While there may be a lot of confusion as to how the FAA's proposed fee schedule will effect end-users (both r/w pilots and simmers), I see no post anywhere in this thread suggesting that anyone is of the opinion that there will be a $150 charge PER CHART. Where did you get the notion that anyone thinks that?

I didn't see anyone suggest that the price was going to be $150 per chart either. Sounds like something he came up with in order to fan the flames.My advice is "don't feed the trolls".

I didn't see anyone suggest that the price was going to be $150 per chart either. Sounds like something he came up with in order to fan the flames.My advice is "don't feed the trolls".

As I asked previously, how much will individual charts cost?

Where in that statute does it say it limits distribution to 3rd party vendors, in fact it states "A) Maximum price.— Subject to subparagraph (, the price of an aeronautical product sold to the public shall be not more than necessary to recover all costs attributable to: " Where does it say it can authorize these same vendors to copyright this data?

Look in the above linked post to the Skyvector forums where Dave explains what went on in the closed door meeting.

As I asked previously, how much will individual charts cost?

They haven't said yet. The 150/year is a possible price per year that will be passed directly to the end user. So if you pay 150/yr for a subscription, it will jump to 300/year. It's possible there will also be pricing for individual chart downloads. This remains to be seen for sure.Remember these are still just proposals. We will know for sure in about a month.Regarding FOIA: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FOIA. We're trying to discuss chart pricing and if you'd like to turn yet another one of these discussions into a argument about FOIA please do so in private in another thread. It serves no purpose.

 

Remember these are still just proposals. We will know for sure in about a month.

Noah,While I've never used your product (I'm not personally an i<fill in the blank> fan), I continue to pray that you and the rest of "common sense" will prevail. Since my first instrument flight as a student, I've been a Jepp fan (for a couple, personal, reasons). I've never pushed Jepps (or NACO's) onto my students, rather giving them both and letting them decide... The ability to quickly look up approaches (online) to an airport that I'm thinking about flying to, has been invaluable (and only readily/freely available in NACO form, which is the key). I'm personally against what the FAA is trying to accomplish. I can sympathize where they're coming from, but while I fear that this move will have a net negative impact on flight safety, the biggest loss will be in the stifling of 3rd party developers (such as yourself) who are able to find new ways to get the data to the end user (which ultimately yields to lack of information, and thus a degredation in flight safety.. see the spiral?).Personally, I'll end up paying to continue my Jepp subscription, or get a NACO subscription in the end (wouldn't it be incredibly ironic if Jepp ended up cheaper for certain data packages than NACO??), but an interesting hypothetical question comes to mind... Had this move been made 5 years ago, where would we, as an aviation community (not FS), be right now?It's too bad that this is such an esoteric issue that in the grand scheme of things can be rolled into any one of non-relevant topics to justify its existence.Edit: My apologies... Substitute AeroNav (oh I could come up with a bunch of different sarcastic terms) for NACO... Was habit.

Well said Dan. Actually I'm not entirely sure this will have much (if any) negative effect on the Jepp charts. One of my theories is that Jepp will do pretty well on this. Since they make their own charts, I dont believe they will have to pay for much of anything.I think many pilots would prefer using the Jepp charts, but the subscription is too steep for a lot. If the new fees for the FAA charts are as high as some are worrying, it will close the gap between the gov't and Jepp charts. This will give a lot of people who were straddling the fence a good reason to pick up a Jepp subscription instead. I'm looking at this from two different sides actually. From the FS Kneeboard side of things, if the FAA allows us to do an alternate, "NOT FOR FLIGHT" pricing plan, then FS Kneeboard would obviously benefit from that, since it's already not intended for flight, I'm happy putting a red label that says as much across the chart if need be. However I also have another product that IS intended for real-world pilots (kind of like FSK on speed) that would obviously need the higher pricing plan.Now I used to work for the government, so I shouldn't be surprised, but the idea of that is beyond me. Granted if we were dealing with a corporation I would understand be less suprised, but having to charge two groups of my customers, completely different prices for the exact same data provided by the US taxpayer seems outright dishonest. I know it happens all the time, but I have always been an honest person, and I guess that's why I'll never own a billion dollar company. Here's a question...What happens if the FAA's estimate for how many people are paying for this data is far too small and they end up making millions more than they need. What happens to that money? If it were a corporation, obviously that would mean Christmas bonuses all around, but what about this situation? Would it go into the gov't general fund? No i dont think that would be legal based on my (very limited) understanding of the law in question. So then they send it back to the companies that paid for the data, and expect that the companies are just going to give it back? (Christmas bonuses!)Who knows what will happen, but if other companies in the industry take a similar stance to SkyVector's then I'm confident things will work out for everyone. However, we DID just start development on a Whack-a-Zombie game, just in case ;)

I think we will see a lot of "companies" offering "sim" charts for a WHOLE lot less... I mean $150/yr that comes out to $12.50/month - I pay a lot more then $12.5/month for lots of other stuff..

Noah,First, I don't think this venture will make millions more than they "need". Personally I think there is a law in the universe that says the Federal Government isn't able to run efficiently enough to turn a profit. It's just Einstein didn't get around to discovering it.If they end up with oodles of more money, then the question boils down to "how" AeroNav is set up, and how the law is written allowing the collection of money. Specifically what flavor the money coming in is. Regardless if you're talking appropriated funds or not, the number 1 rule in government spending is never give any back (actually, that's the number 2 rule, the number 1 rule is spend every dime you have and ask for more), so I highly doubt you'll see money come back. Likely scenario would be the money would be funneled for either infrastructure maintenance or to various flight safety related "projects".Any don't count out "bonuses". While the actual money might not come directly from sales revenues, there will be a GS or 2 somewhere that will get a sizable performance bonus for coming up with this plan that rakes in millions of dollars for the government (sadly, even if it's run in the red).Think you can change your Whack-a-Zombie game to Whack-a-Bureaucrat?

Remember these are still just proposals. We will know for sure in about a month.

Then how can it be claimed that the prices are "outrageous"?

Think you can change your Whack-a-Zombie game to Whack-a-Bureaucrat?

Haha, you may have something there...

Then how can it be claimed that the prices are "outrageous"?

I didn't say outrageous.As a pilot, I dont think that's a lot at all if that's what it is. As a sim pilot, I wouldn't pay that every month. Every few months sure.I think what people are reacting to the sudden increase from, 0 to 150/ year. No matter what you're selling to people, if you suddenly increase prices so much, you will get people unwilling to pay it even if it is a still good deal.

I didn't say outrageous.

I never said you did - but other posters did.

Ah, perhaps I was confused because you quoted me for some reason when you asked that question.

Noah,First, I don't think this venture will make millions more than they "need". Personally I think there is a law in the universe that says the Federal Government isn't able to run efficiently enough to turn a profit. It's just Einstein didn't get around to discovering it.If they end up with oodles of more money, then the question boils down to "how" AeroNav is set up, and how the law is written allowing the collection of money. Specifically what flavor the money coming in is. Regardless if you're talking appropriated funds or not, the number 1 rule in government spending is never give any back (actually, that's the number 2 rule, the number 1 rule is spend every dime you have and ask for more), so I highly doubt you'll see money come back. Likely scenario would be the money would be funneled for either infrastructure maintenance or to various flight safety related "projects".Any don't count out "bonuses". While the actual money might not come directly from sales revenues, there will be a GS or 2 somewhere that will get a sizable performance bonus for coming up with this plan that rakes in millions of dollars for the government (sadly, even if it's run in the red).Think you can change your Whack-a-Zombie game to Whack-a-Bureaucrat?

What's interesting is that Aeronav also produces hard copy and digital nautical charts for mariners but I haven't seen any attempt to charge for the digital charts RNCs and ENCs. As far as cost-reimbursement in gov't it is an old concept under the "efficiency act". In most cases it is intra-government though. By definition there isn't a "profit", but the charges go to covering your overhead. As far as your "rule 1", there are legions of budget analysts scouring the books for loose change that can be scarfed up and reprogrammed.scott s..