PAF flurries: Iron butterflies

[Abingdonboy]

How does the PAF mitgate any issues with maternity leave and the like? Doe the PAF make it mandatory to sign up for long commissions? A legitimate argument around the world for not having women as specifically fighter pilots is the possible costs are greater than the possible benefits. It costs literally millions of USD (I assume around the same in the PAF) to train fighter pilots in this age and this cost is only justified if the pilots serve 10-12+ years. Now this would have a significant effect on female fighter pilots and specifically in this region where it is seen as culturally unacceptable to not have a child after marriage and in mid-20s. If an AF has to give maternity leave to female pilots this is 2 years out of service at least (for maternity leave and then to regain fitness and re-qualify) when a fighter pilot is in their prime and developing the majority of their fighter skills.


How does the PAF get around this?

 

[Abingdonboy]

It's a crying shame that the IAF forbids such roles for its women, when some of them have performed eminently in flying roles. Its women pilots have landed helicopters on the perilous slopes of siachen, and even set a few records for heights and difficulty while delivering cargo. After this, the IAF grudgingly began training them to fly twin engine combat helicopters, and again they performed remarkably. But the IAF still refuses to consider opening the jet stream to them, citing all sorts of excuses. (While facing an acute pilot shortage.) Somebody should introduce these women of the PAF to them, and ask them a simple question - if Pakistan can do it, why cant we?

For the above reasons I have mentioned @janon. The IAF has conducted extensive analysis and debate on the isse of female pilots and, at the end of the day,the costs were greater than the benefits. I have read a comprehensive paper on this written by a former IN naval fighter pilot and USN fighter pilot. The IN pilot stated the IAF has debated the issue internally to death and they have come to the conclusion that investing $1.75 MN (the average figure it costs right now to train a IAF fighter pilot, NOTE-this figure is increasing at a significant rate yearly) on a female fighter pilot just wasn't worth it. Like I have said, the IAF can only justify this cost if they know their fighter pilots will be in the fighter stream for 10-12+ years. As such a female fighter pilot would have to sign up for a long term commission but that would mean that if/when she got pregnant she would become the IAF's burden- they would have to provide her adequate leave and time to recover and get back into shape post pregnancy, all the time being given IAF salary and then a desk-job until they were back into the physical condition required to fly high performance fighter. The fact is some women NEVER get back into the required fitness state and as a result a pilot the IAF has invested extensive time and treasure in training up has to be given another assignment outside the cockpit which is, as you can imagine, a utter wast of resources.


The only other option would be for the IAF to require the female fighter pilots not to have children for a 10-12 year period once in service, not only is this ILLEGAL as the IAF's lawyers tole the service but, as you can imagine, it is not very popular among the female candidates.


So if a female pilot does get pregnant, what do you do? Jail them? Ask them to pay back training fees (which if they were trained right up to OCU level, costs would be in the 100s of 1000s of USD already)?

As you can see it is a minefield.



The USN fighter pilot admitted this was a major issue in his fighter wing- females being trained up to operational readiness and then going on maternity leave that left both the SQDs out of the requisite pilot numbers but also cost the Navy as a whole a pretty penny.




The IAF already has a case study in the IAF's non-fighter pilot stream. Here females can fly anything in the IAF's service including the C-17s that the IAF are procuring. Outside the fighter stream the costs of training are not quite so steep and the requstie fitness levels not so high so the issue of female drop outs is not as acute but it is still an issue.



@janon it is not a reflection at all on the merits and abilities of female pilots, it is just cold logic.

 

[janon]

For the above reasons I have mentioned @janon. The IAF has conducted extensive analysis and debate on the isse of female pilots and, at the end of the day,the costs were greater than the benefits. I have read a comprehensive paper on this written by a former IN naval fighter pilot and USN fighter pilot. The IN pilot stated the IAF has debated the issue internally to death and they have come to the conclusion that investing $1.75 MN (the average figure it costs right now to train a IAF fighter pilot, NOTE-this figure is increasing at a significant rate yearly) on a female fighter pilot just wasn't worth it. Like I have said, the IAF can only justify this cost if they know their fighter pilots will be in the fighter stream for 10-12+ years. As such a female fighter pilot would have to sign up for a long term commission but that would mean that if/when she got pregnant she would become the IAF's burden- they would have to provide her adequate leave and time to recover and get back into shape post pregnancy, all the time being given IAF salary and then a desk-job until they were back into the physical condition required to fly high performance fighter. The fact is some women NEVER get back into the required fitness state and as a result a pilot the IAF has invested extensive time and treasure in training up has to be given another assignment outside the cockpit which is, as you can imagine, a utter wast of resources.


The only other option would be for the IAF to require the female fighter pilots not to have children for a 10-12 year period once in service, not only is this ILLEGAL as the IAF's lawyers tole the service but, as you can imagine, it is not very popular among the female candidates.


So if a female pilot does get pregnant, what do you do? Jail them? Ask them to pay back training fees (which if they were trained right up to OCU level, costs would be in the 100s of 1000s of USD already)?

As you can see it is a minefield.



The USN fighter pilot admitted this was a major issue in his fighter wing- females being trained up to operational readiness and then going on maternity leave that left both the SQDs out of the requisite pilot numbers but also cost the Navy as a whole a pretty penny.




The IAF already has a case study in the IAF's non-fighter pilot stream. Here females can fly anything in the IAF's service including the C-17s that the IAF are procuring. Outside the fighter stream the costs of training are not quite so steep and the requstie fitness levels not so high so the issue of female drop outs is not as acute but it is still an issue.



@janon it is not a reflection at all on the merits and abilities of female pilots, it is just cold logic.

Many countries, rich and poor, and of varying cultures, allow women to fly fighters. USA, Indonesia, Singapore, Pakistan, China, Israel, Russia, Serbia, Uruguay, Brazil, Ethiopia (the first missile kill achieved by a woman was by Capt. Aster Tolossa who flew a Su-27 flanker that shot down a mig 29), Norway, South Africa, New Zealand, South Korea, Nigeria....and more.

If all these countries, even dirt poor ones like Ethiopia can invest in female fighter pilots, I am sure that India can too. Why did all these countries decide to invest in their training, although few of them are teeming with cash? Didn't the question of pregnancy come up in these countries? I don't see why a way cannot be found around the issue of pregnancy. For one thing, I don't think that your assertion that they cannot fly anymore after delivering a baby is true. It will be their duty to train and stay in shape. (actresses do it all the time, so why can't warriors? If aishwarya rai can get back to being slim and curvy in a year after pregnancy, I don't see why trained air warriors can't get back in shape.)

So although a year and a half will be lost during pregnancy, they can still be made to put in the mandatory number of flying years. Besides, although a law can't be made against them getting pregnant, they can certainly be discouraged from getting pregnant multiple times, there are lots of ways to pressure them on that. Their career advancement will suffer if they do not give their best for the service and for the nation. Besides, so many women in private jobs plan their family with their career in mind (some call them career oriented rather than family oriented.) Women who work for a living do not usually have ten children like women who are confined to their homes do.

Also, it's not like every woman pilot who enters the fighter stream will get pregnant and leave the force. Only a very small percentage will. After all, a fighter pilot's job wont be handed to them on a platter, it will have to be earned through very hard work. And all that time, they will be well aware of these issues, and they would bear all that in mind while struggling to get selected as a fighter pilot. They get there only because they have volunteered to serve the nation, and because they worked hard for it. If they have the determination to become a fighter pilot, and to train themselves to fly F-16s or flankers, they will not simply get pregnant and leave after a year or two. Only people who are that dedicated and motivated reach those positions in the first place. If a few of them do become a liability because they get pregnant multiple times, that would be a cost we have to bear for giving one gender their rights. After all, hundreds of pilots took premature retirement in the 2000s, to join private airlines. (263 pilots between 2002 and 2004 alone.) The number of pilots who get pregnant multiple times will be miniscule compared to that wastage.

By the way, talking about pregnancy and flying fighters:

That's Major Stephanie Kelsen, who has been flying F-16s for the past 23 years, and mothered two children in between. She was the commander of a major air national guard unit in 2009. Here she is, maneuvering her F-16 into position for an aerial refueling:

 

[Abingdonboy]

Many countries, rich and poor, and of varying cultures, allow women to fly fighters. USA, Indonesia, Singapore, Pakistan, China, Israel, Russia, Serbia, Uruguay, Brazil, Ethiopia (the first missile kill achieved by a woman was by Capt. Aster Tolossa who flew a Su-27 flanker that shot down a mig 29), Norway, South Africa, New Zealand, South Korea, Nigeria....and more.

If all these countries, even dirt poor ones like Ethiopia can invest in female fighter pilots, I am sure that India can too. Why did all these countries decide to invest in their training, although few of them are teeming with cash? Didn't the question of pregnancy come up in these countries? I don't see why a way cannot be found around the issue of pregnancy. For one thing, I don't think that your assertion that they cannot fly anymore after delivering a baby is true. It will be their duty to train and stay in shape. (actresses do it all the time, so why can't warriors? If aishwarya rai can get back to being slim and curvy in a year after pregnancy, I don't see why trained air warriors can't get back in shape.)

So although a year and a half will be lost during pregnancy, they can still be made to put in the mandatory number of flying years. Besides, although a law can't be made against them getting pregnant, they can certainly be discouraged from getting pregnant multiple times, there are lots of ways to pressure them on that. Their career advancement will suffer if they do not give their best for the service and for the nation. Besides, so many women in private jobs plan their family with their career in mind (some call them career oriented rather than family oriented.) Women who work for a living do not usually have ten children like women who are confined to their homes do.

Also, it's not like every woman pilot who enters the fighter stream will get pregnant and leave the force. Only a very small percentage will. After all, a fighter pilot's job wont be handed to them on a platter, it will have to be earned through very hard work. And all that time, they will be well aware of these issues, and they would bear all that in mind while struggling to get selected as a fighter pilot. They get there only because they have volunteered to serve the nation, and because they worked hard for it. If they have the determination to become a fighter pilot, and to train themselves to fly F-16s or flankers, they will not simply get pregnant and leave after a year or two. Only people who are that dedicated and motivated reach those positions in the first place. If a few of them do become a liability because they get pregnant multiple times, that would be a cost we have to bear for giving one gender their rights. After all, hundreds of pilots took premature retirement in the 2000s, to join private airlines. (263 pilots between 2002 and 2004 alone.) The number of pilots who get pregnant multiple times will be miniscule compared to that wastage.

By the way, talking about pregnancy and flying fighters:

That's Major Stephanie Kelsen, who has been flying F-16s for the past 23 years, and mothered two children in between. She was the commander of a major air national guard unit in 2009. Here she is, maneuvering her F-16 into position for an aerial refueling:

Mate, I am not passing judgement either way, I can see it from both angles. I am just telling you why the IAF have made the decisions they have. There are legitamte issues behind it.

For one thing, I don't think that your assertion that they cannot fly anymore after delivering a baby is true. It will be their duty to train and stay in shape. (actresses do it all the time, so why can't warriors? If aishwarya rai can get back to being slim and curvy in a year after pregnancy, I don't see why trained air warriors can't get back in shape.)

I am not saying that once a women has given birth it is impossible to get back into shape to be in the form required to fly fighters. I am just saying it is hard to do so. And the average time is 2 years out of active service for female fighter pilots who chose to take paternity leave. This includes the actual maternity leave, then recovery afterwards, then the time taken to regain physical fitness and finally time to be re-certified on their fighters (as you can't just take 18 months off and expect to be allowed to step back into the cockpit in a fully operational capacity). All throughout this time the SQD will be a pilot down.


And there will be some women pilots who just can't get back in shape, or don't want to-this is a fact.



The Aishwarya Rai point is moot as she is a multi-millionaire who had endless staff and help to look after the children not to mention all the help nessercary to get slim ie nutritionists and personal trainers. For a IAF fighter pilot none of these hold true.

Besides, although a law can't be made against them getting pregnant, they can certainly be discouraged from getting pregnant multiple times, there are lots of ways to pressure them on that. Their career advancement will suffer if they do not give their best for the service and for the nation. Besides, so many women in private jobs plan their family with their career in mind (some call them career oriented rather than family oriented.) Women who work for a living do not usually have ten children like women who are confined to their homes do.

Can you imagine the lawsuits and sh!tstorm the IAF would have to face by these female pilots who claimed their seniors were discouraging them from getting pregnant and threatening their career advancement? The IAF cannot adopt this as official policy as it is ILLEGAL.



Not all nations have female fighter pilots and not all don't. Nations have every right to make up their own minds.



Also let's not discount the cultural specifics of Asia wherein the pressure to have a child and marriage is much greater than the West and other places you have mentioned.

 

[janon]

Mate, I am not passing judgement either way, I can see it from both angles. I am just telling you why the IAF have made the decisions they have. There are legitamte issues behind it.

I am not saying that once a women has given birth it is impossible to get back into shape to be in the form required to fly fighters. I am just saying it is hard to do so. And the average time is 2 years out of active service for female fighter pilots who chose to take paternity leave. This includes the actual maternity leave, then recovery afterwards, then the time taken to regain physical fitness and finally time to be re-certified on their fighters (as you can't just take 18 months off and expect to be allowed to step back into the cockpit in a fully operational capacity). All throughout this time the SQD will be a pilot down.


And there will be some women pilots who just can't get back in shape, or don't want to-this is a fact.

There won't be that many women pilots in the first place. Of these the number that cant or wont will be much lower. Anyway, we cant really quantify the numbers, until we actually start inducting women.

The Aishwarya Rai point is moot as she is a multi-millionaire who had endless staff and help to look after the children not to mention all the help nessercary to get slim ie nutritionists and personal trainers. For a IAF fighter pilot none of these hold true.

The military has lots of personal trainers too. I think they call them drill instructors, in the US. There can surely be a law that somebody who has been out of action for more than a year will have to requalify for BPET, or attend the physical drills again.

Can you imagine the lawsuits and sh!tstorm the IAF would have to face by these female pilots who claimed their seniors were discouraging them from getting pregnant and threatening their career advancement? The IAF cannot adopt this as official policy as it is ILLEGAL.

That's not what I meant. Its the other kind of pressures that a career focused woman always faces. The knowledge that she wont be in the elite fighter club anymore, but will have to do a desk job, or go into a transport stream. That will by itself act as a deterrent to them. After all, only the most passionate ones will get into the fighter stream. They will themselves take care about their career, since, warriors in India become warriors out of calling and patriotism. The majority of them will be self motivated to plan their private lives accordingly. And besides, women do fly helicopters and transports. If a fighter pilot gets pregnant, she can be transferred to the transport stream when she returns. To most motivated fighter jocks, that will itself be a deterrant against getting pregnant. And if they still do, and if they are made to go into the transport stream later, that will still not be as big a loss to the nation as pilots who quit the force entirely. I am sure there is no law against transferring a pilot into the transport stream.

Not all nations have female fighter pilots and not all don't. Nations have every right to make up their own minds.

Also let's not discount the cultural specifics of Asia wherein the pressure to have a child and marriage is much greater than the West and other places you have mentioned.And that is why I mentioned several countries from most continents, and not just "the west". Asia, Africa, South America, Europe, Australia, north america. Other than Antartica, all continents have female fighter pilots. (They don't have male ones either.) What cultural specifics does India have that Pakistan or Indonesia or Ethiopia or Nigeria doesn't? The pressures of motherhood and marriage exist in Pakistan and Indonesia too, doesn't it? The number of children per couple is greater there. The cost of training women should be felt in these countries too, right? After all, few of these countries have the budget that IAF has. Ethiopia's GDP is about 1.8% that of India's. If they can spend money in training women... So these terms like "cultural specifics" and "cost of training" are bogeymen, brandied about by the forces to resist change. Many other nations have shown us that, and it is time we learnt.

My responses in red.

I suggest however that we have this discussion in a more appropriate thread, since this is specifically about the PAF and its female fighter pilots. Let's not derail their thread with a discussion on the IAF and its reluctance to let women join the fighter stream.

@Oscar @WebMaster :
Apologies for the off topic discussion. If necessary, please move them to a suitable thread.