[Lower Deck]

I just remember reading about how the Navy lowered the standards and that the first female pilots got away with mistakes that would have gotten a male pilot canned.

So what caused the earlier crashes if all those pilots were trained under supposedly higher standards?

[DesertRhino]

You have it backwards. There were males that crashed under those higher standards. And had males back then trained under today’s standards, there would have been FAR more of them dead.

Those crashes were IN SPITE of higher standards. Using today’s standards, lowered for diversity, it would have been abysmally more.

[daniel1212]

Seriously, regardless of what side you are on (though I am for wife/motherhood as the norm for women), those stats showing the number of F-14 losses in the period from 1970 to 1999 are meaningless as regards this issue since not only are they not simply of carrier landings, but ignore the context, the number vs the rate, and other factors relative to the # of crashes. To argue for pilot capability on the basis of these one would conclude that pilot capability suddenly nosedives from 1975 thru 84, then vastly improved in 85, before again plummeting for 3 before years greatly improving.

However, factoring the # of crashes relative to the # of flights, the manner of missions (like Vietnam vs. peacetime vs. Iraq), environmental factors, age of planes and modifications etc. would explain most of it. Likewise any debate using stats must take in the above and more into consideration.

[Mr.Unique]

So what caused the earlier crashes if all those pilots were trained under supposedly higher standards?

Sheer numbers. What are the pilot-caused mishap rates? That's what you need to know.