Questions for our American friends

[Priapus]

Kara wasn't totally incompetent at landing on a carrier. There were a couple things that were going against here though. First, she was qualified, but still new to the F-14A. Previously she was carrier qualified as an E-6 pilot for years. The F-14A was a lot harder to land on carriers because of its size. That particular variant of the F-14 had a known issue where compressor stalls very common when reducing or increasing power. On her final approach she had a compressor stall and lost an engine. This was recoverable, but the recovery procedure isn't intuitive and she was given incorrect instructions by the flight office on the deck. Short version, yes a more experienced pilot would have recovered the aircraft, but not every pilot would be able to. Technically, pilot error but there were a lot of pilots who would not have made it.

[Budo]

Originally Posted by Priapus

Kara wasn't totally incompetent at landing on a carrier. There were a couple things that were going against here though. First, she was qualified, but still new to the F-14A. Previously she was carrier qualified as an E-6 pilot for years. The F-14A was a lot harder to land on carriers because of its size. That particular variant of the F-14 had a known issue where compressor stalls very common when reducing or increasing power. On her final approach she had a compressor stall and lost an engine. This was recoverable, but the recovery procedure isn't intuitive and she was given incorrect instructions by the flight office on the deck. Short version, yes a more experienced pilot would have recovered the aircraft, but not every pilot would be able to. Technically, pilot error but there were a lot of pilots who would not have made it.

Yes, I knew about the Alpha's twitchy nature due to its dodgy engines, which made it difficult to fly even for experienced pilots. From what I've been able to find out she also started her approach too close to the carrier, which gave her less time to correct her angle of approach and any errors. The Tomcat, especially the original, needed a more experienced and in particular natural pilot, one with instinctive flying skills, in order to fly it safely.

Here in the UK we've got a rather peculiar driver's system that allows newly qualified car drivers to install a "P plate" (i.e. "Passed") on their vehicle in order to warn other drivers that they're not really up to driving (???), even though they've supposedly passed their test! Now, my argument has always been that, if your skills are so crap and you're so unsure of yourself that you need to warn off other road users, then you shouldn't have passed in the first place! I for one immediately tore off my learner plates (both car and motorcycle) as soon as I passed and I was off! Where I'm going with this is that the F-14 really needed a naturally skilled and confident pilot to fly it safely, certainly not the pilot equivalent of a "P plate" wearer.

Regarding female combat pilots, in many ways I think they're a benefit to the service, because they're more likely to treat the job professionally and less likely to be reckless "Hollywood" cowboys.

[KissArmy]

Originally Posted by Budo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen

Dear, oh dear...Now this is the sort of thing our government would do, make someone with substandard skills a qualified fighter pilot just because she was a woman.

I was in the US military in the mid-90s, when Kara died trying to land on that carrier. Three things were going on around that time:

1. There really was a "first female" competition between the US Air Force and the US Navy. The US Air Force was touting their "first female B-52 pilot" around that time (later court-martialed for having an open affair with the enlisted young husband of an enlisted young woman at her AF base). The US Navy was losing the PR campaign.

2. The Tailhook Scandal. Tailhook was an association of carrier pilots, both past and present. And their conventions were booze-soaked, misogynistic raunch fests. The one in 1994, in Las Vegas Nevada, got national attention after women attendees complained of sexual assault and harassment there.

3. A powerful U.S. congresswoman named Pat Schroeder. She was the chair of the US Armed Services Committee in the US House of Representatives at that time. If she didn't outright dislike the US military, she definitely disliked all the testosterone that was running it. So she used her power to promote females in the US military. And go after shit like what happened at the 1994 Tailhook convention.

So yeah, if there was an issue between whether a female was qualified or unqualified for a particular military duty, the tie went to the female. Most of the time, it worked out fine I think.

[seany65]

Hmm, would those "expletives deleted" been aimed at me, just for asking a couple of questions?

I find it odd that some here think that most politicians aren't in it for themselves, especially the highest level ones.

[Rogerbh]

Originally Posted by seany65

Hmm, would those "expletives deleted" been aimed at me, just for asking a couple of questions?

I find it odd that some here think that most politicians aren't in it for themselves, especially the highest level ones.

Comment was aimed at Trump as most of my other non-favorable comments about Trump are removed as being rude....which they are.

I notice almost all politicians emerge from their terms much richer than when they started. Truman being the exception that I have been told about.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely - this old adage seems true as ever. Trump is more open about that than most. Certainly, doesn't make me want to see him as POTUS again, I join the majority of Americans who want neither Biden nor Trump as POTUS.

Pretty sure I would learn to hate whoever becomes POTUS if by some miracle another person gets the position.

[Budo]

Originally Posted by seany65

I find it odd that some here think that most politicians aren't in it for themselves, especially the highest level ones.

Most of ours are kleptocrats.

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

I join the majority of Americans who want neither Biden nor Trump as POTUS.

We have the same problem here. I don't know why they bother talking about who could win the coming election when it's like voting for what executioner you want. For me it'll be "None of the above", although my real thoughts are a lot more X-Rated.

[Furry Triangle]

well if the majority of Americans dont want Trump or Biden why the fuck do they keep winning primaries?

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by Furry Triangle

well if the majority of Americans dont want Trump or Biden why the fuck do they keep winning primaries?

Because Trump is the favorite of the majority of registered Republicans and Biden is the favorite of the majority of registered Democrats.