God, no. The situation isn't important enough to any of the LAA members (bar one) to cause that much additional work and disruption to the Association.

Take a vote, draw a line under the result - whatever it is - and move on.

As somebody has already pointed out, her target audience is the uninformed public, not us. Her peers will have their own informed view and she must now live with that.

Well Captain - what an interesting view. Paid up shareholder and not allowed to vote - falls foul of company law for the first objection. Secondly who are these carpet baggers and mischief makers? I was certainly one of the proxy votes against T-CT in 2016. I was appalled at the idea of the award having been given to someone for whom the truth is an inconvenience compared to making money.

But in my circle of people, no one is signing up to join the LAA to stop T-CT, indeed were it not for the fact I own a permit aircraft, I would be resigning my membership (only been in for 30 years), as a protest against the poor management from the committee. I think the technical work the association does is first class, the stuff the blazer brigade does is pretty poor, from the patron on downwards - any amount of due diligence (a legal requirement for directors) would have meant T-CT would never have been given the award. Since then the committee have twisted themselves in knots rather than simply face up to the lies and tell her where to go.

I think you need to review some of the horrible facts before lurching off in any particular direction.

I hope you'll forgive me if I write that you appear to have a limited understanding. The LAA are not perfect; as befits an organisation run by people and not robots. They are, on the whole, a rather competent and well organised administration that occasionally and rarely gets 'things' wrong. As for 'blazers,' that image disappeared a long time ago !

My opinion of the TC-T debacle is that the LAA were unduly influenced by what some saw as the prospect of some political correctness brownie points to be gained by promoting the 'achievements' of a well publicised aviatrix. They did not then enquire too closely. TC-T is undoubtedly the architect of her own misfortune. I think that her downfall is complete and it is difficult to see how she can recover but, time will tell.

I entirely fail to see what more can be gained by twisting the knife. Further sanction against TC-T is unkind and lacking in elementary generosity. On a technical note, the Articles of Association of a company tell you what it can or cannot do. Shareholders can hold either voting or non voting shares. Voting can be limited by time - it depends on what is in the A of A. or what is decided by the Directors

But who is "twisting the knife" though CK ?

It is she who keeps popping up on LAA HangarChat . She actually says nothing in any of her posts , other than her normal , standard sound bites . She hasn't answered any of the things that everyone wants to see answered . All she does is lob the odd molotov cocktail in to the arena to keep the flames burning , and then disappears again.

Twisting the knife is irony indeed ! Don't forget that 6 weeks ago , everything was all nice and peaceful , the other PPRuNe thread was locked down and she had done a talk at Sywell which at the time was quite well received .
No , I don't see what there is to be gained by twisting the knife either ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,But it's her that's twisting it !

CK, forgive the selective clipping of your post, it is not to take anything out of context but purely to highlight my point.
Which is...Yes, she has brought all of this on herself the good and the bad. There is no "downfall" only a pilot who has been rumbled by those who had sufficient knowledge to ask further questions and start uncovering the charade. She has lost credibility because it is just so hard to separate fact from fiction in whatever she says. She has lost respect for not accepting the root cause of all of this mess.

It is easy to see how she can recover. She can start by answering her critics with straight and honest replies. She can then start taking responsibility for what has happened and do her utmost it never occurs again. She says she is going to fly Cape to Alaska - well do it as advertised with no embellishment, no lies, no shady hiding away of the front seat passenger. Make it a team effort and gain respect again for being a team player. The moment ANY false article appears in the papers or on the news then she needs to be all over it like a rash to correct it. The moment anyone or any important body offers HER an award she simply declines it or says "this is a team effort".

The road to recovery is there for her. We "Vile internet trolls" are frustrated by her continued deception and that there are a close cadre of her followers who just refuse to see the problem so we become the problem. Yet it is the Vile Internet Trolls that have suggested the course she needs to take. Her friends stand by and steer her into self destruction.

Apparently we can wait for answers in her book when it is finished?

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and she's just gone and done it again.

T C-T is now answering the key questions by telling us she is only going to answer them in her book and anyway, they have no bearing on the LAA award.

C-T has threatened to take various people to (civil) court. So good luck with that approach. As an aside, one of the people concerned seems to run a successful expedition management business and it appears to me, is having his legal patience stretched to breaking point...

Secondly, unless they were living in a shell, the good members of the award committee for the LAA must have been as convinced as the rest of us and the general public that she had flown the expedition solo. The alternative is that they knowingly gave an award to C-T for sitting in the back cockpit of an aeroplane equipped with modern navigation equipment, supported by a management crew and a 20,000 hour instructor sitting in the front.

Jumping in. The awards committee have already publicly confirmed that they thought it was solo, and used the word 'deception' in the post about it.

And yes, patience wearing a little thin!

and jumping in too (a tandem jump)

There is a lot of fuss made about the "Vile Internet trolls" Sam Rutherford, Jay Sata and Satcoswhippingboy (thanks Terry H).

We all came to this particular party rather late in the discussion.
The initial Pprune references to her ladyship came in as far back as 18th March 2015 (09:53 to be exact) in a thread on here titled The Lady Who Flew Africa.- started by joy ride.
The first enquiry about her not being alone came on the 19th March 2015 (10:31) with a comment about there being a chase plane - by vctenderness
not long followed by confirmation by Tony Mabelis that it was a C208 Caravan with her.
First indication of questions about solo or not were raised 30 March 2015 by Proof Reader
It was a further 10 weeks before Sam joined in to clarify the point on 15th Jun 2015
There follows many many more posts on the subject. All factual, no trolling at all.
As far as I can see Jay came into much later when he opened the TCT main thread 14 April 2016
At some point there was a thread merge with his new thread and one other (not this Lady who Flew Africa one though) and things start to get a little confusing.
It seems The Lady who Flew Africa one closed 13th October 2016 (19:57) by Saab Dastard.
For what it is worth I made my first post on this subject 22nd July 2016

Since these start dates I see no evidence of Trolling, certainly nothing Vile. Factual posts that have touched a nerve.

so with that cleared up. Stay focused.
Questions about these flights began way before we joined in. Is TCT worthy of any awards? Is she a good role model? Is she good at avoiding the questions?

Oh BTW whilst on the topic of questions:
I have asked questions in open forum
I have asked questions to her friends to pass on to her
I have asked questions using the links on her website.

I know for a fact I am not alone in doing so.

Answers received to date = ZERO

I think anything written between now and Sunday will probably just be a rearrangement of things gone before.

TCT has proven that while she will, when pushed, respond she won't actually answer anything. Oh for a Dimbleby to nod and smile at her spin and say "That's all very well but what I asked you was.....". Sadly she will only do a '5 Live' where she can twist the facts, avoid the awkward requests for the truth and where there is nobody 'in the know' to contradict the nonsense.

Barring another amnesiac website designer with a eureka 'explanation' I think those on either side have made up their minds and will vote accordingly.

For anybody who isn't going in person, today's the last day to get your voting form to the LAA office in Turweston.

They will accept an emailed scanned form.

G

You sure about that.......??!!!!! Not sure I would put too much money on that !!! I really hope I am wrong.
The LAA needs to extricate itself from this morass and move back to helping men and women build
and operate aircraft for their pleasure, education and enjoyment.

Mike, I have faith in the membership of the LAA and their collective will and desire to put this to bed, whatever it takes.

Whether that end is achieved by the current Committee coming to their senses, or a new Committee having to be voted in, remains to be seen. I'm sure that most members don't much care for this mud slinging, and simply want the LAA to help them fly. With that in mind, a new Committee might be what it takes to get the Association to focus on the fundamentals, rather than the raving type.

Let's keep the discussion to information directly relevant to the AGM vote, and not speculation about peripheral factors....

I don't see that the Committee (the Board), as a group, have done anything wrong here.

In fact, I don't see that any individual members of the Board or Committee have either. Some may have a different opinion to me, but that's fine - different opinions are surely acceptable?

As someone wishing the best for the LAA, I'd hate to think we are sending abuse in the direction of the volunteers who do so much for us, simply because we might disagree on one subject with a few of them.

(Bear in mind, not all of them - I don't think even a majority of them - have expressed a public opinion. As a Board, they have publicly followed their process, just as we should want them to do - there isn't anything to say to them as a group fr that other than "Thanks".)

The only winners will be lawyers, and the losers will be LAA members like me.
 

As has been stated above, it seems a safe guess that most voters have by now made up their minds, and those of a wavering disposition, expecting to make a decision based on her performance on the day, will probably see through what are considered by many, to be lies and embarrassing truths, on the day.

In terms of relevance to the general membership, we now have the LAA (by paying rent?) making plans to use a larger venue for the AGM and using, to my limited knowledge unprecedented, measures to verify the votes.

All of this is costing money, which either might not have been raised from people compelled to use the LAA to allow the flight of Permit aircraft, or better still, be put to a better use, such as supporting home builders and educating the next generation of enthusiastic Pilots & Engineers.

There is a real difficulty in supporting the notion that one group in this "debate" is wrong, but clearly, the membership need to speak up, and tell the people steering the LAA, what they want. On a personal note, I am sad that the people concerned don't seem to have their moral compass sufficiently aligned, with the truth and embarrassment, to make their own decisions in this matter.

In very simplistic terms, I think that what the common voter will want their subs spent on, will be more expenses covered for the many examiners, and fewer dinners with prizes for the connected few.

However, I might be wrong. I've been wrong before. I recall the day well, it was a Thursday afternoon, in the summer of 1977, under the ground in Northumberland, and I caused two Lightnings to intercept an airliner.

looking in from the side shall we say... this "crap" is not unusual for a flying club. Its happened so many times before and usually ends up nobody wins and the club ends up failing even if it does the right thing from a moral POV

They need to spin off the aircraft certification side of things as a side entity and leave the mess behind.

but will TCT? or will that be protested at the AGM. Got to be a good chance of a challenge to all emailed forms and yet more excuses for a Judicial Review. Not that I think she would really do that.

A Judicial Review? No chance, according to someone in the legal profession somewhere else - probably the long thread on here.

This is a quote from the Courts & Tribunal Judiciary website:

The bold is mine.

The LAA is not a Public Body, it is a private Association.

Her threat therefore surely is an empty one. She either knows that, and doesn't care so long as it has an effect, or she is ignorant. Neither are things to be proud of.

I find her stance boorish and more than arrogant. She was caught out repeatedly yet likes to twist her past inexactitudes. She was on our ITV Calendar (Local news, Lincs) tonight bleating about how badly she had been treated by the LAA.
I am sick of her and how she is trying to bring a reputable organisation, the LAA into disrepute.

Well I for one will doff my cap to her in admiration and wish her well. Because anyone who can publicly bull**** that much for that long, and in spite of incontrovertible evidence of the truth being established still fights her corner and prevails, is a winner in this world. Yes a narcissistic sociopathic winner, but a winner none the less.

Oldpilot55 wrote: ITV Calendar News? Presumably the same organisation which made this report 3 years ago: Adventurer begins 13,000-mile solo bi-plane flight from Britain to Australia in footsteps of Amy Johnson - ITV News

:hmm:

Interesting video clip. I note she informs us that 'there is no AvGas in Africa', which will come as a great shock to several of my friends who must wonder what they have been filling their C172 and C182 tanks with all these years. Maybe that was just another 'slip of the tongue'...

Also: "The An-2 is the biggest single-engine biplane ever built." I guess the "Real Economy" in the "Report" could well be construed as again applying pretty generally to the facts.

Chaps, I think some are missing the wood because of the trees. They way I see things tomorrow's discussion isn't about solo/sole etc, it is about process and whether the 2016 motion and associated vote was valid. It wouldn't wholly surprise me if, in the cold light of day, the LAA finds that it didn't follow an appropriate course of action.

So, assuming that is the case and therefore the award is reinstated, where does that leave everyone? Firstly, I suspect a few honourable people may feel that they will have to fall on their swords, some of the less honourable should do the same but probably will not. I think the LAA will also wise-up and decide it wants to avoid any similar confrontation in the future. Finally, and I truly believe this, I hope that the LAA will identify an individual or two and politely rescind their membership of the Association in accordance with para 9a of the Association's Rules:

CGB, depending on the results tomorrow in your view would that also include TCT falling on her sword or having her membership rescinded ?

Above The Clouds, I actually think many elements of the above are completely independent upon the outcome of the vote. The noise created by this issue far outweighs the relative (in)significance of the award. "Conduct prejudicial" is what springs to mind. Do people really need to make extremely public statements regarding the alleged bias of their members' association?

I think my point is that we need to be careful in allowing personalities and possible grievances to influence procedure. If the procedure wasn't followed then that needs to be addressed and put right. In the same breath, if members have not behaved in the spirit of the organisation (in this case the Association Rules), then they must be held to account for their actions. The LAA, by reopening the issue and going back to a vote, is playing fair so why the need to go public (BBC radio etc)? On the other hand, do we really need to regurgitate, at any opportunity, every single suggestion of inappropriate use of the word 'solo' and the apparent deceit?

Dave Mole's motion makes better reading than Stewart Jackson's. However, in hindsight, perhaps Mole's motion should have been to refer the award back to the Awards Committee for reconsideration in light of the original nomination and subsequent factual information? Of course, once the award element is resolved, if the Board decides to engage with the less honourable member(s) regarding Rule 9a it is highly likely that Stewart Jackson, as Vice-President, will have to recuse himself from any potential appeal.

It's a mess, all of it. For that there are one or two who should be ashamed.

It's history now, but referring such a contentious issue back to a volunteer Awards Committee would hardly have been fair on them, and they might reasonably have refused. It would have put them in an impossible position, and (hindsight again) probably damaged the LAA then as much as this reincarnation has done now. Anyway, it would not have addressed the high feelings amongst a significant proportion of the membership.

Forget the minutiae of process and procedure. The LAA Board did absolutely the correct thing in 2016 and referred the issue back to the members. Since it was the members who voted on the issue then, it can only be the members who vote on essentially the same thing this time.

I certainly agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph CGB and especially your last sentence. I'd add "on both sides". If only the case had been made by addressing the specifics of the complaints in a reasoned and sensible manner, rather than via lawyers, forums and the media.

Whatever happens tomorrow, let that be an end to it for the LAA.

Just for the benefit of anyone else who wants some clarity, are you suggesting that this award to TC-T, and the disquiet felt by some members, should never have been mentioned?

At the moment I'm having problems logging onto the LAA forum, but a chat with a lawyer (I have some dodgy friends) brought up the Misrepresentation Act of 1967. In gaining the Bill Woodham Trophy and the HCAP award, and the honorary doctorate and the honorary commission in the RN, getting all the sponsorship cash to go off on her jollies she has claimed they were to be "solo" Everything was going towards her reality TV career and her book and the earnings she would have from them. My legal friend thinks that a criminal prosecution for misrepresentation would be reasonable if there was a complainant. Before the trips she claimed "solo". Artemis, Boeing et al stumped up the cash, after the trips she still claimed "solo" and garnered a stack of honours and awards. All of which increased her marketability, and therefore upped her potential earnings on the speaking/motivation reality T.V. circuit

Her claims that everyone else got it wrong are setting a defence of innocent misrepresentation, but actually that defence falls down for her claims after after 2016. Someone on one of these threads recently asked "what crime has been committed?" well possibly a large sized fraud. And if that isn't bringing the LAA into disrepute I struggle to see what else is.

On her recent radio interview she claimed a "30 year career in aviation." How did she achieve that on a PPL? I've been flying for a living for 30 years, privately for 8 before that, I've had to hold 2 ATPL's for my career as you can't earn as a PPL, but then Tracy and reality are poles apart. Your 30 year career in self-promotion and reality TV you mean?

With her vile, boorish attitude to GA, the LAA and the LAA membership T C-T has alienated a lot of people, a couple of whom (I'm not one) are prepared to pursue a private prosecution for misrepresentation if their approach to the police for criminal action is not successful.

SND

The Misrepresentation Act 1967 relates to misrepresentation that could give rise to civil not criminal proceedings. The criminal law would involve s2 of the Fraud Act 2006. In order to found criminal liability the following matters would have to be satisfied:

• A representation must be made
• The representation must be known to be false
• The representation must be dishonestly made
• The person making the representation must intend to gain something, or intend that the person receiving it loses something

What surprises me is that Ms Curtis-Taylor is so keen to get the award re-instated. If I was in her position (and I'm not although I did once fly a Pitts S-1 solo from UK to Italy and back ( would have been a bit of a job to do other than solo) armed only with a map and a compass (pre-GPS days)) I would have been inclined to say "If that's your attitude you can stuff your award" and walk away - to paraphrase Groucho Marks "I wouldn't want to have an award from an organisation that would be prepared to give me one"