[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.

[pierrem15]

My recollection (perhaps faulty) is that an investigation after her F14 crash showed her performance was sub par while in carrier flight training but she was passed along.

I'm not opposed to women in the military, but the affirmative action nonsense where performance is a life or death issue will get people killed. I actually think there are some roles where women would actually tend to outperform men, such as sonar operators. But the lunacy now of relaxing standards to advance women and minorities is simply going to get servicemembers killed and negatively affect the military. Plus the excuses for bad behavior, like the ship captain (female) and XO (female) who weren't talking to each other and relayed messages through subordinates. That's the ridiculous behavior that was tolerated on one of the naval vessels involved in a fatal collision a few years ago.