Anbody going to that FAA Online chart meeting tomorrow?

poadeleted21

poadeleted21

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
12,332
Wasn't someone from here going? Still in the plan book? I'd be grateful to get a PIREP.
 
TMetzinger said:
I am going. I''ll post what I learn, unless they make me sign an NDA or something similar.
Click to expand...

I would be fascinated at how a US government agency charged with producing and disseminating public-domain information could justify use of an NDA under any circumstance.
 
SCCutler said:
I would be fascinated at how a US government agency charged with producing and disseminating public-domain information could justify use of an NDA under any circumstance.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me, too. If they do try to compel our silence, it'll be a conversation to have with my congressman.
 
TMetzinger said:
Yeah, me, too. If they do try to compel our silence, it'll be a conversation to have with my congressman.
Click to expand...

And what makes you think that such conversations wouldn't be prohibited by the NDA?
 
JeffDG said:
And what makes you think that such conversations wouldn't be prohibited by the NDA?
Click to expand...

Because except where national security information is involved, and even then only in rare cases, the secrecy agreement isn't secret itself.

The only other times I've seen secrecy/confidentiality agreements have been for PII or procurement sensitive info.



Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
 
I was denied entry to the meeting. When I got there my name was not on a list, and after some go-arounds and an unsuccessful attempt to reach Abby Smith I was told that THIS meeting was for avionics folks and not open to the public, but that there would be other meetings in the future.

Background:
This is the email I received in September:
Dear Digital Subscriber,

Please join us for an open discussion about becoming a digital product agent on December 13 from 9:00AM till 4:30PM. This meeting covers the terms of the agreement, including review and input from potentially interested parties on the contract and pricing structures associated with digital agents. RSVPs requested.

Background:

FAA's Aeronautical Navigation (AeroNav) Products has reengineered its business processes. One of the changes that we have identified is the need to have clear agreements with Authorized Agents on the distribution and packaging of our digital products. As safety is the key mission of the FAA, it is imperative that the integrity of our navigation products is maintained in digital forms just as it is in paper forms. April 5, 2012 will be the last edition of our products that will be distributed to individuals or businesses without an agreement. This forum is an opportunity to exchange ideas with interested entities and gain feedback on these agreements.

Location:

AeroNav Products' Logistics
10201 Good Luck Road
Glenn Dale MD 20769

For more information about this event and to RSVP, please contact:


Abigail “Abby” Smith
Business Development, Manager
1305 East-West Highway, Room 4613
Silver Spring MD 20910
(301)427-5068
Visit AeroNav Products Here
Click to expand...


In October I called, and left my name as an RSVP to the meeting and told them I was an individual subscriber. No further contact until today.


Now, the way I interpreted that mail message was that this meeting was "open discussion" and was open to businesses and individuals.

In accordance with my "never ascribe to malice what is explainable by incompetence" rule, it's possible that my name got lost somewhere, or that they just didn't bother to get back to me to tell me that there would be further meetings.

But this reinforces my suspicions that this change has very little to do with safety and everything to do with revenue for NACO.

I'm going to sleep on it and perhaps tomorrow write my representatives, with a copy to Ms. Smith, since I believe in stabbing people in the front, not the back.
 
:confused: :sad: I figure I'll be getting an email from Seattle Avionics today since they seem concerned. Was interested to hear from a regular ole individual subscriber.

TMetzinger said:
I was denied entry to the meeting. When I got there my name was not on a list, and after some go-arounds and an unsuccessful attempt to reach Abby Smith I was told that THIS meeting was for avionics folks and not open to the public, but that there would be other meetings in the future.

Background:
This is the email I received in September:
[/FONT]

In October I called, and left my name as an RSVP to the meeting and told them I was an individual subscriber. No further contact until today.


Now, the way I interpreted that mail message was that this meeting was "open discussion" and was open to businesses and individuals.

In accordance with my "never ascribe to malice what is explainable by incompetence" rule, it's possible that my name got lost somewhere, or that they just didn't bother to get back to me to tell me that there would be further meetings.

But this reinforces my suspicions that this change has very little to do with safety and everything to do with revenue for NACO.

I'm going to sleep on it and perhaps tomorrow write my representatives, with a copy to Ms. Smith, since I believe in stabbing people in the front, not the back.
Click to expand...
 
TMetzinger said:
I was denied entry to the meeting. When I got there my name was not on a list, and after some go-arounds and an unsuccessful attempt to reach Abby Smith I was told that THIS meeting was for avionics folks and not open to the public, but that there would be other meetings in the future.
Click to expand...

I can understand why they would have multiple meetings with each one having a different focus. This allows people to only go to the ones that are of interest to them. What I don't understand is why they are restricting who can go to each meeting. It makes it very easy to tell each group what they want to hear.

They also refused to allow an AvWeb reporter to attend the meeting:
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_AeroNavMess_205863-1.html

Ryan
 
I'm with the AvWeb guy. I've got no problems with Aeronav covering it's costs. But it needs to show how those costs are derived, and in my opinion digital users shouldn't "subsidize" paper charts.
 
TMetzinger said:
Because except where national security information is involved, and even then only in rare cases, the secrecy agreement isn't secret itself.

The only other times I've seen secrecy/confidentiality agreements have been for PII or procurement sensitive info.



Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There is nothing that would prevent an NDA from including provisions prohibiting discussion of the NDA itself, once signed. Of course if offered an NDA and you refuse to sign it, you can discuss that fact, but if the NDA is signed and has such provisions, then they are completely binding.
 
JeffDG said:
There is nothing that would prevent an NDA from including provisions prohibiting discussion of the NDA itself, once signed. Of course if offered an NDA and you refuse to sign it, you can discuss that fact, but if the NDA is signed and has such provisions, then they are completely binding.
Click to expand...

Never seen one like that, and wouldn't sign it if I did. I've done plenty of NDAs and secrecy agreements.

I have seen something like this for compartmented information, but that's it.

Even when covered by a gag order during some procurement issues, I was required to say "I'm not allowed to address that subject" as opposed to professing total ignorance.
 
Just replied to Mrs. Smith's invite:
Dear Mrs. Smith,

I was denied entrance to the meeting today in spite of my having called the number below in October to RSVP to the meeting, identifying myself as an individual subscriber to the d-TPP DVDs. I was told by Mr. Diggs upon my arrival that the meeting was not open to the public. This is unfortunate as it clashes heavily with your message about an “open discussion”, and I’d wasted a day of vacation time and 80+ miles of driving to try to attend this meeting.

Like many folks, I’m curious about the proposed changes in pricing and the appearance that the FAA is going to somehow try to restrict redistribution of products like approach plates once the purchaser has paid for the chart or DVD or data file.

I understand that AeroNav needs to cover its costs for creation, manufacturing, and delivery, and am not opposed to this in any way. However, I would expect that AeroNav would be able to clearly show what these costs are, and price things so that the cost of digital products reflect the vastly reduced manufacturing and distribution costs as compared to paper products.

I also understand the safety issues related to making sure that re-distributors include all the information, including legends, the full chart area, etc. Licensing terms covering these issues are a very good idea but would not appear to be related to costs.

I am willing to believe that what happened today is a result of errors on the part of the FAA – either you never got my RSVP or for some reason were unable to notify me that this meeting was not for anyone other than companies. But as noted in today’s AvWeb article AeroNav’s reputation is suffering by these secretive tactics.

I will likely be contacting my Congressional representatives to ask them to look into this policy change. Before I do that, however, I’d really like to hear your side of both today’s incident and your overall plan and intentions. I believe in being forthright; even, perhaps especially, when I am in disagreement with someone.

Best wishes,

Tim Metzinger
Click to expand...

I'll give it one week, and then call the LA's I know involved in aviation matters.
 
Word on the street is $150 per user per year.
 
For digital access to all materials that's not bad. I pay close to that for approach plate DVD's (every 28 days).

All I ask is that they show how that matches up to their actual costs.
 
If they are precluded from charging for the cost of creating the underlying data, then this is inappropriate.
 
Update - a prompt reply to my email:

Tim.
I'm so sorry for this and would be happy to discuss with you today if you like.
Please send me a number to call.
Also, I'm updating the website to reflect a summary of meeting today.
Please accept my apology!
Abby
Click to expand...

Edit: I will be talking with her in the next day or so. I was pleased that she responded so quickly.
 
Last edited:
Tim:

Thank you for looking into this, and for maintaining a professional and honorable demeanor. I appreciate your efforts, and look forward to hearing more about the situation.
 
Good Job Tim.:):)



Also, I'm updating the website to reflect a summary of meeting today

Whats the exact link to the website abby is updating ?


Ben.
 
$150 per user per year is ridiculous. Online distribution is really cheap.

The FAA's "Business Practices"?? The FAA is a government agency, not a freaking business.
 
dell30rb said:
$150 per user per year is ridiculous. Online distribution is really cheap.

The FAA's "Business Practices"?? The FAA is a government agency, not a freaking business.
Click to expand...

I will setup and host and cover 100% of the network and computer costs for $150 bucks per year per user.
 
TMetzinger said:
For digital access to all materials that's not bad. I pay close to that for approach plate DVD's (every 28 days).
Click to expand...

Tim, the difference is that currently you are free to redistribute the approach plates to whomever you choose at no additional cost.

Charging $150 per year per user is substantially more expensive than the current situation!
 
NaviatorMike said:
Tim, the difference is that currently you are free to redistribute the approach plates to whomever you choose at no additional cost.

Charging $150 per year per user is substantially more expensive than the current situation!
Click to expand...

My New Shiny iPad with WingX loaded up on it doesn't look as good as it did yesterday.
 
NaviatorMike said:
Tim, the difference is that currently you are free to redistribute the approach plates to whomever you choose at no additional cost.

Charging $150 per year per user is substantially more expensive than the current situation!
Click to expand...

It is not yet clear whether they will be able to make any of this stuff copyrighted (my money says "no"). So we'll see what ends up working.

Again, the FAA does multiple things.

Creates the navigational data and procedures. This is funded by taxpayers and AeroNav cannot charge for this. Jepp gets this info for free (may pay a nominal charge for the transfer of the info).

Then, both AeroNav and Jepp have the following tasks/costs.

  • Create the actual charts, on computers. (staff, equipment, etc).
  • Manufacture the charts (on paper, on DVD, into digital files i.e. PDF) - (staff, paper, DVDs, equipment - cost vary depending on what's being "manufactured").
  • Distribute the charts (mail paper or DVD, host servers and network for download).
  • Profit (Jepp only)
Jepp is allowed to copyright their drawings. If AeroNav were a private company (or perhaps with appropriate legislation) they could do the same thing.

The problem they have is that without a big subscriber base (which existed in the paper days because most people didn't copy the sectional/terminal/lo/hi/AFDs) the cost per unit goes way up. This wasn't a problem when the only digital charts were approach plates, as everybody was still buying the large format charts and enough paper books of plates were sold that the costs of creating the chart images in the first place were covered.

Along comes Foreflight and others who digitally do what Howie Keefe did with paper, and suddenly nobody needs the paper charts any more. Even if AeroNav suddenly said "no more paper", there would still be all the costs associated with creating and QAing the original charts. And if only 10 people bought that data, because they'd resell it themselves, the cost for those 10 folks would be high.

I don't know what the solution is.... I want to see what the costs to the FAA are to create the original charts. There's a real problem with digital data being free - and that is that the folks who create it may not be able to make it for "Reasonable" prices if they can't limit redistribution.

Perhaps the solution is to close down AeroNav, and let the market bring forth a competitor to Jeppesen.

What I expect is some sort of tiered system. If you want to download an individual approach plate - it's free (or really cheap). You want an individual large format chart you're going to print or put into your own app? It won't be too expensive.

You want a subscription for full coverage? Then I expect you're going to pay a couple hundred bucks a year.

If I were running AeroNav I'd consider trying to write my own EFB App.

The other way around this is to make the argument and get congress to agree with it that producing the digital charts themselves (the master charts) is a public function and should be taxpayer funded. Then the digital stuff is very cheap (pay for bandwidth/hosting only) and the paper charts go over to GPO and you pay accordingly.

It's an ugly problem.
 
Last edited:
The charts should be and remain FOC on the innarwebz. Pay for it out of the FAA general fund and go on with life. With this new FEE/Tax comes, fee collection and accounting, new systems to manage and maintain, etc... None of which contribute to safety at.all. If the general fund can't afford it, put a new .0001 cent/gallon 100LL tax in place. There is no need to grow the FAA even more. There's already a revenue model for the FAA called a gas tax, no need to complicate things more.
 
bartmc said:
The charts should be and remain FOC on the innarwebz. Pay for it out of the FAA general fund and go on with life. With this new FEE/Tax comes, fee collection and accounting, new systems to manage and maintain, etc... None of which contribute to safety at.all. If the general fund can't afford it, put a new .0001 cent/gallon 100LL tax in place. There is no need to grow the FAA even more. There's already a revenue model for the FAA called a gas tax, no need to complicate things more.
Click to expand...
OK - go tell your congressman. This will require legislation since AeroNav chart sales are currently REQUIRED to be self-supporting.


Edit: This reminds me a lot of the US Postal service. Reduced demand for the amount of the service, but still expecting the same quality of service and pricing.
 
TMetzinger said:
Never seen one like that, and wouldn't sign it if I did. I've done plenty of NDAs and secrecy agreements.

I have seen something like this for compartmented information, but that's it.

Even when covered by a gag order during some procurement issues, I was required to say "I'm not allowed to address that subject" as opposed to professing total ignorance.
Click to expand...

I've seen any number of NDAs that prevent disclosure of the NDA itself. It''s not uncommon when dealing with investment banks or advisors, especially when you are the potential seller.

TMetzinger said:
Perhaps the solution is to close down AeroNav, and let the market bring forth a competitor to Jeppesen.

What I expect is some sort of tiered system. If you want to download an individual approach plate - it's free (or really cheap). You want an individual large format chart you're going to print or put into your own app? It won't be too expensive.

You want a subscription for full coverage? Then I expect you're going to pay a couple hundred bucks a year.
Click to expand...

More like several hundred to a thousand per year. What's the cost for Jepp's Flightstar + Jeppview? Jeppview alone is ~$800 for the full US. Databases for the Garmin panel units are $400+.
 
Here is the relevant U.S. Code that allows the FAA to charge for charts; note that it specifies a maximum amount - but no minimum:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_49_00044721----000-.html

Note that it even provides that "A fee may be reduced or waived for research organizations, educational organizations, or non-profit organizations, when the Administrator determines that reduction or waiver of the fee is in the best interest of the Government by furthering public safety."

(I could find nothing in that statute that could be read as requiring the FAA to set a non-zero price or fee.)
 
wsuffa said:
I've seen any number of NDAs that prevent disclosure of the NDA itself. It''s not uncommon when dealing with investment banks or advisors, especially when you are the potential seller.
Click to expand...

I wasn't specific enough. My fault.

Never seen one of those with a public/government agency except as previously noted.

Your example makes a lot of sense in the private sector.
 
TMetzinger said:
OK - go tell your congressman. This will require legislation since AeroNav chart sales are currently REQUIRED to be self-supporting.
Click to expand...

Ahem - I've posted a link to what I believe is the relevant U.S. Code and I saw nothing in it that REQUIRES chart sales to be self-supporting. I read the code as ALLOWING chart sales to self-supporting - nothing more.

There is even a clause that states "The Administrator shall adjust the price of an aeronautical product and service sold to the public as necessary to avoid any adverse impact on aviation safety attributable to the price specified under this paragraph."
 
Jim Logajan said:
Ahem - I've posted a link to what I believe is the relevant U.S. Code and I saw nothing in it that REQUIRES chart sales to be self-supporting. I read the code as ALLOWING chart sales to self-supporting - nothing more.

There is even a clause that states "The Administrator shall adjust the price of an aeronautical product and service sold to the public as necessary to avoid any adverse impact on aviation safety attributable to the price specified under this paragraph."
Click to expand...

OK, again, go tell Congress you don't want AeroNav to be self-supporting. Right now they apparently feel they must be.
 
TMetzinger said:
OK, again, go tell Congress you don't want AeroNav to be self-supporting. Right now they apparently feel they must be.
Click to expand...

Congress already weighed in on this years ago when it wrote the statute, and I don't believe it says what you or the FAA think it says. Please read the statute already in place and tell me where or how it requires AeroNav to be self-supporting (technically the Aeronav entity isn't even mentioned - just the FAA.) Here is how I see it works in reality:

  1. The FAA may NOT exceed some of the costs involved. (Per the section on Maximum Price.) After this I think everyone else stops reading and thinking.
  2. There is no way to set prices such that the price can precisely match the costs, so some loss is expected and allowed by the wording of the statute. That loss is covered by the FAA general fund.
  3. The "Maximum Price" paragraph is subject to the "Adjustment of price" paragraph, which specifically allows for selling at a loss by saying the FAA "shall adjust the price of an aeronautical product and service sold to the public as necessary to avoid any adverse impact on aviation safety attributable to the price specified under this paragraph."
  4. Ergo, they could set the price at zero or close to it if the FAA judges (or can be convinced) that is needed for reasons of safety.
Just about every web site seems to be repeating the meme that Aeronav is somehow required to recover its costs and some strange thing prevents the FAA from simply burying the cost into their general funding. :mad2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top