Female pilot accident rates

"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.

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

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

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

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

"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.

"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.

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

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

"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.