FAA's new Instrument Procedures Handbook/comments?

[Mitty]

I got mine last week. I'm very disappointed. Although there is a lot
of valuable material in it and the graphics are very, very nice, it is
possibly the worst organized book I have ever seen. Both in the writing
and in the layout & typography. For example, three levels of unnumbered
headings are all left-justified in Helvetica bold caps, differentiated
only by being in what appears one point differences type sizes, like 12,
11, and 10. This makes the structure very hard to follow.

It is represented as "a technical reference for professional pilots."
But the index is very weak, not really suitable for a reference, and the
technical material ranges widely from valuable to irrelevant (ARINC 424
computer record layouts) to sophomoric (how to calculate descents).

I guess the reason I am so unhappy is that there is a fair amount of
good material here but it is like picking through a dumpster to find it.
If the material was uniformly weak, I would just toss the book out and
write the cost off to experience, but that is not the case.

I am off base here? Anybody else looked at it?

[John R. Copeland]

"Mitty" > wrote in message =
...
>I got mine last week. I'm very disappointed. Although there is a lot=20
> of valuable material in it and the graphics are very, very nice, it is =

> possibly the worst organized book I have ever seen. Both in the =
writing=20
> and in the layout & typography. For example, three levels of =
unnumbered=20
> headings are all left-justified in Helvetica bold caps, differentiated =

> only by being in what appears one point differences type sizes, like =
12,=20
> 11, and 10. This makes the structure very hard to follow.
>=20
> It is represented as "a technical reference for professional pilots."=20
> But the index is very weak, not really suitable for a reference, and =
the=20
> technical material ranges widely from valuable to irrelevant (ARINC =
424=20
> computer record layouts) to sophomoric (how to calculate descents).
>=20
> I guess the reason I am so unhappy is that there is a fair amount of=20
> good material here but it is like picking through a dumpster to find =
it.=20
> If the material was uniformly weak, I would just toss the book out =
and=20
> write the cost off to experience, but that is not the case.
>=20
> I am off base here? Anybody else looked at it?

Yes, and I'll raise you, with gripes about mis-spellings and dyslexic =
acronym errors.
It made me want to red-pencil errors, and mark it "Correct and Return".
---JRC---

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mitty > said:
>I guess the reason I am so unhappy is that there is a fair amount of
>good material here but it is like picking through a dumpster to find it.
> If the material was uniformly weak, I would just toss the book out and
>write the cost off to experience, but that is not the case.

It sounds like an opportunity to me - edit it down to something useful,
and publish it yourself.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"This was, apparently, beyond her ken. So far beyond her ken that she was
well into barbie territory." - J.D. Baldwin

[Ross Richardson]

I just bought Rod Machado's Instrument pilot's Survival Manual. I have
found it a wonderful piece of work. I scare myself on all the things I
didn't know, or forgot about. And, always there is some humor in it.

Ross

Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> In a previous article, Mitty > said:
> >I guess the reason I am so unhappy is that there is a fair amount of
> >good material here but it is like picking through a dumpster to find it.
> > If the material was uniformly weak, I would just toss the book out and
> >write the cost off to experience, but that is not the case.
>
> It sounds like an opportunity to me - edit it down to something useful,
> and publish it yourself.
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> "This was, apparently, beyond her ken. So far beyond her ken that she was
> well into barbie territory." - J.D. Baldwin

[Mitty]

On 9/9/04 7:11 AM, Paul Tomblin wrote the following:
> In a previous article, Mitty > said:
>
>>I guess the reason I am so unhappy is that there is a fair amount of
>>good material here but it is like picking through a dumpster to find it.
>> If the material was uniformly weak, I would just toss the book out and
>>write the cost off to experience, but that is not the case.
>
>
> It sounds like an opportunity to me - edit it down to something useful,
> and publish it yourself.
>
>
:-) I think I only had one book in me and I already wrote it! Good job
for someone else, though. Even if someone wrote a good index, but it's
not obvious that there is a way to make money from that.

[dancingstar]

Gee, I feel a little strange that my first post here will somewhat go
against the tide but...

I found the new IPHB to be a great addition to a great stack of obsolete
advisory circulars. I liked the graphics and comprehensive coverage of
obscure topics. Aside from some questionable esthetics on typographical
choices, I found it to be one of the best of the free works yet produced
by the FAA.

Sorry to disagree,

Antonio



Mitty wrote:
> I got mine last week. I'm very disappointed. Although there is a lot
> of valuable material in it and the graphics are very, very nice, it is
> possibly the worst organized book I have ever seen. Both in the writing
> and in the layout & typography. For example, three levels of unnumbered
> headings are all left-justified in Helvetica bold caps, differentiated
> only by being in what appears one point differences type sizes, like 12,
> 11, and 10. This makes the structure very hard to follow.
>
> It is represented as "a technical reference for professional pilots."
> But the index is very weak, not really suitable for a reference, and the
> technical material ranges widely from valuable to irrelevant (ARINC 424
> computer record layouts) to sophomoric (how to calculate descents).
>
> I guess the reason I am so unhappy is that there is a fair amount of
> good material here but it is like picking through a dumpster to find it.
> If the material was uniformly weak, I would just toss the book out and
> write the cost off to experience, but that is not the case.
>
> I am off base here? Anybody else looked at it?

[Biff Smith]

As the FAA becomes more like HUD and full of unqualified minorities, you
will see more and more of this nonsense. My guess is the FAA will be
dead within 10 years and private industry will be running the Air
Traffic control system anyway. This new ILS handbook is just another
example of "Guvment" dumb down.

Mitty wrote:

> I got mine last week. I'm very disappointed. Although there is a lot
> of valuable material in it and the graphics are very, very nice, it is
> possibly the worst organized book I have ever seen. Both in the writing
> and in the layout & typography. For example, three levels of unnumbered
> headings are all left-justified in Helvetica bold caps, differentiated
> only by being in what appears one point differences type sizes, like 12,
> 11, and 10. This makes the structure very hard to follow.
>
> It is represented as "a technical reference for professional pilots."
> But the index is very weak, not really suitable for a reference, and the
> technical material ranges widely from valuable to irrelevant (ARINC 424
> computer record layouts) to sophomoric (how to calculate descents).
>
> I guess the reason I am so unhappy is that there is a fair amount of
> good material here but it is like picking through a dumpster to find it.
> If the material was uniformly weak, I would just toss the book out and
> write the cost off to experience, but that is not the case.
>
> I am off base here? Anybody else looked at it?

[dancingstar]

Biff Smith wrote:
> As the FAA becomes more like HUD and full of unqualified minorities, you
> will see more and more of this nonsense.

So in order to be "qualified" you must be a non-minority?

My guess is the FAA will be
> dead within 10 years and private industry will be running the Air
> Traffic control system anyway. This new ILS handbook is just another
> example of "Guvment" dumb down.

To be precise, it's not an "ILS handbook". Were you trying to dumb it
down for us?

Antonio

>
> Mitty wrote:
>
>> I got mine last week. I'm very disappointed. Although there is a lot
>> of valuable material in it and the graphics are very, very nice, it is
>> possibly the worst organized book I have ever seen. Both in the
>> writing and in the layout & typography. For example, three levels of
>> unnumbered headings are all left-justified in Helvetica bold caps,
>> differentiated only by being in what appears one point differences
>> type sizes, like 12, 11, and 10. This makes the structure very hard
>> to follow.
>>
>> It is represented as "a technical reference for professional pilots."
>> But the index is very weak, not really suitable for a reference, and
>> the technical material ranges widely from valuable to irrelevant
>> (ARINC 424 computer record layouts) to sophomoric (how to calculate
>> descents).
>>
>> I guess the reason I am so unhappy is that there is a fair amount of
>> good material here but it is like picking through a dumpster to find
>> it. If the material was uniformly weak, I would just toss the book
>> out and write the cost off to experience, but that is not the case.
>>
>> I am off base here? Anybody else looked at it?
>

[Gene Whitt]

Y'all,
I began reading it one section at a time. Beginning with Appendix
D---Acronyms and Glossary. I skipped Appendix C about helicopters, and then
read Appendix B and A. Sort of like riding in the back of a truck and
learning where you've been.

The book was not designed for this kind of treatment. Back pages keep
falling out.Chapter 6 is about system improvemtnt plans at least that's the
title. Chapter 5 Apprpoach(es) gets down to the gritty.

The charts and text come pre-highlited by the author(s) so I use a differnt
color. I find the material very condensed and difficult to simplify. Like
eating concentrated orange juice out of the container.with a toothpick.

Looking forward, it appears that new guys will have glass cockpits to do
their thinking and the old guys will fly the back-ups.

Gene