Move aside, men! Female pilots perform better under pressure than males, study finds
Although 90 per cent of pilots are men, a new study has found that female pilots perform better under pressure than their male counterparts.
The researchers say that women have 'unique strengths' that male pilots lack, which give them steadier hands and cooler heads in the cockpit.
During testing, both genders performed similarly in some areas, but women made fewer errors under pressure.
Women demonstrated more stable landing approaches, completed tasks faster in emergency scenarios, and showed greater situational awareness.
Researchers from the University of Waterloo, Canada, tested how pilots of different genders responded to visual information while flying.
Lead author Dr Naila Ayala says: 'These findings are exciting because they push us to rethink how we evaluate pilots.
'Our study shows that women may be better at keeping control and making decisions in stressful flight scenarios.'
Previous studies have looked at how the different genders process visual information and perform tasks under pressure.
However, little is known about how this actually affects performance in real-life scenarios such as piloting and aircraft.
To study these gender differences, 20 pilots with less than 300 hours of flight time, 10 male and 10 female, completed flights in a cutting-edge flight simulator.
The participants faced a mixture of typical flights and emergency situations, such as engine failures, that require quick thinking and fast reflexes.
At the same time, each participant wore eye-tracking glasses to record where they were looking and how they responded to what they saw.
The researchers found that both male and female pilots had nearly identical 'visual attention patterns', but female pilots still tended to make fewer mistakes.
This means that, even though men and women paid attention to the same information during the flight, women responded to that information more consistently and with greater accuracy.
Dr Naila says: 'We can't assume that because two pilots are looking at the same things, they will react the same way.'
In their study, Dr Naila and her co-authors conclude that these findings 'suggest that female pilots may manage task demands effectively under pressure.'
That could have big implications in a profession which is still massively dominated by men at all levels.
Recent studies have shown that just 6.5 per cent of pilots working for UK companies are women.
That number is even lower for higher-ranking captains in commercial airlines, with a pay gap of 50 per cent or more between male and female staff at some firms.
The researchers hope that these findings can change the way pilots are assessed and encourage companies to recruit more women.
Co-author Suzanne Kearns says: 'Understanding how different people perform under pressure helps us build better training programs for everyone, safer cockpits, and more inclusive aviation systems.
'At a time when the industry is facing a pilot shortage, tapping into the full potential of all pilots, regardless of gender, is more important than ever.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Scientists reveal reason behind 'steep' increase in colon cancer cases among young people
Colon cancer incidence rates in the US shot up by almost 50 percent in a year, a new study has revealed. An investigation by the American Cancer Society (ACS) found that after a stable 15-year trend, diagnoses of local-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) rose steeply in adults aged 45 to 49 years old between 2019 and 2022 in the US. From 2021 to 2022, there was a 50 percent relative increase in diagnoses from 11.7 to 17.5 cases per 100,000 people. Local or early stage indicates the cancer is confined to the original site where it started, has not spread to other areas of the body and usually has no symptoms. If colon cancer is detected and treated in its early stages, the five-year survival rate is approximately 90 percent, while it is around 60 percent if it is diagnosed in its advanced stages. The cost of treatment also dramatically increases, with early-stage colon cancer costing around $40,000 to treat, while advanced stages can exceed $300,000. The study's lead author Elizabeth Schafer put the rise in early-stage colon cancer cases down to recommendations for younger average-risk adults to begin testing for earlier. While the disease is known to be linked to obesity, experts have noted that the disease also seems to also be occurring in fit and healthy patients. Some experts believe the explanation must lie in environmental factors young people have been exposed to more than previous generations. While no 'smoking gun' has been found, there are multiple theories. These include modern chemicals in diets, microplastics, pollution, and one recent study even pinned the surge on exposure to E. coli in food. The recommended age to begin CRC screening was lowered from 50 to 45 years by ACS in 2018 and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) followed suit in 2021. The US already has a lower colon cancer screening age than some other Western nations, including Canada — where it is set at 50 years — and England — which lowered the age from 60 to 50 years in 2021. Early onset colorectal cancer has become the leading cause of cancer-related deaths for men under 50 and the second-leading cause for women under 50 in the US. Over 50,000 Americans are expected to die from colorectal cancer this year, while 150,000 are predicted to be diagnosed with the disease. For the recent ACS study, published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), researchers analyzed CRC cases diagnosed from 2004 to 2022 among adults 20 to 54 years old in the 21 geographic areas of the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Cases were sorted by age, where the cancer was located, and stage at diagnosis. Results showed that CRC incidence increased steadily by 1.6 percent annually since 2004 among adults 20 to 39 years old and by two percent to 2.6 percent per year since 2012 among adults 40 to 44 and 50 to 54 years old. However, in people 45 to 49 years old, an increase of one percent annually during 2004 to 2019 accelerated to 12 percent per year from 2019 to 2022. This steep increase was driven by the detection of early, local-stage tumors, which increased from 2019 to 2022 by 19 percent per year for colon cancer after previously stable rates and by 25 percent per year for rectal cancer after declining rates. Advanced-stage disease has continued to increase steeply over the past two decades. Incidence of advanced CRC increased from 1.7 to 2.9 percent annually since 2004 among adults under 45 years old and even more rapidly during the past decade in ages 45 to 54. In support of these findings, another ACS led study also published today in JAMA reports that CRC screening among US adults 45 to 49 years of age increased by 62 percent from 2019 to 2023. 'It's not only thrilling to see the increase in colorectal cancer screening among younger adults, but also how it likely ties into rises in earlier stage diagnosis as noted in the other ACS led paper,' said lead author Jessica Star, an associate scientist of cancer risk factors and screening surveillance research at the ACS. 'However, we still have a long way to go. Screening for colorectal cancer in ages 45-49 remains suboptimal and has not increased equitably by both educational attainment and insurance status.' For this study, scientists analyzed the data of more than 50,000 individuals from the National Health Interview Survey, comparing changes in CRC screening from 2019 to 2023 within age groups 40 to 44; 45 to 49; 50 to 54; 55 to 64; and 65 to 75 years old. The data were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and region. The researchers found up-to-date CRC screening was up 20 percent in 2021 and 37 percent in 2023. The study results showed that among 45- to 49-year-olds, colonoscopy screening increased by 43 percent and stool-based testing increased more than five-fold from 2019 to 2023. Screening increased significantly from 2019 to 2023 in every racial and ethnic group, but remained unchanged among individuals with less than a high school education and those who were uninsured. 'These studies further demonstrate the importance of people having access to comprehensive health insurance, which covers evidence-based preventive services,' said Lisa A. Lacasse, president of ACS's advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN). 'With more than 2 million people in America expected to be diagnosed with cancer in 2025, it's more important than ever to make sure that everyone can access necessary screenings. 'ACS CAN will continue to advocate at the state and federal level to expand access for all because it isn't just good policy, it's lifesaving.' Doctors say people with symptoms of colon cancer or those who are concerned about the disease and are under 45 years old may still be able to get screened on their health insurance. Insurance would consider screening tests for this group as diagnostic screenings - a test to investigate specific symptoms - rather than a preventative screening - a test done on someone without symptoms to catch a disease early. Out-of-pocket, a colonoscopy costs between $1,250 and $4,800 — although this varies significantly by state.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Study: Female pilots perform better under pressure than males
By If you're planning on jetting off for your holidays this summer, you might hope to find a woman behind the controls. Although 90 per cent of pilots are men, a new study has found that female pilots perform better under pressure than their male counterparts. The researchers say that women have 'unique strengths' that male pilots lack, which give them steadier hands and cooler heads in the cockpit. During testing, both genders performed similarly in some areas, but women made fewer errors under pressure. Women demonstrated more stable landing approaches, completed tasks faster in emergency scenarios, and showed greater situational awareness. Researchers from the University of Waterloo, Canada , tested how pilots of different genders responded to visual information while flying. Lead author Dr Naila Ayala says: 'These findings are exciting because they push us to rethink how we evaluate pilots. 'Our study shows that women may be better at keeping control and making decisions in stressful flight scenarios.' Previous studies have looked at how the different genders process visual information and perform tasks under pressure. However, little is known about how this actually affects performance in real-life scenarios such as piloting and aircraft. To study these gender differences, 20 pilots with less than 300 hours of flight time, 10 male and 10 female, completed flights in a cutting-edge flight simulator. The participants faced a mixture of typical flights and emergency situations, such as engine failures, that require quick thinking and fast reflexes. At the same time, each participant wore eye-tracking glasses to record where they were looking and how they responded to what they saw. The researchers found that both male and female pilots had nearly identical 'visual attention patterns', but female pilots still tended to make fewer mistakes. This means that, even though men and women paid attention to the same information during the flight, women responded to that information more consistently and with greater accuracy. Dr Ayala says this doesn't mean that flights are going to be safer with women in the cockpit, but rather that 'in this specific instance, female pilots may outperform male pilots.' Dr Ayala told Daily Mail: 'It is more the case that specific groups of pilots may be better equipped to manage certain types of aviation scenarios, while other groups are better equipped to manage other types of scenarios.' That could have big implications in a profession which is still massively dominated by men at all levels. Recent studies have shown that just 6.5 per cent of pilots working for UK companies are women, with a pay gap of 50 per cent or more between male and female staff at some firms. 'I think it is concerning that only 6 per cent of the aviation workforce comprises of women in general,' says Dr Ayala. 'Given the shortages in pilots, this study demonstrates that there are data to challenge traditional assumptions in aviation, which may be the source of barriers to entry or to retaining female pilots.' The researchers hope that these findings can change the way pilots are assessed and encourage companies to recruit more women. Co-author Suzanne Kearns says: 'Understanding how different people perform under pressure helps us build better training programs for everyone, safer cockpits, and more inclusive aviation systems. 'At a time when the industry is facing a pilot shortage, tapping into the full potential of all pilots, regardless of gender, is more important than ever.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Study: Avoiding ultra-processed foods while dieting can double weight loss
By Consuming a diet low in ultra-processed foods could help supercharge weight loss , promising research suggested today. Additive-laden foods such as crisps and sweets have been vilified for decades over their supposed risks, with dozens of studies linking them to type 2 diabetes , heart disease and cancer . Experts have even called for UPFs—typically anything edible that has more artificial ingredients than natural ones—to be slashed from diets. Now, British scientists who tracked dozens of adults have discovered those who ate a diet rich in minimally processed foods and avoided UPFs, lost twice as much weight as those who often consumed UPFs. Sticking to meals cooked from scratch could also help curb food cravings, they also found. However, diets high in UPFs had little impact on blood pressure, heart rate, liver function and cholesterol. 'But not all ultra-processed foods are inherently unhealthy based on their nutritional profile.' In the study, the researchers tracked 50 people who were already consuming diets packed with UPFs and split them into two groups. Half were given an eight-week diet plan comprising minimally processed foods, such as overnight oats and spaghetti bolognese, while the other half were given foods like breakfast oat bars or lasagne ready meals. After completing one diet, the groups then switched. Researchers matched the two diets nutritionally on levels of fat, saturated fat, protein, carbohydrates, salt and fibre using the Eatwell Guide, which outlines recommendations on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. They found those on the minimally processed diet lost more weight (2.06 per cent) compared to the UPF diet (1.05 per cent loss). The UPF diet also did not result in significant fat loss, the researchers said. Dr Dicken added: 'Though a 2 per cent reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their intake. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13 per cent weight reduction in men and a 9 per cent reduction in women on the minimally processed diet, but only a 4 per cent weight reduction in men and 5 per cent in women after the ultra-processed diet. 'Over time this would start to become a big difference.' Those on the trial were also asked to complete questionnaires on food cravings before and after starting the diets. Those eating minimally processed foods had less cravings and were able to resist them better, the study suggests. However, researchers also measured others markers like blood pressure, heart rate, liver function, glucose levels and cholesterol and found no significant negative impacts of the UPF diet. The Eatwell Guide recommends the average woman should consume around 2,000 calories a day, while an average man should consume 2,500. Both diet groups had a calorie deficit, meaning people were eating fewer calories than what they were burning, which helps with weight loss. However, the deficit was higher from minimally processed foods at around 230 calories a day, compared with 120 calories per day from UPFs. Professor Rachel Batterham, senior author of the study from the UCL centre for obesity research, said: 'Despite being widely promoted, less than 1 per cent of the UK population follows all of the recommendations in the Eatwell Guide, and most people stick to fewer than half. 'The best advice to people would be to stick as closely to nutritional guidelines as they can by moderating overall energy intake, limiting intake of salt, sugar and saturated fat, and prioritizing high-fibre foods such as fruits, vegetables, pulses and nuts. Tracy Parker, nutrition lead at the British Heart Foundation, also said: 'The way this study was designed means it is more reflective of real-world conditions than previous research on UPFs. 'The small size of the study is a limitation, and the fact that most participants were women limits how much we can generalize the findings to the general population. 'We also can't be certain how closely the diets were followed, as participants self-reported what they ate during the study. 'Larger, longer-term studies will be needed to see if the greater weight loss on the minimally processed diets seen here translates into bigger improvements in risk factors, including blood pressure and cholesterol and blood sugar levels, and a reduced risk of developing heart and circulatory diseases.
