F-14D & NSAWC | with Hillary "Toro" O'Connor Mueri *PART 2*
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ส.ค. 2024
- "Toro" chats about her time flying and operating the F-14D Tomcat with VF-213 Blacklions with the US Navy.
She also talks about flying the F-16B and F/A-18B/D/F with The Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (NSAWC, pronounced "EN-SOCK") and what it was like coming from the Tomcat.
Filmed at Gatwick Aviation Museum - gatwick-aviation-museum.co.uk
Laco - www.laco.de
Help keep the channel going:
/ aircrewinterview
or donate
www.aircrewinterview.tv/donate/ - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
Refreshingly honest and open interview, thanks Torro. But the quote that made me laugh out loud? [Knitting] "stops you from stabbing people..." That's advice you can live by :-)
Thank you for your service Toro, much respect for competing against all that guys....you are a hero
She deserves an You Tube Channel to share with us some goods about US Navy Aviation and Tomcat histories!!!
Fantastic interviewee in that she shared things that we usually don't get to hear in these interviews. Although the others all have interesting things to share, basically all of her stories had an angle/approach that stand out from the rest, and made this one of the most - if not *the* most - watching-worthy interview so far!
Cheers mate.
Awesome lady!! Thank you for your service.
Great interview, thanks Mike! And thank you Toro for your service!
Cheers, Robby.
Thanks Mike - and say thank you to,the interviewee - one of the most interesting you have done for a while
Great interview with a great Pilot, and her fondness for the Tomcat makes her even more simpatico in my eyes :)
Very interesting and candid interview. There's just something so cool about the Tomcat that others lack
Cool. Ended up watching both parts. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it.
That has to be one of THE BEST aircrew interviews you’ve done. Fascinating insight in both the military aviation and personal details. Thank you Toro for your service, candour, humility and humour! Especially sad to learn of institutional abuse you alluded to as a female combat aviator: it’s the USN’s loss. Great to hear the combat ops, and details like operating the F-14 circuit breakers in particular order to fool certain capabilities to work, to you successful post military transition to being a lawyer and mother who knits and doesn’t stab anyone, all with a smile!
Thank you. I’m sure Toro will appreciate the comment.
I really appreciate her candor when speaking about the sexism she experienced. My mother in law flew for the airforce from 96-08 and hearing Toro talk about it reminds me of her sentiments. I didn't catch what year Toro stopped flying, but when my MIL left the airforce, she did so due to the continuing discrimination and bullying she experienced. From what I gather, she was a fantastic aviator and never made a mistake, but that didn't do anything to help her with the assholes she had to work with. Sure, women think differently, but I have yet to see any evidence that they are any less capable than men when it comes to putting warheads on foreheads. It's a damn shame that this happened to numerous women, and I really hope this isn't the case anymore. Fighting for your country should not require you to put up with mistreatment.
It's better now. Some women had to endure a rough career to make it better for today's female aviators.
It's obvious neither of you have ever been in the military because now liberals are using the military for their stupid social experiments. I can't speak about how capable women pilots are but as someone who spent 11 yrs in the US army (2000-2011) with 2 tours in Iraq and one Afghanistan, the army is going soft. Now they are letting women in combat units, which is incredibly stupid because it is going to get good men killed and make the units less capable. Women have a role in the military, just not in combat units! Anyone that says otherwise is an idiot and has never been in combat.
People need to remember that it isn't a right to serve in the military, it's a privilage! The military doesn't need to change it's ways for equality or fairness! Its about the needs of the military and fighting wars! If you are a liberal snowflake you need to stay as far away from the military as possible!
I'm afraid this is a natural consequence of trying to clumsily shoehorn females into male hierarchies, especially ones that draw ultra competitive, aggressive personalities like the military. It isn't good for either males or females because we've adapted over at least the last few hundred thousand years to have parallel male and female hierarchies, not males in female hierarchies and vice versa.
I think the real solution must lie somewhere along the line of sex segregated units, so personnel don't have to go fight biological impulses in addition to their already demanding duties, and maybe even roles especially suited to the different advantages that men and women posses.
The notion that men and women have only slight differences or that problems with inserting females into male hierarchies is simply sexism is a bunch of baloney from a lot of very ideologically zealous control freaks who only care about science when it supports their politics. Better solutions are needed from more honest sources that actually care about the individuals, both males and females, they're going to affect.
Think about a culture that has been built over the better part of a century with a continual legacy laid down by the pioneers in the 1920s and 1930s. It has always been extremely competitive males who are guys that were skimmed off a very small group of guys, skimmed off 3 or 4 other pools of increasingly-smaller numbers who are also very smart, very physically fit, who now know they are the best of the best of the best.
Along comes Bill Clinton who declares that DoD will have to allow women into combat roles because his wife demands it. At no point in the conversation did anyone say, "Does this make us more combat effective and will this help us increase our military capabilities?"
Instead, the argument was always about fairness and equality with the assumption that women were equally capable, if only they could have the chance. Maybe that is true in fighters, but it certainly isn't in Artillery, Armor, Infantry, or Special Forces units. Either way, the pilots who continually flow in and out of fighter squadrons would have a big ? over the heads of the new female pilots and aircrew coming in. Were they there because they were genuinely better than the males in their class, or were they given preference over a male candidate because of some type of quota coming down from the likes of Hillary Clinton, who couldn't even pass the bar exam after graduating from Yale Law.
Even with female aircrew who genuinely excelled academically and physically, with airmanship, carrier quals, and ACM, the guys in the squadron would still wonder if they had been padded to be pushed through. That's the reality of the culture at the time. Once in a squadron, again with its decades of male-dominated cultural nuances (watching sports, porn, gambling, drinking, one-upmanship), a new female nugget walks through the squadron room door and there is bound to be a current of change that they just weren't equipped to deal with. It required the squadrons to either change their culture or just tell the new female pilots to adapt. Most of the women, being low-ranking nuggets as it was, were not in a position to change anything because they were new and unproven-same as a male new pilot.
Any type of unit that has extremely difficult selection and training processes also has a probationary period in that unit. The spotlight is on you and any mistakes made are immediately noticed, assessed, and either acted on or quietly logged because they know you aren't going to cut it. So the workplace environment has high levels of stress just from an interpersonal perspective, let alone the fact that they are flying supersonic fighters off of floating runways where the crews are expected to land on at night in bad weather. Now the squadron has to deal with the uncertainty of being scrutinized any further if they correctly assess a new female nugget as a non-performer.
One thing that helped with this in a way was female pilots who gained more experience and status in the squadrons who could also vouch for these assessments, but it shouldn't take another female to have to justify the squadron's normal assessment process. So I can see the perspective from both sides on this. I can only imagine what it would be like for a female to walk into her squadron, not knowing that this culture even existed. Talk about shock to the system. Squadron rooms used to have what you would expect an all-male unit to have on the walls. That all got slowly rolled up and changed because of the presence of women, so now some of the comforts that were present in a squadron's area were mandated to be taken away by the Navy.
If any more senior officer in the Squadron did his duty and attempted to coach, mentor, and develop this new subordinate, the appearance would be that he was cultivating her in an unprofessional manner and the other squadron mates would develop suspicions something was going on. This is the last thing you want happening in a unit where cohesion is critical to life or death of not only the pilots/aircrews, but the carrier battle group itself, so a lot of adjustments have been made all around.
@@aries144 They tried that when the Clintons mandated we form a female-heavy unit in The Old Guard in DC. It failed miserably and that was "just" doing live full hour funerals for families in Arlington National Cemetery. Imagine you're there to see grandpa or your dad being buried with honors in ANC, and the female casket team drops him and his casket onto the ground, not once, but three times in a 2-week period. Never saw anything like it before or since. They also mandated that a female go to the Tomb, which didn't last long at all.
Excellent upload
The most entertaining interview, both parts.
Cheers Jamie.
Great insight into aircrew life... thanks!
The CAS mission story sent chills down my neck.
New sub here. Man I'm hooked on your awesome vids. I love all the f4 vids, as a kid of the 70s growing up near a guard base its my all time favorite machine. Love your channel!
Thanks and welcome to the channel!
Legit American hero. Thank you for your service!
Excellent. Well done.
Another great interview Mike!
Cheers
Great interview as always!
I have a suggestion, how about interviews with the air mechanic crews, IMO the servicability of aircraft ist very interesting as well.
Wow ! What a lady, brilliant interview
Brilliant video,lovely woman,thank you both
Loved it.awsome
Almost.....but not quite as pretty as a Tomcat.... AMEN to that! And a well made point (no pun intended) about stabbing people with a pointy object, laughed out loud to that and it's almost 2AM here..... i hope the neighbor doesn't mind =))
Very instructive about the RIO's role. Not sure if there's still going to be RIO's in the near future as it seems fighters are becoming predominantly single-seaters. Perhaps the evolution of electronics and how tight their integration has become has pushed the RIOs out.
In the 1980s, when they were aggressively researching what's become standard on the F-35 -- virtually nothing on that plane is new; they just waited for electronics to miniaturize and reduce the weight of the helmets the pilots had to wear and they're STILL marginally safe! --, there was a conclusion reached with the sensors (radar, IR, etc.) they had --
They were overwhelming the pilots. The problem isn't only G-LOC but sensory overload for just having to process TOO much. This has been an issue since Vietnam and you would think the situation would have been improved with digital computers and integrated/sensor fusion
It's really only gotten worse because the equipment is that much more capable and they're requiring the pilots to do more and more with these planes. Pilots can no longer specialize because they're required to do at LEAST 2-3 different types of missions. A human brain can only handle so much and with the stress of wartime you're pushing people into scenarios they probably shouldn't be in -- there are different mentalities for interception/dogfighting and attack but they want the missions and crews to do it all in the myth that it will be cheaper for ONE PLANE to do it all! Reality just doesn't work that way.
Specialist planes have been on the way out although USAF still wants air superiority aircraft (which is why they're probably going to end buying 140+ new F-15s; the current F-15C fleet is just about life-expired and it's cheaper to buy F-15E derivatives than rebuild the current inventory). The bulk of planes in services are multi-role/swing fighters like the F-16 and F-18 but the problem with those planes are limits and constraints forced by the fact they've had to be adapted to more than one role. In other words, they're good at many things but master of nothing! The F-16 actually went into service costing 2-3 times the original estimate because they forced it to evolve into a fighter-bomber (which by the way is the only reason it's STILL in production decades later otherwise it would have been decommissioned by now) and THAT was the cheap plane!
@@AvengerII Multirole aircraft does not necessarily mean multirole squadrons. If an air force has three fighter squadrons, all flying the same multirole fighter, there is nothing stopping them training one squadron to specialise in air-air, one in air-ground and one in reconnaissance if they think that works better.
The reason why multirole aircraft became a practical reality is because computers became smaller and more powerful which allowed the emergence of multi-mode radars and other sensors and also allowed specialised avionics such as moving-map displays to be handled by software rather than hardware so the avionics-weight penalty of multi-role was reduced. At the same time the emergence of lighter/more powerful engines meant that the flight-envelope penalty paid for by slightly heavier multi-role air-frames was also reduced, while the emergence of practical BVR air combat technology reduced the benefit of optimising your airframe for short-range air combat manoeuvring. When you no longer have to reach the merge and maneuver onto your adversaries' rear quarter to get the kill, an extra 2000 to 3000lb of weight doesn't seem like such a big deal if you're gaining other advantages from that weight such as better optics or a heavier weapon load.
The early F-16s were not really multi-role; they had a limited light attack capability but were really specialised dogfighters with very restricted capability as interceptors (difficult to shoot a fast, low-flying bomber in cloud with only heat-seeking missiles and a gun). The reason for the cost increase was because the USAF insisted on a half-decent radar and basic EW kit (a RWR and chaff/flare dispenser) instead of the WWII level avionics the lightweight-fighter advocates tried to foist on them. The real multirole capability of the F-16 only started emerging in the mid 1980s to 1990s with the F-16C block 25 to 50/52.
@@Akm72 And you're missing a point about planes like the F-16 and F-18.
They're NOT optimized for anything. They're jacks of all trades, master of nothing. You will stil hit hard limits irregardless of whether your squadron specializes in one mission or another and frankly that is NOT the way they use those planes (unless you're in adversary squadron). They cross-train in most of those planes and most pilots are NOT Top Gun-level aces, even the way they define "Top Gun" is different. It's one thing to shoot a guy from a distance with a missile and NEVER see the opposing plane (which is how they really want to do things) versus visual engagement. The William Tell exercise in the USAF is nothing like the Navy's Top Gun.
****
*****
There's a reason the USAF decided to buy F-15s again after nearly 20 years. They're optimized for air superiority with FAR BETTER radar than the F-16 OR the F-18. (Granted, the airframes are based on the F-15E but even an F-15E in air-to-air configuration will outperform an F-18E/F Super Hornet handily in most aspects of performance.) The F-16 and -18 cannot get around the fact that the size and shape of their noses limits the capability of their radar. Even if you equalized the avionics and power of the airframes, that smaller nose radome puts a huge limit on scanning range. Put an F-15A against an F-16A (same vintage, same build timeframe) and the F-15 has double the radar range and four times the scanning volume. That's one of the things the Falcon and Hornet fanboys don't tell you (because they don't know that fact!) in addition to the fact that the larger planes perform better with a full missile load (8 missiles for F-14 and F-15) than the smaller planes. The F-16 was designed to fly and fight with two wingtip Sidewinders, not 2 Sidewinders and 4 AMRAAMS like it might carry in the intercept role. There's no conformal carriage on that plane... The weapon stores have to be carried under the wing and directly in the air where the drag is at its worst. The larger planes are able to reduce the weapons drag by carrying at least the larger missiles against the airframe (conformally).
They said putting a BVR test missile on the F-20 was like hanging an anchor on it and that's even more true for the far less powerful F-5E's modified to fire AMRAAM's
@@AvengerII In that case, I don't think we really disagree. Your argument seems to be that small, cheap fighters are too limited while big ones can carry more ordnance and have bigger radars, all of which I support. The multi-role vs specialised argument is pretty moot as the F-15X will almost definitely be multi-role as well; able to support the F-22 by taking on the air defence role while the F-22s take the fight into enemy airspace or able to support the F-35 in the air to ground role with stand-off glide bombs and missiles.
Not knowing the meaning of it, I have to say that ‘Toro’ is just the coolest IRL callsign. Makes sense to me. Good stuff!
It is Spanish for bull.
They don't pick their own call signs. They are given by fellow pilots.
she seems to have a super cool personality
Absolutely Beautiful! And I mean that in a very chauvinistic way. I am sorry that you had the "BAD" experiences while in service. From one vet to another. I would love to hear more of your stories.... A book possibly?? PS... I love to knit too. But then again I am ex AF with a Sailors heart. So confusing. LMAO
Was there anything that had to be cut for time? Any chance for an uncut interview?
Was in vfa-15, deployed with the same cag as her 05-06.
I was in 213 from 2000-2005.
So I dealt with the threat. Awesome. She is an amazing person.
Thanks for your great content
These interviews are a lot of fun to watch but we can't really afford the time to hold the screen on in front of our faces for 40/45 minutes. Could you please add an audio only version on podcast platforms so we could listen when we do our daily jobs?
Thanks very much. We do put all of our interviews into podcasts which are available on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher and all good podcast outlets and you can find them by searching “Aircrew Interview”.
No "and finally, do you ever get sick of talking about aviation?" I thought that was your signature sign off Mike ☺👍✈
I think I need to bring that back!
So what would a knitting needle kill be called as??? Fox-5 perhaps? Really nice interview with a great lady. (Slightly distracted by the lack of air in that nosewheel tyre though).
Cheers
I am getting a playback error for Part 2. Any idea if on my end or a youtube clustermess? I enjoyed Part 1 ready to cap it off with Part 2. Thank you for the uploads.
Hi mate. It’s working on my end so perhaps it’s just a mishap on your player buddy.
@@Aircrewinterview "... a mishap on your player " I had then backtracked to vids I knew should be working and "no joy". So It may have, in fact, been the player possibly affected by a recent , hours old, M/S update. I've been back in business...woo hoo. Thanks for your vids and taking time to reply.
Nice👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Her combat story taking care of enemy artillery in Iraq, Toro is a hero in my book.
Her husband is a clown. She's the ultimate woman!
I imagine the Navy and divorce go together like peanut butter and jelly. Long stints of absence with no physical contact will do that. I've known a few SF guys who were told as soon as they cleared the initial screening process "Don't get married" or "Go ahead and divorce now"
@wwclay86 Let's not go ahead and badmouth someone we know basically nothing about. To be fair we don't know much about her as a person either, even though she does seem wonderful in the interview.
@@Inkompetent her hubby was a cheater...
@@wwclay86 And we don't know the circumstances other than that she was at deployment. Cheating ain't okay, but we still shouldn't judge *too* harshly without knowing more of the circumstances. Heck, we don't know if she herself has cheated earlier or not.
@@Inkompetent I'm just gonna judge him with my equivalent of a moral. Sledgehammer. Not too harsh right?
Aircrew Interview
How did you get to meet Hillary?
We chatted on Twitter.
Thankyou , can we have some more Stories from Hillary
She is so honestly amazing
Part 1 and part 2 are the same video ☹☹☹
Benjamin Urbina
If it was before it isn' t now.
California bar is a hard a*s bar to pass
Like!
What a great girl......
What an awesome chick !! Was hangn off every word by end
Glad you enjoyed it mate.
15:00 Do be specific as long it is declassified, we are a specific audience, we understand that every aircraft has different performance at different altitudes and speeds.
Toro, you can be my wing man anytime.
it keeps me from stabbing people LoL thats great Love her
Strike U is CAS/Air to mud, TOPGUN is ACM/BFM for air to air work. Totally different focus. TOPGUN isn't "1v1" by any means. We did 1v1, 2v2, 2vunk, 4vunk, etc... TOPGUN is meant to be graduate level fighter tactics and training. STRIKE is meant to get folks worked up for deployment so they can do their missions properly. Completely different areas of NSAWC and entirely different skillsets.
I think she unintentionally oversimplified what TOPGUN was. Love hearing about both schools though.
You didn’t listen to what she said did you?
How do you measure the value of this lass - ask that bloke in the bar.
Do you think that Green Beret gives a flying frack what chromosomes she has...?? I doubt she has to buy beers in any SOF bar...
@@ZATennisFan My comment made no reference to her value as a woman.
I referred to her as a lass because she is somewhat younger than I.
Dull comment on your part.
@@davewolfy2906 My reply wasnt meant to me critical of you..It was meant to indicate agreement with the sentiment you expressed... Sorry if I didn't express that right. I'm sure the Green Beret in question is in awe of her.. Her sex is entirely unrelated to how bad ass she is
@@ZATennisFan Indeed.
Many thanks.
@@davewolfy2906 No problem
Sorry she had to deal with all those douches but doing so made it easier for women later on. Much respect 🤠👍
Wow, that must be bizarre to play the “what-if” scenario in your head about 9/11, I’m not sure if their plane would have been armed but it might have been possible they could have intercepted the plane that hit the Pentagon. Like she said, no guilt but just playing the counterfactuals in your head...
I can see her knitting with 9Gs on in the backseat yawning :P
I can see her blowing up shit.
@@williamkillingsworth2619 Oh, yeah, well, I bet she could blow up shit (like artillery) while knitting and pulling 9Gs. 😛. That was a great story she told though, about meeting that guy @ Cherry Pt. Respect.
It's truly unfortunate that she not only experienced sexism, but experienced so much of it she had to stop flying. That said, the nature of martial services is such that people are often reduced to their baser tendencies. We all wish it weren't so, but that's what happens in a profession where your duty's to kill people.
Very impressed till she said she was a lawyer.
So she couldnt handle flying solo the f-18 and quit?
These two videos conclusively prove that females should not be allowed to fly combat aircraft - that includes navigators/chick-in-back.
What about these 2 videos proves that?
As someone who spent 11 yrs in the US army (2000-2011) with 2 tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan I can't really speak about women being pilots, but I can say with 100% fact that women don't belong in combat units in the army and Marines!
What liberals and people that don't know anything about the military seem to either not know or forget is that it's not a right to join the military, it's a privilege! The US military's job is to fight and win wars, not to cater to someone's needs or feelings. Its not about equality and fairness in the military! The US military is going soft because liberals are using the military to try out all their stupid social experiments. If women want to join the military then they need to realize that this isn't a place that is about hugs and kisses but instead is a man's world and it's TOUGH! Once you put a women into an all male unit, it brakes up the chemistry and now the men have to watch everything they say and do in order to not upset the female's feeling. Plus a lot of ther issues that i'm not going to even begin to talk about because it would take way to long. Women have a role in the military, just not in combat!
Lol, Weird, so women shouldn't be in the military because it might hurt men's feelings?
aamc - Please lol, you're going to have to do better than that if you are going to try and get me. Obviously you aren' the brightest crayon in the box. I never said women shouldn't be in the military, I said they should be limited to support roles. So it's clear you can't read lol. But please tell me about all your time in the military and in combat? Obviously you know more about the military than me right lol? After all I only served 11 yrs with 2 tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Plus I have two brothers that are still in the army, one is an officer and the other is a NCO and both have been on seveal combat tours.
I find it really funny because during my whole time in the military I never met anyone that thought putting women in combat units was a good idea and actually most women agree that it is a bad idea for several reasons. The main reason is because females just can't keep up with me physcially and their bodies degrade much faster! There are also a LOT of ther really important reasons to keep women out of combat roles, but it sounds like you wouldn't know what those reason are to begin with.
This woman literally had another male soldier thank her for saving his life IN COMBAT, and that's your take-away from there two interviews? That says a lot more about your deficiencies as a man than women's deficiencies as naval officers.