Female pilot accident rates

[NoPoliticsHere]

I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
are ladies in the cockpit. Maybe this is not the case, and I'm sure
the more PC gents here will be quick to jump on me for even suggesting
it, but during the past, I have noticed more than a few female names
mentioned in news reports about aircraft crashes (with them being one
of the pilots, or the only pilot). Just how many female professional
pilots are there? Aren't they involved in a disproportionately large
number of accidents? Drawing from memory, here are a few:

The accident yesterday that killed 10 with the NASCAR racing team
had a pilot named Liz (haven't met too many guys named Liz).
(Probably pilot error--reasonable guess--because the plane slammed
into Bull Mt. in foggy conditions.)

The commuter crash last week (Indiana?) had a pilot named Kim.

The commuter crash last year (plan overloaded) in Charlotte had
a female captain.

ValuJet crash in Everglades (in '96 I think) had a female captain.
(of course, this one could have gone down regardless of pilot skill,
but airliners *have* landed while blazing with flames (Ex: Air Canada
in Cincinatti I think).

The 1991 Colorado Springs 737 crash had a female in the cockpit.

A small cargo plane that landed here in town on a freeway (not on the
median, but ONTO rush hour traffic, making a firball out of a van,
killing the driver--female pilot survived) a few years ago had a lone
female pilot.

A fatal crash involving a Navy fighter (probably F-14) off a
carrier some time back had a female pilot (just how many female
F-14 pilots are there?)

See what I mean?

-----------

[Brian Colwell]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
om...
>I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
> are ladies in the cockpit. Maybe this is not the case, and I'm sure
> the more PC gents here will be quick to jump on me for even suggesting
> it, but during the past, I have noticed more than a few female names
> mentioned in news reports about aircraft crashes (with them being one
> of the pilots, or the only pilot). Just how many female professional
> pilots are there? Aren't they involved in a disproportionately large
> number of accidents? Drawing from memory, here are a few:
>
> The accident yesterday that killed 10 with the NASCAR racing team
> had a pilot named Liz (haven't met too many guys named Liz).
> (Probably pilot error--reasonable guess--because the plane slammed
> into Bull Mt. in foggy conditions.)
>
> The commuter crash last week (Indiana?) had a pilot named Kim.
>
> The commuter crash last year (plan overloaded) in Charlotte had
> a female captain.
>
> ValuJet crash in Everglades (in '96 I think) had a female captain.
> (of course, this one could have gone down regardless of pilot skill,
> but airliners *have* landed while blazing with flames (Ex: Air Canada
> in Cincinatti I think).
>
> The 1991 Colorado Springs 737 crash had a female in the cockpit.
>
> A small cargo plane that landed here in town on a freeway (not on the
> median, but ONTO rush hour traffic, making a firball out of a van,
> killing the driver--female pilot survived) a few years ago had a lone
> female pilot.
>
> A fatal crash involving a Navy fighter (probably F-14) off a
> carrier some time back had a female pilot (just how many female
> F-14 pilots are there?)
>
> See what I mean?
>
> -----------
If I were you, I would get ready to duck ! :-))

BMC

[Roger Long]

OK troll, I'll bite.

I'm only aware of one rigorous study ever performed to determine the
relative aptitude and safety of men vs women pilots as a group.

The study was of ferry pilots in World War II and looked at the performance
of men and women delivering aircraft to England. Remember, this was in the
days of poor weather forecasts and primitive navigation.

The study corrected for training and experience to attempt to determine if
there was any essential difference between men and women. The conclusion was
that there was a statistical basis to support the contention that men should
not be allowed to fly aircraft at all!


--

Roger Long



"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
om...
>I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
> are ladies in the cockpit. Maybe this is not the case, and I'm sure
> the more PC gents here will be quick to jump on me for even suggesting
> it, but during the past, I have noticed more than a few female names
> mentioned in news reports about aircraft crashes (with them being one
> of the pilots, or the only pilot). Just how many female professional
> pilots are there? Aren't they involved in a disproportionately large
> number of accidents? Drawing from memory, here are a few:
>
> The accident yesterday that killed 10 with the NASCAR racing team
> had a pilot named Liz (haven't met too many guys named Liz).
> (Probably pilot error--reasonable guess--because the plane slammed
> into Bull Mt. in foggy conditions.)
>
> The commuter crash last week (Indiana?) had a pilot named Kim.
>
> The commuter crash last year (plan overloaded) in Charlotte had
> a female captain.
>
> ValuJet crash in Everglades (in '96 I think) had a female captain.
> (of course, this one could have gone down regardless of pilot skill,
> but airliners *have* landed while blazing with flames (Ex: Air Canada
> in Cincinatti I think).
>
> The 1991 Colorado Springs 737 crash had a female in the cockpit.
>
> A small cargo plane that landed here in town on a freeway (not on the
> median, but ONTO rush hour traffic, making a firball out of a van,
> killing the driver--female pilot survived) a few years ago had a lone
> female pilot.
>
> A fatal crash involving a Navy fighter (probably F-14) off a
> carrier some time back had a female pilot (just how many female
> F-14 pilots are there?)
>
> See what I mean?
>
> -----------

[Ron Natalie]

NoPoliticsHere wrote:

Of course if you enumerate all the crashes involving male pilots
you'd have to use several megabytes. Lets see, keeping on the
NASCAR bent you might try the male pilot who failed to use proper
anti-ice procedures and killed Alan Kulwicki. You might try
Davey Allison who killed himself and injuring Red Farmer.



> ValuJet crash in Everglades (in '96 I think) had a female captain.
> (of course, this one could have gone down regardless of pilot skill,
> but airliners *have* landed while blazing with flames (Ex: Air Canada
> in Cincinatti I think).

There isn't much you can do on fire but get your aircraft back on
the ground. The pilot of the J7 pretty much did that. Return
to MIA was the only option and she was doing it as fast as could
be maganed.

>
> The 1991 Colorado Springs 737 crash had a female in the cockpit.

She was the FO. This one is pretty much ascribed to the 737 rudder
issues. It wasn't even until another 737 made a smoking hole in
Pennsylvania that they even figured out what might of caused it, so
it's hard to fault any of the four crewmembers involved.

[T3]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> OK troll, I'll bite.
>
> I'm only aware of one rigorous study ever performed to determine the
> relative aptitude and safety of men vs women pilots as a group.
>
> The study was of ferry pilots in World War II and looked at the
> performance of men and women delivering aircraft to England. Remember,
> this was in the days of poor weather forecasts and primitive navigation.
>
> The study corrected for training and experience to attempt to determine if
> there was any essential difference between men and women. The conclusion
> was that there was a statistical basis to support the contention that men
> should not be allowed to fly aircraft at all!
>
>
> --
>
> Roger Long
>
>
>
> "NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
> om...
>>I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
>> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
>> are ladies in the cockpit. Maybe this is not the case, and I'm sure
>> the more PC gents here will be quick to jump on me for even suggesting
>> it, but during the past, I have noticed more than a few female names
>> mentioned in news reports about aircraft crashes (with them being one
>> of the pilots, or the only pilot). Just how many female professional
>> pilots are there? Aren't they involved in a disproportionately large
>> number of accidents? Drawing from memory, here are a few:
>>
>> The accident yesterday that killed 10 with the NASCAR racing team
>> had a pilot named Liz (haven't met too many guys named Liz).
>> (Probably pilot error--reasonable guess--because the plane slammed
>> into Bull Mt. in foggy conditions.)
>>

Unknown at this time what the cause ir causes were....

>> The commuter crash last week (Indiana?) had a pilot named Kim.

Once again, way too early to assign a cause...

>>
>> The commuter crash last year (plan overloaded) in Charlotte had
>> a female captain.

Overloaded? I read as some wieght and balance "guy" screwed up. If , in fact
that was the case........

>>
>> ValuJet crash in Everglades (in '96 I think) had a female captain.
>> (of course, this one could have gone down regardless of pilot skill,
>> but airliners *have* landed while blazing with flames (Ex: Air Canada
>> in Cincinatti I think).

All sorts of errors(some felonious) in that abortion, however, none by the
flight crew....

>>
>> The 1991 Colorado Springs 737 crash had a female in the cockpit.
>

And? Your point is??

>> A small cargo plane that landed here in town on a freeway (not on the
>> median, but ONTO rush hour traffic, making a firball out of a van,
>> killing the driver--female pilot survived) a few years ago had a lone
>> female pilot.

Did she walk, stumble or crawl away?

>>
>> A fatal crash involving a Navy fighter (probably F-14) off a
>> carrier some time back had a female pilot (just how many female
>> F-14 pilots are there?)
>>

I have no idea but I seriously doubt there's any "fluffers" in the bunch....


>> See what I mean?
>>

Uh, not really. I'll offer this as advice, if that troll was an attempt to
get a date, maybe you "change the bait."

T3

[Maule Driver]

Get some stats. Otherwise this is bull.

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
om...
> I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
> are ladies in the cockpit. Maybe this is not the case, and I'm sure
> the more PC gents here will be quick to jump on me for even suggesting
> it, but during the past, I have noticed more than a few female names
> mentioned in news reports about aircraft crashes (with them being one
> of the pilots, or the only pilot). Just how many female professional
> pilots are there? Aren't they involved in a disproportionately large
> number of accidents? Drawing from memory, here are a few:
>
> The accident yesterday that killed 10 with the NASCAR racing team
> had a pilot named Liz (haven't met too many guys named Liz).
> (Probably pilot error--reasonable guess--because the plane slammed
> into Bull Mt. in foggy conditions.)
>
> The commuter crash last week (Indiana?) had a pilot named Kim.
>
> The commuter crash last year (plan overloaded) in Charlotte had
> a female captain.
>
> ValuJet crash in Everglades (in '96 I think) had a female captain.
> (of course, this one could have gone down regardless of pilot skill,
> but airliners *have* landed while blazing with flames (Ex: Air Canada
> in Cincinatti I think).
>
> The 1991 Colorado Springs 737 crash had a female in the cockpit.
>
> A small cargo plane that landed here in town on a freeway (not on the
> median, but ONTO rush hour traffic, making a firball out of a van,
> killing the driver--female pilot survived) a few years ago had a lone
> female pilot.
>
> A fatal crash involving a Navy fighter (probably F-14) off a
> carrier some time back had a female pilot (just how many female
> F-14 pilots are there?)
>
> See what I mean?
>
> -----------

[C Kingsbury]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> OK troll, I'll bite.
>
> I'm only aware of one rigorous study ever performed to determine the
> relative aptitude and safety of men vs women pilots as a group.

There was an NTSB study within the past four years that looked at this
question. I'm going on memory here, but the aggregate accident rates were
not different in a statistically significant way. But there was a suggestion
that the causes of accidents were somewhat different across the two groups.
Women, it seemed, were more likely to be involved in accidents owing to
mishandling the aircraft, while men were more likely to make serious
judgment errors.

A female friend of mine commented on it thusly: "So what they're saying is
women are more likely to be incompetent, while men are just plain stupid."

I thought that summed it up pretty well.

-cwk.

[Malcolm Teas]

(NoPoliticsHere) wrote in message >...
> I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
> are ladies in the cockpit. ...

So, you haven't seen any stats on the subject, are unwilling to
actually find any on the net, and just wish to express a prejudice
anyhow? Your examples are seven accidents over thirteen years, hardly
a decent or useful sample.

Here's a couple stats:

- In September 2004 alone there were 171 NSTB reportable accidents, or
5.7 accidents/day.
- 27 of those accidents had fatalities, a little under one per day.
- the seven descriptions I haphazardly (sorta randomly) sampled all
had male pilots. ("He taxied into a ditch", etc.)

And you want to judge the safety of women pilots on seven accidents
you partly remember? Crazy.

I've flown with male and female pilots. My personal observation is
that personality makes a much bigger difference than gender.

Besides, "ladies in the cockpit"? Have you been asleep since 1960?
Next thing I know you'll be talking about "lady doctors" or "lady
lawyers" too.

-Malcolm Teas

[Rick Durden]

There is very little data available on the subject, largely because
there are so few women who are pilots (about 6% of all pilots, a lower
proportion than that of professional pilots). In WWII, the WASPs had
an accident rate that was virtually identical to their male
counterparts, ferry command in the RAF had women and men flying
precisely the same airplanes (Tiger Moths through Spitfires, Typhoons
and Lancasters..and all British bombers were single pilot) in
precisely the same conditions on delivery flights and the data there
is inconsistent, some shows that the accident rate was a dead heat
other shows the males had a massively higher accident rate (I suspect
it differs in all acidents versus fatal accidents as virtually the
same proportion of men and women RAF ferry pilots were killed). A
look at NTSB reports about ten years ago had female pilots with a
notably lower accident rate than males.

Overall, there just isn't a great deal of information available,
although informal comments indicate that men are more prone to
weather-related accidents due to "macho" attitudes adversely affecting
judgment and may be more likely to commit suicide using an aircraft.
The Beech commuter accident you related, with a female captain, was so
far out of c.g. aft and had a pitch control malfunction, so the sex of
the members of the flight crew was irrelevant. You might check on the
737 at Springs, but it doesn't appear that one would matter as the
causes hypothesized are rotor cloud induced severe turbulence or
rudder hard over, neither of which the crew could have handled, no
matter how super human they were. As you said, the Valujet crash could
not have been saved by the flight crew unless they were psychic and
aborted the flight almost immediately after takeoff (maybe we should
screen for that talent <g>).

Once it's all sorted out, I suspect that the stats will probably match
that of cars, with women being better drivers/pilots than men, when
one looks at the likelihood of an accident. Women seem to exercise
better judgment than men, being more willing to decide to reroute or
cancel a flight, which, in the end, seems to be the variable that
bites most pilots.

Beyond that, it's an interesting question, women's bodies are more
efficient than men, they can withstand higher g's before
graying/blacking out and can go to higher altitudes without
oxygen...which makes one wonder why we have men flying fighters at all
<g>.

It is an interesting question, and probably one that can never be
answered. It seems to me that we should look solely at the judgment
and skill of each individual pilot.

All the best,
Rick

(NoPoliticsHere) wrote in message >...
> I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
> are ladies in the cockpit. Maybe this is not the case, and I'm sure
> the more PC gents here will be quick to jump on me for even suggesting
> it, but during the past, I have noticed more than a few female names
> mentioned in news reports about aircraft crashes (with them being one
> of the pilots, or the only pilot). Just how many female professional
> pilots are there? Aren't they involved in a disproportionately large
> number of accidents? Drawing from memory, here are a few:
>
> The accident yesterday that killed 10 with the NASCAR racing team
> had a pilot named Liz (haven't met too many guys named Liz).
> (Probably pilot error--reasonable guess--because the plane slammed
> into Bull Mt. in foggy conditions.)
>
> The commuter crash last week (Indiana?) had a pilot named Kim.
>
> The commuter crash last year (plan overloaded) in Charlotte had
> a female captain.
>
> ValuJet crash in Everglades (in '96 I think) had a female captain.
> (of course, this one could have gone down regardless of pilot skill,
> but airliners *have* landed while blazing with flames (Ex: Air Canada
> in Cincinatti I think).
>
> The 1991 Colorado Springs 737 crash had a female in the cockpit.
>
> A small cargo plane that landed here in town on a freeway (not on the
> median, but ONTO rush hour traffic, making a firball out of a van,
> killing the driver--female pilot survived) a few years ago had a lone
> female pilot.
>
> A fatal crash involving a Navy fighter (probably F-14) off a
> carrier some time back had a female pilot (just how many female
> F-14 pilots are there?)
>
> See what I mean?
>
> -----------

[Gig Giacona]

"Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message >
> Besides, "ladies in the cockpit"? Have you been asleep since 1960?
> Next thing I know you'll be talking about "lady doctors" or "lady
> lawyers" too.
>
> -Malcolm Teas


He probably did over in a medical or legal group.

Don't feed the troll

-Gig

[zatatime]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:07:16 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>A female friend of mine commented on it thusly: "So what they're saying is
>women are more likely to be incompetent, while men are just plain stupid."

Now that's funny!

z

[Chuck]

"Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
om...
> (NoPoliticsHere) wrote in message
>...

<snip>

> Besides, "ladies in the cockpit"? Have you been asleep since 1960?
> Next thing I know you'll be talking about "lady doctors" or "lady
> lawyers" too.
>


WHAT?!?!?!?!?!

Next thing that you tell me, Ronald Reagan, the actor, would have been
president!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/23/2004

[Schlomo Lipchitz]

Delta Airlines had a couple of female pilots sitting at home getting
full pay - one of which I flew with personally. They were fired for
incompetence. But when they threatened to sue for sexual
discrimination, Delta opted to just pay them rather that go through
the negative publicity. And that's a fact Jack!

[T.Roger]

And you wonder why women see a glass ceiling. It's golddiggers like these
and Andrea Mackris (Bill O'Reilly's accuser) that cause people like me to
avoid hiring women like the plague.


"Schlomo Lipchitz" > wrote in message
...
> Delta Airlines had a couple of female pilots sitting at home getting
> full pay - one of which I flew with personally. They were fired for
> incompetence. But when they threatened to sue for sexual
> discrimination, Delta opted to just pay them rather that go through
> the negative publicity. And that's a fact Jack!
>
>
>

[Schmoe]

T.Roger wrote:
> And you wonder why women see a glass ceiling. It's golddiggers like
> these and Andrea Mackris (Bill O'Reilly's accuser) that cause people
> like me to avoid hiring women like the plague.

Yeah, there are no bad guys, only bad gold digger women. Who ****ed in your
Wheaties?

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi NG,

Roger Long wrote:
> OK troll, I'll bite.
>
> I'm only aware of one rigorous study ever performed to determine the
> relative aptitude and safety of men vs women pilots as a group.
>
> The study was of ferry pilots in World War II and looked at the
> performance of men and women delivering aircraft to England.
> Remember, this was in the days of poor weather forecasts and
> primitive navigation.
>
> The study corrected for training and experience to attempt to
> determine if there was any essential difference between men and
> women. The conclusion was that there was a statistical basis to
> support the contention that men should not be allowed to fly aircraft
> at all!

I have no idea about statistics, but will offer my opinion anyway:

Two abilities play a major role in flying an aircraft: spatial
orientation and the ability to perform several tasks at the same time.
While the first is mainly atributed to men, the second is clearly a
female stronghold!

So on the skill side it's 1:1. On the judgement side someone has
already mentioned the general statement, that women tend to act
incompentent, while men tend to act plain stupid.

Overall you can pull just the same arguments used generally in "women
driver" discussions.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

[Sylvia Else]

NoPoliticsHere wrote:

> I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
> are ladies in the cockpit. Maybe this is not the case, and I'm sure
> the more PC gents here will be quick to jump on me for even suggesting
> it, but during the past, I have noticed more than a few female names
> mentioned in news reports about aircraft crashes (with them being one
> of the pilots, or the only pilot). Just how many female professional
> pilots are there? Aren't they involved in a disproportionately large
> number of accidents? Drawing from memory, here are a few:

Don't know about that, but it seems to me that pretty much every
passenger airliners that's ever crashed has had some female cabin crew
members, and the vast majority of airliners that haven't crashed have
had men up front. Could be some strange causation there.

Then again, such an analysis could be as completely spurious as is your
approach which seems to involve looking for crashes involving female
flight crew, and then observing that there were female flight crew involved.

I suggest you give up your day job, and follow your true vocation, which
is clearly politics.

Sylvia.

[Tien Dao]

I think this is a valid question, maybe the politically correct amongst us
would shy away from such a question, but then, one of my friends once told
me that the most interesting questions are those that are politically
incorrect at the time. I would like to see the research not for the purpose
of NOT hiring women or the like, but the see what differences in error
making actually exists between the two sexes. Maybe both sexes can learn
from their genetic predispositions and be on the look out more carefully.

OT: on the other hand, I see that women are imho, better physicians than
men. They are smarter, read more, are more up to date, are more demanding
of themselves and of others around them (which means they can be more of a
pain in the ass too) and are just as skilled manually as men. Again, off
topic, women`s complaints of sexual discrimination and harassment do
occasionally make them fall victim even before starting, because people are
afraid to hire them and treat them as they do men, for fear they will use
the sex card against their employer. A friend`s husband was fired for
alleged sexual harassment in a software company but never got an opportunity
to defend himself. Let go immediately that same day and told that if he
shut up and accepted the plight, this would not show up on this work record.
Considering the software business lately, he had little choice.

Tien

"T.Roger" > wrote in message
om...
> And you wonder why women see a glass ceiling. It's golddiggers like these
> and Andrea Mackris (Bill O'Reilly's accuser) that cause people like me to
> avoid hiring women like the plague.
>
>
> "Schlomo Lipchitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Delta Airlines had a couple of female pilots sitting at home getting
> > full pay - one of which I flew with personally. They were fired for
> > incompetence. But when they threatened to sue for sexual
> > discrimination, Delta opted to just pay them rather that go through
> > the negative publicity. And that's a fact Jack!
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

(NoPoliticsHere) wrote in message >...
> I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
> are ladies in the cockpit. Maybe this is not the case, and I'm sure
> the more PC gents here will be quick to jump on me for even suggesting
> it, but during the past, I have noticed more than a few female names
> mentioned in news reports about aircraft crashes (with them being one
> of the pilots, or the only pilot). Just how many female professional
> pilots are there? Aren't they involved in a disproportionately large
> number of accidents? Drawing from memory, here are a few:


At one point female Navy jet flighter pilots had a much higher
accident rate than men. However, the Navy was quickly trying to
address a mandate from congress that they have a certain number of
women flying. Since there were fewer women applying, they selected
women that would not otherwise have qualified. They also pushed them
through faster with less training. The results were obvious. Much of
this came out after video come out showing a female pilot crashing
into the sea, missing the carrier as the LSO yelled "power, power,
power". Her parents asked for a congressional investigation and even
asked the navy to go down and retrieve the plane out of the ocean
(which they did). The result was almost 1/2 dozen different opinions
on the accident. :)

-Robert

[Jay Somerset]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:11:28 -0700, hoarse with no name >
wrote:

> In article >,
> (NoPoliticsHere) wrote:
>
> > A fatal crash involving a Navy fighter (probably F-14) off a
> > carrier some time back had a female pilot (just how many female
> > F-14 pilots are there?)
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> Any group which is held to lower entrance standards will have lower
> performance and vice versa. When Jews were limited to 10% of college
> admissions the stereotype of the intelligent Jew was rampant and for a
> while you had the same with Asians. In the '80s Asian SAT scores at Ivy
> League schools were 200 points higher than average. At this point in
> time Jews and Asians are accepted without limits and you hardly ever
> hear any comments on how intelligent they are. This is because the
> average Jew and Asian at any school is now no more intelligent than the
> average student, which was not the case when they were being held to
> higher entrance standards.
>
> My point is that many women are now being accepted through lower
> entrance standards and thus lower performance is inevitable. IIRC the
> F-14 female pilot you are talking about died on her 7th crash and pilots
> with testicles instead of titties are rarely allowed to continue flying
> after even a second crash. I say, thank God she finally died.

After reading this, I can understand why you post anonymously. Your last
sentence is particulaly obnoxoius!

[George Z. Bush]

"Schmoe" > wrote in message
et...
> T.Roger wrote:
>> And you wonder why women see a glass ceiling. It's golddiggers like
>> these and Andrea Mackris (Bill O'Reilly's accuser) that cause people
>> like me to avoid hiring women like the plague.
>
> Yeah, there are no bad guys, only bad gold digger women. Who ****ed in your
> Wheaties?

Before there ever were any women pilots, there were airplane crashes. I wonder
if it ever occurs to the critics of female pilots that women were never involved
in those crashes. (^-^)))

George Z.
>
>

[John Harlow]

> I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
> are ladies in the cockpit

There's a simple explanation:

on the hole, women have had far less stick time than men.

[BTIZ]

are you seeing more women's names because more women are in the pilot pool?

this is a very poor statistic to properly evaluate..

How many thousands of accidents each year are male pilots that don't make
the news..

BT

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
om...
>I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
> are ladies in the cockpit. Maybe this is not the case, and I'm sure
> the more PC gents here will be quick to jump on me for even suggesting
> it, but during the past, I have noticed more than a few female names
> mentioned in news reports about aircraft crashes (with them being one
> of the pilots, or the only pilot). Just how many female professional
> pilots are there? Aren't they involved in a disproportionately large
> number of accidents? Drawing from memory, here are a few:
>
> The accident yesterday that killed 10 with the NASCAR racing team
> had a pilot named Liz (haven't met too many guys named Liz).
> (Probably pilot error--reasonable guess--because the plane slammed
> into Bull Mt. in foggy conditions.)
>
> The commuter crash last week (Indiana?) had a pilot named Kim.
>
> The commuter crash last year (plan overloaded) in Charlotte had
> a female captain.
>
> ValuJet crash in Everglades (in '96 I think) had a female captain.
> (of course, this one could have gone down regardless of pilot skill,
> but airliners *have* landed while blazing with flames (Ex: Air Canada
> in Cincinatti I think).
>
> The 1991 Colorado Springs 737 crash had a female in the cockpit.
>
> A small cargo plane that landed here in town on a freeway (not on the
> median, but ONTO rush hour traffic, making a firball out of a van,
> killing the driver--female pilot survived) a few years ago had a lone
> female pilot.
>
> A fatal crash involving a Navy fighter (probably F-14) off a
> carrier some time back had a female pilot (just how many female
> F-14 pilots are there?)
>
> See what I mean?
>
> -----------

[zatatime]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:56:12 -0400, "John Harlow"
> wrote:

>There's a simple explanation:
>
>on the hole, women have had far less stick time than men.


If you're going to talk about a woman's hole and a man's stick, I
don't know that this explanation "fits."

z

[tony roberts]

Very well done - congratulations.
You even managed to blindside four regulars!
Looking forward to your next troll.

Do you take requests?
could you make it a Bush/Kerry thing?

Lots of us would enjoy that.

Thanks

Tony


In article >,
(NoPoliticsHere) wrote:

> I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
> are ladies in the cockpit. Maybe this is not the case, and I'm sure
> the more PC gents here will be quick to jump on me for even suggesting
> it, but during the past, I have noticed more than a few female names
> mentioned in news reports about aircraft crashes (with them being one
> of the pilots, or the only pilot). Just how many female professional
> pilots are there? Aren't they involved in a disproportionately large
> number of accidents? Drawing from memory, here are a few:
>
> The accident yesterday that killed 10 with the NASCAR racing team
> had a pilot named Liz (haven't met too many guys named Liz).
> (Probably pilot error--reasonable guess--because the plane slammed
> into Bull Mt. in foggy conditions.)
>
> The commuter crash last week (Indiana?) had a pilot named Kim.
>
> The commuter crash last year (plan overloaded) in Charlotte had
> a female captain.
>
> ValuJet crash in Everglades (in '96 I think) had a female captain.
> (of course, this one could have gone down regardless of pilot skill,
> but airliners *have* landed while blazing with flames (Ex: Air Canada
> in Cincinatti I think).
>
> The 1991 Colorado Springs 737 crash had a female in the cockpit.
>
> A small cargo plane that landed here in town on a freeway (not on the
> median, but ONTO rush hour traffic, making a firball out of a van,
> killing the driver--female pilot survived) a few years ago had a lone
> female pilot.
>
> A fatal crash involving a Navy fighter (probably F-14) off a
> carrier some time back had a female pilot (just how many female
> F-14 pilots are there?)
>
> See what I mean?
>
> -----------

[T.Roger]

Anita Hill


"Schmoe" > wrote in message
et...
> T.Roger wrote:
>> And you wonder why women see a glass ceiling. It's golddiggers like
>> these and Andrea Mackris (Bill O'Reilly's accuser) that cause people
>> like me to avoid hiring women like the plague.
>
> Yeah, there are no bad guys, only bad gold digger women. Who ****ed in
> your Wheaties?
>

[CZ]

>> At one point female Navy jet flighter pilots had a much higher
accident rate than men. However, the Navy was quickly trying to
address a mandate from congress that they have a certain number of
women flying. Since there were fewer women applying, they selected
women that would not otherwise have qualified. They also pushed them
through faster with less training. The results were obvious. Much of
this came out after video come out showing a female pilot crashing
into the sea, missing the carrier as the LSO yelled "power, power,
power". Her parents asked for a congressional investigation and even
asked the navy to go down and retrieve the plane out of the ocean
(which they did). The result was almost 1/2 dozen different opinions
on the accident. :)

Robert:

This is the "MIR" for the famous Kara Hultgreen crash during a landing
attempt at USS Abraham Lincoln on October 25th, 1994.

http://www.panix.com/~baldwin/hultgreen_mir.txt

Left engine stalled on final to the boat:

"(AL) (P) As MA crossed ship's wake, MR noted MA five kts fast. During
post-mishap recollection MR recalled hearing an almost imperceptible
``pop'',
described as ``popcorn stall''type of sound. (3b)
(AM) (P) MA flew WUOSX, 42 to 45 DEG AOB. (13a, 17a, 4b, 5b)
(AN) (P) CLSO and BLSO observed excessive left YAW on MA; attributed to
perceived use of rudder to avoid overshoot. (4b, 5b) (AO) (P) MA rolled out
wings level at start, on speed, 325 feet agl, with 400 FPM rod and on
glideslope. (3b)
(AP) (P) MR scanned centered ball, then noticed MA five knots slow; looked
outside again, then noticed MA ten knots slow. (3b)
(AQ) (P) MR advised mp ``we're ten kts slow, let's get some power on the
jet.'' MP did not verbally acknowledge, but MP added power. (3b) (AR) (P)
MR
states aircraft started to YAW left. (3b)
(AS) (P) MA waved off by BLSO for WUOSX with left YAW. ``Waveoff'' was
echoed by CLSO cutting out BLSO's ``level your wings and climb.'' BLSO
subsequently transmitted ``power, raise your gear, raise your gear, power.''
``burner'' call was not used by LSO. ``Burner'' is a standard imperative
LSO
phrase. (17a, 4b, 5b)
(AT) (P) AB plume was visible from MA right engine only. (9b, 13b)"

Read "11. analysis." for conclusions

[Cub Driver]

It is a well-known fact that men refuse to stop at gas stations or ask
directions. This doubtless explains why they account for the majority
of airplane crashes.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Cub Driver]

>My point is that many women are now being accepted through lower
>entrance standards

I suspect it's the other way around. There are fewer women pilots,
ergo they are selected from a more adept pool of possible applicants.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[john smith]

Something I was told years ago...
When there is one man and one woman in a light GA aircraft crash, they
usually are not married to each other.

[WaltBJ]

FWIW I trained women pilots transitioning to the L1011 while working
at Eastern. Without exception they were meticulous pilots who studied
hard and really learned the airplane. I also knew Betty Skelton - she
was a 'pretty good' woman pilot (understatement for effect).
Walt BJ

[Matt Barrow]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> There was an NTSB study within the past four years that looked at this
> question. I'm going on memory here, but the aggregate accident rates were
> not different in a statistically significant way. But there was a
suggestion
> that the causes of accidents were somewhat different across the two
groups.
> Women, it seemed, were more likely to be involved in accidents owing to
> mishandling the aircraft, while men were more likely to make serious
> judgment errors.

I think that one you may have backwards. I recall some tests of male-female
pilots recently. The findings were that women handled the aircraft better
(more precisely, more smoothly), but men were better at emergency
procedures.

[NoPoliticsHere]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message >...
> OK troll, I'll bite.

Why'd you bother?

-----------

[NoPoliticsHere]

"Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in message >...
>
> Overall you can pull just the same arguments used generally in "women
> driver" discussions.

But have you noticed that this phrase is hardly heard anymore?
I wonder if it's because women have become so much better drivers
in the last 15 years. I'm surprise you weren't chided by the
surprisingly huge number of the spineless set that hang out here
for using that phrase.

----------

[NoPoliticsHere]

Ron Natalie > wrote in message >...
> NoPoliticsHere wrote:
>
> Of course if you enumerate all the crashes involving male pilots

Ron, ever hear of the word 'disproportionate'? I used it in my post.

--------------

[Ron Natalie]

NoPoliticsHere wrote:
> Ron Natalie > wrote in message >...
>
>>NoPoliticsHere wrote:
>>
>>Of course if you enumerate all the crashes involving male pilots
>
>
> Ron, ever hear of the word 'disproportionate'? I used it in my post.
>

Yep, and you were wrong as well. You take 5 crashes out of a sample
set of 5 crashes you heard about involving woman. That's no more of
a representable sample than my "pages" comment.

It's hard to be really proportionate when you pull samples out of your
ass.

[NoPoliticsHere]

(Rick Durden) wrote in message >...
> There is very little data available on the subject, largely because
> there are so few women who are pilots (about 6% of all pilots, a lower
> proportion than that of professional pilots).

Which goes along with my observation that women are involved in more
than 6% of accidents, at least the ones that make the news.

--read, but snipped --
>
> Beyond that, it's an interesting question, women's bodies are more
> efficient than men, they can withstand higher g's before
> graying/blacking out and can go to higher altitudes without
> oxygen...which makes one wonder why we have men flying fighters at all
> <g>.

Yes it does doesn't it? How many women fighter pilots are there?
How many have been Blue Angels or Thunderbirds? I'm sure the Navy
and Air Force PR depts. would walk over a mile of barbed wire
barefooted to have a couple of female acrobats for display to
the public.

> It is an interesting question, and probably one that can never be
> answered.

But the statistics would be relatively easy to calculate, with the correct
data. I suspect the results may be politically unpopular, which may
be why good data on this is hard to come by.

> It seems to me that we should look solely at the judgment
> and skill of each individual pilot.

Agreed, but don't make extra allowances based solely on gender.

---------

[NoPoliticsHere]

(Schlomo Lipchitz) wrote in message >...
> Delta Airlines had a couple of female pilots sitting at home getting
> full pay - one of which I flew with personally. They were fired for
> incompetence. But when they threatened to sue for sexual
> discrimination, Delta opted to just pay them rather that go through
> the negative publicity. And that's a fact Jack!

But schlomo, can't you see that the PC spoonfed milksops here aren't
interested in facts like this? Such things are not allowed on their
radar screens, at least publicly. They behave as told.

-----------

[NoPoliticsHere]

Jay Somerset > wrote in message >...

> After reading this, I can understand why you post anonymously. Your last
> sentence is particulaly obnoxoius!

Maybe he just meant that it was better that this woman be permanently
put out of commission (considering her record, but still being allowed
to fly), rather than crash onto the deck at some time, killing dozens
of personnel in the process. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

---------

[NoPoliticsHere]

Jay Somerset > wrote in message >...

> After reading this, I can understand why you post anonymously. Your last
> sentence is particulaly obnoxoius!

A little anonymity can be a good thing Jay. Why would anyone use their real
name in a place like this, unless they're selling something? Anonymity
is more likely to bring honesty, as far as inner opinions. Most people
who post with real names make sure they walk the line they've been told
to walk.

------------

[NoPoliticsHere]

"CZ" > wrote in message >...
>
> This is the "MIR" for the famous Kara Hultgreen crash during a landing
> attempt at USS Abraham Lincoln on October 25th, 1994.
>
> http://www.panix.com/~baldwin/hultgreen_mir.txt

Thanks, I read the whole thing before posting to the thread.
I skipped some of the formalities, but I think it's clear what
led to the crash. How many female F-14 pilots are there?

----------

[Gary Drescher]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
om...
> (Rick Durden) wrote in message
> >...
>> There is very little data available on the subject, largely because
>> there are so few women who are pilots (about 6% of all pilots, a lower
>> proportion than that of professional pilots).
>
> Which goes along with my observation that women are involved in more
> than 6% of accidents, at least the ones that make the news.

No, that isn't your "observation". Rather, it's your unsupported
speculation. You listed seven crashes spanning thirteen years! Do you
actually believe those seven constitute "more than 6% of accidents", or even
6% of "the ones that make the news", over the past thirteen years?

--Gary

[C Kingsbury]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
om...
> (Schlomo Lipchitz) wrote in message
>...
> > Delta Airlines had a couple of female pilots sitting at home getting
> > full pay - one of which I flew with personally. They were fired for
> > incompetence. But when they threatened to sue for sexual
> > discrimination, Delta opted to just pay them rather that go through
> > the negative publicity. And that's a fact Jack!
>
> But schlomo, can't you see that the PC spoonfed milksops here aren't
> interested in facts like this? Such things are not allowed on their
> radar screens, at least publicly. They behave as told.

As a proud fascist right-wing capitalist pig, what I'd like to know is,
what's yer point? We've already allowed them to fly planes, drive cars, own
property, even vote, so what precisely is it you would like to see done
about the scourge of chick pilots?

-cwk.

[Gary Drescher]

"Tien Dao" > wrote in message
.. .
> I would like to see the research not for the purpose
> of NOT hiring women or the like, but the see what differences in error
> making actually exists between the two sexes. Maybe both sexes can learn
> from their genetic predispositions and be on the look out more carefully.

Even if there were genetic predispositions of the sort you're speculating
about, I don't see how it would help to be on the lookout as you suggest.
Wouldn't it make more sense for each of us to ascertain (with the help of
our instructors and examiners) our own individual strengths and weaknesses,
rather than pretending that we each had a skill set that matches the
statistical mean for our gender?

By analogy, there is a genetic correlation between gender and height. But
knowing this correlation doesn't help us to be on the lookout for what size
clothing we should buy. You want to buy clothing that fits >you<, not
clothing that fits the average person of your gender.

--Gary

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(NoPoliticsHere) writes:
> "CZ" > wrote in message >...
>>
>> This is the "MIR" for the famous Kara Hultgreen crash during a landing
>> attempt at USS Abraham Lincoln on October 25th, 1994.
>>
>> http://www.panix.com/~baldwin/hultgreen_mir.txt
>
> Thanks, I read the whole thing before posting to the thread.
> I skipped some of the formalities, but I think it's clear what
> led to the crash. How many female F-14 pilots are there?

"I skipped the formalities" = "I couldn't understand it on the best
day I ever had."
Here's what it said:
The stuck bleed valve on the left engine turned what would have
been a fairly minor correction into a compete loss of thrust from that
engine at a critical time. When you add in the lack of information
and training (As in it wasn't in the NATOPS (Dash-One, Pilot's
Operating Handbook), nor was it taught at the F-14 RTU) about flying
around the boat single-engine. That's a pretty finicky place in a
TF30 powered F-14. If the pilot had been trained to recognize what
was going on, and take the proper corrective action, the crash migh
not have occurred. The sex of the pilot makes no difference.

Note the Recommendations - Section 13.
The first two recommendations are immediate inspection of all bleed
air valves in the fleet, and replacement of the bleed valves with a
redesigned part.

After that, the recommendations are to add information on single
engine failures in landing configuration to the NATOPS, and actually
train for engie failures in landing configurtation both in the
Replacement Training Unit and in the Fleet squadrons.

Understatement of the Previous Century:
"MP's ejection system worked as designed until water impact damage
interrupted normal operation."

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[José Herculano]

> on the hole, women have had far less stick time than men.

Please let it be noted that I do not subscribe to that view, and I would
take great exception to the person that applied that to me!

Hehehehehe.
_____________
José Herculano

[OutofRudder]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> The sex of the pilot makes no difference.

Only to those who think it does, and unfortunately, there are still plenty of
those people around.

Ever notice, in some news reports of incidents or accidents, that when it's a
male pilot, they talk about him simply as "the pilot"; when it's a woman, they
are compelled to say, "the female pilot", as if that changes the story? One
sentiment in this thread sort of explains why this topic even exists -- a
sentence that began with: "We've *allowed* them [women] to ..." drive cars,
vote, etc., etc., etc. Perhaps tongue-in-cheek, but nevertheness, it is still
very much a prevailing attitude, even in today's supposedly enlightened times.

Example: Man tells woman, "Listen to what your airplane is telling you." Woman
later says, "I'm not flying this airplane, it is SHOUTING maintenance issues
loud and clear." Man replies: "Nice that you're so connected with the airplane
that you hear it talking, but it's JUST a machine!" Second example: Woman flies
an airplane and squawks unresponsive nosewheel steering. She is told it is
"within normal range." Man flies same airplane next, comes back and squawks
unresponsive nosewheel steering. The plane is then grounded and the nosewheel
steering is replaced. Third example: Woman flies airplane and describes
excessively uneven fuel burn between left and right fuel tanks--response from
male airplane owner: "Just fly with the other wing lower."

There are still many in aviation who don't take women seriously, and when an
incident or accident occurs involving a woman, are quick to draw unfounded
conclusions that sex of the pilot was a factor. Too bad, with as far as other
things have evolved, *some* men's attitudes about women are still in the Dark
Ages.

[John Harlow]

José Herculano wrote:
>> on the hole, women have had far less stick time than men.
>
> Please let it be noted that I do not subscribe to that view, and I
> would take great exception to the person that applied that to me!

Ok, that obviously didn't come out right!

What I MEANT was... Oh, never mind. No use digging in even deeper!

[NoPoliticsHere]

Peter Stickney wrote:

>"I skipped the formalities" = "I couldn't understand it on the best
>day I ever had."
>Here's what it said:

----snipped----

Your rough translation of course, not theirs. But the big
noticeable thing about your post is your VERY selective cutting
and pasting. I thought about doing some cutting and pasting
of my own from the report but decided why bother. Anyone can
read the report for themselves. One does not have to be a military
pilot to clearly see that MP was the primary cause of this accident.

Her responses and general incompetence were the primary cause. And
there was of course the fact that this was her **7th** crash! Which
is another little tidbit you chose to ignore. IMO, you're just another
PC milksop.

-----------

[NoPoliticsHere]

C Kingsbury wrote:

>As a proud fascist right-wing capitalist pig, what I'd like to know is,
>what's yer point? We've already allowed them to fly planes, drive cars, own
>property, even vote, so what precisely is it you would like to see done
>about the scourge of chick pilots?

That's easy. No special allowances for gender. Female pilots should
be held to the same standards as the guys. If that means two females
in one cockpit, so be it, but make it equitable.

--------------

[NoPoliticsHere]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> The sex of the pilot makes no difference.

Suuurrrrre it didn't. Six prior crashes and still allowed
to fly the F-14, and the sex made no difference????

Makes about as much sense as your other milksop response.

-------------

[Gig Giacona]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> FWIW I trained women pilots transitioning to the L1011 while working
> at Eastern. Without exception they were meticulous pilots who studied
> hard and really learned the airplane. I also knew Betty Skelton - she
> was a 'pretty good' woman pilot (understatement for effect).
> Walt BJ

And how long was it after they transitioned women to the L-1011 that the
company folded?

[Schmoe]

"T.Roger" > wrote in message
om...
> Anita Hill


I take it you don't get laid alot.

[Tien Dao]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:3zvfd.531832$8_6.258553@attbi_s04...
> By analogy, there is a genetic correlation between gender and height. But
> knowing this correlation doesn't help us to be on the lookout for what
size
> clothing we should buy. You want to buy clothing that fits >you<, not
> clothing that fits the average person of your gender.

Maybe you are right. Although, I would have to add that you cannot change
your height, but if you have judgement or coordination inadequacies, these
might be addressed by further training, knowing that you MAY be more
predisposed to these types of errors. Also, for example, knowing that many
women feel sensitive what may constitute sexual harassment limits, a man may
be taught to better control his innate sexual drives. Arnold found this out
the hard way. No pun intended...

Tien

[John Mazor]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> om...
> > FWIW I trained women pilots transitioning to the L1011 while working
> > at Eastern. Without exception they were meticulous pilots who studied
> > hard and really learned the airplane. I also knew Betty Skelton - she
> > was a 'pretty good' woman pilot (understatement for effect).
> > Walt BJ
>
> And how long was it after they transitioned women to the L-1011 that the
> company folded?

Frank Lorenzo wasn't a woman.

[Gary Drescher]

"Tien Dao" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:3zvfd.531832$8_6.258553@attbi_s04...
>> By analogy, there is a genetic correlation between gender and height. But
>> knowing this correlation doesn't help us to be on the lookout for what
> size
>> clothing we should buy. You want to buy clothing that fits >you<, not
>> clothing that fits the average person of your gender.
>
> Maybe you are right. Although, I would have to add that you cannot change
> your height,

Well, you could wear elevator shoes or something, which would be analogous
to training that compensates for innate weaknesses in your judgment or
coordination.

> but if you have judgement or coordination inadequacies, these
> might be addressed by further training, knowing that you MAY be more
> predisposed to these types of errors.

Again, though, your judgment and your coordination are on display throughout
your flight training (as well as in other areas of your life). So even if
there turns out to be a correlation between gender and judgment or
coordination, your gender doesn't tell you anything you and your instructor
didn't already know about whether you need compensatory training--just as
(despite the correlation) your gender doesn't tell you anything you didn't
already know about your height.

I agree with your broader point, though, that we needn't just surrender to
whatever innate dispositions we may have; instead, we can work to change how
those dispositions are expressed. But we should be careful to distinguish an
individual's own predispositions from the average predispositions among some
group that the individual belongs to.

--Gary

[G.R. Patterson III]

NoPoliticsHere wrote:
>
> Anonymity
> is more likely to bring honesty, as far as inner opinions. Most people
> who post with real names make sure they walk the line they've been told
> to walk.

So someone who's lying about who they are is somehow more honest than someone who
doesn't lie? Not hardly. As far as I can tell, people post pretty much what they
think and/or feel -- it's not like there's some sort of police coming to get someone
who posts a PIC opinion. It just seems that many of those with the most extreme
opinions seem to be ashamed of them and don't want anyone to know who they are.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Jose]

> So someone who's lying about who they are is somehow more honest than someone who
> doesn't lie?

Posting anonymously is not lying about who you are. It's just not saying anything about who you are. Different.

> it's not like there's some sort of police coming to get someone
> who posts a PIC opinion.

Well, that's not exactly true. In some circles there may actually =be= "PC police", with consequences to one's employment, marital status, or other parts of one's life.

It just seems that many of those with the most extreme
> opinions seem to be ashamed of them and don't want anyone to know who they are.

Not wanting anyone to know who you are does not imply shame of opinions. Pcople on Usenet come from different surroundings (and from all over the world).

I have no opinion on the underlying issue, but I do have an opinion on correct reasoning.

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address
(replied to the post in a.a.safety, r.a.piloting, and r.a.safety, but I only follow r.a.p.)

[[email protected]]

NoPoliticsHere wrote:
> That's easy. No special allowances for gender. Female pilots should
> be held to the same standards as the guys. If that means two females
> in one cockpit, so be it, but make it equitable.
>
> --------------

I am all for that. Same standards, same opportunities. Women can and
do perform well in high-stress environments, generally speaking.

I like to fly, but I daresay I don't have whatever it takes to fly an
F-14 in carrier operations. But then, *statistically*, you don't
either. Very few people do.

But women can do ok, given the chance. Debby Rihn-Harvey, Svetlana
Kapanina, and Patty Wagstaff are examples of this.

Wendy

[Cub Driver]

On 26 Oct 2004 20:16:40 GMT, (OutofRudder) wrote:

>Ever notice, in some news reports of incidents or accidents, that when it's a
>male pilot, they talk about him simply as "the pilot"; when it's a woman, they
>are compelled to say, "the female pilot",

Well, to be fair, that's surely because the woman pilot is still a
rarity. All rarities get mentioned in newspaper stories until it
becomes too politcially incorrect to do so. When I was a young
journalist, it was standard practice to mention the race of a criminal
if he were black. Now of course that is not done.

Indeed, I worked on a newspaper in the process of change. We were
forbidden to mention the race of a defendant in a court martial, so we
vied with each other to come up with the most original physical
description, to see what we could get past the editor.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Bob Moore]

" wrote

> I like to fly, but I daresay I don't have whatever it takes to fly an
> F-14 in carrier operations. But then, *statistically*, you don't
> either. Very few people do.

From a former Naval Aviator.
Being an excellent fighter pilot and landing on an aircraft carrier
is much different than flying jetliners from JFK to ORD.
It's all about "Spatial Orientation", a trait that the Navy tested
for extesively during the training process.

I have posted this previously....here it is again.


The Brain, Richard Restak, M.D.

Based on the PBS Series, "The Brain"


Brain-Sex Differences: Are They Real?

Men generally have better spatial function
than women. This refers to the ability to
mentally visualize and maneuver objects
within three-dimensional space. But among
men who don't produce the male sex hor-
mone testosterone, spatial abilities are poorly
developed. According to Harvard neurolo-
gist Norman Geschwind, "It is very impor-
tant to stress that there are women who
have absolutely superb spatial function and
there are plenty of men whose spatial func-
tion is abysmal. But on the average, men
have better spatial function than women.
One practical consequence involves the dif-
ficulties some people experience in the
immediate discrimination between right and
left. In one study twice as many women as
men reported "frequent" problems in rap-
idly deciding about right-left issues (turning
right at a fork in the road, quickly respond-
ing when asked to raise the right or left
hand, and so on).
Other areas in which brain-sex differ-
ences play a prominent but by no means
exclusive role include:
Language facility. Females generally
speak earlier, learn foreign languages more
easily, and outperform males in tests of
verbal fluency.
Fine hand control. From an early age,
rapid sequential movements are performed
better by girls, who, as a result, exhibit
better penmanship than boys of the same
age.
Mathematical ability. Studies among
mathematically gifted students reveal that
males outnumber females among the supe-
rior achievers. According to Johns Hop-
kins researchers Camilla Benbow and Julian
Stanley, "We favor the hypothesis that sex
differences in achievement in and attitude
toward mathematics result from superior
male mathematical ability, which may in
turn be related to greater male ability in
spatial tasks."
Dyslexia, stuttering, delayed speech, au-
tism, hyperactivity...each of these neuro-
behavioral disorders occurs with greater
frequency in males.
Although the above sex differences are
well established, no one has as yet convinc-
ingly demonstrated an anatomic difference
between the brain structures of human
males and females. These behavioral differ-
ences may be the result of chemical changes
in brain function resulting from the influ-
ence of sex hormones in early prenatal
development.



Bob Moore

[Larry Dighera]

On 26 Oct 2004 23:24:44 -0700, "
> wrote in
. com>::

>But women can do ok, given the chance. Debby Rihn-Harvey, Svetlana
>Kapanina, and Patty Wagstaff are examples of this.

Don't forget AE. :-)

[NoPoliticsHere]

" > wrote in message . com>...
>
> I am all for that. Same standards, same opportunities. Women can and
> do perform well in high-stress environments, generally speaking.

I know full well than some can, so yes I agree. And the competent
ones suffer because of the bad ones. People start painting them
all with the same brush, or however the saying goes.

> I like to fly, but I daresay I don't have whatever it takes to fly an
> F-14 in carrier operations. But then, *statistically*, you don't
> either. Very few people do.

I'll admit that the only cockpit I've ever even SAT in was in a Herc
that was parked at an airshow. But as far as ever being able to fly
an F-14 in carrier operations, we'll never know. Maybe I'm a cocky
s.o.b. but I suspect I'd have had no problems, if I'd chosen that
route--always had great vision, kept very fit, good reflexes/coord., never
had an auto accident, and damn few--very few--tickets, so I'm also
disciplined to obey rules. But of course, I could've also been
a wash-out at it, I don't know. Truth is, I'd have been more interested
in flying the bigger stuff anyway.

> But women can do ok, given the chance. Debby Rihn-Harvey, Svetlana
> Kapanina, and Patty Wagstaff are examples of this.

Again, I have no doubts of this. But there's too much damn politics
at work today.

---------------

[NoPoliticsHere]

Jose > wrote in message >...
> > So someone who's lying about who they are is somehow more honest than >>someone who doesn't lie?
>
> Posting anonymously is not lying about who you are. It's just not saying >anything about who you are. Different.

> > it's not like there's some sort of police coming to get someone
> > who posts a PIC opinion.

> Well, that's not exactly true. In some circles there may actually =be= "PC >police", with consequences to one's employment, marital status, or other >parts of one's life.

> > It just seems that many of those with the most extreme
> > opinions seem to be ashamed of them and don't want anyone to know who they >>are.

> Not wanting anyone to know who you are does not imply shame of opinions. >Pcople on Usenet come from different surroundings (and from all over the >world).

> I have no opinion on the underlying issue, but I do have an opinion on >correct reasoning.

Excellent response Jose, I'll give you an A+.

-------------

[NoPoliticsHere]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >My point is that many women are now being accepted through lower
> >entrance standards
>
> I suspect it's the other way around. There are fewer women pilots,
> ergo they are selected from a more adept pool of possible applicants.

This logic makes no sense.

And to respond to your other post,

you wrote:

>Well, to be fair, that's surely because the woman pilot is still a
>rarity. All rarities get mentioned in newspaper stories until it
>becomes too politcially incorrect to do so. When I was a young
>journalist, it was standard practice to mention the race of a criminal
>if he were black. Now of course that is not done.

>Indeed, I worked on a newspaper in the process of change. We were
>forbidden to mention the race of a defendant in a court martial, so we
>vied with each other to come up with the most original physical
>description, to see what we could get past the editor.

But in the news reports I've happened to read on these crashes, they
simply mention the names of the pilots, which, in most cases, reveals
gender.

----------

[Gig Giacona]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > FWIW I trained women pilots transitioning to the L1011 while working
>> > at Eastern. Without exception they were meticulous pilots who studied
>> > hard and really learned the airplane. I also knew Betty Skelton - she
>> > was a 'pretty good' woman pilot (understatement for effect).
>> > Walt BJ
>>
>> And how long was it after they transitioned women to the L-1011 that the
>> company folded?
>
> Frank Lorenzo wasn't a woman.
>
>

It's just to close to the damn elections. Everybody has lost thier ability
to see a joke.

[[email protected]]

NoPoliticsHere wrote:
> I know full well than some can, so yes I agree. And the competent
> ones suffer because of the bad ones. People start painting them
> all with the same brush, or however the saying goes.

Which, of course, you pretty much did with your initial post (I am
sorry, but I couldn't resist- you left yourself open for that one :)

> I'll admit that the only cockpit I've ever even SAT in was in a Herc
> that was parked at an airshow.
Nice airplanes. But terribly uncomfortable to ride in.

Wendy

[Kevin Brooks]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> NoPoliticsHere wrote:
>> I know full well than some can, so yes I agree. And the competent
>> ones suffer because of the bad ones. People start painting them
>> all with the same brush, or however the saying goes.
>
> Which, of course, you pretty much did with your initial post (I am
> sorry, but I couldn't resist- you left yourself open for that one :)
>
>> I'll admit that the only cockpit I've ever even SAT in was in a Herc
>> that was parked at an airshow.

> Nice airplanes. But terribly uncomfortable to ride in.

Heh. You should have had to ride in the old C-123...would have made you
appreciate the C-130!

Brooks

>
> Wendy
>

[Robert M. Gary]

(NoPoliticsHere) wrote in message >...
> C Kingsbury wrote:
>
> >As a proud fascist right-wing capitalist pig, what I'd like to know is,
> >what's yer point? We've already allowed them to fly planes, drive cars, own
> >property, even vote, so what precisely is it you would like to see done
> >about the scourge of chick pilots?
>
> That's easy. No special allowances for gender. Female pilots should
> be held to the same standards as the guys. If that means two females
> in one cockpit, so be it, but make it equitable.

The problem with that is that there are fewer women signing up for the
military to fly than men. In order for the military to quicky meet
their quota they were forced to allow women to fly that did not meet
the same standards or receive the same amount of training time. That
was the case of Lt. Kara S. Hultgreen. Its been about 10 years now, I
hope they've resolved that issue.

-Robert

[Ed Rasimus]

On 27 Oct 2004 09:47:44 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:

(NoPoliticsHere) wrote in message >...
>> C Kingsbury wrote:
>>
>> >As a proud fascist right-wing capitalist pig, what I'd like to know is,
>> >what's yer point? We've already allowed them to fly planes, drive cars, own
>> >property, even vote, so what precisely is it you would like to see done
>> >about the scourge of chick pilots?
>>
>> That's easy. No special allowances for gender. Female pilots should
>> be held to the same standards as the guys. If that means two females
>> in one cockpit, so be it, but make it equitable.
>
>The problem with that is that there are fewer women signing up for the
>military to fly than men. In order for the military to quicky meet
>their quota they were forced to allow women to fly that did not meet
>the same standards or receive the same amount of training time. That
>was the case of Lt. Kara S. Hultgreen. Its been about 10 years now, I
>hope they've resolved that issue.

They most assuredly have resolved it. It's taken some time, but the
early issues of quota filling are long gone. There are still a bunch
from my generation who have difficulty with the concept, but I've had
the opportunity to meet some of the current female tactical aviators
and it appears to me that they are doing a fine job and are fully
accepted by their counterparts.

One active duty, former F-15E A/C and squadron operations officer told
me that in Desert Storm he flew nearly one-third of his combat
missions with a "wing-woman". He's currently at USAFA serving as an
AOC. His wife, also an AOC was an F-15E WSO. Both attend annual River
Rat reunions.

Another woman I've met, entered service as an F-15E WSO, then after
flying combat in Kosovo, got selected for pilot training. She's now an
F-16 pilot in my old squadron, the 421st TFS. At River Rats in
Nashville last year, a group of male aviators--all still active in the
fighter force--told me (without prompting or politically correct
superiors hovering nearby) that "most of us have to work our asses off
just to be mediocre, she is outstanding without even trying". They
wouldn't say such things without good reason.

It has taken some time, but it has now been around 25 years and the
generations have changed the old thinking about gender roles.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:06:35 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote:

> Mathematical ability. Studies among
> mathematically gifted students reveal that
> males outnumber females among the supe-
> rior achievers. According to Johns Hop-
> kins researchers Camilla Benbow and Julian
> Stanley, "We favor the hypothesis that sex
> differences in achievement in and attitude
> toward mathematics result from superior
> male mathematical ability, which may in
> turn be related to greater male ability in
> spatial tasks."

Not sure when this study was completed Bob, and I'm also not sure what
age group the study you reference covers, but the information I just
saw two days ago cited just the opposite. Girls were testing MUCH
higher than boys in elementary school. Sometimes the difference
carries into high school and college, but at some point hormones and
interest in the opposite sex sort of cuts off the competition. As
elementary school girls, boys were not an issue, studying was. But
when they hit puberty, suddenly girls do not want to do better than
boys in class, and the old "no one likes a smarty pants" issue,
believe it or not, seems to still prevail.

Corky Scott

[Grantland]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:

>
>
>NoPoliticsHere wrote:
>>
>> Anonymity
>> is more likely to bring honesty, as far as inner opinions. Most people
>> who post with real names make sure they walk the line they've been told
>> to walk.
>
>So someone who's lying about who they are is somehow more honest than someone who
>doesn't lie? Not hardly. As far as I can tell, people post pretty much what they
>think and/or feel -- it's not like there's some sort of police coming to get someone
>who posts a PIC opinion. It just seems that many of those with the most extreme
>opinions seem to be ashamed of them and don't want anyone to know who they are.
>
>George Patterson

What about that yellow coward Brooks who did an abrupt U-turn on
Itzreali after some threats? And others. Buttlickers. Yellow
filth.

Grantland

[Grantland]

Ed Rasimus > missed the boat:


>Another woman I've met, entered service as an F-15E WSO, then after
>flying combat in Kosovo, got selected for pilot training. She's now an
>F-16 pilot in my old squadron, the 421st TFS. At River Rats in
>Nashville last year, a group of male aviators--all still active in the
>fighter force--told me (without prompting or politically correct
>superiors hovering nearby) that "most of us have to work our asses off
>just to be mediocre, she is outstanding without even trying". They
>wouldn't say such things without good reason.

Heh heh!

G

[Leslie Swartz]

Bottom line:

1) Develop meaningful performance standards applicable to relevant
skillsets for the positions; and
2) Follow them.

Of course, "the rub" is that if we actually did that in the military, we
would immediately see two huge problems:

1) Various special interest groups (sub groups of various
sex/gender/cultural/ethnic identities etc.) would perform equally to
everyone else meeting the same standards. Not actually a problem unless you
are some kind of a bigot.

and

2) At least temporarily, some of these same special interest groups would
appear to be "under-represented" in various positions. Ditto; also not
actually a problem unless you are some kind of a bigot.

What to do, what to do . . . oh my, what to do . . . ? The interesting
question for me is exactly why following 1) and 2) above should be so damn
controversial and "non PC."

Steve Swartz

(Note: the bigots perceiving either 1) or 2) to be a problem would actually
be very different people, more than likely.)






"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> " wrote
>
>> I like to fly, but I daresay I don't have whatever it takes to fly an
>> F-14 in carrier operations. But then, *statistically*, you don't
>> either. Very few people do.
>
> From a former Naval Aviator.
> Being an excellent fighter pilot and landing on an aircraft carrier
> is much different than flying jetliners from JFK to ORD.
> It's all about "Spatial Orientation", a trait that the Navy tested
> for extesively during the training process.
>
> I have posted this previously....here it is again.
>
>
> The Brain, Richard Restak, M.D.
>
> Based on the PBS Series, "The Brain"
>
>
> Brain-Sex Differences: Are They Real?
>
> Men generally have better spatial function
> than women. This refers to the ability to
> mentally visualize and maneuver objects
> within three-dimensional space. But among
> men who don't produce the male sex hor-
> mone testosterone, spatial abilities are poorly
> developed. According to Harvard neurolo-
> gist Norman Geschwind, "It is very impor-
> tant to stress that there are women who
> have absolutely superb spatial function and
> there are plenty of men whose spatial func-
> tion is abysmal. But on the average, men
> have better spatial function than women.
> One practical consequence involves the dif-
> ficulties some people experience in the
> immediate discrimination between right and
> left. In one study twice as many women as
> men reported "frequent" problems in rap-
> idly deciding about right-left issues (turning
> right at a fork in the road, quickly respond-
> ing when asked to raise the right or left
> hand, and so on).
> Other areas in which brain-sex differ-
> ences play a prominent but by no means
> exclusive role include:
> Language facility. Females generally
> speak earlier, learn foreign languages more
> easily, and outperform males in tests of
> verbal fluency.
> Fine hand control. From an early age,
> rapid sequential movements are performed
> better by girls, who, as a result, exhibit
> better penmanship than boys of the same
> age.
> Mathematical ability. Studies among
> mathematically gifted students reveal that
> males outnumber females among the supe-
> rior achievers. According to Johns Hop-
> kins researchers Camilla Benbow and Julian
> Stanley, "We favor the hypothesis that sex
> differences in achievement in and attitude
> toward mathematics result from superior
> male mathematical ability, which may in
> turn be related to greater male ability in
> spatial tasks."
> Dyslexia, stuttering, delayed speech, au-
> tism, hyperactivity...each of these neuro-
> behavioral disorders occurs with greater
> frequency in males.
> Although the above sex differences are
> well established, no one has as yet convinc-
> ingly demonstrated an anatomic difference
> between the brain structures of human
> males and females. These behavioral differ-
> ences may be the result of chemical changes
> in brain function resulting from the influ-
> ence of sex hormones in early prenatal
> development.
>
>
>
> Bob Moore

[Icebound]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:06:35 GMT, Bob Moore >
> wrote:
>
>> Mathematical ability. Studies among
>> mathematically gifted students reveal that
>> males outnumber females among the supe-
>> rior achievers. According to Johns Hop-
>> kins researchers Camilla Benbow and Julian
>> Stanley, "We favor the hypothesis that sex
>> differences in achievement in and attitude
>> toward mathematics result from superior
>> male mathematical ability, which may in
>> turn be related to greater male ability in
>> spatial tasks."
>
> Not sure when this study was completed Bob, and I'm also not sure what
> age group the study you reference covers, but the information I just
> saw two days ago cited just the opposite. Girls were testing MUCH
> higher than boys in elementary school.


That has to do with GameBoy and XBox, versus Math :-).

[Rick Durden]

Robert,

Good grief, you mean they are still trying to smear the name of Lt.
Hultgreen? I guess a catastrophic engine failure on short final to
the carrier is so routine that any pilot could recover, but, as she
was a woman, she was suspect. Guess she should have joined the Guard
where she could and flown in Texas for a while, then moved to Alabama
and not bothered to even show up or take a flight physical so she
could get an honorable discharge.

Interesting events when the Army first trained women in helos. As was
done when the military was forced to integrate in the '50s, there were
those who didn't want "them" flying and did their best to flunk them
out despite the fact women had flown Army Air Force airplanes in WWII
after going through Army training. To the frustration of the
malcontents, the women helo trainees managed to complete the course
and obtain their wings. Not missing a beat, the Army then required
them to qualify for fixed wing ops, to get their commercial,
instrument, multi-engine training (equivalent to civilian ratings) in
a Baron in 60 days, as method of washing them out after they had their
wings. All of them did it. Once that hurdle was cleared, the Army
decided that they'd let the women fly and sent them off to the
squadrons where the ones I know tell me they were treated fairly.

All the best,
Rick

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in message >...
> (NoPoliticsHere) wrote in message >...
> > C Kingsbury wrote:
> >
> > >As a proud fascist right-wing capitalist pig, what I'd like to know is,
> > >what's yer point? We've already allowed them to fly planes, drive cars, own
> > >property, even vote, so what precisely is it you would like to see done
> > >about the scourge of chick pilots?
> >
> > That's easy. No special allowances for gender. Female pilots should
> > be held to the same standards as the guys. If that means two females
> > in one cockpit, so be it, but make it equitable.
>
> The problem with that is that there are fewer women signing up for the
> military to fly than men. In order for the military to quicky meet
> their quota they were forced to allow women to fly that did not meet
> the same standards or receive the same amount of training time. That
> was the case of Lt. Kara S. Hultgreen. Its been about 10 years now, I
> hope they've resolved that issue.
>
> -Robert

[jls]

I am shocked that Struldbrug MichelleP has not entered this fray
screeching. OTOH, maybe she has groundlooped that generic Maule and
doesn't relish the exposure. Or maybe busy at the time-- on the angel sides
of clouds with the angels or cobbling hobbits for humanity.

[John Mazor]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "WaltBJ" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> > FWIW I trained women pilots transitioning to the L1011 while working
> >> > at Eastern. Without exception they were meticulous pilots who studied
> >> > hard and really learned the airplane. I also knew Betty Skelton - she
> >> > was a 'pretty good' woman pilot (understatement for effect).
> >> > Walt BJ
> >>
> >> And how long was it after they transitioned women to the L-1011 that
the
> >> company folded?
> >
> > Frank Lorenzo wasn't a woman.
> >
> It's just to close to the damn elections. Everybody has lost thier ability
> to see a joke.

I'm pretty well known in a.d.a. for my sense of humor, but if you're going
to float an insinuation that there was a connection between those two events
and expect it to be taken as a joke, well, as Gary Cooper said in "The
Virginian," "You better smile when you say that, pardner."

[NoPoliticsHere]

Corky Scott > wrote in message >...
>
> Not sure when this study was completed Bob, and I'm also not sure what
> age group the study you reference covers, but the information I just
> saw two days ago cited just the opposite. Girls were testing MUCH
> higher than boys in elementary school.

I've heard from reliable sources that the deck has been stacked against
little boys in grammar school since the '80s. This "information" you
saw two days ago supposedly citing just the opposite would immediately
come under suspicion to me, considering the politics of the last
couple of decades especially.

> Sometimes the difference
> carries into high school and college, but at some point hormones and
> interest in the opposite sex sort of cuts off the competition. As
> elementary school girls, boys were not an issue, studying was. But
> when they hit puberty, suddenly girls do not want to do better than
> boys in class, and the old "no one likes a smarty pants" issue,
> believe it or not, seems to still prevail.

That wasn't the attitude when/where I attended high school (1970s). When I
was an undergrad physics major, I, like all physics majors, had to
take lots of upper-level mathematics courses in addition to all
the physics coursework. There were very, very few female physics
majors, even though they were already being encouraged to go into
the sciences at that time. And the few I encountered were never
the top drawer students in the class. However, there were larger
numbers of females in some of the math courses, and some of them were
good students. I remember one in particular who had a real flair for
the proofs that are such a big part of the branch of math called linear
algebra. She aced that senior-level course. I remember another
sharp girl in my one-variable integral calculus class that came early
in my college years. So, I speak from real experience on this.
But I believe that, generally, the average male student in those
math courses was better than the average female.

Another observation I made was that women generally have a much harder
time *applying* what they've learned in class to "real world" applications.

---------

[Tim Hogard]

C Kingsbury ) wrote:
: There was an NTSB study within the past four years that looked at this
: question. I'm going on memory here, but the aggregate accident rates were
: not different in a statistically significant way. But there was a suggestion
: that the causes of accidents were somewhat different across the two groups.
That is true. And I don't think the study was in the last 4 years.

: Women, it seemed, were more likely to be involved in accidents owing to
: mishandling the aircraft, while men were more likely to make serious
: judgment errors.
My take on reading part of it was that women were more likely to folow
procedures even when they weren't the best thing to do and men were
more likley not to follow procedures when they were the best thing to do.

So it depends on whats wrong and if the best solution is in the
manual.

This report came out about the time of the ValueJet 592 accident
(May 96) and I had wonder if the procedure of "return to a maintenance
base" hadn't been a factor. The plane was very close to the big
runway at Kennedy when it was clear that there was a fire on board
and Orlando was much closer than Miami.

-tim
http://web.abnormal.com

[NoPoliticsHere]

" > wrote in message om>...
> NoPoliticsHere wrote:
> > I know full well than some can, so yes I agree. And the competent
> > ones suffer because of the bad ones. People start painting them
> > all with the same brush, or however the saying goes.
>
> Which, of course, you pretty much did with your initial post (I am
> sorry, but I couldn't resist- you left yourself open for that one :)

Well, not really. I didn't imply that _all_ women pilots
were inferior, only that, just maybe, overall as a group, they
possibly had a higher accident rate than men.

> > I'll admit that the only cockpit I've ever even SAT in was in a Herc
> > that was parked at an airshow.
> Nice airplanes. But terribly uncomfortable to ride in.

I've also heard they're not much fun to land.:)

------------------

[Blippie]

>>>I'll admit that the only cockpit I've ever even SAT in was in a Herc
>>>that was parked at an airshow.

>>Nice airplanes. But terribly uncomfortable to ride in.

>I've also heard they're not much fun to land.:)

I rode along on a short journey a few years back. Even the co-pilot was
sick. (Mind you, we had all been out on the lash the night before.)

(I do not condone that behaviour, of course. Still, it was a good craic!)

Cheers

Blippie
--
Ten minutes of this rain will do more good in half an hour than a fortnight
of ordinary rain in a month.

[John Mazor]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
om...
> (Schlomo Lipchitz) wrote in message
>...
> > Delta Airlines had a couple of female pilots sitting at home getting
> > full pay - one of which I flew with personally. They were fired for
> > incompetence. But when they threatened to sue for sexual
> > discrimination, Delta opted to just pay them rather that go through
> > the negative publicity. And that's a fact Jack!
>
> But schlomo, can't you see that the PC spoonfed milksops here aren't
> interested in facts like this? Such things are not allowed on their
> radar screens, at least publicly. They behave as told.

Mr. Dipschitz needs to be a little more careful with his facts. Both pilots
were out on medical.

[John Mazor]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
om...
> (Rick Durden) wrote in message
>...
> > There is very little data available on the subject, largely because
> > there are so few women who are pilots (about 6% of all pilots, a lower
> > proportion than that of professional pilots).
>
> Which goes along with my observation that women are involved in more
> than 6% of accidents, at least the ones that make the news.

Which, as has been pointed out here, is hardly a scientific method, and
furthermore, many involved accidents where the pilot gender was irrelevant.

But since you're into accidents in the news:

Crash report criticises Air Algerie and 737 captain
Kieran Daly, London (27Oct04, 12:20 GMT, 677 words)
Algerian investigators have strongly criticised the captain of the Air
Algerie Boeing 737-200 that crashed fatally in March last year and
recommended changes to the airline's safety and training processes.

All but one of the 102 occupants of the 21-year-old aircraft died when the
crew failed to control it after suffering the loss of the left-hand Pratt &
Whitney JT8D-17A engine immediately after take-off from Tamanrasset in
Algeria.

In their final report on the 6 March 2003 accident, the investigators say
the aircraft reached only about 400ft before descending, crashing violently
and catching fire.

The captain took control of the aircraft from the first officer after the
engine failure, probably unnecessarily, but then failed to raise the
landing-gear and tried to maintain an excessive rate of climb while the
speed bled away, leading to loss of control of the aircraft.

As the probable cause, the report states: "The accident resulted from the
loss of an engine during a critical phase of flight, from the failure to
raise the landing-gear after the engine failure, and from the taking of
control by the captain before he had completely identified the nature of the
failure."

It describes a poor preparation for the flight which was carried out by the
first officer alone, because the captain was late arriving, and saw the
checklist being curtailed due to the involvement of the cabin chief in the
cockpit.

The report says: "This lack of rigour in the preparation for the flight was
also noted during taxiing with non-observation of the 'sterile cockpit'
regime.

"More generally, at no moment on the cockpit voice recorder is there a
dialogue or briefing related to the possibility of a problem during
take-off, as recommended by Air Algerie's procedures."

The aircraft eventually took off at 150kt but immediately after the first
officer requested the landing gear to be raised, the first stage of the high
pressure turbine in the left hand engine suffered a major failure which
rapidly led to its uncontained destruction.

Eight seconds later the captain, aged 48 and with nearly 11,000 flying
hours, took control for reasons that the investigators say are not clear,
but did not follow the procedure for doing so, and then neither raised the
gear nor asked for it to be raised.

The first officer, a 44 year-old woman with more than 5,000 hours, again
suggested raising the gear and reported the emergency by radio but then
played no obvious role. Several seconds after the left engine failure there
was a "significant", unexplained, power reduction on the right engine which
markedly reduced the aircraft's performance.

The report says: "At all events the absence of co-ordination between the
pilots at the time of the transfer of control led the commander to manage an
emergency which he had not had time to analyse completely."

The captain then maintained the same rate of climb but the speed decreased
toward the stall and the aircraft lost altitude, generating a ground
proximity warning system (GPWS) 'don't sink' alert 6s before the aircraft
crashed.

Contributory factors to the accident included the aircraft's near-maximum
weight at a 'hot and high' airport.

The investigators describe a weak system at the airline for providing
feedback to crews from other incidents and accidents: although there was a
system of published bulletins all the case studies covered were from other
airlines and "no event reported by a crew of Air Algerie was analysed in
writing".

They make three sets of recommendations: first that Air Algerie and other
Algerian airlines ensure that their crew resource management (CRM) training
effectively trains crews concerning the procedure for transferring and
sharing control of the aircraft, and that Algeria's Direction de l'Aviation
Civile et de la Meteorologie (DACM) puts in place an operation to oversee
the process.

Secondly, that the DACM ensures that Air Algerie and other airlines put in
place a flight safety programme which provides feedback from in-service
experience and the systematic analysis of flight data.

Finally, they recommend that the Algerian transport minister establishes a
permanent body for investigating civil aviation "incidents and accidents".

Source: Air Transport Intelligence news

So we had a male captain who showed up late, failed to ensure a proper
pre-flight, failed to brief, pre-emptively took control without knowing the
problem, ignored the female S/O suggestion about raising the gear, and
mismanaged the recovery.

But it's an accident that involved a woman pilot.

[[email protected]]

NoPoliticsHere wrote:
> " > wrote in message
om>...
> > > I'll admit that the only cockpit I've ever even SAT in was in a
Herc
> > > that was parked at an airshow.
> > Nice airplanes. But terribly uncomfortable to ride in.
>
> I've also heard they're not much fun to land.:)

Hah. Try being on one on an approach to Baghdad, Balad, or Mosul.
There ain't no such thing as a long, stabilized approach in this
country. I've done those rides (as pax) on a B737, C130, and AN24.
They are all white-knucklers.

[NoPoliticsHere]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message >...
>
> Which, as has been pointed out here, is hardly a scientific method,

Never claimed it was.

> furthermore, many involved accidents where the pilot gender was irrelevant.

I'm sure some like that have occurred.

---snipped-----

Okay, so you've found one crash story that sounds like the male pilot
was the knucklehead in that male/female cockpit. But two points to
note are that the woman had some age and experience which may lend
good evidence that she was a good pilot, and more importantly, this
was an **Algerian** airline, not American, which lends even more
evidence that the woman was skilled and competent, as the PC politics
at work that I allude to is probably near non-existent in Algeria.

--------------

[NoPoliticsHere]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message >...

> Mr. Dipschitz needs to be a little more careful with his facts. Both pilots
> were out on medical.

Please elaborate.

--------------------

[[email protected]]

NoPoliticsHere wrote:

> was an **Algerian** airline, not American, which lends even more
> evidence that the woman was skilled and competent, as the PC politics
> at work that I allude to is probably near non-existent in Algeria.

Oh my. You have obviously never been to a Muslim country. I am
astounded the woman ever got to fly, period. It isn't any wonder at
all the PIC didn't listen to her suggestions; men in those countries
tend to be a bit chauvinistic, if I may say so.

[NoPoliticsHere]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message >...
>
> Which, as has been pointed out here, is hardly a scientific method, and
> furthermore, many involved accidents where the pilot gender was irrelevant.

What people like you can never seem to understand is that I am not
against women (pilots or otherwise), but I am against political
correctness, quotas, etc. I'm actually happily married to a woman,
have a good relationship with my mother, and generally get along
as well with them in everyday life as with men.

-------------

[John Mazor]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > Which, as has been pointed out here, is hardly a scientific method, and
> > furthermore, many involved accidents where the pilot gender was
irrelevant.
>
> What people like you can never seem to understand is that I am not
> against women (pilots or otherwise), but I am against political
> correctness, quotas, etc. I'm actually happily married to a woman,
> have a good relationship with my mother, and generally get along
> as well with them in everyday life as with men.

And what you refuse to admit is that the "proof" you offered for PC/quotas
in the cockpit doesn't prove anything, for all the reasons noted here. Feel
free to make any case you want against PC, but it has to withstand the
rigors of close examination. For example, like you, I could make a
number-based case of gender discrimination simply by noting the small
percentage of pilots who are women - the MCPs are blocking the cockpit door!
But of course, that argument wouldn't withstand examination, either.

[John Mazor]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> NoPoliticsHere wrote:
>
> > was an **Algerian** airline, not American, which lends even more
> > evidence that the woman was skilled and competent, as the PC politics
> > at work that I allude to is probably near non-existent in Algeria.
>
> Oh my. You have obviously never been to a Muslim country. I am
> astounded the woman ever got to fly, period. It isn't any wonder at
> all the PIC didn't listen to her suggestions; men in those countries
> tend to be a bit chauvinistic, if I may say so.

Gender bias may have played a role, but it may simply have been
old-fashioned captain's arrogance.

[John Mazor]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Mr. Dipschitz needs to be a little more careful with his facts. Both
pilots
> > were out on medical.
>
> Please elaborate.

He said "Delta Airlines had a couple of female pilots sitting at home
getting
full pay - one of which I flew with personally. They were fired for
incompetence."

"Sitting at home getting paid" suggests they were goofing off and managing
to collect a paycheck. No, he didn't specifically say that, but without any
clarification, the reader is invited to draw that conclusion.

According to my information, one was retired on the medical, not fired for
incompetence. I believe the other one is still on medical, although I'm
still trying to get definitive information.

Leaving aside these specific examples, there have been incompetent pilots
ever since there were airlines. If you could somehow determine the number
men and women pilots fired for incompetence, it would be a lose-lose
proposition for women. If comparatively more women were fired, Slo-mo would
say that was prima facie evidence that women as a class are inferior. If
there were comparatively fewer fired, you would cite that as proof that
they're being coddled because of PC.

[Bianca]

NoPoliticsHere > schreef in berichtnieuws ...
> I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
> are ladies in the cockpit.

Yah right! We're all alone then, coz the male part of the cockpit crew get high testosteron level...




> See what I mean?
>
> -----------

Nope. I invite you to fly with me once, I'll let you press the eaten food right in your pants, your face will become colors you'd
never know it was possible, and the drink you had before will leak between your knees...

Oh yah, and we land safely.
And after that, you get time to recover and clean up your mess...

Deal?

[NoPoliticsHere]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message >...
>
> And what you refuse to admit is that the "proof" you offered for PC/quotas
> in the cockpit doesn't prove anything, for all the reasons noted here.

I never claimed to admit any '"proof"' of anything; your word not mine.
I only stated an observation (possibly accurate). But when people
start trying to put words in my mouth, I don't see much point in debating.

> Feel
> free to make any case you want against PC, but it has to withstand the
> rigors of close examination.

If you aren't aware by now that quotas exist (based on race & gender),
then what could I say?

> For example, like you, I could make a
> number-based case of gender discrimination simply by noting the small
> percentage of pilots who are women - the MCPs are blocking the cockpit door!

No, you could only make a reasonable case by showing that it is common
practice for qualified women being turned down for pilot positions.
If you will re-read what I've written, mine was only an observation.
I do not intentionally fish out, or seek news stories where women have
been involved in crashes. It was just my OBSERVATION that in numerous
newsworthy crashes in the recent past, a woman has been in the cockpit.
When I also combine my observation with the FACT of the gender/race-based
quota system in this country, can't you see how easy it is to connect dots?
Probably not I'm sure.

-------------------

[NoPoliticsHere]

" > wrote in message . com>...
> NoPoliticsHere wrote:
>
> > was an **Algerian** airline, not American, which lends even more
> > evidence that the woman was skilled and competent, as the PC politics
> > at work that I allude to is probably near non-existent in Algeria.
>
> Oh my. You have obviously never been to a Muslim country. I am
> astounded the woman ever got to fly, period. It isn't any wonder at
> all the PIC didn't listen to her suggestions; men in those countries
> tend to be a bit chauvinistic, if I may say so.

My point exactly. This woman probably never got any breaks whatever
because of her gender, in that country. In Algeria, she probably
had to be an outstanding pilot to have even gotten the job.

--------------

[[email protected]]

NoPoliticsHere wrote:
> My point exactly. This woman probably never got any breaks whatever
> because of her gender, in that country. In Algeria, she probably
> had to be an outstanding pilot to have even gotten the job.

That she had that job at all was due to PC pressures. Algeria, as a
former French colony, has a foot in the Western world. Otherwise there
is no way she would have been allowed to fly. I am in the Middle East,
and it is amazing how women- even Western women- are treated here. But
that's another subject entirely.

[John Mazor]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > And what you refuse to admit is that the "proof" you offered for
PC/quotas
> > in the cockpit doesn't prove anything, for all the reasons noted here.
>
> I never claimed to admit any '"proof"' of anything; your word not mine.
> I only stated an observation (possibly accurate). But when people
> start trying to put words in my mouth, I don't see much point in debating.

So do you stand by, or now reject, your hypothesis that your observations
about accidents support a conclusion that because of PC, there are
proportionately more incompetent women pilots than men pilots?

> > Feel free to make any case you want against PC, but it has to withstand
the
> > rigors of close examination.
>
> If you aren't aware by now that quotas exist (based on race & gender),
> then what could I say?

I'm not aware of any "quotas". While having wome and minority pilots might
be deemed advantageous in terms of corporate image, and managements may have
taken pains to ensure that no discrimination exists at the hiring level,
that's hardly setting a quota. Are you saying that airlines have told their
people they must hire X number or X percentage of women and minority pilots?
Really? Which airlines? (I will admit that my knowledge is limited to U.S.
airlines.)

> > For example, like you, I could make a
> > number-based case of gender discrimination simply by noting the small
> > percentage of pilots who are women - the MCPs are blocking the cockpit
door!
>
> No, you could only make a reasonable case by showing that it is common
> practice for qualified women being turned down for pilot positions.

Thank you for agreeing with my point.

> If you will re-read what I've written, mine was only an observation.
> I do not intentionally fish out, or seek news stories where women have
> been involved in crashes. It was just my OBSERVATION that in numerous
> newsworthy crashes in the recent past, a woman has been in the cockpit.
> When I also combine my observation with the FACT of the gender/race-based
> quota system in this country, can't you see how easy it is to connect
dots?
> Probably not I'm sure.

I have railed against PC for decades. It exists. But your example doesn't
stand up, for all the reasons previously discussed.

You praised Jose for carefully parsing the logic for not using your real
name on the Web, so you do understand the process, but unless you are
willing right now to admit that your "observation" is worthless, you are
unwilling to parse the logic that has been presented to you in this thread.

Find something else to illustrate PC. And take it elsewhere.

[[email protected]]

NoPoliticsHere wrote:
> It was just my OBSERVATION that in numerous
> newsworthy crashes in the recent past, a woman has been in the
cockpit.
> When I also combine my observation with the FACT of the
gender/race-based
> quota system in this country, can't you see how easy it is to connect
dots?
> Probably not I'm sure.
>
> -------------------

I am not a fan of quota systems of any kind- I think they ultimately do
a disservice to those they purport to help.

What you have done here is begun with a supposition (women are hired on
the basis of political correctness and not competence) and then worked
backwards in order support that supposition. That is the worst sort of
analysis possible. Furthermore, you attempted to present this faulty
argument in a forum that deals with a subject you admittedly know
nothing about. If you wish to be taken seriously- here or in life- you
must think things through objectively. You have, it would appear,
failed to do so.

[NoPoliticsHere]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message >...

> So do you stand by, or now reject, your hypothesis that your observations
> about accidents support a conclusion that because of PC, there are
> proportionately more incompetent women pilots than men pilots?

From

http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq7.htm

(The author on the Web page, a 747-400 captain, after first making the
required "cover my butt" statements so the PC police wouldn't come
after him, revealed some of the sobering facts):

-----begin paste-----

But that is the problem. I am aware of some cases where less than
competent female and/or minority pilots have been hired. In other
words, the standards were lowered to meet the numbers requirements
imposed by consent decrees with the EEOC.

In one case, a minority female was given almost 3 times the simulator
hours to pass her DC-10 S/O checkride, but couldn't do it (just about
the easiest position in any airline cockpit). Yet the airline was
terrified at the thought of firing her. Her boyfriend was an employee
of EEOC. She was still in her first (probation) year so union
protection wasn't a factor.

So what did the airline do? They mounted an intensive investigation
into her background (a tactic that could have gotten the airline into
big trouble if they had done it before they hired her), and discovered
she had been fired from 3 other airlines, but failed to reveal that on
her employment application. That was the ammunition needed to justify
her dismissal.

There are other stories, including the letter to AirlineSafety.Com, by
ATC controller John Dill and other letters published in AWST, by
controllers who believe diversity goals have harmed the competency
level of controllers.

I see the EEOC decrees to be the biggest threat against pilot
competency today, not because there aren't competent minority/female
pilots out there to be hired, but because quotas are imposed and
airlines sometimes have to lower their normal standards to achieve
those mandated numbers. If they don't, the EEOC sues them, costing
them many millions of dollars and it will result in the imposition of
even harsher mandates in the future to "remedy their past
discrimination."

----end paste---

And here's more on the subject. Please read it well as I want your
comments.

-------begin paste----------

If the airline has good simulators and good training programs, then
the biggest threat to competency is not in how much time various
pilots get during transition courses, but in how competent they were
when the airline first hired them. Very selective hiring (including
detailed background investigation) is the most effective tool to
heading off pilot competency problems in the future, yet that is the
tool that is called into question the most in "discrimination"
allegations against the airlines. And, the libel law has its effect
too. Previous airlines are afraid to disclose any negative information
about a discharged pilot, because lawyers make hay out of it and sue
the hell out of the employer that dares give a negative reference.

Some years ago, a female pilot alleged a constant pattern of sexual
harassment in the cockpit, naming numerous male pilots as defendants
in a Title Seven Civil Rights lawsuit. Her attorney was a rather
famous female rights specialist who makes extensive use of the media
to win her cases. The female pilot was exposed in the deposition
process when many contradictions were revealed. She finally confessed;
she made the whole thing up. She was a "weak sister" pilot, who had
competency problems and was afraid the airline might try to fire her.
Someone advised her that they wouldn't dare fire her if she made a
sexual harassment/civil rights claim.

Of course, once the truth was disclosed, she was fired. I have been
told she now works as a pilot for another major airline. Want to bet
on, whether or not the previous airline gave her a negative reference?

----end paste----

Well, so much for your PC claims....

-------------------

[John Mazor]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > So do you stand by, or now reject, your hypothesis that your
observations
> > about accidents support a conclusion that because of PC, there are
> > proportionately more incompetent women pilots than men pilots?
>
> From
>
> http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq7.htm

Thank you for the interesting link. The case he cited involved a new hire,
not eligible yet for union representation, so it wouldn't have registered on
my radar.

> (The author on the Web page, a 747-400 captain, after first making the
> required "cover my butt" statements so the PC police wouldn't come
> after him,

Ah. So when he says "I have flown with many minorities and females and have
not observed their level of competence to be any less than what I had seen
in the years preceding diversity" that's not true, just CYA. You want to
have the anecdote represent the truth but dismiss the wider observation.
(You do remember that word, "observation"?)

And all of his observations are just that, anecdotal. I've had my own
anecdotal observations over the years, and they include plenty of marginal
or incompetent pilots who happened to be male and gamed the system.

The only way to resolve this is a systematic scientific study. There are
studies that measure gender differences in various types of skills and
abilites, but I'm not aware of any that compare rates for training wash-outs
or accidents where pilot performance played a role. If you know of any, I'd
be happy to link to it.

> But that is the problem. I am aware of some cases where less than
> competent female and/or minority pilots have been hired. In other
> words, the standards were lowered to meet the numbers requirements
> imposed by consent decrees with the EEOC.

To the extent that it happens, I certainly can't agree with it. But again,
we're still in the world of anecdotal observations. So you have made a case
that it can happen, but then, plenty of incompetent males pilots game the
system, too.

> And here's more on the subject. Please read it well as I want your
comments.
>
> -------begin paste----------
>
> If the airline has good simulators and good training programs, then
> the biggest threat to competency is not in how much time various
> pilots get during transition courses, but in how competent they were
> when the airline first hired them.

That's a gross oversimplification. For example, as he pointed out himself,
a perfectly competent pilot who was hired to fly the "steam-gauge" B-727
cockpit might have a hard time transitioning to all-glass cockpits. Old
pilot joke, a modern twist on the even older one about what are the three
most common last words on the CVR: 1. "What's it doing???" 2. "What's it
doing NOW???" 3. "Why the hell did it do THAT???"

> Very selective hiring (including
> detailed background investigation) is the most effective tool to
> heading off pilot competency problems in the future, yet that is the
> tool that is called into question the most in "discrimination"
> allegations against the airlines. And, the libel law has its effect
> too. Previous airlines are afraid to disclose any negative information
> about a discharged pilot, because lawyers make hay out of it and sue
> the hell out of the employer that dares give a negative reference.

Which is why employers must carefull read the pilot's records from previous
employment. The FAA now requires them to get those records before hiring.

> Some years ago, a female pilot alleged a constant pattern of sexual
> harassment in the cockpit, naming numerous male pilots as defendants
> in a Title Seven Civil Rights lawsuit. Her attorney was a rather
> famous female rights specialist who makes extensive use of the media
> to win her cases. The female pilot was exposed in the deposition
> process when many contradictions were revealed. She finally confessed;
> she made the whole thing up. She was a "weak sister" pilot, who had
> competency problems and was afraid the airline might try to fire her.
> Someone advised her that they wouldn't dare fire her if she made a
> sexual harassment/civil rights claim.

Anecdotal observation, as previously discussed. If it floats your boat to
say "Gotcha!" on the anecdotes, go for it, but again, that's hardly an
indictment of female pilots as a class, any more that anecdotes about male
pilots who game the sytem are an indictment of male pilots as a class.

> Of course, once the truth was disclosed, she was fired. I have been
> told she now works as a pilot for another major airline. Want to bet
> on, whether or not the previous airline gave her a negative reference?

"I have been told." Well, now we have an anecdote of unknowable accuracy,
but even if perfectly accurate, it still is an anecdote.

So we've gone from your broad insinuation about women pilots in general to a
few anecdotes. But let us come full circle on this exchange and have you
answer the question that you sidestepped at the top:

So do you stand by, or now reject, your hypothesis that your observations
about accidents support a conclusion that because of PC, there are
proportionately more incompetent women pilots than men pilots?

"I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

[NoPoliticsHere]

" > wrote in message . com>...
> NoPoliticsHere wrote:
> > It was just my OBSERVATION that in numerous
> > newsworthy crashes in the recent past, a woman has been in the
> cockpit.
> > When I also combine my observation with the FACT of the
> gender/race-based
> > quota system in this country, can't you see how easy it is to connect
> dots?
> > Probably not I'm sure.
> >
> > -------------------
>
> I am not a fan of quota systems of any kind- I think they ultimately do
> a disservice to those they purport to help.

Agreed.

> What you have done here is begun with a supposition (women are hired on
> the basis of political correctness and not competence) and then worked
> backwards in order support that supposition.

No, what I have done is claim that ***SOME*** women and minorities are hired
when their gender and/or race takes on more importance than their competence.
It is hard to believe that you *still* miss my point.

> That is the worst sort of
> analysis possible. Furthermore, you attempted to present this faulty
> argument in a forum that deals with a subject you admittedly know
> nothing about. If you wish to be taken seriously- here or in life- you
> must think things through objectively. You have, it would appear,
> failed to do so.

And perhaps you could improve your reading comprehension.

---------------------

[NoPoliticsHere]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message >...

>So do you stand by, or now reject, your hypothesis that your observations
>about accidents support a conclusion that because of PC, there are
>proportionately more incompetent women pilots than men pilots.

Yes, I do stand behind it. The evidence is quite compelling in support
of the idea that there would be a higher percentage of incompetent
female/minority pilots, considering the political factors involved,
which I have illustrated to you through real-life, real-world cases;
which include the words of a veteran airline pilot who has spine enough
to speak frankly on the subject.

I cannot PROVE anything because I am not privy to any good, serious
statistics on this, if they even exist. But I noticed in the writings
of the 747 captain that airline pilots apparently even have a term
for these incompetent female pilots who've been hired by the
airline: "weak sister" pilots. So tell me, just what did he mean
by that?

-------------------------

[Ed Rasimus]

On 31 Oct 2004 09:45:55 -0800,
(NoPoliticsHere) wrote:

>"John Mazor" > wrote in message >...
>
>>So do you stand by, or now reject, your hypothesis that your observations
>>about accidents support a conclusion that because of PC, there are
>>proportionately more incompetent women pilots than men pilots.
>
>Yes, I do stand behind it. The evidence is quite compelling in support
>of the idea that there would be a higher percentage of incompetent
>female/minority pilots, considering the political factors involved,
>which I have illustrated to you through real-life, real-world cases;
>which include the words of a veteran airline pilot who has spine enough
>to speak frankly on the subject.
>
>I cannot PROVE anything because I am not privy to any good, serious
>statistics on this, if they even exist. But I noticed in the writings
>of the 747 captain that airline pilots apparently even have a term
>for these incompetent female pilots who've been hired by the
>airline: "weak sister" pilots. So tell me, just what did he mean
>by that?

And, in research, what you have been stating is referred to as
"anecdotal evidence"---one or two or even a dozen credible observers
make statements regarding individual events which are then stretched
to become generalizations of a class. In a different area of
discrimination this might be called stereotyping.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org

[David Lentz]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 31 Oct 2004 09:45:55 -0800,
> (NoPoliticsHere) wrote:
>
> >"John Mazor" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> >>So do you stand by, or now reject, your hypothesis that your
observations
> >>about accidents support a conclusion that because of PC, there are
> >>proportionately more incompetent women pilots than men pilots.
> >
> >Yes, I do stand behind it. The evidence is quite compelling in support
> >of the idea that there would be a higher percentage of incompetent
> >female/minority pilots, considering the political factors involved,
> >which I have illustrated to you through real-life, real-world cases;
> >which include the words of a veteran airline pilot who has spine enough
> >to speak frankly on the subject.
> >
> >I cannot PROVE anything because I am not privy to any good, serious
> >statistics on this, if they even exist. But I noticed in the writings
> >of the 747 captain that airline pilots apparently even have a term
> >for these incompetent female pilots who've been hired by the
> >airline: "weak sister" pilots. So tell me, just what did he mean
> >by that?
>
> And, in research, what you have been stating is referred to as
> "anecdotal evidence"---one or two or even a dozen credible observers
> make statements regarding individual events which are then stretched
> to become generalizations of a class. In a different area of
> discrimination this might be called stereotyping.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org

The problems as I see it that the observation that protected class, female
and minority, may be less qualiifed it based on anecdotal evidence. Yet,
I suspect that political consideration prevent any statistical evidence from
being available. So anecdotal evidence may be all that exists.

There is a problem with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
mentality, and thats the assumption that a proportional number of qualified
protected class members in fact do exist. This is an assumtion which has
not been proven and is politically imposible to challenge. From the
biological perspective no two groups are have equal abilities in anything.
Sprinters tend to be black. Swimmers white, and garbage men male.

The difference is that we don't have the EEOC attempting for force
proportional equity on to basketball players or garbage men. If the EEOC
did the result might be equally absurd.

David

[John Mazor]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 31 Oct 2004 09:45:55 -0800,
> (NoPoliticsHere) wrote:
>
> >"John Mazor" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> >>So do you stand by, or now reject, your hypothesis that your
observations
> >>about accidents support a conclusion that because of PC, there are
> >>proportionately more incompetent women pilots than men pilots.
> >
> >Yes, I do stand behind it. The evidence is quite compelling in support
> >of the idea that there would be a higher percentage of incompetent
> >female/minority pilots, considering the political factors involved,
> >which I have illustrated to you through real-life, real-world cases;
> >which include the words of a veteran airline pilot who has spine enough
> >to speak frankly on the subject.
> >
> >I cannot PROVE anything because I am not privy to any good, serious
> >statistics on this, if they even exist. But I noticed in the writings
> >of the 747 captain that airline pilots apparently even have a term
> >for these incompetent female pilots who've been hired by the
> >airline: "weak sister" pilots. So tell me, just what did he mean
> >by that?
>
> And, in research, what you have been stating is referred to as
> "anecdotal evidence"---one or two or even a dozen credible observers
> make statements regarding individual events which are then stretched
> to become generalizations of a class. In a different area of
> discrimination this might be called stereotyping.

Actually, the term fits this situation, thanks for pointing it out.

> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org

[[email protected]]

NoPoliticsHere wrote:
> > What you have done here is begun with a supposition (women are
hired on
> > the basis of political correctness and not competence) and then
worked
> > backwards in order support that supposition.
>
> No, what I have done is claim that ***SOME*** women and minorities
are hired
> when their gender and/or race takes on more importance than their
competence.
> It is hard to believe that you *still* miss my point.

Claim=supposition. Shall I drag out Webster's?

> And perhaps you could improve your reading comprehension.

See above. And don't bother with law school- you'd never pass the LSAT.

[NoPoliticsHere]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message >...

> Actually, the term fits this situation, thanks for pointing it out.

So I take it you disagree with Captain Boser when he states:

"I see the EEOC decrees to be the biggest threat against pilot
competency today, not because there aren't competent minority/female
pilots out there to be hired, but because quotas are imposed and
airlines sometimes have to lower their normal standards to achieve
those mandated numbers. If they don't, the EEOC sues them, costing
them many millions of dollars and it will result in the imposition of
even harsher mandates in the future to 'remedy their past
discrimination.'"

You neatly sidestepped this statement in my previous post. You
also sidestepped my question on what Captain Boser meant by
a "weak sister" pilot.

--------------------------

[NoPoliticsHere]

"David Lentz" > wrote in message >...

> The problems as I see it that the observation that protected class, female
> and minority, may be less qualiifed it based on anecdotal evidence. Yet,
> I suspect that political consideration prevent any statistical evidence from
> being available. So anecdotal evidence may be all that exists.
>
> There is a problem with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
> mentality, and thats the assumption that a proportional number of qualified
> protected class members in fact do exist. This is an assumtion which has
> not been proven and is politically imposible to challenge. From the
> biological perspective no two groups are have equal abilities in anything.
> Sprinters tend to be black. Swimmers white, and garbage men male.
>
> The difference is that we don't have the EEOC attempting for force
> proportional equity on to basketball players or garbage men. If the EEOC
> did the result might be equally absurd.

I'd say you hit that nail squarely on the head!

--------------------------------

[Ed Rasimus]

On 1 Nov 2004 06:04:58 -0800,
(NoPoliticsHere) wrote:

>"John Mazor" > wrote in message >...
>
>> Actually, the term fits this situation, thanks for pointing it out.
>
>So I take it you disagree with Captain Boser when he states:
>
>"I see the EEOC decrees to be the biggest threat against pilot
>competency today, not because there aren't competent minority/female
>pilots out there to be hired, but because quotas are imposed and
>airlines sometimes have to lower their normal standards to achieve
>those mandated numbers. If they don't, the EEOC sues them, costing
>them many millions of dollars and it will result in the imposition of
>even harsher mandates in the future to 'remedy their past
>discrimination.'"
>
>You neatly sidestepped this statement in my previous post. You
>also sidestepped my question on what Captain Boser meant by
>a "weak sister" pilot.

Actually, the Supreme Court has pretty much eliminated "quotas" and
variable standards for achieving affirmative action goals.

As for Capt. Boser's comments on "weak sister" pilots, I've
encountered the term quite often in the military (long before women
entered the community) and seen it applied to males in the squadron.

The important issue is to examine the entire class, not one or two
egregious examples. It has taken a long time in USAF/USN, but the
females in the Tacair community are currently well accepted and have
been proving themselves quite competent. (For a decrepit, old-school
dinosaur like myself to say that is a remarkable testimonial!)


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org

[Guy Alcala]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On 1 Nov 2004 06:04:58 -0800,
> (NoPoliticsHere) wrote:
>
> >"John Mazor" > wrote in message >...
> >
> >> Actually, the term fits this situation, thanks for pointing it out.
> >
> >So I take it you disagree with Captain Boser when he states:
> >
> >"I see the EEOC decrees to be the biggest threat against pilot
> >competency today, not because there aren't competent minority/female
> >pilots out there to be hired, but because quotas are imposed and
> >airlines sometimes have to lower their normal standards to achieve
> >those mandated numbers. If they don't, the EEOC sues them, costing
> >them many millions of dollars and it will result in the imposition of
> >even harsher mandates in the future to 'remedy their past
> >discrimination.'"
> >
> >You neatly sidestepped this statement in my previous post. You
> >also sidestepped my question on what Captain Boser meant by
> >a "weak sister" pilot.
>
> Actually, the Supreme Court has pretty much eliminated "quotas" and
> variable standards for achieving affirmative action goals.
>
> As for Capt. Boser's comments on "weak sister" pilots, I've
> encountered the term quite often in the military (long before women
> entered the community) and seen it applied to males in the squadron.

I've always assumed that the terms were applied in a gender-irrelevant fashion, but would
'weak sister' be a more polite way of calling a pilot a 'Whiskey Delta', or are they separate
categories?

Guy

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:41:07 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:

>> As for Capt. Boser's comments on "weak sister" pilots, I've
>> encountered the term quite often in the military (long before women
>> entered the community) and seen it applied to males in the squadron.
>
>I've always assumed that the terms were applied in a gender-irrelevant fashion, but would
>'weak sister' be a more polite way of calling a pilot a 'Whiskey Delta', or are they separate
>categories?

Shack! Same song, different verse.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org

[John Mazor]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Actually, the term fits this situation, thanks for pointing it out.
>
> So I take it you disagree with Captain Boser when he states:
>
> "I see the EEOC decrees to be the biggest threat against pilot
> competency today, not because there aren't competent minority/female
> pilots out there to be hired, but because quotas are imposed and
> airlines sometimes have to lower their normal standards to achieve
> those mandated numbers. If they don't, the EEOC sues them, costing
> them many millions of dollars and it will result in the imposition of
> even harsher mandates in the future to 'remedy their past
> discrimination.'"

I don't disagree with the author's anecdotal observation, I disagree with
your now-admitted conclusion that this is proof that female pilots as a
class are less capable than male pilots. That's like saying "I know of a
situation where a student was admitted to a college when his SATs were below
minimum but his father was an alumnus contributor, therefore, students whose
parents are contributing alumni are, as a class, dumber than those whose
parents aren't contributing alumni.

> You neatly sidestepped this statement in my previous post. You
> also sidestepped my question on what Captain Boser meant by
> a "weak sister" pilot.

It's a gender-specific application of the general term "weak pilot" which
was applied to male pilots long before there were noticeable numbers of
female pilots.

[NoPoliticsHere]

" > wrote in message . com>...
> NoPoliticsHere wrote:
> > No, what I have done is claim that ***SOME*** women and minorities
> > are hired
> > when their gender and/or race takes on more importance than their
> > competence.
> > It is hard to believe that you *still* miss my point.
>
> Claim=supposition. Shall I drag out Webster's?
>
> > And perhaps you could improve your reading comprehension.
>
> See above. And don't bother with law school- you'd never pass the LSAT.

Thanks, your clueless responses have done more to back up my claims about
incompetent women than I could've done with any one or two posts.

---------------

[NoPoliticsHere]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message >...
> "NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "John Mazor" > wrote in message
> >...
> >
> > > Actually, the term fits this situation, thanks for pointing it out.
> >
> > So I take it you disagree with Captain Boser when he states:
> >
> > "I see the EEOC decrees to be the biggest threat against pilot
> > competency today, not because there aren't competent minority/female
> > pilots out there to be hired, but because quotas are imposed and
> > airlines sometimes have to lower their normal standards to achieve
> > those mandated numbers. If they don't, the EEOC sues them, costing
> > them many millions of dollars and it will result in the imposition of
> > even harsher mandates in the future to 'remedy their past
> > discrimination.'"
>
> I don't disagree with the author's anecdotal observation, I disagree with
> your now-admitted conclusion that this is proof that female pilots as a
> class are less capable than male pilots. That's like saying "I know of a
> situation where a student was admitted to a college when his SATs were below
> minimum but his father was an alumnus contributor, therefore, students whose
> parents are contributing alumni are, as a class, dumber than those whose
> parents aren't contributing alumni.

I'm bordering on looking silly continuing this with a dancing fool like you,
but what the hell. If you will s-l-o-w-l-y re-read Capt. Boser's
statement above, you may begin to understand it. Since you have a problem
understanding it, try reading it five or six, or sixty, times, if it takes
that much to sink in. His is not an anecdotal observation, but a statement
on things like incompetent women and minorities being hired to meet IMPOSED
QUOTAS on airlines. But of course, you claimed that there were no such
quotas. You also still can't tell the difference between PROOF (which I have
not claimed to offer, for reasons previously stated) and compelling evidence,
of which there is plenty. Are you a troll just pretending to be an
aviation professional. If the name you use is indeed your real name,
then I suspect part of your dancing around on this is due to FEAR of
being honest. But maybe you're just stupid, which is becoming more
apparent, to me anyway.

-------------------

[Ed Rasimus]

On 2 Nov 2004 09:44:49 -0800,
(NoPoliticsHere) wrote:

>I'm bordering on looking silly continuing this with a dancing fool like you,
>but what the hell. If you will s-l-o-w-l-y re-read Capt. Boser's
>statement above, you may begin to understand it. Since you have a problem
>understanding it, try reading it five or six, or sixty, times, if it takes
>that much to sink in. His is not an anecdotal observation, but a statement
>on things like incompetent women and minorities being hired to meet IMPOSED
>QUOTAS on airlines. But of course, you claimed that there were no such
>quotas. You also still can't tell the difference between PROOF (which I have
>not claimed to offer, for reasons previously stated) and compelling evidence,
>of which there is plenty. Are you a troll just pretending to be an
>aviation professional. If the name you use is indeed your real name,
>then I suspect part of your dancing around on this is due to FEAR of
>being honest. But maybe you're just stupid, which is becoming more
>apparent, to me anyway.

And, despite the old advice to fighter pilots not to wrestle with the
pigs because, "the pig always wins, you both get muddy, and no one
cares about the outcome" I'll leap once more into this and note that
Capt Boser's comments are indeed anecdotal. They may reflect a policy
of his company and he describes a particular manifestation of the
policy.

More important to the discussion is the fact that "quotas" have been
held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The airline that Capt B
works for may feel that they need to support an arbitrary quota to
avoid federal EEOC scrutiny, but it ain't federal law.

And, more importantly, as I've pointed out a couple of times, in the
military aviation community the chicks are holding their own quite
well. And that is saying a lot because the company is rough and the
competition is brutal.

And, yes, that is my name and www.thunderchief.org is my site.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org

[John Mazor]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
>...
> > "NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "John Mazor" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >
> > > > Actually, the term fits this situation, thanks for pointing it out.
> > >
> > > So I take it you disagree with Captain Boser when he states:
> > >
> > > "I see the EEOC decrees to be the biggest threat against pilot
> > > competency today, not because there aren't competent minority/female
> > > pilots out there to be hired, but because quotas are imposed and
> > > airlines sometimes have to lower their normal standards to achieve
> > > those mandated numbers. If they don't, the EEOC sues them, costing
> > > them many millions of dollars and it will result in the imposition of
> > > even harsher mandates in the future to 'remedy their past
> > > discrimination.'"
> >
> > I don't disagree with the author's anecdotal observation, I disagree
with
> > your now-admitted conclusion that this is proof that female pilots as a
> > class are less capable than male pilots. That's like saying "I know of
a
> > situation where a student was admitted to a college when his SATs were
below
> > minimum but his father was an alumnus contributor, therefore, students
whose
> > parents are contributing alumni are, as a class, dumber than those whose
> > parents aren't contributing alumni.
>
> I'm bordering on looking silly continuing this with a dancing fool like
you,
> but what the hell. If you will s-l-o-w-l-y re-read Capt. Boser's
> statement above, you may begin to understand it. Since you have a problem
> understanding it, try reading it five or six, or sixty, times, if it takes
> that much to sink in. His is not an anecdotal observation, but a
statement
> on things like incompetent women and minorities being hired to meet
IMPOSED
> QUOTAS on airlines.

Unless he or someone else can produce data on the the numbers, it's
anecdotal, just as was my example of the college applicant.

> But of course, you claimed that there were no such quotas.

I was not aware of the case he cited. But unless you can produce data, then
the effect of the EEOC action still is speculative.

> You also still can't tell the difference between PROOF (which I have
> not claimed to offer, for reasons previously stated) and compelling
evidence,
> of which there is plenty.

I understand the difference. Since you have no data, it does not reach the
level of compelling evidence. It is sufficient to raise the quesion, but
that's about as far as it goes.

> Are you a troll just pretending to be an aviation professional.

Oh, yeah, you got me dead to rights there, pardner.

> If the name you use is indeed your real name,
> then I suspect part of your dancing around on this is due to FEAR of
> being honest.

I have absolutely nothing to fear about anything I say here.

> But maybe you're just stupid, which is becoming more apparent, to me
anyway.

I reached that conclusion about you some 5 posts ago. Your stupid
suggestion that I might be "a troll just pretending to be an aviation
professional" and your questioning whether I'm using my real name, shows
just how dull your powers of observation (remember that term?) are, and how
poor your research skills are.

[buf3]

(NoPoliticsHere) wrote in message >...
> I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
> are ladies in the cockpit.

Big Snip

I might as well add my anecdote to this thread. When I retired the
only female aircrew member I ever saw was a KC-135 copilot. She
didn't look like much in her flight suit, but when I saw her in a
bikini on the beach at Guam I perked up. I had a friend who worked as
a simulator instructor after his retirement from the Air Force. He
pulled all kinds of strings to avoid having a female student. He was
a confirmed male chauvinist. Finally he was forced to take a husband
and wife as students, both graduates of the same college. He says
that the wife was the best student he ever had in his several years of
experience. The husband was average.

Gene Myers
Old BUFF pilot

[gatt]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message

> I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
> are ladies in the cockpit.

Why ever might such a thing "seem" to you?

*shrug* I've got a 40-year-old oriental woman who's barely 5' tall as a
commercial instructor. She gets a lot of crap from the old boys who show
up. "Oh, hi there. I'd like to [rent a plane, buy some charts, take
lessons, charter a flight...] Are you the owner's wife?"

Not only is she a commercial, instrument and multi-instrument flight
instructor, she's working on her second math PhD (already has one in
Calculus), graduated from the Air Force Academy and is currently a Major in
the USAFR.

-c

[gatt]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message news:YN9fd.21714$

> The study was of ferry pilots in World War II and looked at the
performance
> of men and women delivering aircraft to England.

A girl I dated in college got married shortly afterward, and at the
reception I overheard her grandmother talking a relative from the groom's
side. The one room was wedding schmooze, college kids and friends and the
mothers trying not to freak out, and in the back room it was just the two
elderly people talking about landing Hellcats.

If I'd have known the girl's grandmother was a WAVE, I'd have married her.
The grandmother, I mean. ;>

-c

[gatt]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message

> That's easy. No special allowances for gender. Female pilots should
> be held to the same standards as the guys.

Whatever makes you think they're not?

[gatt]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message

>"But on the average, men
> have better spatial function than women.

Fortunately, they don't make fighter pilots based on averages.

-c

[gatt]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message

> This "information" you
> saw two days ago supposedly citing just the opposite would immediately
> come under suspicion to me, considering the politics of the last
> couple of decades especially.

Then that makes your opinion subjective.

-c

[gatt]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message

> I'll admit that the only cockpit I've ever even SAT in was in a Herc
> that was parked at an airshow. But as far as ever being able to fly
> an F-14 in carrier operations, we'll never know. Maybe I'm a cocky
> s.o.b. but I suspect I'd have had no problems, if I'd chosen that
> route--always had great vision, kept very fit, good reflexes/coord., never
> had an auto accident, and damn few--very few--tickets, so I'm also
> disciplined to obey rules.

Well, hell, dawg. Call up the Navy and ask 'em to hand you the keys to a
Tomcat. Sheesh...decent driving record, good vision, fit, obeys rules. I'd
be surprised if they didn't commission you and let you bypass most of that
training and flight school nonsense altogether.

>Truth is, I'd have been more interested in flying the bigger stuff anyway.

*chuckle* Most aviators feel the same way. Those little Tomcats are just
too small, but there's just so much competition getting into the P-3 and
KC-135 fleets. The only people who fly fighter planes off of carriers these
days are the poor sucks who washed out of cargo plane school.

-c

[gatt]

"hoarse with no name" > wrote in message news:no2-

>I say, thank God she finally died.

You know, I don't think I've ever heard a genuine aviator thank God for the
death of another.


-c

[gatt]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message

> Maybe he just meant that it was better that this woman be permanently
> put out of commission (considering her record, but still being allowed
> to fly), rather than crash onto the deck at some time, killing dozens
> of personnel in the process. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

How much flight time have you logged, again?

-c

[gatt]

"NoPoliticsHere" > wrote in message

> A little anonymity can be a good thing Jay. Why would anyone use their
real
> name in a place like this, unless they're selling something? Anonymity
> is more likely to bring honesty, as far as inner opinions. Most people
> who post with real names make sure they walk the line they've been told
> to walk.

He must be talking about guys like Dudley. Yeesh.

-c

[gatt]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message

> And how long was it after they transitioned women to the L-1011 that the
> company folded?

So if they changed the color of their stationery, or changed their
letterhead, one could draw the same ridiculous cause and effect connection.

-c

[Morgans]

"gatt" > wrote > You know, I don't think I've ever
heard a

genuine aviator thank God for the
> death of another.

Why in the H-E-double hockey sticks, are you bringing up such an ancient
thread?
--
Jim in NC

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Morgans at
wrote on 1/18/05 6:28 PM:

>
> "gatt" > wrote > You know, I don't think I've ever
> heard a
>
> genuine aviator thank God for the
>> death of another.
>
> Why in the H-E-double hockey sticks, are you bringing up such an ancient
> thread?

Nevermind its antiquity. It was a very obvious troll.

[Morgans]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote
>
> Nevermind its antiquity. It was a very obvious troll.

Trolling, yes.

Na, he is a semi-regular that pops in from time to time. Might be time for
the looney bin, for him again.
--
Jim in NC

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:14:03 -0800, "gatt" >
wrote:

>> I haven't seen any stats on this, but it seems to me that, just
>> maybe, there could be a much higher rate of crashes when there
>> are ladies in the cockpit.
>
>Why ever might such a thing "seem" to you?

I assume we're talking about GA here. Are there really enough military
and commercial women pilots for the stats to be meaningful?

My own guess is that men run out of gas more often, fly VFR into IMC
more often, and have buzzing accidents more often than women do,
accidents per million miles flown.

And that women by contrast have more stall/spin accidents.

And that overall women GA pilots have fewer accidents than men do.





-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

[vincent p. norris]

>My own guess is that men run out of gas more often, fly VFR into IMC
>more often, and have buzzing accidents more often than women do,
>accidents per million miles flown.

I'd say that's a good guess.
>
>And that women by contrast have more stall/spin accidents.

But what leads you to that premise?

vince norris

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:40:17 -0500, vincent p. norris >
wrote:

>>And that women by contrast have more stall/spin accidents.
>
>But what leads you to that premise?

I extrapolate from my wife. While I get into trouble by being too
aggressive, she gets into trouble by being too timid.

Or as the mother said to her son the L-4 pilot in the Philippines: "Be
careful out there, dear. Fly low and slow."


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net