The days of inexpensive navigation and chart apps for your mobile devices appear to be numbered with the FAA's announcement that it will begin charging for downloads that were previously free starting April 5, 2012. A story in the December issue of our sister publication Aviation Consumer says the Aeronautical Navigational Products Directorate (Aeronav), which currently makes the latest charts and other navigational products available online for free, says it has to recover the costs associated with developing and hosting the products. That means charging fees to companies for those downloads and no longer allowing individuals access them at all. As of April 5, only those with distribution contracts with Aeronav will be able to download the data. The most noticeable impact will likely be on the small but increasingly popular industry segment (like ForeFlight and WingX) that develops flight-related apps for iPads and other consumer electronics. It will also have an impact on websites like RunwayFinder that use the data for their online products, some of which are currently available for free. How much impact isn't known because the FAA hasn't announced what it intends to charge for the data. Affected companies have been invited to a meeting Dec. 13 in Washington to hear details of the FAA's proposal and offer input to the final pricing structure and the distribution contract.

Industry officials told Aviation Consumer that the market will likely reject significant increases in cost for apps and online products. Smaller providers and free websites may simply go out of business. Larger companies may try to keep their subscribers but with higher subscription prices. The pervasive fear in the industry is that this could lead to only one or two entities controlling the market for the distribution of government-produced information that is essential for flight safety. Aeronav spokeswoman Abigail Smith told Aviation Consumer the agency is determined not to let that happen but the new fees, whatever they are, will have to be enough to cover costs. "Because we're legislated, we can't collect more money than our cost," she said. "We're committed to the most affordable product line for the end user. But if revenue diminishes, the product line diminishes." Under the new contract structure, the FAA will also set standards for those using FAA data to create their products. There have been issues with data being made inaccessible in the production of some apps and the standards will ensure that all information on printed charts is available in any digital version.

Bend over and grease up. Here comes the government to fu in the arss.

With more bottom line consciousness in government being demanded I think a lot of gov't services will be looking to supplement their uncertain, shrinking budget with every service they provide. In two words "User Fees" for information and they used to have a lock on those sales with goverment printed charts. Now others are marketing their info electronically instead and the FAA sees it's shrinking take as their role is reduced to only gathering the info. No huge outcry from the public for this USER FEE as individuals using the service are asked to step up to pay. Never mind that the gathering of this info was covered by taxpayers to begin with and never was expected to be self supporting, but WAS done within the appropriation. It would take a hundred smaller efforts like that marshaled against airport user fees to stop moves such as this. Are government weather services...excuse me, I mean products.. next to follow this US Postal Service model?

When free downloads were offered to the public, the subscription services strongly objected (their words from the Avweb article, not mine) and got free public access changed to only 24 hours prior to the effective date, while the subscription folks continued to enjoy 14 or 15 days' prior (Jep, Garmin, et al).

I think this all smells funny- and I don't believe them when the FAA says they don't really only want a couple of distributors left. I think in reality they couldn't care less- those two distributors throw nice Christmas parties and might have a job for them after they pay their dues working for the FAA. They really don't have a mission or accountability on ANY level to strive to provide services to GA when the rest of their time is monopolized by commercial interests. The GA service motivations just evaporate over time.

This isn't being cynical- it's merely paying attention.

One real solution for costs I believe the 28-day cycle for procedures and lo- & hi- alts is ridiculous. They need to go to a 90- or 180- day cycle, and issue NOTAMS for urgent or emergency changes to low alts and procedures; plus they should move to 12-month cycles on sectionals, just like WAC's. After all if it is legal to fly with 364- day old WACs, why is it not kosher to fly with 7 month old sectionals? The FAA has a section on their web page dedicated to that nugget- and merely acknowledge the discrepancy and claim they do not, as a matter of policy, plan on enforcing it.

The origins of the frequent updates, according to a guy that worked for the bureaucracy in the early 60's, was to provide justification for large investments in mapping services and aviation infrastructure during the Cold War. It was easy to convince people to pour $$ into the programs when optimism for GA and the desire to build government services to support GA was high. The justification based on need was never really the driving motivation. Providing jobs to mapping and aviation infrastructure was, and since it was low-cost, it was fine.

The frequent updates are unnecessary- so lets get rid of them. I don't mind having to pay for them, but let's not be so silly about what that means. Current procedures and lo-alts for my home area currently add around $45 per hour to my IFR flight costs. That is having current charts around about 5 months out of the year, for long trips where I might fly IFR, when IFR flight plans are filed for around 5-7 hours per year actual flight time. It is very difficult to justify that cost, except that it is about the same cost as a couple days' stay in cheap motels if I were to get stopped while flying VFR.

That seems like a fair trade until you realize those costs are ridiculous and unnecessary in the first place.

maulewaco wrote:One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

Not so fast, Maule.
The change is right in step with the initiative in 2005 to prevent the US government from distributing weather data (which we paid for) to us (the people that bought it).

http://www.wunderground.com/education/santorum_s786.asp

Richard "DO NOT GOOGLE HIS NAME" Santorum, was the cheerleader. Obama was barely a US senator. But this is the Senate Bill referred to by the FAA (which never passed as a law, by the way, or even made it past a couple of readings), when discussing this measure.

This isn't a defense of Obama- just an attempt to clear out the septic pipe a bit. I just think it's odd to write ad hominem comments on a man that differs so little from his predecessor without pointing out the little unavoidable ironies in doing so along the way.

As if people don't use outdated stuff to Nav with enough as it is. Our CTAF changed like 3 years ago and I can't believe how many people come in on the old one. If you can't even get access to the info without paying for it do you think people are going to actually use it at all? Seems like they are doing more harm than good with this one. Does this mean Skyvector will go away too?

Seems to me that free charts are a little bit like safe sex. Sex was safe from the invention of penicillin until the advent of AIDS. Well, seeing as how I don't ever remember free charts or AIMs or Airport Directories 10 or 12 years ago, they must not have been free for long. You could call FSS and WXbrief back in the olden days if memory serves. Everything else was part of the cost of flying. I think.

The charts are not free. We pay the gov to make them in the first place. This is akin to fire department charging you if you have a emergency. You paid for the service once. You should not have to pay twice.

I have no problem paying for distribution costs. I do that already for paper copies from the government printing office. That all changed when I could download them.

Having to use a "certified chart agent" will not address the "safety" concerns they cited though. It simply addresses the market share a few "certified chart agents" hope to gain through this measure, making me pay profits to a third party grafter for products I paid for in the first place, and would be produced whether I needed to buy them or not.

If reasonable bandwidth fees were charged to download them directly from the website (pennies), then fine- I'm on board.

But this smells too fishy, especially after the stink that Garmin and the rest raised when we could get the updates well in advance for free, and then suddenly we have to wait till the day before, so their profits would not be impacted.

Stuff costs what it costs to produce, usually less efficient with government run offices.

The thing that is seriously wrong with this is the "no access for individuals" part. That's bullshit.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=aeronav/applications/VFR/chartlist_sect

I guess the government has a PATENT on electronic charts. OH WAIT THAT WAS A DIFFERENT THREAD.

I just downloaded the entire updated US data base onto my iPad.. again. That's how I have updated it every time. What the hell, it was same price once the subscription was paid. I never have used a fraction of what's on there but it seems like its better to have the whole thing than fly off the end of the iPad into the cabin door or other parts unknown.

When I used sectionals I only bought the ones I was going to use and maybe the joining chart. Hope they're not basing income estimates on my current download volumes. They will be sorely disappointed, and I'm sure most are doing the same as me.

Also, the iPad (Foreflight) database is listed by state unlike sectionals. This just became an incompatablity problem with the sectional chart data base, for knowing what to charge.

Petition launched to fight FAA decision to charge for navigation downloads

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2011 ... -downloads

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/! ... n=shorturl

The government, by statute, can only charge an amount to recover costs. They cannot aim for a profit. So why doesn't any one entity, such as Foreflight, simply pay for one download and then simply put it on their own server for unlimited download? I don't believe government publications/data is copyrighted.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/a ... tml#205750

If the IMC Club's online petition can accumulate enough signatures by December 14, White House staff will review it, ensure that it's sent to the appropriate policy experts for review, and issue an official response. The current threshold to trigger a review is 25,000 signatures.

OregonMaule wrote:http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/2058-full.html#205750

If the IMC Club's online petition can accumulate enough signatures by December 14, White House staff will review it, ensure that it's sent to the appropriate policy experts for review, and issue an official response. The current threshold to trigger a review is 25,000 signatures.

I signed it. The petition has a long way to go to qualify.

What????

This group is a bunch of socialist???? Wanting the government/taxpayers to provide nav charts for free? How did everyone get their charts before the advent of the internet?

Oh now I remember. They paid for it right out of their pockets!! Sounds like a great conservative idea.

bob

Anybody have a link to the petition that works?

Chased through the Avweb site multiple times to get 404 (page not found)?

I'm willing to pay for the service, but not twice. If authorizations aren't funding it sufficiently, I don't believe that is a good reason to give companies the right to extort individuals.

I wonder if this has anything to do with recovering costs of Raster to Vector conversions? I know that NOAA started distributing all of the US marine raster charts free after the completion of the vector conversions. The vector charts are now available only through subscription as I recall. As I mentioned much earlier (comparing charts to sex), reiterated by Zane, and pointed out by Bob once again, they have never been free to the end user. Once we get to all vector charts, the production costs will be MUCH lower simply because we'll put all those draftsmen and draftswomen out of work. Or retrain them to use vector graphics software and buy a bunch of new computers.
Of course we could save additional money by just leaving the charts alone.. Stop erasing all those purple dots and drawing new wedding cakes for instance every time a new edition comes out?

Hands off my PFD! This is America for crying out loud.

rjb wrote:Anybody have a link to the petition that works?

Chased through the Avweb site multiple times to get 404 (page not found)?

I'm willing to pay for the service, but not twice. If authorizations aren't funding it sufficiently, I don't believe that is a good reason to give companies the right to extort individuals.

Third one down on the right. You have to register (aliens and seditions act ) before you can vote.


https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petitions