About
"Learning to fly like a girl" is not just about the mechanics of flying but about understanding and addressing the unique challenges female pilots face in a male-dominated industry. My goal is to explore and evaluate gender differences in pilot training and professional development, an area where there are significant gaps in knowledge and research. Despite the progress women have made in aviation, they still represent a small percentage of pilots, and even fewer become pilot trainers. My research will focus on understanding whether the training systems, workplace culture, and even the design of aircraft may inadvertently create barriers for women.
Through this project, I aim to shed light on how these factors impact female pilots, from confidence in training to decision-making under pressure. By examining both anecdotal evidence and existing research, I hope to uncover insights that can lead to a more inclusive aviation industry—one that recognizes and values the strengths that both men and women bring to the cockpit. My ultimate aim is to identify actionable ways to improve training and professional pathways for female pilots, creating a more supportive and equal environment for all.
Learning to fly like a girl
The observant among you will have noticed that I am a female pilot! That puts me in an exceedingly small minority within that profession. Estimates vary but roughly four to seven per cent (studies vary a little) of professional pilots are female. Air India seems to be the airline with the largest proportion of female pilots at 12%.
I am currently identifying and evaluating the existing research about gender differences among pilots with a view to conducting a research project on gender differences in pilot training. I am becoming both fascinated and annoyed! Here, I would like to share what the research has shown me so far.
“Learning to fly like a girl” is the title taken from a magazine article written by King (2015) which describes his anecdotal experiences of flying with a particularly competent pilot who happens to be female and muses on the possibility that female pilots might often be more professional and rigorous. He uses the phrase “like a girl” as a compliment to the female pilots he has encountered and goes on to examine the available accident statistics that compare incident and fatality rates of male and female pilots. Quite rightly, he points out that the sample sizes of female pilots in any study are so small that robust statistical comparison is a challenge and that studies fail to demonstrate that they have compared like with like (i.e. comparisons of groups matched by experience levels, types of flying etc.). The best research available, however, does suggest that female pilots are significantly less likely to be involved in aircraft incidents that result in an accident report or investigation than male pilots. Robust analysis also demonstrates that female pilots are three times less likely to be involved in fatal accidents than their male colleagues.
The Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS, Durbin et al., 2022) produced an extensive report on the exceptionally low proportion of female pilots who become pilot trainers. The report estimates the proportion of pilot trainers who are female at 1.5% - significantly lower than the already small figure in the general pilot population. They examined the experiences of male and female pilots from being a trainee through professional pilot to pilot trainer. The report found demonstrable differences between genders in training experience, confidence in application for promotion, and access to mentors and role models. The authors described both an “old boys' network” which supported male pilots but left some uncomfortable about its associated “macho” culture and significant levels of harassment and bullying directed at female pilots, particularly when training. The report also robustly demonstrated that barriers to part time working (many airlines refuse to allow pilot trainers to be part time) have a greater impact on women than men.
Ferudy (2019) examined gender differences with respect to hazardous attitudes measured using an FAA approved scale among US pilots at various stages of their training. For context, the hazardous attitudes scale has several subscales measuring attitudes that impact pilot decision-making. These include macho (being confident in one’s ability to cope with extreme situations), self-confident (expects that one’s skills will get one out of trouble) and resignation (thinking that one cannot affect the outcome of an incident by applying knowledge or skill) with higher scores indicating a greater likelihood of taking risks. FAA approved pilot training includes training in reducing the impact of hazardous attitudes on decision-making in the more advanced stages. I found the findings quite shocking: At the start of training, female pilots achieved statistically lower hazardous attitude scores than male pilots. After advanced training, the situation was reversed. While the usual cautions around sample size, lack of replication to date and not rushing to conclude from a single study apply, an inference is that the training these pilots experienced had the desired effect on male pilots, moderating the impact of hazardous attitudes on their decision making. Concomitantly, it may have had the reverse effect on female pilots. It is impossible to identify yet what is happening if these results are applicable, but could it be that exposing female pilots to macho cultures, a significantly male dominated environment and male orientated recruitment processes has an undesirable impact on their tendencies to take risks? Is this a result that the aviation industry wants? (I hope not!).
I have so far identified a small amount of research on gender differences in physiology and the impact that may have on pilots. Aircraft ergonomics are specified to accommodate the central 90% of height and reach in the male population, excluding only the shorter and taller 5% of men. Something like 77% of females fall in the lower 5% of male height and reach statistics (Howell, 2000). I remember needing to use an appropriate booster cushion to see safely out of single engine aircraft and use the maximum adjustments for short people in the airliners I fly now. Is there an element of ergonomics in aviation just not working for female pilots? Howell also suggested that there are physiological advantages and disadvantages to both genders: men are more likely to experience colour blindness and age-related hearing loss while women are almost certain to be restricted from flying at various stages of pregnancy, generally exhibit lower strength scores and are more vulnerable to decompression sickness.
So, there is enough robust evidence to demonstrate that gender differences in the experiences and professional activities of pilots do exist. The industry can almost certainly do better if there is a genuine desire to do so. My niche interest is the possibility that there are significant gender differences in the experience and outcomes of pilot training. That is going to be my “learning to fly like a girl” project and I will keep you up to date here.
If you would like to read the RAeS report, it is here: https://www.aerosociety.com/news/achieving-flight-training-gender-diversity/
“Learning to fly like a girl” is here:
https://www.flyingmag.com/technique-proficiency-sky-kings-learning-fly-girl/