6
$\begingroup$

So I've been using (and see others using) the FAA and FAR tags somewhat interchangeably, and there are a lot of questions with both tags since people ask questions about "FAA rules" instead of the FARs.

Regulatory Authority Tags

I propose that we remove the FAA, ICAO, etc. tags from all questions unless they specifically deal with questions about how the regulatory authority works, or working directly with them. Appropriate questions could include any time that you must work directly with the FAA, such as:

  • Certification
  • Approval
  • Letters of Authorization (RVSM, ADS-B, etc.)
  • Company Operations Specification approvals
  • Manual Approvals/Acceptance/Revisions
  • Filling out and submitting various forms (8410, 8710, etc.)
  • Rulemaking Process

Regulation Tags

Since not all regulatory agencies have a different name for their regulations (for instance, there is ICAO and ICAO regulations instead of FAA and FARs), I suggest that we create and use tags specifically for regulations in a standard format, and all questions about regulations should be retagged as appropriate.

In the specific case of the FARs, is such a commonly used term that we should have a tag synonym for it, pointing to .

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Personally, I think "far" should be abolished as part of any tag, as the regs just aren't called that anymore. "14CFR" or "faa" would work for me as replacements, but I cringe every time I see a tag with "far" in it. $\endgroup$
    – casey
    Jan 1, 2014 at 1:12
  • $\begingroup$ @casey: Well, when you buy the book at the pilot shop it is still the FAR/AIM and WAY to many people still use it to just ignore it.... $\endgroup$
    – Lnafziger
    Jan 1, 2014 at 1:43
  • $\begingroup$ I know... Doesn't mean I have to be happy about it though. $\endgroup$
    – casey
    Jan 1, 2014 at 2:25

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

I agree that is better than . I don't particularly agree with because I just don't see that being something people would naturally start typing. I think once you start talking about specific FAR chapters, is appropriate and relatively unambiguous. In general, questions using FAR tags should probably also carry the tag.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ I cringe with thinking about trying to keep people straight with the lack of consistency there. faa-regulations if it is generic and far-??? if it is specific? We should probably choose one way or the other and stick with it. $\endgroup$
    – Lnafziger
    Dec 30, 2013 at 19:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Inafziger consistency is a nice thought, but it's important to think about what someone asking a question is going to think to type for a tag. Also, it's fairly consistent with how people talk. In generic terms, when someone is talking about regulations, they'll say "the FAA requires that you do ____." When they want to get specific, they say "FAR 61 Section X says _____." $\endgroup$
    – Bret Copeland
    Dec 30, 2013 at 19:33
  • $\begingroup$ Then again, maybe with proper references and synonyms we could probably make it work. I'm just trying to make it intuitive! $\endgroup$
    – Lnafziger
    Dec 30, 2013 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, you've won me over. Let's see what other people think and/or come up with before we start making changes. $\endgroup$
    – Lnafziger
    Dec 30, 2013 at 19:36
  • $\begingroup$ What about faa-far91? That way we always start with faa at least (like we would for icao or jaa regulations). They are FAA regs, and the specific would be FAR 91... $\endgroup$
    – Lnafziger
    Dec 31, 2013 at 5:41
  • $\begingroup$ I think "part-135" is a better alternative to "far-135" or "faa-135-regulations". $\endgroup$
    – casey
    Jan 1, 2014 at 1:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @casey I disagree. Calling it part-135 is both more ambiguous and more United States egocentric. $\endgroup$
    – Bret Copeland
    Jan 1, 2014 at 6:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Bret I argue that "far" is more US centric and surely anything with "135" in the name is by definition US centric. That aside, both the FAR and 14CFR crowds know those regs as "part 135". The icao/jaa crowd is going to know 14CFR more than they know FAR if are looking for our regs (JAA ATPs take a law exam) but they will know FAR|14CFR "part 135". If we want non US egocentric we should name it "on-demand-operations", but no one will type that by default. $\endgroup$
    – casey
    Jan 1, 2014 at 18:30
  • $\begingroup$ @casey I agree that we generally say "part x" when talking about FAR's, but that's also true for the EASA crowd when talking about their own regulations (i.e. "part 66"). If you see a "part-21" tag, is it immediately obvious what you're referring to? No, because both the US and European agencies have a Part 21. Though they are related, they're not the same, and this would make the tag ambiguous unless qualified in context by another tag, which I think is a bad approach. Especially when it comes to having to Tag Wiki. $\endgroup$
    – Bret Copeland
    Jan 1, 2014 at 19:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That is true and something I failed to consider. What a mess regulations are. $\endgroup$
    – casey
    Jan 1, 2014 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ I also don't like the idea of having to use two tags in the case of an FAA (or any other) regulation question. faa-far135 (or faa-14cfr135 would probably be more technically correct) implies faa-regulations.... $\endgroup$
    – Lnafziger
    Jan 2, 2014 at 1:21
0
$\begingroup$

The following actions have been taken to address this:

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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