This is all due to an admissions scandal, which was largely hidden and which faculty were largely against.

Are p-values the real problem, or is it more about not valuing things like preregistered replication studies? As an outsider, I just have this feeling that far more value is placed on new tentative findings than on really confirming that something new has truly been found.

It looks to me like they are considering for more than just gender there. Wouldn't the correct conclusion be to hire fewer male pilots over 60 years of age with more experience?

I mean... here's a quote from their conclusion: "The findings suggest that male and female GA pilots are not different with respect to the likelihood of an accident being caused by pilot error. " Should I not believe the authors here?

So what do the authors mean when they say "there is no evidence... that support the likelihood of an accident caused by pilot error to be related to pilot gender"? It seems like if there were evidence, they would point that out.

Do you not know?

That's the data for all pilots (not just those with many flights or older)?

You are saying you see something in the data that statistical tests aren't detecting?

I mean, did you read the text of what you posted? It literally says "there is no evidence from the Chi-square tests and logistic regression that support the likelihood of an accident caused by pilot error to be related to pilot gender".

Gender doesn't seem related to accidents caused by pilot error, so the solution to not enough pilots is just recruiting more pilots (who meet qualifications) regardless of gender.