made, following an orchestrated series of personal attacks that had threatened her reputation. Interesting - Character is what you are, whilst reputation is what you get. In her opinion the LAA was merely being used as a vehicle for these attacks.

There was then a period allocated to discussion from the floor. Manuel Queroz stated that the achievement, whether solo or not, marked an ‘unbelievable journey’. He certainly got that right!

Tim Allibone, a newly joined member, and Phillip Lowry, suggested that the proxy votes be excluded as those making their vote in that manner had not been able to hear both sides of the argument. Demonstrating a curiously naive understanding of the meaning of a proxy vote, a system used perfectly routinely and properly by companies and organisations many thousands of times a year, by definition without the voter being able to hear what is said at an AGM. The Chair responded that as Proxy Voting is included in the Articles of the Association, it should be allowed. A further query on the eligibility of proxy votes by Peter Andrews was similarly answered.

At this point the Motion was voted upon.

Votes From Floor Proxy Votes TOTAL

In favour of motion 17 106 123

Votes against 57 8 65

In addition the Chair had 36 proxy votes available to be allocated at his discretion. He elected that these be allocated to the majority. Which, as has already been said, made no difference to the outcome The total in favour of the motion was therefore 159 votes and the motion was therefore carried. The matter is now closed." If only..... Now why does Brexit come to mind?

Recalling that this all started with some difference in opinion between events in England and France perhaps, as an Honorary RNR Lieutenant Commander, the significance of the date of 21 October should not be lost on Tracey - could it be her Trafalgar?

I should also apologise if I have not been clever enough to get the columns for the voting figures correctly lined up in the submitted version.

Jack

One of the gripes often expressed on PPRuNe is that the Press often lift discussion topics from these sites for more widespread publication and dissemination.
Coincidentally, one of the gripes now being expressed on the LAA site vis-a-vis this current matter, is that their general membership are only exposed to their own magazine's perforce extremely limited coverage and are therefore largely uninformed regarding the wider perspective and its implications.
The ground seems now to be well laid to provide a golden opportunity for an opportunistic scribe to produce an ongoing vibrant popular press exposé , which doubtless would in some form or other find itself communicated to those rank and file LAA members who continue to remain largely in the dark regarding the current shenanigans.
These good people might then be encouraged,even if they do not access the on-line sites, to vote according to their consciences on this divisive matter now confronting their organisation.

This whole business is a horrible mess. The inability of the LAA committee to display any backbone and so yielding to TC-Ts threats demonstrates the typical behaviour of the blazer brigade. Turn up for a free meal or to hob nob with the 'great and the good' but when asked to defend their actions they run away and then set their stooges up to try and manipulate LAA processes to make it all go away.

The big problem is that given all of this discussion and publicity, even if they get their way and it is re-awarded - their actions or perhaps inaction to act in the best interest of the association rather than avoid any personal responsibility will result in damage to the LAA. When faced with a fraudster the defence is the truth. Ignorant bullies will always threaten legal action, the chances of it actually happening is near zero - lies hate a little light.

I personally hate the politics which have distracted the LAA (nee PFA) since the coup against Underhill, but it has continued as people in these committees seem much more interested in fancy dinners than homebuilt aircraft. The technical side works and benefits large numbers of people - the rest? A vote of no confidence against the current committee seems like a very good way of sorting them out. Perhaps firstly Stewart Jackson. The bigger question is how to actually get a motion for the AGM accepted TCT seems to be suitably connected - what about the rest of us?

If I were at the LAA in a position of leadership or authority I would produce copies of any letters received which threaten legal action. I am surprised that a) this has not happened, and b) why no member has asked to see it (them).

If a direct threat letter exists then show us this sword of Damocles that is hanging over the LAA, what it says and what it demands. If no such legal threat has been made, then say so.

SWB The question has been asked on the LAA site we are awaiting an answer... I suspect we might not be indulged!!

There is a staggering posting on the LAA - David Mole's motion is because he thinks that is what she wants!!!!
Well who would have guessed! Quite why the legal advisor would recommend this to the membership remains cloaked. The seconder of the Stewart Jackson, works for Boeing. TCT's major sponsor was - yep Boeing.

So is this what the LAA committee are running scared of? How about a little honesty?

The above post is a staggering misrepresentation of what David Mole said. Read his post carefully and the reason for the motion he put forward becomes crystal clear.

The important point here is whether or not the "legal threats" were directed to the board of the LAA or the LAA in general?

Where only the board are cited, then it is a matter for them; but if the association is in the firing line, then I would suggest that all "shareholders" in the LAA are entitled, and indeed compelled by law, to be made aware of the specifics.

I foresee this dragging on for another year, and some member raising a motion, ten months from now, to suggest that the LAA distance the membership and association, from TC-T, Prince Michael of Kent and anyone on the board or committee within the LAA who still supports her case. I say this on the basis of the obvious deceit, dishonest statements and thoroughly objectionable behaviour involved. I speak not of what she has been alleged by others to have done, but the actions claimed in statements that she has made in public.

Do the general membership feel comfortable having as their Patron, a man who so obviously approves of what TC-T has done?

I am sure that a suitable untainted figure, if a Patron is in fact desired by the membership, could be found. I freely admit that I remain somewhat in the dark regarding the benefits & role of a Patron, in current times.

Taking a cue from TC-T and wanting to dispel the notion of the LAA being old men in blazers, perhaps we should ask Simon Cowell to take on the roll, as he is clearly a modern man with much public influence, and certainly has a lot more money than Prince Michael of Kent. There is also the benefit that he would appear likely to be immune to the rather dubious "charms" of TC-T.