A reluctance to take the controls

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

wrote in message
...
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

Shirl,

Anthony has never looked at any real airplane engine up close.

unicate writes:

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?

I don't know. I'm not an engine mechanic. But it seems like every
engine I ever see is covered with oil or grease or something. I do
wonder where it all comes from (something must be leaking if it gets
all over the exterior), but mechanics don't seem to find it odd.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
I don't know. I'm not an engine mechanic. But it seems like every
engine I ever see is covered with oil or grease or something. I do
wonder where it all comes from (something must be leaking if it gets
all over the exterior), but mechanics don't seem to find it odd.

I don't know what engines you're looking at, but all the aircraft
engines of airplane owners I know are clean, and our mechanics
definitely take issue with any grime/grease/oil on the engine. Again,
how would you know if something's there that shouldn't be if it is
covered with grime?

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. :-) )