Charges for paper charts. I understand that. not surprisingly, their sales are dropping and the FAA needs to maintain its income.Also the real cost in preparing charts is in compiling and updating them. The cost of actually printing an individual chart is hegligible - a few pennies at most.I don't think special pleading from FS enthusiasts who expect the taxpayer to subsidise their hobby will cut much ice.

I think a government agency can charge for services, so long as it's revenue neutral, in over words, they're not suppose to be in the for profit business. So I think whatever they charge should be minimal to cover costs.

I'll have to disagree. Charging money for anything related to flight planning automatically reduces flight safety, as there will always be those, who decide not to pay. Actually I'm not surprised at all. Something similar happened here in Poland a month ago, when PANSA decided to shutdown online AIP, including AIP VFR. To make matters worse, they also did so with an AIS/AIM website (how can I now know, whether there's any active EA et cetera on my route?). Not only were these pages used by commercial/private pilots, but also aviation related agencies like reporting offices. Officially "testing period" has ended, but something bigger is going on here. God bless we still have Eurocontrol and EAD.

I'll have to disagree. Charging money for anything related to flight planning automatically reduces flight safety, as there will always be those, who decide not to pay. Actually I'm not surprised at all. Something similar happened here in Poland a month ago, when PANSA decided to shutdown online AIP, including AIP VFR. To make matters worse, they also did so with an AIS/AIM website (how can I now know, whether there's any active EA et cetera on my route?). Not only were these pages used by commercial/private pilots, but also aviation related agencies like reporting offices. Officially "testing period" has ended, but something bigger is going on here. God bless we still have Eurocontrol and EAD.

Aircraft spares should be free on the basis of that foolish argument. Charging money for anything related to aircraft maintenance automatically reduces flight safety, as there will always be those who decide not to pay.

Nowhere have I said anything about maintenance. Why not go a step further? Aircraft should be free (irony, just in case someone won't notice). You cannot neglect the fact, that reducing the availability of flight planning tools and documents reduces safety. And that's my point, nothing else than that...No need to call me a fool. Not really gentle.

I would like it if they had a simple login system where you had to submit your license number. That would cut server load from non-pilot's downloading needed data.

Nowhere have I said anything about maintenance. Why not go a step further? Aircraft should be free (irony, just in case someone won't notice). You cannot neglect the fact, that reducing the availability of flight planning tools and documents reduces safety. And that's my point, nothing else than that...No need to call me a fool. Not really gentle.

You said "I'll have to disagree. Charging money for anything related to flight planning automatically reduces flight safety, as there will always be those, who decide not to pay." Surely then "Charging money for anything related to aircraft maintenance automatically reduces flight safety, as there will always be those who decide not to pay" is just as true and maintenance should be free.also, I said your argument was foolish - not you.

very sad when I read this. Signed the petition, and I do hope this gets stopped.

Just pull the charts off airnav and print em..

@mgh - I'll always be an advocate of logic (should be taught in schools). If I say that A equals B, then why do you think it's justified to say C also equals B, deducing it only from my single statement (well, two)?Also, saying my argument was foolish means that it's originator is a fool. How can a non-fool state foolish arguments? Okay, just playing with you now. Anyway, ad rem, I do believe it does reduce safety. Spare parts have nothing to do with it. I also think that when these charts are made paid - forget Airnav.

Charges for paper charts. I understand that.............

So do I - perfectly normal.

.....not surprisingly, their sales are dropping and the FAA needs to maintain its income.

Yup, it appears that this is what they are doing. Trying to introduce a charge for intangible on-line charts in order to make money. Possibly this has been encouraged by the increase in ipad and reader tablet type of hardware where users can read books, textbooks and charts without buying them in paper format.Now the question arises - is it ok for them to be doing that?or should on-line charts be considered public for the sake of safety in the aviation industry and for the benefit of everyone involved in aviation and especially those wishing to learn about aviation?Does, what the FAA is trying to do, limit the flow of knowledge?Tricky subject.Well it would limit the flow of knowledge - which is bad and has already happened in a number of other areas. A society which places more value on money than on knowledge is not a good thing. Generally restricting the flow of knowledge (with some exceptions for the sake of security) is also a bad thing.It would provide more funding for the FAA - which is a good thing, but it is important to consider if they need more funding. My understanding of the FAA is that they are a 'not for profit' organisation and their main mission is Safety. They are the national aviation authority of the United States, they are not there to make money.**********FAA Mission statement:'Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.'**********If the FAA needs more funding to provide this service and the US government is not in a position to provide such funding or there are cutbacks in funding (due to the difficult economic situation or just someone being clever) then they have little choice but to try to make money from where ever they can for the continual provision of the service.On the other hand if its just an attempt to make more money, then that's not right for an organisation like the FAA.One thing I don't understand is why are they proposing a 'No Access For Individuals' anymore:http://www.avweb.com...s_205722-1.html(who here read that link on the petition, I'm surprised this wasn't picked on by someone on the thread already)From what I can see the proposal is that only companies will have the honor of paying for and using charts. Individuals would have no access at all. This, I think is rubbish. What about private pilots? GA? People learning? Flight Simulation folk. This is stopping the flow of knowledge in the very worst way. If the FAA need more money for providing on-line charts, then why are they stopping such a massive potential contributor - Individuals? This doesn't appear to be only about money and funding.Personally I wouldn't like to see this happening and apparently up to this point, in the US, it was felt that the distribution of online charts for free to everyone was the correct thing. This is indeed a sad turn of events and I hope it doesn't spread.Petition Signed!

So do I - perfectly normal.Yup, it appears that this is what they are doing. Trying to introduce a charge for intangible on-line charts in order to make money. Possibly this has been encouraged by the increase in ipad and reader tablet type of hardware where users can read books, textbooks and charts without buying them in paper format.Now the question arises - is it ok for them to be doing that?or should on-line charts be considered public for the sake of safety in the aviation industry and for the benefit of everyone involved in aviation and especially those wishing to learn about aviation?Does, what the FAA is trying to do, limit the flow of knowledge?Tricky subject.Well it would limit the flow of knowledge - which is bad and has already happened in a number of other areas. A society which places more value on money than on knowledge is not a good thing. Generally restricting the flow of knowledge (with some exceptions for the sake of security) is also a bad thing.It would provide more funding for the FAA - which is a good thing, but it is important to consider if they need more funding. My understanding of the FAA is that they are a 'not for profit' organisation and their main mission is Safety. They are the national aviation authority of the United States, they are not there to make money.**********FAA Mission statement:'Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.'**********If the FAA needs more funding to provide this service and the US government is not in a position to provide such funding or there are cutbacks in funding (due to the difficult economic situation or just someone being clever) then they have little choice but to try to make money from where ever they can for the continual provision of the service.On the other hand if its just an attempt to make more money, then that's not right for an organisation like the FAA.One thing I don't understand is why are they proposing a 'No Access For Individuals' anymore:http://www.avweb.com...s_205722-1.html(who here read that link on the petition, I'm surprised this wasn't picked on by someone on the thread already)From what I can see the proposal is that only companies will have the honor of paying for and using charts. Individuals would have no access at all. This, I think is rubbish. What about private pilots? GA? People learning? Flight Simulation folk. This is stopping the flow of knowledge in the very worst way. If the FAA need more money for providing on-line charts, then why are they stopping such a massive potential contributor - Individuals? This doesn't appear to be only about money and funding.Personally I wouldn't like to see this happening and apparently up to this point, in the US, it was felt that the distribution of online charts for free to everyone was the correct thing. This is indeed a sad turn of events and I hope it doesn't spread.Petition Signed!

it was noticed - see post #11; it was ignored by those who would rather write than read...DJ

it was noticed - see post #11; it was ignored by those who would rather write than read...DJ

Sorry, I didn't see your post, just the majority discussing the money aspect only.Sore it now for sure!!

@mgh - I'll always be an advocate of logic (should be taught in schools). If I say that A equals B, then why do you think it's justified to say C also equals B, deducing it only from my single statement (well, two)?Also, saying my argument was foolish means that it's originator is a fool. How can a non-fool state foolish arguments?Okay, just playing with you now. Anyway, ad rem, I do believe it does reduce safety. Spare parts have nothing to do with it. I also think that when these charts are made paid - forget Airnav.

Logic should be taught in schools.Charging for A has an adverse effect on B.Charging for C has an adverse efect on B.Why should A be free and C not?

Sorry, I didn't see your post, just the majority discussing the money aspect only.Sore it now for sure!!

No worries - it just seemed to me that aspect was of more concern than the possible fees.DJ