Try flying a jetprop lowlevel for a short hop… „The Thirst“
Snoopy wrote:
This „wife likes large cabins and marble tops“
I’ve had exactly that sort of discussion the other day.
I think aviation forums have a much smaller % of women participants compared to the % of women pilots. The “harmless” banter (I do believe it is genuinely said harmlessly) just doesn’t extend a welcome, and just gives the impression that this is a “Men’s world”. Probably not the best welcome.
Sometimes in order to get rid of the prejudices, you have to err on the side of caution. “Harmless banter” certainly ends up perpetuating prejudice.
Noe wrote:
The “harmless” banter (I do believe it is genuinely said harmlessly) just doesn’t extend a welcome, and just gives the impression that this is a “Men’s world”. Probably not the best welcome.Sometimes in order to get rid of the prejudices, you have to err on the side of caution. “Harmless banter” certainly ends up perpetuating prejudice.
I agree with you. I also don’t think there are any ill intentions behind the “harmless banter”, but it doesn’t make a good impression. I find it tiresome and I’m male…
Noe wrote:
and that that is the SOP, not “show their talent” and land off runway!
For total loss of power on a sub-sonic jet that you can hand fly, the SOP is point to an empty clear field and eject, glide ratio is 1:4 on landing speeds, I think on anything built after the 60’s, you will go into a spin 20 seconds after the donkey stops (e.g. loss of hydraulics, computer…)
Sure aviation has picked some traditions from the marine, but “captain goes down with the ship” is not one of them !
Sully was the last one to get out of Cactus1549 but surely we are not expecting him to sink with it 
Probably, applicable only to those who are PIC on floatplanes or “sail”-planes?
Ibra wrote:
I think on anything built after the 60’s, you will go into a spin 20 seconds after the donkey stops (e.g. loss of hydraulics, computer…)
The SAAB 39 Griffin is designed to be flyable even without the engine running, and if I recall correctly, pilots are expected to attempt to save the aircraft e.g. by trying to restart the engine.
I think perhaps people have run with the ejection theme a little more than I intended. Of course the circumstances and realities are totally different, but I was really just wondering whether the COPA mantra of ‘first consideration, not last resort’ carried over into the military realm. I wasn’t for a moment suggesting that anyone tries to deadstick fly-by-wire fast jets or that the captain should go down with the ship.
I’m sorry if anyone felt that the analogy to men getting their wives on board (pun-tastic) with buying a boat constituted sexist male banter. It certainly wasn’t intended that way. It definitely does apply in the sailing world and the influence of marketing over good boat design has led to plenty of tragedies.
I know nothing of the motivation of most Cirrus purchasers, but it is evidently a great aircraft for a variety of reasons – one of which is CAPs which definitely makes it more palatable in a ‘family setting’ (leaving aside all mention of gender in this generalisation). To move from generalisation to a specific, there is a chap right now on the Flyer forum asking about finishing off his PPL in a Cirrus since his wife has decreed that he may not fly in anything without an airframe parachute.
If you think aviation forums are unfriendly to women, take a look at mumsnet ;-)
Stats will be on the side of the banter! I don’t disagree that given a lot of the pilot population is male, so obviously when partners worry about pilot incapacitation etc, statistically, a lot of these will be women.
Just like when someone is hardcore into boating, and the partner goes along, the partner will probably give more weight to comfort to a possibly perceived performance feature. I know less about sailing, but if a male partner is usually driving the purchase, than statistically, more of the “partners who go along and favour comfort” will be women.
Of the women I know in aviation, none seem to favour comfort (and “make up mirrors in the sunshades”). I can’t make any stereotype, or find usual patterns (just like with men, there is a bit of everything. I have seen less mediocrity in women though, but that might be due to smaller numbers).
The only person that keeps worrying about incapacitation when flying with me is my dad.
My passengers are likely close 50/50 gender ratio, and I have about equal interest about how things work too. Some are completely disinterested and prefer to have a nap, while others want to have a go. No difference in men/women (or as a matter of fact gay/heterosexual, or old/young).
It costs very little to use “partner” instead of “wife” / “girlfriend”, but you help to not perpetuate stereotypes (partly based on faulty* stats), and will make things appear much more friendly to women, as it will be one little thing less to make them feel it’s a “men’s thing”
*because people don’t understand / thing about Bayes
Airborne_Again wrote:
The SAAB 39 Griffin is designed to be flyable even without the engine running
Hand flying? or with help of a very small ram air turbine generator? aircraft can’t carry a backup diesel engines or large hydro generators
Some like F16/F1 have huge backup batteries but they would not last more than few minutes, also there is a high risk of firing missiles when switching to that backup auxiliary power unit
Noe wrote:
I don’t disagree that given a lot of the pilot population is male
In my cadets class we had 4 girls/30 boys, all girls were in top 10, using Bayes math rules that takes away lot of stereotypes away!
Graham wrote:
If you think aviation forums are unfriendly to women, take a look at mumsnet
Bit generic to many online forums, but thanks Graham for mumsnet, I am joining that soon 
It’s amazing how much PC today exists even in pilots forums, even when discussing facts.
For me, if the number of male and femals GA pilots would start approaching anything like a balance, we would probably see a lot less of the irrational fears and restrictions imposed by female partners onto their significant others with regards to flying. We have an old saying (which is guaranteed to hack off farmers now) “What the farmer doesn’t know, he does not eat”. Well, I suppose there is a distinct parallel to that when it comes to non-flying spouses/lifepartners call them what you wish in aviation.
Most people are afraid or uneasy when flying even airliners. Quite a few would therefore not even contemplate to fly in anything smaller than an A320 or similar. Looking at small planes, the tiny cabins, the noise, the vibrations and sometimes a bit of shaking if there is turbulence and a large percent of non-pilot population will run far and fast. Fear of flying generally also has to do with loss of control and with trust in the person flying. Interestingly, any unknown pilot may be held in higher trust than the clumsy person they withnessed failing miserably in their view on just about any household chore they are meant to do and do even worse as drivers or locators of empty parking spaces at the supermarket. Make no mistake: Spouses have a fotographic memory of evrey single fail you produce in the household and each one of them will get your perceived reliability rating down.
The other factor is that in many relationships, the female spouses are the ones who are more conservative in spending and see hobbies in general as a nuissance rather than anything they would be willing to invest any money in. They feel their partners time is better spent with fixing the garden shed, weeding, cleaning, taking the kids to playgrounds or whatever else needs doing in the house. Hobbies and past-times are the reason for a huge amount of divorces. Now take one which many of them perceive as extraordinarliy dangerous and you get the perfect match why Cirrus is still selling airplanes whereas most people without BRS fly either alone or with white-knuckled and terrified partners on board which will do everything they can to get the darn airplane sold and their hubbies grounded. Now that has nothing to do with banter, that is my experience (not with my own wife for the record) with many of those who tried to buy planes and finally tore up their licenses in frustration or got divorced and consequently were sufficiently broke to forget about flying for ever.
One of my friends who deals in airplanes for a living once said that he considered unwilling spouses to be responsible for more people stopping flying than ANY other reason by a factor of 70-30. And I believe that too.
Those who have spouses who support flying or who even fly themselves should be aware just how lucky they are. And I have huge respect for those women in aviaiton who have made their mark like Jolie Lucas or Janet Maxwell or Pia Bergquist who all of them (and many more) have tried to improve this with movements like Mooney Girls, Right Seat forward and other efforts as well. But they are and imho always will be a very welcome minority. Nevertheless, the efforts they put into educating their fellow women in aviation matters certainly are as laudable as effective. There is no better way of removing irrational fears or quantifying rational but overstated ones than education.
Whether Cirrus and others who have BRS planes ever thought about reluctant spouses in the first place will be their secret for ever, but what is clear to me is that once they knew they would have CAPS, they exploited this to the tell me not and the market gave them all the proof they ever needed. No, it is not only the spouse factor, but I would say the spouse factor may account for 80% of the initial Cirrus sales. The rest may well be due to many pilots themselfs knowing way too many friends who bought the proverbial farm in scenarios where they would have been rescued by a BRS system with a high probability. But for me, it is brutally clear: Had Cirrus not had the shute, they would NEVER have taken over the market the way they did.
I don’t disagree on the spousal factor (and some of the points you make, although not on your stats*), but lets just make it genderless (I think spouse actually might be). Talking of “wife” or “girlfriend” in generic situations just accentuates / perpetuates stereotypes, mostly based on not understanding probabilities / statistics.
What looks PC to you might help bridge the gap and make it so that newer generations (sorry, I don’t mean to be ageist), don’t have as much innate preconceptions as yours or mine. I prefer to err on the side of caution and inclusion.
*80% of spousal factor for Cirrus Sales? Have you looked at the competition? It looks dated, mostly bad ergonomics. Between a BMW and a dated 911 Turbo without ABS (we can all pump the brakes, can’t we?), most will pick the new, nice and shiny! I bet if you look at the singles population, I bet the % of Cirrus they buy is not that insignificant from
Kids are probably a good reason people stop flying. Sometimes it’s probably not because your partner makes you stop, but because you just run out of time.
