Kara "Revlon" Hultgreen

jynxyjoe

jynxyjoe

Queso King
Someone was talking about Navy flying in class today during the break, I was trying to recal the Hultgreen crash and am trying to refresh my memory. I realised reading through my memory kinda meshed together the details of the accident.

Anyhow, I noticed that there was an official report from the Navy saying it was mechanical failure, then later years, a report was released showing it was primarily pilot error.

Anyone know the reason for the change in fault?
 
Talk about a controversial accident. There were many reports of her being pushed through training, etc, in order for the Navy to have their first female F-14 pilot. Don't know the extent of the truth to that. From the PLAT video, it appeared she was overshooting final to the boat and compressor stalled an engine [watching the video posted here, I kind of am surprised with how the LSO is "talking" her through a go around, as she wasn't completely new to tactical jets or carrier ops, since she has a good amount of time in EA-6A Intruders], and was behind the aircraft on the S/E go. The RIO barely got out in time.

I'd remembered seeing this:

[also on the YT video, I do love the part with John McCain lambasting the Tailhook '91 scandal, as if he himself was "shocked and surprised" by what happened.....c'mon John, you've been a naval aviator long enough to know the kind of rowdy behavior that goes on and has gone on, esp in your time]


[yt]yLSnlZSPsOs[/yt]
 
There is some very good info available on the net if you take the time to look for it and sift through the chaff.

There is some credible evidence to show that she was a below average pilot, both as a student in the training pipeline and in the fleet. There are also some pilots who flew with her in the fleet who disagree with that assessment. Likewise, there is evidence to show that she was pushed through the jet training pipeline with below average performance because of political pressure.

The reality is that she had a mechanical malfunction (compressor stall) at a critical point in her approach to the boat. The point in contention is if the ensuing crash was the result of her poor reaction to that emergency, or if any pilot on any given day could have/would have taken the same actions she did given the same emergency.

The internal-only safety board ruled that it was pilot error.

The releasable accident investigation board ruled that it was mechanical malfunction.

You have to decide which you personally believe.

My personal opinion is...both are true. I believe that she was probably pushed through flight school due to political pressure, and I think it's possible that she was less skilled than her fleet squadronmates. On the other hand, I also believe that any pilot (regardless of experience or skill) on any given day can pork up a critical action procedure in a critical stage of flight.
 
MikeD said:
I kind of am surprised with how the LSO is "talking" her through a go around,
Click to expand...

Doesn't surprise me.

The LSO can see that something unusual is happening, and is simply being directive to help.

This isn't any different than the RSU calling out "in the flare, go around, use burners" at an SUPT base....or a wingman calling "abort" or "recover".....or a WSO calling "go around!"

I have never landed on a boat, so I don't know what the standard LSO contract is. I have to imagine that such comm is standard when the margin for error is just so slim and the LSO can see that things aren't going as planned.
 
Hacker15e said:
Doesn't surprise me.

The LSO can see that something unusual is happening, and is simply being directive to help.

This isn't any different than the RSU calling out "in the flare, go around, use burners" at an SUPT base....or a wingman calling "abort" or "recover".....or a WSO calling "go around!"

I have never landed on a boat, so I don't know what the standard LSO contract is. I have to imagine that such comm is standard when the margin for error is just so slim and the LSO can see that things aren't going as planned.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was thinking of it in an RSU-style way, the only difference that got me wondering was it being more of a talk-thru vs advisory in nature with her situation, if that makes any sense. Still, I see the reasoning for it overall.
 
The summaries offered thus far are correct. She was not at the top of her class and there were those who said she got passes because she was one of the first. But the compressor stall also occurred at a bad moment (as if there is a good moment) and there was little room for error. She paid for it with her life.

What happened after the crash was a lot of people running for cover.
 
I'm a little unsure about some of the things occurring with the aircraft at the time of the accident....
After the compressor stall occurred, the pilot applied maximum power to the operating engine(full burner), correct? With one engine inop, and full burner on the operating engine, does the tomcat and aircraft like it have enough rudder authority to maintain directional control? It looked like a Vmc roll; however, my knowlege of Vmc is based on experience in Seminoles and Twin Comanches. Perhaps this knowlege doesn't even transfer to fighter aircraft. Either way, I bet guys like MikeD or Hacker can set me straight. Thanks in advance, guys.
 
Old Dominion Flyer said:
I'm a little unsure about some of the things occurring with the aircraft at the time of the accident....
After the compressor stall occurred, the pilot applied maximum power to the operating engine(full burner), correct? With one engine inop, and full burner on the operating engine, does the tomcat and aircraft like it have enough rudder authority to maintain directional control? It looked like a Vmc roll; however, my knowlege of Vmc is based on experience in Seminoles and Twin Comanches. Perhaps this knowlege doesn't even transfer to fighter aircraft. Either way, I bet guys like MikeD or Hacker can set me straight. Thanks in advance, guys.
Click to expand...

The F-14 is not considered a centerline-thrust aircraft, unlike many tactical jet types are such as the T-38, F-4 etc.
 
While Lt Hultgreen's crash can be evaluated in terms of gender, I hardly think she was the first questionable pilot to make it through training for reasons other than her abilities. How many general's sons have received the opportunity to do stupid things as a result of their DNA?

Just one more example of politics affecting the safety and effectiveness of our forces.
 
Old Dominion Flyer said:
After the compressor stall occurred, the pilot applied maximum power to the operating engine(full burner), correct? With one engine inop, and full burner on the operating engine, does the tomcat and aircraft like it have enough rudder authority to maintain directional control? It looked like a Vmc roll; however, my knowlege of Vmc is based on experience in Seminoles and Twin Comanches. Perhaps this knowlege doesn't even transfer to fighter aircraft.
Click to expand...

The concept works exactly the same way, and your thought on the matter is right on the mark.
 
The Fez said:
While Lt Hultgreen's crash can be evaluated in terms of gender, I hardly think she was the first questionable pilot to make it through training for reasons other than her abilities. How many general's sons have received the opportunity to do stupid things as a result of their DNA?

Just one more example of politics affecting the safety and effectiveness of our forces.
Click to expand...

My point was not based on Hultgreen's sex I can assure you. I have flown with some extremely capable female fliers and some questionable male fliers. Hultgreen was in an unenviable position. Remember too this was the era of Pat Schroeder and as I remember Schroeder made it quite clear there were going to be women in fighter cockpits.

And were tearing up airplanes in the military the measure we would have never had POW1 as some call him.

As mentioned at the Bombardier standdown a few weeks ago, life has a way of handing you a test which requires ALL the skills you have. And if they are insufficient, the price is quite high.
 
The Fez said:
While Lt Hultgreen's crash can be evaluated in terms of gender, I hardly think she was the first questionable pilot to make it through training for reasons other than her abilities. How many general's sons have received the opportunity to do stupid things as a result of their DNA?

Just one more example of politics affecting the safety and effectiveness of our forces.
Click to expand...
IMHO and experience, not many make it through flight training because of their lineage. However, there were many NATC policies in the 90s which pushed many pilots into the Jet pipeline as long as they had met the minimum qualifications.
 
Orange Anchor said:
My point was not based on Hultgreen's sex I can assure you. I have flown with some extremely capable female fliers and some questionable male fliers.
Click to expand...

In some ways I think there may be merit in understanding the differences between men and women in the cockpit. I say this not to be sexist, but rather as an observation. Men and women think very differently about the same topics often. I can't think of how many times myself and my girlfriend have been thinking about a similar problem either in college (we take a lot of the same classes) or in life and have come up with two totally different yet equally valid answers. Physiologically we are different, neurologically we are different. What do this differences translate to in stressful moments. From personal experience, I tend think women do better at multi-tasking then men do in the cockpit (having flown with several women pilots). We all have differences, and I think there needs to be some studies now, about how men and women handle these things differently. Just my $.02
 
Just for clarification: In the eyes of the FAA, the F-14 'IS' considered to be a center-line thrust aircraft.

Trust me, the aircraft sure doesn't act like a center-line thrust airplane when you loose an engine, but that's the way the FAA looked at it in my case.
 
U-Dog said:
Just for clarification: In the eyes of the FAA, the F-14 'IS' considered to be a center-line thrust aircraft.

Trust me, the aircraft sure doesn't act like a center-line thrust airplane when you loose an engine, but that's the way the FAA looked at it in my case.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should've shopped around FSDOs until you got the correct answer :D

That's weird because like your second sentence states, it doesn't act like one at all from what I know of it and in comparison to similar fighter-type aircraft. I figure there's probably not a listed VMC speed above VS, since the A-10 was similar in single-engine flight. In fact, my squadron lost one during a single-engine heavyweight recovery following loss on takeoff in Korea. With the exception of when the engine failed, my squadron-mate's accident was on final and darn near similar to Hultgren's.
 
And the lack of published Vmc was the issue.

If you lost an engine and needed to climb, you centered the ball, leveled the wings and held 15 units AOA with full power on the other engine.
 
mjg407 said:
Yep, I remember being in Corpus and the Admiral told us... if you have the minimum aboves to make jets, you get jets.
Click to expand...

True, mins are mins for a reason. As you surely know, demand for production ebbs and flows so you certainly have the weeks or months where straight up 50 NSS will pull a jet slot. That said, we were told in Corpus last summer that the Navy WOULD be selecting any and all females that applied with 50 or greater (straight from my old skipper's mouth) out of primary. We are seeing the results of that policy right now in jet advanced, and without going into details that probably have no business being in the public domain, suffice to say that things don't get any easier here for the folks who were "helped along" by these policies. That may be the critical difference between Kara Hultgreen's experience, and the Navy of today.
 
U-Dog said:
And the lack of published Vmc was the issue.

If you lost an engine and needed to climb, you centered the ball, leveled the wings and held 15 units AOA with full power on the other engine.
Click to expand...

We had no listed VMC either in the Hog, but you definitely felt being single-engine control-wise (as well as power wise, being already underpowered as-is).

Here's how much we get EPs ingrained in our noggin's....I still remember the A-10s boldface steps for Single Engine Failure/Fire (T/O)......5 years after my last flight in one:

THROTTLES- MAX
GEAR- UP
STORES - JETTISON, IF REQUIRED
FUEL FLOWS - OVERRIDE

Numbers to remember was to shoot for 150 kts minimum, 200 if able.

F-117 I later flew was centerline thrust, so it was no real factor there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top