How many here have read these books. See attached poll?

How many here have read?

  • PHAK

  • Instrument Flying Handbook

  • Instrument Flying Procedures Handbook

  • Aviation Weather Handbook

  • FAR/AIM

  • All of the Above

  • None of them

  • Only bits and pieces of one or more as reference material

  • Airplane Flying Handbook

Results are only viewable after voting.
darthanubis

darthanubis

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 13, 2023
Messages
132
Display Name
Display name:
Cmdr Heretic
Of those that voted in the accompanying poll, are you an instructor of any sort?
 
Last edited:
Not an CFI of any sorts, but a former E-3 instructor, FTU instructor, and examiner. Not that there’s any direct correlation to FAA designations there.

SoonerAviator said:
Did you have a stroke while typing out the thread topic/question?
Click to expand...

If you’re on tapatalk, there’s a poll visible on webview.

My guess is the OP may be surprised by the results.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Well, a thread titled "How many here have read" doesn't really make any sense. Then the given choices for polling are MEI or CFII? Just not a lot of coherence there.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wasn't sure how the format would render. I thought my question would appear above the poll, and below said poll would be the last question about whether or not an instructor.
 
asicer said:
You forgot "Airplane Flying Handbook".
And the corresponding Balloon/Glider/Helicopter versions too, for that matter.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know how I missed the AFH, another added to my read list. Im only curious about the fixed wing pilots in general.
 
For those that chose "all of the above", did you intend on reading the all from the start, or just over time you got it done? Was it boredom, career driven, a good pilot always learning? What was your motivation, if you care to share?

I find that Sheppard Air has been good, but after only now starting to read the PHAK after my IR, I shortchanged myself. I was in a hurry though to get from zero to hero. Now that I find it's taking longer than expected to get to hero, I have time to read. I can fill the holes that weren't taught or vaguely mentioned, being filled. It's why I created the poll.
 
All.

Not a CFI. Ppl & IR. Kept having non-flying commitments that took priority over Cpl and maintenance issues TWICE over a 2 year period - written expired, never made it to checkride. Third time will be a charm.

Good pilot is always learning. I don’t know what I don’t know. It was a “minimum standard” thing for me.

How can I not learn stuff about flying that’s there to be learned? That would be a disservice to my curiousity, but also my family, and any passengers that put their life in my hands.
 
Last edited:
darthanubis said:
For those that chose "all of the above", did you intend on reading the all from the start, or just over time you got it done? Was it boredom, career driven, a good pilot always learning? What was your motivation, if you care to share?…
Click to expand...
I started training in 1989 and my CFI told me that if I didn’t study on my own, I would not be successful.

Fast forward to circa 2003 and had some unique circumstances come together and put me in the OSS. I had been in the AF for about seven years, in a flying billet for a little over two and was ‘hired’ because I had learned how to meld the regulations, tactics, and procedures into a cohesive thought process and could translate that to plain language. Fast forward a few years and I was able to influence other instructors to evolve by learning what we were required to do, what we could do, what we shouldn’t do, and exploit a way around what we couldn’t do.

Fast forward some more and I used those lessons to work backwards from the PTS/ACS and references to become a student of the FAA environment. At a minimal level. @bbchien’s avatar and my interactions with him solidified the mindset of not accepting minimum standards at a personal flying level. @midlifeflyer and several others awed me with the detailed knowledge not just of the content, but the context of the educational and regulatory space.

As lifelong learner and student of flying, mastery remains a goal supported (but not justified) by endorsements and additional ratings.

Man, that was a lot. I hope it makes sense.
 
These are "reference books". Like an encyclopedia or the dictionary. They're not intended to be read cover to cover. In fact, although I am well versed on most of them and refer to them all the time, I can't say I've "read them" any more than I've "read" the dictionary.

I can't think of many things more boring than reading the IPH cover to cover (and that is my vocation).
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
All.

Not a CFI. Ppl & IR. Kept having non-flying commitments that took priority over Cpl and maintenance issues TWICE over a 2 year period - written expired, never made it to checkride. Third time will be a charm.

Good pilot is always learning. I don’t know what I don’t know. It was a “minimum standard” thing for me.

How can I not learn stuff about flying that’s there to be learned? That would be a disservice to my curiousity, but also my family, and any passengers that put their life in my hands.
Click to expand...
You nailed my sentiments exactly!
 
darthanubis said:
For those that chose "all of the above", did you intend on reading the all from the start, or just over time you got it done? Was it boredom, career driven, a good pilot always learning? What was your motivation, if you care to share?
Click to expand...
Instrument books during IFR training, the rest during PPL training. My day job involves reading/writing specs, so it wasn’t that bad of a slog.
 
RussR said:
These are "reference books". Like an encyclopedia or the dictionary. They're not intended to be read cover to cover. In fact, although I am well versed on most of them and refer to them all the time, I can't say I've "read them" any more than I've "read" the dictionary.

I can't think of many things more boring than reading the IPH cover to cover (and that is my vocation).
Click to expand...
Same here.

The other thing to actually read, which many don’t, is the Table of Contents.

Not those publications, but I was asked to sit in on a mock oral for a private candidate. The student was having a big problem with the regs. Just couldn’t find their way around them. I asked if they knew how the regs were organized into subjects. Wide-eyed stare, so I told them to flip to the table of contents. Suddenly it made sense.

It’s hard to use something as a valuable reference if you have no idea what’s in it.
 
TCABM said:
At a minimal level. @bbchien’s avatar and my interactions with him solidified the mindset of not accepting minimum standards at a personal flying level. @midlifeflyer and several others awed me with the detailed knowledge not just of the content, but the context of the educational and regulatory space.
Click to expand...
that is so kind of you to say. I guess in my case, it’s an occupational hazard.
 
can't answer the poll, because can only select 4 (don't think I've read the IPH, maybe just portions).

how many here have read the TERPS and the various addendums?
 
RussR said:
These are "reference books". Like an encyclopedia or the dictionary. They're not intended to be read cover to cover. In fact, although I am well versed on most of them and refer to them all the time, I can't say I've "read them" any more than I've "read" the dictionary.

I can't think of many things more boring than reading the IPH cover to cover (and that is my vocation).
Click to expand...
I tried to read the dictionary when I was a kid, but if I recall, only made it about halfway through the "d"s. I also started out to read my parents' collection of A-Z encyclopedias when I was nine or ten because I'd read everything else in the house my mom let me read...I made it to "geology" before quitting that crusade. Now, as an adult, it kinda makes me sad I never actually read all the way through either one, if only to be able to say I did it. :cool: I guess that fits right in with me reading the pilot reference books cover to cover, too.

Racerx said:
You and I have very different definitions of fun
Click to expand...
To be fair, I mostly used "for fun" as a way to indicate it was perfectly voluntary and not for any real purpose. However, thinking about the stuff I used to read for actual fun when I was a kid/teenager makes me wonder just how bored I was.
 
SkyChaser said:
I tried to read the dictionary when I was a kid, but if I recall, only made it about halfway through the "d"s.
Click to expand...
When I was growing up, we had a Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, which purported to have every word in the English language in it. It was gigantic. It's what we used for appealing words in Scrabble or Boggle and other word games. Ours must have been the first edition (because this one mentions "color" and ours certainly didn't), but it's the same size. Easily thousands and thousands of pages of tiny print.

The process of obtaining this dictionary is actually a funny little family story. My Dad had a work trip to somewhere (Chicago? Boston?) in the 80's and my Mom went with him. While he was doing whatever he was doing, she played tourist. Saw this dictionary, for some reason decided she must have it, bought it, and ended up lugging it around Chicago/Boston for the rest of the day. I'm sure when my Dad got back to the hotel room and she showed him her "great find", he was more amazed at her carrying it all day than anything else!

1722431704995.png
 
Last edited:
RussR said:
When I was growing up, we had a Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, which purported to have every word in the English language in it. It was gigantic. It's what we used for appealing words in Scrabble or Boggle and other word games. Ours must have been the first edition (because this one mentions "color" and our certainly didn't), but it's the same size. Easily thousands and thousands of pages of tiny print.

The process of obtaining this dictionary is actually a funny little family story. My Dad had a work trip to somewhere (Chicago? Boston?) in the 80's and my Mom went with him. While he was doing whatever he was doing, she played tourist. Saw this dictionary, for some reason decided she must have it, bought it, and ended up lugging it around Chicago/Boston for the rest of the day. I'm sure when my Dad got back to the hotel room and she showed him her "great find", he was more amazed at her carrying it all day than anything else!

View attachment 131953
Click to expand...
We had that same dictionary, though I can't remember which edition it was, and used it pretty much for the same things. :)
 
midlifeflyer said:
Same here.

The other thing to actually read, which many don’t, is the Table of Contents.

Not those publications, but I was asked to sit in on a mock oral for a private candidate. The student was having a big problem with the regs. Just couldn’t find their way around them. I asked if they knew how the regs were organized into subjects. Wide-eyed stare, so I told them to flip to the table of contents. Suddenly it made sense.

It’s hard to use something as a valuable reference if you have no idea what’s in it.
Click to expand...
I've seen this too. People will randomly open a FAR/AIM and start seemingly randomly flipping around to hope to coincidentally open to the correct page, I guess. I mean, if you know you're looking for 61.51 you can just randomly open the book and move forward or backward as necessary. But if you are looking for "logging rules", randomly opening the book isn't likely to work.

I'm quite sure it's because we just don't use reference books any more. We're so used to just typing in a search term that we don't even think about there being a table of contents at the beginning. Or an index. So if you are young and were raised with just doing search terms, you aren't even aware there IS a TOC until you're shown it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Same here.

The other thing to actually read, which many don’t, is the Table of Contents.

Not those publications, but I was asked to sit in on a mock oral for a private candidate. The student was having a big problem with the regs. Just couldn’t find their way around them. I asked if they knew how the regs were organized into subjects. Wide-eyed stare, so I told them to flip to the table of contents. Suddenly it made sense.

It’s hard to use something as a valuable reference if you have no idea what’s in it.
Click to expand...
I saw a video about that. How to study or read material briskly and retain most of it. It said to read the TOC, and the Index BEFORE reading the contents.
 
Bob Noel said:
can't answer the poll, because can only select 4 (don't think I've read the IPH, maybe just portions).

how many here have read the TERPS and the various addendums?
Click to expand...
My CFII is real big on the TERPS. I reddit, and told him I see why he loves it. It's short, sweet and succinct. I will always read it. I will recommend to my students when the time comes.
 
SkyChaser said:
I tried to read the dictionary when I was a kid, but if I recall, only made it about halfway through the "d"s. I also started out to read my parents' collection of A-Z encyclopedias when I was nine or ten because I'd read everything else in the house my mom let me read...I made it to "geology" before quitting that crusade. Now, as an adult, it kinda makes me sad I never actually read all the way through either one, if only to be able to say I did it. :cool: I guess that fits right in with me reading the pilot reference books cover to cover, too.


To be fair, I mostly used "for fun" as a way to indicate it was perfectly voluntary and not for any real purpose. However, thinking about the stuff I used to read for actual fun when I was a kid/teenager makes me wonder just how bored I was.
Click to expand...
Dude! I was on the same quest as a kid. I didn't want to admit it though. :cool:
 
darthanubis said:
It's short, sweet and succinct.
Click to expand...
I'm impressed. Even if limiting TERPS to only the 8260.3 basic order*, it's not everyone who considers 554 pages of detail on the requirements for creating instrument approaches short, sweet, and succinct.

(*most refer to the thousands of pages in the entire 8260 series as TERPS)
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm impressed. Even if limiting TERPS to only the 8260.3 basic order*, it's not everyone who considers 554 pages of detail on the requirements for creating instrument approaches short, sweet, and succinct.

(*most refer to the thousands of pages in the entire 8260 series as TERPS)
Click to expand...
After I posted I figured you guys couldn't be referring to the 30 pages in Foreflight.:D
 
I’ve read Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators cover to cover. Didn’t understand a lick of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top