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.

FAA to Charge $150 per Pilot for iPad App Data

By Robert Goyer / Published: Dec 15, 2011
Rate it! 50% or 50%

The FAA’s AeroNav division held a meeting in Washington, D.C., this week to which it invited around 70 prominent players in the app developer community. Specifically excluded from the event were the public and the press — Flying and at least one other aviation news outlet requested to attend and were turned down.

The ostensible purpose of the meeting, according to sources who asked not to be identified, was to gather industry input on AeroNav’s plan to raise fees for its data. Currently the data is essentially free to developers and even end users.

At the same time, the FAA organization put forth a plan to charge end users — pilots — $150 a year for the data. AeroNav said it has a $5 million budget shortfall this year that it is trying to fill, and the $150 per user fee was calculated based on 33,000 users, which one developer called a laughably low number. “It would have taken two phone calls to figure out the approximate number of users there actually were,” one app developer told us, “calling into question the quality of AeroNav’s preparations for the plan.”

It was not clear, according to one source, whether the $150 fee was a firm figure or if AeroNav was floating that number to gauge industry response. Few of the developers we spoke with — all of them asked that their names not be used for this story — thought the $150 fee would be the final figure; most thought it would be less but that it will be something.

One other plan floated was a flat fee, whereby developers would pay a fee based on the number of end users they sell to. Using the figures the FAA floated for this, the cost to pilots would in many cases be much less than $150, probably more in the $50 per year range. This approach would also avoid the frightening prospect, as one meeting attendee put it, “of the FAA having 500,000 pilots and their credit card information in its database” or the customer support experience that structure would subject pilots to.

There are many questions that remain unanswered, in part because AeroNav has declined to respond to press inquiries on the subject. Flying submitted a series of questions to the division’s business development head three weeks ago through the press office and has not had a response.

Among the questions are, will users who buy multiple apps have to purchase the data anew for each? Will developers who distribute chart images on an irregular basis, such as AirNav, the airport resource, be required to charge each viewer $150? (That is unlikely; one possible solution is to let websites use non-downloadable screen shots.) How would this all be administered and how much will that cost? Will fees change over time to cover AeroNav’s needs?

But perhaps the biggest unanswered question is, how is AeroNav reconciling the law that requires it to charge only for dissemination of its data and not for its gathering with the new pricing plan? It was also declined to share details of its budget allocation and what expenditures that allocation covers.

Another developer told Flying that the meeting seemed intended to get industry to voluntarily adopt the new fee structure, to immunize AeroNav from responsibility for the revenue plan.

One date that AeroNav stuck by was April 15, 2012, the day on which it insists there will be no more free data. A developer we spoke with called the timeline “unrealistic.” Another said the proposed timeline “would be both irresponsible and a world speed record for government action if that really happened.”

We probably don’t have to point out the significance of the date, either, April 15, Tax Day, when the new charges are planned to start kicking in. The first pay cycle and the attendant price increases presumably would come following that date.

Check out Robert Goyer's blog on AeroNav's plan.

Comments (12) Post a comment

All Comments

ertem's picture

Sounds like the FAA is now 'administering while drunk'... mce

towcub's picture

Agree with the comment about running afoul of their law about dissemination charges. The study to determine an appropriate fee doesn't have to be extensive or itself expensive, but there needs to be *some* accuracy to it; $150 is a very large number. And how is it defined? The multiple apps question is probably one of many such questions. Gonna be ugly.

This, alas, is a USER FEE. Responding legally, I would probably revert to paper charts. Some might respond with illegal copying. I'll bet a popular response would be to use other charting sources or out-of-date charting. This will impact safety! But all the industry's comments about user fees impacting safety fall on deaf ears.

How are they being measured? By their budget shortfall. They are being given no alternative. The fight will have to go up to chain, to our Congress who hasn't passed a budget in three years. Oh well, it's what we have. Good luck to us all.

DennisJohn's picture

One of the FAA's mandates is to "promote" aviation, not to help Goverment favorites (corporations like AeroNav and Lockheed) add to their profits at the expense of us end users. It seems to be a downhill slide since the FAA decided to contract out the AFSS system, and they got away with that by overstating the cost of a government operated AFSS's.

JMarcinkevich's picture

I would think it to be quite simple to come up with the number of users, either paper or digital and determine a total number to start with. THEN figure out how much it cost to service that number. It most probably would be considerably less costly for the agency to get out of the "Paper" business, and sell the data to someone who wants to make maps. Unfortunately the agency may have to downsize for this new way of doing business, I'm terribly sorry that may happen, welcome to the "Real" business world. In order for these type of agencies to be successful, they need to adapt to the digital world. It's pretty simple to see how many less people still use "Phone Books", or read a real newspaper. At least get a reasonable starting point and it would probably "Sell" to the public, maybe even some recognition for a job well done would come along!!

Woodbat's picture

Would this be another example of the 'transparency' that BHO talked about?

Mserrano's picture

I for one would prefer to see this "user fee" paid to the service provider the pilot chooses to utilize (ForeFlight, etc) rather than directly to AeroNav (FAA). The FAA sends a bill to each developer based on data downloaded by their users & the developer decides how to divy this out to their customers. This method of collection should allow the developers to fairly distribute this added cost of doing business among their customers. There is no reason why a light sport or private pilot who uses an iPad solely for $100 hamburger trips (hence downloading much less data) should pay as much as users who download charts & plates for the entire US. Leaving this billing decision in the hands of software developers makes more sense in my opinion. They know their customer demographics & can make far better informed decisions than any goverment agency could hope to. Goverment loves the one size fits all solution that is rarely optimum!

karrpilot's picture

I got a GPS car map preloaded in my Android phone for free. Why should i have to spend $150.00 a year for this? I can buy a Garmin car GPS for under $200.00 with free updates. How much is a decent air GPS going for today? A lot more than $200.00.

I do not fly all that much any more due to the high costs of keeping my ticket. I am trying to find ways to lower my costs, and get more airtime. This type of GPS and chart monopoly has got to end. What ever happened to competion? TV's, radios, computers, etc all have improved and lowered their pricing. But anything in the avionics catagorys keep going northward..............

JohnJay's picture

I was at the meeting on December 13. My sense was that while the details are still a bit murky, it's clear that the days of "free" data from the FAA are over.

The proposed fee for VFR charts only was substantially less than $150. As the article indicates, the actual fees will likely be lower as the proposed fee was based on a low estimate of the number of pilots actually using electronic charts.

One problem that was discussed with the service provider passing on the user fee is that the app store forces a 30% mark-up on EVERYTHING. Therefore a $100 annual fee would automatically become $130 of cost to the end user, and Apple would pocket the difference.

The concept of regionalization and single update downloads was discussed. The current proposal does not support these ideas, this is among the many details that have yet to be defined. Other sticking points include what consitiutes a "user". Is it a single pilot? a single device? or any number of devices that are used in the same aircraft? Would a "user" be allowed to load a copy of the data onto a backup device?

There are many questions to be resolved in a very short time frame. I will not be surprised if the April deadline slips a bit.

sdohme's picture

Why is it OK for the pilots to use iPads during takeoff and landing but not the passengers?

pilot4jesus's picture

No mention was given as to what the user gets for his (her) $150. If that includes all the paper-equivalents, sectionals, en-route, etc. that might be comparable or even cheaper than the paper variety. what if I only need 1 or 2 sectionals and the AFD? if That's $150 I'll put up with the cockpit clutter first and let them worry about my safety, which they do too much already.

WindBorne's picture

Apparently the accountants at AeroNav have never taken a basic economics course, or run a business. The price of a thing depends how much your customer values it, not your budget shortfall. Furthermore, revenue is greatest at the price point that invites demand without giving the product away -- the point where price multiplied by sales is highest. AeroNav is acting as though they can force people to pay whatever arbitrary number they conjure up. Typical bureaucrats.

Sjc_pilot's picture

There seems to be a substantive amount of misinformation relative to the App Stores. Since this item keeps coming up on the thread, I thought I'd sound off -- since I'm one of "developers."

All of the App Stores take a cut of the revenue to recoup the costs. There's absolutely nothing that prevents an app developer -- regardless of the platform, to sell the subscriptions outside the store. It's true that some platform vendors don't permit you to "link around" their environment, but the net-net is that subscriptions can be sold elsewhere (with no cut of the revenue directed to the app store) and work effectively. Just ask Jeppesen. That's precisely how the Mobile Flight Deck app is handled: free distribution on the app store, subscription sold elsewhere.

So why do developers go along with paying a cut for in-app subscription purchases? Simple: it works. And it brings (and generates) whole new classes of customers into the product.

The net-net is that this debate isn't about a 20% or even 30% cut to offset the costs of managing the app stores. That's a tactical detail with solutions should it be an issue. The banner issue is about the charge of digital navigation data. Many (like myself) feel this cost has already been handled in the myriad of taxes we already pay, and some (like the FAA) feel otherwise.

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