This is why standards should not be lowered in order to get anybody into SF's. Do you know Lt. Kara Hultgreen's story?

SN Greg Wright — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:55:07 -0400

This is NOT a thread to demonstrate why women shouldn't be in combat. It's a thread to demonstrate why standards shouldn't be lowered to get them (or anyone) there. Please be civil.

In the early 90's, the White house and Congress were fairly desperate to rid themselves of the stink of Tail Hook, and so instigated a program to allow women to become combat pilots in the Navy. Lt. Hultgreen was the first of these. During her training, she received several 'down' marks, any of which would have sent a male packing. Yet she continued to advance through her training. It cost her her life.

"Documents obtained by Elaine Donnelly, director of CMR (Center for Military Readiness), shows that Lt. Hultgreen not only had subpar performance on several phases of her training but had four "downs" (major errors), just one or two of which are sufficient to justify the dismissal of a trainee. The White House and Congress' political pressure to get more women in combat is the direct cause of Lt. Hultgreen's death. But the story doesn't end there. A second female F-14A pilot, identified by Elaine Donnelly only as Pilot B, has been allowed to continue training despite marginal scores and seven "downs", the last of which was not recorded so she could pass the final stages of training." -- "Costly Affirmative Action" -- Walter E Williams.

In the approach that killed her, she made five identified errors, causing a stall that had, up until that time, never been caused in such a manner in the F-14. She died for political correctness.

I am sure that Lt. Hultgreen was a fine person. She should have never been in that cockpit. Her RIO nearly died as a result. Her death lies squarely at the feet of the White House, Congress, and the Naval leadership that allowed this to happen.

Soon after her death, policy was changed that required females to meet the same standards. And as you know, today, there are plenty of excellent female fighter pilots who SHOULD be where they are.

Because they met the bar.

No more. No less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen

Kara Hultgreen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kara Spears Hultgreen (5 October 1965 – 25 October 1994), was a Lieutenant and Naval Aviator in the United States Navy and the first female carrier-based fighter pilot in the U.S. Navy. She died just months after she was certified for combat, when she crashed her F-14 Tomcat into the sea on final approach to USSAbraham Lincoln(CVN-72).

Response by CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025 made Aug 17 at 2015 6:58 PM

CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025 — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:58:25 -0400

SN Greg Wright, All we and the military community can do is hope for our leaders to standfast and firm in not lowering standards!

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Aug 17 at 2015 7:01 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:01:40 -0400

Well said and articulately conveyed!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2015 7:20 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:20:36 -0400

I hadn't heard this but it doesn't surprise me. We often push too hard to cause equality at the eventual detriment of exactly that. It ends up causing animosity and potential discrimination to those who actually are qualified in the future.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 17 at 2015 7:21 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:21:10 -0400

This incident was a preventable tragedy. Had she been downchecked in Pensacola instead of passed because "Women in the Navy will not Fail" she'd likely still be alive, if not a fighter pilot.

There are many physiological differences between men and women. One is that most women are not able to sustain anywhere close to 9 G's...

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Aug 17 at 2015 7:24 PM

SSgt Terry P. — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:24:50 -0400

Standards should not be lowered for anyone.I am an old Marine and the standards for becoming a Marine when i first joined were either met or you were recycled--if you didn't meet the standards the 2nd time you were discharged.The standards for Force Recon was even higher --NO SECOND CHANCE-
Why should this be different?

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Aug 17 at 2015 7:25 PM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:25:21 -0400

SN Greg Wright This is the first that I've heard of this story - thanks for sharing. Let's hope we don't lose anymore good people in the military because we cut corners. I'm a big proponent of female in combat positions and specialities, as long as they meet the standards. That goes for men as well. Standards, testing, and evaluation are there for a purpose.

Response by PO1 Sojourner "Chancy" Phillips made Aug 17 at 2015 7:31 PM

PO1 Sojourner "Chancy" Phillips — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:31:35 -0400

I completely agree.

Response by CPO Joseph Grant made Aug 17 at 2015 7:38 PM

CPO Joseph Grant — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:38:09 -0400

There's another problem in today's society. We are too worried about the first woman, black, Hispanic or whatever and we have lost sight of having the most qualified. We are all warfighters, it doesn't matter what color or sex. You go on a submarine (and I assume surface ship) and everyone might as well be what the land forces call combat arms. Everyone has a battlestation that either performs damage control or puts weapons on target.

We get all happy about the "first" whatever and believe progress has been made even if that person can't find their ass with both hands.

We don't have a touchy-feely job, we exist to kill people. This is not the place to lower standards.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2015 7:48 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:48:46 -0400

SN Greg Wright This is a terrible tragedy, unfortunately we see failure to follow standards result in poor outcomes too often.

Response by James Jones made Aug 17 at 2015 7:52 PM

James Jones — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:52:45 -0400

This fails to note that LT Hultgreen had plenty of carrier landings without a mishap. Quite simply, whether or not she sucked in training (she did) and possibly didn't deserve to be there (in my opinion, she didn't) doesn't actually affect the situation or the outcome. So she took longer to learn how to fly her aircraft than many others, so what? She had been flying for nearly 7 years, and at least 5 of those years were from carriers. You're telling me that her training scores in the pipeline mattered for the effectiveness in flying an aircraft 5 years later?

No. They don't. That is positively ridiculous. Sometimes pilots lock onto one instrument and miss another, or something happens that causes them to lose focus, or maybe they're having a rough time controlling their aircraft because of a lack of sleep or personal stressors... but they sure-as-shit don't fly off aircraft carriers for 5 years and suddenly crash because they had low scores in the damned training pipeline.

Suggesting she didn't know what she was doing at the time of her death is patently absurd. Any naval aviator would know her training scores from freaking primary/intermediate/advanced have ZERO correlation to her death.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2015 7:54 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:54:04 -0400

What kind of results can we expect when we lower standards...below standard, duh?

Response by Lt Col John Eliopolo Cpc, Eli Mp made Aug 17 at 2015 8:22 PM

Lt Col John Eliopolo Cpc, Eli Mp — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:22:08 -0400

Standards enforced evenly and fairly, e.g. a person either meets them or they don't, are still the best judges of whether someone is fit to be doing a job or not. Meeting or exceeding all standards is imperative in any job where it is a matter of life and death. When I get on an airplane to fly, I expect the pilots to have met or exceeded, all the standards required for them to be flying that plane.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 17 at 2015 8:45 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:45:20 -0400

NEVER lower any standard for political correctness. We are all equal. What fails one should fail all.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2015 8:46 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:46:32 -0400

SN Greg Wright, keep the standards where they are and if a female wants to earn their way through SF, then let them. I wouldn't doubt that there are some more high-speed, smart and extremely strong and athletic females that could give it a good go.

Response by CSM William Payne made Aug 17 at 2015 8:50 PM

CSM William Payne — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:50:47 -0400

Growing up a Navy brat and spending most of my younger years around Navy aviation this was a well known story.

Of all of the Aircraft in the Navy inventory the Tomcat was well known for being very difficult to fly.

This wasn't a graceful svelte fly by wire fighter. Designed during the Vietnam War, the F-14 hit the fleet in 1973. Old world technology in one of the heaviest fighter bombers weighing in at load well above 50,000 pounds I believe.

If ever there was an aircraft the needed physical strength to be manhandled this was it.

A young female naval officer that should have never been in that cockpit based on her training ratings paid the ultimate price in the war of political correctness.

Response by SFC Maury Gonzalez made Aug 17 at 2015 8:54 PM

SFC Maury Gonzalez — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:54:52 -0400

Back in 1996 the woman that successfully sued vmi for admission lasted 4 hours wheh she reported to school

Response by LTC John Shaw made Aug 17 at 2015 8:58 PM

LTC John Shaw — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:58:13 -0400

SN Greg Wright Losing a pilot due to a preventable accident is a sad story. I pray for comfort for her family and take no solace in her tragic death.
She is an American Hero, she willingly volunteered and paid the ultimate price, so much more than many other Americans.
I am unwilling to draw a conclusion that I have no way to judge based on this link. I have no idea how many male aviators have perished in similar circumstances and have no desire to judge the fairness of your assessment.

We can all agree standards should not be gender specific unless there is a gender relevant element.
RIP LT Hultgreen.

Response by TSgt Melissa Post made Aug 17 at 2015 9:25 PM

TSgt Melissa Post — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:25:09 -0400

I agree, standards should not be lowered. Everytime someone tries to pull out equal opportunity with this aspect my response is "if they can hack it then by all means let them have it." Standards are set for a reason, especially in training. It is to prepare them for the real deal.

This is what frustrates me about the new BMT recruits. They come in talking about those rumors of "stress cards", and Facebook time, etc. What are you going to do in war, pull out a stress card for the enemy?? Pause the war cuz you gotta check your likes on a post?

Standards save lives regardless of the career field.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 17 at 2015 9:27 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:27:52 -0400

Standards should not be lowered for anyone

Response by MSgt Matthew Meindl made Aug 17 at 2015 10:09 PM

MSgt Matthew Meindl — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:09:57 -0400

Standards are put in place for a reason. Political Correctness should never change this. Have never understood having physical fitness standards different for age/sex, the enemy shoots at and attacks you the same as the person next to you. Determine what the minimum requirements are and make everyone meet them.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 17 at 2015 10:27 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:27:22 -0400

PC and social engineering work against military effectiveness and will always result in disaster in the long run.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Aug 18 at 2015 2:14 AM

COL Ted Mc — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 02:14:19 -0400

SN Greg Wright - Seasman; It occurs to me that some of the reluctance to see __[fill in the blank]__s in __[fill in the blank]__ is simply because people know that standards have been lowered in other cases where someone wanted to get __[fill in the blank]__s in __[fill in the blank]__ and have seen the disastrous results.

Unfortunately what gets remembered is the disastrous results and not the lowering of standards.

One of the things that America is supposed to be all about is letting everyone TRY to succeed (hence the oft repeated "If you __[fill in the blank]__ you could grow up to be the President of the United States.").

[NOTE:- The statement in the last paragraph no longer contains any variable as the blank has been permanently filled in with "can raise a billion dollars".]

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Aug 18 at 2015 8:46 AM

SA Harold Hansmann — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 08:46:15 -0400

Question: by congress and the White House lowering these standards, how many lives did they jeopardize? Besides the RIO.
I, personally, wouldn't want to fly with someone I know that couldn't "cut the mustard" in my squadron.
In my opinion, the Politically Correct attitude put many lives in danger due to short cutting corners.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2015 8:58 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 08:58:37 -0400

Not sure why you got a downvote SN Greg Wright. I can see nothing negative in this point. Though, some people have a hard time when facts are presented that shatter a belief they hold.

This is a very good post. It makes the argument that many try to make, except you did so w/ research & articulation. :)

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2015 10:51 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:51:08 -0400

This was a great read. I haven't heard about her. I also agree whole-heartedly. I don't have any idea why you would receive a down vote for telling or speaking the truth. I guess it doesn't matter if this person doesn't have a qualified person next to him or not. The Navy failed her. It is truth. Thank you for shedding light on a wonderful pilot. SN Greg Wright

Response by SSG Richard Reilly made Aug 18 at 2015 12:04 PM

SSG Richard Reilly — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:04:51 -0400

I don't want to be that guy but someone has to mention that standards are lower. Even in the Army as a female you can do the males minimum in push-ups and max the push up event. I don't care really that much but everyone wants to preach equality but the moment you mention actual equality your a sexist pig. I know thousands of butt kicking name taking Female Soldiers. They max the male scale and then go running for lunch after the morning PT test becuase it wasn't enough. They are smart and earn my respect as a Soldier. I knew some that couldn't do the same physically and are also smart however they can't perform physically on the same level. I beleive there are many that can. But forcing equality isn't making things equal.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 18 at 2015 1:09 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:09:04 -0400

Yep. served with her father on a submarine.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Aug 18 at 2015 6:48 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:48:46 -0400

Well written. I have worked with some great females and males in my career. I have seen plenty of knuckleheads on both sides. However, what is most critical is to set high standards and keep to them. A soldier (airman, seaman) needs to know that the person beside them is competent and capable of performing the mission.

Response by Col Kyle Taylor made Aug 18 at 2015 9:34 PM

Col Kyle Taylor — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:34:29 -0400

I would suggest that this happens to some men also. Someone thinks they are "a good dude" and instead of doing the right thing and failing the "good dude" they pass them and off they go. Standards are in place for a reason and when ignored, we can lose many good people that may have been better in another position where their unique skills are a perfect fit.

Response by PO2 Nick Burke made Aug 18 at 2015 10:18 PM

PO2 Nick Burke — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:18:34 -0400

In the 80s and 90s they lowered standards in many rates to up the #s of females. Poor evals were sent back for revision.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2015 10:28 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:28:01 -0400

I definitely agree. For all combat arms. Women should not be prohibited, but they should have to meet the same standards as their male counterparts. Standards are there for a reason. They set the minimum performance level for all, to ensure the safety of all, and enable mission success.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2015 4:14 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 04:14:56 -0400

Yes, I do know her story. Hers is a fitting example of wasting a perfectly good F-14 Tomcat on a politically correct experiment that ultimately proved why political correctness can be very deadly and very costly when mixed with the military. There have been others. There will be many more.

Response by LCDR Anthony Montague made Aug 19 at 2015 7:38 PM

LCDR Anthony Montague — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 19:38:50 -0400

The standards are there for exactly the reason shared above. It's not just the trainee whose life and health are put in danger by sub-standard performance. We all have to be absolutely sure that the person next to us knows their job, but has your back 100% of the time. Personally, I never cared what color a person's skin was, their gender, sexual preference... none of that. What I DID care about was whether they knew what they were doing and whether or not they were going to endanger me by incompetence. Simple, but effective philosophy and I was never shy about reflecting both good and bad behavior on fit reps. If you didn't know what you were doing, I didn't want you anywhere near the people under my command. Their safety was in my hands and I had no use for anyone who couldn't hack it. Lowered standards mean higher risk for everyone and active duty is hazardous as is.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2015 8:40 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 20:40:57 -0400

Standards are there for a reason.

Response by SSG Keven Lahde made Aug 19 at 2015 8:53 PM

SSG Keven Lahde — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 20:53:11 -0400

SN Greg Wright Great article and well said. Thank you for sharing. LTJG James Jones Sir why the down vote? Please state your views as why it was down voted please.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Aug 19 at 2015 11:13 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:13:25 -0400

SN Greg Wright, Please explain why you single out SF, when your argument is with the Navy? SF can speak for it self.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Aug 20 at 2015 2:11 AM

PO3 Sherry Thornburg — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 02:11:00 -0400

A perfect example of why reduced standards should never be used. We don't need bodies in high profile positions so bad that we put bodies in the ground.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 20 at 2015 7:28 AM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 07:28:20 -0400

I was actually sitting at the bar of the base club at Naval Submarine Base San Diego/Point Loma when LT Hultgreen's wrecked F14 was being towed in on a barge.

While I am not a pilot and know nothing about it other than what I saw in my 5 years on the USS Nimitz, all I will say is it is tragic that a person had to lose their life because of political correctness.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Aug 20 at 2015 11:12 AM

SGT Michael Glenn — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:12:18 -0400

That my friends is the VERY BEST reason why a female should not be in a combat situation !!!!! EVER !!!! Its not that she was sub standard, not the point I wish to make at all. Its the fact that people (males) chose to exercise sympathy and cover for her. In a combat situation males will NOT focus on the mission at hand but will try to protect a female thus causing more harm than good as well as more casualties. I am not against Females in these positions because I think THEY cant hang, I know quite a few who can hang better than most males. I am against females in these positions because I know how males will think and act.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2015 11:37 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:37:56 -0400

Members, awesome article...and I normally don't write to these things, however here's an old grunts 5 cents worth. We all agree (or seem too) enforce the standards to all, period. Here's the tricky part...who's developing the "standard"? I can assure that the majority of us in our careers have had that encounter with a "Standard" that made us question "who the hell thought of this?"...As leaders enforcing the standards is not the difficult part...its establishing standards that is creating quit the stir these days. In my humble opinion, the standard needs to equate to "Mission Accomplishment" not a check the box.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Aug 20 at 2015 6:53 PM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:53:09 -0400

The standards should not change. Also the political correctness about and spotlight on any minority or special group needs to stop, it tends to removes credit from where credit is due, on those who achieve or exceed the standards. Case in point, who is getting all the media attention? It is not the Ranger who graduated at the top of the class. It is not the Ranger who helped all the other candidates in his or her group graduate. I get it, a woman graduating Ranger school is news, OK, put it in the news, but then lets recognize those who exceeded the standard and lead the way. I don't know their names, but I applaud those Rangers who graduated at the top of there class and those Rangers who helped others graduate from Ranger school.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Aug 20 at 2015 11:44 PM

COL Charles Williams — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:44:29 -0400

SN Greg Wright Interesting story. I had never heard of her, or this. Thanks for sharing.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2015 8:39 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:39:41 -0400

Standards should never be lowered. Here I even provided some reading of my own since I keep hearing those complaining compare it to the women going through Ranger school....

Do I personally want to go through the training? Naw, I'm good. But that doesn't mean there isn't some bad ass female out there that does want to and can succeed. When you begin to eliminate entire groups, you loose out on the exceptional ones. The ones that change history.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/08/20/ranger-school-officer-combats-rumors-about-how-women-passed-in-pointed-facebook-post/

Ranger School officer combats rumors about how women passed in pointed Facebook post

'We could have video recorded every patrol and you would still say that we 'gave' it away,' the executive officer of the Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade said.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2015 8:41 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:41:34 -0400

SN Greg Wright,

We can discuss lowering standards, but I think the majority has spoken and agrees it is detrimental in numerous ways.

What I feel is the true breakdown of the system here is allowing political pressure to dictate to our military leaders the "how" and the "when" that training is changed to facilitate the new policies. For example, LT Hultgreen was the victim of our leadership trying to produce female pilots immediately to satiate political pressures, failure was not an option. Care needs to be taken to ensure that all meet the same standard, and if the revisions to the standards need to be made then the time and care is given to do it properly. At the end of the day each of us has a role to fill, and if we cannot do it properly we need to find a role we can or find the door.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Aug 21 at 2015 12:46 PM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:46:02 -0400

"Political correctness" is the end result of too many fields being leveled.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2015 2:46 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:46:28 -0400

Excellent example of why standards should not be lowered to accommodate political agendas. I hope moving forward that our military chain of command can look back on this as an example of what not to do. Lets not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Aug 21 at 2015 3:58 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:58:11 -0400

Flying standards are not arbitrary or capricious. They reflect an understanding of the laws of physics and science with corrections to that learning paid for in human lives. Non-waiverable ever.

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Sep 6 at 2015 6:10 PM

SGT Scott Bell — Sun, 06 Sep 2015 18:10:23 -0400

Response by SSG(P) D. Wright Downs made Sep 19 at 2015 12:45 PM

SSG(P) D. Wright Downs — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 12:45:09 -0400

We women, who have been among the Firsts, never asked for special treatment. We never got it and refused it when it was offered. We are proud to have succeeded at out jobs and to have been marked as outstanding and to have been corrected as needed. There is, in most of our opinions, nothing worse than an undeserving or poor performing woman in the military. One woman who doesn't make the mark is a bad reflection on ALL women. It was like that in my day and it still stands today.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2015 3:11 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 03:11:10 -0400

Can't agree with many of these posts more... I think everyone can agree that standards cannot be lowered.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Oct 7 at 2015 10:31 AM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 10:31:40 -0400

This is a rerun>><

Response by CPO Emmett (Bud) Carpenter made Oct 11 at 2015 11:11 PM

CPO Emmett (Bud) Carpenter — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 23:11:51 -0400

When I was a young E5 I was in charge of the mid shift in my squadron. I only had two workers,one male,one female. Both were below standards. I can tell you it sucked not to have people you could depend on to get the job done.

Response by SGT Dana Williams made Dec 4 at 2015 2:58 PM

SGT Dana Williams — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 14:58:13 -0500

It's incredibly naive to lower standards during wartime for "social experimentation". It's politics being placed superior to common sense. We will live to regret it.