Sign in to follow this  
Guest vas_yan

DoD Announces Intent to Cease Distribution of Nav Data

Recommended Posts

I too read it all. The real reason is that the US government seems to have been put on notice by the providers of the data (or part of it) that they can no longer provide it free of charge or at cost (ever purchased DOD FLIPs? They cost less per book with dozens of airports than the Jeps for a single airport, and while less complete are enough for most operations).Commercial interests may have something to do with it, and national security as well (though little, it's probably just mentioned because this is the DoD after all and it's foremost on their minds as it should be) that's the main reason.Outside the US this data is indeed not usually available free of charge and foreign governments may have realised at last that their income stream from selling charts and data was drying up...

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Real Pilots will get the Data, they cant fly without it. Ive been using FSNAV since early versions, and about once a month I click on the link to update any new data. Then I get new STAR info which users add to their Data base, then transmitted to FSNav. Now in the future, it may not be correct or exact, but it works for me, as long as it gets me to the airfield in FS9... The DOD may have data which is not necessary for civilian pilots, like that for Military fields, etc.. and that may no longer be available. An example might be, the data which was given to me at Ft Hood, by an Apache Pilot. A book of all military installations, with all info about them, like you can get of civilian fields. Expired Charts galore that she had for several areas from Ft Hood to Irwin CA, as they made a flight there for training. The pilot I am speaking of, was the FIRST Apache pilot to cross into Iraq, at the beginning of the Iraq war. She is in Fox Troop, 7th Regiment... (Custers old Regiment) but by this time is back in the states safely. It blew my mind when I heard on CNN her name as the first Apache Pilot across the line. Have a picture of me, sitting in here Apache, and one with her. She went out of her way to help me get the charts, etc.. as my nephew is the Chief Technical Inspector for Fox Troop. Bob

Share this post


Link to post

>>Are we absolutely positive this is only the DAFIF data and>>not everything currently published for free? (PDF charts etc)>>>I would not be surprised in the least if it was everything.>>>>It would be the DAFIF data only, as they compile data>collected from sources outside the U.S. just like Jeppesen>does.>>That puts them at the same risk of either being charged user>fees or subject to lawsuits as Jeppesen.>>The data for the .pdf charts etc put out by the FAA is>collected internally within the U.S. and is likely not to be>affected.>>The National security stuff has to merely be mentioned as a>way to better justify the reason for removal should it come to>that. The real reason for all this has to be what is going on>between Jeppesen and Airservices Australia.>>Regards.>Ernie.thank you for being the voice of reason Ernie.As usual the uninformed are going ballistic over something they know nothing about, screaming about government conspiracies in fact if not in so many words.And it's not just Oz, other countries are starting to restrict access to their data to paying customers only to make more money in a time of economic trouble...

Share this post


Link to post

Well, at the risk of offending the various proponents of all the insane conspiracy-theories being offered so far, let's look at exectly what the notice said and allow that maybe the people who made this decision don't reflect the lack of character of many of those here who are quite unfairly slamming them.Says the NGA:"This action is taken to accomplish the following objectives:""safeguarding the integrity of Department of Defense (DoD) aeronautical navigation data currently available on the publicInternet"The decision to remove the DAFIF data, which is used operationally by our armed forces, among other government agencies, from the public internet, makes it much harder for someone to hack into the database and do harm. Imagine the consequences of a hacker changing altitude minimums on an approach plate, for example, when he knows that weather in a particular hotspot is going to be bad. With crews using this data more and more, the last thing we need is a $400 million C-17-shaped hole in the dirt because the crew descended to an unsafe altitude and hit a cumulogranite cloud while on approach to the GWOT Hell Hole of the Week. That's just one of many conceivable operational risks of having this data hung out on the public internet. By keeping the data on closed or restricted-access government networks an added measure of security is obtained. Absolute security? No such thing. But you do what you can to tighten things up."preventing unfettered access to air facility data by those intending harm to the United States, its interests or allies"It doesn't say that somebody in the Pentagon is deluded into believing that this action will prevent access to the data by those who shouldn't have it. It says *unfetterd* access. In other words, nobody expects tha bad guys won't be able to get the data they need, but we're not going to just give it to them."upholding terms of bi-lateral geospatial data-sharing agreements;"The DAFIF is compiled with data from many sources...most of which are not American. The agreements made to provide that data did not include an agreement to allow their data to be freely redistributed over the internet. The US Govt has a real interest in keeping as complete a database as possible...it's not going to be complete at all if sources cry foul and stop providing the data."avoiding competition with commercial interests"There are many precedents where US DoD actively avoids putting itself in a position in which it would compete with commercial interests. The space-available transportation rules, for example, which allow military members and their families to fly nearly for free on Air Mobility Command flights, have a score of rules aimed at preventing AMC from competing with airlines for domestic travel. It wasn't the military's idea...it's the result of industry lobbying to the lawmakers who drive these sorts of restraints. Don't like what noncompetition policies do? Call your Congressman."avoiding intellectual property/copyright disputes with foreign agencies that provide host nation aeronautical data."A considerable amount of the data contained in DAFIF is the intellectual property of other governments or organizations. These governments and organizations have a legitimate right to expect that their intellectual property rights be respected, and that the data they sell not be given away by the US Government for free. The scathing commentary on this thread suggesting that the government or NGA is somehow in bed with Jeppeson or the industry in general places the blame for profit motives quite wrongly. If these companies are making a profit, it's becuase their host nations permit it...it's not up to the US Government to change that.So...we have a challenge ahead of us to either find an alternative source, or somehow develop a standardized nav database that evolves (albeit more slowly than real time) by collecting user inputs, as we did/do with the approach databases for PIC and PS1 among others.But for the whining crybabies..."WAAAAH, that mean old nasty US government took away my woobie!! WAAAAH" Get over it! We were never entitled to much of the data we got in the first place...be glad we're lucky enough to have the data we already have as a great starting point.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

Share this post


Link to post

Very well stated, Bob. A voice of reason, indeed. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Next time you run into her (and your nephew) thank them for their service for me!

Share this post


Link to post

BobI often read your posts on aviation matters and am always impressed at your knowledge as a real world pilot. I cannot agree with you here. This is very little to do with DOD Navdata.You are aware as much as I am that the aviation industry took a major blow from the terrible events of 9/11.A blow which crippled aviation and which detroyed jobs across the aviation spectrum as well as making our market as pilots hard to get into.While no body is against practical and sensible moves to secure the safety and security of aircraft many of the restrictions have been far from practical or sensible.Most have been reactions from beaurocracies who have nothing better to do with their time than incorporating poorly conceived ideas which have profound effects on an already crippled aviation industry.Many have been put into force purely for public consumption and to allow politicians to appear to the world that they are indeed doing something.Many are used to pass legislation which runs against human liberty laws and allows governments to slide in legislation under the pretence of public security.While no one is against sensible well conceived concepts being put into force to make our skies more secure, I personally find that the victim in all this is aviation which is badly hurt by this political kicking around of the football.How on earth can restricting this data make a terrorist attack less likely.Any such attack would be well organised and funded and would certainly not involve someone needing to grab data off the internet.I am sure they wouldnt be updating the data on the systems on the aircraft they used which would be up to date anyway.So if they have another reason for this then be honest and not hide under the cloak of national security.Peter

Share this post


Link to post

Peter; I sometimes have the feeling that nothing government could do would be good enough. NGA have outlined several legitimate reasons for the intended action...they have been honest enough and put those reasons in plain English into the public record. Alas, if only people would read them. Where does NGA say that restricting this data makes a terrorist attack less likely? They did not say that...or imply that. Those are your words. The majority of the discussion in the federal register is focused on issues other than security. Putting DAFIF behind an electronic fence costs very little, and does several things in the interests of data integrity, compliance with intellectual property laws (violations of which do $billions in damage to US commerce), preservation of critical data sources, and yes, to a small degree security. But a number of folks have locked onto a nonexistent "this move will stop terrorists in their tracks" argument for the decision, rather than reading and understanding exactly what was said. As much as politicians often annoy me, I remained convinced that they really do, in fact "do something"...were it not for them the world would be one big Beirut, with all the various factions fighting for control and nothing going forward in the meantime. Give 'em some credit...read the strong opinions on so many issues one way or another and think for yourself how you would be able to find a way ahead through the morass that is public opinion...one that pleases even half of the people. Our politicians work miracles every day, and if you don't believe me, I can recommend a few travel destinations that will illustrate the point in vivid contrast. Honestly, I don't know how much more honest they could be in this case...the only cloak of national security I see here is one that you threw over the issue yourself...RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

Share this post


Link to post

Hi All,Well I asked for your thoughts - Wow and we certainly got them !! Amazed at the number of responses so far....Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to reply. Obviously this one could go on for a while. Some really good posts here.Thanks and regards to you all,Eddy

Share this post


Link to post

THIS SAYS IT ALL."This is basically a ripple effect of Jeppesen's earlier refusal to pay Airservices Australia license fees for using its public data.My understanding is its now a copyright infringement suit against Jeppesen, which has greatly concerned other Navdata producers. Should Jeppesen lose this fight the effect could be much greater if other countries follow suit and expect Jepp to pay them license fee's to them as well.Its just a direction they 'might' go should this thing go against Jeppesen, and subject the DAFIF producers to similar legal action. It doesn't appear to be a done deal, just the start of a plan should it be needed right now.On the other hand I see it as interesting position for Jepp to be in. As they have basically been using public data, recompiling, and publishing it for their commercial use and charging license fee's. Regards.Ernie." CORPORATE PROFIT OFF OF TAXPAYERS DOLLARS!

Share this post


Link to post

What's next? Jeppesesn?Who will be allowed to buy/use their charts in the future? Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post

This is so true, Anthony. Bills are passed and laws are made every day that whittle away at our freedoms with very little protest. The "little things" indeed do need to be squawked about!Dan Brookshire

Share this post


Link to post

I gotta refute some of this Bob, sorry! ;)>The decision to remove the DAFIF data, which is used>operationally by our armed forces, among other government>agencies, from the public internet, makes it much harder for>someone to hack into the database and do harm. Imagine the>consequences of a hacker changing altitude minimums on an>approach plate, for example, when he knows that weather in a>particular hotspot is going to be bad. With crews using this>data more and more, the last thing we need is a $400 million>C-17-shaped hole in the dirt because the crew descended to an>unsafe altitude and hit a cumulogranite cloud while on>approach to the GWOT Hell Hole of the Week. That's just one>of many conceivable operational risks of having this data hung>out on the public internet. By keeping the data on closed or>restricted-access government networks an added measure of>security is obtained. Absolute security? No such thing. But>you do what you can to tighten things up.This is crazy. As I pointed out in my earlier thread - you cannot tell me that the DoD is putting the ACTUAL master database up on the Internet and that the actual military FMCs or whatever are connecting to the website and using the data as is. The idea of a terrorist hacker changing MSA's on an approach plate and then having a pilot DL it and use it for an actual approach is probably one of the most farfetched things I've ever heard. The Pentagon has a nearly limitless budget - give out the database to the public on the website and keep a secured internal one for the actual distribution to real USAF/Navy personel.>It doesn't say that somebody in the Pentagon is deluded into>believing that this action will prevent access to the data by>those who shouldn't have it. It says *unfetterd* access. In>other words, nobody expects tha bad guys won't be able to get>the data they need, but we're not going to just give it to>them.Again, where does this mentality stop? At what point do our rights as taxpayers take a backseat to "not giving things to the bad guys"? As others have said - should we ban public access to the road atlas so as to not "give" terrorists the "navdata" for our Interstate highways that include the locations of such dangerous items as "exits" and "onramps"? (the land equivalent of airspace fixes) I completely fail to see how knowing the location of CIVET intersection, what the fixes along J92 are, or the what the DPs and STARs at KPHX consist of are going to help a terrorist carry out a hijacking or bombing of an aircraft. This is all not to mention that if they did want that data, all it'd take is a trip to the local FBO or the website to buy some current Jep charts for a nominal fee.>The DAFIF is compiled with data from many sources...most of>which are not American. The agreements made to provide that>data did not include an agreement to allow their data to be>freely redistributed over the internet. The US Govt has a>real interest in keeping as complete a database as>possible...it's not going to be complete at all if sources cry>foul and stop providing the data.Ok I can sort of see this. I would not have a problem (as bad as it would be for people who sim outside the US) with them allowing at least the USA data to still be distributed.>There are many precedents where US DoD actively avoids putting>itself in a position in which it would compete with commercial>interests. The space-available transportation rules, for>example, which allow military members and their families to>fly nearly for free on Air Mobility Command flights, have a>score of rules aimed at preventing AMC from competing with>airlines for domestic travel. It wasn't the military's>idea...it's the result of industry lobbying to the lawmakers>who drive these sorts of restraints. Don't like what>noncompetition policies do? Call your Congressman.This one gets me steamed big time. Who is actually making *REAL* FMS data using the sometimes very incomplete DAFIF database? Is this really taking profit away from companies like Jeppessen? I highly doubt it. We the taxpayers fund the creation of this navdata and the public owns the airspace above the USA, not the DoD or any other agency within the goverment.>A considerable amount of the data contained in DAFIF is the>intellectual property of other governments or organizations. >These governments and organizations have a legitimate right to>expect that their intellectual property rights be respected,>and that the data they sell not be given away by the US>Government for free. Agreed, same response as before about only distributing the USA data publically.>The scathing commentary on this thread suggesting that the>government or NGA is somehow in bed with Jeppeson or the>industry in general places the blame for profit motives quite>wrongly. If these companies are making a profit, it's becuase>their host nations permit it...it's not up to the US>Government to change that.Well you said yourself that these types of agreements are the result of lobbying Congress by the companies - I'd consider that "in bed" if they've succeeded in making private financial interests more important that the public's right to use the data.

Share this post


Link to post

>I gotta refute some of this Bob, sorry! ;)>>>This is crazy. As I pointed out in my earlier thread - you>cannot tell me that the DoD is putting the ACTUAL master>database up on the Internet and that the actual military FMCs>or whatever are connecting to the website and using the data>as is. The idea of a terrorist hacker changing MSA's on an>approach plate and then having a pilot DL it and use it for an>actual approach is probably one of the most farfetched things>I've ever heard. The Pentagon has a nearly limitless budget ->give out the database to the public on the website and keep a>secured internal one for the actual distribution to real>USAF/Navy personel.None of this is being uploaded directly from the web to an FMC, but the printed data is put up for operational use. For what other reason do you suppose DoD would put it there? Are there other safeguards...you can sure bet there are, but it's one door open to anyone on the internet the way it's accessed today.Limitless budget? Ryan, you need a couple years pounding the halls of the pentagon trying to make a defense program...ANY program...work within the constraints of this so-called "limitless" budget. Not so by a long shot.>Again, where does this mentality stop? At what point do our>rights as taxpayers take a backseat to "not giving things to>the bad guys"? As others have said - should we ban public>access to the road atlas so as to not "give" terrorists the>"navdata" for our Interstate highways that include the>locations of such dangerous items as "exits" and "onramps"? >(the land equivalent of airspace fixes) I completely fail to>see how knowing the location of CIVET intersection, what the>fixes along J92 are, or the what the DPs and STARs at KPHX>consist of are going to help a terrorist carry out a hijacking>or bombing of an aircraft. This is all not to mention that if>they did want that data, all it'd take is a trip to the local>FBO or the website to buy some current Jep charts for a>nominal fee.See my other post in the other thread...you have no "rights" to this data as a taxpayer or citizen. Just because you think it ought to be so doesn't make it so. Your rights as a taxpayer extend as far as your vote. Get enough others to see it your way, and you can affect the course of things. Otherwise, you have the rights codified in the laws of the land...in particular the Freedom of Information Act in this case. >Ok I can sort of see this. I would not have a problem (as bad>as it would be for people who sim outside the US) with them>allowing at least the USA data to still be distributed.It's not DoD's function nor is it in DoD's interest to distribute data to non-DoD users.>This one gets me steamed big time. Who is actually making>*REAL* FMS data using the sometimes very incomplete DAFIF>database? Is this really taking profit away from companies>like Jeppessen? I highly doubt it. We the taxpayers fund the>creation of this navdata and the public owns the airspace>above the USA, not the DoD or any other agency within the>goverment.The US navdata was created by the FAA, the keepers of the NAS, and used by DoD. And a subset of the FAA data is part of the DAFIF, along with data from many foreign nations.>Well you said yourself that these types of agreements are the>result of lobbying Congress by the companies - I'd consider>that "in bed" if they've succeeded in making private financial>interests more important that the public's right to use the>data.Again, there's no public "right" to use this data, beyond that codified in the law. You can argue all day on how you think it ought to be...Finally, protection of private financial interests is absolutely in the government's interest. That includes our own private financial interests. Promotion and protection of free trade on a level market playing field are compelling government and public interests...they're the rails our economy rides on. RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

Share this post


Link to post

BobReading my last post to you I realise it was "heavy" in my criticism of politicians and what has been done.Secondly I am on this side of the pond so mainly directed at our own government.In a previous post I mentioned the fact that our government used the invironment issue to pass increased taxes under the guise of protecting the invironment.Governments do use sensitive issues as a cloak for increasing taxes or passing legislation which normally would not be acceptable.With all the damage that has been done to aviation since 9/11 what has been achieved to stop another 9/11.Airport security has been increased and intelligence has been increased but still a well organised and funded group could still pull off such an atrocity.There is a simple solution which may involve future aircraft design but would cutoff the pilot invironment from the cabin invironment with no access potential to the cockpit and no means of communication for terrorists with the crew.How would this be achieved? Firstly a fuselage door access to the cockpit with no access from the Cabin or a really terrorist proof door / bomb and tamper proof.Secondly without communication no demands can be passed to the crew.Obviously this would mean that the cabin staff also could not communicate directly with the crew.How could this be achieved? by a third ground party ie a communications controller who is used via radio to pass requests, problems or information to the crew.Terrorist requests or demands would be an absolute no go area and would not be passed on making a 9/11 or a hijack a thing of the past.This would not stop someone blowing up an aircraft in flight and that would still have to be done by high tech screening of passengers and loaded items at the airport but with the above moves a 9/11 would never happen again which at present even with all the restrictions and headless chicken implementations could still be a possibility.With the future of huge aircraft carrying 800 people the potential for a massive disaster will be even more worrying and frankly a lot to date has not really addressed the problems but has been more an exercise in public relations, big words and a lot of damage to aviation.Peter

Share this post


Link to post

"Again, there's no public "right" to use this data, beyond that codified in the law. You can argue all day on how you think it ought to be..."Bob, I'm NATO Secret classified...Am I "unpublic" enough to to have access to the data? On the other hand, are you classified? No? Then don't dare turn on that GPS/FMC next time you step on your Gulfstream II-III-IV-V or whatever! Only dead reckoning for you from now on mate!Apologies for my tone, but there IS a general public right to use this data. They only produce it to hand it to the general public! It's not classified or restricted or nothing! As I said in another thread, do you think you are bribing Jeppesen into releasing restricted material? Edit for clarification: I am talking about Navdata in general not just the DAFIF staff they are taking down.Kind regards,

Share this post


Link to post

and if you'd read the press release and did some background check you'd have noticed they're not even taking it down.They're taking steps in preparation of potentially taking it down if and when such becomes necessary to prevent legal trouble with the suppliers of that data.

Share this post


Link to post

Jeroen, Thanks for the taunting of my impreciseness...Much needed on a Sunday afternoon...Following your suggestion on doing some background reading I read http://www.avweb.com/bizav/10_04/news/186538-1.html I was mostly struck by the phrase "Jeppesen said it opposes license fees for the reuse or redistribution of PUBLIC AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION".Perhaps you could shed some light on what the phrase "legal trouble" signifies. I would be most grateful if you could elaborate as to what is exactly the International Public (or maybe Private? Hmmm...) Law procedure whereby a sovereign State may sue another sovereign State for losses accruing out of copyright infringements..? Or for that matter sue another State at all? I would be mostly interested on your view particularly on the issues of International Jurisdiction, Courts' competence and, ofcourse, applicable law... I'm being silly really, all I want to say is that there's no "legal trouble" involved in the US DoD redistribution of this data...At the most, an exchange of diplomatic communication, on a relatively low level, is all it would take...Take care,

Share this post


Link to post

>"Again, there's no public "right" to use this data, beyond>that codified in the law. You can argue all day on how you>think it ought to be...">>Bob, I'm NATO Secret classified...Am I "unpublic" enough to to>have access to the data? On the other hand, are you>classified? No? Then don't dare turn on that GPS/FMC next time>you step on your Gulfstream II-III-IV-V or whatever! Only dead>reckoning for you from now on mate!The guys around here that know me are getting a good chuckle out of this. But you won't find me discussing security clearances and the like on a public forum. Sorry.The navdata in the Honeywell SPZ-8500 in a Gulfstream V comes from Jeppessen. Doubt they're using DAFIF to build their database...they have one of their own that is considerably more far reaching.>Apologies for my tone, but there IS a general public right to>use this data. They only produce it to hand it to the general>public! It's not classified or restricted or nothing! As I>said in another thread, do you think you are bribing Jeppesen>into releasing restricted material? The navdata contained in the DAFIF does not originate with DoD. The US National Airspace System is managed by the FAA, not DoD, and the FAA's National Flight Data Center is the original source of US navdata, which can be obtained easily by subscribing to the ATA-100 database. Similar agencies and organizations in other countries serve the same function. The DAFIF compilation is created by DoD for DoD use...any decision to restrict distribution of the DoD DAFIF database isn't the same as denying the information to the public.And sure, the public has a right to use any such data they legally obtain...they just have no "right" to obtain it directly from DoD. They can get it from the FAA and similar organizations in other nations, or buy it from Jeppesen or find another supplier/vendor. >Edit for clarification: I am talking about Navdata in general>not just the DAFIF staff they are taking down.I'n not sure where this idea that DoD is somehow trying to corner the market on navigational data came from, but that's not the case, or the issue in this discussion. RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Peter;From your previous post:>With all the damage that has been done to aviation since 9/11>what has been achieved to stop another 9/11.>>Airport security has been increased and intelligence has been>increased but still a well organised and funded group could>still pull off such an atrocity.Yes...that's a risk we run in a free society. Absolute security is not achievable in absence of absolute authority, which of course we don't want. There are many people that think the security enhancements in place already have gone too far...and many who think they don't go far enough. It's a balancing act. We have to weigh the costs...in terms of both money and infringement on personal freedoms. To do nothing is an unacceptable risk to public safety. To do everything is an unacceptable loss in personal freedoms. The answer lies in the middle. But neither safety nor personal freedom are absolutes. And that's nothing new.>There is a simple solution which may involve future aircraft>design but would cutoff the pilot invironment from the cabin>invironment with no access potential to the cockpit and no>means of communication for terrorists with the crew.This is essentially the solution that El Al, the Israeli national airline uses. They will not open the (heavily reinforced) door to the flight deck in flight under any circumstances. The cabin crew knows the policy, and the flight deck crews are sufficiently disciplined to keep it locked no matter what...especially post-9/11.On the issue of government, I always frame things in the context of the complexity involved in making anything happen. For example, I don't want to see white-haired 80-year old ladies being searched at the airport...I am absolutely in favor of profiling because we know pretty well what the threat looks like. But we can't, because the American Criminal Liberties Union will be there with a team of lawyers wanting to impress on us the unfairness of common sense. So we end up having to strip-search Granny to get to the more likely threat...I sigh and think it's ridiculous, but I also understand that such accomodations are often the only way to keep moving forward. It ain't pretty, but it works. But too many people criticize government harshly without stopping to consider the unbelievable difficulties in charting a course to anywhere when there are 300,000,000 navigators each with a different idea of where we should go.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

Share this post


Link to post

you obviously don't want to understand what's happening...Might be caused by your "security clearance" making you only see things you're specifically cleared for or have thought up yourself and being blind to the rest of the universe.The Ozzie data is provided by a private (though likely publicly owned) company.Jep has a license to use that data and I guess so has the US DoD. That company sues Jep over the way they use that data at the moment. DoD appreciates that would Jep loose that they could well be the next target and even if not other companies in other countries providing similar services for their countries may well start charging for use as well.DoD therefore takes preliminary steps to terminate a courtesy service which has no relation to their primary mission at all and is only costing them money before that service will cost even more if they're sued over intellectual property theft (which is I believe the charge brought against Jep).Nothing wrong or weird about that.And if you believe government agencies (or even governments) can't be sued by other government agencies, governments, or private citizens I wonder what closet you've been hiding in as it's a very common practice (though usually not published much outside the immediate nations involved).

Share this post


Link to post

Jep being sued is the cause of the steps DoD is preparing (not taking, they're just making sure they can take it down if needed)...

Share this post


Link to post

>Jep being sued is the cause of the steps DoD is preparing>(not taking, they're just making sure they can take it down if>needed)...I've seen this said a few times in the last few days, but have no idea what the source is. The announcement in the federal register, which is the only official position of the DoD and NGA, is not the least bit tentative...it says they are removing the DAFIF from public access on 1 Oct 2005. I find myself wondering if this is just a hopeful rumor. Anyone have a source?RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

Share this post


Link to post

w6kd,Your argument was that there exists no public right to use the data. I argued that yes there exists such a right (right to use Navdata in general). I take it that you agreed buy stating "the public has a right to use any such data they legally obtain...they just have no "right" to obtain it directly from DoD". I never argued about who the public is entitled to obtain it from, just that there exists such a right and that subscription to any commercial service that provides such data is not in any way akin to obtaining some sort of "clearance". Anyway, If I misread your original argument somehow, you have my sincere apologies.You also said "The guys around here that know me are getting a good chuckle out of this. But you won't find me discussing security clearances and the like on a public forum. Sorry." That sounds like discussion to me, even if its only by insinuation. I take back what I said, lucky you, I guess you are cleared to turn that Honeywell back on :(Jwenting,You are putting words in my mouth my friend. Wrong tactic...Do you use it often? Did I say that a private person can't sue a Government or a Government agency?Anyway, let's see how this all works. The Australian agency, be it a public or private entity (even though I believe Australians are clever enough not to let this matter of national security in the hands of the, stricto sensu, private sector), that produces local navdata and distributes it freely decides it is time to make some money out of Jeppesen and seeks to charge them with a redistribution fee.Do you honestly believe that this "entity" is next going to start litigation against the US DoD over data they provide to them, for various reasons for which you and I might not have the faintest idea (do you know, for example, if there exists some reciprocal agreement or if an international custom has been established?)?If so, then I think it is you who are hiding in a very dark and soundproof closet. In any event,jwenting, in the majority of countries, the relevant competence lies with some agency directly connected to the State. I stand by my belief that such public agencies would not do anything similar to what Airservices Australia did, at least against those in control of DAFIF. You have my word on it! Let me tell you a secret...there does exist a thing called, sshhh...international politics (not to mention the intricacies of International Public Law which apparently elude you...). Best regards,

Share this post


Link to post

In any case, I don't argue that any agency or authority, might tomorrow deny providing their local Navdata to the DoD. It is however erroneous to suggest that fear of litigation is forcing them to rethink about publicising DAFIF. Can you debate this? Oh, and stop googling stuff you don't know just to reply to a post. It won't help.Regards,

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this