Is it just me, or is the PHAK poorly written?

Notrub said:
Happy holidays to everyone . Let me emphasize how good it feels to be made fun of by the experts on this post. I am sure none of this would be said to my face and u are nice people/pilots
Click to expand...
You may be sure, but you’d still be wrong.
 
RussR said:
It's since been removed, but my favorite awful entry was in the Airplane Flying Handbook, which had this picture to describe Lazy 8's:

View attachment 123559

For the record, Lazy 8's look nothing like that. Cuban 8's maybe, but that's an aerobatic maneuver. But this picture was in the AFH for years and years under the Lazy 8's paragraph.

This picture was the source of confusion for many when learning how to do Lazy 8's, confusion that actually took significant time and effort to resolve.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that Cessna is vertical in that illustration. Hahah!
 
Roger Wilco said:
Taken on the whole, PHAK and AFH are reasonably good--considering that they (and many other useful publications) are available free-of-charge from the FAA. They have been revised in a hodgepodge manner, many times over the decades, by different writers of different eras under different administrations. It's obvious that the illustrators and technical writers are not subject matter experts, and likely that these publications are not a high priority within the budget-constrained organization. On the upside, readers are invited to submit suggestions and corrections to the Airman Testing Standards Branch, which publishes these books. Suggestions are reviewed and considered for inclusion in future revisions. I have done just that, and have received replies from the Branch that indicate a genuine interest in improving the publications. Perhaps, if those of us who discover factual errors or struggle to grasp unclear prose take the time to submit an email to the Branch, the quality of these books would be greatly improved. The email address for correspondence is generally published in the Preface. My 2016 copy of PHAK lists the contact address as AFS630comments@faa.gov. Don't expect an immediate reply.

It's both amusing and ironic that the very first reply to the OP, despite being in agreement with the OP's complaint, is an indecipherable mess.
Click to expand...
That's really good to know. Thanks for sharing that. I wouldn't have thought they had a complaint department. Lol
 
Notrub said:
Happy holidays to everyone . Let me emphasize how good it feels to be made fun of by the experts on this post. I am sure none of this would be said to my face and u are nice people/pilots
Click to expand...
You need a little thicker skin here Notrub. I don’t really see anything here to get worked up about here, except a little fun poked at you. I agree with you for the most part. But I gave up on reading it cover to cover, if I need to research something, it’s one of the first books I go to. I think it’s a brutal way to learn how to fly though. For some small money there are much easier ways to gain the same knowledge.
 
Notrub said:
Wow this is a harsh crowd;) pilots should be able to read and understand faa documents. Even if like my posts these documents have glaring and sometimes funny flaws. I as a pilot use the phak as a reference like the far/aim, acs and pts all published by the faa. Just saying this helped me sincerely.
Click to expand...
Yeah, for sure. I'm not saying it's not helpful, but it's definitely not up to the standars of other textbooks. As expensive as aviation is to get into, you think they'd be able to afford some better textbooks. That's all. :)
 
KingAir1922 said:
I'm not saying it's not helpful, but it's definitely not up to the standars of other textbooks. As expensive as aviation is to get into, you think they'd be able to afford some better textbooks.
Click to expand...
Can you say lowest bidder?
 
Does this fall under the principle of advice being worth what you paid for it?

Yeah, like a lot of stuff I t could most definitely use some editing. I use it as a reference, occasionally, and if what I find doesn’t make sense I look one or two other places for confirmation or correction.
 
DaleB said:
Does this fall under the principle of advice being worth what you paid for it?

Yeah, like a lot of stuff I t could most definitely use some editing. I use it as a reference, occasionally, and if what I find doesn’t make sense I look one or two other places for confirmation or correction.
Click to expand...
For sure. I've got two or three books from various authors lined up after this one. Figured since it's the official FAA book on the subject, I better start there. And we are paying for it, make no mistake. The receipt comes every tax season. Haha
 
This is perhaps my favorite figure from the PHAK (I think it might be fixed in newer editions). Amazing how they get those light beams to take a sharp bend in midair.....

1703606213355.jpeg
 
I mentioned this a few years ago, but the PHAK often provides information in the most cryptic, hard to remember way possible.

For example, take temperature - dew point convergence and cloud height. The PHAK gives you three equations:
1) TDS = T - DP (temp/dew point spread equals temperature - dewpoint)
2) X = TDS / CR (CR is convergence rate)
3) Cloud base = X * 1000​

For Pete's sake, write one equation and simplify it! Cloud base = 1000(T-DP)/CR. CR is 2.5 Celsius, so with Celsius units cloud base = 400(T-DP). That's it! You can do that math in your head.

Yes, the PHAK explanation is correct, and perhaps illustrates the concept, but what you need to know is 400(T-DP). Even if the authors want to show three equations to illustrate how it works, they should at least refine it to the final (and more useful) simple equation.

And I suspect that if the authors were pilots they would have done so.
 
Bell206 said:
Can you say lowest bidder?
Click to expand...
I believe it’s lowest price, technically acceptable

So it’s lowest bidder of the ones who were accepted, meaning following rules/ regs/plans/ specifications/ etc
 
Half Fast said:
I mentioned this a few years ago, but the PHAK often provides information in the most cryptic, hard to remember way possible.

For example, take temperature - dew point convergence and cloud height. The PHAK gives you three equations:
1) TDS = T - DP (temp/dew point spread equals temperature - dewpoint)​
2) X = TDS / CR (CR is convergence rate)​
3) Cloud base = X * 1000​

For Pete's sake, write one equation and simplify it! Cloud base = 1000(T-DP)/CR. CR is 2.5 Celsius, so with Celsius units cloud base = 400(T-DP). That's it! You can do that math in your head.

Yes, the PHAK explanation is correct, and perhaps illustrates the concept, but what you need to know is 400(T-DP). Even if the authors want to show three equations to illustrate how it works, they should at least refine it to the final (and more useful) simple equation.

And I suspect that if the authors were pilots they would have done so.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of an old saying, "Good enough for government work."
 
dtuuri said:
OP: Get a used one on eBay written around 40 years ago, then update yourself with current info in Advisory Circulars and the AIM. The current FAA texts are all crap.

EDIT: My fave from the AFH:

View attachment 123599
So then, should you turn left or right on takeoff for closed traffic????
Click to expand...
Assuming you do a normal rectangular pattern, it would seem fairly obvious.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Assuming you do a normal rectangular pattern, it would seem fairly obvious.
Click to expand...
The figure indicates a figure eight. Hint: The legs are supposed to depict departure paths too, according to long time diagrams explaining the symbols and the current AIM. Not to mention an Advisory Circular on the subject.
 
dtuuri said:
The figure indicates a figure eight. Hint: The legs are supposed to depict departure paths too, according to long time diagrams explaining the symbols and the current AIM. Not to mention an Advisory Circular on the subject.
Click to expand...
How do you know the AIM is correct and not the PHAK? (Hint: the PHAK depicts left traffic for both runways.)
 
MauleSkinner said:
How do you know the AIM is correct and not the PHAK? (Hint: the PHAK depicts left traffic for both runways.)
Click to expand...

(6) Right-Turn Indicators. The use of the segmented circle airport marker system is encouraged. Only the “L” shaped indicators, formed by using the landing strip and traffic pattern indicators referred to above, are required for compliance with Title 14 CFR part 91, General Operating And Flight Rules, AND ARE USED ONLY ON RUNWAYS USING RIGHT-HAND TRAFFIC PATTERNS.​
 
dtuuri said:

(6) Right-Turn Indicators. The use of the segmented circle airport marker system is encouraged. Only the “L” shaped indicators, formed by using the landing strip and traffic pattern indicators referred to above, are required for compliance with Title 14 CFR part 91, General Operating And Flight Rules, AND ARE USED ONLY ON RUNWAYS USING RIGHT-HAND TRAFFIC PATTERNS.​
Click to expand...
Have you submitted a correction for the PHAK? Don’t forget to include how it would look for right hand traffic to both runways.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Have you submitted a correction for the PHAK? Don’t forget to include how it would look for right hand traffic to both runways.
Click to expand...
I thought I did even better than submitting a correction, I personally engaged in a dialog with a member of the PHAK review team that meets periodically. A former DPE, she assured me she'd bring it up at the next meeting because she agreed. Never heard another word and it's been about six years.

EDIT: Actually, come to think about it, the offensive diagram WAS removed from the PHAK. I referenced the AFH above as the manual still publishing it.

As to right hand traffic for BOTH runways, nobody knows what that would look like — there's no markers for it. The emphasized text in the AC would mean the markers would need to be duplicated for each runway which would result in canceling each other out in a puzzling way. Like Alice in Wonderland, "I wonder which way I ought to go."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top