New GFH

The FAA has published a 2013 version of the Glider Flying Handbook, as a PDF. You can find it he
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...h-8083-13a.pdf

It also looks like nobody's mentioned it yet here on ras.

The moment after I downloaded it, I did a quick scan for the word 'wench' and couldn't find it. So at least by that measure, it's better than the 2003 version.

Seriously though, I've read through the first 5 chapters, and already I find it to be superior to the previous version. The graphics are better in this version than the 2003 version. In the 2003 version, many of the graphics got converted to very low DPI raster images, making them unreadable unless you had the printed book. I don't see that problem anywhere in this version.

While we're on the subject of 'printed book', I don't think there is one yet for the 2013 GFH. At least not on the Government Printing Office website..

A quick look reveals serious errors still exist.

Figure 2-4 Elevator and Rudder not labled
Figure 2-9 indicates dive brakes extend top and bottom of wing, while spoilers are top only.

Figure 2-12 a Grob 103 with two elevator trim tabs.

Figure 6-11 and 8-8 shows mickey mouse tow rings.

Anyone reading the description of why an aircraft has an elevator would be hard pressed to correctly answer the question, "Why does an aircraft have an elevator?"

Tom

Although the graphics appear to be better in general (and print MUCH better than the previous .PDF), I'm really surprised about some of the content changes.

For instance, they no longer cover hypoxia or motion sickness at all. And several terms are used before they are defined. Using terms before they are defined is common in technical literature, but the GFH does it more often than other similar handbooks. The GFH has the feel of a handbook written by people who are a bit too far "inside the bubble" to know how to explain concepts to people outside the bubble.

Still, I'm glad there is finally an update. The 2013 version appears to be better overall than the 2003 version. Some progress is better than none.

Cheers,
-Mark Rebuck

Ugh, it still has the simpleton explanation of radius of the turn (fig 3-29). While fine for casual conversations around the coffee table with non-flying friends, it does a disservice to the flying population.

Would be proper for them to list their mathematical assumptions from basic Physics101 (e.g. assuming you can stay in a horizontal plane...)

But we all know we *don't* stay in the horizontal plane when turning. Show me the dependence on the cosine of the angle, the lift coefficient for best endurance, the speed, day-type, wing-loading, aspect ratio, wing efficiency, etc. Then show me thermal profiles to backout the *best* bank angle for maximum climb rate. You know, stuff that glider pilots care about.

....62ft radius, give me a break.

The American Soaring Handbook at least gave the reader the knowledge/education to speak about our craft intelligently. This GPH writing style/method is geared towards... well... sadly, people that don't want to really understand a subject.

I can't disagree about the state of science and math, but this is supposed to be someones first introduction to soaring concepts. You don't need the math to grasp the concepts that they are pushing. Pick up an advanced soaring book to look for optimizations and details. Given that most of our bank angle assessment is seat of the pants, eyeball the diagonal screws on the panel, knowing the math behind optimal bank angle, speed and thermal strength seems a bit pedantic.

If we could just get more people to actually get closer to 45 degree banks we would be doing a good thing for soaring as people would have better flights and climbs.

Morgan


On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:54:28 PM UTC-7, chipsoars wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:10:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:

Ugh, it still has the simpleton explanation of radius of the turn (fig 3-29). While fine for casual conversations around the coffee table with non-flying friends, it does a disservice to the flying population.







Would be proper for them to list their mathematical assumptions from basic Physics101 (e.g. assuming you can stay in a horizontal plane...)







But we all know we *don't* stay in the horizontal plane when turning. Show me the dependence on the cosine of the angle, the lift coefficient for best endurance, the speed, day-type, wing-loading, aspect ratio, wing efficiency, etc. Then show me thermal profiles to backout the *best* bank angle for maximum climb rate. You know, stuff that glider pilots care about.







...62ft radius, give me a break.







The American Soaring Handbook at least gave the reader the knowledge/education to speak about our craft intelligently. This GPH writing style/method is geared towards... well... sadly, people that don't want to really understand a subject.



Considering the state of science and math education in this country, it would be a waste of space. I do agree that anyone who truly wants to understand the sport should understand the science.

I totally agree with you.

Its just frustrating to see them not spell out the *big* assumption in their writeup. I'd be happy with a disclaimer specifying the assumption and pointers to more advanced texts whenever they are 'dumbing down' the concepts.

Britton

On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 14:42:08 UTC-4, Tom wrote:
Anyone reading the description of why an aircraft has an elevator would be hard pressed to correctly answer the question, "Why does an aircraft have an elevator?"



Tom

Umm... because it's too big to use the stairs?

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:15:28 PM UTC-4, Morgan wrote:
I can't disagree about the state of science and math, but this is supposed to be someones first introduction to soaring concepts. You don't need the math to grasp the concepts that they are pushing. Pick up an advanced soaring book to look for optimizations and details. Given that most of our bank angle assessment is seat of the pants, eyeball the diagonal screws on the panel, knowing the math behind optimal bank angle, speed and thermal strength seems a bit pedantic.



If we could just get more people to actually get closer to 45 degree banks we would be doing a good thing for soaring as people would have better flights and climbs.



Morgan





On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:54:28 PM UTC-7, chipsoars wrote:

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:10:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:



Ugh, it still has the simpleton explanation of radius of the turn (fig 3-29). While fine for casual conversations around the coffee table with non-flying friends, it does a disservice to the flying population.















Would be proper for them to list their mathematical assumptions from basic Physics101 (e.g. assuming you can stay in a horizontal plane...)















But we all know we *don't* stay in the horizontal plane when turning. Show me the dependence on the cosine of the angle, the lift coefficient for best endurance, the speed, day-type, wing-loading, aspect ratio, wing efficiency, etc. Then show me thermal profiles to backout the *best* bank angle for maximum climb rate. You know, stuff that glider pilots care about.















...62ft radius, give me a break.















The American Soaring Handbook at least gave the reader the knowledge/education to speak about our craft intelligently. This GPH writing style/method is geared towards... well... sadly, people that don't want to really understand a subject.







Considering the state of science and math education in this country, it would be a waste of space. I do agree that anyone who truly wants to understand the sport should understand the science.

The biggest thing I learned this season was to bank more sharply when thermaling. HUGE difference.

On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:11:15 AM UTC-5, James Lee wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:15:28 PM UTC-4, Morgan wrote:

I can't disagree about the state of science and math, but this is supposed to be someones first introduction to soaring concepts. You don't need the math to grasp the concepts that they are pushing. Pick up an advanced soaring book to look for optimizations and details. Given that most of our bank angle assessment is seat of the pants, eyeball the diagonal screws on the panel, knowing the math behind optimal bank angle, speed and thermal strength seems a bit pedantic.







If we could just get more people to actually get closer to 45 degree banks we would be doing a good thing for soaring as people would have better flights and climbs.







Morgan











On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:54:28 PM UTC-7, chipsoars wrote:



On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:10:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:







Ugh, it still has the simpleton explanation of radius of the turn (fig 3-29). While fine for casual conversations around the coffee table with non-flying friends, it does a disservice to the flying population.































Would be proper for them to list their mathematical assumptions from basic Physics101 (e.g. assuming you can stay in a horizontal plane...)































But we all know we *don't* stay in the horizontal plane when turning. Show me the dependence on the cosine of the angle, the lift coefficient for best endurance, the speed, day-type, wing-loading, aspect ratio, wing efficiency, etc. Then show me thermal profiles to backout the *best* bank angle for maximum climb rate. You know, stuff that glider pilots care about.































...62ft radius, give me a break.































The American Soaring Handbook at least gave the reader the knowledge/education to speak about our craft intelligently. This GPH writing style/method is geared towards... well... sadly, people that don't want to really understand a subject.















Considering the state of science and math education in this country, it would be a waste of space. I do agree that anyone who truly wants to understand the sport should understand the science.



The biggest thing I learned this season was to bank more sharply when thermaling. HUGE difference.

You certainly meant to say more steeply, didn't you?

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:42:08 PM UTC-4, Tom wrote:
Figure 2-9 indicates dive brakes extend top and bottom of wing, while spoilers are top only.

snip

Um, that's correct.

It's still amazing to me how long the difference between spoilers and brakes (goes back at over a half-century!) is still misunderstood by smart people, and even shows up in some older POHs (e.g., Schweizer 1-36).

Glad to see it properly described for a change.