Lt Kara Hultgreen's F-14 crash
The Jam
I'm no expert, but I just cannot understand how can anyone blame the Navy
and say that any Turkey driver, who is CQ (never mind gender, requirements
are the same for m/f pilots) was underqualified to fly off a carrier. I
know male aviators in deep shit for trying to take a close look of the spud
locker.
The affirmation that the crash occured because Lt Hultgreen's CQ was a
political consideration, well, it sounds pretty sexist to me.
I'm truly sorry 'bout the crash. But as any Naval aviator, Combat ready, CQ
and all, I think Kara was Sierra Hotel to me. And don't give me that shit
that she was aboard because she was a woman and the Navy needed Turkey
female drivers around for politics. I think that's bullshit. Men also makes
disastrous approaches. And my experience is that women learn faster and are
more elegant in their flying than men, at last in their first phases.
The Jam
J.D. Baldwin
In article <01bd6dc9$a39ef680$LocalHost@x003k100>, The Jam
<the...@usa.net> wrote:
> I'm no expert, but I just cannot understand how can anyone blame the
> Navy and say that any Turkey driver, who is CQ (never mind gender,
> requirements are the same for m/f pilots) was underqualified to fly
> off a carrier.
Well, I have spoken to several Navy LSO's with perhaps two thousand
arrested landings among them who believe there was "extreme" (their
word) pressure to get a female Tomcat pilot to the fleet. And more
than one believed Hultgreen herself was a victim of same. These guys
don't have to start discourses on the subject with the words, "I'm no
expert."
> The affirmation that the crash occured because Lt Hultgreen's CQ was a
> political consideration, well, it sounds pretty sexist to me. I'm
> truly sorry 'bout the crash. But as any Naval aviator, Combat ready,
> CQ and all, I think Kara was Sierra Hotel to me. And don't give me
> that shit that she was aboard because she was a woman and the Navy
> needed Turkey female drivers around for politics. I think that's
> bullshit. Men also makes disastrous approaches.
Not relevant. Male pilots make disastrous approaches despite the best
efforts of instructors and LSO's to weed the bad ones out in advance
because the system is not perfect. The allegation on the table is
that this imperfect system was corrupted for political reasons, pushing
someone who had a few more "red flags" than the next guy (so to speak)
through the pipeline before she was ready.
I don't happen to believe the preponderance of evidence available to
me supports this allegation, but the evidence in its favor isn't
exactly zero, either. And anyone who tells you that the usual rules
are *never* bent for members of Accredited Victim Groups is either
lying or naive beyond belief.
> And my experience is that women learn faster and are more elegant in
> their flying than men, at last in their first phases.
So it's your position that all allegations of gender differences
are "bullshit," except for the ones you believe to be true?
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
i...@svpal.org
In article <01bd6dc9$a39ef680$LocalHost@x003k100>,
"The Jam" <the...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> I'm no expert, but I just cannot understand how can anyone blame the Navy
> and say that any Turkey driver, who is CQ (never mind gender, requirements
> know male aviators in deep shit for trying to take a close look of the spud
> locker.
> political consideration, well, it sounds pretty sexist to me.
> I'm truly sorry 'bout the crash. But as any Naval aviator, Combat ready, CQ
> and all, I think Kara was Sierra Hotel to me. And don't give me that shit
> that she was aboard because she was a woman and the Navy needed Turkey
> female drivers around for politics. I think that's bullshit. Men also makes
> more elegant in their flying than men, at last in their first phases.
>
>
Well, this will not settle the issue definitively, but a quick look at
the washout stats for CQ training ought, with proper technique, to
show if there is grounds to suspect PC bias in the program. This does
assume that a statistically meaningfull set of data exists however.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Matt Clonfero
J.D. Baldwin <bal...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <01bd6dc9$a39ef680$LocalHost@x003k100>, The Jam
><the...@usa.net> wrote:
>> I'm no expert, but I just cannot understand how can anyone blame the
>> Navy and say that any Turkey driver, who is CQ (never mind gender,
>> requirements are the same for m/f pilots) was underqualified to fly
>> off a carrier.
>
>arrested landings among them who believe there was "extreme" (their
>word) pressure to get a female Tomcat pilot to the fleet. And more
>than one believed Hultgreen herself was a victim of same. These guys
>don't have to start discourses on the subject with the words, "I'm no
>expert."
I make no comment either way on Lt Hultgreen, since I don't know enough
of the facts. What I can say is this: There was a big noise in the media
when the first female was accepted for fast jet training in the RAF. She
went on the same course as every other fast jet pilot - and failed. No
more was said, and in time one of her successors passed.
If what you say is true, then it is surely the fault of the higher
command.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
Matt Clonfero: Mat...@aetherem.demon.co.uk | To Err is Human
My employers and I have a deal - They don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
Joshua T. Huggins
What should have LT Hultgreen done when she lost the engine? What is the
procedure for a single engine flameout on final? To me the video looks
like she pulled up too hard, stalled the plane (from lack of thrust?), and
entered a spin due to the off-center thrust.
-Josh Huggins
Corsair
The Jam wrote:
> I'm truly sorry 'bout the crash. But as any Naval aviator, Combat ready, CQ
> and all, I think Kara was Sierra Hotel to me. And don't give me that shit
> that she was aboard because she was a woman and the Navy needed Turkey
> female drivers around for politics. I think that's bullshit. Men also makes
> disastrous approaches. And my experience is that women learn faster and are
> more elegant in their flying than men, at last in their first phases.
I remember hearing that in an A-6 once (I guess she flew them too) she
had a problem and was very cool-headed throughout. Something was wrong
with one of the main gear (it either did not come down or fell off or
something) and she managed to keep it on the one strut until the speed
slowed to where she could safely drop the aircraft down onto it's wing.
I can't verify the story (I believe I saw it on a PBS special), but
apparently she joked to the BN as they were coming around (it was a
ground landing btw), "I don't want to alarm you, but I think I'm
ovulating." Sounds like she was pretty sure of her abilities and not too
stressed out.
--
Corsair
The "Jolly Rogers" Past & Present
www.interlog.com/~vf84
jumbaq
How does a woman F-14 pilot improve/downgrade the Navy?
I'm a clueless pencil-pushing male civilian, but interested in receiving the
most military punch for my hard earned tax dollars.
M. L. Shettle
"The Jam" <the...@usa.net> wrote:
>I'm no expert, but I just cannot understand how can anyone blame the Navy
>and say that any Turkey driver, who is CQ (never mind gender, requirements
>are the same for m/f pilots) was underqualified to fly off a carrier. I
>know male aviators in deep shit for trying to take a close look of the spud
>locker.
>The affirmation that the crash occured because Lt Hultgreen's CQ was a
>political consideration, well, it sounds pretty sexist to me.
>I'm truly sorry 'bout the crash. But as any Naval aviator, Combat ready, CQ
>and all, I think Kara was Sierra Hotel to me. And don't give me that shit
>that she was aboard because she was a woman and the Navy needed Turkey
>female drivers around for politics. I think that's bullshit. Men also makes
>disastrous approaches. And my experience is that women learn faster and are
>more elegant in their flying than men, at last in their first phases.
>The Jam
Sorry Jam, but when females entered the Navy flight training, didn't
the Navy lower the physical standards? Like the old obstacle course
for one that the females could not run. How can a certain minimum
standard be required for males, but not for the females? Just lower
the requirements for everybody -- that fixes it.
I would also disagree that females were not needed for politics. When
other minorities went though flight training, they also received
special consideration. An instuctor on the board told me about of a
helicopter student that was washed out twice at Whiting, but put back
by orders from Washington both times. He wound up killing himself,
another student, and the instructor on an autorotation. The AF had
similar experiences. A former AF flight instructor told me that when
he was an instructor, minorities could not be washed out -- they would
have to quit or kill themselves.
AF experience is that female pilots sick-out 30% more than their male
counterparts -- who carries the load then? You must believe the "G.I.
Jane" was a true story.
Also over 90% of the minorities in the AF are promoted, while only 70
some percent of the other officers. And you don't think politics are
involved?
The Dutch have a realisitic approach to it. They do not bar females,
but require them to meet the same standards as the men. The last I
heard, none have made it.
Topbunk
Dennis Jensen
In article <01bd6dc9$a39ef680$LocalHost@x003k100>,
"The Jam" <the...@usa.net> wrote:
>I'm no expert, but I just cannot understand how can anyone blame the Navy
>and say that any Turkey driver, who is CQ (never mind gender, requirements
>are the same for m/f pilots) was underqualified to fly off a carrier. I
>know male aviators in deep shit for trying to take a close look of the spud
>locker.
>The affirmation that the crash occured because Lt Hultgreen's CQ was a
>political consideration, well, it sounds pretty sexist to me.
>I'm truly sorry 'bout the crash. But as any Naval aviator, Combat ready, CQ
>and all, I think Kara was Sierra Hotel to me. And don't give me that shit
>that she was aboard because she was a woman and the Navy needed Turkey
>female drivers around for politics. I think that's bullshit. Men also makes
>disastrous approaches. And my experience is that women learn faster and are
>more elegant in their flying than men, at last in their first phases.
>
>The Jam
Actually, this applies to rock climbing as well. I think it has to do with a
relative lack of physical strength. Females are far more elegant and better
balanced when they start climbing; males are brute force and ignorance.
Dennis
Eric Scheie
top...@atl.mindspring.com (M. L. Shettle) wrote:
>The Dutch have a realisitic approach to it. They do not bar females,
>but require them to meet the same standards as the men. The last I
>heard, none have made it.
>
What about the gal I read about several years ago who was flying the F-16 in the
Dutch AF?
Krztalizer
>
>How does a woman F-14 pilot improve/downgrade the Navy?
>
>I'm a clueless pencil-pushing male civilian, but interested in receiving the
>most military punch for my hard earned tax dollars.
>
If she is a good stick and level-headed aviator, then she helps it. If she
loses her life by stalling an aircraft during what should be a simple single
engine wave-off, well...then, I would say it says volumes about her
capabilities. I had good female pilots in HSL-31 and VRC-30. To me, they
seemed no different (any reference to 'elegance' or 'need for physical
strength' mean *nothing* in the air) and just like male pilots, you have to
judge them individually. One of my female pilots ran her SH-2D out of gas and
crashed it into the ocean during a PAX ferry flight. Stupidity. But, my Exec
Officer CDR Sauter did the same damn thing and was lucky enough to nurse it
back to shore before we flamed out. Does that make Sauter a better pilot than
the wet lady? Not in the least.
The bottom line is that as long as the military is based on sexist, centuries
old prejudices, then we will have over reactions and accidents caused by the
upper echelon folks demands the bar be raised or lowered without regard for the
unchanging demands of military flying. The Russians had fighter pilots in WW
II that were female, and there was never a word spoken about their sex, just
their abilities. THATS the way it SHOULD be.
Kara, you did your best. Although it didn't go the best way, you opened the
door for others, who WILL make it. After all the BS, of course.
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
"How can you be so sure that it's an Echo II?" Nightdipper Pilot
"Because it just broached. Three o'clock...low." Nightdipper First Crewman
Ogden Johnson III
Matt Clonfero (Ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I make no comment either way on Lt Hultgreen, since I don't know enough
: of the facts. What I can say is this: There was a big noise in the media
: when the first female was accepted for fast jet training in the RAF. She
: went on the same course as every other fast jet pilot - and failed. No
: more was said, and in time one of her successors passed.
You guys didn't have NOW, Germaine whatsherface, Rep Patsy Schroeder, et
al, making major waves over there, either.
Hell, the Congressional Feminist Caucus bagged a DCNO nominee, getting a
marginally qualified female pilot pushed through the F-14 RAG and/or
retained on a carrier is child's play.
OJ III
dcb
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:06:41 GMT, top...@atl.mindspring.com (M. L.
Shettle) wrote:
>Also over 90% of the minorities in the AF are promoted, while only 70
>some percent of the other officers. And you don't think politics are
>involved?
Interesting statistic. Care to give a cite?
"You despise me, don't you, Rick?"
"If I gave you any thought, I probably would."
The Jam
So you think that Lt Hultgreen was underqualified? I agree that politics
are a problem when you try to do some serious work, but I thought that when
lives were at risk -like in an arrested landing- things were serious.
And one more thing, when I talked 'bout the differeces between m/f
aviators, I only said 'In the fist phases' because beyond that I cannot
find a real diference. Looking at an airplane, I don't know if it's manned
by a male or female aviator, just if it's good or bad flying. And I have
not found any pattern concerning gender. Maybe I'm too naive, or even
short-sighted, but that's the way it is for me...
J.D. Baldwin <bal...@netcom.com> escribió en artículo
<baldwinE...@netcom.com>...
....
....
......
J.D. Baldwin
In article <199804231808...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Krztalizer <krzta...@aol.com> wrote:
> >How does a woman F-14 pilot improve/downgrade the Navy?
> >
> >I'm a clueless pencil-pushing male civilian, but interested in receiving the
> >most military punch for my hard earned tax dollars.
>
> If she is a good stick and level-headed aviator, then she helps it.
> If she loses her life by stalling an aircraft during what should be a
> simple single engine wave-off, well...then, I would say it says
> volumes about her capabilities.
If you think anything about reacting to this situation was "simple,"
all I can say is that at least the guy you were responding to had the
honesty to label himself as "clueless." You could take a lesson from
that.
> I had good female pilots in HSL-31 and VRC-30.
HSL? VRC? Well, that explains your cavalier attitude toward landing a
Turkey at the boat and getting an engine failure at just the wrong time.
> To me, they seemed no different (any reference to 'elegance' or 'need
> for physical strength' mean *nothing* in the air)
Well, you might have a new attitude toward the "need for physical
strength" if you'd ever tried to fly a tactical jet without
hydraulics to the flight controls (EFCS, in the S-3). Somehow, I
suspect you haven't.
Krztalizer
>> simple single engine wave-off, well...then, I would say it says
>> volumes about her capabilities.
>
>If you think anything about reacting to this situation was "simple,"
>all I can say is that at least the guy you were responding to had the
>honesty to label himself as "clueless." You could take a lesson from
>that.
Gosh, thanks. Since my single engine experiences can in no way match *yours*,
I will naturally accept you for the God that you feel yourself to be.
>> I had good female pilots in HSL-31 and VRC-30.
>
>HSL? VRC? Well, that explains your cavalier attitude toward landing a>Turkey
at the boat and getting an engine failure at just the wrong time.
>
Again, since you are a 9-th degree Nimitz Centurian, I'll just have to take
your advice that 12 years Naval flight experience doesnt compare with your
attitudes toward the community. Cavalier..? No -- but single engine
approaches are a part of every naval aviators training. Even lowly slugs such
as VRC and HSL. It is a situation ALL the pilots have to be prepared for.
>> To me, they seemed no different (any reference to 'elegance' or 'need
>> for physical strength' mean *nothing* in the air)
>
>Well, you might have a new attitude toward the "need for physical
>strength" if you'd ever tried to fly a tactical jet without
>hydraulics to the flight controls (EFCS, in the S-3). Somehow, I
>suspect you haven't.
>--
Gee, and flying/ landing with Boost out on an SH-2F is easy? My point is that
physical strength shouldn't be the determining factor of whether or not you get
the aircraft back aboard or not. Everyone -- man, woman, even you --- can be
overwhelmed in the cockpit by uncontrollable forces. None appeared to be
evident in the PLAT images of Kara's demise. So, would physical strength have
saved her? OBE is not a "female pilot's disease" Maybe if she had a pro like
you in the cockpit guiding her controls for her, she could have lived, but
sadly, you were sitting at your computer.
Gordon
> From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin
A soft cat, i would wager.
J.D. Baldwin
In article <199804242016...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Krztalizer <krzta...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> simple single engine wave-off, well...then, I would say it says
> >> volumes about her capabilities.
> >
> >If you think anything about reacting to this situation was "simple,"
> >all I can say is that at least the guy you were responding to had the
> >honesty to label himself as "clueless." You could take a lesson from
> >that.
>
> Gosh, thanks. Since my single engine experiences can in no way
> match *yours*, I will naturally accept you for the God that you feel
> yourself to be.
??? So now I have delusions of godhood because I try to draw a
distinction between when I do and do not know what I'm talking about?
I couldn't land a Turkey on a carrier to save my life, and I never
will, outside of a simulator. But I know better than to dismiss this
particular failure as "simple" or to draw the conclusion that she was
incompetent because she got overwhelmed when it happened. Read the
MIR, it might open your eyes a bit.
> >> I had good female pilots in HSL-31 and VRC-30.
> >
> >HSL? VRC? Well, that explains your cavalier attitude toward landing a
> >Turkey at the boat and getting an engine failure at just the wrong
> >time.
>
> Again, since you are a 9-th degree Nimitz Centurian, I'll just have
> to take your advice that 12 years Naval flight experience doesnt
> compare with your attitudes toward the community. Cavalier..? No
> -- but single engine approaches are a part of every naval aviators
> training.
Yes, all pilots are trained in single-engine waveoff procedures. Yes,
Hultgreen failed to execute this "simple" procedure properly, but
those facts alone do NOT speak "volumes" about her overall competence
as an aviator. There's a bit of context there you're missing, and
yes, the statement was very much "cavalier."
I'm not sure what a "9-th degree Nimitz Centurian" is supposed to be,
but I'm pretty sure I'm not one and haven't claimed to be one. My
Centurion patch reads Vinson. My tour in NIMITZ was as ship's
company.
> >> To me, they seemed no different (any reference to 'elegance' or 'need
> >> for physical strength' mean *nothing* in the air)
> >
> >Well, you might have a new attitude toward the "need for physical
> >strength" if you'd ever tried to fly a tactical jet without
> >hydraulics to the flight controls (EFCS, in the S-3). Somehow, I
> >suspect you haven't.
>
> Gee, and flying/ landing with Boost out on an SH-2F is easy?
I don't recall commenting on that, specifically. If it's the sort of
thing that requires significant upper body strength, then I guess you
already knew your statement about such strength meaning "*nothing*"
was silly.
> My point is that physical strength shouldn't be the determining factor
> of whether or not you get the aircraft back aboard or not.
You might well be right, but that's a far cry from saying physical
strength means "*nothing*" in the cockpit.
> Everyone -- man, woman, even you --- can be overwhelmed in the cockpit
> by uncontrollable forces. None appeared to be evident in the PLAT
> images of Kara's demise. So, would physical strength have saved her?
Of course not. It was irrelevant in this situation. That doesn't mean
it never means anything, ever. That's a separate question, and I'm
surprised you even brought it up.
> OBE is not a "female pilot's disease" Maybe if she had a pro like you
> in the cockpit guiding her controls for her, she could have lived, but
> sadly, you were sitting at your computer.
Actually I was "sitting" around directing production work during the
EDSRA of another nuclear aircraft carrier. In fact, I'd just returned
from the previous line period training LINCOLN's Air Operations Watch
Officers. I did not own a computer at the time. Your guesses about
that appears to be in line with your overall accuracy.
Krztalizer
>Krztalizer <krzta...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> simple single engine wave-off, well...then, I would say it says
>> >> volumes about her capabilities.
>> >
>> >If you think anything about reacting to this situation was "simple,"
>> >all I can say is that at least the guy you were responding to had the
>> >honesty to label himself as "clueless." You could take a lesson from
>> >that.
>>
>> Gosh, thanks. Since my single engine experiences can in no way
>> match *yours*, I will naturally accept you for the God that you feel
>> yourself to be.
>
>??? So now I have delusions of godhood because I try to draw a
>distinction between when I do and do not know what I'm talking about?
I was referring to the selfrighteous attitude that you hose in anyone's
direction that disagrees with you. Do you have a life, or just sit around
flaming anyone tht you don't agree with all day?
>I couldn't land a Turkey on a carrier to save my life, and I never
>will, outside of a simulator. But I know better than to dismiss this
>particular failure as "simple" or to draw the conclusion that she
was>incompetent because she got overwhelmed when it happened. Read the>MIR, it
might open your eyes a bit.
>
Thanks skipper. Will do.
>> >> I had good female pilots in HSL-31 and VRC-30.
>> >
>> >HSL? VRC? Well, that explains your cavalier attitude toward landing a
Turkey at the boat and getting an engine failure at just the wrong time.
Again, since you are a 9-th degree Nimitz Centurian, I'll just have to take
your advice that 12 years Naval flight experience doesnt compare with your
attitudes toward the community. Cavalier..? No -- but single engine
approaches are a part of every naval aviators training.
>
>Yes, all pilots are trained in single-engine waveoff procedures. Yes,
>Hultgreen failed to execute this "simple" procedure properly, but
>those facts alone do NOT speak "volumes" about her overall competence
>as an aviator.
Its the single most practiced failure that I know of. If an aviator cant
react correctly to this, the MOST practiced of emergencies... oh, forget it.
You're right, she was a great pilot. Its a shame that she died at the peak of
her skills.
>There's a bit of context there you're missing, and
>yes, the statement was very much "cavalier."
>
no, my last statement above was cavilier. the statement i made about her
execution of this procedure was not intended as cavalier, nor taken that way by
anyone else that has sent me a response to my post.
>I'm not sure what a "9-th degree Nimitz Centurian" is supposed to be>but I'm
pretty sure I'm not one and haven't claimed to be one. My>Centurion patch
reads Vinson. My tour in NIMITZ was as ship's>company.
>
>> >> To me, they seemed no different (any reference to 'elegance' or 'need
>> >> for physical strength' mean *nothing* in the air)
>> >
>> >Well, you might have a new attitude toward the "need for physical
>> >strength" if you'd ever tried to fly a tactical jet without
>> >hydraulics to the flight controls (EFCS, in the S-3). Somehow, I
>> >suspect you haven't.
>>
>> Gee, and flying/ landing with Boost out on an SH-2F is easy?
>
>I don't recall commenting on that, specifically.
As I didnt mention landing with the hyds out on the S-3, but you did. My
response was to illustrate that LOTS of aircraft lose their hydraulics and
still have to be flown. I was trying to demonstrate that most aircraft face
some variation of this problem at some point, and yes, the pilot will have to
wrestle with the controls.
> If it's the sort of
>thing that requires significant upper body strength, then I guess you
>already knew your statement about such strength meaning "*nothing*"
>was silly.
I have had pilots that were 5'3" and 140 pounds, without a significant muscle
on their body. The top pilot I ever flew with won a Navy Cross in Vietnam, and
he was smaller than my kid brother. Being a brute is no necessity in the
modern cockpit.
>
>> My point is that physical strength shouldn't be the determining factor
>> of whether or not you get the aircraft back aboard or not.
>
>You might well be right, but that's a far cry from saying physical
>strength means "*nothing*" in the cockpit.
>
>> Everyone -- man, woman, even you --- can be overwhelmed in the cockpit
>> by uncontrollable forces. None appeared to be evident in the PLAT
>> images of Kara's demise. So, would physical strength have saved her?
>
>Of course not. It was irrelevant in this situation. That doesn't mean
>it never means anything, ever. That's a separate question, and I'm
>surprised you even brought it up.
>
>> OBE is not a "female pilot's disease" Maybe if she had a pro like you
>> in the cockpit guiding her controls for her, she could have lived, but
>> sadly, you were sitting at your computer.
>
>Actually I was "sitting" around directing production work during the
>EDSRA of another nuclear aircraft carrier. In fact, I'd just returned
>from the previous line period training LINCOLN's Air Operations Watch
>Officers. I did not own a computer at the time. Your guesses about
>that appears to be in line with your overall accuracy.
>--
> From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin
I made assumptions, based on your attitude and your slams against my former
platforms (as if any emergencies we dealt with in VRC and HSL were scoffable
compared to the single engine stall that Lt Hultgren faced). I reacted to your
"now, listen to an expert" response the way most people will, and that means I
typed out a quick reply that had some mistakes in it. Bottom line is that we
were talking opinions about the crash, and you feel that you are the only
person qualified to respond. Have you considered writing a book about your
thoughts and feelings about the mishap? That way, you wont have pesky replies
to deal with, and you can just say your piece from a position of clear
supremacy. Just a thought.
Gordon
Chris B.
The Jam <the...@usa.net> wrote in article
<01bd6dc9$a39ef680$LocalHost@x003k100>...
> I'm no expert, but I just cannot understand how can anyone blame the Navy
Wow...what a debate... I was wondering how the media would have reacted
to the crash of that F-14 in Nashville a while back if the pilot had been a
female. Not sure of the unit... or the names of the pilots.. but they were
two males... what were they doing in Nashville anyway... TDY? Just home to
see the parents?
Apparently they did a high performance take off from Nashville... had
a flameout... and crashed into a neighborhood. ( not far from my aunts
house by the way )
Imagine if this had been a female crew. Man...the media would have
been all over it.
But on a routine landing on a carrier off the coast of Calf... something
goes terribly wrong..... and bam... instant coverage in the media... and on
60 minutes. And a big debate over women in the military.
I guess the point Im trying to make is that military aviation is a
dangerous business whether the pilots are male or female.
From what I remember about that Nashville crash is that it was in the
news.. and quickly forgotten.
Pechs1
>>>The affirmation that the crash occured because Lt Hultgreen's CQ was a
political consideration, well, it sounds pretty sexist to me.
I'm truly sorry 'bout the crash. But as any Naval aviator, Combat ready, CQ
and all, I think Kara was Sierra Hotel to me. And don't give me that shit
that she was aboard because she was a woman and the Navy needed Turkey
female drivers around for politics. I think that's bullshit. Men also makes
disastrous approaches. And my experience is that women learn faster and are
more elegant in their flying than men, at last in their first phases.
What's bullshit is what you think-I knew guys in her squadron and if she was
not female, she would have been FNAEBed long before she killed herself....the
idea to put women onboard CVs is a political one and I ask-'Why?'-what does it
bring to a Naval Warship? Only a reduction in readiness IMO. Just because women
want to be there is not a good enough reason-if it costs more and doesn't make
you a better machine to 'kill people and break things' then it should not be
done....
PChis
Pechs1
>>The Dutch have a realisitic approach to it. They do not bar females,
but require them to meet the same standards as the men. The last I
heard, none have made it.
I agree with you-NavAir ought to be 'blind'(color/sex/etc) to who is trying to
be an aviator-only the best, thank you-who gives a shit if it is diverse or
not-having the best machine to 'kill people and break things' is what
counts-all else will only lead to more dying, on both sides, when the USN goes
into harm's way again.
I was in P-Cola when the first women aviator students were paraded around in
their new leather flight jackets(1973) it was a joke then, it is a joke now.
PChis
Old Phart Phantom Phlyer
J.D. Baldwin
Chris B. <ccb...@airmail.net> wrote:
> Wow...what a debate... I was wondering how the media would have
> reacted to the crash of that F-14 in Nashville a while back if the
> pilot had been a female. Not sure of the unit... or the names of
> the pilots.. but they were two males... what were they doing in
> Nashville anyway... TDY? Just home to see the parents?
Well, maintenance of aviator competence requires periodic flying on
the airways and to/from unfamiliar fields. That's the reason for
these "cross-country" trips. If you didn't do the occasional
"cross-country" trip, you'd do nothing but fly out of Oceana, buzz
around over the water for a while, and back into Oceana. A year or so
of that, and you're asking for real trouble the first time operational
requirements call for going somewhere else.
In the interest of getting crews to do this sort of flight over the
weekend (leaving weekdays for more Navy-like operational training),
and saving a bit of money on lodging and per diem costs, it's common
practice to let them fly to places they want to go (with a nearby
military or joint-use field). Sometimes this means flying "home" to
see the folks, sometimes it means going to Hill AFB with the skis in
the back of the S-3. Or whatever.
> Apparently they did a high performance take off from
> Nashville... had a flameout... and crashed into a neighborhood.
> (not far from my aunts house by the way )
The HP takeoff was, it's important to note, well within legal
parameters, and specifically authorized by ATC.
> Imagine if this had been a female crew. Man...the media would have
> been all over it.
Possibly. It's worth asking whether this is completely unjustified in
the current political climate. There's no serious dispute as to
whether female and minority flight students are cut extra breaks while
in training, and it's perfectly reasonable to surmise that this will,
ultimately, result in some mishaps that would not otherwise have
occurred. Therefore, it's going to come up whenever someone in an
Accredited Victim Group [tm] is involved in a mishap like this. I'm
not convinced this is a bad thing.
> But on a routine landing on a carrier off the coast of
> Calf... something goes terribly wrong..... and bam... instant coverage
> in the media... and on 60 minutes. And a big debate over women in the
> military.
More like a debate over double standards for women in the military, a
legitimate question that often gets addressed more by hand-waving and
emotionalism than by facts (on both sides). No wonder it continues to
fester.
I don't happen to believe that Hultgreen was, herself, a beneficiary
(victim) of double standards in flight training, but there's no
question in my mind that double standards exist (or did as of a couple
of years ago, at least). If her death is the catalyst that causes
a serious re-examination of this odious practice, then at least she
*did* wind up dying for a larger purpose.
> From what I remember about that Nashville crash is that it was
> in the news.. and quickly forgotten.
Like 99.9% of all other mishaps, including ones involving women and
minorities. (Can you name the woman who died in that S-3 mishap about
a year ago?)
The only reason anyone is still talking about the Hultgreen mishap is
because the Navy issued a press release stating that the mishap was
100% engine failure, not compounded by any errors on the part of the
pilot. This was a blatant lie for obvious political purposes, and the
Navy's motivation for doing this raises some legitimate, serious
questions about its flight training practices and the role of politics
therein.
--
Paul J. Adam
In article <6hm45j$730$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>, M. L. Shettle
<top...@atl.mindspring.com> writes
>The Dutch have a realisitic approach to it. They do not bar females,
>but require them to meet the same standards as the men. The last I
>heard, none have made it.
Lt. Manja Blok, a Dutch F-16 pilot, made the cover of Jane's Defence
Weekly a few years ago where she was flying over the former Yugoslavia.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Jim Strand
Your posting brings forth a position I've personally had for years.
Namely just because we can do something, should we do it?
Yes women can be equally trained to fly aircraft just. In the towers
and radar facilities women proved to be as capable as any other male
controller. That means some were better, some worse, and many simply
equal. Just like the men.
Trouble comes when the combat ingredient is added. Do these women
have the physical stamina and killer instinct to prevail? I think
not. At least not of the current generation. When the females of
this country are raised to be prepared for military service things may
change.
***********************************************
ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NEA
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77
Co-founder of newgroup - RAMN
Anti-spam measures in action.
For e-mail response delete "nospam"
***********************************************
J.D. Baldwin
In article <199804250123...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Krztalizer <krzta...@aol.com> wrote:
> >??? So now I have delusions of godhood because I try to draw a
> >distinction between when I do and do not know what I'm talking about?
>
> I was referring to the selfrighteous attitude that you hose in
> anyone's direction that disagrees with you. Do you have a life, or
> just sit around flaming anyone tht you don't agree with all day?
Well, I have enough of a life that I don't get too worked up over
being denounced as "selfrighteous" by someone who positively revels
in his ignorance. But it's raining outside, so I'll play . . .
> >Yes, all pilots are trained in single-engine waveoff procedures. Yes,
> >Hultgreen failed to execute this "simple" procedure properly, but
> >those facts alone do NOT speak "volumes" about her overall competence
> >as an aviator.
>
> Its the single most practiced failure that I know of.
I, personally, never once saw it practiced at the boat. Lots and
lots of times at the field, of course. Life gets a little different,
though, when such emergencies sneak up on you during an approach
turn into the groove.
> If an aviator cant react correctly to this, the MOST practiced of
> emergencies... oh, forget it. You're right, she was a great pilot.
> Its a shame that she died at the peak of her skills.
I didn't say and don't think she was a "great pilot." Why does
everyone seem to think she either had to be Charlene Yeager or totally
incompetent? She was an average, maybe a bit below average F-14
"nugget" pilot who was most certainly making the grade, at least at
the FRS. Remember, though, that naval aviation sets that "minimum"
bar pretty damn high.
> >There's a bit of context there you're missing, and yes, the statement
> >was very much "cavalier."
>
> no, my last statement above was cavilier. the statement i made about
> her execution of this procedure was not intended as cavalier, nor
> taken that way by anyone else that has sent me a response to my post.
The statement was, "If she loses her life by stalling an aircraft
during what should be a simple single engine wave-off, well...then, I
would say it says volumes about her capabilities." There was nothing
"simple" about this situation; the failure came at a really, really
bad moment. She reacted poorly in an extremely high-stress, complex
situation and paid for her error with her life.
But one screwup, even one with such severe consequences, doesn't
"speak volumes about her capabilities," and your implication that she
was incompetent based on this one single moment of her 1,241.9 flight
hours goes way beyond "cavalier" and straight into "irresponsible"
territory. Regardless of whether I have enough of "a life" to get
spun up about Usenet commentaries on my personal character, I most
certainly *do* get worked up about statements like that.
> >> >Well, you might have a new attitude toward the "need for physical
> >> >strength" if you'd ever tried to fly a tactical jet without
> >> >hydraulics to the flight controls (EFCS, in the S-3). Somehow, I
> >> >suspect you haven't.
> >>
> >> Gee, and flying/ landing with Boost out on an SH-2F is easy?
> >
> >I don't recall commenting on that, specifically.
>
> As I didnt mention landing with the hyds out on the S-3, but you did.
> My response was to illustrate that LOTS of aircraft lose their
> hydraulics and still have to be flown. I was trying to demonstrate
> that most aircraft face some variation of this problem at some point,
> and yes, the pilot will have to wrestle with the controls.
Fine. It's a separate issue. If it's so hard, why would you say that
strength is irrelevant in the cockpit?
I have zero experience whatsoever with H-2 variants, but I've flown
an SH-60 simulator with hydraulic failure and it's about 1/10 as
difficult as S-3 EFCS.
> > If it's the sort of
> >thing that requires significant upper body strength, then I guess you
> >already knew your statement about such strength meaning "*nothing*"
> >was silly.
>
> I have had pilots that were 5'3" and 140 pounds, without a significant
> muscle on their body. The top pilot I ever flew with won a Navy Cross
> in Vietnam, and he was smaller than my kid brother. Being a brute is
> no necessity in the modern cockpit.
Again with the extremes. I'm not interested in manning our airplanes
with "brutes," I just said that physical strength *may* come into
play during certain special situations in *some* "modern" cockpits.
Even this is obviated by current fly-by-wire technology.
> >Actually I was "sitting" around directing production work during the
> >EDSRA of another nuclear aircraft carrier. In fact, I'd just returned
> >from the previous line period training LINCOLN's Air Operations Watch
> >Officers. I did not own a computer at the time. Your guesses about
> >that appears to be in line with your overall accuracy.
>
> I made assumptions, based on your attitude and your slams against my
> former platforms (as if any emergencies we dealt with in VRC and HSL
> were scoffable compared to the single engine stall that Lt Hultgren
> faced).
I didn't mean to slam VRC/HSL in general, but it's a little much to
swallow to have a situation like this dismissed as "simple" (your
exact word) by someone so far removed from the reality of just
how difficult it is to land a Tomcat on the boat in the *best*
of circumstances. I know for sure I was never cut out for it.
> I reacted to your "now, listen to an expert" response the way most
> people will, and that means I typed out a quick reply that had some
> mistakes in it.
#define PATRONIZING_VOICE 1
But wait a minute! Now, I'm *confused*! Just a couple of posts ago,
a single mistake was taken to "speak volumes" about one's entire
competence . . . and now, a post with "some mistakes" is to be taken
much more lightly? I don't understand.
#undef PATRONIZING_VOICE
> Bottom line is that we were talking opinions about the crash, and you
> feel that you are the only person qualified to respond.
??? I'd like to know your specific justification for this particular
inference. I've specifically noted that my mind is open on several
of the major issues raised by this mishap and the Navy's handling of
it. I also know and have stated that there are a lot of people around
who know a lot more about this incident and F-14 landings than I ever
will. You don't happen to be one of them.
> Have you considered writing a book about your thoughts and feelings
> about the mishap? That way, you wont have pesky replies to deal
> with, and you can just say your piece from a position of clear
> supremacy. Just a thought.
Very droll, but I'm not sure what makes you think I'm so afraid of
replies. Constructive ones, and even well-placed flames, are most
welcome. Comments that an assessment of a brave and well-regarded
aviator's entire (tragically short) career should be based entirely on
a single lapse in situational awareness and procedure execution are,
frankly, not.
--
Stacy Howell
Anyone wishing to read more about Kara Hultgreen and the debate over
this crash or even the debate over women in naval aviation can go to
www.yahoo.com and type in "Kara Hultgreen" as the subject search.
J.D. Baldwin
In article <6hvtgp$cgs$1...@newsd-111.bryant.webtv.net>, Stacy Howell
Well, as a lark I did exactly that. Hit #1:
http://www.findagrave.com/pictures/hultgreenk.html
. . . which brings us (virtually speaking) to graveside facing the
monument of one Kara Spears Hultgreen, in Arlingon National Cemetery.
Oct. 5 1965 - Oct. 25 1994.
So much for my "lark."
Stacy Howell
Anyone going into www.yahoo.com and looking for info on Kara Hultgreen
should put her name in quotation marks so it looks like tthis:
"Kara Hultgreen". This will give approx 65 hits to her and info on the
women in nav air debate.
As for what JD saw, it didn't come up in the search I did (if it did I
didn't see it). Was pretty shocking to see the memorial marker, but I
suppose it reminds us all that there was once a
living human that we now debate on what actually caused her life to end.
RIP Kara!
Stacy Howell
Check out this article from "American Spector Online" in regards to
Kara's crash, the "whistleblower" and 2 later F-14 crashes involving the
same pilot who was a member of Kara's squadren.
http://spectator.org/exclusives/97-10-28_update.html
Several people mentioed the Nashville F-14 crash-this puts an
interesting spin on it if it is 100% accurate.
J.D. Baldwin
In article <6i0pb7$dml$1...@newsd-111.bryant.webtv.net>, Stacy Howell
A bit of a problem with it:
> The collateral damage to standards for Naval aviation has been
> costlier still. A case in point is Lcdr. John Bates, a squadronmate of
> Kara Hultgreen's, who lost control of his F-14 in Hawaii in 1995 and
> was forced to eject.
Interestingly, Bates was on the Mishap Board for the Hultgreen
incident. I met him aboard LINCOLN when I was TDY there (a month
or so before the Hultgreen mishap). Nice guy, even though he got
on my nerves a bit over something that need not concern us here.
> The cause of the mishap was pilot error of the same type that had
> killed Hultgreen.
Uh, no. I have a mutual acquaintance with, shall we say, someone
closely connected with that mishap. The cause was engine failure
compounded by pilot error, but the final conclusion was that it was
*not* the loss of situational awareness and breakdown (on the pilot's
part) of crew coordination that killed LT Hultgreen. I confess that
I don't recall all the details, but it was definitely a different
matter.
> His commanding officer, Cdr. Fred Killian, faced an impossible
> situation -- he had no way of revoking Bates's flight status without
> giving the lie to higher-ups' official exoneration of Hultgreen's
> performance.
I just can't shoehorn this into fitting with the way I *know* these
decisions get made. Squadron CO's don't cover for unsafe pilots just
to cover the asses of their seniors on grounds as ethereal and tenuous
as this. Also, Bates was a department head in a fleet squadron. No
one would bat an eye at seeing him held to a drastically higher
standard than a fresh-from-the-RAG "nugget." This one just doesn't
add up.
If Killian should have grounded him, but didn't (and that's pretty
much the official position now), then more likely his decision was
colored by personal regard for Bates, and an unwillingness to do an
obviously unpleasant duty, than on a basis such as the above.
> Bates was allowed to continue to fly, and in January of the following
> year, he crashed another F-14 in Nashville, Tennessee, killing
> himself, his radar intercept officer, and three civilians on the
> ground. Cdr. Killian, then the most experienced F-14 aviator in the
> Navy, was subsequently relieved of his command.
I know very little about the details of this mishap and would
appreciate hearing more from knowledgable sources. I do know that the
description of Killian as "then the most experienced F-14 aviator in
the Navy" is not quite accurate, but he might well have been the most
experienced of non-post-command tour officers.
Neil Kirby
In article <3543618c...@news2.new-york.net>,
Jim Strand <chie...@unix.nospam.asb.com> wrote:
>On 26 Apr 1998 15:28:58 GMT, pec...@aol.com (Pechs1) wrote:
>Yes women can be equally trained to fly aircraft just. In the towers
>and radar facilities women proved to be as capable as any other male
>controller. That means some were better, some worse, and many simply
>equal. Just like the men.
I normally don't like to respond to these threads, but the above statements
mark you as a reasonable person.
>Trouble comes when the combat ingredient is added. Do these women
>have the physical stamina and killer instinct to prevail? I think
^^^^^^^
>not. At least not of the current generation. When the females of
^^^
>this country are raised to be prepared for military service things may
>change.
"I think not"
^^^^^
I humbly and sincerely ask you to consider other opinions. It's a
volunteer force, the NWG (not a white guy) people signed up to do the job
the same as the WG (white guys). The Navy wants that job done well.
There is an inherent desire for success on both parts, possibly blunted by
political concerns and persona biases.
"Think" is the best we have for opinions until we find some facts.
Each time the NWG group allowed in is broadened, opinions about why NWG
groups can not cut it get tossed around. Later on those opinions tend to
die out when reality shows otherwise.
Japanese-American NWG in the 444th (? unit number) in Italy in WWII.
Black NWG soldiers fighting for the North in the US Civil war.
All manner of something dash Americans (even at least a few WASP males)
seemed to do just fine in Desert Storm.
My bet is that once the newness wears off and the numbers are large enough
and established, that female pilots will fit right in. Quoting somebody,
"That means some were better, some worse, and many simply equal. Just
like the men."
The data posted for Huntgreen suggests not top of class, not bottom of
class, but making the grade.
---
Neil Kirby DoD #0783 n...@lucent.com
Lucent Technologies - Home of Bell Labs Innovations
Bell Labs Columbus OH USA +1 (614) 860-5304
Hope is not a strategy. Tuning is not a plan. Prayer is not a process.
James Carriere
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned another made-for-TV documentary on this
topic. I saw (probably a repeat a few years old) of a CBS "48 Hours"
about six months ago, about the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) and its
apparent first co-ed cruise. Is anyone here from that cruise? Does
anybody have any comments on that show? Also, where did it go (Gulf?
Mediterranean?) and when?
The conclusion of that show was the majority of the crew felt- a) gender
didn't matter, but quality of work did, and b) they didn't have any choice
in the matter anyway.
What I remember (there's a point in here somewhere)- I thought the program
was generally well done, although some of the sailors were presented in a
poor light; several minutes of the program were dedicated to a "last
night in port" party of some enlisted people. The camera crews were at
the party to ask their opinions about "women on the ship", but I think the
beer had as many answers as much as the people did.
They featured a couple of female pilots. One was a captain's (or maybe
radm) daughter who was a EA-6 pilot, I think. Another was a helicopter
pilot, (who happened to be black). The first one said her father
originally didn't want her to go into flying, and when she did he wanted
her to pick props. They filmed the second one giving some motivational
talks to city kids, those kids were really impressed by her. I think the
cameras talked to her husband and family too, to show what it's like for a
man who's spouse goes to sea for six months.
There were a few day-to-day things too. The person in charge of the
ship's store forgot to stock both kinds of belts (the belts for the male
and female uniforms are different).
My opinon on the 60 Minutes piece last Sunday? If I'd handed in an essay
of that quality in highschool, I would have got a C. It was a poorly
balanced documentary, and an OK "expose".
--
James Carriere B.Eng. (Mechanical), Carleton University 1997
http://www.engsoc.carleton.ca/~jcarrier
Stacy Howell
Where do the former aviators such as John McCain or Randy Cunningham or
any that flew in the other servies and no represent us in congress (or
did) stand on this? While I personally think that the issue of female
aviators should be "color/gender-blind" and that tt should be the BEST
possible candidates that fly naval air (regardless of gender), I do see
a problem with ANYONE who is looking for the quick fix to this in
regards to political agenda.
Cover-ups happen as in this case. Who would've thought that the Navy
would do this to
"make up" for Tailhook? Or did Pat Schroder finally get to them?
What also has to be considered is that women also perform in dangeros,
but non-military functions as well. We argue about women in combat, but
what about the woman who is a police officer and carries a gun? What
about the woman who is a firefighter and risks her life? If anyone here
doesn't think that these are forms of "combat" stop at your local
police/fire dept. In those areas you will find the SAME arguements
pro & con. The truth is that there are good females in those jobs that
can do the job, as well as bad men who necessarlly can't. Fillling
quotas isn't the best way to find the most qualified people for a job.
michael yambrovich
Having flown in a mixed gender squadron for three years and taught in
Primary for another three makes me want to say that of all the females that
I have met, they were either in the top 10 percent - or the bottom 10
percent. I didn't get to know Kara, but from others I gather that she was
not in the bottom 10. Thank God for people like Kara, and Cricket.
The Jam wrote in message <01bd6dc9$a39ef680$LocalHost@x003k100>...
>I'm no expert, but I just cannot understand how can anyone blame the Navy
>are the same for m/f pilots) was underqualified to fly off a carrier. I
>know male aviators in deep shit for trying to take a close look of the spud
>locker.
>political consideration, well, it sounds pretty sexist to me.
>I'm truly sorry 'bout the crash. But as any Naval aviator, Combat ready, CQ
>and all, I think Kara was Sierra Hotel to me. And don't give me that shit
>that she was aboard because she was a woman and the Navy needed Turkey
>female drivers around for politics. I think that's bullshit. Men also makes
>disastrous approaches. And my experience is that women learn faster and are
>more elegant in their flying than men, at last in their first phases.
>
Jim Strand
On 27 Apr 1998 14:56:36 GMT, n...@atlas.cb.lucent.com (Neil Kirby)
wrote:
>In article <3543618c...@news2.new-york.net>,
>Jim Strand <chie...@unix.nospam.asb.com> wrote:
>>On 26 Apr 1998 15:28:58 GMT, pec...@aol.com (Pechs1) wrote:
>[snip]
>>Yes women can be equally trained to fly aircraft just. In the towers
>>and radar facilities women proved to be as capable as any other male
>>controller. That means some were better, some worse, and many simply
>>equal. Just like the men.
>
>I normally don't like to respond to these threads, but the above statements
>mark you as a reasonable person.
>
>>Trouble comes when the combat ingredient is added. Do these women
>>have the physical stamina and killer instinct to prevail? I think
> ^^^^^^^
>>not. At least not of the current generation. When the females of
> ^^^
>>this country are raised to be prepared for military service things may
>>change.
>
>"I think not"
> ^^^^^
>
>I humbly and sincerely ask you to consider other opinions. It's a
>volunteer force, the NWG (not a white guy) people signed up to do the job
>the same as the WG (white guys). The Navy wants that job done well.
>There is an inherent desire for success on both parts, possibly blunted by
>political concerns and persona biases.
>
In this regard I tend to recall well a Marine Gunny who was once my
next door neighbor who made the following observation.
Can women shoot a rifle? Yes
Can women throw a grenade? Yes
Trouble is they do these exercises in a training environment. But ask
virtually any Marine if they'd consider a woman equal to having a man
defend their foxhole in actual combat the answer becomes a resounding
NO!
If you ever listened to Dr. Laura on the radio she has phrased it
quite well. Men and women are equal under the law but by virtue of
genetics they are different. These differences make women better at
many tasks and lesser at others. Combat is not a field where they
excel for strength becomes paramount to survival.
Hand to hand combat remains an area where men will prevail. Strength
also comes into play when reaching the extremes of the flight envelope
in high performance aircraft.
Trouble in our current politically correct age is that realities of
body size and physical abilities are placed second to those of equal
opportunity.
Jo...@pseudonym.net
n...@atlas.cb.lucent.com (Neil Kirby) wrote:
|I humbly and sincerely ask you to consider other opinions. It's a
|volunteer force, the NWG (not a white guy) people signed up to do the job
|the same as the WG (white guys). The Navy wants that job done well.
|There is an inherent desire for success on both parts, possibly blunted by
|political concerns and persona biases.
|
|"Think" is the best we have for opinions until we find some facts.
|
|Each time the NWG group allowed in is broadened, opinions about why NWG
|groups can not cut it get tossed around. Later on those opinions tend to
|die out when reality shows otherwise.
Well, here's another opinion:
I'm not sure I agree with that last statement - it depends on what you
mean by NWG group. There are really three "groups" one might
legitimately comment upon: All members of the "group" (e.g., all
women, all blacks, etc.), those members of the subject group who
desire to become a particular thing (e.g., Navy fighter pilot) and
those who actually make the cut.
With regard to ALL females, there is a rather large body of evidence
showing that women, on average, make worse pilots than men. Notice
that I said "on average". There is certainly nothing in the literature
which would preclude a woman from ending up the best fighter pilot in
the world. It's just much more likely (statistically) that it would be
a man. The reasons for this are pretty fundamental. A wide range of
psychometric instruments show large differences favoring males on
visual-spatial tasks like mental rotation and spatio-temporal tasks
like tracking a moving object through space. The sex difference on
mental rotation tasks is particularly large at about 0.9 of a standard
deviation. It ought to be pretty obvious just how critical to
competence (not to mention survival) these skills are in activities
like ACM and carrier landings.
Males also have clear (probably anatomically or physiologically
related) advantages in mathematics and proportional/mechanical
reasoning which no doubt contribute further to their average
superiority in aircraft piloting. It is pretty well accepted, by the
way, that these differences are not simply the result of environment
(socialization, academic expectation, etc.) but if I get into that,
this post will be very long.
One half of a standard deviation may not sound like much but, at the
extreme tails of the curve, the effect of such a difference is huge. I
don't have the data at hand to precisely quantify what "substantially
inferior" means but it would not be unreasonable to expect that, if
one in fifty randomly selected males could make "the cut" at an F-14
RAG, that number for randomly selected women might be something like
one in five hundred to one in a thousand. The difference is this large
because we are drawing from so far out on the right tail of the curve.
We are not talking about the top 50% or 25% of the population being
good enough - we are talking about the top couple of percent.
Unfortunately, the "politically correct" cretins in Washington
(Congress, DOJ, EEOC, etc.) refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence
of sex differences - or any differences, for that matter. [I once
heard that idiot Gloria Alred state on television that research into
sex differences ought to be outlawed!] Blind (or maybe it's self-
serving) adherence to this "Egalitarian Myth" is at the heart of the
legal concept of "disparate impact" and one of the key justifications
for many of the anti-discrimination/affirmative action laws we have
today.
There is, of course, the confounding issue of self-selection but I
suspect this is not a significant factor; i.e., it is unclear that,
just because a woman wants to become a military pilot, she is any
better qualified in terms of the above described mental abilities than
the "average" woman. If someone has information to the contrary - jump
in.
So we have the poor U.S. Navy between the proverbial rock and hard
place. On one hand (the rock), the egalitarians are demanding that
females fill an increasing percentage of pilot slots. We heard the
skipper of the F-14 RAG say on 60 Minutes that the number sent down
from on high was 10%. We can only assume that the Washington nitwits
have a long-term goal somewhere between 10% and proportional
representation (51%).
On the other hand (the hard place), the actual pool of "potential"
female pilots contains a lower percentage of "qualified" candidates
than even Washington's current target percentage - and we have not
even considered any other sex differences (e.g., anatomical
differences, psychological factors like aggression, etc.) which might
further reduce the percentage of "qualified" females.
In raw numbers, there are easily enough women with the requisite
abilities to make up 100% of fighter pilots - and to do it without
sacrificing quality at all. In fact, it would certainly be possible to
go to 100% female pilots and increase quality. But some of these
sharp, capable women just don't want to be fighter pilots. They may
want to be mathematicians, mechanical engineers, aerodynamicists or
(perish the thought) soccer moms. So, unless the government is
prepared to force these relatively few qualified women to be military
pilots or bribe them with huge pay differentials to be military
pilots, there are just two solutions -
1. Accept the irrefutable evidence of sex differences and eliminate
these idiotic quotas - while making damned sure that women are not
discriminated against based on factors which have nothing to do with
"the job".
2. Lower standards so that the quotas can be met.
You can guess which alternative Slick Willie, our Commander-In-Chief,
prefers.
Lest some female readers find out where I live and want to burn my
house down, I should add that women are superior to men with respect
to certain other cognitive abilities. But ... that's another post ...
and has nothing to do with guiding a high speed vehicle through three
dimensional space.
Those interesting in further reading might start with the following:
Held, J.D., Alderton. D.E., Poley, P.P., & Segall. D.O. (1993).
Arithmetic reasoning gender differences: Explanations found in the
Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Learning and
Individual Differences 5. 171-186.
Lynn, R (1994). Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A
paradox resolved. Personality and Individual Differences 1 7.257-271.
Law, D. J., Pellegrino, J. W. & Hunt, E. B. (1993) Comparing the
tortoise and the hare: Gender differences and experience in dynamic
spatial reasoning tasks. Psychological Science 4: 35-40.
Linn, M.C., & Petersen, AC. (1985), Emergence and characterization of
sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child
Development, 56, 1479-1498.
Masters, M.S., & Sanders, B. (1993). Is the gender difference in
mental rotation disappearing? Behavior Genetics. 23. 337-341.
Jardine, R, & Martin, N.G. (1983). Spatial ability and throwing
accuracy. Behavior Genetics, 13, 331-340.
Benbow, C.P. (1988), Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability
in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature. effects, and
possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169-232.
Halpern, D. F. (1992) Sex differences in cognitive abilities (second
edition). Erlbaum.
Meehan, A.M. (1984). A meta-analysis of sex differences in formal
operational thought. Child Development 55, 1 1 10-1 124.
Stanley, J.C., Benbow, C.P., Brody, L.E., Dauber, S., & Lupkowski, K
(1992). Gender differences on eighty-six nationally standardized
aptitude and achievement tests. In N. Colangelo, S.G. Assoullne and
D.L. Ambroson (Eds.). Talent development. Vol 1: Proceedings from the
1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposirun on
Talent Development Unionville. NY: Trillium Press.
McGee, M. G. (1979) Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and
environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences.
Psychological Bulletin 86: 889-918.
Gilger, J. W. & Ho, H. Z. (1989) Gender differences in adult spatial
information processing: Their relationship to pubertal timing,
adolescent activities, and sex-typing of personality. Cognitive
Development 4: 197-214.
Voyer, D., Voyer, S. & Bryden, M. P. (1995) Magnitude of sex
differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of
critical variables. Psychological Bulletin 117: 250-70.
DirtVF14
Ok, let's not get personal here. I'll throw my opinion in though. I'm
speaking as someone who currently fly's the Tomcat. I have over 300 traps in
the Tomcat and about 850 hours. Also another 200 traps in the Intruder with
about 1000 hours. I have done many practice single engine approaches at the
field (and a couple of actual ones at the field and the boat). In all the
times I've done FCLP's (field carrier landing practice) I have NEVER EVER
pulled the power while IN the approach turn nor on short final. I have always
set up for the practice single engine and then flown a straight in approach, or
if in the landing pattern, flown a wide and deep (ie long in the groove)
pattern. It's far too dangerous to do this in real life. Yes I have done it
in the simulator but I can tell you for a fact that the fidelity of the Tomcat
simulator doesn't even come close to the airplane.
The Tomcat is a beast to land under the best of circumstances (yes I know the
F-8 and the Vigi were harder but it's the toughest in the fleet right now). To
have an engine stall followed by complete (or nearly complete) loss of thrust
in the approach turn is pretty tough to handle. You have to correctly analyze
the situation and apply appropriate action immediately to have a shot at saving
the jet. Remember under normal approach conditions you are coming down at 650
feet per minute. With a 54,000 pound airplane that's a lot of momentum to get
turned around from a downward vector to an upward vector. There are NO
boldface procedures for single engine in the pattern. We are taught to apply
(essentially) the same procedures as going single engine off the CAT.
That is:
1. Set 10 degrees pitch, 14 units AOA maximum
2. Rudder opposite the Roll / Yaw supplemented by stick as required.
3. Both engines thrust as required for positive rate of climb
4. Gear up
5. External stores - emergency jettison (if required)
Now remember in a single engine off the CAT you are generally starting with
Zero rate of descent although you are generally a lot heavier. The critical
steps are to get the attitude set and get the rudder in. In Max afterburner
you need to get the rudder in before the AB fully stages.
Bottom line, could the airplane have been saved? Absolutely. That in and of
itself means that pilot error was involved. Could the average fleet aviator
have saved this jet? Maybe with a little luck on his/her side. I've never had
this emergency (engine failure while IN the approach turn or on short final)
and I hope I never do. Single engine landings and single engine wave-offs are
not too difficult to handle but that's when you've had them in another flight
regime and get set up for a straight in approach and have time to get your act
together.
In all this discussion I am talking about the Turkey. I don't profess to know
about other airplanes. I am familier with the A-6 and it would be pretty tough
to handle under these circumstances too. In fact I know a guy in VA-85 who
lost a motor at the boat on short final. They did everything exactly right and
still had to jump out. They both made it. The A-6 is quite under-powered when
single engine.
Now having said all that, it's a completely seperate issue as to whether women
have received preferential treatment and whether they belong in Navy Tac Air.
I'M not going to address those issues.
In article <199804242016...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
krzta...@aol.com (Krztalizer) writes:
>>> simple single engine wave-off, well...then, I would say it says
>>> volumes about her capabilities.
>>
>>If you think anything about reacting to this situation was "simple,"
>>all I can say is that at least the guy you were responding to had the
>>honesty to label himself as "clueless." You could take a lesson from
>>that.
>
>Gosh, thanks. Since my single engine experiences can in no way match
>*yours*,
>I will naturally accept you for the God that you feel yourself to be.
>
Eric Scheie
Jo...@Pseudonym.net wrote:
>
>With regard to ALL females, there is a rather large body of evidence
>showing that women, on average, make worse pilots than men. Notice
>that I said "on average". There is certainly nothing in the literature
>which would preclude a woman from ending up the best fighter pilot in
>the world. It's just much more likely (statistically) that it would be
>a man.
In the context of the rest of the post, you should probably state here that the statistics
are only based on the women who have tried to (and sometimes succeeded) to become fighter
pilots. Also take into consideration that "fighter pilots" are only one groupin military
aviation. Nothing seems to be said about attack pilots, helo, or other larger fixed wing
platforms.
> The reasons for this are pretty fundamental. A wide range of
>psychometric instruments show large differences favoring males on
>visual-spatial tasks like mental rotation and spatio-temporal tasks
>like tracking a moving object through space. The sex difference on
>mental rotation tasks is particularly large at about 0.9 of a standard
>deviation. It ought to be pretty obvious just how critical to
>competence (not to mention survival) these skills are in activities
>like ACM and carrier landings.
>
>Males also have clear (probably anatomically or physiologically
>related) advantages in mathematics and proportional/mechanical
>reasoning which no doubt contribute further to their average
>superiority in aircraft piloting. It is pretty well accepted, by the
>way, that these differences are not simply the result of environment
>(socialization, academic expectation, etc.) but if I get into that,
>this post will be very long.
>
Physical strength not withstanding, how would you explain females that excel in athletics?
I'm talking finesse and skill, not simply strength.
>
>Unfortunately, the "politically correct" cretins in Washington
>(Congress, DOJ, EEOC, etc.) refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence
>of sex differences - or any differences, for that matter.
Agreed. They aren't playing a game opening the opportunity for the best and brightest, but
rather get the numbers up to a certain level the fastest.
>There is, of course, the confounding issue of self-selection but I
>suspect this is not a significant factor; i.e., it is unclear that,
>just because a woman wants to become a military pilot, she is any
>better qualified in terms of the above described mental abilities than
>the "average" woman. If someone has information to the contrary - jump
>in.
>
I would say the above statement applies to any sex, ethnic background, or species.
>So we have the poor U.S. Navy between the proverbial rock and hard
>place. On one hand (the rock), the egalitarians are demanding that
>females fill an increasing percentage of pilot slots.
This is where the problems begin to arise. What's interesting is that the whole focus of
this issue is getting women into the cockpits of fighter and attack jets. How about into a
tank? Ooops, sorry, not glamorous enough I guess.
>
>On the other hand (the hard place), the actual pool of "potential"
>female pilots contains a lower percentage of "qualified" candidates
>than even Washington's current target percentage
Again, I would say this statement should apply to all groups across the board. Let's see
what the standards are for entry into flight training and then take a look at each group
and present the following data: How many individuals in each group applied? How many of
the applicants met the standards for entry? Then show how many of each group successfully
completed flight training.
>But some of these
>sharp, capable women just don't want to be fighter pilots. They may
>want to be mathematicians, mechanical engineers, aerodynamicists or
>(perish the thought) soccer moms. So, unless the government is
>prepared to force these relatively few qualified women to be military
>pilots or bribe them with huge pay differentials to be military
>pilots, there are just two solutions -
See my previous statement.
>
>Lest some female readers find out where I live and want to burn my
>house down, I should add that women are superior to men with respect
>to certain other cognitive abilities. But ... that's another post ...
>and has nothing to do with guiding a high speed vehicle through three
>dimensional space.
I'll have to disagree with you here on the subject of flying skill and being female. As
you yourself posted, the statistics you've drawn on only look at a very limited number of
women. You should look at the females who compete in aerobatics, from beginning levels to
world class. Compare them with the men. Does any one group fly better? what criteria would
you use to define better in this case?
As an overall comment - you've been clear to state that your statistics only include a
very narrow group and that this doesn't preclude women from succeeding as fighter pilots.
In light of that you seem to want to stick too close to these statistics.
Eric Scheie
BTW - this is not a flame, but I bet you sure get some. =;^)
Eric Scheie
Jo...@Pseudonym.net wrote:
>
>With regard to ALL females, there is a rather large body of evidence
>showing that women, on average, make worse pilots than men. Notice
>that I said "on average". There is certainly nothing in the literature
>which would preclude a woman from ending up the best fighter pilot in
>the world. It's just much more likely (statistically) that it would be
>a man.
In the context of the rest of the post, you should probably state here that the statistics
are only based on the women who have tried to (and sometimes succeeded) to become fighter
pilots. Also take into consideration that "fighter pilots" are only one groupin military
aviation. Nothing seems to be said about attack pilots, helo, or other larger fixed wing
platforms.
> The reasons for this are pretty fundamental. A wide range of
>psychometric instruments show large differences favoring males on
>visual-spatial tasks like mental rotation and spatio-temporal tasks
>like tracking a moving object through space. The sex difference on
>mental rotation tasks is particularly large at about 0.9 of a standard
>deviation. It ought to be pretty obvious just how critical to
>competence (not to mention survival) these skills are in activities
>like ACM and carrier landings.
>
>Males also have clear (probably anatomically or physiologically
>related) advantages in mathematics and proportional/mechanical
>reasoning which no doubt contribute further to their average
>superiority in aircraft piloting. It is pretty well accepted, by the
>way, that these differences are not simply the result of environment
>(socialization, academic expectation, etc.) but if I get into that,
>this post will be very long.
>
Physical strength not withstanding, how would you explain females that excel in athletics?
I'm talking finesse and skill, not simply strength.
>
>Unfortunately, the "politically correct" cretins in Washington
>(Congress, DOJ, EEOC, etc.) refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence
>of sex differences - or any differences, for that matter.
Agreed. They aren't playing a game opening the opportunity for the best and brightest, but
rather get the numbers up to a certain level the fastest.
>There is, of course, the confounding issue of self-selection but I
>suspect this is not a significant factor; i.e., it is unclear that,
>just because a woman wants to become a military pilot, she is any
>better qualified in terms of the above described mental abilities than
>the "average" woman. If someone has information to the contrary - jump
>in.
>
I would say the above statement applies to any sex, ethnic background, or species.
>So we have the poor U.S. Navy between the proverbial rock and hard
>place. On one hand (the rock), the egalitarians are demanding that
>females fill an increasing percentage of pilot slots.
This is where the problems begin to arise. What's interesting is that the whole focus of
this issue is getting women into the cockpits of fighter and attack jets. How about into a
tank? Ooops, sorry, not glamorous enough I guess.
>
>On the other hand (the hard place), the actual pool of "potential"
>female pilots contains a lower percentage of "qualified" candidates
>than even Washington's current target percentage
Again, I would say this statement should apply to all groups across the board. Let's see
what the standards are for entry into flight training and then take a look at each group
and present the following data: How many individuals in each group applied? How many of
the applicants met the standards for entry? Then show how many of each group successfully
completed flight training.
>But some of these
>sharp, capable women just don't want to be fighter pilots. They may
>want to be mathematicians, mechanical engineers, aerodynamicists or
>(perish the thought) soccer moms. So, unless the government is
>prepared to force these relatively few qualified women to be military
>pilots or bribe them with huge pay differentials to be military
>pilots, there are just two solutions -
See my previous statement.
>
>Lest some female readers find out where I live and want to burn my
>house down, I should add that women are superior to men with respect
>to certain other cognitive abilities. But ... that's another post ...
>and has nothing to do with guiding a high speed vehicle through three
>dimensional space.
Krztalizer
>
>Where do the former aviators such as John McCain or Randy Cunningham or
>any that flew in the other servies and no represent us in congress (or
>did) stand on this?
Duke is not known for his progressive, all-accepting attitudes. Locally, we
wait for the yearly gaff where he alienates some new sub-group of the
population. I like the guy, but diversity is a concept that he appears unable
to grasp.
Gordon
Jim Strand
>What also has to be considered is that women also perform in dangeros,
>but non-military functions as well. We argue about women in combat, but
>what about the woman who is a police officer and carries a gun? What
>about the woman who is a firefighter and risks her life? If anyone here
>doesn't think that these are forms of "combat" stop at your local
>police/fire dept.
Trouble comes when the 110lb woman arrives on the 20th floor needing
to evacuate a 200lb man. He either gets left behind, or if lucky gets
dragged down the flights of stairs. I'd much rather have another
200lb man capable of a firemans carry
Of course the woman could be directing the flow of fire suppressing
water from outside. But that delegation of jobs hardly defines
"equality" if it be the man sent into the burning building in search
of victims while the less capable remain safely outside.
With regards to women police officers I'd like to see data on the
percentage of women able to subdue an enraged man without resorting to
use of a deadly weapon.
HS2BUD
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Lt Kara Hultgreen's F-14 crash
>From: chie...@unix.nospam.asb.com (Jim Strand)
>Date: Tue, Apr 28, 1998
>With regards to women police officers I'd like to see data on the
>percentage of women able to subdue an enraged man without resorting to
>use of a deadly weapon.
>
>
Look on the bright side, lowers court cost and saves valuable jail space <G>...
Tony D
98XLH
71 60/5 BMW (RIP)
Gun One
From krzta...@aol.com (Krztalizer):
<snip>
: (any reference to 'elegance' or 'need for physical strength' mean
: *nothing* in the air)
<snip>
I don't know about elegance, but as far as physical strength is
concerned, you're dead wrong. An airplane is a great equalizer,
that's true enough .. I could never compete with a 200-pounder on the
football field, but I could whip his ass with a stick and throttle
in my hands. But that's only because I had the strength and
stamina to do it at 6 g's. You don't come down from a tactics
hop wringing wet because it's a walk in the park.
-gun one
Ogden Johnson III
Jo...@Pseudonym.net wrote:
: One half of a standard deviation may not sound like much but, at the
: extreme tails of the curve, the effect of such a difference is huge. I
: don't have the data at hand to precisely quantify what "substantially
: inferior" means but it would not be unreasonable to expect that, if
: one in fifty randomly selected males could make "the cut" at an F-14
: RAG, that number for randomly selected women might be something like
: one in five hundred to one in a thousand. The difference is this large
: because we are drawing from so far out on the right tail of the curve.
: We are not talking about the top 50% or 25% of the population being
: good enough - we are talking about the top couple of percent.
The problem with this sort of statistical analysis is making the
assumption that the curve of the military population is the same as that
of the general population. I suspect that is not the case.
A second problem arises in that politicians and political activists of any
persuasion pay attention to only those statistics that support the goring
of the particular bull that is their target.
Finally, and to wax proverbially, the expanded role of women in the
military is out of Pandora's box. It is no more amenable to being put
back into that box than anything else that has come out of it over the
centuries. If people spent one tenth of their time and effort *solving*
some of the challenges presented by that expanded role, rather than
fighting it, all of the military, male and female, would benefit.
One example. From the day I enlisted, throughout my career, and in the 16
years since, time after time the subject of the 'grunt's combat load' has
risen again and again in various forums. Each time there is a lot of
clucking, mumbling, general agreement that 'Yes, someday we've got to do
something about that, but we can't today', maybe a token reduction
immediately seized upon by someone who has been waiting years to get his
'absolutely essential' five pound gizmo into the load, and the only result
is a two pound increase in the load. Meeting the challenge of adjusting
that combat load requirement to meet female capabilities while still
meeting valid combat requirements will benefit the male grunt as well.
Second example. At 5' 5-1/2" and 150# [then, *not* now], I would be no
more successful in carrying that 6'6" 250# unconscious sailor I'm always
reading about here out of harm's way than my female counterpart.
OJ III
[Just my 0.02 at the apex of a caffeine rush]
Woody
DirtVF14 wrote:
>
> Ok, let's not get personal here. I'll throw my opinion in though. I'm
> have received preferential treatment and whether they belong in Navy Tac Air.
> I'M not going to address those issues.
>
Woody sez:
For those of you that are not TACAIR pilots, DirtVF14 brings it all down
to the proper perspective with the (largely snipped) words above. Nice
job.
Krztalizer
>>
>: (any reference to 'elegance' or 'need for physical strength' mean
>: *nothing* in the air)
><snip>
>
>I don't know about elegance, but as far as physical strength is
>concerned, you're dead wrong.
I am corrected. The point of that response of mine was directed toward a note
suggesting that physical strength (lack of) might be a contributing factor in
the mishap or problems with women in cockpits. I added later that strength
should not be the factor that determines if you can survive a single engine
stall while you're already within site of the LSO. I agree fully that their
are times when strength enters into the equation, but I flew for years with
fantastic pilots that had to face unbelieveable forces during violent episodes
in the air. Most of the pilots were fit, and several were physically
impressive, but others weren't. During such mishaps as Cdr Steel's belly flop
in a disintegrating helicopter or John Gana's bringing down a shot up Huey
intact, their 'average' frames managed to overcome what should have been an
uncontrollable aircraft. Granted, they were at the peak of their
experience/skills curve, but I feel that even the most fit can still get OBE,
and a lot of LCDRs shouldn't be flying if only athletes were considered p.q.
Are their times when being an athlete will get you through
high-stress bad day? Certainly. And being fit never (to my knowledge) was
anything but an advantage. By your answer though, I am not clear -- do you
feel that Kara might have made it if she were male, with correspondingly better
physical strength..?
Gordon
Jo...@pseudonym.net
o...@cpcug.org (Ogden Johnson III) wrote:
|Jo...@Pseudonym.net wrote:
|
|: One half of a standard deviation may not sound like much but, at the
|: extreme tails of the curve, the effect of such a difference is huge. I
|: don't have the data at hand to precisely quantify what "substantially
|: inferior" means but it would not be unreasonable to expect that, if
|: one in fifty randomly selected males could make "the cut" at an F-14
|: RAG, that number for randomly selected women might be something like
|: one in five hundred to one in a thousand. The difference is this large
|: because we are drawing from so far out on the right tail of the curve.
|: We are not talking about the top 50% or 25% of the population being
|: good enough - we are talking about the top couple of percent.
|
|The problem with this sort of statistical analysis is making the
|assumption that the curve of the military population is the same as that
|of the general population. I suspect that is not the case.
No, there is NO PROBLEM with this sort of statistical analysis. It is
the sex difference in these key cognitive characteristics at the level
of the GENERAL POPULATION that is relevant because it is the general
population from which all pilots originate and, more importantly, upon
which the Looney Left bases their accusations of bias and their
quotas.
I'll explain -- but first we have to take a trip to Dream World in
Washington, D.C. - that wonderful place where reality and objective
truth apparently don't exist. In Dream World, we're all created equal.
There are NO "relevant" differences in mental abilities, physical
abilities, values, attitudes, motivations or any other characteristics
- not between men and women, not among racial or ethnic groups, not
among any groups you might care to define. In Dream Land, the
distinction between "equal" and "equal under the law" simply doesn't
exist. In Dream Land, equality of opportunity MUST result in equality
of outcome. In fact, the whole concept of "groups" is considered an
fiction invented by the bourgeoisie (a.k.a. The Oppressors) so that
they can more conveniently and efficiently be nasty, hurtful and
discriminatory toward selected members of our incredibly, totally,
completely equal proletariat.
So, if some "group" makes up 12.75% of the population, we should see
members of this group making up 12.75% of plumbers, police, thoracic
surgeons and morticians - not to mention 12.75% of the membership of
our garden clubs, country clubs and churches. If representation is
significantly less than 12.75%, this MUST be the result of -- you
guessed it - UNEQUAL opportunity! It is NEVER, EVER because of
inherent unequal ability. In order to correct this condition, the
rulers of Dream Land impose quotas (though they will never call them
that), take affirmative action and FORCE those sexist (or racist, or
speciesist) morticians to hire, buy from, embalm, cremate or bury the
"right" numbers from our favorite allegedly aggrieved group.
Here in the U.S. of A., women make up 51.15% of the GENERAL
POPULATION. While I doubt that even a buffoon like Pat Schroeder would
suggest that the failure to have 51.15% female pilots should be placed
at the door of the Navy, I can easily see her argue that women and men
would apply for pilot training (i.e., self-select) in equal numbers IF
ONLY we didn't live under the yoke of this sexist society which
acculturates women to avoid certain subjects in school, avoid
male-dominated careers, blah, blah, blah. she would probably go on to
argue that, once women applied for pilot training in sufficient
numbers, we would see that there are NO sex differences in the
cognitive abilities (or any other abilities, for that matter)
associated with success as a carrier-based combat pilot. As a group,
female pilots would perform exactly like their male counterparts. She
would also attack the Navy's current pilot selection procedures and
training standards as having an anti-democratic, sexist and illegally
"disparate impact" (important legal concept) upon women.
Well, boys and girls, it's a lot of fun in Dream Land. We can wear our
officially licensed Trofim Denisovich Lysenko blindfolds, listen to
Auntie Patricia read us stories from the Great Book of Egalitarian
Myths (published jointly by the DOJ and the EEOC and personally
autographed by Slick Willie) and enjoy a delicious meal of politically
correct tofu burgers at Stevie Gould's Proletariat Bar & Grill. Sadly,
it's time to go back to the REAL WORLD.
In the real world, there ARE groups and group differences. With regard
to cognitive sex differences, I think my original post demonstrates
that fact quite conclusively. So if we want to detect unfair or
unequal opportunities (say, opportunities for women to be Navy pilots,
just to pick an example purely at random), we would need to compare
the percentage of men and women Navy pilots NOT simply with the
percentage of each sex in the general population but with the
percentage of each sex in that population that EXHIBITS THE SPECIFIC
CHARACTERISTICS we know are required to be successful in the job.
When we do the calculations this way, we find that the "right"
percentage of female Navy carrier-based combat pilots would be perhaps
in the range of 2.5% to 5%. In other words, this is the percentage of
fully qualified and competent female pilots that would naturally occur
in conditions of perfectly equal opportunity. To keep it simple, the
2.5% to 5% considers only cognitive sex differences and assumes zero
self-selection bias. If other sex differences which may mitigate
against women (e.g., upper body strength, aggression) are factored in,
the percentages would, of course, go down. Hell, there may be some
differences that make women MORE suited to combat aviation but I just
can't think of one off the top of my head.
Note that this "naturally occurring" percentage is well below the 10%
female target/requirement quoted by Cdr. Tom Sobieck on 60 Minutes.
That doesn't seem to bother the Clinton administration though, does
it?
Clearly, there are many people in and out of the military who have
**irrational** biases against women -- particularly against women in
traditionally "macho" roles in the military. Irrational discrimination
should be hateful to ANYONE who cares about our country and our
military readiness. It denies a fair chance to all based on merit and
hurts the overall quality of pilots by excluding those superb pilots
and pilot candidates who happen to be female. But the way to solve the
problem is to ruthlessly eliminate the bias. The solution is NOT to
have different standards for what constitutes a competent pilot. Nor
is the solution to place idiotic quotas on the military which deny the
indisputable FACT of significant group differences.
[Note to social scientists: Yea, yea, I know the above is a
simplification that ignores a number of subtleties and confounding
factors. Give me a break, OK? Covering the issue comprehensively would
have turned this post into a 3 megabyte textbook.]
|A second problem arises in that politicians and political activists of any
|persuasion pay attention to only those statistics that support the goring
|of the particular bull that is their target.
As a general observation, you are, of course, correct. If, on the
other hand, you are suggesting that **I** presented a biased
scientific view in my original post, I must take exception.
The material I presented represents the opinion of the vast majority
of people who are in a position to know about such things - i.e.,
differential psychologists, psychometrists and behavior geneticists.
Indeed, the position I presented parallels very closely the statement
of the task force on intelligence established by the Board of
Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association. Doubters
can easily check this on the Internet and I urge them to do so.
|Finally, and to wax proverbially, the expanded role of women in the
|military is out of Pandora's box. It is no more amenable to being put
|back into that box than anything else that has come out of it over the
|centuries. If people spent one tenth of their time and effort *solving*
|some of the challenges presented by that expanded role, rather than
|fighting it, all of the military, male and female, would benefit.
Ah, but the solution depends upon your ideology, doesn't it? I'm not
fighting an expanded role for women in the military. I'm just fighting
for a meritocratic solution. Surely, that's a noble cause, no?
I'm going to close (yea, I know, it's about time, right?) by pointing
out that not all women agree with the goals of the Washington
know-it-alls. For example, a 1995 study by Harvard researcher Laura
Miller found that only 3% of enlisted women agree that "women should
be treated exactly like men and serve in the combat arms just like
men." Only 11% of enlisted women and 14% of female officers surveyed
said they would volunteer for combat positions.
In another study (1992), Army women said that if they were compelled
to serve in combat on the same basis as men, 52 percent would
"probably" or "definitely" leave the Army.
Jo...@pseudonym.net
Eric Scheie <eos...@psu.edu> wrote:
|Jo...@Pseudonym.net wrote:
|>With regard to ALL females, there is a rather large body of evidence
|>showing that women, on average, make worse pilots than men. Notice
|>that I said "on average". There is certainly nothing in the literature
|>which would preclude a woman from ending up the best fighter pilot in
|>the world. It's just much more likely (statistically) that it would be
|>a man.
|
|In the context of the rest of the post, you should probably state here that the statistics
|are only based on the women who have tried to (and sometimes succeeded) to become fighter
|pilots. Also take into consideration that "fighter pilots" are only one groupin military
|aviation. Nothing seems to be said about attack pilots, helo, or other larger fixed wing
|platforms.
Now why would I do that, Eric? I quite clearly state in the FIRST
SENTENCE that these observations are "With regard to ALL females" and
even put the word "ALL" in caps. What part of the word "ALL" don't you
understand?
|Physical strength not withstanding, how would you explain females that excel in athletics?
|I'm talking finesse and skill, not simply strength.
Why would I have to "explain" females who excel in athletics any more
than women who excel at being fighter pilots? You have completely
missed the point of my post. OF COURSE there are SOME women who excel
in endeavors requiring high levels of visual-spatial and
spatio-temporal ability. The point is that (read this v-e-r-y
s-l-o-w-l-y) THOSE ABILITIES DO NOT EXIST WITH EQUAL FREQUENCY in the
male and female populations, yet the "politically correct" politicians
pass laws and issue administrative rules AS IF THEY DID OCCUR WITH
EQUAL FREQUENCY.
If you compare men and women in athletics in the same way you compare
them in a VF (combined - no men's 400 meter, no women's 400 meter,
just "THE" 400 meter), you will find that, in fact, very few women (a
tiny percentage of the total female population) "excel". Even in
sports which require minimal strength, you will be hard pressed to
come up with women who hold significant absolute (i.e, both sexes)
records. Typically, the scores (speed, distance, time, accuracy, etc.)
for women athletes are 5% to 20% worse (slower, shorter distance,
longer time) than for men. Look, I'm not trying to bash women
athletes. It's just that your counter-example is no counter-example at
all. Just the opposite - it goes to prove my point.
|>There is, of course, the confounding issue of self-selection but I
|>suspect this is not a significant factor; i.e., it is unclear that,
|>just because a woman wants to become a military pilot, she is any
|>better qualified in terms of the above described mental abilities than
|>the "average" woman. If someone has information to the contrary - jump
|>in.
|>
|
|I would say the above statement applies to any sex, ethnic background, or species.
Yes, and........? What's your point?
My point is that:
1. When you consider the WHOLE female population, Mr. Kirby's
suggestion that "those opinions [against the NWM group called
"females"] tend to die out when reality shows otherwise" simply isn't
true. The "reality" is that women, on average, lack (compared to men)
the specific cognitive abilities associated with successful military
flying and therefore make - ON AVERAGE - less skilled combat pilots.
This is true today, was 100 years ago and will be 100 years from now.
2. Even when you redefine the "NWM group" down to just those applying
for pilot training, the self-selection of applying to the program
probably has little impact on the disproportionate sex distribution of
those key cognitive abilities. I certainly invite others to comment on
this unresearched assumption.
3. Finally, when you take the last step and redefine the "NWM group"
as only those who have been selected by the Navy and successfully
completed flight training, I respectfully suggest to Mr. Kirby that
sex-based performance differences STILL EXIST although obviously to a
small degree - reduced by the Navy's highly effective selection and
training program.
If both sexes were held to the SAME standard, given the SAME number of
second or third chances, sex differences in outcome would not exist at
all -- there would be NO significant difference in the demonstrated
performance of the two sexes once they were qualified and detailed out
to the fleet.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. The standards ARE different. For
example, what percentage of men make it through the RAG - what
percentage of men are sent to the boat with SIX pink sheets? That's
how many Carey Lohrenz had - by her own admission! And a number of
knowledgeable insiders have intimated that the number could have been
EIGHT had two of her hops not been reclassified as "practice flights".
Is Tom Sobieck reading this. He would be the guy with the facts.
|>On the other hand (the hard place), the actual pool of "potential"
|>female pilots contains a lower percentage of "qualified" candidates
|>than even Washington's current target percentage
|
|Again, I would say this statement should apply to all groups across the board. Let's see
|what the standards are for entry into flight training and then take a look at each group
|and present the following data: How many individuals in each group applied? How many of
|the applicants met the standards for entry? Then show how many of each group successfully
|completed flight training.
Your comment makes no sense in the context of my statement.
|>But some of these
|>sharp, capable women just don't want to be fighter pilots. They may
|>want to be mathematicians, mechanical engineers, aerodynamicists or
|>(perish the thought) soccer moms. So, unless the government is
|>prepared to force these relatively few qualified women to be military
|>pilots or bribe them with huge pay differentials to be military
|>pilots, there are just two solutions -
|
|
|See my previous statement.
??????????
|>Lest some female readers find out where I live and want to burn my
|>house down, I should add that women are superior to men with respect
|>to certain other cognitive abilities. But ... that's another post ...
|>and has nothing to do with guiding a high speed vehicle through three
|>dimensional space.
|
|
|I'll have to disagree with you here on the subject of flying skill and being female. As
|you yourself posted, the statistics you've drawn on only look at a very limited number of
|women. You should look at the females who compete in aerobatics, from beginning levels to
|world class. Compare them with the men. Does any one group fly better? what criteria would
|you use to define better in this case?
At the risk of repeating myself, I NEVER said that my comments applied
to just "a very limited number of women." You really must stop making
this stuff up, Eric.
As to civilian aerobatic pilots, this is just a slight variation on
your specious "females excel at athletics" argument. The existence of
SOME superb female aerobatic pilots proves nothing about the flying
skills or flying potential of the "average woman" in the entire
population or how that average compares to the male average.
When women win in mixed competition, they win because they are THE
BEST on that day, not the best woman, just THE BEST. No quotas -- no
pressure for "diversity" from Slick Willie and his sycophants. On the
other hand, note that in 37 years, only two women have ever won the
U.S. National Aerobatic Champion - Patty Wagstaff three times, as I
recall.
|As an overall comment - you've been clear to state that your statistics only include a
|very narrow group and that this doesn't preclude women from succeeding as fighter pilots.
|In light of that you seem to want to stick too close to these statistics.
Here we go again with the "very narrow group" crap. Go back and read
the original post more carefully.
Euan Kilgour
In article <3545203d...@news2.new-york.net>,
chie...@unix.nospam.asb.com (Jim Strand) wrote:
> Hand to hand combat remains an area where men will prevail. Strength
> also comes into play when reaching the extremes of the flight envelope
> in high performance aircraft.
I have to disagree strongly here. Hand to hand combat has little to do
with strength. If properly trained, anyone can be lethal, as there are
plenty of martial disciplines which do not require strength. Ask around
on rec.martial-arts. Lethal combat is simply a matter of technique.
Paul J. Adam
In article <3545203d...@news2.new-york.net>, Jim Strand
<chie...@unix.nospam.asb.com> writes
>Hand to hand combat remains an area where men will prevail.
Hey, I was once an infantryman: if you're fighting hand to hand, then
the situation is truly desperate and likely lost. The idea is to kill or
drive off the enemy _before_ you're sharing a trench with him, not to
give them any opportunity to get close and demonstrate their kung-fu
skills. Hand-to-hand skill hasn't been a key selection issue in a
century or more, even for the infantry.
Marksmanship, stamina and a cool head in action matter far more than
simple strength: better to destroy the enemy _before_ the battle becomes
a melee, than hope to prevail there. A rifle bullet doesn't really care
who fired it as long as it's properly aimed, and all the upper body
strength in the world won't let you laugh off a sucking chest wound.
>Trouble in our current politically correct age is that realities of
>body size and physical abilities are placed second to those of equal
>opportunity.
Set the standard for the job and enforce it. Worked pretty well for us
over here.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Eric Scheie
Jo...@Pseudonym.net wrote:
>
>Ah, but the solution depends upon your ideology, doesn't it? I'm not
>fighting an expanded role for women in the military. I'm just fighting
>for a meritocratic solution. Surely, that's a noble cause, no?
>
No one is arguing that adherence to a merticocracy would be the best way to go. I
think you'll find from other posts on here, that people inside and outside the
military both want the best qualified people in the cockpits of our aircraft. I
think you'll also find that, given the opportunity to examine the issue, most people
will agree that the folks in DC are trying to impose unrealistic requirements on the
military in this area.
I would still take certain people to task over why, if their goal is EQUALITY, why
their focus is on combat aircraft. I hear no clammoring for the same sort of
equality in tanks, trenches, or ships.
>I'm going to close (yea, I know, it's about time, right?) by pointing
>out that not all women agree with the goals of the Washington
>know-it-alls. For example, a 1995 study by Harvard researcher Laura
>Miller found that only 3% of enlisted women agree that "women should
>be treated exactly like men and serve in the combat arms just like
>men." Only 11% of enlisted women and 14% of female officers surveyed
>said they would volunteer for combat positions.
>
This is probably as much a product of a peace time military. A number people, male
and female, join the military with the intention of getting out after their first
enlistment. They are perhaps more focused on money for college than taking part in
combat. I don't agree with the sentiments of those in the above study who did not
want equal treatment or would not volunteer for combat positions - simply suggesting
a possible reason for them.
>In another study (1992), Army women said that if they were compelled
>to serve in combat on the same basis as men, 52 percent would
>"probably" or "definitely" leave the Army.
Again, I don't agree with people who want to join the military "except if I have to
go fight". However, in both of these studies, you have presented only the replies of
females. Were the same questions asked of males? If so, what were their replies?
I'll bet that a larger number of males would be in favor of equal treatment for
females. I'll also bet that while more of the males will accept the fact that they
may have to go into combat, a higher than expected number will reply the same way
the females did.
Eric Scheie
Jo...@pseudonym.net
Well, I guess I'd better admit my error and volunteer to eat my
numbers before some sharp reader shoves them down my throat for me!
When preparing my previous message, I did the math in my head and on
the back of an envelope - screwed it up, too. I should have been more
careful. Sorry.
That previous post said:
>When we do the calculations this way, we find that the "right"
>percentage of female Navy carrier-based combat pilots would be perhaps
>in the range of 2.5% to 5%. In other words, this is the percentage of
>fully qualified and competent female pilots that would naturally occur
>in conditions of perfectly equal opportunity.
Clearly, I shouldn't have relied on my memory for the areas under a
Gaussian curve. When I later ran the scenario through the computer,
the long-term "naturally occurring" percentages came back much higher
- like maybe 6.3% to about 14.7% depending on a bunch of factors only
a few psychologists working for the Navy probably know.
Nonetheless, the main point is still valid. Whether it's 2.5% or 15%
or even 20%, it MUCH lower than the 51.15% of the population that is
female.
I'll shut up now and go back to just reading other people's posts.
Eric Scheie
Jo...@Pseudonym.net wrote:
>Eric Scheie <eos...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
>|Jo...@Pseudonym.net wrote:
>
>|>With regard to ALL females, there is a rather large body of evidence
>|>showing that women, on average, make worse pilots than men. Notice
>|>that I said "on average". There is certainly nothing in the literature
>|>which would preclude a woman from ending up the best fighter pilot in
>|>the world. It's just much more likely (statistically) that it would be
>|>a man.
>|
>|In the context of the rest of the post, you should probably state here that the statistics
>|are only based on the women who have tried to (and sometimes succeeded) to become fighter
>|pilots. Also take into consideration that "fighter pilots" are only one groupin military
>|aviation. Nothing seems to be said about attack pilots, helo, or other larger fixed wing
>|platforms.
>
>Now why would I do that, Eric? I quite clearly state in the FIRST
>SENTENCE that these observations are "With regard to ALL females" and
>even put the word "ALL" in caps. What part of the word "ALL" don't you
>understand?
>
But not ALL females try to become pilots, so not ALL females have been evaluated in that
respect. The only ones who have been truely evaluated are the ones who have tried to become
pilots.
I don't think that every woman who has wanted to become a pilot has been the "best woman for
the job". I agree, there are probably a fair percentage who aspire to other things. However,
when the military is told to bring in more (name your group here) they may be forced to do the
best with what they get if all the qualified and able to not apply.
>|Physical strength not withstanding, how would you explain females that excel in athletics?
>|I'm talking finesse and skill, not simply strength.
>
stuff snipped
> Typically, the scores (speed, distance, time, accuracy, etc.)
>for women athletes are 5% to 20% worse (slower, shorter distance,
>longer time) than for men. Look, I'm not trying to bash women
>athletes. It's just that your counter-example is no counter-example at
>all. Just the opposite - it goes to prove my point.
Re-read what I wrote. "Physical strength not withstanding..". The examples you've just given
have a dependence on physical strength. How do the sexes compare in horseracing, archery,
rifle marksmanship, aerobatics, soaring? Something that is not simply a measure of who can
pump their arms or legs the fastest. In marksmanship, for example, could there be a reason
that a surprising number of Viet Cong snipers were female?
>My point is that:
>
>1. When you consider the WHOLE female population,
bit snipped
> The "reality" is that women, on average, lack (compared to men)
>the specific cognitive abilities associated with successful military
>flying and therefore make - ON AVERAGE - less skilled combat pilots.
>This is true today, was 100 years ago and will be 100 years from now.
>
I will agree that not _all_ people are _exactly_ equal in _every_ category of aptitude or
performance. However, I'd say that a lot of things people held to be true 100 years ago
regarding the performance of certain ethnic groups or genders have certainly been disproven.
And here, you are trying to consider the whole female population based on examining only a
few.
>|>But some of these
>|>sharp, capable women just don't want to be fighter pilots. They may
>|>want to be mathematicians, mechanical engineers, aerodynamicists or
>|>(perish the thought) soccer moms.
>
>|>Lest some female readers find out where I live and want to burn my
>|>house down, I should add that women are superior to men with respect
>|>to certain other cognitive abilities. But ... that's another post ...
>|>and has nothing to do with guiding a high speed vehicle through three
>|>dimensional space.
>|
>|
>|I'll have to disagree with you here on the subject of flying skill and being female. As
>|you yourself posted, the statistics you've drawn on only look at a very limited number of
>|women. You should look at the females who compete in aerobatics, from beginning levels to
>|world class. Compare them with the men. Does any one group fly better? what criteria would
>|you use to define better in this case?
>
>At the risk of repeating myself, I NEVER said that my comments applied
>to just "a very limited number of women." You really must stop making
>this stuff up, Eric.
>
I disagree. What you are doing is making a broad general conclusion about "all" women, or
women "on average". However, you also show that only a very small percentage of women actually
try to become pilots. The women who apply may not be the best qualified or able, and there may
be a number of others who _are_ more qualified and able who simply did not aspire to being
pilots. How can you draw a conclusion about women "on average" when only a small percentage of
"all" women are examined (i.e the ones who try to become pilots)?
>As to civilian aerobatic pilots, this is just a slight variation on
>your specious "females excel at athletics" argument. The existence of
>SOME superb female aerobatic pilots proves nothing about the flying
>skills or flying potential of the "average woman" in the entire
>population or how that average compares to the male average.
>
Nor does the lack of skill among SOME females. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of
absence.
> On the
>other hand, note that in 37 years, only two women have ever won the
>U.S. National Aerobatic Champion - Patty Wagstaff three times, as I
>recall.
>
OK, take the number of men who have competed in aerobatics vs the number who have won. Then do
the same for women. What are the resulting percentages?
No one is going to argue that there are differences between the sexes. Perhaps one reason that
fewer women try to become pilots is that women are less likely to be risk takers than men.
Flying is still seen by many as daring and risky even when it doesn't involve landing on a
ship or getting shot at.
I think that most everyone, except those with some political agenda, are going to be in favor
of pilot selection and trianing being done in a meritocracy.
As for whatever physical abilities, skills or dexterities (i.e. tracking a moving target) each
gender is supposed to possess, I would argue that most, if not all, of it is due to how we are
raised. From a very early age males learn and practice things (sports, playing war, hunting,
fishing, etc) that will give them the martial skills to be able to hunt to provide food for
their tribe or family, or to fight in order to protect that same tribe or family. Females do
not, as a general rule, engage in these same activities, or at least not to the extent of
males. If you practice something all of your life, then you will certainly be better at it
than someone who does not.
My $0.02 (and it's not a flame),
Eric Scheie
Shaber CJ
In article <3545d29b...@news2.new-york.net>, chie...@unix.nospam.asb.com
(Jim Strand) writes:
>Trouble comes when the 110lb woman arrives on the 20th floor needing
>to evacuate a 200lb man. He either gets left behind, or if lucky gets
>dragged down the flights of stairs. I'd much rather have another
>200lb man capable of a firemans carry
>
>Of course the woman could be directing the flow of fire suppressing
>water from outside. But that delegation of jobs hardly defines
>"equality" if it be the man sent into the burning building in search
>of victims while the less capable remain safely outside.
>
>With regards to women police officers I'd like to see data on the
>percentage of women able to subdue an enraged man without resorting to
>use of a deadly weapon.
Remember back about 5 years when a tape was released of LA fire department
women recurits. The tape showed the women couldn't get over the training wall,
they had a difficult time carrying ladders etc., (bottom line was the women
weres not physically strong enough to do the tasks). Result of the release of
the tape: officers were repremanded, and the department was labled sexist.
Effect: change the qualifications and training to exercises the women could do.
How is that for equal opportunity.
Shaber CJ
In article <euanSPAMFREE-3...@academic165.rgty.waikato.ac.nz>,
euanSP...@mailserv.waikato.ac.nz (Euan Kilgour) writes:
>Hand to hand combat has little to do
>with strength. If properly trained, anyone can be lethal, as there are
>plenty of martial disciplines which do not require strength. Ask around
>on rec.martial-arts. Lethal combat is simply a matter of technique.
I have trained in martial arts for about 15 years, and while I have met some
very good women practictioners, in a fight I would place a male brown belt
against an experienced (second or third degree) woman balck belt. In my dojo
we had a woman second degree black belt who broke the leg of a 6' 2" ex-con who
was stealing her car. But she got the jump on him and he did not expect a
woman to fight like that. The fight was over as soon as she began and the
ex-con did not even have a chance to defend himself. However, in combat a
combatant will be agressive and attack from the start. If the ex-con had
attack this woman black-belt he probably would have won. Another point is that
the military does not have 15-20 years to train women for hand to hand combat.
Cheers
Craig
HS2BUD
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Lt Kara Hultgreen's F-14 crash
>Date: Thu, Apr 30, 1998
>focus is on combat aircraft. I hear no clammoring for the same sort of
>equality in tanks, trenches, or ships
23 years in the Military and I feel compelled to say one thing in regards to
this thread;
How ready is the USA to see Women filling up body bags if we really get into it
with a determined, aggressive foe? How equal are we going to get?
Thanks
Wolf
Shaber CJ wrote in message
>Remember back about 5 years when a tape was released of LA fire department
>women recurits. The tape showed the women couldn't get over the training
wall,
>they had a difficult time carrying ladders etc., (bottom line was the women
>weres not physically strong enough to do the tasks). Result of the release
of
>the tape: officers were repremanded, and the department was labled sexist.
>Effect: change the qualifications and training to exercises the women could
do.
> How is that for equal opportunity.
That sounds like the big wall on the O-course at AOCS (OCS now). The guys
had to scale it, the girls had to touch it as they ran around it.
& the little wall that the guys had to climb, was next to a smaller wall
that the girls had to climb.
Now that I've said that, most of the females I've flown with are just as
good as the guys I've flown with. You have some rocks on both sides of the
gender gap. So if I had to fly in combat, which do I want. Either, as long
as they're not a rock. Now if someone had to pull me out of a burning
helo... Hopefully it's some giant AO.
Gun One
In article <euanSPAMFREE-3...@academic165.rgty.waikato.ac.nz>, euanSP...@mailserv.waikato.ac.nz (Euan Kilgour) writes:
|> chie...@unix.nospam.asb.com (Jim Strand) wrote:
|>
|> > Hand to hand combat remains an area where men will prevail. Strength
|> > also comes into play when reaching the extremes of the flight envelope
|> > in high performance aircraft.
|>
|> with strength. If properly trained, anyone can be lethal, as there are
|> plenty of martial disciplines which do not require strength. Ask around
|> on rec.martial-arts. Lethal combat is simply a matter of technique.
In the (pun alert) hands of an expert, what you say may be true. But to
the standard grunt (also read peace officer) who has had something less
than years of training, physical size counts.
Just saw on the news this week .. a 130# policewoman tried to apprehend
a 200# suspect. He picked her up like a sack of potatoes (is there an
'e' in potatoes?), threw her across the alley, and continued on his way.
The video was courtesy of the police helicopter that was taping the
chase.
So, not only are we short one 'man' in the department but we have to
assign another 'man' to protect his little partner. The system is
totally out of whack. Equal pay for equal work? Absolutely. Job
opportunities based on qualifications and not gender? Absolutely.
Lowering physical standards in a lives-are-on-the-line profession?
Stupid, pure and simple.
-gun one
.. getting back on the thread track here, boss ..
Gun One
From the nimble fingers of Jo...@Pseudonym.net:
: If you compare men and women in athletics in the same way you compare
: them in a VF (combined - no men's 400 meter, no women's 400 meter,
John, you've really done your homework. How do we get your stuff into
the National Register?
On another tack, consider the comparison of male/female athletics in
a qualitative, rather than quantitave, manner. Ever watch women's
basketball? These are the cream of the crop. The women are quick and
aggressive. As aggressive as the men? I don't think so. And elegance!
An earlier poster mentioned the elegance of women in the cockpit of
a fighter .. I submit that Michael Jordan doing a fallaway jump shot
or Hakeem Olajuwon doing his dance to the layup underneath are epitomes
of aggressive elegance. The women, compared to this, are ungainly and
stiff. Many of them don't even dribble without looking at the ball.
We've been conned, Mr and Mrs USA, into a corruption of equal opportunity.
-gun one
.. got out of the thread again ..
Gun One
From the nimble fingers of Eric Scheie <eos...@psu.edu>:
> Again, I don't agree with people who want to join the military "except if I have to
> go fight". However, in both of these studies, you have presented only the replies of
> females. Were the same questions asked of males? If so, what were their replies?
> I'll bet that a larger number of males would be in favor of equal treatment for
> females. I'll also bet that while more of the males will accept the fact that they
> may have to go into combat, a higher than expected number will reply the same way
> the females did.
One outfit was ordered to deploy to Desert Storm. Over half of the female
'soldiers' found reasons not to go. [ Not to go?? NOT TO GO??? ] The
outfit was unable to fill its manpower requirements and their deployment
was cancelled. Of course, somebody ELSE had to pick up the slack. This
is military discipline? This is what we're depending on for the defense
of this great country?
I've got the details on my other computer if anyone is interested. And
this was just one incident of many.
-gun one
.. damn, I got off the thread again ..
Midn Michael J Acosta
The Naval Aviation Ball is being held in Crystal City (near DC) in May
this year. Anyone been to it before? What is it like?
Michael J.
Eric Scheie
pie...@pat.mdc.com (Gun One) wrote:
>
>One outfit was ordered to deploy to Desert Storm. Over half of the female
>'soldiers' found reasons not to go. [ Not to go?? NOT TO GO??? ] The
>outfit was unable to fill its manpower requirements and their deployment
>was cancelled. Of course, somebody ELSE had to pick up the slack. This
>is military discipline? This is what we're depending on for the defense
>of this great country?
I agree with you. The point that I was trying to make in the paragraph you responded to
was that the results presented in the paragraph I was responding to were one sided. I
agree that the number of females who did not want equal treatment or would not be willing
to go into combat is nothing but unsat. You won't find the same percentage of men not
being willing to go into combat, but those results were not presented - perhaps they were
not a part of that study. The results for men will not be anywhere near those of the
women, but what I said was they may be higher than expected, which is also unsat just the
same.
Yes, there are a number of incidents like the one you describe. How about females who got
pregnant in order to stay home from Desert Shield/Storm? How about females who get
pregnant to avoid sea duty, period? How about the male doctor who refused to go deploy
during that same conflict? How about the female flight instructor who arrived at the
training squadron, completed the instructor training syllabus, and then got pregnant? Why
not do a study and document these incidents and their effect on readiness and morale?
These are things that don't seem to get much attention.
I agree with a number of things this "John@pseudonym" person (whoever thay are) has
posted. i.e. there are differences between the sexes, people should be allowed to fly
aircraft (or do any other job) based on ability not gender - we should have a true
meritocracy in place. Where my contention lies is that he/she has drawn broad conclusions
based on the performance of a small subset of a larger group.
Fly safe,
Eric Scheie
J.D. Baldwin
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980430131717.7692B-100000@baltic>, Midn
Michael J Acosta <m98...@nadn.navy.mil> wrote:
> The Naval Aviation Ball is being held in Crystal City (near DC) in May
> this year. Anyone been to it before? What is it like?
Sorry, it's official now: Naval Aviation will no longer have any balls.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jo...@pseudonym.net
Well, I guess I'd better admit my error and volunteer to eat my
numbers before some sharp reader shoves them down my throat for me!
When preparing my previous message, I did the math in my head and on
the back of an envelope - screwed it up, too. I should have been more
careful. Sorry.
That previous post said:
>When we do the calculations this way, we find that the "right"
>percentage of female Navy carrier-based combat pilots would be perhaps
>in the range of 2.5% to 5%. In other words, this is the percentage of
>fully qualified and competent female pilots that would naturally occur
>in conditions of perfectly equal opportunity.
I should not have relied on my memory for the areas under a
Gaussian curve. When I later ran the scenario through the computer,
the long-term "naturally occurring" percentages came back much higher
- like maybe 6.3% to about 14.7% depending on a bunch of factors only
a few psychologists working for the Navy probably know.
Nonetheless, the main point is still valid. Whether it's 2.5% or 15%
or even 20%, it MUCH lower than the 51.15% of the population that is
female.
Again, my apologies to the group for the sloppy math.
Jim Strand
>In article <3545203d...@news2.new-york.net>,
>chie...@unix.nospam.asb.com (Jim Strand) wrote:
>
>> Hand to hand combat remains an area where men will prevail. Strength
>> also comes into play when reaching the extremes of the flight envelope
>> in high performance aircraft.
>
>I have to disagree strongly here. Hand to hand combat has little to do
>with strength. If properly trained, anyone can be lethal, as there are
>plenty of martial disciplines which do not require strength. Ask around
>on rec.martial-arts. Lethal combat is simply a matter of technique.
Sorry but that argument is too much like the guns vs missiles one that
idiots in Congress have had since the early 50's.
Why do we train for dog fighting with 100 mile range AIM-54's
available. Because they may get through.
Same for the AIM-120
Same for the AIM-9
We have guns because sometimes one must fight up close.
Do you believe that other military forces will not teach martial arts
as well? With all things being equal I'll place my bets of the bigger
and stronger combatant. Over time I'll collect more than I pay out.
Fred Carment usn
DirtVF-14,
It is always enjoyable to hear a calm, cool and knowledgable voice
among all the static. In fact it is sort of soothing. I bounced on and
off flight decks starting in 1946 and saw all the changes from straight
decks, 150 foot patterns, a shipmate with paddles in hand, then a mirror
and that wonderful thing called an angled deck. along came the fresnel
lens and steam in the cats and through it all calm voices willing to
discuss a subject in a reasonable manner usually made for progress.
Today, to this well seasoned aviator, there seem to be too many shrill
voices spouting less that factual information all to often. Keep up the
good work.
In this PC world today can understand your reluctance to avoid the
gender area. Should you have time highly recommend Jerry Atkinson's book
entitled From Trust to Terror. Makes for interesting reading on the
subject you avoided.
May all your traps be 3 wires---
Regards,
Gray Fox
dcb
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:54:42 -0500, "Wolf" <Helo...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>That sounds like the big wall on the O-course at AOCS (OCS now). The guys
>had to scale it, the girls had to touch it as they ran around it.
>& the little wall that the guys had to climb, was next to a smaller wall
>that the girls had to climb.
Those walls are *not* tests of physical requirements to do the job and
can not be compared to climbing ladders and carrying people for
firefighters.
You run it once successfully and you *never* have to do it again.
Admirals still fly tactical aircraft who couldn't get over the wall.
I've seen more than one DH who would have a hard time running with the
"girls" standards. The O-course is not a intended or purported to be a
valid test for the physical ability to fly.
The water survival course, on the other hand, is required for all
flyers. You must attend every four years. The requirements are the
same for everyone, without regard to rank, age or sex. They don't
give women more time to get out of the parachute drag, for example.
If you want to test for physical ability to do a job (like carrying
ladders for firefighters), great! Make it a sensible, relevant test.
Set standards. Don't do any age-norming. Don't do any sex-norming.
Require retesting on a regular basis for everyone in the job.
"You despise me, don't you, Rick?"
"If I gave you any thought, I probably would."
D.C.KOH
J.D. Baldwin wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.980430131717.7692B-100000@baltic>, Midn
> Michael J Acosta <m98...@nadn.navy.mil> wrote:
> > The Naval Aviation Ball is being held in Crystal City (near DC) in May
> > this year. Anyone been to it before? What is it like?
>
> Sorry, it's official now: Naval Aviation will no longer have any balls.
>
;-)
Dan
Ogden Johnson III
J.D. Baldwin (bal...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Midn Michael J Acosta <m98...@nadn.navy.mil> wrote:
: > The Naval Aviation Ball is being held in Crystal City (near DC) in May
: > this year. Anyone been to it before? What is it like?
: Sorry, it's official now: Naval Aviation will no longer have any balls.
Now *that* was cold.
OJ III
[But, Midshipman are fair game, so, carry on.]
Jarmo Lindberg
dcb wrote:
<snipped>
> The water survival course, on the other hand, is required for all
> flyers. You must attend every four years. The requirements are the
> same for everyone, without regard to rank, age or sex. They don't
> give women more time to get out of the parachute drag, for example.
Took some photos during the water survival at Lemoore:-
http://www.mil.fi/ftrsqn21/Survival.htm
Aviation physiology images at http://www.sci.fi/~fta/us-phys.htm
Jarmo Lindberg
VFA-125 F/A-18 CATII class 5-95
--
Jarmo Lindberg
Fighter Squadron 21: http://www.mil.fi/ftrsqn21/
Fighter Tactics Academy: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/welcome.htm
Paul J. Adam
In article <3548f647...@news2.new-york.net>, Jim Strand
<chie...@unix.nospam.asb.com> writes
>Sorry but that argument is too much like the guns vs missiles one that
>idiots in Congress have had since the early 50's.
<snip>
>Do you believe that other military forces will not teach martial arts
>as well? With all things being equal I'll place my bets of the bigger
>and stronger combatant.
If this were true, infantry would still carry swords or some other
really useful melee weapon. Bayonets are handy last-ditch weapons, but
they are just that - last-ditch weapons.
Hand to hand combat is reserved for those moments where your rifle won't
fire and the enemy's within arms reach, yet you are still alive and you
have a moment to shove something sharp and cold into his stomach in
order to prevent him killing you.
If he's more than a pace away, you're dead. If there's _two_ bad guys
and one of you, one of them will calmly shoot or bayonet you in the back
while you demonstrate whatever kung-fu fighting you feel like using on
his buddy.
In other words - once it's down to melee, you're probably dead anyway.
>Over time I'll collect more than I pay out.
Brute strength and martial arts skill are not unhandy to have as an
infantryman: but stamina, mental toughness, a cool head, marksmanship,
teamwork, and intelligence are all more important.
You wouldn't casually delete the gun from a modern fighter aircraft. But
I doubt you would now design a fighter with the gun as its _primary_
weapon...
Hobbit
Lt Manja Blok has gone on to fly combat missions in Bosnia and is a
graduate of the Dutch (Euro) Fighter Weapons School. She has done very
well by any standard, male or female.
Hobbit
Paul J. Adam <pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<Gv$TWIAw81Q1Ew$i...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <6hm45j$730$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>, M. L. Shettle
> <top...@atl.mindspring.com> writes
> >The Dutch have a realisitic approach to it. They do not bar females,
> >but require them to meet the same standards as the men. The last I
> >heard, none have made it.
>
> Lt. Manja Blok, a Dutch F-16 pilot, made the cover of Jane's Defence
> Weekly a few years ago where she was flying over the former Yugoslavia.
José Herculano
>You wouldn't casually delete the gun from a modern fighter aircraft. But
>I doubt you would now design a fighter with the gun as its _primary_
>weapon...
Picking your last lines, but totally avoiding the theme issue:
I will not be surprised to see an unmanned (or even manned) fighter with
primarily gun armament in the future. A modern design, high-powered, gun,
with some aimming flexibility (meaning some minor degree of independent
movement from the aircraft's own attitude / flightpath), slaved to a system
like a TCS/IRST, with the bird using mostly AWACS datalink, might be
extremelly effective. A small unmanned vehicle, capable of high G, so
equipped would be stealthy, and, once inside the kill zone, virtually
un-jammable. Science Fiction, for sure, but the more I think of it...
José Herculano
_____________________________
http://www.almansur.com/aviation/
Jo...@pseudonym.net
Eric Scheie <eos...@psu.edu> wrote:
You know, Eric, I normally try to keep a civil tongue in my head when
making these posts but, in your case, I may have to make an exception.
|But not ALL females try to become pilots, so not ALL females have been evaluated in that
|respect. The only ones who have been truely evaluated are the ones who have tried to become
|pilots.
This is the third or fourth time you have told me WHO was evaluated,
WHEN they were evaluated, HOW I should characterize my "statistics"
and how inappropriate it is to draw "broad conclusions based on the
performance of a small subset of a larger group."
Each time, I have corrected you. Nonetheless, you continue to make
these same irrational, unfounded and ill-informed objections. Is
English a second language to you or are you just obtuse?
Somehow, you've gotten the idea that I am basing my position on the
results of some tests or evaluations performed only on pilots or pilot
candidates. Precisely where you got this idea, I do not know. It
certainly was not from anything I have posted. I gave references
addressing the differences I was talking about in my very first post
[and attach them again here for the edification of other readers].
Others will immediately notice what you are apparently incapable of
noticing - none of the thirteen references is about, focused on or
limited to female pilots, pilots or pilot training. This, and the
actual titles of the references, would lead a rational person to
conclude that the sex differences to which I am referring exist in the
GENERAL POPULATION.
In fact, these sex differences in visual-spatial and spatio-temporal
ability have been identified, characterized and quantified based on
the testing of literally tens of millions of male and female subjects
over several decades.
|>Typically, the scores (speed, distance, time, accuracy, etc.)
|>for women athletes are 5% to 20% worse (slower, shorter distance,
|>longer time) than for men. Look, I'm not trying to bash women
|>athletes. It's just that your counter-example is no counter-example at
|>all. Just the opposite - it goes to prove my point.
|
|
|Re-read what I wrote. "Physical strength not withstanding..". The examples you've just given
|have a dependence on physical strength. How do the sexes compare in horseracing, archery,
|rifle marksmanship, aerobatics, soaring? Something that is not simply a measure of who can
|pump their arms or legs the fastest. In marksmanship, for example, could there be a reason
|that a surprising number of Viet Cong snipers were female?
How convenient that you snipped out a key sentence of the original
post. What I actually wrote was:
"Even in sports which require minimal strength, you will be hard
pressed to come up with women who hold significant absolute (i.e,
both sexes) records. Typically, the scores (speed, distance, time,
accuracy, etc.) for women athletes are 5% to 20% worse (slower,
shorter distance, longer time) than for men.
If an activity requires NO physical strength, it is, by definition,
NOT a sport:
Sport: n. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that
is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken
competitively.
The problem with comparing sexes in many of the sports you have listed
is that there is little or no mixed competition. In these cases, one
can only compare scores of the top competitors and make some guesses
about how they might order themselves in direct, mixed competition.
In archery, men are significantly better than women. In fact, it would
not be unusual for the top woman in a given tournament to have a score
which would have put her in eighth or tenth or fifteenth position in a
mixed competition. There are some classes of archery competition where
the top-scoring woman may not achieve the maximum possible score while
a dozen or more men will.
In Olympic skeet shooting, there has only been one female gold medal
winner in the entire history of the sport as a mixed competition.
Presumably, that was the motivation for splitting it into separate
male and female competitions starting in 1996.
I have already commented on competitive aerobatics; not to your
satisfaction, of course.
In other "sports", it is unclear how performance is relevant to the
specific cognitive skills involved in combat flying.
In any event, I don't have time to research every single sport you
decide to name in your desperate (and futile) attempt to make your
point. Nothing will convince you because you won't accept any evidence
or logic that conflicts with your preexisting irrational opinions.
|I will agree that not _all_ people are _exactly_ equal in _every_ category of aptitude or
|performance. However, I'd say that a lot of things people held to be true 100 years ago
|regarding the performance of certain ethnic groups or genders have certainly been disproven.
|And here, you are trying to consider the whole female population based on examining only a
|few.
You're very good at expressing ill-informed opinion but you never seem
to present any evidence to support your position. What "things" did
"people" hold true? On what basis were these "things" subsequently
disproved? You really don't want to go here, Eric. This is an area
where I have SUBSTANTIAL expertise.
And again (for the ninety-third time), my position is NOT "based on
examining only a few" unless you consider 100 million "a few".
|>As to civilian aerobatic pilots, this is just a slight variation on
|>your specious "females excel at athletics" argument. The existence of
|>SOME superb female aerobatic pilots proves nothing about the flying
|>skills or flying potential of the "average woman" in the entire
|>population or how that average compares to the male average.
|>
|
|Nor does the lack of skill among SOME females.
It does when "SOME" turns out to be 100 million test subjects.
|As for whatever physical abilities, skills or dexterities (i.e. tracking a moving target) each
|gender is supposed to possess.....
Not "supposed" - PROVED beyond a reasonable doubt and to a scientific
certainty.
|...I would argue that most, if not all, of it is due to how we are raised.
Hey, Eric, you can argue whatever you want. Opinions are like ass
holes - everybody has one. The problem here is that your's are NEVER
supported by facts or evidence.
You are wrong on this point as you have been wrong on most of what you
have posted. I'm not going to bore the rest of the group with a
lengthy discussion of alleles, quantitative trait loci or longitudinal
studies of MZ vs. DZ twins. Just trust me - - you are wrong.
To Readers Other Than Eric: Please excuse the rudeness of this
message. My only defense is that I was provoked.
References (again):
Held, J.D., Alderton. D.E., Poley, P.P., & Segall. D.O. (1993).
Arithmetic reasoning gender differences: Explanations found in the
Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Learning and
Individual Differences 5. 171-186.
Lynn, R (1994). Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A
paradox resolved. Personality and Individual Differences 1 7.257-271.
Law, D. J., Pellegrino, J. W. & Hunt, E. B. (1993) Comparing the
tortoise and the hare: Gender differences and experience in dynamic
spatial reasoning tasks. Psychological Science 4: 35-40.
Linn, M.C., & Petersen, AC. (1985), Emergence and characterization of
sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child
Development, 56, 1479-1498.
Masters, M.S., & Sanders, B. (1993). Is the gender difference in
mental rotation disappearing? Behavior Genetics. 23. 337-341.
Jardine, R, & Martin, N.G. (1983). Spatial ability and throwing
accuracy. Behavior Genetics, 13, 331-340.
Benbow, C.P. (1988), Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability
in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature. effects, and
possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169-232.
Halpern, D. F. (1992) Sex differences in cognitive abilities (second
edition). Erlbaum.
Meehan, A.M. (1984). A meta-analysis of sex differences in formal
operational thought. Child Development 55, 1 1 10-1 124.
Stanley, J.C., Benbow, C.P., Brody, L.E., Dauber, S., & Lupkowski, K
(1992). Gender differences on eighty-six nationally standardized
aptitude and achievement tests. In N. Colangelo, S.G. Assoullne and
D.L. Ambroson (Eds.). Talent development. Vol 1: Proceedings from the
1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on
Talent Development Unionville. NY: Trillium Press.
McGee, M. G. (1979) Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and
environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences.
Psychological Bulletin 86: 889-918.
Gilger, J. W. & Ho, H. Z. (1989) Gender differences in adult spatial
information processing: Their relationship to pubertal timing,
adolescent activities, and sex-typing of personality. Cognitive
Development 4: 197-214.
Voyer, D., Voyer, S. & Bryden, M. P. (1995) Magnitude of sex
differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of
critical variables. Psychological Bulletin 117: 250-70.
Ogden Johnson III
Jo...@Pseudonym.net wrote:
: Eric Scheie <eos...@psu.edu> wrote:
:
: You know, Eric, I normally try to keep a civil tongue in my head when
: making these posts but, in your case, I may have to make an exception.
:
: |But not ALL females try to become pilots, so not ALL females have been evaluated in that
: |respect. The only ones who have been truely evaluated are the ones who have tried to become
: |pilots.
You know, Eric, maybe if you stopped baiting John, he'd stop posting these
~200+ line mini-theses [must be the Psychometrics part of Psuedo
Psychometrics], thus saving whatever part of my eyesight and sanity
remains.
OJ III
[Bracing himself for another 200 lines]
Jo...@pseudonym.net
o...@cpcug.org (Ogden Johnson III) wrote:
|You know, Eric, maybe if you stopped baiting John, he'd stop posting these
|~200+ line mini-theses [must be the Psychometrics part of Psuedo
|Psychometrics], thus saving whatever part of my eyesight and sanity
|remains.
Don't worry, OJ. I'm done! Sorry about the eyesight and sanity. {;-)
Krztalizer
>
>You know, Eric, maybe if you stopped baiting John, he'd stop posting these
>~200+ line mini-theses [must be the Psychometrics part of Psuedo
>Psychometrics], thus saving whatever part of my eyesight and sanity
>remains.
>
The term is "manifesto". :)
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew
"Senso, do you have anything on your radar?"
"Just my forehead, sir." (3a.m. in the Mallaccan Straits)
Gun One
An aiming mechanism would be useless, Jose. The bullet fairs into the
relative wind shortly after leaving the barrel. That's why trying to
rudder the pipper into the banner on a tow/gunnery hop doesn't work ..
the bullet is just going to go the same direction the jet is going, not
the direction it's pointing.
-gun one
José Herculano
>An aiming mechanism would be useless, Jose. The bullet fairs into the
>relative wind shortly after leaving the barrel. That's why trying to
>rudder the pipper into the banner on a tow/gunnery hop doesn't work ..
>the bullet is just going to go the same direction the jet is going, not
>the direction it's pointing.
Indeed you're right... stupid of me... sometimes I seem to forget basic
stuff... but I stand by my view that a guns-only unmanned bird makes some
kind of sense.
Steve Jones
> >An aiming mechanism would be useless, Jose. The bullet fairs into the
> >relative wind shortly after leaving the barrel. That's why trying to
> >rudder the pipper into the banner on a tow/gunnery hop doesn't work ..
> >the bullet is just going to go the same direction the jet is going, not
> >the direction it's pointing.
Actually, guys, its not a matter a wind as much as a matter a physics. Add
the vector of the planes actual motion (the velocity vector, putting in
rudder just "slips" the plane sideways) and the vector from the gun
boreline. The air will mostly just slow the bullets down, not change thier
direction.
reverend...@gmail.com
> I'm no expert, but I just cannot understand how can anyone blame the Navy
> and say that any Turkey driver, who is CQ (never mind gender, requirements
> are the same for m/f pilots) was underqualified to fly off a carrier. I
> know male aviators in deep shit for trying to take a close look of the spud
> locker.
> The affirmation that the crash occured because Lt Hultgreen's CQ was a
> political consideration, well, it sounds pretty sexist to me.
> I'm truly sorry 'bout the crash. But as any Naval aviator, Combat ready, CQ
> and all, I think Kara was Sierra Hotel to me. And don't give me that shit
> that she was aboard because she was a woman and the Navy needed Turkey
> female drivers around for politics. I think that's bullshit. Men also makes
> disastrous approaches. And my experience is that women learn faster and are
> more elegant in their flying than men, at last in their first phases.
>
> The Jam
Actually She failed night traps 4 time men 3 and they're out of the program. There was politics involve some older lady in a suit don't remember her name came in the PR shop to "talk" to her after Kara was pissed off. I talked with her and the other 4 female pilots a lot I made the names tags for tailhook I fitted their gear because I wasn't afraid of sexual harassment they knew me well enough to work on their ability to pee during flight years later it's a as sold on tv "she=wiz. She wasn't ready when she got nervous she went upstairs to lift weights
reverend...@gmail.com
> >
> >How does a woman F-14 pilot improve/downgrade the Navy?
> >
> >I'm a clueless pencil-pushing male civilian, but interested in receiving the
> >most military punch for my hard earned tax dollars.
> >
>
> If she is a good stick and level-headed aviator, then she helps it. If she
> loses her life by stalling an aircraft during what should be a simple single
> engine wave-off, well...then, I would say it says volumes about her
> capabilities. I had good female pilots in HSL-31 and VRC-30. To me, they
> seemed no different (any reference to 'elegance' or 'need for physical
> strength' mean *nothing* in the air) and just like male pilots, you have to
> judge them individually. One of my female pilots ran her SH-2D out of gas and
> crashed it into the ocean during a PAX ferry flight. Stupidity. But, my Exec
> Officer CDR Sauter did the same damn thing and was lucky enough to nurse it
> back to shore before we flamed out. Does that make Sauter a better pilot than
> the wet lady? Not in the least.
>
> The bottom line is that as long as the military is based on sexist, centuries
> old prejudices, then we will have over reactions and accidents caused by the
> upper echelon folks demands the bar be raised or lowered without regard for the
> unchanging demands of military flying. The Russians had fighter pilots in WW
> II that were female, and there was never a word spoken about their sex, just
> their abilities. THATS the way it SHOULD be.
>
> Kara, you did your best. Although it didn't go the best way, you opened the
> door for others, who WILL make it. After all the BS, of course.
>
> Gordon
>
> <====(A+C====>
>
> "How can you be so sure that it's an Echo II?" Nightdipper Pilot
> "Because it just broached. Three o'clock...low." Nightdipper First Crewman
The other female pilots passed quals in vf-124 you got to admit Lt. Horn in vrc-30 was very muscular and very hot