A reluctance to take the controls

Jay Honeck writes:

It's inaccessible to many, but not most. Plenty of people who *could*
fly choose not to -- that is our target audience.

It shouldn't be. Yes, many people could fly if they made appropriate
sacrifices. But the vast majority of people aren't interested enough
in flying to do that. If you try to address that market, you'll never
succeed.

The cost/benefit ratio has to be attractive. The cost of GA is so
extraordinarily high that only a tiny few are willing and able to pay
it. Unless you reduce the cost, it will always be a minority
activity.

That's the least of our worries.

Tell that to pilots in the District of Columbia.

It's not the airplanes -- it's the freedom. That's what we need to
accentuate.

It's laudable to make women more welcome and I'm sure it would improve
their stats, if the macho men could force themselves to do it.
However, flying is always likely to appeal to more men than women, so
a 50/50 ratio would be unlikely.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

However, flying is always likely to appeal to more men than women, so
a 50/50 ratio would be unlikely.

Ha!

Tell that to Mary, Margy, Michelle, or many of the other women pilots
on this group, and they'll kick your sorry butt all over France...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

However, flying is always likely to appeal to more men than women, so
a 50/50 ratio would be unlikely.

Jay Honeck wrote:
Ha!

Tell that to Mary, Margy, Michelle, or many of the other women pilots
on this group, and they'll kick your sorry butt all over France...

I'm one of the women pilots in this group, and I think the statement
above about flying *generally* appealing more to men than to women is an
accurate one. If it weren't, how else would you explain that probably
90% of the pilots at the airport on a Sunday afternoon are men? or the
large number of men who complain that their wives aren't even interested
enough to fly with them? How many women do you find in coveralls
*happily* on a creeper cleaning the belly of their airplane on a
Saturday morning?

That doesn't mean that many of us (women) aren't just as interested,
driven and passionate about flying as you -- Mary, Margy, Michelle and I
(Shirl) definitely are! -- but overall, I agree with whoever said that a
50/50 men/women ratio is unlikely. In a random group of 100 men and 100
women, no way the same number of women will say they would like to fly
an airplane as men.

It may indeed be stereotypical to say, but more men grow up around
engines, motors, and mechanics than women, and while there are *of
course* exceptions, that knowledge/education, or the desire TO HAVE that
knowledge/education, is less common to a lot of (not all) women. Some
men enjoy sewing, too, but the *majority* do not, nor do they have a
desire to learn it even though they can appreciate the skill.

Of the girlfriends that I've discussed flying with, many say they'd be
interested in learning how but are very intimidated and put off by the
fact that they would have to have some knowledge of the mechanics of the
engine, and they have an inherent negativity and lack of confidence in
their ability to adequately learn about it, especially when they get
around groups of aviators discussing mags, pistons, fouled plugs,
mixture leaning, CHT/EGTs, etc. Add to that the large number of men who
make women feel like their questions are dumb or that they don't belong
and aren't welcome (yes, there ARE still many out there!), and it's no
wonder the ratio is not 50/50.

Shirl

unicate writes:

Of the girlfriends that I've discussed flying with, many say they'd be
interested in learning how but are very intimidated and put off by the
fact that they would have to have some knowledge of the mechanics of the
engine, and they have an inherent negativity and lack of confidence in
their ability to adequately learn about it, especially when they get
around groups of aviators discussing mags, pistons, fouled plugs,
mixture leaning, CHT/EGTs, etc.

That is a negative point for some men, also, including myself. I was
never into cars in the way that standard men are because I had
absolutely no interest in playing around with engines covered in
filth, and small aircraft unfortunately also use this type of engine.

It is true that most men seem to enjoy such things. It mystifies me.
I'm the exception among my sex rather than the rule, though.

There are other aspects of flying that can have a gender-neutral
appeal, and I suppose these aspects attract the female pilots more
than the male pilots. For example, the sensations of flying or the
psychological satisfactions of piloting one's own plane could appeal
to someone of either sex. The mechanical aspects, the machine
aspects, and the turning dials would appeal to males. Some aspects of
navigation might appeal strongly to women, as they tend to be good at
some of the operations involved (such as arithmetic and memory tasks).

I'd expect piloting of airliners to appeal more to women than piloting
of small GA aircraft, because airliners have less of a mechanical
tinkering aspect to them and a higher intellectual workload, and
airline work has more social aspects. I'd also expect to see more
female air traffic controllers (percentage wise) than female pilots,
because ATC is a much more gender-neutral type of intellectual work.

There are many differences between men and women in the type of tasks
they prefer (which are often also the tasks at which they excel), and
this has an effect on the percentage of each sex working in each
profession. Men like things; women like people. Men like math, but
women like arithmetic. Men like spatial visualization, women like
memorization. And so on.

Add to that the large number of men who
make women feel like their questions are dumb or that they don't belong
and aren't welcome (yes, there ARE still many out there!), and it's no
wonder the ratio is not 50/50.

Just seeing how some pilots talk on this newsgroup makes it clear that
some of them are still living in the nineteenth century when it come
to gender issues.

In summary, I should think that a good part of the dearth of female
pilots is attributable to machismo, but the rest is due to a simple
difference in preferences between men and women. I think it's
important for women to have the same opportunity as men to become
pilots. But I don't think it's important to try to force the numbers
to come out 50/50.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
That is a negative point for some men, also, including myself. I was
never into cars in the way that standard men are because I had
absolutely no interest in playing around with engines covered in
filth, and small aircraft unfortunately also use this type of engine.

It probably interests me because I grew up with two older brothers who
were gearheads from birth. Neither are into airplanes, but it was
clearly a draw for me and for my young-adult daughter.

Not everyone who works on engines is covered in filth -- some tasks are
messy, but there's a lot to be said about the cleanliness of a shop. I
won't have my plane repaired at a place that's "covered in filth".

I'd expect piloting of airliners to appeal more to women than piloting
of small GA aircraft, because airliners have less of a mechanical
tinkering aspect to them and a higher intellectual workload, and
airline work has more social aspects. I'd also expect to see more
female air traffic controllers (percentage wise) than female pilots,
because ATC is a much more gender-neutral type of intellectual work.

I wasn't addressing *working* in aviation ... I was specifically
commenting on the statement that *flying* (in general, as a small
airplane pilot) is more appealing to men than to women and that a 50/50
ratio of men to women is unlikely.

Just seeing how some pilots talk on this newsgroup makes it clear that
some of them are still living in the nineteenth century when it come
to gender issues.

Thankfully the majority seem accepting and welcoming to women; there
are, however, some who are not. The thing that bothers me more than that
is the idea that both genders express their interest and learn in
exactly the same way and that if you aren't as aggressive, confident or
quick to jump at opportunities right out of the gate, you are
timid/afraid or something is wrong with you. It's more often just that
we approach things differently and/or want more info before we begin,
even when our interest is just as compelling.

I think it's important for women to have the same opportunity
as men to become pilots. But I don't think it's important to
try to force the numbers to come out 50/50.

For the most part, I think women *do* have the same opportunity as men
to become pilots. I don't think the horror stories are gender specific.
Not only do I agree that it isn't important that the numbers come out to
50/50, I don't think it ever would.

Shirl

unicate writes:

It probably interests me because I grew up with two older brothers who
were gearheads from birth. Neither are into airplanes, but it was
clearly a draw for me and for my young-adult daughter.

It might run in the family, too, like musical ability.

Not everyone who works on engines is covered in filth -- some tasks are
messy, but there's a lot to be said about the cleanliness of a shop. I
won't have my plane repaired at a place that's "covered in filth".

The engine itself usually seems to be covered in grime, unless it's
brand new. I find that to be a major turn-off.

I wasn't addressing *working* in aviation ... I was specifically
commenting on the statement that *flying* (in general, as a small
airplane pilot) is more appealing to men than to women and that a 50/50
ratio of men to women is unlikely.

The same principles apply. Many people like to work at something they
like, and like their work.

Thankfully the majority seem accepting and welcoming to women; there
are, however, some who are not. The thing that bothers me more than that
is the idea that both genders express their interest and learn in
exactly the same way and that if you aren't as aggressive, confident or
quick to jump at opportunities right out of the gate, you are
timid/afraid or something is wrong with you. It's more often just that
we approach things differently and/or want more info before we begin,
even when our interest is just as compelling.

Testosterone clouds judgement. It's an affliction of males in
particular that requires constant active compensation in order to
maintain a cool head. And it seems to engender an attitude that says
anyone who is not equally hotheaded is somehow defective.

For the most part, I think women *do* have the same opportunity as men
to become pilots.

I've heard that it's much better now than it used to be.

Not only do I agree that it isn't important that the numbers come out to
50/50, I don't think it ever would.

I'm sure it would not. It hasn't in many other domains.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
The engine itself usually seems to be covered in grime, unless it's
brand new. I find that to be a major turn-off.

Have a look at some owner-maintained aircraft. My engine, and the
engines of most friends I have who own their own airplanes, are almost
spotless, and none are new. If you don't keep them clean, how can you
see if there are new leaks or anything out of the ordinary?

Shirl

Mxsmanic wrote:
unicate writes:
Not everyone who works on engines is covered in filth -- some tasks
are messy, but there's a lot to be said about the cleanliness of a
shop. I won't have my plane repaired at a place that's "covered in
filth".

The engine itself usually seems to be covered in grime, unless it's
brand new. I find that to be a major turn-off.

An engine covered in grime is probably leaking a fluid or someone spilled
oil or other fluids on it and didn't clean the spill up. For the most part,
engines aren't (or shouldn't be) covered in grime. (I've owned two Acura
Integra's in the last 20 years and both their engines stayed clean. I had
regular maintenance done by professional mechanics.)

I've had to work on a number of auto engines in my youth (i.e. plenty of
time, not so much money to take the car to a mechanic) and they were rarely
all the dirty. I owned a hand-me-down Chevy Vega once (included by some
people in their "worst cars ever made" lists) and I had to replace cracked
cylinder heads more than once. Really not that messy, even though I had to
take the top of the head off! Of course the tough part of doing those
replacements (besides tracking down parts) was I had to do them in an
uninsulated garage in Minnesota in the coldest days of the winter. Metal
just loves to suck the heat out of your hands! Brrr!

And unless its failed somehow, an aircraft engine had better not be covered
in grime. (There are no dirt roads in the sky. :-) )

Please Don't feed the Troll...

"Jay Beckman" wrote:
Please Don't feed the Troll...

Arrrgh. Who is the troll?