"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.