system

I get very, very tired of hearing about organizations that target a specific subset of the population to the exclusion of others. Why aren’t the 99’s offering flight scholarships for ALL people … not just women … and let the chips fall where they will? I wonder what they’d think if I started the old, white male pilots assn. and offered scholarships to only that subset of the population who need assistance … woman need not apply. Get the point? I’m not anti-woman … far from it. I’m glad that you found aviation and it’s your “passion,” Jan but … someone needs to say this … may as well be me. It’s 2019 and equal opportunity is now the norm, not discrimination.

1 reply

system

“white male pilots assn”

But isn’t that what most of aviation is these days? Less than 9% of the aviation population is female. Equal opportunity may be the law but it is not the norm, far from it. Any further comment from me will become a discussion of cultural and societal issues starting in grade school, and we don’t want to go there. By the way, most aviation organizations were started by “old, white male pilots”.

3 replies

system

The observation is that people are individuals and “the answer” is 6-7%.
Since we know the answer, maybe the question being asked is wrong?

1 reply

system

Equal opportunity is the law; equal outcome is illegal and anti-American.

system

Well, you could join the QB’s. Women are excluded. Good Luck to you.

1 reply

system

EXACTLY my point, Mark … driven home by my overt statement purposefully intended to shake the “bushes” and provoke some thought about the 99’s Mission. I carefully considered whether I wanted to start this narrative but … ya know … I AM tired of this sort of thing. If we need pilots, then grow pilots. If we want to promote female pilots then … get ready and put on your seatbelts folks … I’m calling MISANDRY ! I googled the opposite of misogynist and it said there wasn’t a word; I had to ask Siri. And THEN I’d ask … are the 99’s a tax exempt organization?

I served in the military for over 20 years and I’m here to tell you that women wanted “in” all over the place when it became vogue to wear a uniform UNTIL they found out they weren’t physically capable of some jobs, or didn’t like the hours or dirty conditions or lack of privacy or yada yada. THAT is the problem. Women want to be treated the same until it’s no longer convenient. Maybe THAT is why 6-7% female pilots has remained static?

I came close to naming a few other pilot “associations” but stayed focused on the 99’s for fear of starting a flame war. (Extrapolate). That said, girls can join the boy scouts these days, confused men can use the female rest rooms, males can participate in female events and so on. It’s a brave new world out there and Amelia has been gone since 1937. Be careful what you ask for … you may just get it.

I told my wife what I did and she said, “Some female will say that piloting IS an old, white guy thing.” It IS … but I’ve never ever never seen ANY female who wanted to fly turned away from a FBO or anywhere. In fact, the opposite is the case, the CFI’s would be fighting over who ‘gets’ her … especially if she was attractive. (That’s not a slam or insult!). IF the 99’s want to be women promoting aviation … count me in. IF they want to be misandrists … count me out. At Airventure 2019, General Goldfein, Chief of Staff of the USAF trotted out the Reserve female General Commander of the Air Mobility Command AND a Major female test pilot of F-35’s from Edwards AFB. His point was that the door is open and the USAF needs pilots.

1 reply

system

First question should always be “would aviation benefit”?
Second question has to be “If so, how, and by how much”?
Those are the percentages that matter.
Anything else is make believe (or politics).

system

Given the gender imbalance, I think it is a valid question to ask if there is a systemic bias towards interesting people in flying that favours men, and see if a different approach would encourage women. My limited experience of the 99ers is that that is their approach and as a father of 2 daughters I strongly support them. I’ve not experienced anything that leads me to believe their contribution to aviation is anything other than very positive.
While I find any aviation-related environment alluring, I cringe when I see some of them through my wife’s or daughters’ eyes. Genders do seem to see the world through different lenses, and it doesn’t seem strange to focus on rebalancing the ratio by better meeting everyone’s needs and breaking down erroneous preconceptions. I think we all benefit.

1 reply

system

Getting a private certificate with is crazy and plane ownership is insane.
Professional pilots careers can be ended at any second with a minor medical issue.
Maybe the difference is that women are more practical about long-term commitments than men?

system

Amen Larry S. I also agree that equal opportunity is not the norm today; that is demonstrated by these gender, race or other exclusively restricted organizations. And the argument that anyone can join women in aviation is overcome by the moniker of the organization itself. The pendulum has swung, and that does not show society learning from the past but avenging it.

If an individual is interested in aviation I see them as an individual and so do all who I work with. The law does require equal opportunity and as long as we reach out to everyone equally that law is justly fulfilled. I don’t see how we can say society is reaching out equally with gender/race or any other specific organizations demanding special attention to a group of folks who may or may not be interested in furthering their involvement in aviation.

system

Never heard of it, but why would we want to if it’s an exclusive organization? You are missing the theme of our concern here.

system

Fran … I don’t care who “started” an aviation organization … not one of the major aviation groups or major aviation companies today discriminates against women. We’re not talking about private fraternal organizations like the QB’s but formal aviation organizations like AOPA, EAA, ALPA, NBAA, FAA or any other. Name me one that doesn’t allow female membership or support female aviation aspirations or otherwise discriminates against women in 2019. I’m waiting, I’m retired and I have beer so …

I just did additional research. Seems the 99’s were founded at Curtis airport (Valley Stream, NY) in 1929 by 26 of the (then) 117 female aviators. Amelia called for a meeting and 99 of 'em showed up … hence the name. In the 90 years since, the organization has grown ‘phenomenally’ from 99 to 5,159 members in 155 Chapters world wide (2017). Wow! In the 1978 ‘99 News,’ an article reprinted from the Arizona Republic reported that 47,294 of the 784,000 pilots were females (6%). 41 years later, they’re currently reporting 42,694 of 609,306 pilots are females (7%). Hmmm … looks to me as if that percentage is the ‘sweet spot’ and all that tax free AEMSF 501(c)3 money isn’t having much impact. “Systemic bias,” Christopher. Give me a break. The opportunities are there – better than ever before in 2019 – yet the percentages remain historically static.

In the interest of helping “grow” pilots in a gender neutral fashion, I decided to join so I downloaded the 99’s membership application. Looks like I’m outta luck because it specifically says, “Women only.” Hmmm … if you’re gender confused, can you then join? “They” got admittance to the Boy Scouts and all I got was … a rejection. See the problem? Like I said … Misandry !! You better change that application form right away before the IRS finds out, Jan. While you’re at it, you might try reading the 14th Amendment and its interpretations, too.

2 replies

system

Sorry … I said “Fran” but meant Faye C.

system

Larry and Steve, her is one you should join. Either sex is welcome. it is called AA

2 replies

system

The same percentage of women ride motorcycles. It’s NOT because of marketing, social norms, hate, bias, availability, cost, physical ability or lack of support groups. The idea that “we just need to try those same things harder” for another 90 years is the definition of insanity.

Support groups are great; offer support. Great. Done.

system

Bebe, that’s the best you can counter argue? You sound a bit frustrated and it seems like you’ve run your course cerebrally. Apologies, however, if you’re referring to American Airlines. I’ve already checked that box off though, and they also are open to as many women pilots as they can get without the need to be persuaded.

system

Larry has a solid point. I understood membership was open to men in the 99s. However I’ve revisited the site and it is exclusive based on gender:

“As a licensed woman pilot (current or not), you are invited to become a part of our legacy as the first international organization of women pilots.”

I also spent 5 minutes looking into whether a non-profit had the legal right to discriminate:

“Discrimination law draws no distinction between nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Both types bear responsibility for complying with all federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws. If your nonprofit receives any federal funding or federal contracts, it can lose these privileges if it discriminates. Discrimination is also a civil offense, and people who are discriminated against can sue for lost wages, actual damages and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees.”

There are many men out there who don’t have access to training provider scholarships or any of the benefits listed on the 99’s site for members only.

system

Either sex should be welcome equally… except at the 99’s ?
Larry & Steve nailed it.

system

I’ve made my point; apparently, others agree with my premise. SO … I hereby challenge Jan McKenzie to land her Mooney, come on this blog and tell us ‘all’ why the 99’s – a 501(c)3 organization – is discriminating against males in 2019. Simple as that. I can’t join and I can’t get a scholarship from them but maybe I have a male family member who needs some help to get his private license. I can imagine what they’d do if a major airline said they were no longer hiring females … for ANY reason.

Inculcation of feminism by the 99’s – aka misandry – IS a form of “avenging,” Steve.

UH OH! I just googled the NGPA and find that they, too, are a 501(c)3 organization, have given away $500K in scholarships and have $150K more waiting to be awarded. Their FAQ section says that one does not have to be gay to join or receive a scholarship, an applicant merely must write a memo outlining what positive service they’ve done for the LGBT community. THAT is what the 99’s oughta be doing … but ain’t. At least the NGPA Mission Statement appears – on paper – to be non-discriminatory.

But then, conversely, the OBAP – another 501(c)3 group – is hiding whether or not they’ll allow non-blacks to join or apply for scholarships. You can’t easily find out. Suspicious.

Like I said … Be careful what you ask for … you might just ‘get’ it … or, at least, get exposed.

WWAS ? (What would Amelia say?)

system

Situational ethics in aviation between the genders. For the fun of it.

jimhanson

Paul–As a pilot and skydiver, you are UNIQUELY QUALIFIED to comment on the problems and future of jet “hard wings” and “jet wingsuits” Most cannot even fathom the problems, challenges and opportunities–and potential solutions.

The aviation world is filled with “it’s right around the corner” promises that usually are dead ends. What demonstrated improvements would it take before you would fly either a rigid wing or jet wingsuit? Though I’m a former skydiver, and fly gliders, ultralights, and jets–I couldn’t even consider the logistical questions to ask–but YOU can. I’d be interested in your take on this relatively unexplored facet of flight.

2 replies

system

Jim, I think I covered it earlier in the year. See the link in the story and here:

www.avweb.com/insider/dubai-jetman-history-on-the-fly/

system

Sad to hear, but not a big surprise - extreme sports have high risks, and sooner or later…
Not saying people shouldn’t do them. If they are aware of the risks (and doubtless he was), then power to them.

system

So sad!

John_Stipetich

Flight is not something to be taken lightly. My condolences go out to the young man’s family and close friends none of whom I know, but with whom I share an appreciation of their grief, who remain behind. Depending on their love for him they shall grieve in silence for the remainder of their lives. In 2016 we lost our beloved son-in-law Patrick Kerber in a similar accident in Switzerland. He left behind a loving wife who’ll never forget him and family who cared for him beyond words. Plus a wonderful future left undone by simply violating serious aviation rules. I wonder repeatedly of the reasons which motivated him that day to jump off into clouds? Was he really so unaware of such dangers? Sadly, his ignorance and arrogance too it seems blinded him, so he left much undone his future ending in a flash? Such sports as these, if you can call them such, what purpose do they serve when the suffering they bring are the result in most cases? If these young thrill seeker were men of real value, why not go to Laos or Vietnam and dedicate their time to digging up unexploded bombs rusting away in the jungle that Vietnam War left behind? Admittedly, doing such as that does not bring notority or fame but would serve a worthwhile purpose don’t you think? In anycase, sad.

2 replies

system

If Orville and Wilber were men of the value you seek, they would have stuck to bicycles.

That is of course, until you politely informed them of the dangers and the number of deaths riding a bike.

I guess we could sit in our Barcaloungers until our muscles and minds reach the peaceful respite of atrophy.

1 reply

system

Excellent rhetorical. I agree with your statement and the manner in which you framed same.

system

He died young, but he truly lived more than most.

system

I would think that your daughter knew who she was marrying. It is sad she lost her husband but the risk was there and I am sure his activities made him the man she and you knew and loved. Life is full of risks, he could have just as easily been killed by a truck that lost control on a highway. Those that participate in extreme activities know the risk but I am sure they think it will be the other guy who buys the farm. As pilots of light GA planes we know the risks, by the numbers it is a far less safe activity then driving but we do it anyways, it is who we are and hopefully our loved ones understand it.

jimhanson

Thanks for the reply, Paul. I did see that initial coverage, and commented on it. You did a good job of guessing how the flight was pulled off.

My question was–“The aviation world is filled with “it’s right around the corner” promises that usually are dead ends. What demonstrated improvements would it take before you would fly either a rigid wing or jet wingsuit?”

The question was less about “HOW did they do it?” and more about “What would it take to convince YOU to do it?”

Skydiving is sparsely regulated in comparison to aircraft and all grades of pilots–compare the volume of FAR Part 105 to Part 91–we can’t look to the FAA for “guidance” (at least not YET!) NOT that anybody is begging the FAA to regulate these things, but one would have to ask "Are they Ultralights? Are they gliders? Are they parachutes? CAN the FAA regulate them? SHOULD they be regulated? Should they be operated like any other parachute? WHERE can these be flown? Can they be flown over a towered airport? Can they be flown over a “congested area?” Does ATC have to be notified?

As a pilot and (former) skydiver, BEFORE I suited up to fly one, I’d like to know HOW they fly. Is it vectored thrust? Is it Angle of Attack? (and if so, how is it measured?). What’s the VNE for operation on a rigid wing, and for opening on a parachute? What reserve are they using–and what is the minimum altitude for deployment? What is the “cutaway procedure” and equipment for jettisoning the rigid wings? What unique training would be involved before flying either a powered wingsuit or rigid jet wings? What are the relative merits and demerits of “ground launched” (rigid wings) and “powered wingsuits?” These are the questions I’d like answered before I’d consider suiting up–and in the absence of any other “authority”–I’d like to hear what an experienced skydiver and pilot’s opinion might be.

I’ve looked online for a United States Parachute Assn. position on these issues–no answer. I believe there will be a proliferation of rigid wings and powered wingsuits–USPA should get out in front of the issue, rather than let the FAA define it.

1 reply

system

When Rossi was doing this in the U.S., he had to get special dispensation as an experimental aircraft for demos. He is a licensed pilot. The FAA hasn’t figured these things out yet. USPA doesn’t have to dedicate much resources for awhile. Judging by how slowly wingsuits developed, I think these will be slower than that because of the expense and the technology.

Now, wingsuits are pretty common. It has taken 10 years to get here. I can go to the dropzone and find an instructor and start flying them. Haven’t done it yet because I haven’t gotten around to it. The jetpack is something else entirely. Someone will have to test them, prove them and manufacture them before they can ever appear in volume. I suspect that’s where Reffet and his group were eventually going.

Since Rossi and Reffet used turbojets, there’s that problem. A type rating? The electric version is a little more appealing and may not require any regulation at all. I dunno. Doubt if I’ll still be jumping when all that happens.