Mooney_Driver wrote:
The same goes for the Malibu and the Cirrus. All of those are very expensive airplanes that only people can own who have a LOT of money to spare. And some of those have the cash but not the talent.
Of course this is true and we all know examples where arrogant wealthy people think they know it all. But I think it is true at all levels of GA. There are plenty of microlight pilots who run out of talent as well. Sometimes I think the more expensive aircraft do get more of the headlines.
There are claims that women are less involved in severe car wrecks
In the UK, the insurance view is that women don’t have fewer crashes but because they drive slower, the crashes do less damage. Obviously this was controversial… This may however not translate usefully to GA because any flying speed is “fast enough”…
Sometimes I think the more expensive aircraft do get more of the headlines.
Sure that happens. Envy is always present 
There was however a report here of a female captain that accepted the suggestion of her FO to roll a Citation…
This is the report: https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20100214-0
It is not really clear from the English version, but the original accident report (in german language, link at the bottom) says that it was the male FO who proposed to and later attempted to fly the barrel roll. She let it happen. Back to classical gender stereotypes so to say.
MedEwok thank you for another good post. Whether due to being used primarily for training/club use, or being simpler and slower, the C172/PA28 fixed gear family have a superior safety record, and pilots with a professional technical/scientific background might factor this into their risk assessment.
Your point on academic background is interesting. The wannabes who successfully achieve their goal of a First Officer position following the modular route (which involves a fair amount of focus and hard work), tend to only have a high school qualification and are working to help fund their training. They tend to have some mechanical aptitude (car mechanics, junior IT) or come from the service sector – what_next’s hairdresser, and do well in the more comprehensive style assessments – better listeners, more natural leadership/maturity – despite being in their early twenties. They are not very romantic about aviation but are good with technical manuals and understanding systems.
Ironically they are likely to end up as Captains, via the low cost airline route, to the better educated, integrated cadets on the national carriers who may take many years to achieve command. A nice inversion of the old officer class culture with the seargeant pilots achieving command earlier.
There’s enough statistics about that. Women don’t only drive “slower”, they simply take less risks and in general they drive less aggressive.
“Doctor killer”: What Jason wrote. Bonanza, Malibu and Cirrus are the typical “doctor planes”. Too much airplane for too little experience (doctors typically do not only have ore money but many of them also have less time to practice).
I think the three most important factors are:
Long hours doing “knowledge work” can fatigue you without making you feel sleepy, for instance if I have a difficult software development problem, my mind can be quite obviously blunted without feeling the classical “I’m sleepy” tiredness. But mental performance is just as affected.
In addition, in the 50s when this term came about, the Bonanza was a notoriously weak aircraft. The straight 35 in particular was barely strong enough to meet certification and had an appalling in-flight breakup rate. Even until the 80s the V-tail Bonanza had a significantly higher in-flight breakup rate than the straight tail A36 or Debonair. There is a very good Aviation Consumer article from the early 80s about the problem:
http://www.piperforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4442&d=1430244418
I have, as an instructor and mentor, too many times come across people flying aircraft just too advanced – too fast, too big, too much equipment, too much runway requirement, too finickity about speeds, too difficult in crosswinds – for their skills and experience.
This can actually happen at either end of their career, before they are ready or after they have lost the edge.
I have seen it not only in the Cirrus and PA46, but also in the PA32, PA34, C421, C425 and C310.
It may come out most in Cirrus (Gloucester) and PA46 (Dunkeswell), but it really can happen in anything a little more complex.
I also believe that it is a big factor in rotary, but that’s not my field.
Helicopters? Oh that’s easy – Currency.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
Helicopters? Oh that’s easy – Currency.
Meh. Sort of. But it seems to me, now only as a newspaper reader, not from any knowledge, that anything you can write about the “arrogant CEO” aeroplane owner can be written in spades and squared for helicopter owners. The “look at me, I can land anywhere, on any slope, in any wind, as close as I like to obstacles, bystanders, wind-sensitive items etc” type, I mean.
Agree to the bits about sometimes arrogance, fatigue, to much mission-focus, and flying airplane too advanced for their pilot skills – for the “doctor killer” label.
Would just like to add: the Bonanza, the airplane that was first attributed to the term, is a fantastic airplane but presents two not-so-obvious challenges: it behaves badly in a stall compared to modern designs; and it is quite light on the elevator making it easier to overstress the (quite sturdy) airframe if you loose it e.g. in a spiral dive – so more prone to fare badly in both slow spirals (spins) and fast spirals than many contemporary types.
And no, in my experience doctors are not inferior pilots – perhaps rather the opposite, in general.
