Talk:Kara Hultgreen

Neutrality

This article seeems a little biased to me, as if to conclude she really wasn't competent enough to fly. I'm not saying that it's not true, but it certainly made me think so after reading this article. Maybe a slightly more NPOV would be warranted. AceTracer 08:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. If you got the feeling that she wasn't qualified, it stems from the fact that the evidence appears to indicate that she wasn't qualified. That being said, it is explicitly stated that she WAS qualified to pilot the aircraft in the article. I suspect your POV is blinsing you to her obvious failures and the indictment of her skills that stem from said failures.

I added a link to show that she was indeed unqualified to fly according to the rules of the military. She had 4 "downs," or major errors. One or two "downs" is enough to permanently disqualify anyone from being a military pilot. But she was allowed to continue, because the military wanted more female pilots. Grundle2600 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Grundle2600's edit. -- 119.31.121.84 (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

While I can see that both statements have supporting information, it seems that it would be appropriate to rephrase the Reaction section to be less ambiguous. I also got the perception that the sections was stating two contradictory statements, rather than explaining both points of view. Meltonkt (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I will be removing the POV tag. I am sorry if the facts lead people to conclude that she wasn't competent enough, the article is fair.Mantion (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Or not...

I saw a documentary about 2 australian military pilots and their careers pertaining to becoming f18 certified. One was male, one was female. The male had been shot in the face before his acceptance into f18 flight status - he had a major fight with doctors to prove his flightworthiness (he'd been having headaches and so on). The girl was... well just a girl. 'Strangely' enough the physically perfect girl screwed up her 1st night carrier landing in active duty, the guy passed his with no problems. That was the when the documentary ended. I am certainly biased, but if anyone else knows of this film, I think theres a very relevant point to be made here. The ratio of female combatants vs deaths is ridiculously high. Personally I'd call it an unacceptible ratio, and ditch the whole project, but I'm not a military commander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.134.243 (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? You saw, some documentary once, that showed a botched landing... and for that you feel that some kind of comment should be made about women not suited to fly, and that this should be in this article about a specific female aviator?

To put it very kindly: your argument is a bit of a stretch and any addition to this article based on that would not conform to Wikipedia standards.

To put it a bit less kindly: no f-n' way. --J-Star (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Must have been an interesting doumentary. Australia doesn't have carriers, so what were they landing on?? That "perfect" male pilot must have been landing on the ocean floor! But seriously, since RAAF F/A-18s are not carrier-capable, perhaps these were pilots on exchange with the USN (the only navy that has carrier-capable Hornets, or Hornet-capable carriers, except perhaps the French CdG), or else in the USN Hornet training program. Still, it makes one wonder about the whole TV program, and what else the IP-commenter might have missed. - BillCJ (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If I remember right it was a joint effort with the US, so yes, theres where they were landing (and who they were about to go on duty with).

And yes, it was rather too full of emotional bullshit and not enough facts. The guy had no end of tearjerking moments too. Thats why this is in the discussion section, not the article. I repeat myself: '...if anyone else knows of this film...'

Theres a few biological studies [1] (1st link from a quick 30s web search) that show females are inherently worse at spatial awareness (flying in 3d) and logic (comprehending the flight computers on f14s... or anything), and alot better at other things. I find it amusing that there's not even a decent sample size yet, and its already looking bad for the navy, and if something like that should be referenced to set things straight... as in: she tried astonishingly hard, but its just not her fault.

Or are there still too many people stuck in the 1960s bra burning mentality? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.134.243 (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of being stuck in ancient gender-think I think perhaps that user 203.24.134.243 should not quite be uttering too much about lest he/she wants to be subjected to ridicule over double standards.

Anyway, this is not the place to be having that debate. Unless someone can provide a verifiable source that the individual Kara Hultgren was a bad aviator, instead of doubtable statistics about what women on average may or may not be capable of, such speculation has no justifucation for being in this article. --J-Star (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

From above: I added a link to show that she was indeed unqualified to fly according to the rules of the military. She had 4 "downs," or major errors. One or two "downs" is enough to permanently disqualify anyone from being a military pilot.

That does it, Im separating this from the original thread. And her name is Hultgreen, show some respect at least.

Modification to her Tomcat?

It is mentioned in "Silent Knights: Blowing the Whistle on Military Accidents" by Alan Diehl that her Tomcat had been modified into a "Bombcat" by adding an external bomb rack to the plane, and that this caused additional disruption to the airflow into the engines. --85.92.162.58 12:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Even the most moronic citizen aviator would have accounted for the different aerodynamics shortly after takeoff. I refuse to believe Miss Hultgreen was *that* dumb to not notice it 'till landing, having had military training.

That book sounds like a fun bit of prose though, just for a laugh - I guess I'll wait for the hollywood film.

Heh, exactly. And to any competent aviator, bombs stuck onto the plane would be pretty obvious at 1st glance of preflight inspection before they even got off the ground.

I wonder what the film will be called - 'Hot Gun' maybe? I look forward to it too.

203.24.134.243 (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why the whitewash?

Why has all mention of Hultgreen's competence (or lack thereof) been scrubbed from this page? Her death is of noteworthy importance precisely because of the questions it raises concerning affirmative actions, and certain groups not being permitted to fail Solicitr (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You could almost make a counter case that the Navy set up a situation which was designed to fail. It was a clear case of something being rushed through before it was properly resolved and it put the case for female combat pilots back 10 years. Certainly, the evidence that Hultgreen's skill was not up to the task needs to be highlighted but this is an article about her as an individual and not a rage against political correctness.Flanker235 (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

She should have washed out during training but Congresswoman Pat Schroeder had an axe to grind.

In October 1994, Lt. Kara Hultgreen was killed during an attempted landing of her F-14 on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Femfeared (fear of feminists) Navy officials first re ported that engine failure caused the death of the Navy's first female F-14 pilot. That was a deliberate lie and coverup as later revealed in a leaked Mishap Investigation Report and the Navy's Judge Advocate General's report. After three requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, the Center for Military Readiness recently obtained a 1995 report written by Admiral Lyle G. Bien. The report confirms special treatment for female F-14 pilots. It also confirms that Lt. Hultgren was retained in the F-14 training program and graduated to the fleet despite low scores and four major errors (Downs), two of which were similar to those made the day she died. Just one or two major Downs have been enough to send men packing.

Elane Donnelly at CMRlink.org broke the story and the US Navy sued and lost.

Elaine Donnelly expressed great satisfaction that the Court ruled in her favor, just as she predicted it would all along. She noted that "In 1995 I learned that the information I had was 'largely accurate,' but top officials of the Navy had no intention of admitting there was a problem or doing anything about it. "This victory will strengthen the Navy by discouraging official cover-ups, as well as any repetition of double standards in training that elevate risks and undermine morale." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.64.225 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Salvage of the aircraft

In December 1994, the Navy's salvage teams were still trying to raise the aircraft, a month after they'd found and recovered Hultgreen's body. Anyone know if they ever succeeded?

Philadelphia Inquirer report on the unsuccessful attempt to raise the Tomcat.

Just curiousWiseguyThreeOne (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the following

During her training, Hultgreen had accumulated four "downs," or major errors. Normally, having just one or two of these "downs" would be enough to permanently prevent someone from being a military pilot. However, Hultgreen was allowed to continue, because the military was using affirmative action to try to get more female pilots.

Chucky Cheerio (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)