October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 15:42
by disconnectedradical
This was a piece from an interview of an F-14 pilot and an interesting part was where he talked about Kara Hultgreen, who died in the 25 October 1994 F-14A landing incident. I'll quote from him below.

As one of my friends, HOB Higgins, said, we felt like cats in a room full of rocking chairs. Shortly after I joined 213 we lost Kara Hultgreen while she was attempting to land on the Lincoln. I had known Kara briefly in the Training Command.

We both had Alfa Romeo convertibles and we laughed about the spotty reliability and repair costs of the Italian sports cars. She was the perfect ‘fighter-chic,’ quick with a smile, fun to be around, sharp-witted, and not afraid to stand her ground. She folded herself into the fabric of the Blacklions seamlessly and was warmly regarded as part of the ‘pride.’

The treatment she received after her death has always stayed with me as one of the greatest injustices witnessed during my naval career. Our XO replicated the mishap 100 times in the simulator and crashed 97 of them.

At the time of her death, she was a pack-player behind the boat, meaning that she was solidly in the middle of the squadron’s landing grades. Yet, as one of the first woman to fly Tomcats in the fleet, and the first to die doing so, she was held as an example of the supposed error of women in combat.

It hurt to see her sacrifice used in such a vicious manner, especially since her death had nothing to do with her gender.


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... -aggressor

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 16:31
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Thanks for sharing that.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 19:17
by wooster
disconnectedradical wrote:This was a piece from an interview of an F-14 pilot and an interesting part was where he talked about Kara Hultgreen, who died in the 25 October 1994 F-14A landing incident. I'll quote from him below.

As one of my friends, HOB Higgins, said, we felt like cats in a room full of rocking chairs. Shortly after I joined 213 we lost Kara Hultgreen while she was attempting to land on the Lincoln. I had known Kara briefly in the Training Command.

We both had Alfa Romeo convertibles and we laughed about the spotty reliability and repair costs of the Italian sports cars. She was the perfect ‘fighter-chic,’ quick with a smile, fun to be around, sharp-witted, and not afraid to stand her ground. She folded herself into the fabric of the Blacklions seamlessly and was warmly regarded as part of the ‘pride.’

The treatment she received after her death has always stayed with me as one of the greatest injustices witnessed during my naval career. Our XO replicated the mishap 100 times in the simulator and crashed 97 of them.

At the time of her death, she was a pack-player behind the boat, meaning that she was solidly in the middle of the squadron’s landing grades. Yet, as one of the first woman to fly Tomcats in the fleet, and the first to die doing so, she was held as an example of the supposed error of women in combat.

It hurt to see her sacrifice used in such a vicious manner, especially since her death had nothing to do with her gender.


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... -aggressor


She crashed because she hit full left rudder to try and get on the glide path, which as she should have known would cause a flameout with the TF30.

They are still trying to fool the public on the fact they pushed a woman through just because she was the first woman.

The instructor DID NOT crash 97 times out of 100 trying to land on the boat. The instructor crashed 97 times AFTER following her mistakes leading to flameout. They don't tell you that because that is not very PC. There is a big difference between the truth how they try to word things.

The correct action after missing the landing was to go around; NOT to hit full left rudder and disturb airflow into the engine causing a flameout. Everyone who flew cats knew landing was one of the most dangerous maneuvers, especially with those garbage powerplants. But she tried to be the hero and recover a failed approach to save her scoring. I am glad her backseater got out.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 22:01
by quicksilver
I have no opinion on the Hultgreen mishap, but the article at the link is an excellent read. I enjoyed the VFC-13 piece as well.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 07:35
by disconnectedradical
wooster wrote:She crashed because she hit full left rudder to try and get on the glide path, which as she should have known would cause a flameout with the TF30.

They are still trying to fool the public on the fact they pushed a woman through just because she was the first woman.

The instructor DID NOT crash 97 times out of 100 trying to land on the boat. The instructor crashed 97 times AFTER following her mistakes leading to flameout. They don't tell you that because that is not very PC. There is a big difference between the truth how they try to word things.

The correct action after missing the landing was to go around; NOT to hit full left rudder and disturb airflow into the engine causing a flameout. Everyone who flew cats knew landing was one of the most dangerous maneuvers, especially with those garbage powerplants. But she tried to be the hero and recover a failed approach to save her scoring. I am glad her backseater got out.


Yes, she made a pilot. But somehow you think that pilot error is because of her gender? Even some of the best pilots make pilot errors. For example, test pilot David Cooley crashed an F-22 in 2009 because he A-LOC'ed. What about all the other F-14s that were lost to pilot error?

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 12:25
by fang
disconnectedradical wrote:Yes, she made a pilot. But somehow you think that pilot error is because of her gender? Even some of the best pilots make pilot errors. For example, test pilot David Cooley crashed an F-22 in 2009 because he A-LOC'ed. What about all the other F-14s that were lost to pilot error?

He didn't talk about gender, he talked about the right thing vs the wrong thing to do in this particular situation no matter who the pilot is.
You are welcome to read it once again..

And Wooster? great answer - TNX!

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 13:42
by wooster
fang wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:Yes, she made a pilot. But somehow you think that pilot error is because of her gender? Even some of the best pilots make pilot errors. For example, test pilot David Cooley crashed an F-22 in 2009 because he A-LOC'ed. What about all the other F-14s that were lost to pilot error?

He didn't talk about gender, he talked about the right thing vs the wrong thing to do in this particular situation no matter who the pilot is.
You are welcome to read it once again..

And Wooster? great answer - TNX!


Spot on correct.

If Revlon had not been a lady, we would not be still having this 1 crash out of countless Tomcat incidents, and the Navy would not have had an instructor pilot fly 100 simulated failed approaches and try to recover after doing a maneuver that caused the port side engine to go dark.

The absolute dumbest thing to do in a cat when an engine flames out during landing is to light the burner on the one good engine. It shows fundamental lack of understanding the equipment she was driving. The off-axis thrust would do nothing to keep the cat in the air and it would toss it out of control as happened to Revlon.



Gender has nothing to do with lack of skill and overzealous ego.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 14:46
by quicksilver
I do have an opinion about how the services have dealt with gender integration, particularly in aviation.

The ‘institutional’ services have (sometimes) gotten caught up in these circumstantial “firsts” — first this, first that — and the hoopla that almost always accompanies such things. Most times the firsts are pretty thin achievements (what many others have done for a long, long time) and should not be celebrated and highly touted, as that “first” is simply what some said that “first” could and should do anyway. “So why the parade?”

The individuals concerned often don’t give a rats a$$ about being “first” but they have no choice in what the institution promotes; in other cases they are full-on crusaders for whatever political cause celebre underlies promotion of the “first.” In either circumstance, the key element is the role of leadership, and therein lies the fault when these things become bandwagons and/or eventually run into the ditch. Failure to understand the pitfalls (history) of promoting these circumstantial “firsts”, failure to understand the complexity of managing expectations and perceptions (both internally and externally), and failure to understand the potential effects on the individual, the unit and the aircraft community are all part of why these things go off the tracks — sometimes predictably and tragically so.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 18:14
by fang
Revlon (R.I.P) case is a tragic example of how the PC gang ignores non supportive facts to their agenda (such as technical facts like TF30 was a very unforgiving engine) and they don't take responsibility if something go's wrong because of that.
"Navy Pilot's Errors Contributed to Fatal Crash" the investigation board report Says and yet Carey Lohrenz blaming the whole world but herself for being the other not good enough F-14A female pilot.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles ... -successes

Shocking document (including Carey Lohrenz interview)

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 19:08
by quicksilver
I had the opportunity to fly the Tomcat sim for a couple hours at Miramar many years ago whilst still on active duty. When we were finished I described my impressions of its flying qualities as ‘Mack truck with no power steering.’ I asked if the sim was a fair representation of actual jet; the short answer was, ‘yes.’

It was more than a handful; very heavy stick forces, sluggish response to inputs, and the requirement for a skill not really taught in the training command — the use of your feet for something other than steering the jet on the ground.

BZ to Tomcat alums...

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2019, 13:11
by mixelflick
In my opinion, allowing females to participate in combat is always going to cause more problems. Always.

They're either going to get special treatment (like this Revlon) and thus lower combat effectiveness, or they'll be bitching about being made to feel "uncomfortable". In the former case, people are going to die. Wars that otherwise would be won will be lost. And in the latter case, they play their own double standard card.

You want us to give you a gun and blow people to bits, see things no person should and be treated like you're equal to a man. But God forbid some guy compliments you on your dress or grabs your a$$. Then you're a poor, defenseless woman who's being victimized. You need the help of human resources, lawyers, your commanding officer and here, we'll hand out restraining orders left and right with no consideration to the other party's side of things. Step 1 is always to get the man out of the house, because he's guilty until proven innocent.

This "I'm uncomfortable" PC nonsense has got to stop. Women don't belong in combat, and are only getting people killed/causing more problems. You won't hear that reality from the services though, it doesn't fit their narrative. You won't hear it on CNN, MSNBCLGBTQ TV FAKE NEWS. And you'll never read about it in the NY Times, Washington Post or any other major media outlet.

Liberal media isn't interested in the truth. They're intent of furthering their leftist agenda...

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2019, 15:22
by disconnectedradical
fang wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:Yes, she made a pilot. But somehow you think that pilot error is because of her gender? Even some of the best pilots make pilot errors. For example, test pilot David Cooley crashed an F-22 in 2009 because he A-LOC'ed. What about all the other F-14s that were lost to pilot error?

He didn't talk about gender, he talked about the right thing vs the wrong thing to do in this particular situation no matter who the pilot is.
You are welcome to read it once again..

And Wooster? great answer - TNX!


Wooster tried to draw some connection between Hultgreen's gender and her pilot error. Maybe he didn't mean it that way but that's how the post came across. By all accounts she's middle of the pack in the squadron in landing scores, so gender has nothing to do with her pilot error. Is she responsible for the accident? Yes. But that's not because of her gender and even some of the best test pilots lost aircraft because of pilot error.

What DID happen was that her accident and death was used certain groups as "evidence" that women don't belong in the military, and some people here are brushing that off.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2019, 18:54
by quicksilver
fang wrote:He didn't talk about gender, he talked about the right thing vs the wrong thing to do in this particular situation no matter who the pilot is.

You are welcome to read it once again..

And Wooster? great answer - TNX!


I read it again. Here’s what Wooster said —

“They are still trying to fool the public on the fact they pushed a woman through just because she was the first woman.”

Sounds pretty straight forward to me — how is that not ‘talking about gender’? And in his follow-on missive he offered this — “If Revlon had not been a lady, we would not be still having this 1 crash out of countless Tomcat incidents, and the Navy would not have had an instructor pilot fly 100 simulated failed approaches and try to recover after doing a maneuver that caused the port side engine to go dark.”

My experience is that mishap boards go to great ends to consider all of the possibilities that may have contributed to a mishap and to eliminate those factors that were not contributors. That’s called ‘due diligence.’ Do you have information that suggests otherwise or is that supposition?

He also said this, which I found curious — “She crashed because she hit full left rudder to try and get on the glide path...”

Nominally, a rudder input would be used as a correction for lineup, or to effect a coordinated turn for same. Was rudder used for glideslope corrections in the Tomcat?

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2019, 19:30
by quicksilver
Wooster also said this —

“The absolute dumbest thing to do in a cat when an engine flames out during landing is to light the burner on the one good engine. It shows fundamental lack of understanding the equipment she was driving. The off-axis thrust would do nothing to keep the cat in the air and it would toss it out of control as happened to Revlon.”

Here’s a question and observation from perhaps a more dispassionate seat —

If I am a nugget wrestling with a ‘dark’ engine on the port side, I’ve already got the starboard engine at mil and the LSO keeps giving me ‘power’ calls. What would others have done absent the benefit of hindsight? Were these kind of EPs covered in the sim during FCLPs?

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2019, 23:00
by outlaw162
What would others have done absent the benefit of hindsight?


I hope a runway guy is not out of line here, best practices would seem to apply regardless of the landing surface. I'm not Monday morning quarterbacking, just a friendly input for discussion purposes.

The first and most important thing I would do is ignore any thing external. Forget about the landing.

Then, regardless of type aircraft, you have three options (not in any order of preference), now that you're without external distraction and on the backside of the curve and decelerating at the current thrust setting:

1. Maintain the current controllable (mil?) thrust setting, lower the nose and use whatever altitude is available to accelerate closer to L/D max. Maybe you can get fast enough to stop the descent. Certainly problematical at night.

2. If altitude doesn't permit lowering the nose, that leaves adding thrust to accelerate with AB. It appears this works better in an F-4 (a single-engine go-around was required on proficiency checks) than in an F-14 where evidently it was not recommended.

3. Accept a logbook entry of 1 takeoff and no landings. Eject. Sooner the better.

(Bottom line, pay attention in training and do whichever of these you were taught.)

edit: actually if you've got something you can jettison that would be beneficial to #1 or #2 although retaining stores can sometimes minimize asymmetrical thrust yaw excursions

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2019, 00:33
by quicksilver
My question was really a rhetorical for those whose hindsight might obscure the challenge of controlling the jet under the circumstances — regardless of the gender or the politics. The jet was a beast to fly.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2019, 00:41
by outlaw162
You had one more ride in the sim than my zero.

I retract my response.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2019, 01:59
by disconnectedradical
quicksilver, can you fix your quotes? You're quoting me on something fang said.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2019, 02:03
by wooster
quicksilver wrote:
If I am a nugget wrestling with a ‘dark’ engine on the port side, I’ve already got the starboard engine at mil and the LSO keeps giving me ‘power’ calls. What would others have done absent the benefit of hindsight? Were these kind of EPs covered in the sim during FCLPs?


Nugget or veteran, the pilot is the pilot and not the LSO. The pilot can override anything the LSO signals to prevent loss of life and equipment. Even nuggets understand very early on. By the time a pilot is out of the trainers and into the real equipment, they are not hardly nuggets. If shat goes bad, and during landing, on those short finals, shat goes from Ok to bad in milliseconds the pilot knows far far more about the situation than the guy on the deck talking on the radio. You can't let an LSO talk you into suicide because he doesn't have your situatiional awareness.

The simulations done afterwards were done in the catastrophic physical state that Karen put the cat into by being low, slow, and having one operating engine. Its amazing that there were actually a handful of successful recoveries!

When Revlon killed that engine the only course of action was to stear clear of the ship and her shipmates and eject over the water. How anyone would ever think lighting the afterburner in the one good engine, especially in landing configuration 150 feet over the ocean, would somehow save the day shows how much her training she followed and respected. Shows how much simple physics of flight she understood.

Thank god the guy in the back had the courage to punch out and made it.

There are idiot pilots on both sides of the sexes. But politics is trying to white wash this one for obvious reasons.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2019, 02:16
by outlaw162
Just curious. How do you know she 'hit' full left rudder. There are no flight controls in the backseat for the RIO to determine that. At night I doubt anyone on the boat could see the actual control surfaces.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2019, 02:40
by quicksilver
“Nugget or veteran, the pilot is the pilot and not the LSO. The pilot can override anything the LSO signals to prevent loss of life and equipment. Even nuggets understand very early on. By the time a pilot is out of the trainers and into the real equipment, they are not hardly nuggets. If shat goes bad, and during landing, on those short finals, shat goes from Ok to bad in milliseconds the pilot knows far far more about the situation than the guy on the deck talking on the radio. You can't let an LSO talk you into suicide because he doesn't have your situational awareness.”

I was a Training LSO for many years; I know the drill. Ignoring the LSO would have been, and remains, a ‘counter-culture behavior’ in Naval Aviation, particularly for a JO with low time in a unit or a given jet.

“The simulations done afterwards...”

I didn’t ask about the simulations afterward. What sim EP training occurred for the MP before the CQ period?

“How anyone would ever think lighting the afterburner in the one good engine, especially in landing configuration 150 feet over the ocean, would somehow save the day shows how much her training she followed and respected.”

My armchair is pretty comfortable too. But, see above; was that EP covered in the sim ahead of the mishap?

“There are idiot pilots on both sides of the sexes.”

Amen. However, one of her (Revlon’s) shipmates in ‘213 described her this way — “She was the perfect ‘fighter-chic,’ quick with a smile, fun to be around, sharp-witted, and not afraid to stand her ground. She folded herself into the fabric of the Blacklions seamlessly and was warmly regarded as part of the ‘pride.’”

So, wooster, did you know her, and on what grounds do you cast stones?

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2019, 02:44
by quicksilver
outlaw162 wrote:Just curious. How do you know she 'hit' full left rudder. There are no flight controls in the backseat for the RIO to determine that. At night I doubt anyone on the boat could see the actual control surfaces.


And to pile on that thought, where in the video is that control input evident? I didn’t see it...

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2019, 02:53
by quicksilver
disconnectedradical wrote:quicksilver, can you fix your quotes? You're quoting me on something fang said.


Done. Thx.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2019, 12:24
by saberrider
In helicopter's the point where she has at the time , it is called "dynamic rollover" .Guess in the F14 the same things is possible at lower speed and if she unload hard could staigh- it-out for safe ejection!But learned reflexes has to pull hard.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2019, 21:48
by disconnectedradical
mixelflick wrote:In my opinion, allowing females to participate in combat is always going to cause more problems. Always.

They're either going to get special treatment (like this Revlon) and thus lower combat effectiveness, or they'll be bitching about being made to feel "uncomfortable". In the former case, people are going to die. Wars that otherwise would be won will be lost. And in the latter case, they play their own double standard card.


What "special treatment" did she even get?

wooster wrote:The simulations done afterwards were done in the catastrophic physical state that Karen put the cat into by being low, slow, and having one operating engine. Its amazing that there were actually a handful of successful recoveries!

When Revlon killed that engine the only course of action was to stear clear of the ship and her shipmates and eject over the water. How anyone would ever think lighting the afterburner in the one good engine, especially in landing configuration 150 feet over the ocean, would somehow save the day shows how much her training she followed and respected. Shows how much simple physics of flight she understood.

Thank god the guy in the back had the courage to punch out and made it.


Since you are questioning her ability as a pilot due to this mistake, what should we consider all the other pilots who crashed F-14s due to pilot error? And how is this mistake related to her gender?

wooster wrote:There are idiot pilots on both sides of the sexes. But politics is trying to white wash this one for obvious reasons.


What white wash? The only "white wash" is people refuting the notion that the accident is because of her gender. By all accounts Lt. Hultgreen was fairly average pilot. Making a pilot error that contributed to mishap doesn't make one a crap pilot. Unless all pilots that made errors that crashed F-14s are crap pilots.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2019, 15:40
by mixelflick
mixelflick wrote:
In my opinion, allowing females to participate in combat is always going to cause more problems. Always.

They're either going to get special treatment (like this Revlon) and thus lower combat effectiveness, or they'll be bitching about being made to feel "uncomfortable". In the former case, people are going to die. Wars that otherwise would be won will be lost. And in the latter case, they play their own double standard card.

What "special treatment" did she even get?

Plenty.

Don't believe that? Have a good read..

http://www.returnofkings.com/39218/the- ... he-us-navy

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2019, 01:49
by wooster
disconnectedradical wrote:
mixelflick wrote:In my opinion, allowing females to participate in combat is always going to cause more problems. Always.

They're either going to get special treatment (like this Revlon) and thus lower combat effectiveness, or they'll be bitching about being made to feel "uncomfortable". In the former case, people are going to die. Wars that otherwise would be won will be lost. And in the latter case, they play their own double standard card.


What "special treatment" did she even get?

wooster wrote:The simulations done afterwards were done in the catastrophic physical state that Karen put the cat into by being low, slow, and having one operating engine. Its amazing that there were actually a handful of successful recoveries!

When Revlon killed that engine the only course of action was to stear clear of the ship and her shipmates and eject over the water. How anyone would ever think lighting the afterburner in the one good engine, especially in landing configuration 150 feet over the ocean, would somehow save the day shows how much her training she followed and respected. Shows how much simple physics of flight she understood.

Thank god the guy in the back had the courage to punch out and made it.


Since you are questioning her ability as a pilot due to this mistake, what should we consider all the other pilots who crashed F-14s due to pilot error? And how is this mistake related to her gender?

wooster wrote:There are idiot pilots on both sides of the sexes. But politics is trying to white wash this one for obvious reasons.


What white wash? The only "white wash" is people refuting the notion that the accident is because of her gender. By all accounts Lt. Hultgreen was fairly average pilot. Making a pilot error that contributed to mishap doesn't make one a crap pilot. Unless all pilots that made errors that crashed F-14s are crap pilots.


Unfortunately that is incorrect. They began white washing this on day zero. It basically reached its crescendo when they ran simulations to show that basically no one could have saved the cat from crashing without saying that she put the cat into that position to begin with by commiting catastrophic errors in the most mundane of atmospheric daylight conditions.

As far as I have been able to discern, revlon is the one and only tomcat pilot to try and recover from a flameout by going to full afterburner on the one remaining powerplant during shipboard recovery. This is 8th grade physics we are talking about by putting that kind of off axis thrust into the low slow situation. That's a crap pilot. Sorry. She nearly killed an innocent RIO with incompetence in landing in perfect weather. Did not understand elementary school physics. She would have lived if a) she aborted the failed approach and lived with a lower scoring, or b) did the only correct thing and steered clear of her ship and shipmates and ejected.

The plane was irrecoverably out of control and even at that point she was still trying to work the stick and rudder with no airspeed and no altitude, whereas the guy in the back had common sense to punch out.

So she committed 3 fatal flaws that lead to her death.

Man or woman that's a crap pilot. Reminds me of that famous B-52 crash. Illogical but reminds me of that.

Edit: furthermore those were the crap engines with insufficient thrust in one engine to even begin thinking that she could save the cat from doom. The one and the only logical course of action was to eject. What she thought she was going to do in full AB on one engine is perplexing. Its not like she was going to climb and restart the other. Again, crap pilot. The plane flew her and not the other way around.

I would not want to serve today with all the PC shet there is. In combat, I think it wont matter man or woman at the stick. Everyone will know who is a good warrior and who is not within their squad. The bad will be attritioned away regardless of gender.

Never flown with a woman but I've known a few that could drive like race car driver.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2019, 13:39
by mixelflick
You see this?

"I'd never want to serve today with all the PC crap...". THAT's another by product of all this wonderful "diversity" in the military today. Good and/or GREAT people don't want to be part of the great PC nonsense machine that's COSTING PEOPLE'S LIVES.

You can come out of college brainwashed by liberal professors. You can stay in your little CNN/FAKE NEWS/NPR/WASHINGTON POST bubble. And you can only associate with your ilk, "celebrating" diversity and all the "progress" iibtards have made.

But you can't run away from the truth, and the truth is the US military has been weakened by women in combat roles, not strengthened. "Revlon" was just the first but far from the last example.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2019, 14:24
by botsing
wooster wrote:That's a crap pilot. Sorry. She nearly killed an innocent RIO

She made a vital mistake with the rudder, however she might have (inadvertently) prevented the Tomcat from smashing into the carrier with her full throttle action.

Furthermore I think that we should not overlook the amount of pressure on her to keep her stats up, it's not something good but it might help to better understand that era.

And to others: using Revlon as an example for stating that women in the military are a bad thing is some seriously flawed thinking, n=1 is nothing in statistics.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2019, 16:52
by Tiger05
Interestingly the F-14A involved in this mishap (BuNo 160390) had quite a history. It was one of the VF-41 Tomcats that took part in the Gulf of Sidra incident back in 1981 and downed one of the two Libyan Su-22s. You are gonna say "who cares about the plane when a pilot died!" and i would agree with that. Her death was of course tragic. Still, it is unfortunate that a historically significant airframe ended at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean instead of in a museum where it deserved a place.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2019, 14:42
by mixelflick
botsing wrote:
wooster wrote:
Furthermore I think that we should not overlook the amount of pressure on her to keep her stats up, it's not something good but it might help to better understand that era.



REALLY?

"Pressure" to keep her stats up? She was supposed to be a FIGHTER PILOT. They have standards for a reason, and they need to be able to deal with pressure - it goes with the job.

She screwed up, and it almost cost her RIO his life. If you read what I and others have posted... they cut her slack no man would be given. All because she was supposed to be a "historic first". It was to be a triumph of diversity over.... actually finding the best person for the job.

Thank God this diversity crap wasn't around when the Manhattan project was going on. We may well be speaking German right now..

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2019, 00:05
by disconnectedradical
Before we start screaming about her special treatment, can we actually bring some evidence or are we just assuming that?

If we're going to throw her under the bus and say she's a crap pilot, then what does that say about the F-14 pilots with even lower landing scores than her, since her landing scores were actually middle of the pack?

mixelflick wrote:Don't believe that? Have a good read..

http://www.returnofkings.com/39218/the- ... he-us-navy


This article seems more like an editorial. And if we're going to attribute her mistake to a gender, again what does that say about all the other F-14 pilots that crashed due to mistake?

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 06:42
by Corsair1963
RIP: Another Iranian F-14A Tomcat Just Bit the Dust

The U.S. Navy retired the iconic Tomcat on Sep. 22, 2006 and today the F-14 remains in service with IRIAF.

The picture in this post features the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) F-14A Tomcat that crashed yesterday .

According to Scramble Facebook News Magazine, it is now (still unconfirmed) reported that the aircraft involved is F-14A 3-6003. According to the picture of the fatal Tomcat, the airframe is completely destroyed.

As we have reported yesterday, one of the few remaining IRIAF F-14A Tomcat fighter jets was involved in a crash at home base Esfahãn-Shahid Beheshti International Airport (Iran).

The IRIAF F-14A from the 8th Tactical Air Base crashed while it was landing. The aircraft reported an emergency to air traffic control during its training flight, subsequently the fighter was approved to make a quick landing at Esfahãn, but the aircraft was not able to hold position and skidded of the runway. Both pilot and Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) were forced to eject. They parachuted safely to mother earth.

It is said that the IRIAF only have some twelve to fourteen operational F-14A and F-14AMs left. The IRIAF faces large problems to keep their Tomcats in the air (the AM version is locally modified and equipped with new avionics and multi-function displays in the cockpit, counter measure systems, radar warning receivers and an inertial navigation system).

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... Y3IgcaLJeE

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 10:39
by mixelflick
disconnectedradical wrote:Before we start screaming about her special treatment, can we actually bring some evidence or are we just assuming that?

If we're going to throw her under the bus and say she's a crap pilot, then what does that say about the F-14 pilots with even lower landing scores than her, since her landing scores were actually middle of the pack?

mixelflick wrote:Don't believe that? Have a good read..

http://www.returnofkings.com/39218/the- ... he-us-navy


This article seems more like an editorial. And if we're going to attribute her mistake to a gender, again what does that say about all the other F-14 pilots that crashed due to mistake?


Give it up man, you are in total denial.

Nobody is fooled by you (or the Navy's) handling of this matter.

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 21:49
by disconnectedradical
mixelflick wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:Before we start screaming about her special treatment, can we actually bring some evidence or are we just assuming that?

If we're going to throw her under the bus and say she's a crap pilot, then what does that say about the F-14 pilots with even lower landing scores than her, since her landing scores were actually middle of the pack?

mixelflick wrote:Don't believe that? Have a good read..

http://www.returnofkings.com/39218/the- ... he-us-navy


This article seems more like an editorial. And if we're going to attribute her mistake to a gender, again what does that say about all the other F-14 pilots that crashed due to mistake?


Give it up man, you are in total denial.

Nobody is fooled by you (or the Navy's) handling of this matter.


You literally did not address any of my points. If you call her a crap pilot, what does that say about pilots with lower landing scores than her, or other F-14 pilots that crashed because of pilot error? And before you yell cover up or whitewashing, give some actual evidence instead of editorial articles.

There's a lot that's wrong and should be fixed with women in the military. Especially in combat arms I strongly believe females should be held to same standard as males, but for non-physical positions it's less of an issue. Yet that's no excuse to sweep all women away from the military as you seem to want. Since you just keep denigrating women in armed forces and generalize all of them as unfit to serve, where did you serve then?

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 21:53
by quicksilver
“Since you just keep denigrating women in armed forces and generalize all of them as unfit to serve, where did you serve then?”

Touché

Re: October 25, 1994 F-14A landing mishap

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 22:03
by Prinz_Eugn
disconnectedradical wrote:You literally did not address any of my points. If you call her a crap pilot, what does that say about pilots with lower landing scores than her, or other F-14 pilots that crashed because of pilot error? And before you yell cover up or whitewashing, give some actual evidence instead of editorial articles.

There's a lot that's wrong and should be fixed with women in the military. Especially in combat arms I strongly believe females should be held to same standard as males, but for non-physical positions it's less of an issue. Yet that's no excuse to sweep all women away from the military as you seem to want. Since you just keep denigrating women in armed forces and generalize all of them as unfit to serve, where did you serve then?


Mom's Basement 1998-present, presumably.