Sport Pilot Talk

Jack Tyler

I invite everyone who owns an iPad, Android, uses the free Skyvector website - and all the many other users who rely on the availability of free and inexpensive eChart vendors and websites - to visit the following website, register and sign the petition opposing the fees.

http://wh.gov/jCZ

The issues are two fold: First is the impact it will have on safety of flight if eChart data becomes less available or more costly than it already is. I've seen this first-hand, as almost every country other than the USA thinks that they are entitled to claim as proprietary information navigation data that the taxpayer has already paid to the govt. so they can obtain it in the first place. Charging a fee for access to data that's not just in the public domain but was collected by a federal agency funded by the taxpayer and which must be collected for paper chart publication is going to have the same chilling effect that charging for a landing or a practice instrument approach, which is another common practice almost everywhere in the world but not here, where the higher premium is placed on pilot currency and so safety.

The other side of this proposed change is that only large vendors like Garmin is invited to participate in both the discussions on this change and to receive the electronic products by subscription. Think of the smaller or newer vendor - or perhaps flying clubs and make/model organizations - who might want to distribute the cost of eCharts (assuming a fee structure will be imposed) across a subset of users. They are excluded, as the FAA's description states. What about the innovator, new product developer, app writer - will they have the same interest in developing something new for our benefit?

Every sailor and power boater who wishes to and download and carry totally current navigation data published by NOAA, at no cost beyond paying their federal tax bill. They too might be threatened by this initiative, altho' I haven't seen anything (yet) in this regard. Why aviation?

It takes a total of 60 seconds to register and petition. You don't have to write anything. And amazingly, only 2,xxx signatures of the 23,xxx signatures needed have been placed on the petition.

bryancobb · Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:55 am Post subject: Plea

Hi,
Most folks can make a rational plea for why their particular need should be met by the government FOR FREE.

I am straddling the fence on this one.

For the 1st 20 years of my flying experience, I paid $6 to $12 for every current Sectional Chart and similar fee for AFD's, ELA's, Approach Plates, etc. I didn't complain because I understood that the legions of folks required to update and publish these charts were astronomical, and this cost had to be paid by a relative small population of pilots and seamen.

When these things started being free and easy to access and download, I jumped with joy.

Publishing these charts and books to the web is costly and adds to the already high OVERHEAD cost of the paper charts that must be printed. Now if 90% of people are downloading eCharts free, instead of buying paper charts, then NOAA prints only 10% of the quantity of paper charts as before, they are WAY in the red, cash flow wise, because the NOAA distributes the paper ones for a cost+plus price.

We as citizens can't keep taking taking taking, and not giving. These charts SHOULD NOT an entitlement program. I'd really like to see the government's cost $ figures on NOAA Publications in say 1990 dollars adjusted to 2011, versus cost $ figures for 2011 after the free eCharts was in full swing.

RyanShort1 · Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Posts: 101 Location: San Antonio, TX

bryancobb wrote: Hi,
Most folks can make a rational plea for why their particular need should be met by the government FOR FREE.

I am straddling the fence on this one.

For the 1st 20 years of my flying experience, I paid $6 to $12 for every current Sectional Chart and similar fee for AFD's, ELA's, Approach Plates, etc. I didn't complain because I understood that the legions of folks required to update and publish these charts were astronomical, and this cost had to be paid by a relative small population of pilots and seamen.

When these things started being free and easy to access and download, I jumped with joy.

Publishing these charts and books to the web is costly and adds to the already high OVERHEAD cost of the paper charts that must be printed. Now if 90% of people are downloading eCharts free, instead of buying paper charts, then NOAA prints only 10% of the quantity of paper charts as before, they are WAY in the red, cash flow wise, because the NOAA distributes the paper ones for a cost+plus price.

We as citizens can't keep taking taking taking, and not giving. These charts SHOULD NOT an entitlement program. I'd really like to see the government's cost $ figures on NOAA Publications in say 1990 dollars adjusted to 2011, versus cost $ figures for 2011 after the free eCharts was in full swing.
I agree with you Bryan, but these people ARE paid a salary, too. I don't mind paying for the digital charts, if that is what it comes down to, but it should not be significantly more than the printing costs. My understanding was that you were primarily paying for the printing process when you bought a chart. Also, I think that they should still make them available as a direct download from the source, rather than making me go through another service like Jeppessen if I so prefer. So for me the issues are excessive cost and distribution options.

Ryan

dstclair · Joined: 06 Mar 2008 Posts: 212 Location: Allen, TX

I'm on the fence too :D

By law, Aeronav cannot charge more for their services than the actual cost: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_49_00044721----000-.html

One provision of the law:

(1) In general.— Aeronautical products created or maintained under the authority of this section shall be sold at prices established annually by the Administrator consistent with the following:
(A) Maximum price.— Subject to subparagraph (B), the price of an aeronautical product sold to the public shall be not more than necessary to recover all costs attributable to:
(i) data base management and processing;
(ii) compilation;
(iii) printing or other types of reproduction; and
(iv) dissemination of the product.

It's pretty clear that Aeronav no longer collects the same revenue they used to since the volume of paper charts is going down. This will continue to go down so Aeronav may now be in a position of not covering their costs. Note that they cannot charge for acquistion of data.

For Aeronav to continue to be self-funded they will need to charge their costs for their all their products: paper and digital. Our tax dollars and avgas tax didn't cover these costs previously so we can't argue we were already paying for them.

I am concerned on the slippery slope of user fees but we all used to pay this fee by buying paper charts. This could be construed as just the 21st century of paying for charts.

It'll be interesting to hear what comes of the Dec 13th meeting.

RyanShort1 · Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Posts: 101 Location: San Antonio, TX

Does anyone here have an idea what it really costs to have those charts printed? I'm guessing it's in the $3-5 range honestly... since it's tough paper, full color, and oversize.
I reckon that they have some fixed costs in the printing, and some fixed costs in the computer / server department. Cutting off the servers to one day a month, or whatever it was will assuredly save a very few electrons, but I can't see it being that much to maintain. OTOH, they have to print more charts than they actually need if they don't want to run out, and the more that don't get bought, the worse the profit margin - and probably the more it costs, too, since there is less quantity.

Ryan

Jack Tyler · Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:01 am Post subject:

It doesn't sound to me like you folks are sitting on a fence, but rather have a mix of concerns that include whether any fee structure will be cost-based (vs. the camel's mandated-fee nose slipping under the tent, that the fee structure will be truly cost based, that the exclusivity of distribution to a small group of big vendors might not be in the public interest, and - let's not ignore the other side of the fence - that we've all been living beyond our means, collectively as well as personally, and we need to be honest with our civic selves and pay for services we use but which Uncle Sam can't continue to support.

Fair enough; I agree with each of the points. What I challenge is the conclusion that, because some portions of the proposal might be necessary while others are of concern, you think this places you in the neutered position of having no reason to sign the petition. Obviously, not signing the petition is equivalent, within the aviation community, to a vote of confidence for the proposal, which is how the FAA will choose to view it. A good analogy here - for which there is a large body of evidence - is the review period for an AD: if the remedial, mandated action outlined in a proposed AD is e.g. mechanically unrealistic or unnecessarily expensive - and a/c owners and mechanics don't submit comments - stupid, expensive rules get created. Even if the intent of an AD is a worthy, that doesn't mean we ignore the warts. Even if you prefer to pay a fee for digital chart distribution, the other concerns would seem to suggest that the proposal as a whole be questioned. Signing the petition accomplishes that, especially before the meeting in another week or so.

Everyone might want to read the short summary of how a mid-west EAA chapter summed it up in their monthly newsletter: http://www.eaa932.org/images/Galt_Traffic_December_2011.pdf

Their point is that this is a time when we should express wide-spread concern for the proposal, the purpose of doing so being to arrest an immediate move in the direction of selective distribution, concerns such as the ones above not first being addressed, and (yet another) financial impact to pilots and a/c owners. AOPA, EAA and many on-line & smaller vendors (with whom most of us here probably do some business) have lots of questions even before they can understand the implications of the proposal. My take on this is that signing the petition helps in this regard.

bryancobb · Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:33 am Post subject: Not Much Support Here

Read the EAA Chapter's summary. These are just 2 "special interest" groups who are fighting for the "RIGHTS" of their members, to get something for nothing from the US Government. Does this sound like a Labor Union, National Organization for Women, or NAACP to you? It sure does me!

"I urge all pilots to support EAA and AOPA in their fight for our
rights as pilots."

Whether or not a chart costs you ten bucks has NOTHING to do with safety. I've flown with outdated charts in my aircraft and it had nothing to do with the cost. It had more to do with how inconvenient it was to make sure one was available for purchase when I got ready for it. On the net, It will always be there when I get ready to buy.

Pilots just need to "MAN-UP" and pay for their charts...period.

RyanShort1 · Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Posts: 101 Location: San Antonio, TX

bryancobb wrote: Read the EAA Chapter's summary. These are just 2 "special interest" groups who are fighting for the "RIGHTS" of their members, to get something for nothing from the US Government. Does this sound like a Labor Union, National Organization for Women, or NAACP to you? It sure does me!

"I urge all pilots to support EAA and AOPA in their fight for our
rights as pilots."

Whether or not a chart costs you ten bucks has NOTHING to do with safety. I've flown with outdated charts in my aircraft and it had nothing to do with the cost. It had more to do with how inconvenient it was to make sure one was available for purchase when I got ready for it. On the net, It will always be there when I get ready to buy.

Pilots just need to "MAN-UP" and pay for their charts...period.
Again, I agree in general, but what it looks like they are going to do is only release it through "vendors." My problem with that is that I'd like to just be able to download the chart I need iTunes style or something straight from the agency... The way it used to be, just being able to quickly go to the NOAA website and download a PDF of the approach plate I needed to print off was great. Now it looks like one will HAVE to buy an iPad or something similar instead of being quickly able to print one off of a desktop in a pinch.
I'm in a BIG city, and if I'm in a pinch and can't get to the Pilot's Shoppe in normal business hours, I'm completely out of options if I find out I need to go somewhere I don't have an approach plate for in a hurry. I don't really have the money for an iPad yet, but it's looking more and more like one will either have to go digital and pay, or be very vigilant about getting the charts. Again, I'm not against "user fees" if they are only supporting the operation (The government shouldn't be profiting off of us, only paying for what they have to), but I'm concerned about the distribution options.

Ryan

bryancobb · Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:36 am Post subject: Maybe I don't get it

Ryan,

I may misunderstand their goal but I was THINKING everything would be just as it is now except when got in a pinch and went to download that approach plate, you'd have to let them hit your Visa for 50 cents.

comperini · Joined: 24 Feb 2008 Posts: 152 Location: California

I've tried to register on the whitehouse.gov website for several weeks, using several different e-mail addresses, and can't. They never send the email confirmations to allow me to complete my registration.

Now there's "transparency" for ya! Way to go Obama.

RyanShort1 · Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Posts: 101 Location: San Antonio, TX

bryancobb wrote: Ryan,

I may misunderstand their goal but I was THINKING everything would be just as it is now except when got in a pinch and went to download that approach plate, you'd have to let them hit your Visa for 50 cents.
I'd be happy with that... but I think what they're doing is requiring all non-FAA digital providers to find a way to prove the validity of the charts so user aren't using old stuff. Also, they now restricted downloads to one day right after the charts are published, and I think that they are also not going to allow private individuals to download them, if I understand correctly... That DOES concern me.

Ryan

RyanShort1 · Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Posts: 101 Location: San Antonio, TX

Brian,

Check these links to understand the new restrictions...

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2011/111122industry_demands_answers_on_digital_chart_charges.html
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/awx/2011/11/29/awx_11_29_2011_p0-399601.xml&headline=Digital%20Charts%20Plan%20Riles%20Pilot%20Groups

This article here concerns me the most:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAA_To_Charge_For_Online_Charts_205722-1.html note that NO individuals will have access. If I was going to do a quick IFR flight, I'd have to subscribe to some service like Jeppessen (who many think is behind this move for financial reasons) to get them.
Don't get me wrong. I like Jeppessen, but I don't want to be forced to buy something from a third-party source making a profit off of something I am mandated to buy.

Ryan

ct4me · Joined: 02 Mar 2007 Posts: 43 Location: Phoenix, AZ

I don't like it on many levels, but understand that there are some costs involved. Aviators got used to paying for charts because there were obvious, tangible costs... paper, printing, packaging, & shipping. But distributing the charts electronically is different. The cost is negligible compared to paper, and the type of thing that is hard to quantify on a chart-by-chart basis.
Through taxes, we pay to be controlled by the FAA. Part of that is the cost for them to develop the charts. How can we be expected to comply if we can't get the charts? We pay to have them developed, then have to pay to use them, too? I don't "need" charts to fly, I need them to comply.
The government has decided to create TFR regulations, too. Our taxes pay for the organizations that maintain these notices. So is the next step a pay-per-peek website to check TFR's?
Maybe after that we'll be paying for the directions for filling out your tax forms? Paying for the manual to pass your drivers license?
This smacks of some sort of snuggling between somebody in the Government and Jeppeson (or whoever is going to end up getting our chart $$$). We stand to lose the ability to easily get chart information.
Whether you agree or not, everyone should sign the petition, to make sure there is an open discussion on these issues.
Tim

Jack Tyler · Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:36 pm Post subject:

I thought this was an interesting enough - and insightful enough - comment on the pending changes in digital chart/aviation data by Aeronav that it deserved to be posted in this discussion. It's written by Jeff VanWest, editor of the IFR mag (sister to Aviation Consumer) and someone who relies, professionally and personally, on the convenient availability of aviation data. It's in the current (12/11) issue of AC and speaks to how this incremental degradation in the affordability and convenience of flying fits into the larger, downward spiral in sustaining GA:

"Two of the tenets of good habit formation is that you give people a motivator to do the right thing, and you make it easy to do so. Up until the fall of 2010, the Aeronav Services branch of the FAA could have been a poster child for building good pilot habits on keeping current with airport, approach and charting data. Printed charts were available at virtually every FBO and digital charts were a free download for all.

As our investigation on page 5 reports, the party started winding down in 2010 with restrictions to paper chart sales, and now a whole micro-industry of flight planning apps and websites are hanging in limbo, knowing free downloads of data will disappear by April 12, 2012. In the meantime, downloads that were available weeks in advance are now available 24 hours in advance.

There has been much hand wringing on both sides of this row that access to this data is a safety issue. The FAA says poor or incomplete repackaging of its data jeopardizes safety; the industry says restricting pilots’ access to this data in any way jeopardizes safety. As we show in our investigation, the core issue here is money. But isn’t it still a safety issue? I think not.

We do accident scans for this magazine every month, ranking the causes into categories. We’ve never had to create category for “Didn’t have the right radio frequency,” “missed the NOTAM” or even “Used an out-of-date approach plate.” Terrain warnings have an obvious safety potential. Aircraft position on the approach plate is arguably a boon to safety. But there are simply enough checks and balances in the system that flying with obsolete data rarely causes a serious mishap. Embarrassment, maybe. But nearly universally, this is the stuff of NASA forms, not NTSB reports.

There is, however, something significant to be said for convenience. Howie Keeife built a sizable business on his various chart atlas systems because it was more convenient to have a bound book when traveling than collect and organize all those separate charts. The iPad and similar devices make it easy to have the right data available. You’re less likely to call on the outdated Tower frequency or blunder into restricted airspace en route. You can call up an approach chart without fear (or guilt) that maybe the circling minimums changed last month.

Even if that isn’t going to put a detectable dent in the fatal accident rate, it’s good for the industry. The FAA NOTAM system may still be in the communications Bronze Age, but clever app developers have parsed and organized the data so it’s easier to get it right. The FBO that rented out a 172 might not have the margin to keep the GPS database current, but for $75 a year, all the airport information is at a pilot’s fingertips—on the phone that pilot had in his pocket anyway. This kind of technological hipness is one of the shining exceptions in an industry that’s got a bit of an image problem. While it’s important to reduce the fatal accident rate, we need to aim a bit more broadly to really attract new pilots and keep the ones we have.

In the pay-to-play, NextGen future the FAA is shaping, it’s no surprise that someone latched onto the idea that the government should stop giving this valuable data away for nothing. (Well, except we paid for it last April, right about the 15th of the month.) But the scheme can’t work. If there’s anything the website world has proven is that people won’t pay more than peanuts for digital data if there’s any way around it. If the FAA tries to recoup serious royalties from the data the way it made a return on paper chart sales, it’ll kill the industry. Most people will get just the barest charts they need (paper or digital), troll the internet for bits of free data to supplement (even though free sites like RunwayFinder will vanish), and fly with whatever stuff they have. Up goes another barrier to entry for new pilots. On goes another weight on the back of existing pilots. Down goes the industry further, which means even fewer people to pay.

And if they only charge a small royalty, it’s hard to imagine it would be enough to even be worth the trouble on Aeronav’s bottom line. But it’s not hard to imagine how it could squelch this corner of aviation where free data has been the foundation for something truly beneficial. "