Questions regarding the Mechanical Section (and a few other things)

[usmarinemike]

In my Arco book math and verbal are two very distinct sections. In fact there are 2 separate math sections , and 3 separate verbal sections.

This may clear up your discrepancies between your Arco book and the actual test, and may answer some of your other questions. A new edition of Arco may have come out because the different sections in my Arco weren't separated that way. In mine, only the Air Force test is separated like that.

http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=136235&highlight=9%2F9%2F9%2F64

 

[usmarinemike]

When I asked my recruiter what I should prepare for he told me not to worry about the tests relating to flight since I wasn't interested in that area.

But on here people are saying they take all the tests regardless.

One thing you will learn is that some recruiters tend to be a little cavalier sometimes. It is, after all, the Aviation Selection Test Battery so it is usually assumed that you'll take the whole test. He is right though in that you don't REALLY have to take the SA and Aviation/Nautical section, but wouldn't it be neat to try? Here's the official gobbledy-gook from the Navy:

http://www.nomi.med.navy.mil/NAMI/astb/astbwebsitewriteup.htm


For most intents and purposes that is the gospel.

 

[Durron]

One thing you will learn is that some recruiters tend to be a little cavalier sometimes. It is, after all, the Aviation Selection Test Battery so it is usually assumed that you'll take the whole test. He is right though in that you don't REALLY have to take the SA and Aviation/Nautical section, but wouldn't it be neat to try? Here's the official gobbledy-gook from the Navy:

http://www.nomi.med.navy.mil/NAMI/astb/astbwebsitewriteup.htm


For most intents and purposes that is the gospel.

I wouldn't even know where to begin to study for the aviation or nautical sections.

 

[nicknight]

easy look at the gouge on this site! The only thing I had issues with was the whole buoy concept (never been sailing on the ocean or in harbors)

 

[HH-60H]

Ahh yes, the ol "I use engineering, math, and physics all the time in the fleet because I have to calculate blah blah blah" discussion.

People that think they don't use engineering, math, or physics in the fleet just don't get it. "Using" is not dependent on having to "calculate."

You're right, I'm wrong. Of course by your simplistic logic an accountant operating an adding machine is "using" engineering. Equally simplistic is your understanding of the context of my post.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

You're right, I'm wrong. Of course by your simplistic logic an accountant operating an adding machine is "using" engineering. Equally simplistic is your understanding of the context of my post.

I think I understood your post and the lack of importance you place on technical knowledge. If your context was contrary to my interpretation and I misunderstood, then by all means reeducate me.

We've had this ridiculous discussion here many time before. You don't have to sit down and crank out a new design to be using engineering. You don't have to solve differential equations to be using math. And you don't have to calculate impulse to be using physics.

But like I said, folks either get it or they don't.