New GFH

[Piet Barber]

The FAA has published a 2013 version of the Glider Flying Handbook, as a PDF. You can find it here:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/glider_handbook/media/faa-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..

[Tom[_12_]]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

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.

[Morgan[_2_]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[C-FFKQ (42)]

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?

[James Lee]

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.

[[email protected]]

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?

[Jim Kellett]

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.

[Jim Kellett]

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. The distinction has been common knowledge for over a half-century, but lots of smart people (including some who write POHs!) still misunderstand the distinction. Glad to see a proper definition in what could become a widely used manual.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dive_brakes

[Kevin Neave[_2_]]

According to the flight manual my glider has "Airbrakes" and they extend
from the top surface only.

I suspect the same is true of the vast majority of modern gliders

KN

At 22:01 30 September 2013, Jim Kellett wrote:
>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
>spo=
>ilers are top only.
>
>
>
>Um, that's correct. The distinction has been common knowledge for over a
>h=
>alf-century, but lots of smart people (including some who write POHs!)
>stil=
>l misunderstand the distinction. Glad to see a proper definition in what
>c=
>ould become a widely used manual.
>
>See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dive_brakes
>

[Terry Walsh[_2_]]

My understanding is that Spoliers spoil the lift of a portion of the wing
and to achieve this are usually mounted well forward on the top surface of
the wing. They are also often hinged at the leading edge.

Airbrakes are mounted well back on the top (and sometimes bottom surface
and therefore have much reduced effect on lift whilst increasing drag.

Having flown gliders fitted with both of these devices the effect is quite
different.

I believe that here in the UK that is the accepted explanation and few
modern gliders have spoilers. It seems that the US definition is much less
clearly defined and the two terms are interchangeable.


Terry Walsh

At 11:47 01 October 2013, Kevin Neave wrote:
>According to the flight manual my glider has "Airbrakes" and they extend
>from the top surface only.
>
>I suspect the same is true of the vast majority of modern gliders
>
>KN
>
>At 22:01 30 September 2013, Jim Kellett wrote:
>>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
>>spo=
>>ilers are top only.
>>
>>
>>
>>Um, that's correct. The distinction has been common knowledge for over
a
>>h=
>>alf-century, but lots of smart people (including some who write POHs!)
>>stil=
>>l misunderstand the distinction. Glad to see a proper definition in
what
>>c=
>>ould become a widely used manual.
>>
>>See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dive_brakes
>>
>
>

[Bill D]

On Monday, September 30, 2013 4:01:16 PM UTC-6, Jim Kellett wrote:
> 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. The distinction has been common knowledge for over a half-century, but lots of smart people (including some who write POHs!) still misunderstand the distinction. Glad to see a proper definition in what could become a widely used manual.
>
>
>
> See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dive_brakes

The distinction is correct, but increasingly seen as irrelevant. Whatever comes out of the wings when you pull the blue handle has the net effect of increasing drag and decreasing L/D.

Saying spoilers "reduce lift" is incorrect and misleading. As long as the glider maintains 1G flight, lift equals weight whether the spoilers are open or closed. It's only correct after touchdown where they are used to transfer weight from wings to wheels so wheel brakes are more effective.

If you think about it, the only control found in gliders which can really "decrease lift" is the ballast dump. Decreasing gross weight decreases the lift needed to support it in 1G flight.

[[email protected]]

The GFH took over 3.5 yrs after I finished editing it...it sat in OKC & DC....however the FAA amended it...they also added items that were not included in the original request for work....so of the items you mention are found in other FAA documents that are supposed to used during training. Some of these are the Risk Management Handbook, the Pilots Handbook on Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK), the AIM, etc....

The new GFH is not a one all self contained document. CFI's are supposed to go to the above manuals as well during an applicant's training. These are also found in each PTS.

As in any new manual, there is always a need to improvement, so, I recommend that for those that would like to see something else added, please send you receommendations and request to the FAA.

FYI....the FAA is planning to update all of its manuals, PTS, etc....approx.. every five years to try and stay with the trend of industry standards.

Thanks Shawn

[JohnDeRosa]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 1:42:08 PM UTC-5, Tom wrote:
>
> Figure 6-11 and 8-8 shows mickey mouse tow rings.
>

Tom - One small correction to your comment. The 6-11 image is label "Schweizer-type tow hook" which is correctly shown. The tow ring seems ok but maybe you are referring to what might appear to be the tow rope which seems to be a nylon tie down strap (IMHO - chain is better). Maybe the picture is a poor example as it might mislead.

Along the same line the "Tost hook" should be labeled "Tost tow hook" and probably should be that on a glider, not on a tow plane.

Finally, I resist taking to task those that worked on this volume as a labor of love ... unless I wanted to do the job myself. For newbies, this document is a starting point that the CFIGs will build upon. It isn't intended to be a scientific document for those most knowledgeable in the field.