redlined FARs?

GeorgeC

GeorgeC

Administrator
Management Council Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
5,615
Display Name
Display name:
GeorgeC
Does anyone make a redlined version of the FARs, that is, just the differences from year to year?
 
I think the Jepp version does have margin marks on the changes from the previous year's edition. But the printed FAR/AIM is pretty much out of date the day the info gets to the printer.
 
Do the FARs only get updated once a year or is that just how often the books are published?
 
Brad Z said:
That's how often it's printed.
Click to expand...

I know, I was trying to drive home the point that they're outdated as soon as you get them. As soon as an AD or any other rule is made the regs have been updated.

I really don't know how a person could honestly keep track of all the changes, we just have to do the best we can. :)
 
Matthew said:
I think the Jepp version does have margin marks on the changes from the previous year's edition. But the printed FAR/AIM is pretty much out of date the day the info gets to the printer.
Click to expand...

So does ASA.

Bob Gardner
 
Matthew said:
The books get published once a year.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/

I honestly don't know how many times a year the FAR actually changes, but the changes go into effect at that time, not when the paper books get printed.
Click to expand...
The FAR (real not republication) changes whenever a new regulation becomes final. There is no "x times a year" schedule. Could be as little as none; the upper limit is the time available for the work to get done.

I think there is a schedule for the official printed Code of Federal Regulations, but even that might not reflect what the FAR actually is that day.
 
Last edited:
mondtster said:
Do the FARs only get updated once a year or is that just how often the books are published?
Click to expand...

The FARs are updated whenever the regs changed which can happen at any time.
The AIM is updated twice a year on a regular schedule.

The concept of an "annualized" issue is a figment of the aviation publishers.

The parts that are usually published for private pilots (1, 61, 91) don't change all that frequently however.

Here are a synopsis of the changes to those parts over the last year:

Part 61: Fees established for non-citizens/PRs who want to get certificate and reserves the right not to issue them.

Tweaking the changes to the ATP rules previously adopted and clarifying that simulator credit is restricted to the appropriate class being sought.

Minor tweaks to the procedure to replace lost/damaged certificates.

Clarification on certain military proficiency checks counting as flight reviews.

Addition of Flight Instructor certificate issuance, additional ratings on those certificates, and renewals qualifying as Flight Reviews.

Part 91: Establish 1/2 mile (day) and mile (night) visibility for helicopters in uncontrolled airspace.

Mumbo jumbo authorizing the use of one particular car seat model that the FAA approved without having appropriate markings adopted after it was approved.

Flight data recorder and turbojet noise requirement changes.
 
Last edited:
just a small nit.....they aren't FARs.....they are CFRs, and more specifically 14 CFRs. :D


...unless what you're really after are "Federal Acquisitions Regulations".:goofy:
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
just a small nit.....they aren't FARs.....they are CFRs, and more specifically 14 CFRs. :D


...unless what you're really after are "Federal Acquisitions Regulations".:goofy:
Click to expand...

BullPOOP. The above is wrong in many ways.

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations which contains the both the Federal Aviation Regulations and the Federal Acquisition Regulations and a whole slew of other regulations for everything from Acquisitions to Wildlife.

14 CFR Chapter I are the Federal Aviation Regulations and FAR is an accepted abbreviation of that term.

48 CFR Chapter I is the Federal Acquisition Regulation (note both Acquisition and Regulation is SINGULAR) and FAR is an accepted abbreviation of that term.
 
I feel the FAR/AIM is written in a way that makes it a wonderful sleep aid.
I have found that often individual FSDOs will find unique ways to interpret a particular FAR and have unique enforcement priorities.
 
How often does a reg change impact hobby pilots? Doesn't seem to matter much.
 
Does anyone publish an indented version of the FARs?

...how about for the iPad?

the lack of indentation makes the things *very* hard to read.
 
ClimbnSink said:
How often does a reg change impact hobby pilots? Doesn't seem to matter much.
Click to expand...

Occasionally, but not all that often. Truly, only a handful of regs in parts 61 and 91 actually matter to the average hobby pilot as it is and those are generally the ones that don't change very much.
 
Unless you are flying helicopters or you are a flight instructor nothing changed in the past year+ that matters to you. I monitor the NPRMs and FRs. There's nothing really applicable in the current rulemaking pipeline either. I suspect the next big noise you'll here is the medical changes some time next summer.
 
flyingron said:
BullPOOP. The above is wrong in many ways.

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations which contains the both the Federal Aviation Regulations and the Federal Acquisition Regulations and a whole slew of other regulations for everything from Acquisitions to Wildlife.

14 CFR Chapter I are the Federal Aviation Regulations and FAR WAS an accepted abbreviation of that term.

48 CFR Chapter I is the Federal Acquisition Regulation (note both Acquisition and Regulation is SINGULAR) and FAR WAS an accepted abbreviation of that term.
Click to expand...
FTFY......:rofl:
 
flyingron said:
I have know idea what point you're trying to make.
Was and Is.
Click to expand...
FAR terminology is old speak....and the FAA is attempting to change that. :mad2:

OK....nothing to see here....resume navigation....squawk 1200.....good day. :D
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
FAR terminology is old speak....and the FAA is attempting to change that. :mad2:
Click to expand...
An attempt to use formal citation when referring to a regulation for official purposes does not make the use of the informal term incorrect.

"No! He wasn't charged with a DUI! he was charged with violating O.C.G.A. §40-6-391! Haha! Gotcha!" :D

Sorry. Not all that impressive.
 
midlifeflyer said:
An attempt to use formal citation when referring to a regulation for official purposes does not make the use of the informal term incorrect.

"No! He wasn't charged with a DUI! he was charged with violating O.C.G.A. §40-6-391! Haha! Gotcha!" :D

Sorry. Not all that impressive.
Click to expand...
was I suppose to impress you? :rofl:
 
mondtster said:
I know, I was trying to drive home the point that they're outdated as soon as you get them. As soon as an AD or any other rule is made the regs have been updated.

I really don't know how a person could honestly keep track of all the changes, we just have to do the best we can. :)
Click to expand...

It used to be hard, everything was on paper or microfiche and every 30 days we'd get an update package that we had to incorporate into our library. Now it is all on-line at the official FAA website so you go there for the latest up to date version. If you have a hard copy such as the FAR/AIM you would just need to verify that what you have matches the revision date of what's on-line.

This is how it works with the airlines. All of the manuals used to be on micro-fiche cassette tapes and there were a couple of girls who came around once or twice a week with a cart and replaced all of the cassettes that had a revision. Now everything is on the computer and when you print out a page it is date stamped and is only valid for that shift after which it must be discarded and a new copy printed.

All updates in either case are instantaneous so long as you are using the official data source point.
 
midlifeflyer said:
An attempt to use formal citation when referring to a regulation for official purposes does not make the use of the informal term incorrect.

"No! He wasn't charged with a DUI! he was charged with violating O.C.G.A. §40-6-391! Haha! Gotcha!" :D

Sorry. Not all that impressive.
Click to expand...

So when you are working an enforcement action from the FAA for a client, in your correspondence to the FAA do you use informal slang or do you use the correct terminology?
 
You can find the up to date Code of Federal Regulations on the GPO web site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ECFR?page=browse.

Use the drop down menu on the page to find Title 14. All the FAA regulations can be found there. This site is updated as needed, so you can bet that what is there is the current version. I tend to spend more time looking at Title 47 (Telecommunications) as those are the FCC Rules.
 
RotorAndWing said:
So when you are working an enforcement action from the FAA for a client, in your correspondence to the FAA do you use informal slang or do you use the correct terminology?
Click to expand...
Informal slang? No. That would not be appropriate. But your question contains an incorrect assumption- that "FAR" is "informal slang."

So, no no slang. But yes, "FAR." Also use the full official citation. Depends.

just like the FAA does.

And, of course, the use of formal legal citation in a formal procedural context would not make it wrong to use the common term otherwise. I guess some people just use more stilted language than others. I find them funny to talk to.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Informal slang? No. That would not be appropriate. But your question contains an incorrect assumption- that "FAR" is "informal slang."

So, no no slang. But yes, "FAR." Also use the full official citation. Depends.

just like the FAA does.

And, of course, the use of formal legal citation in a formal procedural context would not make it wrong to use the common term otherwise. I guess some people just use more stilted language than others. I find them funny to talk to.
Click to expand...

Not surprising, it seems a great number of lawyers actually have poor writing skills. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You seem confused that things can have a name other than the CFR citation.

The FAA even uses the term in their enforcement of the regulations (the following is straight from the docket of a recent NTSB appeal):

"violation of provisions of Part 91, Section 91.13(a), Federal Aviation Regulations"

The appeal text uses FAR every place they mention a regulation. Not CFR, not just the word "regulation", but FAR.

It's spurious to argue that somehow the FAA and the NTSB's use of the term is somehow just "slang."

The US Court of Appeals uses the term "regulation" for the shorthand but otherwise uses the full cite whether they are talking about FAA regulations or other agencies actions which may or may not have official titles like the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
 
flyingron said:
You seem confused that things can have a name other than the CFR citation.

The FAA even uses the term in their enforcement of the regulations (the following is straight from the docket of a recent NTSB appeal):

"violation of provisions of Part 91, Section 91.13(a), Federal Aviation Regulations"

The appeal text uses FAR every place they mention a regulation. Not CFR, not just the word "regulation", but FAR.

It's spurious to argue that somehow the FAA and the NTSB's use of the term is somehow just "slang."

The US Court of Appeals uses the term "regulation" for the shorthand but otherwise uses the full cite whether they are talking about FAA regulations or other agencies actions which may or may not have official titles like the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
Click to expand...

There is a big emphasis at the Academy in OKC on writing and using the correct terminology in correspondence. No doubt it will take some time to see it become standardized throughout the agency.

In the 2 offices I worked at I could not send out any correspondence without using the correct terminology.

YMMV. :rolleyes:
 
Amusingly, while you may assert that there are no FARs officially, there are officially SFARs.
 
flyingron said:
Amusingly, while you may assert that there are no FARs officially, there are officially SFARs.
Click to expand...

Amusingly, reading comprehension is not your strong point. :rolleyes:

I never "asserted" there are no FAR's, I merely stated within the agency they require employees to use correct terminology in correspondence, such as 14 CFR xx.xxx.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Amusingly, reading comprehension is not your strong point. :rolleyes:

I never "asserted" there are no FAR's, I merely stated within the agency they require employees to use correct terminology in correspondence, such as 14 CFR xx.xxx.
Click to expand...

Is it possible you can engage in conversation here without throwing gratutitous insults?

Your comment was that the term FAR was, in your exact words, "informal slang."
That sounds pretty much an assertion that that wasn't the term wasn't "official."
 
flyingron said:
Is it possible you can engage in conversation here without throwing gratutitous insults?
Click to expand...
Don't worry about it. It's apparently part of that certain hereinbefore mentioned "correct terminology" movement. Kind of like being politically correct.

(:D I actually had to look up how to spell hereinbefore since it's a "correct terminology" term I never use in legal writing; those poor writing skills showing themselves again :rolleyes:)
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
Is it possible you can engage in conversation here without throwing gratuitous insults?
Click to expand...

flyingron said:
Amusingly, while you may assert that there are no FARs officially, there are officially SFARs.
Click to expand...


I replied to you as you replied to me. Apparently you reserve the right to throw out gratuitous insults here? :rolleyes:


flyingron said:
Your comment was that the term FAR was, in your exact words, "informal slang."
That sounds pretty much an assertion that that wasn't the term wasn't "official."
Click to expand...

If that's your comprehension.......:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top