That's a poor analogy. But yes, if you can run cheaper, safer mogas, yep you should.
My only point was you better get ready. And it's going away for a reason. Paper maps are labor intensive, error prone, hard to update and hard to keep up to date and even with this 1.0, the dynamic ones are in many ways already superior.
So not sure why everyone is so touchy and argumentative, except evidently we want to make aviation great again? How bout radio ranges! Lighted airways!! No one took your sectionals away. Yet.
I can run mogas. If I drag it in small quantities from many miles away in a dodgy tank trailer. Gosh I guess I'd better stop calling the 100LL tanker truck over to the hangar.
As far as the chart stuff goes, I can't speak for others but I'm not arguing. I'm stating facts. Your electronic charts will replace the (scanned or real) paper version when they provide 100% of the information the paper does. Not rocket science here, really. I've been discussing the content not the display technology.
By labor intensive I mean out taxpayer dollars at work, not all the folding and unfolding! But yes think of all the hours of folding and unfolding! :-o
Snicker... Now you want to talk money and efficiency in government? LOL.
So you've proven with a hard budget spreadsheet that the entire cost of paper end to end is cheaper than computer based? I'd like to see that analysis. Please include every computer that touches the data along the way, any and all data center power sources and maintenance costs, all software development costs, and debugging costs, and all of it from start to finish.
I suspect you'll find your assertion about total "taxpayer cost" is flat wrong. But I have an advantage here, I've done a similar study on a project in the 1990s for a company to know exactly what a conversion to computer tech in that business was going to cost, as part of a cost/benefit analysis.
It's damned near impossible even at scale, for a bunch of paper products to be replaced by computer tech at lower cost. One must factor in added functionality as a benefit that the additional margin lost in higher costs actually pays for directly.
I know this is abstracted away from you at the level you're working at (since you said you're at the user end, editing the graphics) but the servers and software and infrastructure to make that possible on your workstation is not cheap.
"Computers are always cheaper!" is one of the huge lies of the IT industry. Companies and organizations that recognize this and analyze whether the switch is actually cost effective are somewhat rare. But they do usually post record profits on a regular basis.
But hey. You said to be ready. I'm ready! Bring on a cheaper across-the-board replacement that reproduces everything the chart does.
A little economic reality: Haven't we already proven by empirical evidence that this isn't cheaper? Foreflight raised the price, they didn't lower it.
Darn those pesky systems engineering people who know how to run a calculator... and total up prices. They're ruining your all-digital utopia.
For every "printing costs will go down!" excited person, there's three building the data center, maintaining the servers, desktops, all the software each run, continuously debugging it all (that never stops, humans haven't coded a perfect piece of software yet), running the power plant, digging up the coal...
You can take that analysis as far as you like, but tech rarely makes things cheaper overall.
It doesn't matter. Here's why...
Tech has to make things better. Not the same. Not a replacement. Better. The "new hotness" must do MORE than the thing it replaces.
Don't worry. We're all "ready"! LOL. Get to work.
Vector maps are now slightly beyond the "proof of concept" or "novelty" stage now in aviation.
Cool. Got a long way to go.
