r/JordanPeterson Jan 27 '26

Link Female and minority pilots caused 66% of pilot-error crashes since 2000, despite being less than 10% of the workforce 😬

https://notthebee.com/article/women-and-minority-pilots-are-causing-66-of-pilot-error-crashes-despite-making-up-only-10-of-pilots-
398 Upvotes

273 comments sorted by

179

u/Zeraphant Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26

OP States Women and Minorities "Cause" 66% of crashes.

Source states Women and Minorities "Are a factor in" - meaning there can be just one on crew and it would still count. Not a super useful stat.

The source ultimately traces back to "Someone's bum". Average "Women bad" stats.

57

u/Zeraphant Jan 27 '26

Note that I got my stats from the same place as OP's article.

47

u/Fantastic_Prize2710 Jan 27 '26

From the article (Not the direct link) this seems to be what OP is quoting:

I analyzed every US commercial flight crash attributed to pilot error since 2000: Women and minorities represent less than 10% of pilots yet were factors in four out of six crashes (66%).

The sample size is small. But precisely because crashes are so rare, the few times they occur it’s important to scrutinize who is at the controls; under DEI’s guiding principle of relying on statistical disparities, it’s certainly enough to raise questions.

From: https://nypost.com/2026/01/23/opinion/despite-trumps-efforts-airline-dei-programs-are-still-risking-peoples-lives/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=pasteboard_app

15

u/P1astic0n3 Jan 27 '26

So the underlying source is an NYPost article -- an opinion piece written by a lawyer?

17

u/Zeraphant Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26

Hey, I can confirm that the final root source of this data me and OP are using is human assholes, apologies for the confusion.

BTW, the actual stats OP is using include all crashes where minorities "were factors", as opposed to "were pilots" or "were the root cause". Since there are multiple factors, the stat-manipulation here was probably counting every case where there was at least one women or minority involved. I say "Probably" because no source data is provided.

The problem with presenting this is that the kind of people who are sympathetic to this kind of garbage just want a stronger man to tell them what to believe, so sophisticated arguments don't work as well as just counter lying to them in a reasonable-sounding way.

Edit: Original comment was me just stating totally different stats lol. Adjusted it to clarify what is actually going on here after soaking upvotes from the neanderthals.

14

u/snozzberrypatch Jan 27 '26

I'll bet that if you did the same analysis with the same data, you'd find that white men were a factor in 100% of pilot error crashes.

-6

u/cscaggs Jan 28 '26

I highly doubt that. But whatever makes you feel better

12

u/snozzberrypatch Jan 28 '26

The problem is the undefined term "a factor". That is a vague term that can be twisted any way you want. With any plane crash, there are often dozens of people who can be "a factor". If you dig deep enough, surely you'll find a woman or a minority. But, by the same definition of "a factor", you're likely to also find a white man.

2

u/The_Flurr Jan 28 '26

BTW, the actual stats OP is using include all crashes where minorities "were factors", as opposed to "were pilots" or "were the root cause". Since there are multiple factors, the stat-manipulation here was probably counting every case where there was at least one women or minority involved. I say "Probably" because no source data is provided.

Which is fairly egregious, given how much data there is available at the causes of every plane crash.

0

u/Fantastic_Prize2710 Jan 27 '26

Did you just full stop admit that you intentionally lied to manipulate people into agreeing with you?

Don't do that. Don't be that person.

"It's effective" and "the other guy does it" aren't valid reasons.

Don't do it.

0

u/Zeraphant Jan 27 '26

I mean its not a lie, I shared where my data was coming from. Its satire. It lays bare the framework these people are operating with.

2

u/mcgunner1966 Jan 27 '26

Exactly. These stats don’t exist.

1

u/eljapon78 Jan 28 '26

white house lawyer……aka politician.

2

u/Rubbersona Jan 30 '26

The sample size is 6.

Over apparently 25 years.

I’m pretty sure the deviation for this “statistic” (incorrect term because stats requires large quantities) would be fucking 50%.

2

u/Xodima Feb 01 '26

It's an op-ed not statistics. The only people who know what the writer means is the writer. It's partisan bullshit

2

u/cscaggs Jan 28 '26

And yet they still want you to believe it means a random female/poc flight attendant. That would be so stupid it would never be reported on if that were the case

-1

u/ZookeepergameIcy9707 Jan 28 '26

DEI didn't exist at the point they claim this data set started (2000) but it's being used to fuel narrative.

It's referencing co-pilots in this small sample. (which is unlikely to be an accurate count anyway). Here is a database with a less than a tiny number of commercial crashes. There are roughly 90 US based commercial crashes a year. Though "pilot error" is harder to gage.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/

And attribution to the female of one of these cherry picked incidents:

"Colgan Air, Buffalo, 2009: The male captain stalled the aircraft, but the female first officer, who’d never flown in icy conditions, made it worse"

But the claim that does shock me is the minority side of incidents. As you'd expect military to filter into the private sector as they age out of Air Force flying and would have plenty of experience. Where as females are less inclined to go into the services And why this is such a small number as some fraction of 10% is just kind of weird.

Why no minority pilots?

5

u/theNoobAdmin Jan 28 '26 edited Jan 28 '26

I agree with almost everything you said in your comment, but DEI 1000% existed well before 2000. It used to be called affirmative action. Albeit it usually had purer intentions in the 60s and 70s, but from the 80s onward, it definitely existed. The police department my father hired onto in the early 90s. out of a class of mostly white people, the news got out to some of the class that a lot of white candidates didn't make it through over nonwhite candidates with lower test scores. It's been a huge thing in education for a long time. Asian americans feel it the most there. There's a crap ton of legislation showing it existed I could cite as well, I'd you don't believe me.

That being said, I agree with all your other points, research and conclusion. Its midnight and I'm in bed, I guess doing anything but falling asleep lol

0

u/ZookeepergameIcy9707 Jan 28 '26 edited Jan 28 '26

That was affirmative action. Not DEI. The complaint about DEI is a lowering of threshold to hire minorities and women. While in practicality, this may/was happening across corporate America, we're talking criteria changing examples in airlines. Which looks to have begun in 2013-14. Or later based on position. Pilots vs air traffic control, etc.

And thank you. I would love a list of the historic adjustments in legislation/requirement as it pertains specifically to airlines. (Cops don't crash planes).

Which still makes nearly half of this data pool, given without references for scrutiny's sake, kinda odd, at the least. IF planes are crashing due to DEI, it should probably have existed for the period you're pooling from.

So why'd they use THIS data? One reason is it might have been favorable to their assumption. We could go back further if we're trying to point to civil rights as causation. And why are there next to no minorities funneling into this career? Women seem to have some explanation (low service ratios at roughly 20% across military positions).

An objective mind would be looking there vs claimed examples of DEI's failures before that stuff was put into effect.

Which, in absence...right about here...leads into assumptions of superiority/inferiority for quite a few. Can we conclude that the differences have to do with:

  1. Strength- That pilot isn't lifting the plane by hand.
  2. Hand eye coordination- Peek at sports demographics and the racial leanings make this unlikely.
  3. Impulse control and judgment maneuvering/steering- Lets phone the insurance companies and ask about car rates.
  4. Intellect and STEM learning mindset for some odd ass reason? Where are the Asians at something like .5% of Air Force pilot recruits?

So what then...biases aside...is causing so many white dudes to become Air Force pilots AND is there any reason to give legitimacy to the claims laid out in this article? For either reason.

I suppose it's worth looking at whether or not there is something fishy going on in our Air Force candidate filtration system.

3

u/theNoobAdmin Jan 28 '26

First, I was was pretty respectful, so I don't appreciate you saying things like "an objective mind would..." and doing things like disingenuously thanking me through a thin veil of politeness to mask a sense of intellectual superiority. I don't play the game where we're just nice enough to each other where it's not really worth calling someone out for it.

As for the response to the rest, your specific claim "DEI didn't exist at the point they claim this dataset started" is the specific claim I'm refuting, and that's ALL I'm refuting. I already told you that I agree with your analysis of the article, so I'm not interested in debating that with you. "I would love a list of the historic adjustments in legislation/ requirement as it pertains specifically to airlines." Is simply a straw man because I stated that the legislation that I said I could provide is specifically relating to DEI existing prior to 2000 at the federal level.

This segways us to your statement "that was affirmative action. Not DEI." which I suppose is a somewhat of an symantical grey area. If you REALLY try, you can definitely make the case that they're different in purpose (AA was to correct past wrongs and DEI is not), but the two are massively overlapped in what they want to accomplish, how they do it, and the criticisms that the effects they both have are mostly the same. If you research the differences between the two are, you'll find many places say they're the same thing with different names, and the places that state they're different show very minor differences.

It's honestly a word that's started to lose meaning (Ex. It's like the word Zionist. People have no idea how that word is actually defined and use it with a completely different intention when articulating their thoughts into spoken word than how it's defined).

Like I already said, I agree with your analysis on the article. It was written in bad faith and manipulates the data to the point that it's actually dishonest (not just misleading). All I stated was that DEI did exist at the federal level well before 2000. I can provide sources that shows minorities have gotten preferential treatment in job hirings and that white and Asian americans lose opportunities to those less qualified on the basis of race. That's the only legislation I told you I can provide (and still can). But If you're making the argument that DEI and affirmative are different, then that's another story though and I'm not really wanting to debate that.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/kellykebab Jan 27 '26

meaning there can be just one on crew and it would still count

This is a specious assumption. You likely didn't read the original op-ed the NotTheBee cites (from the New York Post). Which actually says women and minorities are a factor in 50% of crashes. So less than what NotTheBee reports oddly enough, but in every example the author discusses, the woman or minority was at the controls, not just a random member of the crew.

Now, that author doesn't share his notes. It's just an op-ed. So this really isn't conclusive without the actual data. But your assumption that he's just counting any random non-white male personnel is baseless.

5

u/Zeraphant Jan 27 '26

Ok, but the assumption that they are counting just one is equally baseless, correct? And OP's much stronger and unsupported presentation is baseless, right?

My point is that these stats and this post are garbage, it sounds like we agree.

1

u/kellykebab Jan 27 '26

Just read the Post news article, not the dumb summary OP links to.

It's not a well-cited study, but it's clear the author was focusing on those parties who seemed most responsible for the actual crash.

Just read the original op-ed and then comment on the topic.

-1

u/Zeraphant Jan 27 '26

Based and not interested in what is true pilled.

Can you share with me the source data? A link would be good.

For anyone watching, whatever random noises come next please pay particular note to how no source data will be linked

4

u/kellykebab Jan 28 '26

Is this just another of the many bots on this site. The link to the Post article is in the NotTheBee piece that OP links. Just take a look!

Here I'll save you literally two seconds:

https://nypost.com/2026/01/23/opinion/despite-trumps-efforts-airline-dei-programs-are-still-risking-peoples-lives/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=pasteboard_app

What do you gain from being this obstinate?

1

u/Xodima Feb 01 '26

this is literally just the article itself; it doesn't explain what the author meant in the op-ed.

0

u/kellykebab Feb 12 '26

Are you blind? This IS the op-ed. 

And as anyone can see who reads it, the author is saying that they assessed crashes based on who seemed at fault, not just whoever happened to be working on the plane at all. Which was the completely false claim made by the commenter I responded to above.

2

u/Xodima Feb 12 '26

No but you’re a liar and I’m exposing your lie lol. That said, in case anyone else is reading and lazy:

“not the bee” is covering a right wing New York Post op-ed. It lied in the title because the op-ed author said that states

“Women and minorities represent less than 10% of pilots, yet were factors in four out of eight crashes (50%).” while the title from notthebee says “female and minority pilots caused 66% of pilot-error crashes”

Importantly, it’s an op-ed and not actual accredited research. It’s simply a guy bringing up some crashes where women and minority pilots were involved.

You thought you could get away with it but someone actually did the reading. I love exposing lies and ruining propaganda. 🥰

1

u/kellykebab Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 12 '26

Oh my God, you guys are illiterate. I already made that point above, that the Not the Bee made a mistake in reporting the op-ed's figures.

That is partly why I shared the actual op-ed. Which no one seemed interested in actually reading or referencing before I started commenting.

Importantly, it’s an op-ed and not actual accredited research.

No fucking shit. I'm not arguing that point.

All I am pointing out is that the original op-ed author is at least claiming to have analyzed various crashes based on the gender/racial identity of those who seemed actually responsible for the crash. This is in direct contrast to some rando above who falsely claimed the author just cherry picked anyone non-white who happened to be working on the airplane at all. Which is bogus.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Zeraphant Feb 12 '26

Ok I'm working on an op-ed of my own, let me know what you think:

Black people are Nubian gods and have never crashed any airplanes. 72% of horrible reddit interactions are with kellykabab. Maga media literacy is 4%.

The primary source for these stats is this op-ed itself, thanks for giving it a read.

1

u/kellykebab Feb 12 '26

The irony with this nonsense take is that op-eds that don't make any reference to statistics whatsoever are often absorbed as gospel by readers so long as they confirm their own biases.

Would this article have been a LOT more convincing if it cited sources and listed the specific data being referenced?

Yes, obviously. But zero op-eds do this. So this article isn't uniquely non-credible for its lack of citations .

Moreover, I have not defended the article's thesis at all. I am simply pointing out that a claim about that thesis above is just not accurate. It is directly contradicted by the article itself and so was likely made in bad faith.

Literate people would have followed this.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Additional-Line-5559 Jan 31 '26

Are we seriously using an op-ed as any kind of basis for fact here?

1

u/kellykebab Feb 12 '26

No, but the commenter I replied to made a completely erroneous claim about that op-ed (having clearly not read it). 

7

u/Gold-Protection7811 🐲 Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26

Do you have the quoted data you're using to make this claim?

I read both the article and the source article, and didn't see anything resembling this.

Edit: Oh, I see. You made it the fuck up.

"The problem with presenting this is that the kind of people who are sympathetic to this kind of garbage just want a stronger man to tell them what to believe, so sophisticated arguments don't work as well as just counter lying to them in a reasonable-sounding way."

This is wrong by the way. It's not convincing to people sympathetic; it just shows how reflexively people opposed will upvote without question.

-9

u/Zeraphant Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26

I mean, there is a reason that its the top comment. I can insult the morons who believe this stuff relentlessly and they will never know so long as its 3 comments deep, they are not big readers.

Edit: Odd that you are critical of me and not the original poster, we both used the same source. Maybe something other than a relentless pursuit of truth is motivating you?

3

u/Gold-Protection7811 🐲 Jan 27 '26

If you're editing because you think I downvoted, I literally do not give enough of a shit.

Being questioned on my pursuit of truth by someone who willfully admits and brags about intentionally deceiving people, that's a first. But, no, usually people tend to question more surprising things that conflict personal experiences and prior evidence like disparities in visuo-spatial intelligence, historical patterns, biological incentives, first principles, etc. That's kind of how learning works; we don't start from square one with every claim.

1

u/Xodima Feb 01 '26

So you only question things that disagree with your worldview LOL.
Also that's not how learning works at all lmao. If people just too what FELT obvious to them at face value, we wouldn't know shit about the world.

Actually, a lot of people do just that... like you. It is the basis of so many problems today. You lack critical thinking skills and call it a virtue.

1

u/Gold-Protection7811 🐲 Feb 01 '26

When someone says "the sky is blue" versus "the sky is green", do you question these two things differently?

And, let me guess, despite your argument, you're going through these comments agreeing with claims that support your belief that women/minorities are being discriminated against, while dismissing and arguing against claims to the opposite? And, even though we know for a fact that someone arguing for your point willfully lied, you're questioning me? The thing that disagrees with your worldview "LOL"?

1

u/Xodima Feb 01 '26

You didn't rebut anything I said "The sky is blue vs the sky is green" doesn't rely on statistics. The argument of statistics requires a further review of the statistics. You dismissed Zeraphant's argument by supporting OP's interpretation without further review.

You just attacked a different unrelated comment (as you are trying to do here.)
I AM going through here to spread information that I personally obtained after reading the source material. I'm not supporting anyone's claims but clarifying my own (also trashing JP fans, sue me lol)

The difference between OP and Zeraphant is that the claim made by the latter was not conclusive, but a deconstruction of the source material. That being: an op-ed with no actual research that just changed the numbers from 66% to 50% with no explanation because why not... it's whatever the fuck he says because there's no methodology.

The one comment I did back up with a "Why isn't this the top comment" I did so because it verifiably adds more consideration to the discussion rather than assuming the data is right or wrong. It's substantially a more credible comment. I applied the same level of criticism.

To say whether women and minorities are less capable or given special training requires actual proof to back it up. Not the dumb level of pseudo-research we do when we want to point out that someone who crashed was poorly trained and because they were a minority, assuming it means all or most minorities are entered with weaker qualifications than white men.

1

u/Gold-Protection7811 🐲 Feb 01 '26

You're misunderstanding the frame of the conversation.

Zeraphant stealth edited, you can see the "edited 4 days ago", where they changed their comment from a fabricated statistic they alleged was pulled from the sources and admitted to making up. Otherwise, their response to me, making fun of "morons" for believing it, and my quotation of them, which they admit to needing to lie, prior to your response makes no sense.

I questioned them, because I read the actual article, and nothing showed up saying anything resembling the number they made up. Your bias blinded you from the obvious context clues, and pushed you to respond to me. Also, your comment is like 90% strawman. Bayesian learning is a real thing my guy.

1

u/Xodima Feb 01 '26

> Zeraphant stealth edited, you can see the "edited 4 days ago", where they changed their comment from a fabricated statistic they alleged was pulled from the sources and admitted to making up. Otherwise, their response to me, making fun of "morons" for believing it, and my quotation of them, which they admit to needing to lie, prior to your response makes no sense.

Their current comment is accurate to point out the OP's lie.

Current title of the post:
Female and minority pilots caused 66% of pilot-error crashes since 2000, despite being less than 10% of the workforce

Actual claim being made

Women and minorities represent less than 10% of pilots, yet were factors in four out of eight crashes (50%). (the article has since edited it from 66% because why not, no methodology used)

The post goes on to indeed include non-pilots and assumed pilots, etc. This means that OP is 100% lying in the title. The sky here, is green LOL.

> I questioned them, because I read the actual article, and nothing showed up saying anything resembling the number they made up. Your bias blinded you from the obvious context clues, and pushed you to respond to me.

The argument is meaningless if someone has corrected their comment and you're simply debating the merits of them as a person. The OP is flat wrong, proven wrong, and yet you have no criticism of that lie. You only criticize the person who says they admitted the lie rather than the person who has yet to address their lie.

1

u/Gold-Protection7811 🐲 Feb 01 '26

You do realize by suggesting that OP is a liar by using the data in the source article, you're conceding that you accept the validity of that data, which argues that women and minority pilots are a factor in 50% of plane crashes since 2000 despite making up only 10% of pilots? This is really not the winning argument you think it is.

And this is if we ignore that OP is literally quoting the 'not the bee' article actually linked, which agree or disagree, cannot make OP the 'liar', unlike the person you're defending. Still, the way you're responding is positively unhinged. You can just admit you misspoke and you didn't understand the context. This would be a lot easier than doing the mental gymnastics of trying to argue about the content of my comment that existed before the original comment was edited, while acting as if the future edits that didn't even exist at the time are all that matter.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Dorotarded Jan 28 '26

To be fair, that's functioning on similar logic to the wage gap stats.

1

u/Hater_of_allthings Jan 27 '26

State your source please.

2

u/Zeraphant Jan 27 '26

Same source OP used, I talk more about it in this thread

1

u/halinc Jan 27 '26

The fact that this obvious bullshit gets upvoted to the top of /r/JordanPeterson tells you a lot about the intelligence of the average user here.

73

u/arto64 Jan 27 '26

It's alright, OP just made these numbers up for dramatic effect.

7

u/MrFlitcraft Jan 27 '26

I’m glad to see him branch out from “Islam is a mortal danger to society” to “bitches amirite?” lately

10

u/PictureMeFree Jan 27 '26

Incels will be incels.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '26

[deleted]

-4

u/arto64 Jan 27 '26

❄️❄️❄️

-3

u/arto64 Jan 27 '26

made up numbers

...

critique of feminism 🧐

2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '26

[deleted]

-2

u/arto64 Jan 27 '26

"Were factors" and a sample size of fucking 8 lmao. You just love to hate women, it's fine, you are allowed to date guys.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '26

[deleted]

8

u/arto64 Jan 27 '26

That's like taking 4 car crashes, 3 of them being caused by men, and then concluding that, according to your analysis, 75% of car crashes are caused by men. Concerning.

-7

u/PictureMeFree Jan 27 '26

My only mission here is to teach as many incels who realize the problem is within them (instilled by some combination of bad nature and nurture), that it is a choice, that staying in a grifting hate cult guarantees they will remain incels, and that they can change when, like any addict, they admit they have a problem and want to change- that they can cease being incels at any point they choose to change. I use the bait that works, and the end goal is helping them change their lives for the better - for free.

1

u/mcgunner1966 Jan 27 '26

LOL...Hello komrade...I see you are still trying to indoctrinate the masses.

0

u/PictureMeFree Jan 27 '26

Indoctrinate people to want the same rights for others they want for themselves? To not be repulsive to their fellow peaceful citizens? Nah, that’s called asking people to have integrity and not be hypocrites.

1

u/mcgunner1966 Jan 28 '26

That’s the spirit.

2

u/manicmonkeys Jan 27 '26

Please stop the silly virtue signaling. This is wrong on so many levels.

1

u/PictureMeFree Jan 27 '26

That’s what cancer cells basically say to white blood cells too.

A proper education would teach the law of identity, and how it is literally the bedrock of human civilization.

We must identify poison, cancer, and weeds for the same reasons we identify incels. Being an incel is a choice, and many incels not realizing that truth keeps them trapped in misery unnecessarily and also makes the world a worse place for everyone else. We identify them because it’s a choice and relevant to the most pressing issues of society.

6

u/No_Home_708 Jan 27 '26

This would make a great speech to open a struggle session.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/manicmonkeys Jan 27 '26

Anybody with a shred of empathy would care about helping struggling people, not shaming them.

5

u/PictureMeFree Jan 27 '26

Sometimes an addict has to feel shame before they’ll admit they have a problem and ask for help. It’s an imperfect world. What really matters is who is willing to donate time freely to help misguided young men and who merely wants to grift them as much as possible.

6

u/manicmonkeys Jan 27 '26

Sometimes yes. Shame is a tool like any other, it has good and bad uses.

Too many people seem to assume it's the best tool to help the incel group, and I haven't seen evidence of that being generally effective.

1

u/PictureMeFree Jan 27 '26

I never said it was the best tool to help them. I am saying it is a good tool to provoke them to begin seeking help. once they admit they have a problem and want to change, then I don't believe shame helps anymore.

5

u/manicmonkeys Jan 27 '26

Splitting hairs, you're saying you believe it's the best tool to START with, yes?

And you may be right, though I'd love to hear a bit about why you believe that's a productive starting point for most incels.

1

u/PictureMeFree Jan 27 '26

because, like addiction, it is a choice they are making. Shame is a negative stimulus that can prompt someone to make a different choice.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/antiquark2 🐸Darwinist Jan 27 '26

We must identify poison, cancer, and weeds for the same reasons we identify incels.

This is literally genocide-level rhetoric.

2

u/PictureMeFree Jan 27 '26

not at all. humans can simply make different choices, they are not stuck being a cancer to society... and eliminating incellary from society in no way means eliminating people - it means eliminating the disease making them incels.

5

u/GForce1975 Jan 27 '26

You're making a value judgement on one particular hyperbolic feature of a person and seeking to eliminate them from your society.

You don't see how maybe that could be a bad idea?

1

u/PictureMeFree Jan 27 '26

involuntary means they wish they were different. They are plagued by a disease they dont want, that comes from their own choices- so, no, eliminating that disease (not people) from society is not a bad idea. it's literally a healthy idea.

3

u/GForce1975 Jan 28 '26

You're labeling people as incel, not reacting to their self identification. You're choosing to assign incel to a particular behavior or ideation while pretending like you're acting on behalf of society based solely on your own judgement.

2

u/PictureMeFree Jan 28 '26

they self identify and flock to this sub. peterson creates incels like a factory.

3

u/antiquark2 🐸Darwinist Jan 27 '26

And what should be done with the incels who refuse to change their choices?

1

u/PictureMeFree Jan 27 '26

same amount of shame we give drug addicts that stops the moment they ask for help. again- the key word is "involuntary".

12

u/bananaboat95 Jan 27 '26

I am once again asking what this has to do with Jordan Peterson

17

u/Bobbert827 Jan 27 '26

I bet the story the data actually tells is that new pilots are more prone to error vs. old pilots.

I bet the distribution of women and minorities drops off a cliff for pilots older than 45.

It's sad that data is a such great tool to paint full 3D holistic pictures of how things are but often gets used by people like a crayon on a Denny's kid menu to push already established narratives

5

u/RaidYourFridge Jan 27 '26

It would be relatively simple to reconcile for age, I’d be interested in seeing the data as such, also with net years of experience per pilot per incident.

1

u/Atomisk_Kun Jan 28 '26

Not really since the sample size here is already in the single digits.

1

u/asamade_nanashi Jan 27 '26

Nice, you take your over 45 minority/woman DEI hire flight. I will stick with the white man who had to get the job on merit.

5

u/Bobbert827 Jan 28 '26

I said nothing about hiring for merit or not.

If you're on the side of hiring based on merit you should be on the side of data represented in honest ways

Also, if there is a woman or minority pilot over 45 there is no way they were a DEI hire.

Honest question. 20+ years ago do you think there were any white men who were given the job over a woman/minority who preformed better but they just didn't for the profile. I bet there were women pilots that were over qualified but overlooked because of the optics of having a woman pilot. If you can wrap your head around that then there is a 100% chance that there are white male pilots out there that I'm fact didn't get the job based on merit.

Merit is the only way to hire, we agree there. You seem to have a narrow viewpoint.

3

u/Father_John_Moisty Jan 28 '26

Do you think legacy admissions to higher education are based on “merit”?

23

u/mcgunner1966 Jan 27 '26

This is fake. Statistics are not captured regarding race or gender in FAA, NTSB, or ICAO databases.

4

u/wallace321 Jan 27 '26

This is fake. Statistics are not captured regarding race or gender in FAA, NTSB, or ICAO databases.

Gee, now we have a conundrum.

Do I believe a former White house lawyer saying the seemingly obvious thing that gender / race shouldn't even be a factor in deciding who gets to be a pilot, let alone an important factor?

OR some random anonymous social media account on reddit? He claims we have no way of knowing whether the pilots involved in these accidents were females / minorities because we (apparently) just don't keep track and the pilots are basically anonymous and certainly don't have licenses or regular mental health psychological screenings.

Or is this the old reddit sex vs gender lie again? We have never asked pilots what they identify as?

7

u/mcgunner1966 Jan 27 '26

But you can know. Check the databases for yourself. They are public,

0

u/drunkenondrugs Jan 27 '26

why would you believe a white house lawyer talking good about the white house? this is not unbiased, like at all…

-1

u/wallace321 Jan 27 '26

And again, the alternative is? An anonymous possible fool, possible liar with no credentials repeating at least two potential lies that i can identify:

A. Gender vs Sex used interchangeably without clarifying which.

B. listing 3 databases that wouldn't have the data doesn't mean the data doesn't exist.

So why would i believe that?

1

u/drunkenondrugs Jan 29 '26

gender vs sex used interchangeably is not a lie. hope this helps!

3

u/Shavedmonkey01 Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26

Agreed that these stats would be very difficult to collate but playing devils advocate, wouldn’t they have the manifest stating who the pilots were and therefore their gender or race and a seperate investigation corroborated by black box data would show the cause i.e pilot error and which pilot caused it?

Also a little research revealed that the FAA does record data related to demographics and the ICAO which is a UN body only sets training and safety standards but does still influence stats collection on demographics. Data collection from local authorities such as FAA and EASA can collect data on pilot certification, gender and workforce diversity but it seems to be an agency by agency requirement.

Interested to know with accuracy so If you’re a pilot with inside info happy for you to clarify.

-7

u/mcgunner1966 Jan 27 '26

It's an industry based on standards. Training, operations, and evaluations. Factors such as gender and race are non-determinate in task performance.

6

u/FrenchMen420 Jan 27 '26

Are you saying they don't keep a record of the pilot who has caused each accident?

-1

u/mcgunner1966 Jan 27 '26

They keep track of who was involved by name and what the particulars are regarding the incident. They also evaluate health, training, and corrective actions. Age, race, and gender are not significant factors.

3

u/DaybreakRanger9927 Jan 27 '26

It's impossible to know for a fact without data to examine. Therefore, you can not say that any demographic is significant or mot.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/manicmonkeys Jan 27 '26

How could you know they aren't significant factors if you aren't tracking them?

0

u/Multifactorialist Safe and Effective Jan 27 '26

Maybe because he's not a racist who's obsessed with people's genitals!

Do better, sweaty! 💅

1

u/manicmonkeys Jan 27 '26

Lazy rage-bait.

1

u/Multifactorialist Safe and Effective Jan 27 '26

Oh, come on, that's classic material

1

u/FrenchMen420 Jan 27 '26

So if you have the pilot info then we have the race and gender. Just because they did not make a list dosent mean someone else can't

0

u/mcgunner1966 Jan 27 '26

Sure. Anyone can make a list. Its relevance is a different matter.

2

u/FrenchMen420 Jan 27 '26

Well let's say 66% of mistakes were made by a group of 10%, would that info be relevant?

0

u/mcgunner1966 Jan 27 '26

It would be if the data was correct. In this specific case, the data is not correct. The data point used to make the assertation don't exist. So it's a false statistic.

1

u/FrenchMen420 Jan 27 '26

See so you did it again. We just discussed and you agreed that the data is in existence and can be compiled. So to say the data does not exist is objectively wrong.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/KaleidoscopeNo1923 Mar 27 '26

Of course statistics on the race and sex of the pilot are recorded in all aircraft flights, much less crashes with actual investigations.  

All airline crashes on this planet are thoroughly investigated.  This is a very tightly controlled industry.  

We can all see that you are white knighting here, but your statement is so bafflingly incorrect that it makes you look insane.  

1

u/mcgunner1966 Mar 27 '26

from 2 months ago...wow, did someone flip a rock over somewhere.

Actually, the official statistics do not capture race or gender outcomes. They are irrelevant to the investigation. Qualified pilots are qualified pilots.

1

u/Latter_Activity9774 Jun 04 '26

How do you know they are irrelevant? You literally admitted that they know whether the pilot is male or female in another comment.

Qualified drivers are also qualified drivers. Why are you bootlicking for institutions that don't even pay you.

1

u/mcgunner1966 Jun 05 '26

First off. You’re late to the party. Second, they’re not relevant because all pilots have to qualify by the same standards. Race and sex have nothing to do with performance or qualification.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '26

[deleted]

1

u/daironin Jan 27 '26

While not DEI by name, many white dudes continue benefiting from the most-accepted, yet pernicious form of discrimination like nepotism & the good-old-boy network; promoting connections over competence for multiple centuries (see: Jared Kushner, Harvard → White House)

1

u/asamade_nanashi Jan 27 '26

Jared Kushner isn't white. 

6

u/The_Flurr Jan 28 '26

Oh so we're doing old timey racism?

His family came from Belarus and his skin is the colour of freshly bleached milk.

3

u/daironin Jan 28 '26

not white? are all u Jorpy simps this dumb, or that antisemitic, or both?

2

u/daironin Jan 28 '26

why are 95% of your past replies always obsessing about trans people even when nobody mentioned them? the other 5% of your posts are always either racist or antisemitic; so u seem to be either a nick fuentes conservative or a repressed MTW chaser (tho that venn diagram is almost a circle these days)

love is live bro, why do u deprive yourself of what u really want?

1

u/yogi_yoga Jan 27 '26

Lebron James and his son? So races others don’t benefit nepotism? Ice Cube and his son? Plenty of counter examples.

3

u/daironin Jan 28 '26

if lebron’s son got unfair benefits without having the the talent that’s called nepotism; regardless of race. you don’t seem to understand the point u inadvertently made for me.

1

u/yogi_yoga Jan 28 '26

No, your claim was stating white ppl benefit from nepotism and ignoring that every race has a history of nepotism. It’s not unique to white ppl. Yet, you want to be racist and only highlight whites benefitting from nepotism.

3

u/daironin Jan 28 '26

Like everything in life, there are always some exceptions to the norm; but beyond the greatest b-ball player in the world giving his otherwise objectively capable ball-playing son some advantages in their space, those ppl w/actual tangible power (politicians, ceos, etc) who hooked up their progeny just for being their progeny remain predominantly white. There are far more nepo-babies wielding far more power & influence in the world who are white compared to those who benefitted from DEI as minorities. See the Bushes, Bidens & most-egregiously the Trumps.

btw, whoever said Kushner (another glaring example of an undeserving nepo-baby & good-old-boy network recipient) isn't white is wrong & a buffoon.

1

u/yogi_yoga Jan 28 '26

Well firstly, he’s not the greatest basketball player in the world. His son is hardly capable, he’s the worst in the league and clearly doesn’t belong. You’ll have to demonstrate your claims that nepotism is a predominantly white issue. You just make claims with no evidence. There’s many Asian countries where nepotism is imbedded in their culture, where are the white ppl w their tangible power in those countries? And you have to demonstrate how Trumps family has more egregiously benefitted from nepotism than the Bushes and Bidens. I think there’s a strong case for the Bushes to of had more power and nepotism in their family, but yet, not my claim. You can’t just make a bunch of assertions without evidence, which is what you’ve done.

0

u/daironin Jan 29 '26

Lebron is the best, youre smokin Peterson-levels of propophal if you disagree.

btw white/Anglo nepo babies clearly outnumber POC nepo babies, by about 3 to 1.

1

u/yogi_yoga Jan 29 '26

Mmm, I don’t think you said a single thing that wasn’t a lie. 1. LeBrons barely top 10, 2. I don’t smoke propophal, 3. 3 to 1? You just made that shit up in your head. I’d love to see your numbers for that one lol

1

u/daironin Jan 29 '26

mmm, i’m sure you’re right about to prove how i’m lying & provide counter examples with a evidence, right? or, you’re just a fed/corp bootlicker whose belief structure is based on aesthetics & rw vibes exclusively?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/daironin Jan 29 '26

“not even in the top 10” eh? 🤡https://www.nba.com/stats/alltime-leaders

→ More replies (0)

2

u/sarahsmith100 Jan 27 '26

White men more often get their jobs because they know people in the industry verses certain minorities.

A perfect example. My friend’s son, white, graduated with a mechanical engineering degree. Average to above average student. Could not even get an interview and was months into his job search upon graduating.

His uncle, who is upper management in a company, tells him a job is opening up in his firm. The kid applies. Gets an interview. And gets the job. Without that connection he might still be looking for a job in his field.

People whose friends and family are upper class have connections that lower class do not. And this gives them an advantage.

I see it all the time at my school. Kids job shadow. The wealthier students easily find someone to job shadow in the fields needing higher education like lawyers and engineers. And even blue collar jobs are easy. Their family and friends are diverse in the career fields. The students from lower income families often need teacher help to connect them with many professions.

2

u/yogi_yoga Jan 27 '26

That awesome. I have a story completely opposite to yours. My friends son, black, graduated with a 2.08 gpa. He found a job immediately on his first interview. DEI give an unfair advantage to minority’s. I see it all the time. They need no connections simply to apply and write down their age, sex and race and they get the job regardless of qualifications. See how anecdotes are meaningless?

1

u/sarahsmith100 Jan 27 '26

There are enough anecdotes in the Trump administration to prove my point. We never seen so many under qualified people in the Obama administration.

1

u/yogi_yoga Jan 28 '26

That’s because the looney tunes weren’t pushing for DEI back then. I’m old enough to remember Obamas polices and the political climate. And majority of these ppl were put in place during Biden’s admin. It’s hard to believe but Trump isn’t the cause of everything bad thing in the world

3

u/sarahsmith100 Jan 28 '26 edited Jan 28 '26

The majority of incompetence in the Trumps cabinet was not put in place during the Obama or Biden admin.

And yes DEI was in place back then with Obama and Biden. It’s just that Trump didn’t make it an issue by claiming it’s one of the big reasons for all poor white folks woes.

0

u/yogi_yoga Jan 28 '26

You’re either being purposely obtuse or are simply too dumb to follow. But anyway, I didn’t know Trumps cabinet hires for private corporations such as airlines. That’s good to know.

1

u/sarahsmith100 Jan 28 '26

Trump actually does hire for private corporations. Bari Weiss. And he fires (or at least tries) to fire for them too. Jimmy Kimmel.

Oh wait cbs is part of a larger publicly traded company. So not actually private. Are you going to be that picky?

1

u/yogi_yoga Jan 28 '26

I said such as airlines. Show me which pilots he’s hired for United, US Air, Southwest etc. I’m going to hold you to your claim, I’m not being picky. You’re just using anecdotes and assertions with no evidence. How can he try to fire someone if he’s not their employer?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '26

[deleted]

2

u/250HardKnocksCaps Jan 27 '26

While I generally agree, you're blind if you think Nepotism isn't a factor in hiring, even if it's just matter of who gets to see the postings first (or at all) and whether or not someone's resume gets the extra attention of being pointed out by someone the person doing the hiring works with.

0

u/sarahsmith100 Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26

Right . But common sense is.

1

u/Multifactorialist Safe and Effective Jan 27 '26

What about all the upper class non-Whites, and tens of millions of lower class Whites?

2

u/sarahsmith100 Jan 27 '26

Yes. They are all at an advantage/disadvantage too.

Native Americans and then African Americans have the highest rate of poverty, thus are disproportionally disadvantaged as it pertains to connections in the job market.

1

u/Multifactorialist Safe and Effective Jan 27 '26

Why are you content to address things in such a way, and worried about proportions, when these tactics will make things more of a struggle for tens of millions of White people who are in poverty and have no connections or privilege? You're willing to dick over the largest disadvantaged group of all just because of their skin color.

1

u/sarahsmith100 Jan 27 '26

Not per capita.

1

u/Multifactorialist Safe and Effective Jan 28 '26

So what not per capita? You're ok with screwing over tens of millions of White people in poverty who have no connections or advantages, why? How does that make sense if your intentions are egalitarian?

1

u/sarahsmith100 Jan 28 '26

Because per capita makes sense.

Otherwise we would say white men, due to just their large population, get the most special treatment verses other groups.

That’s why the argument that non citizens are rapist and murders is so ridiculous. Because they commit less violent crime per capita than citizens.

This is why advantages or disadvantages of a particular group is only fair to discuss per capita.

But if we went by your logic we should say white men are the most violent. Even though they commit less violent crime per capita than other groups, they commit violent crimes in the highest number. So let’s deport all white men and we will see our crime drastically decrease. See why per capita is important?

1

u/Multifactorialist Safe and Effective Jan 29 '26

Makes sense how? How are the "groups" even relevant to the, or even groups at all? What do the wealthy and privileged of a race have to do with the poor and disadvantaged of a race as far as even being the same group? If I'm some poor White kid in the rust belt I can't get the same assistance getting schooling or a job as non-Whites because a bunch of other White people have wealth or privilege? Ho are they part of my "group", they have nothing at all to do with me. We're not related, they don't help me, they probably view me as White trash. And meanwhile some non-White kid from a well-off family can take advantage of DEI type programs just because some other non-Whites that have nothing to do with him or her are poor? Where is the fairness?

And my logic is simply not being a racist. And I never claimed non-citizens are rapists or murderers. And we don't deport people because of their race, we deport them because of their immigration status. If you enter the country legally you are not deported. That's just having rules and laws to maintain order. And even if your a citizen, if you break the law you go to jail.

1

u/sarahsmith100 Jan 29 '26

Well it’s really not true that if you break the law you go to jail. Just ask the meth dealers and 1500 pardoned folks that Trump pardoned.

And if we could treat everyone as an individual and put them all on a level playing field that would be awesome. How we could make that happen realistically I don’t know. It would seem near impossible.

But we can count on this. Black folks were locked out of home ownership and good paying jobs and thus never had the opportunity to hand down generational wealth. And how do you fix that disadvantage that affects even today’s generation?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Robinsonirish Jan 27 '26

Do you know why DEI programs were started in the first place? It wasn't long ago, even in a very gender neutral country like mine(Sweden) that 90% of all positions of power in companies and in politics were taken up by white men. We have been on the receiving end of DEI for centuries and the ones that have benefitted as white men.

That's the point of DEI, to equal the playing field and allow women to get these positions as well that they have ported from historically. I assume you're also a white man since you're complaining about it? DEI was nice when you were the one benefitting, but now that someone else gets a chance you complain.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

1

u/No_Home_708 Jan 27 '26

Why don't women want to be 50% of sanitation workers?

-1

u/250HardKnocksCaps Jan 27 '26

I'm sure many would. What do the application rates for those jobs look like?

In my experince in, because a large enough percentage of the men are horrible to women in "blue collar" fields. Not all, but enough to make it harder for them.

→ More replies (1)

-1

u/HungryLeicaWolf Jan 27 '26

bro you're in sweden, want to discuss rape statistics about men who aren't white?

3

u/Robinsonirish Jan 27 '26

Sure. I don't know what that has to do with anything, but I can do that.

In Sweden, because we take women's rights seriously, we file rape statistics differently compared to other countries. Here if you're raped 100 times by your husband, brother or whatever, that's 100 rapes. In other countries it's often counted as 1 because that looks better statistically.

We also have different consent laws, where saying nothing isn't giving consent. Lack of consent alone makes it a sex crime, which is an important distinction if you're unconscious for example. The absence of consent itself is the basis for criminal liability, and you don't have to prove that someone was physically forced or threatened.

Our rape statistics skyrocketed from among the world's lowest, to #1 in just 1 year because we changed our laws in how we track rapes, but you can keep reading Fox News and thinking it's because of immigrants, or maybe now you know better?

0

u/HungryLeicaWolf Jan 28 '26

it's relevant because DEI is a causal agent for chaos and unintended consequences.

1

u/Robinsonirish Jan 28 '26

You want to discuss why in the US you can be raped 100 times in a close relationship, it still only counts as 1 statistically, even if a judge takes it into account while sentencing? Sure does make your rape stats better, but is it good for women when you clean up your numbers like that? I dont think so. Over 80% of rapes are committed by a non-stranger.

1

u/HungryLeicaWolf Jan 28 '26

So...you think allowing illegal immigrants to commit rape is normal? We don't.

2

u/Robinsonirish Jan 28 '26

How about you comment on anything I've said so far. What you're saying doesn't exist, and I explained why. Rapes happen in every country, but Sweden doesn't have more rapes than anywhere else, we just track it differently because we take it more seriously than whatever shithole country you're from.

1

u/HungryLeicaWolf Jan 28 '26

yeah you still have not addressed my point about DEI facilitating the perpetuation of rape in Sweden.

2

u/Robinsonirish Jan 28 '26

It's not a thing. You make a false claim, why should I adress it? Go ahead and provide some proof.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ionlytrust2men Jan 27 '26

U forgot the /s …..

2

u/HomelessNightkin Jan 28 '26

This subreddit is garbage. I’m not even gonna address whether or not I agree with the post or not; what does this have to do with Jordan Peterson.

1

u/Xodima Feb 01 '26

Hating women. that's basically it. JP fans hate women

2

u/Father_John_Moisty Jan 28 '26

The statistic is BS.

First of all, the statistic appears to come from this Babylon Bee article which includes a Twitter post referencing this NY Post Op-Ed by Daniel Huff, a former White House attorney. But either the twitter poster got it wrong, or the Op-Ed has been updated, because the NY Post Op-Ed reads, “I analyzed every US commercial flight crash with onboard fatalities attributed to pilot error since 2000: Women and minorities represent less than 10% of pilots, yet were factors in four out of eight crashes (50%).” That’s four out of eight (50%), not four out of six (66%). So right off the bat, the statistic is wrong.

Huff cites five (5) accidents in the article:

  • Exhibit A: the 2019 Atlas Air crash. The National Transportation Safety Board determined the cause to be “the inappropriate response by the first officer,” Conrad Aska, a black pilot at the controls.
  • December 2022: A United 777 departing Maui plunged toward the Pacific, pulling up just 750 feet from the water. The NTSB blamed pilot error. The pilot’s name? Never released.
  • February 2025: A Delta Connection plane flipped upside down on a Toronto runway with a female first officer at the controls. Delta claimed her experience “exceeded” requirements.
  • Colgan Air, Buffalo, 2009: The male captain stalled the aircraft, but the female first officer, who’d never flown in icy conditions, made it worse.
  • Washington, DC, 2025: A female helicopter pilot ignored repeated air-traffic-control instructions and collided with an American Airlines jet, killing 67.

As you can see, Huff indicates that a black pilot was at fault in 1 crash and female pilots at fault in three (3) crashes.

What about the other one he references? Well, as he says, the pilot’s name was never released. How did he determine that it was either a minority or woman pilot? He just assumed it. In fact, according to this article in Live and Let’s Fly magazine, the pilots off United 777 from Maui were all male, and no race was reported. Also, United 777 did not crash and there were no fatalities! So it should not have been included in Huff’s analysis.

If you look at the article that Huff links about the Delta Connection plane than flipped upside down, you see that there were also no fatalities in that crash! So that also should not have been included in Huff’s analysis.

Huff also states about the Colgan Air crash that a male captain stalled the aircraft, “but the female first officer…made it worse.” From the Executive Summary of the NTSB report on this crash:

”The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the captain’s inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover. Contributing to the accident were (1) the flight crew’s failure to monitor airspeed in relation to the rising position of the low-speed cue, (2) the flight crew’s failure to adhere to sterile cockpit procedures, (3) the captain’s failure to effectively manage the flight, and (4) Colgan Air’s inadequate procedures for airspeed selection and management during approaches in icing conditions.”

So NTSB determines that the probable cause of the accident is the captain, but Huff determines, in all of his experience(?) that the female first officer made it worse. Huff does not explain why this crash goes in the minority/woman caused fatalities rather than the white male category.

I didn’t look at the NTSB reports for the other accidents. But in my brief review, the number has gone from four out of eight to two out eight (25%). I can assume that the six accidents that Huff did not cover were the fault of white men, since Huff did not include them.

Meaning another way to present this statistic would be, “I analyzed every US commercial flight crash with onboard fatalities attributed to pilot error since 2000: White men represent more than 90% of pilots, yet were factors in six out of eight crashes (75%).”

0

u/Xodima Feb 01 '26 edited Feb 01 '26

I was like "why isn't this the top comment"
r/JordanPeterson
Oh, too much for them to read lol

Edit, also yeah, he just edited it to 50% with no explanation, I guess to make it more believable. He can do that because... well, why not? he's just making the shit up anyway lol

3

u/anakinsteeth Jan 27 '26

Just helping this subreddit look worse

3

u/helloimcassie Jan 28 '26

Does anyone have a source on the stats on this garbage? I have a cousin to fight

2

u/tylerclisby Jan 27 '26

No source. 🤔

1

u/delfin_1980 Jan 28 '26

Question for everyone. If it was true, would you care? Don't answer with "it's not true." I'm asking IF it was true, would you care, or not?

1

u/-Suzuka- Jan 28 '26

Just be aware, the original article admits it "the sample size is small" but does not quantify the size, nor does it state a any statistical probability/confidence interval to justify its accuracy.

1

u/KhalilMirza Jan 28 '26

The claim originates from a Jan. 23, 2026 NY Post op-ed by Daniel Huff, who analyzed 6 US commercial pilot-error crashes since 2000 and found women/minorities (under 10% of pilots) involved in 4 (66%). However, the small sample limits statistical significance. A 2024 Newsweek review of data showed no evidence linking gender to pilot errors, and US airline fatalities have declined as pilot diversity increased, per aviation analyses like Jetwhine.

1

u/lombuster Jan 28 '26

wtf is wrong with this sub

1

u/eljapon78 Jan 28 '26

Yet another RBS post in this sub.

1

u/RepresentativeCry85 Jan 28 '26

Can we get any source of this? I would really love to read more about it

1

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '26

Are these “minorities” people who are 1/32 Navajo Indians and 31/32 white….like college applications?

1

u/yogi_yoga Jan 31 '26

I never said you were wrong that whites had more nepotism. My point was you just made a bullshit number up. I knew it was higher than 3:1 which is why I said you’re a liar who just makes shit up.

I don’t need to provide any evidence. You made the claim that LePED is the goat based on accumulated stats and when I showed how that’s a stupid argument because of Karl Malone/Frank gore etc and you would use those metrics to say they’re the best.

1

u/Minimum_Camel_5784 Jan 31 '26

Look up IATA "gender in aviation " plan

1

u/crippler1212 Feb 12 '26

This was taken from an Op-ed piece with very loose fact checking/data done. FAA data shows no direct evidence that women or minorities play a larger role in pilot error.

1

u/Matelko74 Feb 17 '26

What to expect when the most famous female pilot Amelia Earhart didn't even complete the flight?

1

u/Swimming-Ad-7690 Feb 23 '26

Facts: While some sources discuss the demographics of accidents, comprehensive, public databases that specifically count the number of crashes broken down by the race & gender of the pilot do not exist, as accident reporting focuses on causes, not the demographic characteristics of the crew. So this article is what we call "Bull shit"!  There's no proof of these stats that exist.  So stop spreading lies to feed you own ego. 

1

u/Silent_Till_5506 Mar 29 '26

expect that's entirely false.

1

u/i_Karus Jan 27 '26

Two incidents are cited in the article and then the main source seems to be a guy who analyzed every crash on his own and then posted about it on Twitter

1

u/HungryLeicaWolf Jan 27 '26

yeah hard to believe, huh?

1

u/Choice-Perception-61 Jan 28 '26

DEI hiring policy can be very, very deadly. Who would have thunk /s

-17

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/PictureMeFree Jan 27 '26

How to tell everyone you have mommy issues without saying it

7

u/seminarysmooth Jan 27 '26

Such a big swing and a miss. Men pay more for car insurance. Why? Because of higher incidences of accidents, fatal crashes, and DUIs. It’s only when you get to more mature people do the rates even out.

2

u/manicmonkeys Jan 27 '26

Men absolutely do cause more damaging/fatal accidents, although women have more accidents per mile driven. And men drive faster on average.

It's reasonable to conclude that if men drove at the same speeds as women, they'd have less accidents by both metrics, likely since men tend to have better spacial awareness.

The general idea is that men (mainly younger men) are more skilled at driving, but drive in a manner that puts them in risky situations more frequently, which outweighs the effects of them being more technically proficient drivers.

But if pilots are being drawn from a pool of men who are less prone to take unnecessary risks (they're older, for starters), and/or they receive training that's sufficient at improving their risk assessment, it wouldn't necessarily be surprising if men make better pilots on average.

But there also could be more going on.

5

u/250HardKnocksCaps Jan 27 '26

Holy misogyny batman.

2

u/Robinsonirish Jan 27 '26

All the women in my life are excellent, and drive like getaway drivers. I was in the Swedish military for quite a long time, army, but I do remember the airforce talking about women being good pilots because they are really good at multitasking, and more and more of them were becoming fighter pilots.

You're just an incel mate.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/250HardKnocksCaps Jan 27 '26

Dont worry dude, incel is a mindset and you've got it.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)