API Curriculum Mod

I'm going to be starting API sometime in June and I really hope that 7-8 month timeline put out by Semper Gumby holds true...

3 weeks is going to suck ass no matter what. i don't care how sh!t hot anyone thinks they are or what they thought of API in hindsight.

Okay, I get that the Navy is getting the T-6 and it will probably be more expensive, but I still wrap my head around why the Navy needs to change a system that has worked for well over 15 years (how long has it been the same?) and drastically changing it. With the goal to attrite 20% of the people going through?

What is so wrong with the program as it stands now? Do they honestly think that just shortening the program will improve it? That sounds like a typical very short-sighted solution, with very little thought put into improving the program overall. And if 20% attrition is the primary goal, I think that the Navy needs to reconsider and fix their thought process. I often saw that success in API is not an indicator of success in flight school.

I think there would be a few other things that could weed out those who do not have the aptitude for flying. Why not standardize IFS and utilize retired or reserve military aviators? Make it more like a pre-Primary, more formalized than what I have heard about how it is conducted now. The USAF was doing that a few years ago, before the T-3's started falling out of the sky, and I believe the Israeli's and RAF do it that way. Increase the the utilization of simulators early on in Primary, certainly the Navy could invest in a few of the latest in sims when the T-6 comes on-line. Those are just a few suggestions.

And this whole idea leaves me with a few questions. What the heck do they plan to do with the 20%? That is going to be an awful lot of people that the Navy needs to find jobs for right after they started a program (instead of spread out like they are now). What will be the impact on other communities and their accession numbers? Are they going to increase staff numbers at NASC in order to keep up with the increased hours? If not, who th eheck will want to go there for a shore tour?

This strikes me as a pretty hasty and simplistic solution to a 'problem' that may or may not really exist. I could see it blowing up in the Navy's face if they are not careful.

Thanks for the heads up!

Does anyone know when this change will take place? This summer or in 7-8 months? I don't know how I feel about being a guinea pig...

It seems like this change in API is going to make preparing before hand all that much more important, at least for those of us who actually have to take the time to study to learn something.

That being said, can any of the most recent SNA's remember the current publications being used in API or recommend similar material for those of us who want to get a head start?

Is the 20% figure total attrition rate, or 20% of the overall attrition rate? In any case I don't understand the need for a 20% attrition rate, especially in API. When I went through I only heard of a couple guys attriting out of API and I didn't know of anybody that attrited out of primary. I actually saw the most attrites out of advanced, and allmost all of those were flight attrites. I think if they are going to factor in the need for attrition it needs to be in primary. Sure, more money has been spent on the individual SNA by that point but there is a huge difference between being able to do well on written tests and being able to perfrom well in an aircraft. I knew guys in API that really struggled with taking the tests but later on in primary and advanced they did really well. And I knew guys that did really well in API but struggled later on in primary and advanced. If they need a 20% attrition rate maybe they should raise the standards for getting into the flight program and take care of that 20% before they are even selected for flight school. It doesn't seem like much learning can occur with three weeks of API and 12-13 hour days. If they want to get rid of anything in API it needs to be Nav. That was a complete waste.

Does anyone know why they don't just select fewer aviators? Would that not make too much sense?

My answer would be that they want to dump as much quality raw product in as possible and see what comes out. The selection standards are already such that making the first door into the program smaller won't lower the attrition rate with respect to number of students. It'll just lower the rate with respect to time. That's pointless.

I would guess that they have the science of selection for SNA down to a few certain profiles that are generally successful, but "they" can't guess which individuals from each profile won't make it so all applicants who fit one of the profiles are dumped in the hopper, and put through the filters knowing that statistically, a certain number won't make it.

Now, if there is a quota of kills built in, then that's just unprofessional, and counterproductive.

Amen.

Simple answer. Realistically you need 20 winged aviators at the end.

You select 35, and attrite/lose 15. The 20 are good to great, but not stellar.

You select 80 total, and attrite/lose 60. The 20 you end up with are the absolute cream of the crop (all things being equal and simplified).

It's just statistics. A larger sample group yields much better quality after trimming the fat. The only issue is where these attrited/DOR/NPQ guys will end up and how those communities will be affected.

Thats the important observation! I would say there would be a higher turnover and other communities would suffer. +1

Has anyone stopped to think that the only thing that has changed is more time in the pool on a daily basis? When I went through API all the tests and academic classes were in the first three weeks. Shouldnt be that much harder. Time management folks. learn it. You'll need it when BIs and RI sims start in primary, and even more in advanced, then even more at the FRS, and it will be paramount in the fleet.

I don't like the idea of having API be the primary filter that the Navy uses to decide what is going to be a quality aviator. The classes at API don't actually prepare you for the aircraft, so why use this as a measuring stick. That's what the whole application process is for. The system that we have in place allows those who can operate an aircraft in the air prove it in the air, and those who can't have the same opportunity. It's the job of the instructors in primary/advanced to seperate the two.

The job of "Aviation Preflight Indoctrination" should be exactly what is in the title. It should be a classroom setting to get our most junior students up to speed on the very basics. I doubt that they will listen to me, but if they are going to make it the bar that all are judged at, they can at least change the name to:

"Accelerated Student Survial: Cheat, Learn, Or Washout Now!"

ASS CLOWN, for short.

If we are going to follow an Air Force model, we may as well name it after them.

How long did it take to come up with that?

Could it be that COMMCOAPINAV reads Airwarriors and he got so tired of people saying "there's no need to study for API prior to API" that he is doing all he can do to make sure you HAVE TO STUDY FOR API PRIOR TO API maybe just as a cruel trick like giving a blind girl a seatless bicycle?

On a serious note, the sooner you learn that it's not called cheating, it's called using the gouge, the sooner you'll be uncool like me.

+1 And to be honest it's not even "gouge"....it's the ELPs written at the beginning of each chapter. I fail to see how anyone, who has
1) Paid attention in class
2) Spent an hour or two the night before the exam reviewing each of these points (or at the most, daily after class)
can do badly on an exam. I agree that academic work is not a good indicator of flying ability, but if you can't even get this simple stuff worked out, how the hell are you going to succeed in a challenging process like the aviation pipeline? I can see how someone who got 100's throughout API could fail horribly in the VT's, but I really don't see it as clearly the other way around. Anyone care to comment on this?

Also, yes, this basically just means that you are going to be doing more extra stuff in the afternoons. If you look at the 4 week academic schedule, by removing the review days, it would not get any harder to reduce it to 3 weeks.

This really confuses me as all I've heard on here is that they're short in SNA/SNFO and are picking a lot of guys up. Question: with higher attrition rates, would that change what would happen when someone fell to attrition? I'm under the impression that under the old system someone was separated, but if they have a large number of people on the way out, would they just start re-designating?

Just a few opinions:

1. A 3 Week API program will suck so yes you will have to bust your ass.

2. If they are not changing the rollback policy its not all that much harder. I was at API during thanksgiving and academics got crammed into 3 weeks anyway.

3. Even with a 3 week schedule study ahead should not mean be able to teach the class like many students attempt to do. It should be read far enough ahead so you can cover the topics being discussed the next day. Come with questions. If you do that you should be fine.

4. To be frankly honest the people I see having the most trouble in primary are the ones that are so worried about getting ahead that they never pull their head out of the book, and in the aircraft they have a brain full of knowledge but can't apply it.

5. IFS ground school(Bay Minnette) was a bigger help with primary than API could ever hope to be.

6. The only concern I have about the 3 week program is further cutting into the already condensed survival course.

I went through IFS in Destin, FL with Miracle Strip Aviation in Feb-Mar 2007. Not a poorly run program at all to be honest, but the instruction just isn't up to par with military instruction by any means. I like the idea of having former military aviators certified as IFS instructors and having more formalized briefs and debriefs. I don't know if that has happened or not since I left then. And yes, it is (or at least was) a board of Naval Aviators who makes the retention decision, but it's based off of performance in training that is not given by Naval Aviators. I don't think that IFS, at least as it existed when I went through, should be cause for attrition, at least not without a military aviator seeing you fly.

The AF restarted the centralized IFS with mostly retired mil IP's: http://dossifs.com/usaf/incomingstudents.html

in Pueblo for all pilot selects; even those with CFI, commercial, etc ratings are required to complete IFS. Navs are still doing local IFS because of limited class capacity but are eventually all supposed to go through as well.