The Rotorcraft Flying Handbook--how to make it better?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: W'n. USA--full time RV
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Rotorcraft Flying Handbook--how to make it better?
For some years I've been scribbling comments and revisions in my old dog-eared copy of the RFH, reminding myself of its numerous shortfalls and mis-statements and fuzzy-logic sentences so as to clarify the intent and content during ground school.
Not that I like the book particularly--frequently superficial, or just plain wrong as it is--but so much of the USA Knowledge Test question bank is nearly directly quoted from this FAA text that any other would be less effective in preparation for sitting the exam.
By now it must surely be time to get the FAA to improve on the book, it has been around for so long one would think a major revision is due.
How about we form a committee to agitate with the FAA for improvements, specific improvements, before they revise it themselves in-house and blindly perpetuate all the problems? Perhaps we could do some real good for the industry by generating a higher order of presentation, without having to try to create a whole new text!
While it would be nice to have a blue-ribbon panel of technical experts for this revision, all those technical experts might seem to be too busy to get involved. So here's an opportunity for would-be text writers to toss in carefully-crafted paragraphs and sections of revamped text, without having to write a whole NEW text, and incidentally get proper credit somewhere along the way for their contributions.
A catchy title for this brash, talented committee would help a lot, while you're considering whether to toss your hat in the ring.
Not that I like the book particularly--frequently superficial, or just plain wrong as it is--but so much of the USA Knowledge Test question bank is nearly directly quoted from this FAA text that any other would be less effective in preparation for sitting the exam.
By now it must surely be time to get the FAA to improve on the book, it has been around for so long one would think a major revision is due.
How about we form a committee to agitate with the FAA for improvements, specific improvements, before they revise it themselves in-house and blindly perpetuate all the problems? Perhaps we could do some real good for the industry by generating a higher order of presentation, without having to try to create a whole new text!
While it would be nice to have a blue-ribbon panel of technical experts for this revision, all those technical experts might seem to be too busy to get involved. So here's an opportunity for would-be text writers to toss in carefully-crafted paragraphs and sections of revamped text, without having to write a whole NEW text, and incidentally get proper credit somewhere along the way for their contributions.
A catchy title for this brash, talented committee would help a lot, while you're considering whether to toss your hat in the ring.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baggsy be proof-reader! While I'm at it, I could also reconstruct some of the more sloppily phrased sentences.
Cheers
Whirls
Cheers
Whirls
This will either be hell for us FAA certified pilots, or this thread will die soon - what I think - because Shawn Coyle allready tried the same thing and the response was about zero to nothing. I did send him a few things, but we did not get very far.
Here is the Rotorcraft Flying Handbook issued in 2000:
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...-h-8083-21.pdf
I don't think that the CAA or EASA would be so open to make their books available otherwise we could compare notes.
I just want to say, that we should never forget, that this book is made for the beginner pilot. Some things are simplified, probably oversimplified, but nowing that the centrifugal force does not exist in the real world, does not make me a better pilot.
I would rather propose to build a wiki, instead of reviewing something old.
If there isn't allready one.
Anybody game to host a helicopter wiki for the ppruner's?
(Can't right now because can not get Quickr on Linux)
Here is the Rotorcraft Flying Handbook issued in 2000:
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...-h-8083-21.pdf
I don't think that the CAA or EASA would be so open to make their books available otherwise we could compare notes.
I just want to say, that we should never forget, that this book is made for the beginner pilot. Some things are simplified, probably oversimplified, but nowing that the centrifugal force does not exist in the real world, does not make me a better pilot.
I would rather propose to build a wiki, instead of reviewing something old.
If there isn't allready one.
Anybody game to host a helicopter wiki for the ppruner's?
(Can't right now because can not get Quickr on Linux)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,155
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
It is currently being rewritten, and I'm not at liberty to say by whom - but if you have any comments I will be happy to forward them on
Phil
Phil
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,155
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Don't worry, that's on the list......
pa42 - if you can bear to part with your dog-eared copy I'm sure your comments would be useful!
Phil
pa42 - if you can bear to part with your dog-eared copy I'm sure your comments would be useful!
Phil
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,155
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
I don't know about that particular bit, but we are learning a lot of stuff that is based on old technology and never been updated. We should be changing a lot of syllabuses as well!
Phil
Phil
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: W'n. USA--full time RV
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If in revision process, we need to move fast
Paco: How many talented persons are thus far involved in this anonymous revision-in-process? How can one contribute to it, the better to ensure that shortfalls in the old version are rectified?
Is the process open to debate, or are the principles certain of their omniscience? Has there been an undercover call for inputs to the profession, or is it being kept secret? Do they already have a devil's advocate, or can I volunteer for the position?
Yes, my dog-eared copy is available. But it comes with considerable verbal commentary and background; would there be a way to input all that?
Is the process open to debate, or are the principles certain of their omniscience? Has there been an undercover call for inputs to the profession, or is it being kept secret? Do they already have a devil's advocate, or can I volunteer for the position?
Yes, my dog-eared copy is available. But it comes with considerable verbal commentary and background; would there be a way to input all that?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,155
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
The person writing it has made all the proper suggestions, but there appears to be some resistance - for example, getting rid of statements such as "rotational relative airflow", which is way too much for a beginner's book.
It is officially one person at the moment, but he has friends
As it may well be rewritten completely from scratch, all your notes and comments will be OK, as there will not be that much extra work.
Phil
It is officially one person at the moment, but he has friends
As it may well be rewritten completely from scratch, all your notes and comments will be OK, as there will not be that much extra work.
Phil
