Kind of like a public park that was free, but because of maintenance costs rising, a small entrance fee being instituted?

Nope, the correct analogy to this situation would be a public park that was free for all to use and then a proposal comes along involving an unknown entry fee, possibly due to maintenance costs. But the clincher is that the new proposal involves not allowing any individuals in the park, only companies would be allowed from now on. Also the fee remains unknown at this time (so there is no way to say if it will be small or not at the present time).How can this be an effective fundraising initiative when individuals (a gigantic potential contributor group) are not allowed to contribute at all and are just cut off from the process.It sounds pretty bad to me.

Nope, the correct analogy to this situation would be a public park that was free for all to use and then a proposal comes along involving an unknown entry fee, possibly due to maintenance costs. But the clincher is that the new proposal involves not allowing any individuals in the park, only companies would be allowed from now on. Also the fee remains unknown at this time (so there is no way to say if it will be small or not at the present time).

Close. You would still be allowed access to the park. You would just need to buy your tickets for admission to a government funded park, not from the government, but from a commercial entity. Who knows what the cost will be, and what "fees" will be added onto what the government charges the commercial entity. However, in the name of safety, this model will assure the integrity of what you see while in the park.

Hello everyone.I've been on both sides of the fence. I always get my paper, and I've been doing it for a long time. When we had no choice, paper only, things were a lot more stable, no impromptu Chart changes / Error corrections, TFRs, Restrictions over Stadiums etc., it was somewhat predicable.The new regulations / restrictions, increased traffic etc., make it very difficult to conduct a safe flight, especially in busy areas, if not impossible, without getting up to the minute information.This change will affect safety, and cause more work for FAA in having to deal with Violations, Search and Rescues etc., and a lot of problems for Pilots. All CFIs encourage the new Pilots to get the latest information to make sure they do not violate any rules. This change can affect this practice.The new charges will cause a lot of the most current information Not to be transferred to the people that need it most, the Pilots.The main problem is that when you start charging for something, most people will not access any of the data, thinking that they will be charged for it. This can have a domino effect and cause some pilots not to access Wx, Notams etc., causing a very unsafe environment for all. One single scramble for a TFR / Restriction violation can cost more than all the profits that you get from charging.The real solution is to fund agencies that actually do work, and benefit the public safety, like the FAA, and we already are paying for, and get rid of spending for bridges to nowhere. TV

Close. You would still be allowed access to the park. You would just need to buy your tickets for admission to a government funded park, not from the government, but from a commercial entity. Who knows what the cost will be, and what "fees" will be added onto what the government charges the commercial entity. However, in the name of safety, this model will assure the integrity of what you see while in the park.

Why does a commercial entity have to be involved here at all? For a government funded park, if more funding is needed - most effective way is for everyone wishing to use it, to pay directly to the government. The involvement of third parties, especially commercial entities, would result in restrictions and higher fees than is necessary.The involvement of commercial entities does not automatically result in more security and integrity. After all, commercial entities' main focus (their reason for existence) is generating profits, everything else is secondary.In this case here, the safety of US airspace is surely solely a matter for the US Government and not private companies. If the FAA needs more funding for providing on-line charts, why should commercial entities be involved and profiting from the situation. All the money (fees) should go directly to the FAA and not in a private company's profit statement. That means individuals being allowed access to the on-line charts themselves, without a commercial entity between them and the FAA's AeroNav branch (aviation charts service).I stick to the stuff I've said already in post 26 of this thread:http://forum.avsim.n...92#entry2162992Its strange to see that there are people who are convinced this proposal is a good thing, without even knowing what the fees would be. What will you do if they are really high?In the end, if this does go through, the proposal would cause real hardships for all General Aviation in the US and would probably result in increased fees for all airlines operating in and to the US. It would also be yet another impediment for people wishing to learn to fly.

Why does a commercial entity have to be involved here at all? For a government funded park, if more funding is needed - most effective way is for everyone wishing to use it, to pay directly to the government. The involvement of third parties, especially commercial entities, would result in restrictions and higher fees than is necessary.

Not neccessarily. Contracting out distribution to a specialised commercial organisation may cost less than the FAA doing it themselves in-house. That's often found to be the case in other areas,

Bunch of stuff

OK, breakdown in communications. My post was bringing your analogy with regards to a park more in line with what is actually happening. A commercial entity acting as the middle man is EXACTLY what the proposal entails. Individual access will be prevented, and AeroNav will only sell the data to entities with which it will enter into a contract with. What the terms of the contract(s) will be, and the costs are unknown until the December meeting.Safety of flight issues aside (I think everyone is in agreement that the free exchange of the information promotes, or at least does not deter, flight safety), the funding issue I think is looking more legit. From my understanding, very little (if any) funding for AeroNav's development/distribution comes from the general fund, meaning their operational budget is largely funded by chart sales revenues. If chart sales are taking a hit, budget takes a hit, the difference needs to come from somewhere.I personally don't think it should come from privatizing the distribution of the electronic data, or should come from general fund contributions. What should happen is an increase in aviation fuel tax (even if it's $.01/gallon), which is what funds most of the FAA services we use anyway.

Not neccessarily. Contracting out distrubution to a specialised commercial organisation may cost less than the FAA doing it themselves in-house. That's often found to be the case in other areas,

In a lot of cases, in the end, it can cost even more when a commercial entity is involved in the provision of services like the ones provided by the FAA. Outsourcing can result in bigger expenses - hidden costs (especially in the long term), higher cost to users, and can reduce the quality of service being provided. Also the provision of the service would depend on the financial well-being of the commercial entity (or entities) it is outsourced to.I think in this case the FAA, US airspace, and all users of on-line charts would be better off if no outsourcing takes place.

Why does a commercial entity have to be involved here at all? For a government funded park, if more funding is needed - most effective way is for everyone wishing to use it, to pay directly to the government. The involvement of third parties, especially commercial entities, would result in restrictions and higher fees than is necessary.

Why is Lockheed Martin doing a better job than the government with flight service stations? I don't have the numbers but I know they have been doing a good job as of late.The problem with government entities is that they easily get bloated with too many people and red tape. The expense keeps going up and no one looks at the bottom line. Some air traffic control towers have been privatized and that has cut costs and kept safety up as well. Privatization works for everyone when they are held accountable.

How many pilots rely on the "free" gov't charts vice having Jepps subscriptions?scott s..

In a lot of cases, in the end, it can cost even more when a commercial entity is involved in the provision of services like the ones provided by the FAA. Outsourcing can result in bigger expenses - hidden costs (especially in the long term), higher cost to users, and can reduce the quality of service being provided. Also the provision of the service would depend on the financial well-being of the commercial entity (or entities) it is outsourced to.I think in this case the FAA, US airspace, and all users of on-line charts would be better off if no outsourcing takes place.

As I understand it, the FAA is proposing to conteract out the distribution of charts. Comapnies commonly do this because specialats firms can do thos more efficiently and cheaply. Very few companiies now operate distribution and delivery service because of that very reason. why should not the FAA obtain better and cheaper services?As I said in my initial post, there is a lot of special pleading.

How many pilots rely on the "free" gov't charts vice having Jepps subscriptions?scott s..

There are a lot of the weekend warrior types that do.

There are a lot of the weekend warrior types that do.

+1 - I agreeHere is a good example of an auto mechanic with a passion for flying, bought a Cessna 150 and took this flight solo over the great lakes and was not properly prepared for it:http://www.minbcnews....aspx?id=644982Lucky he survived the ordealCheers

+1 - I agreeHere is a good example of an auto mechanic with a passion for flying, bought a Cessna 150 and took this flight solo over the great lakes and was not properly prepared for it:http://www.minbcnews....aspx?id=644982Lucky he survived the ordealCheers

That he survived is a miracle. I would never fly a single at night over the Great Lakes, and though the article says carb ice the word is he simply ran out of gas. Luckily he ditched in Huron-Lake Michigan they say you have about 1/2 hour before hypothermia will do you in.

That he survived is a miracle. I would never fly a single at night over the Great Lakes, and though the article says carb ice the word is he simply ran out of gas. Luckily he ditched in Huron-Lake Michigan they say you have about 1/2 hour before hypothermia will do you in.

Having flown a single over Lake Michigan on several occasions (heading to Osh), I'd rather relive my inflight electrical fire with smoke in the cockpit, while IMC, in a light twin, than fly over that lake in a single at night.

That he survived is a miracle. I would never fly a single at night over the Great Lakes, and though the article says carb ice the word is he simply ran out of gas. Luckily he ditched in Huron-Lake Michigan they say you have about 1/2 hour before hypothermia will do you in.

I think he ran out of gas as well and just claimed it was 'Carb Ice'. But only he knows and the evidence is long gone now, the plane lies down there with the Edmund Fitzgerald.Cheers