Talk:Federal Aviation Administration

Kite regulations
Kite regulations seem imposible to find on the FAA site, all they say is it is in FAR (Federal Air Regulations?) 101. This website has FAR-101 with dates of enactment: http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/part101.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.18.3 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2004 (UTC)

FAA and Congress considering change to age 60 rule.
I've added an article that address the current situation of the part 121 age 60 rule regulation for pilots. As you are probably aware ICAO has changed their regs to allow age 65 and congress is still tettering with its addition to the budget bill. Their is also a rumour of a possible NPRM to address the difference between us and ICAO.

http://www.askcybersteve.com/science/aviation/pilots-age-60-rule-where-is-it-now.html

Thats teh articles source if anyone wants to take a look. Allstargold 17:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Funding
I'd love to see a section on where the FAA derives its funding, though I doubt I have enough information to do such a section due justice. I will start on the Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007. Sigh, such a mouthful. :) thadius856talk 16:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

wat in India then??
Like FAA in India do we have any such administration...if so wat is it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.67.171 (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 FAA Scandal
You know, I was trying to find more information on this and I was surprised an article wasn't started on this subject. I don't have the knowledge in starting an article of this topic and think its notable enough that it justifies it. You can bet there is going to be a congressional meeting or or investigation in the very near future.--Hourick (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FAA History
Wasn't the name of the former FAA Civil Aeronautics Authority instead of Civil Aeronautics Administration? Bwilcke (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Both names are former names. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 12:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism or not, of public works
The main body of the article is plainly a cut and paste, with minor changes, from here. Now I read through the Public domain and Plagiarism pages and it not exactly clear. On one hand they say even copying of public domain works is plagiarism, but on the other hand a citation needs to be made of large quantities of text to avoid plagiarism. So I added a reference to the article. So does anyone think that the pasted content should be rewritten? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 13:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Inline citattions
References in the Regions sections should not be used as such. Using a reference as a source of a location (in this case) seems improper. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 17:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest editing disputes over style
I find this dispute quite unnecessary, and a couple editors have been reverting each other. I recently reverted an IP edit with an edit summary that seemed to be following a style guide outside of WP. I believe that WP expects us to follow its styling policy. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 14:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Deejay, the IP appears to be you after looking again, which means you've reverted three times now I believe. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 14:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But the WP Style says absolutely nothing about this! There is nowhere in the WP style guide that says that a government agency, when referred to by its abbreviation, must have the definite article ahead of it when used as a noun. In fact, the *only* government agency that actually requests that is the NIH.
 * So, if the WP Style Guide says nothing about it, and FAA does, why not go with what they desire?
 * Deejaye6 (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You'd have to ask the powers that be at WP. I don't make policy, so I can't say whether FAA styling is allowable. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 18:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There's also no requirement for WP to follow FAA's guidelines on this. Generally the article is only omitted for proper names such as ship names. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And there is no requirement *not* to follow FAA's guidelines. Look, the whole point of this edit is simply to make the article read a little better, and to make it a little more accurate. You wouldn't tell Prince that he can't use "Prince" as his name on his wiki page, would you? So why tell FAA that they can't be called simply "FAA" and must be referred to as "the FAA"? I am not trying to vandalize Wikipedia, I am not trying to do anything bad here. In the absence of any direction saying that there must be a definite article in the WP Style Guide, can't this edit stand? Deejaye6 (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine, but nobody called your edits vandalism or anything like that. And your edit has stood for a few days too.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Budget?
Where does the quoted budget of $15 billion come from? Details here for FY2012 put it at $9.8bn and FY2010 at $9.336 bn: http://www.faa.gov/about/budget/

Regards, Stu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.62.162 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

2013 CRS report on airline passenger rights
This 2013 report "Airline Passenger Rights: The Federal Role in Aviation Consumer Protection" from the Congressional Research Services could be helpful. II | (t - c) 18:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

FAA process is very random
This section seems to be a random collection of trivia. It doesn't seem to add to the article. If its a section of designations in general there are dozens and all should be listed, including Pilot Examiners, examiners for mechanics, inspection authorities, designations for certain types of specialized maintenance. Should we remove this section at this point?--RobertGary1 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Groundings
I've just copy-edited the Boeing 737 MAX groundings section, but giving the issue a little further thought, I propose the section be significantly condensed and renamed, and that other notable groundings (DC-10, 787 come to mind) be added to the section, re-constituted as part of FAA (/ CAA?) history. As now written, the section is a rather blatant example of Recentism and Undue, in the absence of text on previous groundings. DonFB (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This is all fake 2604:4C40:3005:FF0C:5D00:F395:2841:6664 (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)