Aviation stereotypes and a new observation

I had a Panasonic stereotype as a teenager. Turntable, tape deck, equalizer, the works.
 
MauleSkinner said:
IPanasonic
Click to expand...

Had a Panasonic road bike in the ‘80s. Pretty sure it had index shifters on the downtube. Not unlike this one.
1268cb9480fc327371d6cb2f24fe23e4.jpg
 
TCABM said:
Had a Panasonic road bike in the ‘80s. Pretty sure it had index shifters on the downtube. Not unlike this one.
1268cb9480fc327371d6cb2f24fe23e4.jpg
Click to expand...
I had a Coast King…the house brand of the Coast to Coast hardware stores. Probably weighed 3x what yours did.
 
The only pilot stereotype that I know of that I'm sure is true is related to this: How do you spot the pilot in the room? Don't worry, they'll tell you.
 
I've never heard mooney pilots called idiots.

Cheap, though, plenty.

Maybe I'm too old for these next-gen stereotypes.
 
What's the difference between stereotyping & profiling?

Well ... profiling is said to be based on observable behavior and that stereotyping is about internal perceptions of behavior. So one is permitted and the other is disdained. How about just take folks as they are ... as stay away from the ones you really can't stand.

In simpler terms: In a world where you can be anything, be kind. :dunno:
 
So thinking more about my own held stereotype (that RV pilots are fighter pilot wanna-be's), I think I hold this due to a local group of about 5-10 RV pilots that fly to breakfast every weekend near my home field. They all wear nomex flight suits...and they do bizarre things in the pattern, such as entering in formation (they don't fly there in formation, at least not tight formation, but they do enter the pattern/land in tight formation), and overhead breaks...I think this small group has formed my...knee-jerk-yet-most-likely-false...opinion of all RV pilots.
 
Country Flier said:
So thinking more about my own held stereotype (that RV pilots are fighter pilot wanna-be's), I think I hold this due to a local group of about 5-10 RV pilots that fly to breakfast every weekend near my home field. They all wear nomex flight suits...and they do bizarre things in the pattern, such as entering in formation (they don't fly there in formation, at least not tight formation, but they do enter the pattern/land in tight formation), and overhead breaks...I think this small group has formed my...knee-jerk-yet-most-likely-false...opinion of all RV pilots.
Click to expand...

Unless you're based at KUAO, I've seen this phenomenon elsewhere too, so it may be a valid stereotype.
 
EdFred said:
There are people that I have known for years that have no clue I'm pilot. Also I rarely bring it up.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The best way to not be my friend at work is start running your mouth about working for the airline on an overnight. It’s like a vanishing spell that makes me disappear. But it does seem like some pilots love telling everyone they meet. Weird.
 
Country Flier said:
So thinking more about my own held stereotype (that RV pilots are fighter pilot wanna-be's), I think I hold this due to a local group of about 5-10 RV pilots that fly to breakfast every weekend near my home field. They all wear nomex flight suits...and they do bizarre things in the pattern, such as entering in formation (they don't fly there in formation, at least not tight formation, but they do enter the pattern/land in tight formation), and overhead breaks...I think this small group has formed my...knee-jerk-yet-most-likely-false...opinion of all RV pilots.
Click to expand...
You coulda just let that go at nomex flight suits. Nuff said
 
Where are you guys meeting all these jerk pilots? Let me know so I can avoid that airport, haven’t run into them yet.
 
Omg it’s taken this long for this to be said:

doesn’t matter what brand ya fly if ya can’t fly one with the little wheel on the arse end ya ain’t a real pilot ;)
 
Country Flier said:
So, for the past few months, whenever I'm around fellow pilots, I've decided to start my own little impromptu survey about different planes/pilots/etc and aviation stereotypes... what I found was interesting. And BTW, if something I say below sounds like you/your plane, please don't get offended, I asked in fun...not to mention, my sample size at this point can't be more than 50 people or so...but anyway...
Click to expand...
Funny, no one mentioned Bonanza pilots!
Weren't they the original Cirrus?

I've met nice, rude, sloppy, smart, and everything in between flying all sorts of different planes. The one thing Mooney people tend to have in common is the hyperbolic bragging about their wing and performance. Two of my best friends own or fly Mooney, but if I hear 'it'll go 170 knots all day sipping 6 gph' or some story about how four people and a great dane fit in the plane with golf clubs I'm going to self immolate

Piper people tend to be the most unassuming and generally most easy. I only know one person who actually owns a high wing (turbo 206) and he was a perfectly nice chap. Guess what, he owned a Cirrus previously but sold it as the 206 offers more utility


Country Flier said:
twin engines are automatically safer than single engines (nope, I've looked at the data)
Click to expand...
TRIGGERED! what 'research' did you? The data is heavily tailed to one side as you don't hear about the successful single engine landings. I had dinner with a guy a few weeks ago who lost an engine in their 421 recently.. guess what, they made an uneventful landing at an airport. My multi examiner flew several hours on one donk in an Aztec back in the 70s with 6 on board somewhere over Brazil. They have a place, but they demand pilot proficiency. The twin thing really comes down to pilot skill.. if twins actually were deadlier by their very design nature the DC-3 would have been a flop and we'd be flying on A320 and 737 planes with one single huge engine

Now.. if you're heavy and you catastrophically lose one at 50' on departure from a short runway then (A) you have awful luck and (B) might be better off pulling both to idle and doing a controlled mush back down.. hopefully into trees and brush and not warehouses. But if you lose an engine that low on takeoff your options are limited in anything you fly

Taken by yours truly..
upload_2022-5-18_13-52-32.png
 
Half Fast said:
Some stereotypes are, of course, completely true. For example, when it comes to Beechcraft pilots, all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all their children are above average.
Click to expand...
and they're all based at Lake Wobegon?
 
Tantalum said:
Funny, no one mentioned Bonanza pilots!
Weren't they the original Cirrus?

I've met nice, rude, sloppy, smart, and everything in between flying all sorts of different planes. The one thing Mooney people tend to have in common is the hyperbolic bragging about their wing and performance. Two of my best friends own or fly Mooney, but if I hear 'it'll go 170 knots all day sipping 6 gph' or some story about how four people and a great dane fit in the plane with golf clubs I'm going to self immolate

Piper people tend to be the most unassuming and generally most easy. I only know one person who actually owns a high wing (turbo 206) and he was a perfectly nice chap. Guess what, he owned a Cirrus previously but sold it as the 206 offers more utility



TRIGGERED! what 'research' did you? The data is heavily tailed to one side as you don't hear about the successful single engine landings. I had dinner with a guy a few weeks ago who lost an engine in their 421 recently.. guess what, they made an uneventful landing at an airport. My multi examiner flew several hours on one donk in an Aztec back in the 70s with 6 on board somewhere over Brazil. They have a place, but they demand pilot proficiency. The twin thing really comes down to pilot skill.. if twins actually were deadlier by their very design nature the DC-3 would have been a flop and we'd be flying on A320 and 737 planes with one single huge engine

Now.. if you're heavy and you catastrophically lose one at 50' on departure from a short runway then (A) you have awful luck and (B) might be better off pulling both to idle and doing a controlled mush back down.. hopefully into trees and brush and not warehouses. But if you lose an engine that low on takeoff your options are limited in anything you fly

Taken by yours truly..
View attachment 106934
Click to expand...
That 172 on your right is awfully close.
 
Huckster79 said:
Omg it’s taken this long for this to be said:

doesn’t matter what brand ya fly if ya can’t fly one with the little wheel on the arse end ya ain’t a real pilot ;)
Click to expand...
I do know that the tailwheel pilots I know have better beer in their hangar fridges than the nosewheel pilots... if the latter have hangar fridges at all. :cheers:
 
Tantalum said:
Funny, no one mentioned Bonanza pilots!
Weren't they the original Cirrus?

I've met nice, rude, sloppy, smart, and everything in between flying all sorts of different planes. The one thing Mooney people tend to have in common is the hyperbolic bragging about their wing and performance. Two of my best friends own or fly Mooney, but if I hear 'it'll go 170 knots all day sipping 6 gph' or some story about how four people and a great dane fit in the plane with golf clubs I'm going to self immolate

Piper people tend to be the most unassuming and generally most easy. I only know one person who actually owns a high wing (turbo 206) and he was a perfectly nice chap. Guess what, he owned a Cirrus previously but sold it as the 206 offers more utility



TRIGGERED! what 'research' did you? The data is heavily tailed to one side as you don't hear about the successful single engine landings. I had dinner with a guy a few weeks ago who lost an engine in their 421 recently.. guess what, they made an uneventful landing at an airport. My multi examiner flew several hours on one donk in an Aztec back in the 70s with 6 on board somewhere over Brazil. They have a place, but they demand pilot proficiency. The twin thing really comes down to pilot skill.. if twins actually were deadlier by their very design nature the DC-3 would have been a flop and we'd be flying on A320 and 737 planes with one single huge engine

Now.. if you're heavy and you catastrophically lose one at 50' on departure from a short runway then (A) you have awful luck and (B) might be better off pulling both to idle and doing a controlled mush back down.. hopefully into trees and brush and not warehouses. But if you lose an engine that low on takeoff your options are limited in anything you fly

Taken by yours truly..
View attachment 106934
Click to expand...
But you hit the nail on the head when it comes to twin engine safety...when talking about twin engine safety, it ALWAYS requires an asterisk, as in, " * when in the hands of a trained, proficient, and competent pilot". Single engines, btw, don't get the same asterisk, so to me, that assumes in singles that "trained/proficient/competent" is either: a) not as difficult to achieve so more likely a given or b) not as much of a concern....either way, whether I'm seeing the data I want to see while agreeing with those who bet cash, insurance companies, on that data, or just hold a stereotype I'm completely comfortable with, that's what I believe to be true.
 
Country Flier said:
But you hit the nail on the head when it comes to twin engine safety...when talking about twin engine safety, it ALWAYS requires an asterisk, as in, " * when in the hands of a trained, proficient, and competent pilot". Single engines, btw, don't get the same asterisk, so to me, that assumes in singles that "trained/proficient/competent" is either: a) not as difficult to achieve so more likely a given or b) not as much of a concern....either way, whether I'm seeing the data I want to see while agreeing with those who bet cash, insurance companies, on that data, or just hold a stereotype I'm completely comfortable with, that's what I believe to be true.
Click to expand...
Yep, unpaid recreational GA twin pilots also rarely do any kind of meaningful single engine work.. you might fly 500 twin hours a year but if you last practiced or rehearsed SE ops 15 years ago during your checkride then you're going to be in a world of hurt if it happens in real life. I'm sure during flight review few people do a genuine shut down and full procedure, it can be hard on an engine, sure, but it's worth it in my book

But easy to pontificate from the sidelines until it happens to you. Should I lose an engine someday I hope I can add one more data point to the "safe" side of twin tech
 
EdFred said:
So you can throw a private pilot that never flew anything with more than 225 HP into a 650HP tailwheel with 0 issue. Come on man.
Click to expand...
What the...? Who said to do that? IF we are talking general aviation singles vs GA twins, where does 650 hp tailwheel come in?
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
You said SE don't get an asterisk with that asterisk referring to "when in the hands of..." [because] that assumes the asterisk is not difficult to achieve or not a concern.

The point is, that asterisk applies to everyone everyone or no one, and the 650hp tailwheel was just a semi-hyperbolic example as to why the asterisk shouldn't just fall on twins.
Click to expand...
No one is talking about "throwing a private pilot" into a twin either.
 
A twin is just one example of an aircraft that requires a higher skill level to avoid a bad outcome when things go wrong. A high powered single, ditto, that's why an endorsement is now required for high performance aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top