Posted on Aug 17, 2015
This is why standards should not be lowered in order to get anybody into SF's. Do you know Lt. Kara Hultgreen's story?
73.3K
424
154
69
68
1
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
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
Military History
Political Correctness
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 53
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
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".]
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".]
(2)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
COL Ted Mc I lol'd at that last, Colonel. So true! (well, all of it is, but that got the laugh.)
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
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.
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.
Suspended Profile
Fine. Let's sift through your mountain of inaccuracies.
"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."
- Nope. No single down has ever removed anyone from flight training that I'm aware of. John McCain crashed his trainer into the Gulf of Mexico and was allowed to continue. I've said before that he started out as an awful pilot and became a good one, just like LT Hultgreen. Odd that I've never seen you make a statement about how McCain didn't deserve to be a fighter pilot, considering he actually crashed his aircraft entirely through his own fault, but you think LT Hultgreen deserved to be sent packing for an unknown infraction.
"The White House and Congress' political pressure to get more women in combat is the direct cause of Lt. Hultgreen's death."
- Completely unverifiable statement that suggests LT Hultgreen was a subpar pilot.
"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."
- Some errors are confirmed, others assumed. The compressor stall that occurred in the F-14 was relatively common and known, which is why it was in their NATOPS. So which is it, exactly? Did she do something so awful as to stall her engine in a never-before-seen manner, or was there a different factor at play? Your statement suggesting she died for political correctness is - again - unverifiable.
"She should have never been in that cockpit."
- You would know, from your experiences flying with her and your vast aviation knowledge. Many excellent aviators signed off on her qualifications and RIOs were willing to fly with her. That tells me a lot more than your assumptions.
"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."
- You obviously don't know anything about pilot training, because that's not remotely true. Women are still pushed through whether they deserve it or not on a pretty regular basis. Some idiot somewhere thinks there should be a quota for female pilots still, regardless of the conclusions of the investigation.
The fact that you still fail to realize that I don't agree with pushing women through based on them being women is astonishing to me, not the least reasoning of which is that I stated it clearly in my initial response. I don't think anybody should be pushed through on anything other than skill and merit, but I also know what the training pipeline is, what it's like, and how skills build over time. I also understand the aerodynamics of aviation and the associated control inputs and pilots' tendencies.
You can spin it like you're coming to the defense of the poor, victimized LT, the sacrificial lamb of PC-conscious Washington, D.C., but you're not. You're patronizing and dismissive of a talented individual who got into a rough situation and didn't make it out. I doubt very highly that LT Hultgreen would want or accept your defense. You can call me small, stubborn, and arrogant all you want. It won't make you any less wrong.
"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."
- Nope. No single down has ever removed anyone from flight training that I'm aware of. John McCain crashed his trainer into the Gulf of Mexico and was allowed to continue. I've said before that he started out as an awful pilot and became a good one, just like LT Hultgreen. Odd that I've never seen you make a statement about how McCain didn't deserve to be a fighter pilot, considering he actually crashed his aircraft entirely through his own fault, but you think LT Hultgreen deserved to be sent packing for an unknown infraction.
"The White House and Congress' political pressure to get more women in combat is the direct cause of Lt. Hultgreen's death."
- Completely unverifiable statement that suggests LT Hultgreen was a subpar pilot.
"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."
- Some errors are confirmed, others assumed. The compressor stall that occurred in the F-14 was relatively common and known, which is why it was in their NATOPS. So which is it, exactly? Did she do something so awful as to stall her engine in a never-before-seen manner, or was there a different factor at play? Your statement suggesting she died for political correctness is - again - unverifiable.
"She should have never been in that cockpit."
- You would know, from your experiences flying with her and your vast aviation knowledge. Many excellent aviators signed off on her qualifications and RIOs were willing to fly with her. That tells me a lot more than your assumptions.
"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."
- You obviously don't know anything about pilot training, because that's not remotely true. Women are still pushed through whether they deserve it or not on a pretty regular basis. Some idiot somewhere thinks there should be a quota for female pilots still, regardless of the conclusions of the investigation.
The fact that you still fail to realize that I don't agree with pushing women through based on them being women is astonishing to me, not the least reasoning of which is that I stated it clearly in my initial response. I don't think anybody should be pushed through on anything other than skill and merit, but I also know what the training pipeline is, what it's like, and how skills build over time. I also understand the aerodynamics of aviation and the associated control inputs and pilots' tendencies.
You can spin it like you're coming to the defense of the poor, victimized LT, the sacrificial lamb of PC-conscious Washington, D.C., but you're not. You're patronizing and dismissive of a talented individual who got into a rough situation and didn't make it out. I doubt very highly that LT Hultgreen would want or accept your defense. You can call me small, stubborn, and arrogant all you want. It won't make you any less wrong.
SN Greg Wright
LTJG James Jones Ugh. I'm starting to feel guilty, like I'm arguing with a toddler. This will be my last response to you, as I should have stayed out after my exit post (I saw you being civil with the Major and figured I'd try to see if you could have a civil debate with me. I was unwilling to completely write you off, and still wish I could find a way to get you to civility.)
To address your points:
- **Nope. No single down has ever removed anyone from flight training that I'm aware of. John McCain crashed his trainer into the Gulf of Mexico and was allowed to continue. I've said before that he started out as an awful pilot and became a good one, just like LT Hultgreen. Odd that I've never seen you make a statement about how McCain didn't deserve to be a fighter pilot, considering he actually crashed his aircraft entirely through his own fault, but you think LT Hultgreen deserved to be sent packing for an unknown infraction.**
This is a great response, both straw-man AND non-sequitur. Firstly: the report from the Center for Military Readiness stated, QUOTE: "Documents obtained by Elaine Donnelly, director of CMR, 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." Not ONE, which is what you're trying to pass off (straw man) as MY posting. It wasn't. So let me ask you -- would YOU get away with 4 major downs in your training, today? Secondly: drawing some correlation between my failure to address McCain's incident and whether or not I think LT Hultgreen deserved to be packing is false. Non-sequitur. I think you need to look that term up, and straw man, because you keep repeating them over and over. You may as well ask why I didn't bring up Goose's death in Top Gun. It has about as much to do with it.
-** Completely unverifiable statement that suggests LT Hultgreen was a subpar pilot. **
Not unverifiable at all. It's in the report. Why don't you read it? I (mistakenly) posted it in the form of an opinion. My bad. But, here's another fine example of your love of straw man arguments: that statement in no way suggest she was subpar.
- **Some errors are confirmed, others assumed. The compressor stall that occurred in the F-14 was relatively common and known, which is why it was in their NATOPS. So which is it, exactly? Did she do something so awful as to stall her engine in a never-before-seen manner, or was there a different factor at play? Your statement suggesting she died for political correctness is - again - unverifiable. **
Finally something real in your response -- the stall was common, and known, and she should have known it. But let me come back to that, as to 'confirmed or assumed.'
Error #1. She came in @ too-high AOA. Verifiable? You tell me.
Error #2. She overshot the centerline. Verifiable? Well, I'm sure only humans' eyes that are pilots can verify this. Magical eyes.
Error#3. She ignored wave-off. Uh...verifiable?
Error #4. She kicked the left rudder into a skid. This caused the nose to disrupt the airflow over the left (inside) wing as well as the airflow to the left engine intake -- the well-known stall you referenced. The F-14 NATOPS flight manual warned against excess yaw for this very reason. It seems reasonable to me that a well=trained f14 pilot knows this. Verifiable? Well, the whole world watched that nose yaw left. You tell me.
Error #5. She engaged full afterburner in the presence of asymmetric thrust caused by the left-engine flameout. Last straw. Verifiable? The afterburner can clearly be seen on film.
The entire sequence was initiated, and then exacerbated, by her.
- **You obviously don't know anything about pilot training, because that's not remotely true. Women are still pushed through whether they deserve it or not on a pretty regular basis. Some idiot somewhere thinks there should be a quota for female pilots still, regardless of the conclusions of the investigation.**
This one I won't argue with. I DON'T know about MILITARY pilot training (see, all this time you've been saying I don't know shit about aviation, you should have perhaps done me the courtesy of asking me what I DO know), and I cannot refute your statement, and in fact, consider it likely. My opinion (statement) was based upon the knowledge that there are plenty of competent female pilots today.
-** You would know, from your experiences flying with her and your vast aviation knowledge. Many excellent aviators signed off on her qualifications and RIOs were willing to fly with her. That tells me a lot more than your assumptions.**
Again, I will ignore your insulting approach, and point out that you are reversing yourself, at least in regards to your conversation with the Major where, when he pointed out (and that YOU YOURSELF pointed out in your last bullet point that I addressed!!!!!) that excellent aviators often sign off on things they don't catch or refuse to see. It's astonishing to me that you're willing to apply this principle to the entire Aviation cadre, yet not allow for it's possibility for this one instance.
**You can spin it like you're coming to the defense of the poor, victimized LT, the sacrificial lamb of PC-conscious Washington, D.C., but you're not.**
You're sensationalizing this, another form of straw-man. Nothing I said made this sound this bad.
**You're patronizing and dismissive of a talented individual who got into a rough situation and didn't make it out.**
No at all. If that were true, why have no other aviators than yourself -- including the Major-- felt the same way? Why hasn't anyone but you thought this?
**I doubt very highly that LT Hultgreen would want or accept your defense.**
I can't say. Human nature says you're right...but that's human nature, not because the facts as I've laid them out are wrong. In any case, neither you nor I can say.
To address your points:
- **Nope. No single down has ever removed anyone from flight training that I'm aware of. John McCain crashed his trainer into the Gulf of Mexico and was allowed to continue. I've said before that he started out as an awful pilot and became a good one, just like LT Hultgreen. Odd that I've never seen you make a statement about how McCain didn't deserve to be a fighter pilot, considering he actually crashed his aircraft entirely through his own fault, but you think LT Hultgreen deserved to be sent packing for an unknown infraction.**
This is a great response, both straw-man AND non-sequitur. Firstly: the report from the Center for Military Readiness stated, QUOTE: "Documents obtained by Elaine Donnelly, director of CMR, 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." Not ONE, which is what you're trying to pass off (straw man) as MY posting. It wasn't. So let me ask you -- would YOU get away with 4 major downs in your training, today? Secondly: drawing some correlation between my failure to address McCain's incident and whether or not I think LT Hultgreen deserved to be packing is false. Non-sequitur. I think you need to look that term up, and straw man, because you keep repeating them over and over. You may as well ask why I didn't bring up Goose's death in Top Gun. It has about as much to do with it.
-** Completely unverifiable statement that suggests LT Hultgreen was a subpar pilot. **
Not unverifiable at all. It's in the report. Why don't you read it? I (mistakenly) posted it in the form of an opinion. My bad. But, here's another fine example of your love of straw man arguments: that statement in no way suggest she was subpar.
- **Some errors are confirmed, others assumed. The compressor stall that occurred in the F-14 was relatively common and known, which is why it was in their NATOPS. So which is it, exactly? Did she do something so awful as to stall her engine in a never-before-seen manner, or was there a different factor at play? Your statement suggesting she died for political correctness is - again - unverifiable. **
Finally something real in your response -- the stall was common, and known, and she should have known it. But let me come back to that, as to 'confirmed or assumed.'
Error #1. She came in @ too-high AOA. Verifiable? You tell me.
Error #2. She overshot the centerline. Verifiable? Well, I'm sure only humans' eyes that are pilots can verify this. Magical eyes.
Error#3. She ignored wave-off. Uh...verifiable?
Error #4. She kicked the left rudder into a skid. This caused the nose to disrupt the airflow over the left (inside) wing as well as the airflow to the left engine intake -- the well-known stall you referenced. The F-14 NATOPS flight manual warned against excess yaw for this very reason. It seems reasonable to me that a well=trained f14 pilot knows this. Verifiable? Well, the whole world watched that nose yaw left. You tell me.
Error #5. She engaged full afterburner in the presence of asymmetric thrust caused by the left-engine flameout. Last straw. Verifiable? The afterburner can clearly be seen on film.
The entire sequence was initiated, and then exacerbated, by her.
- **You obviously don't know anything about pilot training, because that's not remotely true. Women are still pushed through whether they deserve it or not on a pretty regular basis. Some idiot somewhere thinks there should be a quota for female pilots still, regardless of the conclusions of the investigation.**
This one I won't argue with. I DON'T know about MILITARY pilot training (see, all this time you've been saying I don't know shit about aviation, you should have perhaps done me the courtesy of asking me what I DO know), and I cannot refute your statement, and in fact, consider it likely. My opinion (statement) was based upon the knowledge that there are plenty of competent female pilots today.
-** You would know, from your experiences flying with her and your vast aviation knowledge. Many excellent aviators signed off on her qualifications and RIOs were willing to fly with her. That tells me a lot more than your assumptions.**
Again, I will ignore your insulting approach, and point out that you are reversing yourself, at least in regards to your conversation with the Major where, when he pointed out (and that YOU YOURSELF pointed out in your last bullet point that I addressed!!!!!) that excellent aviators often sign off on things they don't catch or refuse to see. It's astonishing to me that you're willing to apply this principle to the entire Aviation cadre, yet not allow for it's possibility for this one instance.
**You can spin it like you're coming to the defense of the poor, victimized LT, the sacrificial lamb of PC-conscious Washington, D.C., but you're not.**
You're sensationalizing this, another form of straw-man. Nothing I said made this sound this bad.
**You're patronizing and dismissive of a talented individual who got into a rough situation and didn't make it out.**
No at all. If that were true, why have no other aviators than yourself -- including the Major-- felt the same way? Why hasn't anyone but you thought this?
**I doubt very highly that LT Hultgreen would want or accept your defense.**
I can't say. Human nature says you're right...but that's human nature, not because the facts as I've laid them out are wrong. In any case, neither you nor I can say.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I'm going to explain this as explicitly as possible for your benefit. Pilots don't get qualified in training; they earn their warfare pin. When I say a lot of excellent aviators signed off on her quals, I'm talking a real squadron, flying real Navy aircraft, flying real Navy missions. Experienced combat aviators signed their names saying they were comfortable flying combat formations with her, and real RIOs hopped in the back seat.
I'm also not the only aviator that thinks as I do on this topic, I'm simply the only one saying it on this thread. As much as you've criticized me for a perceived lack of civility, you've been downright rude repeatedly. Enjoy your fake internet points, Greg.
I'm also not the only aviator that thinks as I do on this topic, I'm simply the only one saying it on this thread. As much as you've criticized me for a perceived lack of civility, you've been downright rude repeatedly. Enjoy your fake internet points, Greg.
SN Greg Wright
LTJG James Jones - You're right James. I did react to some of your statements poorly. I apologize.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SSG(P) D. Wright Downs
In the Army, if people who worked for me were below standard, it was my responsibility to get them to standard, at minimum, and to above standard, to meet my standard. I was an E-5 for quite a while due to extraordinarily high numbers for promotion. Making others make the grade was a great leadership experience for me, made me an even better SSG and on the fast track to SFC---unfortunatly, I had to take a medical 3 months prior to getting SFC at the beginning of my 11th year of service---outstanding at that time in my career field. So, I found it better to make the best of the situation by taking charge of the situation.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
"Political correctness" is the end result of too many fields being leveled.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google