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

KingAir1922

KingAir1922

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 15, 2023
Messages
16
Display Name
Display name:
KingAir1922
I'm about halfway through the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, and it seems like I often come across sentences, paragraphs, or whole sections that have very poorly organized or disjointed thoughts. Since a lot of this is new material for me, it’s distracting and makes some things confusing. I don’t think I’ve ever had to go back and reread things to understand them as much as I have with this textbook. I'm very mechanically minded, having done well in physics, engineering, and shop classes and working as a cerpenter for years. It's not that the nature of the material is difficult for me. But, man, even Psychology was an easier read. Is it just me, or has anyone else had this experience?
 
Last edited:
Flying is hard and if u want to really know what is up you should read this government publication. Written by people who know nothing on the subject…just wait till on your written when u intensionally submit a wrong answer to get the question right. I recommend this book to anyone interested in learning to fly…..these lessons are sometimes hard to pry out but all the info is there for your private and more. Best of luck after my private and 8 practical exams i still refer to this publication. Last practical my examiner thought i was nuts/diligent for quoting the pilots handook of aeronautical knowledge….sincerely
 
Notrub said:
Flying is hard and if u want to really know what is up you should read this government publication. Written by people who know nothing on the subject…just wait till on your written when u intensionally submit a wrong answer to get the question right. I recommend this book to anyone interested in learning to fly…..these lessons are sometimes hard to pry out but all the info is there for your private and more. Best of luck after my private and 8 practical exams i still refer to this publication. Last practical my examiner thought i was nuts/diligent for quoting the pilots handook of aeronautical knowledge….sincerely
Click to expand...
The PHAK must have been written by this guy.
 
There are a lot of positive things about the PHAK, but I also tend to keep a copy of one of Kershner’s books handy.
 
KingAir1922 said:
Since a lot of this is new material for me, it’s distracting and makes some things confusing. I don’t think I’ve ever had to go back and reread things to understand them as much as I have with this textbook.
Click to expand...
Some would argue that going back to re-read is a good way to learn. Certainly, expanding and challenging the information can be productive as well.

The same goes for instruction. Don't rely on the, "I was taught to always . . . " method of learning. The more you can challenge the information presented to you the deeper your depth of understanding will be. Sometimes that's a different written source and sometimes it's a different instructor.
 
As a writer who strives for clear prose, I can say, it's hard. And it takes time.

I too am continually shocked at the poor writing skills exhibited across many, many venues. So-called journalists and news outlets are frequent offenders. The likely issue with the PHAK is the folks who know the subject are poor writers and those who are good writers don't know the subject. It's like a game of telephone--sometimes things get garbled. Also, the PHAK covers a huge breath of subject matter complicating the issue. I wonder how many authors work on the PHAK.

The way to make it cleaner is to edit three or four times, then have an editor who didn't write it go over it. But that takes more work and more time. And no matter how many times you go over it, you always find ways to improve it.
 
PHAK u guys are funny! I have read and referenced it in all but my private pilot practical because at that time I did not know any better. Sincerely
 
It's poorly written and frequently wrong.

Screenshot 2023-12-23 at 10.30.50 AM.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: cdb
dbahn said:
Some would argue that going back to re-read is a good way to learn. Certainly, expanding and challenging the information can be productive as well.

The same goes for instruction. Don't rely on the, "I was taught to always . . . " method of learning. The more you can challenge the information presented to you the deeper your depth of understanding will be. Sometimes that's a different written source and sometimes it's a different instructor.
Click to expand...
I hear you. I do re-read material, but mainly for review and retention. This is more re-reading for the sake of understand because things were worded so wonky, or random sentances pop up in the middle of a paragraph that applied to the paragraph or two before. Maybe it is a lot to ask of a government operation to have better organization of thought. ;)
 
MauleSkinner said:
One of the basic tenets of technical writing that you never actually finish a document, you just stop working on it when you’re told to do so.
Click to expand...
Mm, sounds like efficency at work.
 
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:

1703349544072.png

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.
 
How many of you are in a highly technical field and write very large documents? I just consider most FAA docs to be written by low bidder with limited knowledge of the topic?
 
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...

Holy crap... that looks me trying to center the needles on approach.
 
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...
Given that most instructors seemed to ignore the description in the previous version, I find it hard to believe that this caused problems. ;)
 
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...
Hey, I went out to demonstrate Lazy 8’s and the guy just drew what he saw! Really not his fault. :)
 
KingAir1922 said:
I'm about halfway through the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, and it seems like I often come across sentences, paragraphs, or whole sections that have very poorly organized or disjointed thoughts. Since a lot of this is new material for me, it’s distracting and makes some things confusing. I don’t think I’ve ever had to go back and reread things to understand them as much as I have with this textbook. I'm very mechanically minded, having done well in physics, engineering, and shop classes and working as a cerpenter for years. It's not that the nature of the material is difficult for me. But, man, even Psychology was an easier read. Is it just me, or has anyone else had this experience?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Domenick said:
As a writer who strives for clear prose, I can say, it's hard. And it takes time.

I too am continually shocked at the poor writing skills exhibited across many, many venues. So-called journalists and news outlets are frequent offenders. The likely issue with the PHAK is the folks who know the subject are poor writers and those who are good writers don't know the subject. It's like a game of telephone--sometimes things get garbled. Also, the PHAK covers a huge breath of subject matter complicating the issue. I wonder how many authors work on the PHAK.

The way to make it cleaner is to edit three or four times, then have an editor who didn't write it go over it. But that takes more work and more time. And no matter how many times you go over it, you always find ways to improve it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. While reading media produced by many large, well-known publishers, I get the impression that writers and editors have adopted a new stylebook developed by 9th grade students. I guess we can expect to see this same trend in technical publications as well.
 
Domenick said:
As a writer who strives for clear prose, I can say, it's hard. And it takes time. ...Also, the PHAK covers a huge breath of subject matter complicating the issue.
Click to expand...
I also make a concerted effort to write in a clear and concise manner. Occasionally, as in your sentence above, I find autocorrect inserts errors in my writing that occasionally go unnoticed in proofreading of the work.

I suppose we should be impressed our vocabulary exceeds that of the machine.

:biggrin:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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...

Looks fun anyway.
 
I find the PHAK a valuable resource, and never really noticed the bad writing.

But I agree Kershner is far more readable and enjoyable. Still, it’s nice to be able to point to the FAA’s own documents when needing to justify a procedure or technique.
 
I think you guys that hate the PHAK should pony up the money for Jeppesen Private Pilot Manual so you can read stuff like space missions that are so useful to learning to fly an airplane.
 
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
 
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...
I'm not sure what you're getting at, I see exactly one post that was directed at you, about a post which even you admit has "glaring and sometimes funny flaws".

Unless you're actually one of the PHAK writers, in which case I guess this whole thread is directed at you and your coworkers, but that seems unlikely.
 
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...
Happy Holidays!
 
Clip4 said:
I think you guys that hate the PHAK should pony up the money for Jeppesen Private Pilot Manual so you can read stuff like space missions that are so useful to learning to fly an airplane.
Click to expand...
Just for the record, I don't hate the PHAK.
Criticism does not equal hate. It a common conflation in today's fractious world.
 
Q: Hey PHAK, what is a Pitot Tube?

A: The pitot tube is utilized to measure the total combined pressures that are present when an aircraft moves through the air. Static pressure, also known as ambient pressure, is always present whether an aircraft is moving or at rest. It is simply the barometric pressure in the local area. Dynamic pressure is present only when an aircraft is in motion; therefore, it can be thought of as a pressure due to motion. Wind also generates dynamic pressure. It does not matter if the aircraft is moving through still air at 70 knots or if the aircraft is facing a wind with a speed of 70 knots, the same dynamic pressure is generated.

When the wind blows from an angle less than 90° off the nose of the aircraft, dynamic pressure can be depicted on the ASI. The wind moving across the airfoil at 20 knots is the same as the aircraft moving through calm air at 20 knots. The pitot tube captures the dynamic pressure, as well as the static pressure that is always present.


This is the first page in the flight instruments chapter.

Now, I am sure any of us here can understand what is this saying. But we're already pilots. I don't feel good about recommending this book to a zero-hour student.
 
Last edited:
The pitot tube is a small pipe facing forward connected to the airspeed indicator. The indicator uses that air to show how fast the plane is moving. This is called airspeed. The system also uses air that isn’t changed by the aircraft’s movement, called static air. Static air is taken in by a small hole on the back of the pitot tube, or on the side of fuselage. The two types of air are compared to each other by the mechanical parts, or a computer, inside the indicator.
 
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:

1703437189091.png
So then, should you turn left or right on takeoff for closed traffic????
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top