My apologies if its been posted before... I"m flatly AMAZED and HUMBLED watching these clips.. first gives a link to the second.. second is well worth watching for sure. I think its a total of 20 minutes but it seemed like it flew by.. no pun intended.
My apologies if its been posted before... I"m flatly AMAZED and HUMBLED watching these clips.. first gives a link to the second.. second is well worth watching for sure. I think its a total of 20 minutes but it seemed like it flew by.. no pun intended.
Does anyone know what the washout rate is for carrier pilot/naval aviator candidates from start to finish? It's got to be way up there for the overall process. Considering what the the basic physical and mental requirements probably are to even be considered for training I've got to believe very few people can do that.
The main reason why I went Air Force. Landing a jet on a fixed runway at night and bad weather is tense enough.
In my second book, I describe what it's like to land a blacked-out plane on a blacked-out runway, on a moonless night, while taking ground fire. Black hole doesn't begin to describe it.
Back in the 60s the navy wanted me to fly. Back them some of the pilots died learning to fly in Pensacola. bunch more died learning how to take off and land on the carriers. I thought about it and decided there was way too much chance to die before they started shooting at me and passed. I was really glad after I saw a bunch of them crash and we never got one back alive. Flying an F4 would have been a rush, but those things were as aerodynamic as a stone at low speed. I never regretted that decision for even a second.
In 63 the Marines offered me flight school, because of my size they said transport or helicopter but I'd have to sign on for 6 years. Being 18 it just didn't sound good so I passed. Well ya'll know what happened starting about 1964. One of the few times I was right in some of my choices.
Does anyone know what the washout rate is for carrier pilot/naval aviator candidates from start to finish? It's got to be way up there for the overall process. Considering what the the basic physical and mental requirements probably are to even be considered for training I've got to believe very few people can do that.
It USED to be around a 90% washout rate, that is from walking in the hatch at the recruiting office to reporting to your first operational squadron and most of that came in the initial reporting, Aviation Officer Candidate School with USMC DI's living in your ass, lots of PT, etc, followed by a very rigorous and equally intimidating process through flight training. Then came the women and a female admiral head the Navy's training operations that had no clue, so she significantly reduced the pressure points going in, and all that did was move the attrition rate to the right, meaning at much higer cost to the taxpayer. My last job in the Navy was Director of the Aviation Training School and that a a low atrition rate ~ 10% or so, then it spiked up in Primary, REALLY spiked up in intermediate, then settled down again until you reported to the FRS (essentially "Type" school).
Loved the video, especially watching those "Hud Cripple" Hornet pukes boltering, then whinning about a 700 mile Blue Water Ops. Piece of cake in the ol' Viking Oh yeah, and I about threw a shoe at the screen when I heard that non-flying bitch and that other dude "critiquing" the landings. I would have loved to have taken those two up in those conditions and watched as they slowly sucked up the seat cushion in those Marti-Baker (or in my case ESCAPAC) seats! :::SIGH::: now I'm depressed... One more thing, hey Bristoe you worthless puke, the only "affirmative action" there is called the ramp-strike... jorge
I always thought those pilots were just supermen with balls of brass, or just plain fricking nuts. Probably both.
Back on board with a nice single malt scotch and some private time with Ensign Clapp (The red head) would take the edge off. Might want to make a few traps right there.
Not a drop aboard those steel airports, crosshair. ANOTHER reason I went AF! There are times when you do need a stiff one - and I'm not referring to that (probably) appropriately named ensign.
In 63 the Marines offered me flight school, because of my size they said transport or helicopter but I'd have to sign on for 6 years. Being 18 it just didn't sound good so I passed. Well ya'll know what happened starting about 1964. One of the few times I was right in some of my choices.
After '64 the army in particular came calling every week looking for people who wanted to fly helicopters. That would have been about the only job possible that was lees appealing than anything else they had to offer from turd inspector on up. Not only "no thank you sir" but also "please don't waste your time asking me again"
Not a drop aboard those steel airports, crosshair. ANOTHER reason I went AF! There are times when you do need a stiff one - and I'm not referring to that (probably) appropriately named ensign.
You could always find a good year of single-malt "mouthwash" or some such concoction. Although, for blended refreshments, you have to make sure you time the blender with the cat stroke during launch or cable getting pulled out on a landing.
Does anyone know what the washout rate is for carrier pilot/naval aviator candidates from start to finish? It's got to be way up there for the overall process. Considering what the the basic physical and mental requirements probably are to even be considered for training I've got to believe very few people can do that.
It USED to be around a 90% washout rate, that is from walking in the hatch at the recruiting office to reporting to your first operational squadron and most of that came in the initial reporting, Aviation Officer Candidate School with USMC DI's living in your ass, lots of PT, etc, followed by a very rigorous and equally intimidating process through flight training. Then came the women and a female admiral head the Navy's training operations that had no clue, so she significantly reduced the pressure points going in, and all that did was move the attrition rate to the right, meaning at much higer cost to the taxpayer. My last job in the Navy was Director of the Aviation Training School and that a a low atrition rate ~ 10% or so, then it spiked up in Primary, REALLY spiked up in intermediate, then settled down again until you reported to the FRS (essentially "Type" school).
Loved the video, especially watching those "Hud Cripple" Hornet pukes boltering, then whinning about a 700 mile Blue Water Ops. Piece of cake in the ol' Viking Oh yeah, and I about threw a shoe at the screen when I heard that non-flying bitch and that other dude "critiquing" the landings. I would have loved to have taken those two up in those conditions and watched as they slowly sucked up the seat cushion in those Marti-Baker (or in my case ESCAPAC) seats! :::SIGH::: now I'm depressed... One more thing, hey Bristoe you worthless puke, the only "affirmative action" there is called the ramp-strike... jorge
One of my coworkers has a son that is an F-18 pilot. He is currently completing his training and will be finished soon I understand. His father is a chemist at my company and his mother is a Commercial pilot. He's been flying since he was very young....
The main reason why I went Air Force. Landing a jet on a fixed runway at night and bad weather is tense enough.
In my second book, I describe what it's like to land a blacked-out plane on a blacked-out runway, on a moonless night, while taking ground fire. Black hole doesn't begin to describe it.
Rocky, I have to confess to an Air Force crime. Hope you weren't the victim.
I was a 2 striper at KI Sawyer in 79. I owned a genuine US Navy Flier's leather coat with the fur collar, unlike the plain collar USAF leather Jacket. One night I was out to dinner with my wife and there was an Air Force 1st Lt at the bar regaling a comely young lass with his flying prowess using the typical double handed gestures to simulate the platform he was flying which at the time was the F106 Delta Dart. Since a lot of Navy pukes landed at KI from time to time, I saw him eyeing my leather quite often.
When I got up to pay the bill, I stopped and looked the young gal in the eye and said: "Ma'am, I'm sure flying the Delta Dart is exciting, but until you've landed an F-4 on the pitching deck of an Air Craft Carrier in the middle of the night, you haven't experienced real excitement."
With that, I nodded to the LT and walked out into the night with my wife. Thankfully, I never ran into that LT while standing the gate in uniform or my demise would have been total.
Not a drop aboard those steel airports, crosshair. ANOTHER reason I went AF! There are times when you do need a stiff one - and I'm not referring to that (probably) appropriately named ensign.
You could always find a good year of single-malt "mouthwash" or some such concoction. Although, for blended refreshments, you have to make sure you time the blender with the cat stroke during launch or cable getting pulled out on a landing.
Hate to tell you guy, General order 99 is probably one of the most overlooked thing in the Navy, but only by high ranking officers. But, officially, other than beer days, you are correct.
Someone asked what the attrition rate is... the inputs into Primary flight training (T-34's) USED TO allow for about for about 14% I believe. Now, that is AFTER all the aptitude screening tests, physical,physical fitness tests,altitude chamber, swim quals, etc. Then in the jet pipeline when we flew T-2's and TA-4j's, it was about 7% at each of those two levels so as JorjeI said, I wouldn't be surprised if the total attrition rate from application to wings is around 90%. Those were the rates that were planned for with the inputs to ensure we got enough out the end with their wings to give the RAG's (Replacement Air Groups), now called FRS's (Fleet Replacement Squadrons) enough guys to fill the "fleet seats" they need to fill.
Things are a little different now that the "Jet/Strike pipeline" only consists of the T-45 but the object is still to get rid of weak students early because the cost of operating the aircraft at each level rises dramatically and passing them along usually just delays the invevitable and costs a lot of money.
A pitching deck, adds quite a bit to the pucker factor but especially so at night. When you're sitting in your jet during start and you can feel the jet slamming against the tie down chains as the ship rocks and rolls, you know it's not going to be fun getting aboard in 1 plus 30 or 45. The Midway was a little smaller than the current CV's and when we got into huge "rollers" off of Perth or in NorPac, it wasn't unusual (daytime) to roll into the groove and see the screws come out of the water when the bow went down and it looked like you were looking dead level with the landing area. Then a couple of seconds later it seemed like you were looking down from thirty degrees above when it pitched up. After you got aboard you were usually just happy you didn't break the jet. The adrenaline really hits after you're on deck and I'll be the first to admit it's tough trying to taxi around and control the nosewheel steering and/or brakes with legs that are shaking like a leaf on a tree. It could be a 0200 or 0300 recovery after you've been up all day and it would still take two or three hours to calm down enough to go to sleep. It was fun to talk about in the Ready Room...AFTER IT WAS OVER!!!
As a retired "Old Fart", I instruct in the T-45 visual trainers we have here at NAS Meridian which are really pretty good. We give the students several simulator flights before they go to the boat so they can see what the pattern looks like and learn to deal with various emergencies on/around the boat. If they're doing well in the day pattern, I'll turn the lights down and let them see what a night pass looks like. After it's over they usually have one of two reactions. 1-"That's pretty neat Sir" or, 2-"Holy S--t Sir". Now, to show you how intense night passes are, I've got over 200 night traps and it's been over 20 years since my last night pass but it STILL MAKES MY PALMS SWEAT, MY HEART RATE GO UP AND MY STOMACH TIGHTEN just looking over their shoulder! You can never forget that feeling!!!
Does anyone know what the washout rate is for carrier pilot/naval aviator candidates from start to finish? It's got to be way up there for the overall process. Considering what the the basic physical and mental requirements probably are to even be considered for training I've got to believe very few people can do that.
It USED to be around a 90% washout rate, that is from walking in the hatch at the recruiting office to reporting to your first operational squadron and most of that came in the initial reporting, Aviation Officer Candidate School with USMC DI's living in your ass, lots of PT, etc, followed by a very rigorous and equally intimidating process through flight training. Then came the women and a female admiral head the Navy's training operations that had no clue, so she significantly reduced the pressure points going in, and all that did was move the attrition rate to the right, meaning at much higer cost to the taxpayer. My last job in the Navy was Director of the Aviation Training School and that a a low atrition rate ~ 10% or so, then it spiked up in Primary, REALLY spiked up in intermediate, then settled down again until you reported to the FRS (essentially "Type" school).
Loved the video, especially watching those "Hud Cripple" Hornet pukes boltering, then whinning about a 700 mile Blue Water Ops. Piece of cake in the ol' Viking Oh yeah, and I about threw a shoe at the screen when I heard that non-flying bitch and that other dude "critiquing" the landings. I would have loved to have taken those two up in those conditions and watched as they slowly sucked up the seat cushion in those Marti-Baker (or in my case ESCAPAC) seats! :::SIGH::: now I'm depressed... One more thing, hey Bristoe you worthless puke, the only "affirmative action" there is called the ramp-strike... jorge
Jorge:
What is your take on the Kara Hultgren deal??
I was in N-3/5 when that happened and I'm intimately familiar with her, Rosemay Mariner, and a host of others. The Navy first blamed it on the [bleep] F-14A engines but later retracted that and correctly admitted pilot error. Bottom line, the Navy killed her on the altar of political correctness. She had no business flying Tomcats or for that matter ANY carrier based platform. jorge
I had a buddy that was an IP at Saufley Field when the very first females came through. He said they had an "all instructor meeting" before the women got there and they were told the women would be treated "just like the guys". Well when they showed up they had BLUE flight suits!!! and the Vietnam style flight jackets that were getting hard to find!
If I remember correctly they didn't have to climb over the eight (?) foot wall that washed out a lot of guys on the obstacle course; they got to go around it.
I believe what got Hultgren was she was trying to use a lot of left rudder to avoid overshooting centerline in the groove, thereby blanking the left intake which caused a compressor stall on the left engine. Then, in trying to add power to go around, the assymetric thrust of the right engine caused the a/c to yaw hard and depart to the left. Splash. I think the LSO's had railed on her about doing that in the past but there are a lot of other, earlier parts to the story like how she got through Carquals in the RAG, etc.
Undoubtedly she wasn't the first nor last naval aviator to fail carrier qualification the first time around (see below excerpt from her Wikipedia article), but you can bet there were people at the highest levels of the government who were going to make sure she was going to pass one way or another regardless of whose lives were put in danger. As it turns out, I'm glad her RIO didn't die for her fatal mistake (and the mistakes of those who put her in a position to kill herself and possibly others).
from Wikipedia----------- While with Fleet Replacement Squadron VF-124, Hultgreen failed her first attempt at carrier qualification. Hultgreen successfully carrier-qualified during a second period aboard USS Constellation (CV-64) in the summer of 1994, becoming the first "combat qualified" female Naval Aviator.[2] --------------------------
I had a buddy that was an IP at Saufley Field when the very first females came through. He said they had an "all instructor meeting" before the women got there and they were told the women would be treated "just like the guys". Well when they showed up they had BLUE flight suits!!! and the Vietnam style flight jackets that were getting hard to find!
If I remember correctly they didn't have to climb over the eight (?) foot wall that washed out a lot of guys on the obstacle course; they got to go around it.
I believe what got Hultgren was she was trying to use a lot of left rudder to avoid overshooting centerline in the groove, thereby blanking the left intake which caused a compressor stall on the left engine. Then, in trying to add power to go around, the assymetric thrust of the right engine caused the a/c to yaw hard and depart to the left. Splash. I think the LSO's had railed on her about doing that in the past but there are a lot of other, earlier parts to the story like how she got through Carquals in the RAG, etc.
Spot on and the obstacle course was removed in 2005 allthogether because it was a "safety hazard"..
I never understood why the Navy stuck with the unreliable TF-30s in the F14s when the Pratt F100 was available and flying in the F-15 and F-16 only a few years later. But, maybe there is more to retro-fitting an engine than this mere mortal can comprehend.
Anyway, they got it right when the Pentagon decreed engine commonality for the F-14, F-15, and F-16 by going to the G.E. F110. But by then Cheney had already laid plans to kill the F-14D, so very few of them were ever built.
Wykie is wrong (again) there were others before her, like Capt Rosemary Mariner..
Rosemary Mariner's wikipedia article doesn't state that she was "combat qualified," whatever that means. Perhaps she was and the article just doesn't mention it. Here's an excerpt:
from wikipedia:------------ Mariner was among the first female military aviators to fly tactical jet aircraft, the A-4E/L Skyhawk, in 1975. In 1976, she converted to the A-7E Corsair II, the first woman to fly a front-line light attack aircraft.
In 1990 Mariner became the first military woman to command an operational aviation squadron and was selected for major aviation shore command. During Operation Desert Storm, she commanded Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron Thirty Four (VAQ-34).[4] Mariner was president of the Women Military Aviators organization from 1991 to 1993.[5] ----------------------------
Long long ago in the Vietnam era, we kept flying until the tending destroyer could no longer keep up. Flight ops could have kept going, but they needed to have someone behind the ship to pick up pieces. I felt especially sorry for the destroyer crew, as everthing but the tower would disappear when they plunged into the waves. We were close enough to shore though that folks could go to the beach if fuel got low.
We got everyone one down and quit for about 10 hrs until the seas settled. Guys were coming out of the cockpits completely soaked in perspiration, white as a sheet, and shaking like they had just IVed a quadruple shot of meth. We only damaged one plane that night when he caught the cable before the wheels hit the deck. He bounced about 20 ft in the air and dragged the starboard wing tip as the plane slammed down. It took about a day to replace the wing section and he was back up. Once they were parked, we had 24 chains holding each craft on the deck. As one tightens up the chains, the struts get compressed, and it's quite an adventure just breaking the chains loose when it's time to roll again. Most definitely scary at night, and one does not screw up on the low side. Gets the heart up just watching the video.
Every flight deck member more than deserves his pay check, especially the tail hook man. He's got to race out there, duck the engine blasts, wrestle the cable off the hook, and get out of the way before the next one comes in. Hiding on the deck behind a 3 ft high tractor and watching planes go by about 20 yds away is not for the faint of heart. There are no adjectives capable of describing the flight deck. One has to experience it.
you answered your own question in the penultimate paragraph. She also tried to carrier qual in the FA-18 and she was told to LEAVE the airspace by the CO of the ship after some scary passes. A good friend of mine was the AIRPAC LSO and was on the platform told me the story. Also when she was XO of that squadron, they were getting ready to "Trans-Pac" in the A-7 requiring multiple "Blue Water" in flight refueling evolutions. She gave the mission to her Maintenance Officer because she did not feel comfortable with her tanking skills. A CO or XO needs to set the standard and a MALE XO would have been relieved and FNAEB'd (Field Naval Aviator Evaluation Board, not a good thing) on the spot. They've ruined the brotherhood.
I never understood why the Navy stuck with the unreliable TF-30s in the F14s when the Pratt F100 was available and flying in the F-15 and F-16 only a few years later. But, maybe there is more to retro-fitting an engine than this mere mortal can comprehend.
Anyway, they got it right when the Pentagon decreed engine commonality for the F-14, F-15, and F-16 by going to the G.E. F110. But by then Cheney had already laid plans to kill the F-14D, so very few of them were ever built.
TF-30s were bad juju. I was fortunate in that all but ~200hrs of the F-14 time is in GE powered Toms. The GEs either worked or they didn't, and when they didn't it was often spectacular but that was an exceedingly rare occurrence. The TFs would have an issue on a somewhat regular basis, but they would restart easily.
When I transitioned from the Phantom to the Tomcat (the A version) the RAG kept pounding into us that you couldn't slam the throttles around like you could with the J-79 of the F-4. I may have been lucky but in 850 hrs or so in the Tomcat, I never really had a full fledged compressor stall but I did have an "inlet buzz" (I believe that's what it was called in the NATOPS manual) which was like a minor "burp". I know in our squadron when we were working off the boat, one of our mandatory briefing items was "compressor stall off the cat". I think i could still recite it even after more than 20 yrs.
Loved the video, especially watching those "Hud Cripple" Hornet pukes boltering, then whinning about a 700 mile Blue Water Ops. Piece of cake in the ol' Viking
Aw comeon! You guys are just jealous that we messed up the curve on your boat grades!
In 1990 Mariner became the first military woman to command an operational aviation squadron and was selected for major aviation shore command. During Operation Desert Storm, she commanded Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron Thirty Four (VAQ-34).[
VAQ-34 was a Fleet Electronic Warfare Support Group (FEWSG) squadron that did EW simulations for the fleet. While it doesn't say she was there it alludes to it and in reality she was 10,000 miles from Desert Storm.
As far as the video, even with over 500 traps in EA-6B's (and a couple in Jorge's best girl the S-3B) , the last in 07 on Truman, it still makes me sweat a little.
As far as Hultgreen, she was in VAQ-33 flying EA-6A's when I was on my second tour flying EA-6B's with VAQ-35 and it was only through my pilot being quick with a -3 g push that she didn't kill me and my crew coming off a KC-135 tanker on the wrong side one day in W-291 in So Cal. We were not amused and she couldn't figure out why my pilot threw the tanker NATOPS at her in the ready room afterward. She was a quota with a giant ego and lesser skills and thank god her RIO got out.
Loved the video, especially watching those "Hud Cripple" Hornet pukes boltering, then whinning about a 700 mile Blue Water Ops. Piece of cake in the ol' Viking
Aw comeon! You guys are just jealous that we messed up the curve on your boat grades!
Nice to know you guys admitted to "Mulligans"
You know, after my first tour in S-3As I went to PG school then to the Pentagon in the old OP-07. Worked for a real nice gent named Chuck McGrail and Burner Bob Hickey. They offered me a transition and I turned it down knowing that often-times cross-breeds don't do well as far as Command selection. I already had made my bones in the S-3 so I stuck with them and I'm glad I did. At least I had the opportunity to do the Top Gun thing and that came in handy when the Viking community started a DCM program, it was a LOT of fun. The old Guard in the S-3 world hated it claiming with some validity we were shortening the fatigue life of the S-3, but at close to 16.5 deg/sec turn rate, it was fun to turn inside the pointy nose guys, unless of course they took it in the vertical then we were toast! jorge
I don't see what was wrong with the women you hate so bad in the military, and her other dude in there watching teh scope and rooting for the pilots.
What am I missing there?
Jeff
They weren't rooting, they were critiquing the pass and offering corrections. At least you pegged my views on females..
I kinda have ya figured for a women are good for one thing kinda guy and thats your business, same as it is mine. Of course I know there are women out there that are better than many men, regardless the job at times. But I digress.
I see your point. I didn't consider it critiquing, I saw in them come on please get it down safely. I didn't take away that they were sittin there saying, what a dumbass, if he had done this or that he'd have trapped.
But thats what I like about the campfire, most folks will come back and answer the question. Much appreciate your candor and though its been some time since I"ve said it, never a day goes by without my thinking it multiple times. If not for folks like you (and clapper....) we would not be speaking English and free today. MANY thanks for all the risks you and other service members chose (choose) to take and still take today for us.
I had a buddy that was an IP at Saufley Field when the very first females came through. He said they had an "all instructor meeting" before the women got there and they were told the women would be treated "just like the guys". Well when they showed up they had BLUE flight suits!!! and the Vietnam style flight jackets that were getting hard to find!
If I remember correctly they didn't have to climb over the eight (?) foot wall that washed out a lot of guys on the obstacle course; they got to go around it.
I believe what got Hultgren was she was trying to use a lot of left rudder to avoid overshooting centerline in the groove, thereby blanking the left intake which caused a compressor stall on the left engine. Then, in trying to add power to go around, the assymetric thrust of the right engine caused the a/c to yaw hard and depart to the left. Splash. I think the LSO's had railed on her about doing that in the past but there are a lot of other, earlier parts to the story like how she got through Carquals in the RAG, etc.
Spot on and the obstacle course was removed in 2005 allthogether because it was a "safety hazard"..
And therein lies the issues that arise... why make anything simpler for women, if they want it, then they can do it the way it always has been. I see no issue with that. My wife is only around 115 pounds or so, and yet when we backpack in for an elk hunt, she's packing 70 pounds pretty easy, and there isn't much that stands in her way athletically.
I figure that not changing things will wash out most female candidates but I do NOT see the need in making things easy to just get them in.
I do NOT see the need to keep out the ones that would qualify the normal way though.
Neither makes any sense. You judge people on performance, not color, sex etc....
The problem with females in the military isn't that they can't hack it. There is a percentage that can. The problem is, whenever they are admitted to a new community within the military, that community's standards are altered for the sake of integrating women. It happens every time.
I do enjoy all these salty NAs and NFOs shootin' the sht.
Does anyone know what the washout rate is for carrier pilot/naval aviator candidates from start to finish? It's got to be way up there for the overall process. Considering what the the basic physical and mental requirements probably are to even be considered for training I've got to believe very few people can do that.
It USED to be around a 90% washout rate, that is from walking in the hatch at the recruiting office to reporting to your first operational squadron and most of that came in the initial reporting, Aviation Officer Candidate School with USMC DI's living in your ass, lots of PT, etc, followed by a very rigorous and equally intimidating process through flight training. Then came the women and a female admiral head the Navy's training operations that had no clue, so she significantly reduced the pressure points going in, and all that did was move the attrition rate to the right, meaning at much higer cost to the taxpayer. My last job in the Navy was Director of the Aviation Training School and that a a low atrition rate ~ 10% or so, then it spiked up in Primary, REALLY spiked up in intermediate, then settled down again until you reported to the FRS (essentially "Type" school).
Loved the video, especially watching those "Hud Cripple" Hornet pukes boltering, then whinning about a 700 mile Blue Water Ops. Piece of cake in the ol' Viking Oh yeah, and I about threw a shoe at the screen when I heard that non-flying bitch and that other dude "critiquing" the landings. I would have loved to have taken those two up in those conditions and watched as they slowly sucked up the seat cushion in those Marti-Baker (or in my case ESCAPAC) seats! :::SIGH::: now I'm depressed... One more thing, hey Bristoe you worthless puke, the only "affirmative action" there is called the ramp-strike... jorge
Jorge:
What is your take on the Kara Hultgren deal??
I was in N-3/5 when that happened and I'm intimately familiar with her, Rosemay Mariner, and a host of others. The Navy first blamed it on the [bleep] F-14A engines but later retracted that and correctly admitted pilot error. Bottom line, the Navy killed her on the altar of political correctness. She had no business flying Tomcats or for that matter ANY carrier based platform. jorge
That is my opinion as well. There was a great article years ago in a magazine called "Heterodoxy" (edited by David Horowitz---not sure if it is still published) that made a pretty compelling case for the thesis you stated above.
Do I detect a hint of impatience in the spotter's (is that the right word) voice? I presume he knew something about the pilot which might explain the tone in his voice, which seems less than complementary to her. Am I reading too much into this??
Costly Affirmative Action Remember Navy Lt. Kara Hultgreen who was killed attempting to land her $38 million F-14A Tomcat fighter on the USS Abraham Lincoln? The Navy's official public report was the crash "was precipitated by a malfunction of the left engine." Questions about pilot error were greeted with charges of sexism. ABC's Peter Jennings said there had been a "vicious campaign against allowing women to serve in combat."
According to John Corry's summary in the American Spectator (June 1995) and a report of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), the government and media version of Lt. Hultgreen's accident is part of the continuing saga of government deceit and media complicity. But here's what really happened.
On approach to the USS Abraham Lincoln, Lt. Hultgreen made five major errors and ignored repeated wave-off signals by ship's landing officer. One of those errors caused the F-14A's left engine to stall, sending the plane out of control, because Lt. Hultgreen mistakenly jammed on the rudder. In the twenty years of F-14A's service, no pilot had ever stalled an engine this way. In an effort to back up their lie that the crash was due to engine failure, the Navy selected nine male pilots to "fly" through Lt. Hultgreen's pre-crash conditions in a ground simulator.
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jeremy M. Boorda reported "the situation was re-created in an F-14 flight simulator. Eight of nine pilots in the simulator were unable to fly the plane out of the replicated regime." What Admiral Boorda failed to say was that the male pilots had been ordered not to execute the F-14A manual's so-called Bold Face Instructions, the critical things a pilot must do to fly through an emergency similar to Lt. Hultgreen's.
Documents obtained by Elaine Donnelly, director of CMR, shows that Lt. Hultgreen not only had subpar performance on several phases of her training but had four "downs" (major errors), just one or two of which are sufficient to justify the dismissal of a trainee. The White House and Congress' political pressure to get more women in combat is the direct cause of Lt. Hultgreen's death. But the story doesn't end there. A second female F-14A pilot, identified by Elaine Donnelly only as Pilot B, has been allowed to continue training despite marginal scores and seven "downs", the last of which was not recorded so she could pass the final stages of training.
These double standards are destructive in several important ways. They risk the lives not only of young women like Lt. Hultgreen and Pilot B but the lives of fellow military men and women. They dumb-down aviation standards. After all what do we do when a male F-14A trainee, washed out because he had four "downs" and subpar performance, accuses the Navy of sex discrimination? In the name of sex equality, do we lower standards for males? Finally, special concessions for female pilots undermine military morale and respect.
The Hultgreen incident demands several responses. The first is courts-martial of the Navy officers who deliberately submitted false and misleading reports about the incident. Second, Senators Strom Thurmond, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Sam Nunn, its ranking member, must call hearings. If the Navy establishes double standards for female aviation trainees, families of those exposed to unnecessary death should be informed and the nation should debate wisdom of the Navy's affirmative action policy. Then there's the pure military mission question: how much military efficiency are we prepared to sacrifice to promote the leftist quota vision?
Walter E. Williams May 24, 1995 Return to Articles page
The ACLS is so accurate on the F-18s that they move the landing spot around intentionally to avoid excessive wear in one spot of the deck. The pilots are "hands-off" until touchdown, in most cases. Now, the old f-14 pilots have the brass nuggets,brains, and braun. You can look at the two groups of pilots (F-18 vs F-14) and tell there is a distinct difference in those men.
The ACLS is so accurate on the F-18s that they move the landing spot around intentionally to avoid excessive wear in one spot of the deck. The pilots are "hands-off" until touchdown, in most cases.
I don't know about the Hornet E/F but the A-C models I cruised with only used ACLS in an auto throttle mode during a Case I day pattern so they only had to adjust Angle of Attack and power was adjusted auto-magically to keep them on-speed.
It doesn't have anything to do with wearing out the deck. That is largely controlled by the Landing Signal Officer adjusting the fresnel lense (the ball) targeting certain wires and the Aviator being able to fly the ball to touch down. It's a routine operation as the wires have to be replaced every so often (100 traps IIRC) so they will shift targets between the 3/4 wire routinely to make sure a wire replacement can be done between operation cycles.
If someone was wearing a Top Hook patch on their jacket for the best landing grades in a line period and they were an EA-6B/A-6/F-14 Aviator you knew they were a good stick. If it was a Hornet guy? Eh, it was the jet.
Interesting video. An old Crusader pilot I met many years ago had more fear of night launches in such conditions than landings. Dunno one way or another. Blacked out approaches to LZ's defined by tracers sucked.
Well my friend, many thanks for the kind words but you are missing one huge point in the female argument. Prefacing first, you oversimplify my opinion of them and I've been on the record that I've seen some excellent stick and throttle females. If that was the only measure, then by all means.
The issues come up and we see them virtually every day with CO's and senior people being fired, is by just their presence, they change the entire dynamic of the male warrior culture that has come about through thousands of years of evolution and trial and error. No DOUBT many women DO fly very well and probably as I type this, a few of them are "calling the ball" behind the boat. That, even though is a huge component does not a warrior make. The entire Ready Room atmosphere changes and the sexual aspect takes over, indeed permeating the entire ship and I can tell you from experience that is a HUGE detractor.
Then there are the other issues the powers that be conveniently refuse to address like capture and POWs and of course the lowering of standards in training-and not just in Naval Aviation either, we see it in the police, fire and other disciplines. In the Navy where I can speak with some authority, I saw things like obstacle courses, boxing, hand-to-hand training, tougher disciplinary standards and more, all go away to accomodate the softer sex. And I'll leave you with a few statistics to ponder; The pregnancy ratio for female E-4s and below during their first sea tour hovers around the mid sixty percentile mark, meaning that during the normal three year enlistment when they are eligible for sea duty, that many get pregnant and to better refine that stat, most happen either right before or during deployments. So what happens? well the command gets little or no replacements and the men have to pick up the slack and those that remain and do a good job still leave us with the sexual dynamic that no amount of saltpeter in the food can mitigate.
History has shown that war and the martial professions are no place for women, if they were, the battlefields from Hastings, to Waterloo, Gettysburg, Verdun, Iwo Jima, Ia Drang Valley etcetera would have been littered with corpes of both sexes. There's a reason as to why they weren't and your Elk hunting experience has ZERO correlation to what I'm talking about. jorge
Spot on article and that reclama was sheepishly admitted by the Navy PAO. Man, the mention of Mike Boorda brought back some sad memories. He was my "sea daddy" and he went and killed himself. Talk about bad luck for me. Had he not done that cowardly act to his family, I probably would still be in and I'd like to think not drinking the kool-aid our present Flag and General officers seem to consume in gallons. jorge
I didn't mean the elk hunting thing to mean my wife was war capable, just simply saying not all women are the same, some can be very capable.
Of course IF performance was the only thing, women would be fine, but as you point out, its evident we have to let things slide for some reason(very stupid IMHO) when we deal with women. But its not their fault, its the idiots in charge that make these stupid decisions.
I personally can't understand the sexual aspect of it. Theres time for that, and theres' time for your job. Pretty simple for me to seperate but evidently most males cannot for some reason.
And don't take any of my comments as a jab at you personally, I"m just learning here and you are taking the time to comment and I appreciate that.
No offense taken but your second paragraph leads me to believe you still don't capture what I am trying to say. When you put five thousand men and women whose average age is 19 on a floating 1000'X200' container, you just can't repress that and that in those RARE ocassions where a good looking female walks into a space, the first thoughts are not "gee I wonder what her flying skills are" but rather how one could improve her looks with my balls on her chin. I'm being purposely graphic but that is EXACTLY what happens. And males AND females hormones play, but males, infused with a LOT more testosterone are more aggressive(another issue we've not discussed and probably the main reason men do what they do). I don't care if they can do the fundamentals, we are a lesser armed force with women in the way. jorge
No offense taken but your second paragraph leads me to believe you still don't capture what I am trying to say. When you put five thousand men and women whose average age is 19 on a floating 1000'X200' container, you just can't repress that and that in those RARE ocassions where a good looking female walks into a space, the first thoughts are not "gee I wonder what her flying skills are" but rather how one could improve her looks with my balls on her chin. I'm being purposely graphic but that is EXACTLY what happens. And males AND females hormones play, but males, infused with a LOT more testosterone are more aggressive(another issue we've not discussed and probably the main reason men do what they do). I don't care if they can do the fundamentals, we are a lesser armed force with women in the way. jorge
Back to the F-18s, I thought it was fascinating how fast the control surfaces moved on that one jet as it was landing. It reminded me of a bird landing on a fence post, what with its tail and wings moving in all sorts of different ways.
As far as what Jorge says, I am inclined to agree, even though I have no military experience personally. Just my $0.02 worth.
No offense taken but your second paragraph leads me to believe you still don't capture what I am trying to say. When you put five thousand men and women whose average age is 19 on a floating 1000'X200' container, you just can't repress that and that in those RARE ocassions where a good looking female walks into a space, the first thoughts are not "gee I wonder what her flying skills are" but rather how one could improve her looks with my balls on her chin. I'm being purposely graphic but that is EXACTLY what happens. And males AND females hormones play, but males, infused with a LOT more testosterone are more aggressive(another issue we've not discussed and probably the main reason men do what they do). I don't care if they can do the fundamentals, we are a lesser armed force with women in the way. jorge
I get it now, I always assume everyone is like I am I guess. You turn it off and on when required etc.... and yeah, you are almost 99.9 percent probably dead on, with that many on board, some are gonna crack. I know I can damn sure look at one walk by today and thoughts enter my mind, yet I know better than to act on them. I"ve considered the testosterone issues before and come to the conclusion that if you don't change the parameters for ANYONE, you'll wash out all that have no ability to do what they need to when they need to.
I'll also assume that probably less than 5% of women would qualify all the way around. But those that do, would, IMHO ,be as much of a killer so to speak as any of the males out there.
I may not agree with all your theories, but I do like to hear others points of view as it can change how I view things.
The only thing in these conversations that SUCKS, is that its keyboard to keyboard, rather than face to face around a "campfire". Things would easier sort themselves out and not "sound" like such a fight most of the time.
And all teh while I've wondered about taking young males away from forms of entertainment for months at a time and how that handles itself anyway. Now that you mention it the addition of females to the mix, at least some of them anyway, is probably not a great thing. More so than anything, its probably an non needed distraction added into the formula when very dangerous things are a daily, hourly, minute by minute occurence. Fairly as noted some will do stupid things to protect a female, when they would not a fellow male and even things like that are better off the field of battle than on it.
Job well done Jorge, you've forced me to think the whole thing through, and something I couldn't have done without your and others input from having BTDT.
Just like when I joined the fire dept... I had preconcieved notions that were NO where near what reality is.
jorgeI, Chuck McGrail was one of the CO's of the Midway while I was in VF 151 on board. When anyone would make one of the "1000 trap" milestones for the ship, he would make a point of coming down to the ready room and presenting a VERY NICE plaque and Midway lighter to the pilot who made it. I was lucky enough to get two of them; one for the 261,000th and another for the 266,000th.
One night I was on the last launch and we got some extra gas. Then they decided to cut the cycle short so I had plenty to burn and I thought, "Wonder if they'd approve a fly-by at night?" so I called up strike and asked and they said "Stand by" as they checked with the CO (McGrail). Strike came back and said "CO says approved. Just don't blow my windows out."
Well I came up the wake doing about 500 kts at a "few" hundred feet and a mile or so short of the stern, plugged in the burners and pulled straight over the ship and "bullseyed" the attitude gyro doing some aileron rolls going straight up. I think we topped out at about 30k', then headed out to marshall and got ready for the recovery.
A couple of minutes later, Strike comes up "Switch 204, Strike" and I'm thinking "Uh oh". I said "Go ahead" and they came back "Switch 204, CO passes, very nice". He had flown F-4's so that was pretty neat coming from him.
After we landed and were all chocked and chained down, all the plane captains came up and were all fired up about it too so that was a good night for morale, theirs as well as mine.
THOSE my friends WERE the good old days. Nowadays they'd chop your nuts off. I also remember during my first couple of cruises (my first was in 82) Carrier CO's would also fly. I remember one CO we had on Nimitz, Paul Ilg, A-6 Driver. Once a week and without fault, he's strap on an A-6, snag a duty "Beaner" for the right seat and launch (always CASE ONE ) get in the pattern and get his ten traps. Back then we also had 1+45 cycles too. Then the Hornets came and they are down to 1+15 and failing horribly as launch and recovery tankers and basically running FLex Deck ops... About the Admiral, I believe he passed a few years ago. He was one of those gents that fit *my* idea of the quintessential Naval Aviator. No more... jorge
I'm sure that knowing who he was flying with, even money sez he had a "death grip" on that lower handle the second the "roger ball" call came from the LSOs..
I'm sure that knowing who he was flying with, even money sez he had a "death grip" on that lower handle the second the "roger ball" call came from the LSOs..
And given he was flying with an Aviator who had DQ'ed once and was under intense pressure to get qualed my guess is he was a RIO at the top of his game. No fool he.
I never stepped outside via Martin Baker (came close twice) but once you decide to go you go. The list of people who ejected when they shouldn't have is damn short (I can think of one Tomcat at Fallon ). The list of people who waited too late is endless. A good duck hunting buddy of mine left a crater along with another friend in a broccoli field in El Centro because a student gooned it and they didn't leave. That's just two of 19 funerals I went to in 10 years.
Grumman would have been happy to have built us another Prowler.
Here's one of two gents who did it right. Now as to the why, I can't tell whether it was a hook-spit, pilot error of not going to full power after touchdown or engine failure but they did a good job of responding to the LSO's (or Air Boss') eject call.
I bet that Black Shoe VIP didn't crap for a month!
I have a nice pic of that F-14D flying back to Fallon sans canopy or backseat. Ooops! As I was told, they were doing weapons checks and one step is to go inverted and make sure nothing is loose. It's easy to pick the loose pens, bolts, or whatever off the canopy when you're upside down. Anyway, he decided he needed to hang on to something, unfortunately the nearest object was the ejection handle between his legs. It was fortunate they had the eject selector handle in the position so only the backseat went. Under normal circumstances, i.e. two qualified folks, if either pulls you both go.
So why did the plane keep flying? Engine restart, or applied power per LSO like they should have ??? anyway and it all of a sudden got going again?
Looked like a really good response to the eject call.
(1) The A-6 as a bomber is a very stable jet and can fly hands off for a bit if it's wings level (2) The went to full power on the bolter and even with the seats gone the throttles are still at full power (god bless the P&W J52-P408) (3) When the seats went that removed 1000 lbs from the jet and shifted the center of gravity aft with far more effectivness than the controls have at that airspeed so off it went for a while. Wouldn't have happened if they had stayed with it.
I'd figured there was a severe weight loss with 2 folks out, and it looked a LOT like that was a contributing factor. Its much the same in our airboat.. weight can be a killer big time as to performance of the boat doing what has to be done or not...
I just don't see how y'all can do the things you do... literally I don't know how small of fractions of seconds, but those fractions are do or die literally.
The original video is some awesome flying in tough conditions. I get they needed to train for such. So, any of you navy guys, if they'd lost a plane/pilot in such a situation, would anybody's ass be in a sling over it?
Just a private pilot but, enough to give me a real inkling of the momentary terror and epinephrine rush when "SHTF" moments pop up. There actually is an analogous situation giving anesthesia when in a moment you feel a patient is dying in your hands and you have only moments to do exactly the right thing.
I'm sure that knowing who he was flying with, even money sez he had a "death grip" on that lower handle the second the "roger ball" call came from the LSOs..
And given he was flying with an Aviator who had DQ'ed once and was under intense pressure to get qualed my guess is he was a RIO at the top of his game. No fool he.
I never stepped outside via Martin Baker (came close twice) but once you decide to go you go. The list of people who ejected when they shouldn't have is damn short (I can think of one Tomcat at Fallon ). The list of people who waited too late is endless. A good duck hunting buddy of mine left a crater along with another friend in a broccoli field in El Centro because a student gooned it and they didn't leave. That's just two of 19 funerals I went to in 10 years.
Grumman would have been happy to have built us another Prowler.
Still curious about the tone of the LSO's voice as he is trying to talk Hultgren down. Do you think he knew of her poor skills before talking to her? Listening to him, it just seems from his tone that he is talking to a pilot who he knows to be a problem (apart from that landing) and hence his tone and mode of addressing her. I'd love to hear some of the Naval Aviator's here view the video and opine on this issue.
Still curious about the tone of the LSO's voice as he is trying to talk Hultgren down. Do you think he knew of her poor skills before talking to her? Listening to him, it just seems from his tone that he is talking to a pilot who he knows to be a problem (apart from that landing) and hence his tone and mode of addressing her. I'd love to hear some of the Naval Aviator's here view the video and opine on this issue.
Yes. The LSO would have been very aware of any issues she had prior and would have closely tracked her progress through Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLPs) where we practice touch and goes ashore with a fresnel lense (the ball) and an outline of the carrier deck . Just like at sea, every pass is graded by an LSO so he can ensure the Aviator is making progress and he can correct any dangerous trends.
This assumes of course that the Aviator can put their ego in check and listen to the LSO and the LSO is not receiving pressure from above to ensure the student gets qualified. But we've been down this road.
Good post. To that I'll add Hultgren's record was well known in Naval Aviation circles, espcially after her real grades were leaked by an FRS LSO after the Navy tried to hide her substandard record. Like I said on my original post, the Navy killed her, then in a fit of "mea culpa" spent millions in fishing her out of the bottom to give her a feted burial at Arlington attended by the CNO and SECNAV. Had that been me or any other male aviator, we'd still be fish food and in my time, I buried a few of them, some with distiguished combat records and not once, did any of those big shots show up to the funerals.
I had a friend at Jax Beach, FL whose daughter was married to a Naval Academy Graduate and was a Naval Aviator. He was also a Squadron Commander. While on an R&R trip to the Philippines during a Veitnam Deployment he took a plane from a rework facility in the Philippenes on a test flight and something went wrong during the flight and it went down. They never did recover enough of him for his wife and kids to have final closure.
I remember a buddy that served on a carrier talking about using the fire hose to wash a pilot's body off the side of the hull that had ejected into same after a bad landing.
Back to the F-18s, I thought it was fascinating how fast the control surfaces moved on that one jet as it was landing. It reminded me of a bird landing on a fence post, what with its tail and wings moving in all sorts of different ways.
As far as what Jorge says, I am inclined to agree, even though I have no military experience personally. Just my $0.02 worth.
You don't have to have military experience to know this. The same thing happens with coed high school PE classes (I can remember segregated classes). Are there PE classes anymore? Anyway, it's millennia of human experience that inculcates an element into the mental environment that The Left, in their foolishness, have thrown out--common sense.
Jorge - That footage of the A-6 ejection are pretty spectacular. Amazing, in fact. IIRC, weren't the ejection seats in the Intruder designed to blast right through the canopy, instead of blowing the glass off first?
Here's one of two gents who did it right. Now as to the why, I can't tell whether it was a hook-spit, pilot error of not going to full power after touchdown or engine failure but they did a good job of responding to the LSO's (or Air Boss') eject call.
That one was from a hook point failure, the bolt sheared after they caught the wire and they lost about 30 kts before they went flying again. The LSO's spotted the deceleration and, thank God, immediately called for the ejection. They didn't have flying speed and would have gone straight into the drink if they'd stayed in. The only reason the jet flew away was because of the weight and CG shift, no way it'd have stayed flying with them in it. I remember watching that tape many times during the LSO briefings before going out to the ship.
Jorge - That footage of the A-6 ejection are pretty spectacular. Amazing, in fact. IIRC, weren't the ejection seats in the Intruder designed to blast right through the canopy, instead of blowing the glass off first?
Yes, in the A-6 and the EA-6B as well as the S-3 we ejected through the glass. There were little bumps on the top of the seat that would break the structural integrity of the canopy but most people ended up with some cuts on their shoulders. On the other hand, you didn't have to wait for the canopy to leave and clear so it was a decent way to do it. The AV-8 and the T-45 have get cord that breaks it.
In addition, in the Prowler the seats leave in sequence. ECMO 3, the left rear instantly, right rear .4 secs later, ECMO 1 the right front, .8 secs and the pilot 1.2 secs. They do diverge slightly in azimuth but they need the time to avoid bumping into each other. Low and slow you can see the affect. It's long wait if you're the pilot. You can see the advantage of the ballistic spreader that blows the parachute open on this. I had complete and utter faith in the Martin Baker seat functioning. When we lost a jet in VAQ-141 the pilot was successful ejection number 6000 using a Martin Baker seat.
Here's what it looks like from a Prowler. It seemed for a while every cold cat shot in the fleet had an EA-6B attached to it. At 56,000 lbs we needed about 155 knots to fly away. Cats fail for various reasons and not often but when they do it's never good.
Great stuff guys. There's another video on U tube of another A6 Off America that was pretty spectacular. Off the CAT, just couldn't get the knots up and first you see him pickle the drops and she just keeps rolling right. Eventually and I think too late for me they jump out. Check it out. jorge
Zero-zero seats are great (You can eject at zero altitude and zero knots speed and still make it, IF you don't have a sink rate.)
The three jets I flew didn't have seats that good. All of them (as best I recall) were rated for 100 feet and 100 knots, no sink rate; that would get you a full canopy and one swing before before you hit. Any tiny bit you could be climbing helped.
The Cessna O-2 required a manual bailout. You had to slide the right seat back, manually jettison the door, then dive down and out. If you didn't clear the wing strut ahead and below it, you'd either get hung up on the strut or hit the rear prop. It was neither quick nor especially plausible, but I know at least two guys who managed to do it and live.
JorgeI, Pugs wasn't it that the back seater was ejected out the underside of the A-6 platform when it first went into the fleet or was it another aircraft I seem to remember something about the weapons or electronics officer was doomed if they ejected at low altitude on either landing or takeoff.
NACES seat is fantastic. It automatically rights the seat with thrust vectoring and fires the parachute up with a small rocket so you don't have to fall to fill the chute.
JorgeI, Pugs wasn't it that the back seater was ejected out the underside of the A-6 platform when it first went into the fleet or was it another aircraft I seem to remember something about the weapons or electronics officer was doomed if they ejected at low altitude on either landing or takeoff.
I don't think there were any USN a/c that used downward ejecting seats. The RN has several where the pilot had an ejection seat and the WSO did not though and of course the A3D didn't have seats at all but chutes and a slide out the belly.
The old A-3D (all thee dead) had J-57 engines IIRC. The B-66 had ejection seats but engines left over from a canceled drone project and were not very reliable.
We had a loadmaster that swore if we bailed out he wouldn't. He said he got to jump from C-130's a lot when he was in the 82nd AB but they never let him fly one. His logic was if the pilots bailed out the plane was his!
The B-52s are jets I recall with downward ejection seats. The ESCAPAC which is the seat I flew with in the Viking also had s stabilizing vane to right you as well. Rock is correct, VERY correct regarding the sink rate and frankly, there are a lot of dead guys that just didn't take that factor before pulling on the handle. You can be at 5K altitude but with a 20K/m rate of descent you're a dead man. That is why all USN Ejection directives say "if no control passing 10K AGL, eject."
JorgeI, Pugs wasn't it that the back seater was ejected out the underside of the A-6 platform when it first went into the fleet or was it another aircraft I seem to remember something about the weapons or electronics officer was doomed if they ejected at low altitude on either landing or takeoff.
I think the first couple of F-104s had ejection seats that shot downward. A flame-out on take-off meant shooting the pilot into the runway. That's one of the reasons, but not the only reason, that the F-104 was called the Widow Maker.
I think it had something to do with a 190kt approach speed and a stall speed not much lower!
Had a skipper who flew the F-104 at USAF Test Pilot School. Said it was amazing but at 300 knots you were out of airspeed and out of ideas and it was the only jet he ever flew with P-factor. He was a hell of an Aviator too.
Link to F-104 ejection seats. The F-104 started out with downward ejection seats and later were changed to upward firing seats. I always hear that when I was in the AF. One problem with the F-104 ejection seats was during the change over. The pilot had to remember which he had.
Not to get off topic too much but another bird with a funny ejection system was the F-111. IIRC, the entire cockpit capsule seperated from the airframe and then multiple chutes deployed. Almost like the early spacecraft we used.
![[Linked Image]](http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/userfiles/0000000000001421/images/AIRCRASH%202.jpg)