API Curriculum Mod

[IrishEagle85]

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?

 

[Jester]

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.

 

[scoober78]

 

[Crowbar]

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?

Try here.

 

[onedge]

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

 

[usmarinemike]

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.

 

[wingsB4rings]

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

Amen.

 

[BACONATOR]

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

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.

 

[joemcspeed]

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

 

[illinijoe05]

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.

 

[Bevo16]

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.

 

[Gatordev]

I respectfully disagree. The instruction in IFS is very unstandardized and the quality control is lacking. I don't think it's a really fair test of one's aptitude. I had a "cool" IFS instructor whose discussion of trim constituted pointing at the trim wheel and saying, "that's a trim wheel". Consequently I never could land worth a shit (I also suck at flying, so that could be it) in IFS and very nearly failed my checkride. While in the pattern the retired AF O-6 who was giving me my checkride said, "you haven't touched the trim wheel once in the pattern, wtf is wrong with you?" I give him a blank look because my instructor never said I needed to trim, not just in the pattern, anywhere. He basically ended the checkride there and showed me how to trim in the pattern. I nailed like 4 landings in a row and he passed me; thank God.

I'm curious when you went through IFS. From what I've heard here recently, as well as from more recent SNAs at work, IFS is more formalized specfically because of the problems you address here. Just trying to figure out a time w/ your data-point.

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.

Again, by all accounts (both on AW as well as actual IPs who liaison w/ the IFS program), the program is much more standardized recently, hence the change to only having two training locations.

Not disagreeing w/ your other points, however. It does make one wonder where these attrited will go (if it's really 20%).

 

[usmarinemike]

"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?

 

[FLY_USMC]

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.

 

[MIDNJAC]

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.