Talk:Kara Hultgreen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Illinois (Rated Start-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Chicago      (Rated Start-Class) Chicago Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Biography     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Military work group. Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Aviation WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Aviation Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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, its gotten too demented.

[edit] 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)