Pat
Supporter
The problem to me is the discrimination in the standards is an effort by some to make the military a "incubator of social change". "Gender norming" is now the rule at all three service academies, so that women are measured against other women, rather than against men (who may have outperformed them) or objective norms dictated by years of combat experience. Standards are standards, if they are valid, there should NEVER be a waiver for gender, age, or whatever. The price is sadly is often paid in blood.
I've written before about Navy Lt. Kara Hultgreen who was killed attempting to land her F-14A Tomcat fighter on the USS Abraham Lincoln. The Navy's official public report was the crash "was precipitated by a malfunction of the left engine." At the time, rumblings from the ranks about pilot error were greeted with counter charges of sexism. As part of the Navy's media press management, ABC's newscaster Peter Jennings said there had been a "vicious campaign against allowing women to serve in combat." As today, honest discussion about the events was shouted down and those attempting to raise the issue were savaged by the media and the political/military establishment. Several careers were ended over it. The truth was actively suppressed and not fairly addressed for years. Some say it still hasn't.
But back to Lt Hultgreen, here's what really happened. On approach to the USS Abraham Lincoln, she made five major errors and ignored repeated wave-off signals by ship's landing signal officer (ironically one of her former flight instructors). One of those errors caused the F-14A's left engine to stall, sending the plane out of control because Lt. Hultgreen mistakenly jammed on the rudder in contravention of established emergency protocols. Her radar intercept officer successfully ejected and survived.
In the twenty years of F-14A's service, no pilot had ever stalled an engine this way. In an effort to back up their lie that the crash was due to engine failure and not due to the systemic breakdown of standards and leadership, the Navy selected nine male pilots to "fly" through Lt. Hultgreen's pre-crash conditions in a ground simulator. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jeremy M. Boorda (who later committed suicide) reported "the situation was re-created in an F-14 flight simulator. Eight of nine pilots in the simulator were unable to fly the plane out of the replicated regime." What Admiral Boorda failed to say was that the male pilots had been ordered not to execute the F-14A manual's so-called Bold Face Instructions, the critical things a pilot must do to fly through an emergency similar to Lt. Hultgreen's.
Documents later obtained in related litigation, show 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. Political pressure to speed 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, was also 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. She was later taken off flight status as she was regarded as so dangerous, no one would fly with her. She subsequently sued the Navy.
These double standards are destructive in several important ways. They risk the lives not only of young women like Lt. Hultgreen and her female peers but the lives of fellow military men and women. They dumb-down aviation and other combat standards as if they are some sort of perverse affirmative action program. After all what do we do when a male flight trainee, washed out because he had four "downs" and subpar performance, accuses the Navy of sex discrimination? In the name of sex equality, do we lower standards for males? Will we do that if they simply claim they are homosexual or come from a lower economic zip code? Finally, special concessions for female pilots, some politician's child (or anybody else) undermine military morale and respect not to mention adding to the already dangerous business of combat.
I actually know one of those involved in this and he said the sad part was that Lt Hultgreen was actually a good aviator who had tremendous potential. She just wasn't ready for the transition from sub-sonic anti-sub aircraft to carrier based fighters. The conclusion of many, including the LSO and former instructor was that if they were allowed to recycle her and give more time to meet the normal standard, she would have done it. But the politics at the time prevented any such washout. Those politics are the basis of my criticism.
If the military establishes critical double standards for female aviation trainees and others, the nation should debate wisdom of the Navy's affirmative action policy. Then there's the pure military mission question: how much military efficiency are we prepared to sacrifice to promote a feminist or other activist's vision of equality? When 10% of the female sailors become pregnant during a ship's deployment are we comfortable with the obvious impact on the vessels combat readiness? Should a nuclear sub have provisions for infant care?
Certainly these examples do not equate to "all military women", some percentage of both male and female combat pilots will be excellent flyers, while some other percentage of both male and female combat pilots will be poor flyers. My point is there is simply no excuse for relaxing standards or rushing unqualified women (or men) through requirements for political grand standing. Nor does detract from realizing that some women can be highly qualified combat pilots and meet the standards. But to waive standards implies, women can't fairly make the cut which in my opinion is a sexist assumption in itself. We have to be able to live with the fact that men and women are different the gender population percentages that can meet certain physical criteria are different.
Lt. Hultgreen was by all standards a class act. Ironically, Hultgreen herself felt the pressures of militant feminism and gender quotas and wanted no part of it. On behalf of female naval aviators, she had earlier appealed to Rear Admiral Robert Hickey, saying, "Guys like you have to make sure there's only one standard. If people let me slide through on a lower standard, it's my life on the line. I could get killed."
They did and she died.
I've written before about Navy Lt. Kara Hultgreen who was killed attempting to land her F-14A Tomcat fighter on the USS Abraham Lincoln. The Navy's official public report was the crash "was precipitated by a malfunction of the left engine." At the time, rumblings from the ranks about pilot error were greeted with counter charges of sexism. As part of the Navy's media press management, ABC's newscaster Peter Jennings said there had been a "vicious campaign against allowing women to serve in combat." As today, honest discussion about the events was shouted down and those attempting to raise the issue were savaged by the media and the political/military establishment. Several careers were ended over it. The truth was actively suppressed and not fairly addressed for years. Some say it still hasn't.
But back to Lt Hultgreen, here's what really happened. On approach to the USS Abraham Lincoln, she made five major errors and ignored repeated wave-off signals by ship's landing signal officer (ironically one of her former flight instructors). One of those errors caused the F-14A's left engine to stall, sending the plane out of control because Lt. Hultgreen mistakenly jammed on the rudder in contravention of established emergency protocols. Her radar intercept officer successfully ejected and survived.
In the twenty years of F-14A's service, no pilot had ever stalled an engine this way. In an effort to back up their lie that the crash was due to engine failure and not due to the systemic breakdown of standards and leadership, the Navy selected nine male pilots to "fly" through Lt. Hultgreen's pre-crash conditions in a ground simulator. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jeremy M. Boorda (who later committed suicide) reported "the situation was re-created in an F-14 flight simulator. Eight of nine pilots in the simulator were unable to fly the plane out of the replicated regime." What Admiral Boorda failed to say was that the male pilots had been ordered not to execute the F-14A manual's so-called Bold Face Instructions, the critical things a pilot must do to fly through an emergency similar to Lt. Hultgreen's.
Documents later obtained in related litigation, show 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. Political pressure to speed 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, was also 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. She was later taken off flight status as she was regarded as so dangerous, no one would fly with her. She subsequently sued the Navy.
These double standards are destructive in several important ways. They risk the lives not only of young women like Lt. Hultgreen and her female peers but the lives of fellow military men and women. They dumb-down aviation and other combat standards as if they are some sort of perverse affirmative action program. After all what do we do when a male flight trainee, washed out because he had four "downs" and subpar performance, accuses the Navy of sex discrimination? In the name of sex equality, do we lower standards for males? Will we do that if they simply claim they are homosexual or come from a lower economic zip code? Finally, special concessions for female pilots, some politician's child (or anybody else) undermine military morale and respect not to mention adding to the already dangerous business of combat.
I actually know one of those involved in this and he said the sad part was that Lt Hultgreen was actually a good aviator who had tremendous potential. She just wasn't ready for the transition from sub-sonic anti-sub aircraft to carrier based fighters. The conclusion of many, including the LSO and former instructor was that if they were allowed to recycle her and give more time to meet the normal standard, she would have done it. But the politics at the time prevented any such washout. Those politics are the basis of my criticism.
If the military establishes critical double standards for female aviation trainees and others, the nation should debate wisdom of the Navy's affirmative action policy. Then there's the pure military mission question: how much military efficiency are we prepared to sacrifice to promote a feminist or other activist's vision of equality? When 10% of the female sailors become pregnant during a ship's deployment are we comfortable with the obvious impact on the vessels combat readiness? Should a nuclear sub have provisions for infant care?
Certainly these examples do not equate to "all military women", some percentage of both male and female combat pilots will be excellent flyers, while some other percentage of both male and female combat pilots will be poor flyers. My point is there is simply no excuse for relaxing standards or rushing unqualified women (or men) through requirements for political grand standing. Nor does detract from realizing that some women can be highly qualified combat pilots and meet the standards. But to waive standards implies, women can't fairly make the cut which in my opinion is a sexist assumption in itself. We have to be able to live with the fact that men and women are different the gender population percentages that can meet certain physical criteria are different.
Lt. Hultgreen was by all standards a class act. Ironically, Hultgreen herself felt the pressures of militant feminism and gender quotas and wanted no part of it. On behalf of female naval aviators, she had earlier appealed to Rear Admiral Robert Hickey, saying, "Guys like you have to make sure there's only one standard. If people let me slide through on a lower standard, it's my life on the line. I could get killed."
They did and she died.
Last edited:
