10
$\begingroup$

The FAA has just done a major rewrite of part 23 and the new regulations have been published. Almost all the previous regulations are now gone, although of course they're still available from sites (like ecfr.gov) that can display previous versions.

That means, almost all the links and quotes on this site that refer to part 23 are now outdated. Statements like "FAR 23.51 requires that..." are no longer correct: first, the section is gone; and second, the requirement itself has changed.

Compare these two sections, for example:

  • Old 23.51 - Takeoff speeds
  • New 23.2115 - Takeoff performance

Worrying about this might seem like pedantry, but on the other hand we're talking about regulations, so accuracy is kind of important :-)

What - if anything - should we do about this? Trying to update all the existing questions and answers with a comment about old vs. new seems like a huge task. (Or is it? Do we have any way to find out?) Perhaps we could create a canonical question and answer about the rewrite, and refer people to it as/when inconsistencies or questions arise? Other ideas? Have any other SE sites faced a similar issue?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ About major changes to be made in data, I always think about data.SE. But only an SE employee can update, we can only see (if allowed) which posts need changes. $\endgroup$ – Farhan Sep 18 '17 at 18:36
  • $\begingroup$ Oh man! That's going to be a whole lotta posts! Let's hope they don't totally reorganize part 91. That'd be an even bigger mess. $\endgroup$ – TomMcW Sep 19 '17 at 0:32
5
$\begingroup$

On other SEs they have monthly "challenges", where the whole community is called onto a single topic/task. We could do something similar and call everyone in collecting all the FAR 23 posts as an answer here on meta and ask the OPs or a few knowledgable people to update them.

| |
$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

I believe the internet is used for advice, but not legally actionable advice. I'd worry if a flight test team came here for the takeoff regs.

Much like the numerous Part 25 V1 testing iterations, what was valid before a change remains valid. Same for ETOPS, like how it doesn't apply to the older quad-jets.

IMO, keep old posts as is. For the new posts instead of commenting, feel free to edit in a short note. Users will catch on and it will save on the commenting back and forth (not that I didn't appreciate it, but this is easier for us moving forward).

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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