Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

The End of Cheap iPad Charting Apps? Safety at Issue?

By Robert Goyer / Published: Nov 17, 2011
Rate it! 100% or 0%

You might have heard by now that the FAA’s AeroNav division, in charge of, among other things, keeping track of all the data that defines our National Airspace System, has decided to start charging for that online data, which it formerly gave away.  The FAA has not released the details of that plan to the public. It will hold a meeting among stakeholders in mid-December in Washington, D.C., presumably to reveal its plan.

Details of how the program evolved, however, raise numerous troubling questions about the FAA’s probable readiness with a workable plan.

In recent years, AeroNav data has been the catalyst for a uniquely American success story, as its free, easy availability has enabled the creation of a cottage industry of companies that create iPad applications, including ForeFlight and Hilton Software, as well as giving established companies, like Garmin and Jeppesen, a new market to explore. Most of these apps range from $75 to around $150 per year, figuring in the cost of subscriptions. In addition, firms like Seattle Avionics have established businesses massaging and distributing that data; yet others, like Baron Services, make sensors for iPads to allow app users to get more utility out of their apps.

The business plans of each of these companies is up in the air awaiting the details of the plan.

Surprise Launch

The FAA’s scheme began to unfold late last summer when the computers of several app developers came up empty on what should have been a routine automated overnight data refresh. It was only when developers contacted the FAA that they learned that there was a plan to change the way that AeroNav data was disseminated.

The FAA, after speaking with these greatly concerned app developers, relented and made the data available in time for developers to get it to their customers. The FAA has continued to do so while still offering that it has a plan to charge for data.

Regardless of its quick backtrack, insiders find it shocking that the FAA would have attempted such a poorly thought-out launch of its plan without prior communication with app developers and others in the industry. It was, after all, a move that potentially could have affected safety of flight for thousands of pilots and their passengers.

Very little seemed thought out about the new direction, conceived in the wake of the furlough of FAA employees ealier this year. The original plan, now presumably abandoned, called for new AeroNav data to be available only 24 hours before a refresh cycle, which would have made it impossible for app developers to get products to their customers before their previous charts had expired. 

No one seems to know the details of that plan. When we asked for comment on the current state of affairs, a Jeppesen spokesman responded that, “Since we do not know what the potential changes may be or what any effects could be, we won’t be able to discuss it until we learn more following the Dec. 13 FAA AeroNav meeting in Washington, D.C.”   Six months after the first sign that the FAA has a new plan, just what that plan is remains a mystery.  

Why?

The plan has unfolded apparently in response to an FAA budget crunch. One insider was told by an AeroNav employee that the decision to charge for data came about in response to low revenue from what had traditionally been an FAA cash cow, the sale of paper charts. The employee suggested that it was known within the FAA that the lost sales were a result of pilots getting their charts on their iPads, as opposed to in paper format from the FAA.

The plan to charge for that data is being spearheaded by the FAA’s Abigail Smith, who is in charge of business development for AeroNav. Smith did not respond for a request for an interview in time to comment for this story.

Regardless, how the plan to implement charges was launched seems to indicate a lack of concern on the part of the FAA for the businesses that depend on the data and their customers who consume it. It came about without warning and in a way that suggests that the FAA had not carefully thought out the details of the plan, its ramifications or the effect it would have on safety. The agency, according to one vendor with whom we spoke, hasn't carefully considered such questions as who would be charged for data and how those charges would be determined. Would a website, like Runwayfinder.com, for example, be required to pay the same rate for the data as a company that specifically provided charts to be used offline? Would a website like AirNav.com, which uses AeroNav charts on its online airport directory, be charged? Would AOPA? Would Flying magazine? And how would AeroNav structure the plan, by a flat fee or for each visitor who clicked on the data? And how would those charges be tracked and accounted for? 

Safety Connection?

The FAA seems to be linking this change in policy with safety, though the connection seems tenuous. The argument that the FAA seems to be making is that it wants to have control over how the data it disseminates is used by app developers and others. Indeed, the FAA has come right out and said this in an email announcing the new direction. But just how the agency plans to monitor the way developers use the data is unknown. Would there be a set of standards created for apps like Jeppesen Mobile FD or Hilton Software's WingX Pro? Would AeroNav then monitor compliance? And how would it find the resources to do that? 

Issues

The move also raises some thorny philosophical and political issues, as well. While a government agency is allowed to produce a product that it then turns around and sells to users, there's an exception in law for AeroNav. According to federal legislation, the FAA is prohibited from collecting money for its database products in order to recover costs associated with the collectiing of that areonautical data. So if AeroNav raises prices, and it seems determined to do just that, it would have to justify that the increases are to recover the cost of managing the database, compiling it and serving that data to users. Technically, any other charges would be prohibited. 

Whether the FAA understands that is uncertain. Come Dec. 13, we’ll hopefully have more information on the plan and how much it will cost pilots.

Comments (19) Post a comment

All Comments

cstrube's picture

How can the FAA charge for data generated and paid for by taxes? The public, not the FAA owns the data, and pays the FAA to manage it. I can see constitutional arguments raised, and a wrist slap for the official in charge of this obvious conflict of interest story. Now that Jepp, owned by Boeing, is losing money because of cheap data available for the iPad, suddenly the FAA tries to change the game for the app developers. Who doesn't smell a rat?

ChampPilot44's picture

The FAA doesn't care about safety or convenience to pilots nearly as much as they care about the money.

Unwiredone's picture

The FAA will likely start charging for access, but not for the data itself. The tax dollars paid for the data, not the "pipe". Sure, there will be attempts at legal remedy, but the FAA can argue that users have been paying for the access to the data before the launch of the tablet computers, yet this access was via paper charts.

I don't like anymore than the next pilot, but this is likely to be the end result.

Michele's picture

So what about backups? I fly with two independent sets of electronic charts, one on a PC and one on a tablet as a form of backup. Am I going to have to pay twice?

And how does the FAA justify this in the first place? So they sell fewer paper charts. Don't they save a lot of money by not having to print as many charts? I can't imagine it's more expensive to disseminate this data electronically than on paper.

injunear's picture

In almost everyway, the FAA lives in a tree, what kind of notice would we expect? BTW, it is justified because Congress says it is.

hiltongoldstein's picture

Thanks for writing about this Robert.

To sign the online petition, go to http://www.hiltonsoftware.com, and click on the "Sign the Petition" link on the top-right of the page which will take you to whitehouse.gov.

Hilton

Radek's picture

Ask FAA for reversal to charge for government approach data downloads and not allowing individuals to access them. http://wh.gov/jCZ

GMCotton's picture

Another instance of government overreach and ignorance (or maybe just feigned ignorance) of inconvenient law. Just once you'd like to see a government agancy do what's right, instead of what they can get away with. Abigail Smith is just another pick pocket in federal garb who thinks we're just sheep to be sheared. That's why we're citizens of this country so she'd have someone to take advantage of, isn't it. Now why do you suppose I hear chains clinking with every step I take?

iused2fly's picture

I feel for those who must pay for this formerly free service. But the flip side to this issue is the following: Which other equally worthy federal program would the GA community in America like to eliminate, in order for the Fed to continue subsidizing their flying habits?

Here's my idea: For the cost of one less F-22 the US Government could probably give every pilot this service for free for the next 50 years.

Douglas M

Sam37967's picture

I've been through data contract negotiations many times. We had a pricing structure that was based on end use. I think this is what controlling the end use is about. You pay more for more capability from the data, which reflects the additional costs to produce that more capable data. For example, you can just use the map as a displayed backdrop image. If you want to use one of the elements on the backdrop, say a VOR station, as an element in a navigation sequence, then you pay more.

As a developer of my own software, this decision is turning me upside down.

- Sam

CYOTE5's picture

Long and short, this stinks of Boeing/Jeppesen lobbying. Typical Washington. Typical Jeppesen.

akpirate's picture

Look out, folks! This looks like a wolf in sheep's clothing!

Remember when the FCC tried to outlaw 121.5/243.0 ELTs because some manufacturer wanted everyone to buy the new 406 ELTs at a ridiculous price? That was started bythe manufacturer.

Now Jeppesen and other App developers could be trying to force us to pay them for data that should be provided to the taxpaying flying public. That doesn't mean just pilots, your passengers are entitled to this service too!

The FAA, who is financeed by us, develops this data and requires us to use it. They don't get to charge us again for it.

Sam37967's picture

In considering the possible pricing structure, AeroNav digital data products can be classified into four tiers: VFR raster, VFR vector, IFR raster, and IFR vector. Each group is progressively more expensive to maintain, but not necessarily at higher price because number of end-users will also be a factor. The pricing structure may have these scheduled as individual items or packaged. For example, the IFR vector pricing may include a package of all VFR and IFR products.

Usually, within each tier there will be breakout pricing based on number of end users of the data. Since AreoNav has already ruled out sourcing to individuals, the usual one-to-five user breakout won’t be part of the schedule. Presumably, AeroNav has been keeping track of paper chart sales in these four tiers and correlating that with the rise in hits on their data servers for the same data, and perhaps they now have enough data to fairly balance production costs across both digital and paper product lines.

- Sam

Thomas Boyle's picture

Aside from the question of whether pilots should pay for this data there is a more subtle point: if the government requires the use of a government service (including any service licensed - in the sense of fees, not quality assurance permits - by the government), it should not be able to charge for it. The conflict of interest is too clear. It's too easy to require use of a service, and pocket the money. Even if there's no "profit," there is too much influence, too much power, and even too many votes to be bought that way.

This point is not just relevant here, it also applies to other user fees. Require a pilot to talk to government-run-or-licensed ATC? Then you can't charge for it. Require a pilot to use government-contracted flight briefings? Then you can't charge for them.

Note that this isn't the same as saying the government couldn't ever charge for services. If a service is optional, or is required but is competitively available from multiple suppliers, the government could offer a service on a commercial basis - but then it must not use tax money to subsidize itself, otherwise it can drive the competition out of business and monopolize any business it wants.

But - if the government mandates that you MUST use its services, it should not be able to charge for them. Such a mandate-plus-fee structure is too open to corruption.

Stokestack's picture

The biggest issue here is not that the charts will cost money. It's that the PUBLIC WILL BE DENIED ACCESS. Individuals will no longer be able to download the charts; our public data will now be accessible only a couple of companies. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Let the FAA have a couple of bucks for charts. It's strange that no one seems to remember that the downloadable charts weren't originally free; they were $1.50 each. I thought that was a reasonable price, compared to $18 for a cumbersome paper chart.

Let's focus on the real outrage: denying charts to the taxpayers.

Sam37967's picture

Mr Boyle, the responsibility to recover costs in this particular case is mandated by congress.

Stokestack, I agree 100%. It seems to me that one way to provide access would be to setup a data consortium to contract for the data and act as pass through agent for the members of the consortium. This would essentially replace the current AeroNav download service for private inventors like myself who will be cut off from the data my software now uses. But whether such a consortium could work depends on the actual prices it would need to charge for the data of interest to its members.

- Sam

hercpilot's picture

Please go the whitehouse web site
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petitions

and read the petition. You must register in order to put your name on the petition. It is a pain to register- get an email verification then you can "vote". Just do it.

We need to come out on all sides to fight this. But at last count we have a long ways to go. Nothing happens unless there 25,000 who sign up. The count is less than 2000 as 18 Nov.

Don' just blab about it -you can refined the process later. NOW put your name on the petition if you think it is right to stop the FAA from charging.
Rich

Sam37967's picture

Rich, it would be nothing but a kindness if the decision were reversed. AeroNav has been required to cover costs since the '70s and the revenue stream is now drying up. So AeroNav is required to find new revenue sources. Since they can track the loss in revenue against the rise in digital product use, it's pretty hard to argue against digital users making up the loss. It's a bitter pill after getting it for free for so long, but there it is.

I predict raster VFR sectionals files without metadata will be free to download and print from vendors. Metadata will cost you, as now that's what you need to electronically navigate with the raster.

Robert, you mention the large number of GPS IAPs being developed. I wonder just how expensive digital IFR could become as the count increases. Imagine the impact on car and personal nav systems if every street in the US had to be driven over by a government team in a precision GPS equipped van twice a year to certify the lanes haven't moved or become obstructed!

On the other hand, the GPS point cloud created by VFR traffic into and out of an airport can be mined to produce equivalent "clear path" 3-D lanes in the sky (remember, you saw it here first :) Verification of such paths would be much simpler. This is similar to work currently done using vehicle generated point clouds to determine lane center lines and delivery point addresses.

- Sam

azpflyer's picture

The FAA collects and manages the data either way. It's paid for out of taxes and the FAA funding.

Distribution is a separate issue and is what should drive the price of paper and/or soft charts.

The price of paper charts should be based on printing and distribution costs for those charts. If demand dwindles, price should go up.

Similarly, and totally independently, the price for downloadable charts should be based on the production and distribution costs specific to this delivery method, as well as demand.

The cat is already out of the bag - the cost of making software charts available is relatively negligible compared to costs of printing and distributing paper charts. It's simply the cost of maintaining the website, internet connection, and data repository divided by the number of users. It's so inexpensive, and so much easier on the government, that until now they've chosen to make them available free.

So demand for paper charts must be taking a nose dive and I'm sure Jeppesen is upset that this is taking a bite out of their sales too - both paper and soft format (both outrageously priced, IMHO).

Welcome to the new economy, Uncle Sam. Same issue record companies, book and newspaper publishers, movie and TV producers, and telecom vendors are facing. I can see it now - you can choose to watch a 30 second commercial before your approach plate comes up...or chose to pay a nominal fee. 1/2 :-)

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use