Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
AirRabbit, I'll bet you are using that new fangled "first officer" term for "co-pilot", worst still "flight attendant" for "stews" or "hosties". GF
Ouch! Is it really THAT obvious?
Originally Posted by le Pingouin
AirRabbit, time for you to indicate a reference for your claim that FAR doesn't mean what everyone else here thinks. Thus far Google is as definitive as you've got. Give us an official document that specifically says Federal Aviation Regulations are not to be referred to as FARs.
OK – admittedly, I’m torn. In one of my last posts, I distinctly recall stating to you the following...
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
“Please, sir, if you are comfortable in relying on this kind of verification for your position, be my guest to continue doing so, as I suspect that the FAA police will not show up on your doorstep with an arrest warrant for “improper use of terms.” While I know of only a few in the FAA who regularly continue to use the term “FAR,” and none who adamantly continue to do so, I am not able to concur with your statement that it’s use is “common parlance” within the FAA. However, I do think it best to no longer point out to you what I believe to be an outdated term. Additionally, if it matters, you have my apology for your having to read my efforts to bring this issue to the attention of the other readers on this forum.
But now you misquote me (I’ve never said “FAR” doesn't mean what you and a lot of others think – go back and re-read what I said – conveniently provided above) and then you challenge me to provide you with an “official” document “that specifically says Federal Aviation Regulations are not to be referred to as FARs.”
So ... the dilemma is to continue to stand by my belief that it is probably better to longer point out to you what I believe to be an outdated term – or to, again, provide you with just exactly the kind of information for which you have asked. Probably to my regret, I’ll back up on my belief as to what is probably best and provide you a reference for just exactly what you have asked.
I contacted a colleague of mine at the FAA, an FAA inspector who’s been there for decades, and has been involved in a lot of the rulemaking efforts regarding pilots, airplanes, simulation, and training. The Flight Standards Service includes an Office of Rulemaking. That Office has what is apparently called “Rulemaking Work Instructions;” and before you ask ... no, I don’t have access to an internal document for this FAA Office; this document is apparently not available on the internet; and I’m not in a position to obtain a copy of such an internal document. I was however provided a quote from those instructions. If you care to pursue this further, I would suggest you contact the FAA Flight Standards Office of Rulemaking – and ask your question directly to someone there.
Use of the Term “FAR”
You must not use the term Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) in FAA rulemaking documents. The Office of the Federal Register does not recognize the acronym FAR as a reference to the regulations in 14 CFR. In fact, the term belongs to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, which are used in procurement. Further, it is not proper to use FAR as though it were a legal citation. See the following examples for the proper format for referencing FAA regulations:
First reference: 14 CFR part 91 14 CFR 91.875
Subsequent references: part 91 § 91.875
If you do not want or need to use specific section numbers, or have a general statement without a section reference, write “in the regulations” rather than “in the FAR”.
In most cases, logically minded persons would likely find this to be sufficient to recognize that FAR, while still used by many persons, and is continued to be found in some (many?) FAA documents, is a reference that is not being promulgated in the regulatory references that are being published by the FAA. That is apparently a decision made by the office that publishes ALL US government documents, the Office of the Federal Register.
My colleague’s note, to which the above quote was attached, says, “I know there are a lot of publications out there that still use "FAR" ... but that is because its not critical that we change to CFR in any given time frame and making all those changes would be terribly expensive ... except when it would be necessary to reprint or revise or update (or something similar) - and at that time it would make sense to change from FAR to CFR in those publications.”
As I’ve said now several times ... you (and anyone else here) are free to use whatever terms you desire to use, for whatever reason or reference you desire to use them. As I have also said, I doubt that anyone is going to “cite” you for “illegal use of terms.” In the same manner, I am going to continue to point out errors that I see – in both practice and description – and those who read my comments, as they have been in the past, so they will in the future, be free to believe or not believe my comments ... and that is their choice.
And now, I have but one more question of Mr. Island-Flyer:
Originally Posted by Island-Flyer
Even though AirRabbit's whole string of posts is an exercise in ignorance I'll chime in one last time for the sake of spreading valid knowledge...
And as an aside, the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) are Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), while the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) are Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). So technically both are "CFR" by AirRabbit's argument.
Does this mean that you agree with me ... or that you acknowledge the accuracy of what I’ve said ... or that I am, in your view, continuing to exercise ignorance? Not that it is truly necessary, nor am I particularly exercised over what your answer might be ... I'm just curious.