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?
73.4K
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
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
TSgt Melissa Post
CMSgt James Nolan - I do understand your side as well. And as much as I would want to believe they didn't exist, you have to admit that our newer troops coming in are more sensitive than they used to be. Also along those lines, you stated you "sure would like to believe that there is no such thing"...I'm sure many people felt this way when TI's were being "shockingly" accused of sexually assaulting their trainees. My point in this is that as much as you, me, or the next guy would like to believe they don't or didn't exist, I'm not going to stand there and tell an airman he did or did not do something or experience something that I do not have the right to say that to. In addition, I have no reason to doubt this airman . If I did, I wouldn't have even mentioned his example. No he did not tear it up in front of me, but he has never lied to me before either.
(0)
(0)
CMSgt James Nolan
TSgt Melissa Post You are correct, there is a lot that I would like to "not believe", sadly there just isn't much that shocks me anymore, because people do craziness, it is in their genes.
The thought of a time out, or stress card, does make my head hurt though...LOL (and just so you know, there have been rumors of them for decades). And I am fairly certain that you will never hear a currently serving Instructor at any of the services Boot Camps to keep it simple, let on if they do/do not exist. It would be like validating a "code red".
The thought of a time out, or stress card, does make my head hurt though...LOL (and just so you know, there have been rumors of them for decades). And I am fairly certain that you will never hear a currently serving Instructor at any of the services Boot Camps to keep it simple, let on if they do/do not exist. It would be like validating a "code red".
(1)
(0)
TSgt Melissa Post
CMSgt James Nolan - I couldn't agree more with that. I have a friend who is a TI right now. He is on his second flight and claims that they don't have those. So yes, I guess it is one of those "you had to be there moments". :)
(1)
(0)
PO2 Melanye Francisco
I don't know how it is for the Air Force, but for a while, the Navy gave people in boot camp "Time Out" cards. I kid you not. They allowed a recruit to 'sit out' an event if they were feeling stressed or overwhelmed. I thought it was BS until a new arrival to the squadron showed us one, trying to use it to get out of doing a plane wash in 50 degree weather.
I thought my shift sup was gonna bust a gasket and I left at that point because I didn't want to be a witness to something. That trainee was on the wash rack for the next week and the card was taped to the desk for everyone to see.
There was a major difference in the quality and attitude of people coming in from when I attended boot camp in 92 until I was getting ready to PCS in 95 and not necessarily for the better.
I thought my shift sup was gonna bust a gasket and I left at that point because I didn't want to be a witness to something. That trainee was on the wash rack for the next week and the card was taped to the desk for everyone to see.
There was a major difference in the quality and attitude of people coming in from when I attended boot camp in 92 until I was getting ready to PCS in 95 and not necessarily for the better.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
CMSgt James Nolan
SMSgt Thor Merich Correct: Sex and race should not make a whit of difference. Competence, determination, skill, strength-i.e., whatever it takes to complete that training (as established). Whatever the job is, that is where the standards sit. They can be different, between services, between career fields etc., but if you want to make it into a certain specialty, it takes certain qualifiers.
If not, I really am not sure why I am not a Neurosurgeon.
If not, I really am not sure why I am not a Neurosurgeon.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
PC and social engineering work against military effectiveness and will always result in disaster in the long run.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Back in 1996 the woman that successfully sued vmi for admission lasted 4 hours wheh she reported to school
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
LTC John Shaw Fair enough, Colonel. But please note that the Navy eventually, finally, admitted that they'd pushed her through too fast. I'll try to find an official quote.
(5)
(0)
CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025
SN Greg Wright, please do search; we all enjoy anyone owning up and admitting culpability!
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
SN Greg Wright - I understand your point, we need to learn from our past, even painful lessons.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Wayne Morris
I also remember the Navy finally releasing the investigation report and admitted she should have never made it out of pilot training let alone carrier quals.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
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...
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...
Suspended Profile
1stLt Nick S much success in your flight training. CCMSgt (Join to see) thanks for your insights...
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
The bottom line is the bottom line: either an individual, regardless of any extraneous characteristic, can cut the mustard or can't. If he can do the job...safely, effectively...better than the others wanting to do the job, then that is the right person. It should always be a matter of mission accomplishment and risk abatement. War has many costs, both obvious and hidden. Leadership's job is to minimize the costs while maximizing the desired outcome.
(1)
(0)
CCMSgt (Join to see)
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - Agreed, sir. Originally, I was addressing this, the Rabbi was explaining that most women can't sustain 9Gs.
Nevertheless, I'll state it like this. If you have a 175 pound woman at 5'10, she will have a tougher time than a 175 pound man at 5'10 for various reasons. The man will have more upper/core body strength and muscle endurance. Take them both our of the cockpit for two weeks, and I am certain the man will have an time getting back to being acclimated to g loadings. Also, his G-tolerance won't drop as much during his absense. Obviously, I am negating any use of cheaters like G suits, and that new fangled upper body thingy.
Agreed.
Nice fact: I flew with a fighter pilot (male) that was 5'4 (135 lbs). I could not put him to sleep no matter what I did. He was also a P-51 and P-80 pilot. Which means, when I flew with him he was in his mid 80s. His elderly circulatory system made him completely bullet proof. He was in great shape and those hardened arteries sealed that G resistance.
This is an excellent topic...I wanna go fly, but I have duty this weekend.
Nevertheless, I'll state it like this. If you have a 175 pound woman at 5'10, she will have a tougher time than a 175 pound man at 5'10 for various reasons. The man will have more upper/core body strength and muscle endurance. Take them both our of the cockpit for two weeks, and I am certain the man will have an time getting back to being acclimated to g loadings. Also, his G-tolerance won't drop as much during his absense. Obviously, I am negating any use of cheaters like G suits, and that new fangled upper body thingy.
Agreed.
Nice fact: I flew with a fighter pilot (male) that was 5'4 (135 lbs). I could not put him to sleep no matter what I did. He was also a P-51 and P-80 pilot. Which means, when I flew with him he was in his mid 80s. His elderly circulatory system made him completely bullet proof. He was in great shape and those hardened arteries sealed that G resistance.
This is an excellent topic...I wanna go fly, but I have duty this weekend.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I've never been a pilot, and given that I hate roller coasters, I doubt I'd enjoy being in a fighter cockpit very much - I'll leave it to you "stick monkeys" to have your fun...
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google