In bid for more female pilots, Air Force removes height requirement

[rk911]

source: https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/...-pilots-air-force-removes-height-requirement/

quoting:
The Air Force is waiving the minimum and maximum height requirements for pilot applicants in a bid to boost interest from women. "This is a huge win, especially for women and minorities of smaller stature who previously may have assumed they weren't qualified to join our team," a spokeswoman said.

 

[MuseChaser]

If the max and min height requirements were completely arbitrary and had no bearing on the ability to do the job, the cost and difficulties of designing the aircraft and associated gear, or anything else, then this is a great idea. If not, it's incredibly stupid. My initial reaction is that it's incredibly stupid, but that's pure conjecture. Maybe we should do away with those stupid safety size requirements for amusement park rides, too. What could go wrong?

I'm 100% for equal opportunity when applicants are equally suited for the job. When something other than qualifications for a job are considered, then we are no longer talking about EQUAL opportunity. I don't know enough about the height requirements to know if they are important or not.

 

[bobmrg]

My first student was a diminutive young lady who went on to fly for United. She would not have qualified for the USAF under the old standards.


Bob

 

[eman1200]

If the max and min height requirements were completely arbitrary and had no bearing on the ability to do the job, the cost and difficulties of designing the aircraft and associated gear, or anything else, then this is a great idea. If not, it's incredibly stupid. My initial reaction is that it's incredibly stupid, but that's pure conjecture. Maybe we should do away with those stupid safety size requirements for amusement park rides, too. What could go wrong?

I'm 100% for equal opportunity when applicants are equally suited for the job. When something other than qualifications for a job are considered, then we are no longer talking about EQUAL opportunity. I don't know enough about the height requirements to know if they are important or not.

hey, firefighters lowered their physical requirement standards lowered their physical requirement standards so that women can join so this doesn't surprise me at all, really. not saying women can't be great pilots but women can't be great pilots women probably make great pilots. you know, as long as they can see over the panel and stuff.

 

[n2230b]

In 1989 I walked in to the bar at the Officer’s club at NAS Cubi Point, PH. There was a gal LCDR in USN mess dress blues dancing on the floor. She had Naval Aviator wings. She was a brown haired beauty. I asked the bartender who she was. He said, “Oh, that’s Kelly Bundy”. Turned out she flew A-4’s In an aggressor squadron based there. They were tasked with jumping the guys in the fleet. That was her call sign. She was qualed to fly single seat tactical jets but could not fly actual combat. Her size and proportions were outstanding.

 

[Doc Holliday]

 

[JoeSelch]

If the max and min height requirements were completely arbitrary and had no bearing on the ability to do the job, the cost and difficulties of designing the aircraft and associated gear, or anything else, then this is a great idea. If not, it's incredibly stupid. My initial reaction is that it's incredibly stupid, but that's pure conjecture. Maybe we should do away with those stupid safety size requirements for amusement park rides, too. What could go wrong?

I'm 100% for equal opportunity when applicants are equally suited for the job. When something other than qualifications for a job are considered, then we are no longer talking about EQUAL opportunity. I don't know enough about the height requirements to know if they are important or not.

Wow.

Let us imagine that the pool of potential pilot applicants includes people of all genders and races.

If the aircraft and equipment have been designed around some average height of a subset of this pool - say, males or, possibly even, white males - then they have been designed to discriminate against those not in that subset.

Let this go on long enough, and people outside that subset stop even thinking about being in the pool; resulting in a homogenous and needlessly limited pool.

If the average is retaken using the entire pool and is found to deviate signifcantly from the current average, then the aircraft and equipment ought to be redesigned.

 

[eman1200]

...If the aircraft and equipment have been designed around some average height of a subset of this pool - say, males or, possibly even, white males - then they have been designed to discriminate against those not in that subset....

you have GOT to be kidding me

 

[Tusayan]

How much fighter aircraft performance could be gained by allowing ONLY pilots of smaller stature? Would that be considered prejudicial against larger people who would no longer fit, for example people over 5'3" inches tall? Would it negatively affect the self image of those larger pilots?

 

[n2230b]

Ah, the slippery slope of lowering physical standards. Oh, the iron law of unintended consequences......... We are not all the same.

 

[Salty]

you have GOT to be kidding me

If he adds in age, and probably make it flyable with a slower reaction time, so that I can join up and fly a fighter, then I'll agree with him. Otherwise, I'm with you.

 

[skier]

So do we need need to design seats with more adjustability (front/back and up/down)? How much of a weight impact is that? Can we retrofit the seats in older aircraft? Do we have to redesign the canopy so a 4’11 woman has good visibility? Do we have to raise the height of the canopy so a 6’4” man can fit?

Does this affect the ideal position of the stick relative to other instruments? How does hand size affect the grip/location of switches?

What weight are ejection seats designed for?

Are there any changes needed to support egress (steps too tall)?

How does this affect the cockpit width requirements for new designs?

seems to me like we should redesign for a max height of 5’4”. Smaller pilots would be lighter and allow for a more compact (and likely more aerodynamic) design.

 

[Half Fast]

Wow.

If the aircraft and equipment have been designed around some average height of a subset of this pool - say, males or, possibly even, white males - then they have been designed to discriminate against those not in that subset.

You might consider how long ago most aircraft were designed.

If the average is retaken using the entire pool and is found to deviate signifcantly from the current average, then the aircraft and equipment ought to be redesigned.

Any idea how much it costs to design (or redesign) a military aircraft? And then would you have us scrap the entire existing fleet and replace it, so as not to be discriminatory?

 

[eman1200]

You might consider how long ago most aircraft were designed.



Any idea how much it costs to design (or redesign) a military aircraft? And then would you have us scrap the entire existing fleet and replace it, so as not to be discriminatory?

don't forget, according to him they'd also have to redesign the airplanes for non-whites. I can't even fathom wtf that means...…...

 

[Salty]

don't forget, according to him they'd also have to redesign the airplanes for non-whites. I can't even fathom wtf that means...…...

Not know what that means is proof of your white privilege.

 

[Groundpounder]

So sounds like they have been letting people in that didn't meet the height requirements for a while now, but people had to apply for waivers. Since they are eliminating the requirements, they no longer have to file waivers.

I'm sure there are still some sort of height limits, if you're 3' or 7' tall, you probably won't fit.

 

[Bobanna]

Will they make helmets that will fit over a turban?

 

[YooperMooney]

hey, firefighters lowered their physical requirement standards lowered their physical requirement standards so that women can join so this doesn't surprise me at all, really.

I know that you had nothing to do with FD’s lowering their physical agility standards but it is absolutely ridiculous that any job requires that rigorous abilities would have any sort of sex or age discrimination. It’s either that the candidate can do the job or not do the job. When I took my first agility test in the 90’s I had to knock out almost 40 full length pushups to get a decent passing score but a female would only need 12. I’ve worked both Police and Fire and I feel that Fire is extremely more rigorous. I only worked with a few females that could truly handle themselves and many others who were just their to test their abilities at the risk of their co-workers health and safety (and I shouldn’t forget the Public’s too). I cringe when I see a 110lb police officer as they’re gonna get their a** kicked sooner or later. I’ve seen it happen a few times. They usually quit or get reassigned to drive a desk (same goes for unfit males).

I know that the Canadian Armed Forces made substantial changes to recruiting minimums, in regard to physical standards, a long time ago. I think you only get wee wee slapped if you can’t knock out ten pushups. There are a lot of tubby folks in the CAF but they still seem to get the job done. They’re absolutely desperate for Pilots right now.

 

[eman1200]

Will they make helmets that will fit over a turban?

only a white guy turban.

 

[Groundpounder]

Will they make helmets that will fit over a turban?

Will they make a helmet that fits over a trucker hat?

 

[tiger]

So sounds like they have been letting people in that didn't meet the height requirements for a while now, but people had to apply for waivers. Since they are eliminating the requirements, they no longer have to file waivers.

I'm sure there are still some sort of height limits, if you're 3' or 7' tall, you probably won't fit.

Yup. The USAF has already been accepting and handling many such applicants (not just women) via the waiver process for some years and will continuing applying its anthropometric screening to identify appropriate airframes. Dropping the initial requirement is intended to eliminate the perception of a barrier for otherwise suitable candidates for whom there would, in practice, probably not be one.

No word on whether reading an article has been dropped as a requirement for commenting on it.

 

[MuseChaser]

Wow.

Thank you for the opportunity to share your amazement.... I, too, now feel the "wow."

Let us imagine that the pool of potential pilot applicants includes people of all genders and races.

We don't have to imagine it. That's what currently exists.

If the aircraft and equipment have been designed around some average height of a subset of this pool - say, males or, possibly even, white males - then they have been designed to discriminate against those not in that subset.

Ahhh.... OK. Let me see if I have this straight. You are suggesting that, when designing aircraft and equipment, one of the meeting items on the docket was, "Hey, Mac... make sure when you're designin' this here fahter jet, you remember to do your research and ONLY design to the average height of WHITE males.. you remember what happened with those Tuskegee fellers, right?... We sure can't let THAT success happen again!" Seriously... to echo an earlier poster.. you have GOT to be kidding me.

Let this go on long enough, and people outside that subset stop even thinking about being in the pool; resulting in a homogenous and needlessly limited pool.

If you mean those too short or too tall to fly aircraft designed to be the MOST efficiently flyable and buildable military aircraft, then I would not call that a needlessly limited pool. I would call it an intelligently limited pool, just as linemen are built differently than running backs, than wide receivers, etc. Each job as its own pool of physical attributes. Designing aircraft that are perfectly suited to every stature adds needless complexity and cost. There's already PLENTY of government waste. Don't get me wrong... reread my first post if you need to. "If the max and min height requirements were completely arbitrary and had no bearing on the ability to do the job, the cost and difficulties of designing the aircraft and associated gear, or anything else, then this is a great idea." I think it'd be great to allow anyone to do whatever they want to do, UNLESS that means that someone who's better qualified doesn't get to do it. If the height limitations are arbitrary and have nothing to do with the ability to do the job, then the pool is, as you say, "needlessly limited." If they are not, then the pool is limited by pragmatism. THAT is fine.

If the average is retaken using the entire pool and is found to deviate signifcantly from the current average, then the aircraft and equipment ought to be redesigned.

New designs could certainly take into account changes in average stature as we evolve, but retooling the current fleet because "Mah RIGHTSS!!!" is ... well.... not an appropriate use of funding, to start with.

 

[hindsight2020]

Folks calm down. The answer has already been provided above by some posters, but I'll translate for the military accession neophytes: Essentially this is just a euphemistic way of saying that the Service Component is streamlining standing height waivers. That's it. There's no changes to seat ergonomics, mix/max for ejection seats, planned retrofits to cockpits, nothing.

Why the fanfare you ask? Because that accelerates the accession process, which is a big sticking point right now with the USAF and its current flavor of the year boner of cranking out more pilots per year with less training (and that topic deserves its own thread).

Would anyone care to note they have also changed the color deficiency requirements to a lower threshold two years ago? What threshold you ask? The one that used to be waiverable but not disqualifying. Gee what a coincidence. That's all this is folks. Now breathe into that brown paper bag, the demographic hegemony of his Majesty's Air Force will remain status quo for a while now, if that happens to be a cultural trigger for ya.

As to the crux of the matter being dealt with via these policy fiddles, it is absolutely a good thing in the aggregate in that it reduces the bureaucracy. AF/SG of course hates it, but that's medical nonners for ya. Of course, they're making it up in spades due to Corona and waiver denials for the high experience O-4/O-5 crowd, since they have a seller's market with the [competitive wage] airline jobs not hiring to a significant degree for the next 3 years (the latter is my WAG). The VA record trolling discrimination antics has also been especially contemptuous, but that was a few dual-hatted airline folks ruining it for everybody else, and I digress on the topic of Blue Falcons.

What does this mean down the line? Nothing fundamentally changes on the aircraft tracking post-UPT, which seems to be where people home-on-jammed to on this forum. In practice this means more women and men on the ergonomic outlier (as viewed from the Caucasian male baseline) can go right through to training without the previously required SG shenanigans aka protracted waiver process. This further means more bang for the taxpayer, as these students won't have to wait years and come out of FTU as dang near slicked winged Captains (payroll and benefits) before being of any value to the Service Component, unless you're taking the scenic route to training (aka NAVY/USMC pipeline...i keed i keed, sorta). And yes, statistically that will benefit women since they have a larger proportion of candidates that normally fell in the waiver range.

But it means zilch on the ability to track a particular airplane "you wanted" when you signed the dotted line, that you couldn't get before the waiver went away. Talking about fighter cockpits specifically is even more of a cart before the horse business. No changes to the fleet are planned. In practice the majority of these outliers will go to crew aircraft. There's relevant samples of females in fighter cockpits today, again nothing fundamentally will change about that distribution either.

 

[MuseChaser]

..
No word on whether reading an article has been dropped as a requirement for commenting on it.

Guilty as charged, and I sincerely appreciate you calling me (and whoever else you aimed that at) on it. I just read the article. My comments were based solely on the quote in the first post.

The only thing I read in the article that I disagree with, and I NEED to word this so it's as clear as possible so my meaning is not misconstrued, is the part that said, "The Air Force is worried about a lack of diversity in its overwhelmingly white and male pilot ranks. Last year, the service said that about 6 percent of its pilots are women, and 7 percent are minorities." That, in and of itself, is not a worry. What WOULD be a worry is if the women and minorities excluded from the Air Force were excluded BECAUSE they were women and minorities. THAT would be a big worry, terrible, and obviously illegal. It would be worrisome if women and minorities THOUGHT that they did not have an opportunity in the Air Force, and the article makes it clear that they do, that they have, and that they always will. All are free to apply; if women and minority applicants found to be qualified for admittance end up being turned down at a greater rate than similarly qualified "non-women" and "non-minorities," then yes, Houston, we have a problem. However, if that is not the case, all applicants of similar qualifications both physical and mental are being accepted at the same rate, and we end up with 6% women and 7% minorities, that really isn't a worry. It may be weird, and we may wonder why there aren't more interested and qualified women and minority candidates, and yes, we'd like to make sure that everyone regardless of race, color, creed, gender, proclivity, or dog/cat person knows that they are free to apply, but there is no inherent harm in skewed percentages of the population engaged in various pursuits, UNLESS it is because of discrimination based on those things. It is FINE if a larger percentage of a specific gender are more interested in certain things than another. As long as both genders know that every opportunity is open, that's enough.

If it's discrimination based upon individual ability and physical stature/capability, (and individual ability will NEVER be "equal"... we are equal, not identical, and ability knows no specific gender or ethnicity... it only knows individuals), then it's not "discrimination," it's an appropriate selection process.

 

[bobmrg]

"... There's relevant samples of females in fighter cockpits..."

...and a few of them are running for Congress in November.

Bob Gardner