For years, the aviation industry has asked the same question:
How do we attract more women into aviation?
It is an important question. But perhaps it is not the first one we should ask.
A more fundamental question might be this:
What kind of environment allows talented people to reach their full potential?
During my career in commercial aviation, one observation has stayed with me. I have worked with people who challenged me, people who inspired me, and people who simply did their job. What made the greatest difference was never whether they were men or women. It was whether they created an environment where I could learn, contribute, and continue growing.
People with similar technical ability often perform very differently depending on the environment in which they work.
I learned this early in my training. One instructor told me I would never become a pilot because I was “too feminine.” A few weeks later, another instructor asked me a simple question.
1. “What do you need to become a pilot?”
2. “A licence,” I replied.
He smiled. “Then all you have to do is study.”
Neither instructor changed my ability.
– One made me question myself.
– The other reminded me that becoming a pilot depended on learning—not on someone else’s opinion.
At the time, I thought I had simply met two very different personalities. Neuroscience offers another explanation.
The human brain is constantly evaluating whether an environment is safe enough to learn, ask questions, and admit uncertainty. When we perceive threat, communication becomes more cautious, curiosity declines, and cognitive resources shift toward self-protection rather than learning. When people feel psychologically safe, the opposite happens. They contribute more, challenge assumptions earlier, and learn more effectively.
This is not simply about wellbeing. It is about performance.
Commercial aviation recognized this decades ago. Crew Resource Management transformed the industry’s understanding of safety by demonstrating that technical expertise alone was not enough. Many accidents were not caused by a lack of flying skill but by failures in communication, decision-making, and leadership. CRM taught us that communication, teamwork, and the willingness to challenge authority are not soft skills. They are operational defenses against error.
Technical excellence and human performance are inseparable.
Which raises another question.
If decades of human performance research have shown us what helps people perform at their best, why are so many organizations still selecting leaders using criteria that do not consistently create those conditions?
Across aviation, talented women have often felt pressure to adapt not just their skills but their style as they move into leadership—becoming more certain, less willing to admit doubt, more authoritative. As if belonging required leaving part of themselves behind. I have often wondered whether this reflected who they were becoming—or the kind of leadership they believed was expected of them.
In my experience, the leaders who consistently got the best from their teams were not the loudest voices in the room. They were the ones who created space for others to think, stayed curious under pressure, and made everyone feel that their contribution mattered.
That kind of leadership is not weakness. It is precision.
One of the greatest privileges of my career has been mentoring young women from different parts of the world who dream of becoming pilots. Some come from countries where this requires overcoming deeply rooted cultural expectations, financial hardship, and very little support. Others have grown up in societies where opportunities are far greater.
What has surprised me is not how different their journeys are. It is how similar their questions are.
These are exceptionally talented women, driven by extraordinary determination. Yet despite their different backgrounds, they ask remarkably similar questions.
– “Will I fit in?”
– “Will I be taken seriously?”
– “Will I have to become someone else to succeed?”
They rarely question their skills as pilots; what concerns them is whether they belong.
Aviation offers extraordinary careers beyond the flight deck—air traffic control, engineering, safety management, operations, and more. The conversation about women in aviation is bigger than any one role. What connects all of them is the same question the young women I mentor are asking: will the environment I enter allow me to thrive?
The talent already exists. The question is whether the environments we create allow it to flourish.
Aviation has never improved by accepting long-held assumptions. It has improved by questioning them. Crew Resource Management challenged traditional ideas about authority because the evidence showed there was a safer way to operate.
Perhaps leadership deserves the same curiosity.
Because if we understand human performance as well as we say we do, then leadership should be judged not only by technical competence—but by its ability to create the conditions in which people can learn, contribute, and perform at their very best.
The future of aviation will depend on outstanding technical professionals.
It will also depend on leaders who understand that the most powerful thing you can bring to a team is not authority.
It is a space to grow and be valuable.
Name: By Ana Belén Postigo
Professional Title: Pilot And Human Performance Expert
Bio: Ana Postigo is a commercial pilot, neurocoach, NLP practitioner, author with training in aircraft accident investigator. She explores the intersection of aviation, neuroscience and leadership, helping leaders understand the brain behind decision-making, resilience and human performance
