5
$\begingroup$

In the US, it is very common to see references to the FAR/AIM, and they are very often printed together.

Would it be better to have two different tags (like we do now: and ) or just have one (with a synonym of for those that try to just type in aim)?

Very often a question could be about or use information from both instead of just one and this will save from having to put both tags when another more useful tag could be used instead.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

I think it makes sense for these to be separate tags - the FARs usually come in book form combined with something else (like the FAR/AIM or FAR/AMT) but technically the US FARs are 14CFR, and the AIM or AMT Handbook are "FAA Publications" offering guidance on those regulations (they even have publication numbers - I used to know the one for the AIM).

Applying two tags shows that the question is about both regulation () and the FAA's guidance on interpreting/implementing the regulations (, , etc..).

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, my thinking is that I don't really care if the answer comes from the actual regulations or the faa guidance, I still will follow it because that's what they say to do. While they are technically different publications, you go to them both for similar reasons. That's why they are often printed together... $\endgroup$
    – Lnafziger
    Commented Dec 25, 2013 at 18:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @lnafziger I agree with that logic, except then we'd need a tag for the FAR/AIM, one for the FAR/AMT, and one for just-plain-FAR questions - it seems like it's creating a lot of redundant tags that might still have an overlap (e.g. questions about owners performing oil changes could refer to both the FARs, the AIM, and possibly bits of the AMT Handbook) $\endgroup$
    – voretaq7
    Commented Dec 25, 2013 at 18:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ True, and now that I think about it, the "combined" editions do not normally have the full FARs in them either, but instead only have the FARs specific to the publication that they are combined with. Keeping them separate is probably the way to go, although part of me still wants: far, aim, far-aim, and far-amt so that I don't always have to use two tags, lol.... $\endgroup$
    – Lnafziger
    Commented Dec 25, 2013 at 19:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Part of me is wondering if we should have far91 far61, far43, etc. -- I'm not still sure how I feel about that though $\endgroup$
    – voretaq7
    Commented Dec 25, 2013 at 19:29
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, I think that we should have at least some of them. Some questions will have VERY different answers depending on whether they are operating under 91, 121, or 135 for instance. I've been using far-91 and far-135 some already. I think that with the significant operating differences between them and with the fact that some people will be much more knowledgeable about some parts than others, that we should have the individual tags so that they can be followed when desired. $\endgroup$
    – Lnafziger
    Commented Dec 25, 2013 at 19:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .