4
$\begingroup$

The following are the current FAR tags (total of 112 questions):

, , , , , and .

FAR stands for Federal Aviation Regulations, although it is no longer professional to call them "FARs". As Wikipedia puts it:

Since 1958, these rules have typically been referred to as "FARs", short for Federal Aviation Regulations. However, another set of regulations (Title 48) is titled "Federal Acquisitions Regulations", and this has led to confusion with the use of the acronym "FAR". Therefore, the FAA began to refer to specific regulations by the term "14 CFR part XX". [Citing an FAA document on the matter.]

What format for the proposal do you think is best?

A recent comment from @JWalters encouraged me to bring this up:

@ymb1 I don't like using the 'far' tags because they have not been the FARs for wire some time now. It is 14 CFR. I thought the '-operations' tag fit better since this is an operations question.


Edit:

My argument for the change:

When I investigated the orphan tags that were created here (revision history), I didn't even find the [far-...] tags, as I typed "part" and "cfr". You can see that in the linked revision history. I made two edits, the first was simply deleting the newly created tags, then adding the far ones when I discovered them.

I only found them when I browsed my way into the tag wiki of the 'parent' tag by chance.

Anyone who doesn't use the incorrect acronym, is less likely to find the FAR ones. Note: A similar situation is: What should we do with the afd tag?


Edit 2:

It turns out there's a similar post from 6 years ago (thanks @Lnafziger), "How should regulation "part" tags be named?" where no clear consensus was reached.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Hmm... I'd agree that either of those suggestions is currently more correct than FAR. On the other hand, FAR is much more succinct and also pretty unambiguous in the context of this particular site. That wouldn't be true in the context of the CFR as a whole (e.g. on law.se,) but I think the chance of confusion between 14 CFR and 48 CFR is pretty low here on Aviation. $\endgroup$ – reirab Jan 24 at 17:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @reirab: Thanks for the input. I've updated the post. $\endgroup$ – ymb1 Jan 24 at 23:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We can create synonyms if there are concerns about people not looking for FAR. $\endgroup$ – fooot Jan 27 at 16:03
  • $\begingroup$ Does this answer your question? How should regulation "part" tags be named? $\endgroup$ – Lnafziger Jan 28 at 17:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Lnafziger: Interesting, it seems like the top-voted answer there wasn't applied -- as of writing this anyway, I'll vote there now :) $\endgroup$ – ymb1 Jan 28 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ A little more insight can be found here: When should FAA -vs- FAR and other regulatory tags be used?. (There was a lot of discussion about this back when we were getting things going around here, lol.) $\endgroup$ – Lnafziger Jan 29 at 15:56
4
$\begingroup$

Quite honestly, I think and the like are perfectly fine. There's no risk of someone seeing "FAR" and thinking that we're talking about the Federal Acquisitions Regulations.

Even if the FAA no longer uses the acronym "FAR," I'm not aware of any reason why it would be wrong for us to use it. The regulations in Title 14 are, in fact, the federal aviation regulations, and is there any reason we shouldn't abbreviate that as FAR?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the input. I've updated the post. $\endgroup$ – ymb1 Jan 24 at 23:05
4
$\begingroup$

If we do change them, I'd prefer something more succinct like . This is already the normal way to cite parts of the CFR (e.g. "14 CFR 121," "14 CFR 91," etc.)

The word "part" is normally omitted in citations unless the title is assumed. For example, if you already know from context that you're talking about 14 CFR, then you see "part 121," "part 91," etc., but if you're not assuming the title they're normally cited as "14 CFR 121," etc.

If we do change them, in order to resolve the difference in usage between whether or not the title is assumed, I'd recommend also creating tag synonyms of the form with the primary tags being . We could also create synonyms of the current format that also point to .

Of course, "Part 121" is, by itself, ambiguous with regard to which title it's referring to. However, on this particular site, I think it's pretty safe to assume that someone looking for "Part 121" is almost certainly looking for "14 CFR 121."

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ While I like this, anyone trying to tag something with "faa" wouldn't find these tags, and all of the other countries use their CAA as part of it (EASA-Regulations, etc.). I think that FAA should be in the beginning, so FAA-14-CFR-xxx. This becomes a bit long though, which is why we ended up with what we have now. Maybe we can assume the Part 14 bit since all of our regulations are in there and just go FAA-CFR-xxx? I dunno, I think that's why it never got changed last time this was brought up; there isn't a good answer, lol. $\endgroup$ – Lnafziger Jan 29 at 1:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Lnafziger Good point. Someone searching for "faa" would still find the general faa-regulations tag, though, right? $\endgroup$ – reirab Jan 29 at 5:44
  • $\begingroup$ If we keep that. I thought that we were trying to move all of the "faa-" tags to a new naming system. $\endgroup$ – Lnafziger Jan 29 at 15:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Lnafziger Oh, I thought this proposal was just for the part-specific far-xxx tags, not for the main faa-regulations tag. Personally, I'd recommend leaving that one as is. $\endgroup$ – reirab Jan 29 at 16:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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