Well here's the deal on Chart pricing

[NoahBryant 26]

Thanks, I've been waiting for a response from SV. Glad to hear him say that

[ubersu 78]

Do you expect the US taxpayer (or someone else) to subsidise your playing online games?

Since I am the US taxpayer I do expect public services for my taxes - given the other ways the Government choses to spend my money, this particular public service seems both inexpensive and useful and has little to do with game playing since it reaches and services a far wider audience than those who post here.DJ

[ZachLW 37]

Since I am the US taxpayer I do expect public services for my taxes - given the other ways the Government choses to spend my money, this particular public service seems both inexpensive and useful and has little to do with game playing since it reaches and services a far wider audience than those who post here.DJ

Exactly. Don't mind mgh. He exclusively says things to troll people.

[ubersu 78]

Exactly. Don't mind mgh. He exclusively says things to troll people.

I usually ignore mgh since he rarely, if ever, contributes anything useful to a thread. In this case however, his question just reeked of the "strawman" approach and was an obvious attempt to derail the thread since the outrageous prices quoted by AeroNav have such a negative impact on the aviation community as a whole rather than "gamers" in particular. Given the lack of funding for such basic services as the FAA, transportation in general, and the postal service, it's obvious that the public good is a rather low priority with the government these days.DJ

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

Maybe it's time to start printing out the charts you need.

[mgh 89]

Has common sense completely deserted this thread?Does anyone seriously believe that FAA will sanction pricing individual charts at $150, given the sub-$10 price of paper charts?All that's been suggested are the proposed commercial arrangements between FAA and its Chart Agents - not the pricing of individual charts.

[JRBarrett 3,034]

Has common sense completely deserted this thread?Does anyone seriously believe that FAA will sanction pricing individual charts at $150, given the sub-$10 price of paper charts?All that's been suggested are the proposed commercial arrangements between FAA and its Chart Agents - not the pricing of individual charts.

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?

[mgh 89]

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?

There were comments like outrageous fees and outrageous prices, presumably based the lowest figure mentioned in the original link of $150/year/customer.What then will be the price per indiviudal chart?

[tf51d 284]

This fly's smack in the face of the Freedom of Information Act, which allows government agencies to make up direct costs, of producing and distributing to the general public, by charging fees for it. The FOIA does not though permit charging to make up the cost of other agency costs. So if it's the cost of the paper charts that their trying to make up, then it's the paper chart prices that should go up, not the digital ones. Allowing 3rd party companies to copyright government provided data is also clearly a violation of the law, as government provided data, can not be copyrighted. It also violates the public distribution rules in the FOIA. I see a big court case coming over this, if these are the terms AeroNav and the FAA is going to pursue.

[Cessnaflyer 56]

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2011/111213digital-chart-charge-meeting-starts-industry-dialogue.html

The FAA is required to recover some of the costs of creating and disseminating aeronautical products and services, but it is not mandated to reach full cost-recovery. And the same law that authorizes it to assess fees stipulates that it should avoid any impact on safety attributable to price.

Funny thing is they do this with paper charts in Alaska. All the charts there $2 cheaper so they can get more pilots using them.

[mgh 89]

This fly's smack in the face of the Freedom of Information Act,

No it doesn't. The FAA is authorised by statute to charge.

(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:…

http://www.law.corne...21----000-.htmlThe Freedom of Information Act doesn't supersede that.

(vi) Nothing in this subparagraph shall supersede fees chargeable under a statute specifically providing for setting the level of fees for particular types of records.

http://www.law.corne...52----000-.html

[Cessnaflyer 56]

This fly's smack in the face of the Freedom of Information Act, which allows government agencies to make up direct costs, of producing and distributing to the general public, by charging fees for it. The FOIA does not though permit charging to make up the cost of other agency costs. So if it's the cost of the paper charts that their trying to make up, then it's the paper chart prices that should go up, not the digital ones. Allowing 3rd party companies to copyright government provided data is also clearly a violation of the law, as government provided data, can not be copyrighted. It also violates the public distribution rules in the FOIA. I see a big court case coming over this, if these are the terms AeroNav and the FAA is going to pursue.

Wrong.Please stop posting on things you do not know.

[tf51d 284]

No it doesn't. The FAA is authorised by statute to charge. http://www.law.corne...21----000-.htmlThe Freedom of Information Act doesn't supersede that.http://www.law.corne...52----000-.html

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? This statute is totally in line with the provisions of what the FOIA covers, what they're proposing now is not.

[mgh 89]

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? This statute is totally in line with the provisions of what the FOIA covers, what they're proposing now is not.

The same statute authorises the FAA to contract out anything to 3rd parties.

1) Contracts.— The Administrator is authorized to contract with qualified organizations for the performance of any part of the authorized functions of the Office of Aeronautical Charting and Cartography when the Administrator deems such procedure to be in the public interest and will not compromise public safety.

Provided the FAA controls the price at which its products are sold to the public by 3rd parties it has complied with it pricing obligations. The statute specifally allows the price to include the costs of dissemination of the product.

[RedSpinnaker 35]

Bunch of meaningless, irrelevant stuff.

td51d,This has nothing to do with FOIA, please stop acting like it does. Multiple people have told you so, yet you obviously don't want to listen. I'd suggest you consult an attorney regarding this and they'll tell you the exact same thing. You continuing to argue that it's against the FOIA (which doesn't apply) is making you look like the Hon. Lamar Smith trying to defend SOPA.