Loss of public navdata sources = complete BS

[Guest vas_yan]

"How does publishing this data for the general public enhance national defense, air safety or any other government function?"Errr, because then the general public, read Jeppesen, takes it and turns it into nice colourful charts, that a pilot can read to find his way from one airport to another...by air. To me this is the greatest enhancement to air safety since the Montgolfier brothers figured out that by releasing hot air the baloon went down...Jeppesen and the others are just as much general public as you and me. Or do you think that you pay the fees to them as a bribe so that they release information restricted to them?Edit:Apart from the above...what Jeff Nielsen said! Jeff, you earned yourself a customer! Weren't you guys making a Do228? I'm definately buying! Hope you paint one in Olympic Airlines' livery...And to keep up with Ken Salter's Yodish talk..."A bad feeling about this, I have" :-wedge Kind regards,

[Guest]

>I've got an idea:>>How much does an actual subscription to the Jeppesen data used>for the database in real aircraft FMCs cost? If all of us who>rely on Richard's service were to contribute to the cost of>getting him access to the real deal data, I wonder if the per>person cost would be low enough for it to be feasible. In>essence this would turn it into a payware product, but if>that's the only way to do it, I'd be totally for it. Plus,>we'd get a much better database than the DAFIF derived one>ever was - it would be exactly what is in the real FMCs.>>Thoughts?dumbest idea ever seen maybe.Jep licenses the data separately for each installed unit. Thus Richard would be unable to distribute the data under the license.Every user would have to purchase his own license.The subscriptions are expensive. For a 530 for example the cost of the US data alone comes to thousands of dollars per annum. Cost for worldwide data is tens of thousands per year.Here's the prices from the Jep website for a SINGLE update:Americas:

[KevinAu 441]

>"How does publishing this data for the general public enhance>national defense, air safety or any other government>function?">>Errr, because then the general public, read Jeppesen, takes it>and turns it into nice colourful charts, that a pilot can read>to find his way from one airport to another...by air. >>To me this is the greatest enhancement to air safety since the>Montgolfier brothers figured out that by releasing hot air the>baloon went down...>>Jeppesen and the others are just as much general public as you>and me. Or do you think that you pay the fees to them as a>bribe so that they release information restricted to them?>>Edit:Apart from the above...what Jeff Nielsen said! Jeff, you>earned yourself a customer! Weren't you guys making a Do228?>I'm definately buying! Hope you paint one in Olympic Airlines'>livery...>>And to keep up with Ken Salter's Yodish talk..."A bad feeling>about this, I have" :-wedge >>Kind regards,I don't believe there was anything in there about Jeppeson or NOS or anybody else that is actually publishing charts for real air navigational use being denied access to nav data, was there? Seriously, how does providing this data to flightsim hobbyists do anything constructive for the mission of the DoD?

[Guest]

>>I don't believe there was anything in there about Jeppeson or>NOS or anybody else that is actually publishing charts for>real air navigational use being denied access to nav data, was>there? Seriously, how does providing this data to flightsim>hobbyists do anything constructive for the mission of the>DoD?>Good question :-lol

[Guest vas_yan]

I was arguing that Jep is as much general public as I am. If its freely distributed to them it should be the same to me...

[Guest]

and that free distribution is what's at issue here. One or more of the suppliers is planning (or already has) removed that right which makes free REdistribution such as the DoD is doing illegal.

[Guest vas_yan]

You are confusing sovereign States and private companies...Read my reply to the other thread. Do you insinuate that the State of Australia will sue the US?Regards,

[Guest]

The data for Australia is provided by a private company which may or may not be owned by the state of Australia.That company has already sued Jep over their use of that data, they may well sue the US DoD as well.And yes, companies DO sue government agencies all the time.

[Guest vas_yan]

Ok then I'd really like to see this company "sue" the US DoD. Where would litigation take place? In Australia or in the US? If it takes place in Australia, good luck with them enforcing it in the States. AFAIK the US is not a party to any international conventiongoverning the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. If it takes place in the US...well, you get my point.Regards,

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

>Bob wrote:>>"I work in security at a high security facility, and even>though all of changes we've made since 9/11 are VERY clear to>me and other security people, many general employees/workers>only see them as an inconvenience. Some just don't see it as>trying to keep them, their families and thousands of other>people safe.">>Amen...And with all that has been done are we safe from a 9/11 style attack? NO!Are we a lot safer from another 9/11 style attack? NO!Why? because no matter how Fort Knox you build America It is not just America where the threat lies.Properly organised and funded terrorists can regardless of these brilliant security measures still reinact the atrocities of 9/11Aircraft fly into America from all parts of the world and while America might instigate and put in place hundreds of restrictions in the name of security they have little or no control over the departure points.There are many places worldwide where security post 9/11 is still lax, where officials are still open to bribery and infiltration.A lot of what these security meaures do is to add to the complexity and choke the aviation world without even looking at the time and cost angles.9/11 involved heavy airliners and non pilots. General aviation was targetted as an easy option for public face as if a C150 would cause another 9/11.The so called pilots were not pilots and could be trained to that level in any third world state. Yet training in the USA is now a minefield of security checks and beaurocracy. How will that make a 9/11 attack less likely.The sad thing with all this is that there is an option which would secure the impossibility of another 9/11 but it hasnt been implemented.Peter