24MAY2021 Pilot/NFO Board

[luckynumbr27]

I’ve decided I’m too anxious reading all the Jan. 25th board posts that I’ve resigned to my fate of being pushed to this board.

I have no information about it and as far as I know I could still get selected but I’m gonna set my expectations low and get to know you guys haha.

Welcome to uncertainty hell bro, not many of us in here yet but it looks like that’s fixing to change.

The sad news for those of us who don’t have a package in yet is that we don’t have a shot at a board till Octoberish since it looks like the next board will be exclusively made up of those who didn’t get looked at by the January board and they aren’t taking new applications till next fiscal year. ? So this thread may just end up getting taken over by all the January bumps who end up in the next board this spring/summer. Good luck to you tho friend, hope you made the At board for Jan. Nice scores btw ?

 

[FinkUFreaky]

I have no SA as to what's going on with accessions right now, but it's always a sinusoidal wave. In other words, if because of COVID they are delaying boards, and not taking as many people because the training pipeline is backed up, etc, soon enough (6-9 months) they'll be taking everyone they possibly can.

In other words, don't put all your eggs in one basket, plan on another job, AND keep applying (and/or studying for the ASTB depending on where you're at in the process). And then don't be too surprised when you get through OCS, and at API they tell you they took too many people and will be raising the required NSS to boot 25% of you out. And then don't be too surprised when you decide to get out that they say they don't have enough people in your paygrade; why are you leaving?

To sum it up, think of the process as like a million man march, and the guys making the decisions are at the back of the line, reacting to what they hear from the front of the line in a telephone game, and making decisions based on that, again and again and again. Rather than a steady number of people per year. This analogy works for percentage to get any given platform as well. So does 42%.

 

[slick99]

I have no SA as to what's going on with accessions right now, but it's always a sinusoidal wave. In other words, if because of COVID they are delaying boards, and not taking as many people because the training pipeline is backed up, etc, soon enough (6-9 months) they'll be taking everyone they possibly can.

In other words, don't put all your eggs in one basket, plan on another job, AND keep applying (and/or studying for the ASTB depending on where you're at in the process). And then don't be too surprised when you get through OCS, and at API they tell you they took too many people and will be raising the required NSS to boot 25% of you out. And then don't be too surprised when you decide to get out that they say they don't have enough people in your paygrade; why are you leaving?

To sum it up, think of the process as like a million man march, and the guys making the decisions are at the back of the line, reacting to what they hear from the front of the line in a telephone game, and making decisions based on that, again and again and again. Rather than a steady number of people per year. This analogy works for percentage to get any given platform as well. So does 42%.

This is a little reassuring, reading too much on AW will have you believing that the Navy will absolutely never be taking another pilot application?

 

[spolasek]

Hey everybody!

My hopes are to be on the May board, as well. I've taken the ASTB but will be retaking it. My tentative date for the is Feb. 8th. I'm prior service Navy and applying for NFO so I don't think my MEPS experience will be too terrible. I don't remember things taking too long last time. Alas, this is a different process, so who knows. You guys have me worried with the MEPS push backs, though. Are these SNA specific? Do NFO and SNA go through the EXACT same process at MEPS, does anyone know? From my knowledge, the medical screening process isn't as intense for NFO, I could be wrong though. Any insight that anyone could provide on this would be greatly appreciated!

Good luck with everything, everyone!

 

[luckynumbr27]

I don't think our MEPS issues are SNA specific man. I can only speak to my own situation but my hold ups is solely due to my LASEK eye surgery paperwork. I gave them all of the docs from my ophthalmologist but it isn't all set up the way they like so I've had to go have my doc sign like two separate MEPS docs and they're waiting almost a month at a time to tell me they need more lol. If it wasn't for that specific issue, I would've made this January board. I don't believe the MEPS is different for SNA vs NFO

 

[slick99]

Hey everybody!

My hopes are to be on the May board, as well. I've taken the ASTB but will be retaking it. My tentative date for the is Feb. 8th. I'm prior service Navy and applying for NFO so I don't think my MEPS experience will be too terrible. I don't remember things taking too long last time. Alas, this is a different process, so who knows. You guys have me worried with the MEPS push backs, though. Are these SNA specific? Do NFO and SNA go through the EXACT same process at MEPS, does anyone know? From my knowledge, the medical screening process isn't as intense for NFO, I could be wrong though. Any insight that anyone could provide on this would be greatly appreciated!

Good luck with everything, everyone!

I'm fairly certain that the actual MEPS process is the same for just about everyone, just with different standards on a few of the tests for SNA and NFO

 

[exNavyOffRec]

I'm fairly certain that the actual MEPS process is the same for just about everyone, just with different standards on a few of the tests for SNA and NFO

MEPS does a basic military entrance physical, they do not differentiate between a kid going to paint bulkheads and a guy going to operate nuclear reactors, the exam is the same. The difference is that the kid painting bulkheads can sign up that day if the MEPS doc decides basic requirements are met while the guy going to operate nuclear reactors has to have the call made by N3M as when it comes to officers the USN doesn't care if the MEPS doc thinks he meets the requirements or doesn't.

 

[Busey96]

Jumping on this thread.

Age: 24
Degree: BS Public Policy, MA Education (Finishing up the masters in May)
GPA: 3.04, 3.94 (respectively)
ASTB: 56 6/6/7 (1st attempt)
3 references, one educational from my current department head, one from a 20 year Marine Corps O-5 who did another 20 in the DOD after, and one from a 26 year retired O-6 JAG Captain.

Heading to MEPS next week hopefully. I'm extremely confident I can score higher on the ASTB, I fucked the entire listening only section because I missed the directions on what to listen for/press, but I'm going to ride these scores through the boards and retake if I don't get picked up.

 

[slick99]

Any way we can change the thread name? I think it's pretty much confirmed that the next board is going to be 24 MAY 2021

 

[Marmaduke123]

Any way we can change the thread name? I think it's pretty much confirmed that the next board is going to be 24 MAY 2021

Where'd you get confirmation on that?

I'm one of the veteran 25Jan guys who's packet got pushed back.

 

[Marmaduke123]

I’ve decided I’m too anxious reading all the Jan. 25th board posts that I’ve resigned to my fate of being pushed to this board.

I have no information about it and as far as I know I could still get selected but I’m gonna set my expectations low and get to know you guys haha.

Didn't follow your story, guessing you got your packet in and you weren't on the AT Board? My recruiter confirmed my packet is moved the next board. Said it was "probably May".

 

[S_Payne32]

Looks like I’m in the same boat. Wasn’t on At-Board list and I’ll be pushed to the next panel. The 24MAY21 date is from the last schedule that was released. No updates other than that as of yet.

 

[villo0692]

my recruiter also said, "maybe May...definitely August".....frustrating as it is....people have waited longer....

 

[Tgonzo29]

I noticed with the Air Force, their algorithm waaaaaay overweights flight hours to the point that a college kid with a PPL and 150+ hrs in a Cessna 172 could conceivably bomb the TBAS and still have one of the most competitive overall scores achievable by nature of his parents paying $20k plus for him to get his license and ride around racking up “flight hours” in a motorized kite. I know nothing about how the Navy sees flight hours so that would be refreshing to have it not mean very much since I don’t see prior small craft flight experience as any indicator of primary flight school success. But, I’m not the expert lol.

Sounds like you haven't spent much time in aviation. Perhaps going out and getting more of time in the aviation environment would benefit you. If somebody has a private pilot license, it shows that they have proven that they can perform aircraft operations to a certain standard. There is a lot of value in going out and doing flight training prior to applying for SNA. The only variable is "how did one spend those flight hours?". Did they just go sit right seat with their cfi buddy who can log them hours or were they following a syllabus with a goal of getting a PPL? I believe for that reason, the Navy puts little weight on flight hours. Many things are the same whether you're flying a "motorize kite" Cessna or you are flying an F-15. You might have aced that paper test and be a terrible stick, or have abnormal reactions to stress in the cockpit, or get air sick from "minor" g forces. Being familiar with the environment already will have a major impact on one's success. Fundamentals like Bernoulli's principle, weather, navigation fundamentals are all very similar and prior knowledge will help one excel in flight training. When one is in the "firehouse of knowledge" environment like encountered at SNA training, one will be able to process more new information since they are already able to correlate the main aviation principles.

 

[Ghost SWO]

Sounds like you haven't spent much time in aviation. Perhaps going out and getting more of time in the aviation environment would benefit you. If somebody has a private pilot license, it shows that they have proven that they can perform aircraft operations to a certain standard. There is a lot of value in going out and doing flight training prior to applying for SNA. The only variable is "how did one spend those flight hours?". Did they just go sit right seat with their cfi buddy who can log them hours or were they following a syllabus with a goal of getting a PPL? I believe for that reason, the Navy puts little weight on flight hours. Many things are the same whether you're flying a "motorize kite" Cessna or you are flying an F-15. You might have aced that paper test and be a terrible stick, or have abnormal reactions to stress in the cockpit, or get air sick from "minor" g forces. Being familiar with the environment already will have a major impact on one's success. Fundamentals like Bernoulli's principle, weather, navigation fundamentals are all very similar and prior knowledge will help one excel in flight training. When one is in the "firehouse of knowledge" environment like encountered at SNA training, one will be able to process more new information since they are already able to correlate the main aviation principles.

I think you misunderstood the intent of that message.

I agree with the @luckynumbr27. The whole point is that the USAF PCSM metric can be weighted too heavily on flight hours. I would agree that going to get experience shows a drive toward the career and familiarization with physiological effects, but you shouldn't be able to max a score with flight hours IMO. The USAF PCSM score can be highly effected by flight hours. I.E. I scored 98 Pilot and 69 PCSM with zero flight hours. If you were to submit my current flight hours to have them adjust my PCSM score from 2017, it would be 98 PCSM. The average PCSM score for selected pilots is usually in the 60-65 range so by going out and getting around 100+ hours under your belt you've put yourself in the top 2% without showing a true aptitude for flying...

Here's a perfect example I learned about from my previous semester: There was a student helicopter pilot in my program that took nearly 70 hours to solo over two semesters. Contrast that to myself who solo'd the helicopter at around 10 hours and my CFI said he was comfortable letting me solo at 4 hours, but due to school restrictions I couldn't solo until a certain point. The number of hours you acquire doesn't automatically mean you're more proficient than someone else. Someone who has 150 hours in a Cessna SHOULD be more proficient then the 25 hour student pilot but that's a broad generalization that isn't always true. To adjust a pilot selecting metric based on a simple calculation of flight hours is probably not the best way to do it because it's not a direct correlation to aptitude, proficiency, or competency.

PCSM is the metric used for selecting pilots... Terrible pilots who take 120 hours to acquire a PPL shouldn't have a numerical PCSM advantage over great pilots that receive their PPL in 40 hours. See the problem and discrepancy?