Talk:Federal Aviation Administration

message: 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)
thread_title: Kite regulations

message: 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)
thread_title:  FAA and Congress considering change to age 60 rule. 

message: Question: Why are there no references on this page? Moreover, why is there no admission of the lack of references at the top of the page, as there are in many unreferenced articles? 171.64.143.245 21:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no references because whoever wrote the article didn't note their references. Additionally, those who have continued to edit the article haven't taken the time to go back and cite the claims of the article. The only reason why the  tag wasn't at the top of the page is because nobody placed it there. Anybody may do so, including you. - auburnpilot talk 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: 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|airports|neutrality 16:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding 

message: 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)
thread_title:  wat in India then?? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2008 FAA Scandal 

message: Wasn't the name of the former FAA Civil Aeronautics Authority instead of Civil Aeronautics Administration? Bwilcke (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both names are former names. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 12:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAA History 

message: The main body of the article is plainly a cut and paste, with minor changes, from here. Now I read through the Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia: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? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism or not, of public works

message: 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. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 17:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline citattions

message: 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)
thread_title: Budget?

message: 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)
thread_title:  2013 CRS report on  airline passenger rights 

message: 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)
thread_title: FAA process is very random

message: 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)
thread_title:  Groundings