Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
And
And to think I was all excited to call you a peice of shit, and then realized that it's a troll account, and you were just trying to be edgy. So instead: well played.corethatthermal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:22 pm Bush flying requires strength, quick intuitive reflexes, assertiveness, lots of confidence, the ability to make solitary decisions and decisions that may go against the grain. A male is better equipped for bush flying to due an inherent higher level of these traits!
Well, let's take this step by step:Wat would it cost for a company to engineer a fix ( Make the forward door fixed and increase the aft door and put a handle on it ) $10-$15000 ? Is TC too anal to fast track approval of a companies aft door mod kit ? Will Cessna be trying to prevent this kind of mod?
So I understand, you're proposing to completely reconfigure the back window, and aft fuselage to accommodate a rear door which opens further aft? Sort of make a Cessna 207 out of a 206?Make the forward door fixed and increase the aft door and put a handle on it
Multiply by a hundred, then sell $100k kits, which cost $150k to install.Wat would it cost for a company to engineer a fix..... $10-$15000 ?
Was that last week?corethatthermal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:22 pm ( I remember my school age days when an experienced older owner/driver took waaaay too many chances with us 40 + kids seated behind him! We all survived BUT it was an accident waiting to happen !
Yes, I know the 152 systems well, it's okay for a 152, though it's not an appropriate solution for a 206. The 206 doors have other latches which would make pulling hinge pins not enough to release the doors. If the aft rear door is operated correctly, it will open with the forward rear door still blocked by the flap. It's not perfect, but it will work. 'Problem is that it is complicated for an uninformed passenger, particularly disoriented after a dunking. And, errant opening of the aft rear door in flight causes a lot of damage to the fuselage. I suppose jettisoning it would do less damage to the fuselage side, but it would wreck the H stab!have you ever seen the jettison door arrangement on 152s? I saw that suggested elsewhere for the cargo doors.
I hope that this was not the case for this accident. Victory appears to be more in the know about the business and said....corethatthermal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:22 pm Some companies will fast track or push a female pilot through for the token rewards of being such an affirmative action company. There were warning signs during training and im sure a lot more signs that are not uncovered.
…..although I am not sure if this was the floatplane business.
Simpson Air has been hiring female pilots with great success long before it scored brownie points with the social justice warrior types.corethatthermal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:22 pm Some companies will fast track or push a female pilot through for the token rewards of being such an affirmative action company.
Leave it to core to descend this topic to the level of anecdotes and logical fallacies.Checklist wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:34 pmMen say women aren’t as strong. Have you watched the Olympics? Can you throw 400lbs over your head? Go to your local gym for that matter, plenty of women that could out bench most of us.corethatthermal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:22 pm Bush flying requires strength, quick intuitive reflexes, assertiveness, lots of confidence, the ability to make solitary decisions and decisions that may go against the grain. A male is better equipped for bush flying to due an inherent higher level of these traits! A female is better equipped for airline flying IF there are no issues with foolish alpha males trying to screw things up AND the female is able to progress to a level of confidence and assertiveness , combined with experience and ability to overcome the negative stereotyping in the industry.
When a person looks at young men and women drivers, women are safer ! Men tend to learn things like driving in a snowstorm ( testosterone effect )
I struggle to think of any accidents in which the pilot's gender could have been a factor. Perhaps there might have been one, but it doesn't come to mind. I certainly know that all of the safety training I have received has never mentioned pilot gender as a factor in aviation safety...This accident had nothing to do with the pilot's gender
Please note that even IF we were *able* to replace half the male pilots with female pilots who have an accident rate of 0.39%, which 4.3 times higher than current male pilots at 0.09%, all we would accomplish is to increase the number of airline accidents from 49 to 134, an increase of 2.7 fold.
Furthermore, because male pilots have about twice as many flight hours as female pilots, per hour flown, female pilots have NINE TIMES more airline accidents than male airline pilots.
Kathleen's data shows that one hundred male pilots over their 30 year careers have an average of 2.9 accidents, 0.6 of which are fatal, whereas 100 female pilots have 11.7 accidents, 2.3 of which are fatal.
1. Male and Female Pilots Cause Accidents Differently
Male pilots flying general aviating(private) aircraft in the United States are more likely to crash due to inattention or flawed decision - making, while female pilots are more likely to crash from mishandling the aircraft. These are the results of a study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.
The study identifies the differences between male and female pilots in terms of circumstances of the crash and the type of pilots error involved. "Crashes of general aviation aircraft account for 85 percent of all aviation deaths in the United States. The crash rate for male pilots, as for motor vehicle drivers, exceeds that of crashes of female pilots," explains Susan P. Baker. MPH, professor of health policy and management at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. "Because pilot youth and inexperience are established contributors to aviation crashes, we focused on only mature pilots, to determine the gender differences in the reasons for the crash. "
The researchers extracted data for this study from a large research project on pilot aging and flight safety. The data were gathered from general aviation crashes of airplanes and helicopters between 1983 and 1997, involving 144 female pilots and 267 reale pilots aged 40 -63. Female pilots were matched with male pilots in a 1 : 2 ratio, by age, classes of medical and pilot certificates, state or area of crash, and year of crash. Then the circumstances of the crashes and the pilot error involved were categorized and coded without knowledge of pilot gender.
The researchers found that loss of control on landing or takeoff was the most common circumstance for both sexes, leading to 59 percent of female pilots' crashes and 36 percent of males. Experiencing mechanical failure, running out of fuel, and landing the plane with the landing gear up were among the factors more likely with males ,while stalling(失速) was more likely with females.
The majority of the crashes - 95 percent for females and 88 percent for males - involved at least one type of pilot error. Mishandling aircraft kinetics was the most common error for both sexes, but was more common among females( accounting for 81 percent of the crashes)than males (accounting for 48 percent). Males, however, appeared more likely to be guilty of poor decision - making, risk - taking, and inattentiveness, examples of which include misjudging weather and visibility or flying an aircraft with a known defect. Females, though more likely to mishandle or lose control of the aircraft, were generally more careful than their male counterparts
IF you would look up the data, you may find that woman are 4.3 times more likely to have an aircraft accident than men,,,,,who is the fool then ?Leave it to core to descend this topic to the level of anecdotes and logical fallacies.
This accident had nothing to do with the pilot's gender and it was truly not worth even bringing up. You're a fool.
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN GENERAL AVIATION CRASHES
Study Finds Male Pilots Paid Less Attention; Female Pilots Mishandled Aircraft
Male pilots flying general aviation (private) aircraft in the United States are more likely to crash due to inattention or flawed decision-making, while female pilots are more likely to crash from mishandling the aircraft, according to a study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The study, published in the May 2001 issue of Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, identifies the differences between male and female pilots in terms of circumstances of the crash and the type of pilot error involved.
"Crashes of general aviation aircraft account for 85 percent of all aviation deaths in the United States. The crash rate for male pilots, as for motor vehicle drivers, exceeds that of crashes of female pilots," explains Susan P. Baker, MPH, professor of health policy and management at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. "Because pilot youth and inexperience are established contributors to aviation crashes, we focused on only mature pilots, to determine the gender differences in the reasons for the crash."
The researchers extracted data for this study from a larger research project on pilot aging and flight safety. The data were gathered from general aviation crashes of airplanes and helicopters between 1983 and 1997, involving 144 female pilots and 287 male pilots aged 40-63. Female pilots were matched with male pilots in a 1:2 ratio, by age, classes of medical and pilot certificates, state or area of crash, and year of crash. Then the circumstances of the crashes and the pilot error involved were categorized and coded without knowledge of pilot gender.
The researchers found that loss of control on landing or takeoff was the most common circumstance for both sexes, leading to 59 percent of female pilots¹ crashes and 36 percent of males¹. Experiencing mechanical failure, running out of fuel, and landing the plane with the landing gear up were among the factors more likely with males, while stalling was more likely with females.
The majority of the crashes -- 95 percent for females and 88 percent for males -- involved at least one type of pilot error. Mishandling aircraft kinetics, such as incorrect use of the rudder, poor response to a bounce, or inability to recover from a stall, was the most common error for both sexes, but was more prevalent among females (accounting for 81 percent of the crashes) than males (accounting for 48 percent). Males, however, appeared more likely to be guilty of poor decision-making, risk-taking, and inattentiveness, examples of which include misjudging weather and visibility or flying an aircraft with a known defect. Females, though more likely to mishandle or lose control of the aircraft, were generally more cautious than their more venturesome male counterparts.
Among other differences noted by the study: Older pilots (ages 55-63) made fewer errors than younger pilots (40-49); crashes of male pilots had more serious consequences, including fatalities; and females were slightly more apt to use a shoulder restraint than males.
"Our study reveals several gender differences in the types of pilot error involved in general aviation crashes," concludes Professor Baker. "In order to improve training of pilots, the most common errors mishandling aircraft kinetics, poor decision-making, and inattention merit increased consideration." However, researchers note that there will always be some pilots who make errors, and therefore preventive strategies should go beyond improved pilot training, to include all aspects of the aviation environment.
Funding for this study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
When you have a guy crash land a Navajo in Winnipeg due to lack of fuel and a girl roll a float-plane in benign conditions , you have PROOF of the veracity of studies, NOT sexism !Male pilots flying general aviation (private) aircraft in the United States are more likely to crash due to inattention or flawed decision-making, while female pilots are more likely to crash from mishandling the aircraft,
Not to mention that it is essentially a study of correlations based exclusively on gender. Taking those correlations and inferring that gender is somehow causal to the incidents is poor reasoning. Correlation is NOT causation and I think anyone would be very hard pressed to scientifically prove gender as causal to ANY aircraft incident or accident. Similarly, statements such as this:ahramin wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:11 pm Cherry picked anecdotes are proof of nothing and trying to claim otherwise demonstrates a basic lack of sense.
The study quoted on that silly website is 28 years old and did not restrict itself to commercial pilots. The idea that a penis would have prevented this accident would be laughable if it weren't so stupid.
have absolutely no basis in fact and are instead nothing more than outdated stereotypes held as one person's beliefs and vomited out and put forth as some sort of weird prerequisites for success.Bush flying requires strength, quick intuitive reflexes, assertiveness, lots of confidence, the ability to make solitary decisions and decisions that may go against the grain. A male is better equipped for bush flying to due an inherent higher level of these traits! A female is better equipped for airline flying IF there are no issues with foolish alpha males trying to screw things up AND the female is able to progress to a level of confidence and assertiveness , combined with experience and ability to overcome the negative stereotyping in the industry.
|
|
Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!
We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal
behavior is apparent.
All rights reserved.
