Jas wrote:
> Does anyone every post these in here? Ridiculous price to update your
> garmin 396. Just wondering if anyone ever has.
>
> Thx
>
> Jas
>
If you feel the price is ridiculous then apparently the data has limited
or no value to you.

A lot of effort goes into compiling the data; waypoints, nav aids,
frequencies, airport data, special use airspace boundaries and
altitudes, etc, etc.

And, the companies, Jeppesen and Garmin, aren't in business for the fun
of it.

Sam Spade > wrote:

> A lot of effort goes into compiling the data; waypoints, nav aids,
> frequencies, airport data, special use airspace boundaries and
> altitudes, etc, etc.

Most of which is done on the tax payers dime.

Yes, Jeppesen does add value. For example, they compile it into different
formats for vendors as well as a lot of cross checking and data validation.
However, the real hefty lifting is done by government agencies. As the
end consumer essentially ends up paying for the base information twice (once
to Jeppesen and once through their taxes), I'll side with the OP and say
that Jeppesen is indeed overpriced.

> And, the companies, Jeppesen and Garmin, aren't in business for the fun
> of it.

Yup, and they are welcome to charge as much as they can get for it. And they
can charge a lot for it because they are the only game in town. However,
if there was any other source for this information, you can bet I for one
would be encouraging the competition.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

Frank Stutzman wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>A lot of effort goes into compiling the data; waypoints, nav aids,
>>frequencies, airport data, special use airspace boundaries and
>>altitudes, etc, etc.
>
>
> Most of which is done on the tax payers dime.
>
> Yes, Jeppesen does add value. For example, they compile it into different
> formats for vendors as well as a lot of cross checking and data validation.
> However, the real hefty lifting is done by government agencies. As the
> end consumer essentially ends up paying for the base information twice (once
> to Jeppesen and once through their taxes), I'll side with the OP and say
> that Jeppesen is indeed overpriced.
>
>
>>And, the companies, Jeppesen and Garmin, aren't in business for the fun
>>of it.
>
>
> Yup, and they are welcome to charge as much as they can get for it. And they
> can charge a lot for it because they are the only game in town. However,
> if there was any other source for this information, you can bet I for one
> would be encouraging the competition.
>

The taxpayers pay for instrument approach procedures and
route/development maintenance.

The nav database is of little use to anyone until Jeppesen does a lot of
work on it.

Special use airspace boundaries are painstakenly reconstructed by
Jeppesen from the arcane rule-making source. NACO has to do the same to
make Sectionals and TACs, and those aren't exactly free, either.

The compliation of airport, nav-aid and comm frequencies from many
sources isn't easy, either.

The taxpayer is being had by the fact NACO gives away its approach
charts. Those are distinct and separate from the development of the
IAP. No other country in the world gives away their approach charts.

On 2009-10-12 10:52:08 -0800, Sam Spade > said:

> Frank Stutzman wrote:
>> Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> A lot of effort goes into compiling the data; waypoints, nav aids,
>>> frequencies, airport data, special use airspace boundaries and
>>> altitudes, etc, etc.
>>
>>
>> Most of which is done on the tax payers dime.
>> Yes, Jeppesen does add value. For example, they compile it into
>> different formats for vendors as well as a lot of cross checking and
>> data validation.
>> However, the real hefty lifting is done by government agencies. As the
>> end consumer essentially ends up paying for the base information twice
>> (once
>> to Jeppesen and once through their taxes), I'll side with the OP and say
>> that Jeppesen is indeed overpriced.
>>
>>
>>> And, the companies, Jeppesen and Garmin, aren't in business for the fun of it.
>>
>>
>> Yup, and they are welcome to charge as much as they can get for it. And they
>> can charge a lot for it because they are the only game in town. However,
>> if there was any other source for this information, you can bet I for one
>> would be encouraging the competition.
>
> The taxpayers pay for instrument approach procedures and
> route/development maintenance.
>
> The nav database is of little use to anyone until Jeppesen does a lot
> of work on it.
>
> Special use airspace boundaries are painstakenly reconstructed by
> Jeppesen from the arcane rule-making source. NACO has to do the same
> to make Sectionals and TACs, and those aren't exactly free, either.
>
> The compliation of airport, nav-aid and comm frequencies from many
> sources isn't easy, either.
>
> The taxpayer is being had by the fact NACO gives away its approach
> charts. Those are distinct and separate from the development of the
> IAP. No other country in the world gives away their approach charts.

I didn't know I would hit a nerve with you on this Sam. For aspiring
pilots with little or no money when taking lessons, its a pretty hefty
price tag to stay updated.

Jas wrote:
> On 2009-10-12 10:52:08 -0800, Sam Spade > said:
>
>> Frank Stutzman wrote:
>>
>>> Sam Spade > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> A lot of effort goes into compiling the data; waypoints, nav aids,
>>>> frequencies, airport data, special use airspace boundaries and
>>>> altitudes, etc, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Most of which is done on the tax payers dime.
>>> Yes, Jeppesen does add value. For example, they compile it into
>>> different formats for vendors as well as a lot of cross checking and
>>> data validation.
>>> However, the real hefty lifting is done by government agencies. As
>>> the end consumer essentially ends up paying for the base information
>>> twice (once
>>> to Jeppesen and once through their taxes), I'll side with the OP and say
>>> that Jeppesen is indeed overpriced.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And, the companies, Jeppesen and Garmin, aren't in business for the
>>>> fun of it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yup, and they are welcome to charge as much as they can get for it.
>>> And they
>>> can charge a lot for it because they are the only game in town.
>>> However,
>>> if there was any other source for this information, you can bet I for
>>> one
>>> would be encouraging the competition.
>>
>>
>> The taxpayers pay for instrument approach procedures and
>> route/development maintenance.
>>
>> The nav database is of little use to anyone until Jeppesen does a lot
>> of work on it.
>>
>> Special use airspace boundaries are painstakenly reconstructed by
>> Jeppesen from the arcane rule-making source. NACO has to do the same
>> to make Sectionals and TACs, and those aren't exactly free, either.
>>
>> The compliation of airport, nav-aid and comm frequencies from many
>> sources isn't easy, either.
>>
>> The taxpayer is being had by the fact NACO gives away its approach
>> charts. Those are distinct and separate from the development of the
>> IAP. No other country in the world gives away their approach charts.
>
>
> I didn't know I would hit a nerve with you on this Sam. For aspiring
> pilots with little or no money when taking lessons, its a pretty hefty
> price tag to stay updated.
>
If you see it as hitting a nerve, so be it. From my perspective I see
far too many light airplane pilots bitch because they have to pay for
RNAV data.

And, for pilots with little or no money taking lessons, I think they
have picked the wrong endeavor.

On Oct 13, 3:12*am, Sam Spade > wrote:

> If you see it as hitting a nerve, so be it. *From my perspective I see
> far too many light airplane pilots bitch because they have to pay for
> RNAV data.

While I honestly don't mind paying a subscription price for RNAV data,
I'd say the price for what I get is way out of line as compared to the
paper product. Since my flying is local, and I carry paper charts and
plates as backup, I can't afford the rediculous yearly fee.

I just got around to updating my 430 card (3 years old) as I was to
take a XC from MS to OH to an airport that only had a GPS approach (no
ground based approach). I never made that trip and spent over $300 on
ONE approach not to be used. If this airport would have had a ground
based instrument approach, I still would have my 3 year old card in
the unit.

I would think the data once established is harvested electronically
for updates. Price for subscription with the advent of computers
should be coming down, not going up.

I'd have to agree with Jas. Maybe you have the means and money, but I
am a low end airplane owner. I can't justify putting 15K into somebody
else's pocket for rental fees, yet I don't have quite the full means
to maintain a plane on my own so something has to give. Partnership
is not an option I want to consider (and shouldn't have to).

The price for subscription does not promote safety. Reasonable to me
would be no more then $50 per year.

BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Oct 13, 3:12 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>If you see it as hitting a nerve, so be it. From my perspective I see
>>far too many light airplane pilots bitch because they have to pay for
>>RNAV data.
>
>
> While I honestly don't mind paying a subscription price for RNAV data,
> I'd say the price for what I get is way out of line as compared to the
> paper product. Since my flying is local, and I carry paper charts and
> plates as backup, I can't afford the rediculous yearly fee.
>
> I just got around to updating my 430 card (3 years old) as I was to
> take a XC from MS to OH to an airport that only had a GPS approach (no
> ground based approach). I never made that trip and spent over $300 on
> ONE approach not to be used. If this airport would have had a ground
> based instrument approach, I still would have my 3 year old card in
> the unit.
>
> I would think the data once established is harvested electronically
> for updates. Price for subscription with the advent of computers
> should be coming down, not going up.
>
> I'd have to agree with Jas. Maybe you have the means and money, but I
> am a low end airplane owner. I can't justify putting 15K into somebody
> else's pocket for rental fees, yet I don't have quite the full means
> to maintain a plane on my own so something has to give. Partnership
> is not an option I want to consider (and shouldn't have to).
>
> The price for subscription does not promote safety. Reasonable to me
> would be no more then $50 per year.

I can't imagine how someone could afford to buy and install a Garmin 430
but not be able to maintain a current database.

That is really a different, but related issue, to updating a handheld.

On Oct 13, 10:04*am, Sam Spade > wrote:

> I can't imagine how someone could afford to buy and install a Garmin 430
> but not be able to maintain a current database.
>
> That is really a different, but related issue, to updating a handheld.-

You just met that person. My wallet is not unlimited so I run a
shoestring budget when it comes to the luxuries of updating a data
card. As I am sure you know, maintenance on a plane doesn't come
cheap especially for Beech products (my choice I understand).

Since I don't maintain an updated data card, the 430 is no better then
a hand held as it's legally only good for situational awareness so in
the full scheme it's not different.

I fly approaches at minimum once a month or about 15 times a year.
This comes out to about $20 per "flight day" when I do approaches if I
was to keep an updated card. At least with paper plates, I can check
online to see if I have the latest version and not have to reprint.
Can't do that with the card....

Compared to paper, the electronic process, we are getting gouged big
time. I understand in the beginning cost of establishing
infrastructure, we should pay higher, but now, the infrastructure is
in place and that cost of maintenance is the only thing in place, so
the price should be going southbound. We just are not seeing this.

BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Oct 13, 3:12 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>> If you see it as hitting a nerve, so be it. From my perspective I see
>> far too many light airplane pilots bitch because they have to pay for
>> RNAV data.
>
> While I honestly don't mind paying a subscription price for RNAV data,
> I'd say the price for what I get is way out of line as compared to the
> paper product. Since my flying is local, and I carry paper charts and
> plates as backup, I can't afford the rediculous yearly fee.
>
> I just got around to updating my 430 card (3 years old) as I was to
> take a XC from MS to OH to an airport that only had a GPS approach (no
> ground based approach). I never made that trip and spent over $300 on
> ONE approach not to be used. If this airport would have had a ground
> based instrument approach, I still would have my 3 year old card in
> the unit.
>
> I would think the data once established is harvested electronically
> for updates. Price for subscription with the advent of computers
> should be coming down, not going up.
>
> I'd have to agree with Jas. Maybe you have the means and money, but I
> am a low end airplane owner. I can't justify putting 15K into somebody
> else's pocket for rental fees, yet I don't have quite the full means
> to maintain a plane on my own so something has to give. Partnership
> is not an option I want to consider (and shouldn't have to).
>
> The price for subscription does not promote safety. Reasonable to me
> would be no more then $50 per year.

I paid roughly $390.00 year for my KLN-89/B subscription. I downloaded
from the B-K sight and took my laptop to the airplane.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

On Oct 13, 11:47*am, Ross > wrote:

> I paid roughly $390.00 year for my KLN-89/B subscription. I downloaded
> from the B-K sight and took my laptop to the airplane.

Just curious, as that price is rediculous. Did you feel you got your
"moneys" worth out of a $400.00 update per year? Or were you like me
that pretty much maintained currency by flying local approaches.
Ironically, with my 430, it doesn't have the minimums in the database,
so I still have to have my paper charts with me!

If I flew for a living or regularily flew over long distances of over
500 NM, I **might** be able to justify an expense of that nature, but
for my kind of "recreational" flying, I find it ludicrous. $400 buys
an awful lot of Avgas! The changes on my paper charts are not **that
much**. BRENZ, DABEY, ALLEN fixes have been there forever and a day.
MAFCA GPS MAP at my airport hasn't changed since I been flying IFR
approaches.

Obviously the kind of flying of 200 NM or less, I do not feel doesn't
account for the expenses of maintaining the database on my 430. In 7
years of flying I can count on one hand the changes of approaches that
I have had to reprint due to a change (mostly for MDA or DH changes).

There needs to be a balance on things and I don't have a choice when
it comes to updating my 430 card. I can't "shop" around for a better
price.

Like I said from get go, I don't expect a free lunch since the
database must be maintained by whomever at the company so I expect to
pay something for the subscription or a one time update as I did, but
we are getting gouged like no other hobby / industry that I know of.
$300 is simply scalping.

Sam Spade wrote:
> Frank Stutzman wrote:
>> Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> A lot of effort goes into compiling the data; waypoints, nav aids,
>>> frequencies, airport data, special use airspace boundaries and
>>> altitudes, etc, etc.
>>
>>
>> Most of which is done on the tax payers dime.
>> Yes, Jeppesen does add value. For example, they compile it into
>> different formats for vendors as well as a lot of cross checking and
>> data validation.
>> However, the real hefty lifting is done by government agencies. As
>> the end consumer essentially ends up paying for the base information
>> twice (once
>> to Jeppesen and once through their taxes), I'll side with the OP and say
>> that Jeppesen is indeed overpriced.
>>
>>
>>> And, the companies, Jeppesen and Garmin, aren't in business for the
>>> fun of it.
>>
>>
>> Yup, and they are welcome to charge as much as they can get for it.
>> And they
>> can charge a lot for it because they are the only game in town. However,
>> if there was any other source for this information, you can bet I for one
>> would be encouraging the competition.
>
> The taxpayers pay for instrument approach procedures and
> route/development maintenance.
>
> The nav database is of little use to anyone until Jeppesen does a lot of
> work on it.
>
> Special use airspace boundaries are painstakenly reconstructed by
> Jeppesen from the arcane rule-making source. NACO has to do the same to
> make Sectionals and TACs, and those aren't exactly free, either.
>
> The compliation of airport, nav-aid and comm frequencies from many
> sources isn't easy, either.
>
> The taxpayer is being had by the fact NACO gives away its approach
> charts. Those are distinct and separate from the development of the
> IAP. No other country in the world gives away their approach charts.


That's not completely true, go to http://ais.fi/, click the IN ENGLISH
tab and then eAIP link. You will get the whole AIP, including all
route and approach charts.

A similar system is at least on the Estonian AIP pages.

--

Tauno Voipio (CPL(A), SE + ME IR)
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Oct 13, 10:04 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>I can't imagine how someone could afford to buy and install a Garmin 430
>>but not be able to maintain a current database.
>>
>>That is really a different, but related issue, to updating a handheld.-
>
>
> You just met that person. My wallet is not unlimited so I run a
> shoestring budget when it comes to the luxuries of updating a data
> card. As I am sure you know, maintenance on a plane doesn't come
> cheap especially for Beech products (my choice I understand).
>
> Since I don't maintain an updated data card, the 430 is no better then
> a hand held as it's legally only good for situational awareness so in
> the full scheme it's not different.
>
> I fly approaches at minimum once a month or about 15 times a year.
> This comes out to about $20 per "flight day" when I do approaches if I
> was to keep an updated card. At least with paper plates, I can check
> online to see if I have the latest version and not have to reprint.
> Can't do that with the card....
>
> Compared to paper, the electronic process, we are getting gouged big
> time. I understand in the beginning cost of establishing
> infrastructure, we should pay higher, but now, the infrastructure is
> in place and that cost of maintenance is the only thing in place, so
> the price should be going southbound. We just are not seeing this.

I don't believe you understand the system.

And, it is pointless to try to explain it here.

Perhaps you should sell the Garmin IFR unit and do your limited IFR
flying with VOR and ILS.

BeechSundowner wrote:

> On Oct 13, 11:47 am, Ross > wrote:
>
>
>>I paid roughly $390.00 year for my KLN-89/B subscription. I downloaded
>>from the B-K sight and took my laptop to the airplane.
>
>
> Just curious, as that price is rediculous. Did you feel you got your
> "moneys" worth out of a $400.00 update per year? Or were you like me
> that pretty much maintained currency by flying local approaches.
> Ironically, with my 430, it doesn't have the minimums in the database,
> so I still have to have my paper charts with me!
>
> If I flew for a living or regularily flew over long distances of over
> 500 NM, I **might** be able to justify an expense of that nature, but
> for my kind of "recreational" flying, I find it ludicrous. $400 buys
> an awful lot of Avgas! The changes on my paper charts are not **that
> much**. BRENZ, DABEY, ALLEN fixes have been there forever and a day.
> MAFCA GPS MAP at my airport hasn't changed since I been flying IFR
> approaches.
>
> Obviously the kind of flying of 200 NM or less, I do not feel doesn't
> account for the expenses of maintaining the database on my 430. In 7
> years of flying I can count on one hand the changes of approaches that
> I have had to reprint due to a change (mostly for MDA or DH changes).
>
> There needs to be a balance on things and I don't have a choice when
> it comes to updating my 430 card. I can't "shop" around for a better
> price.
>
> Like I said from get go, I don't expect a free lunch since the
> database must be maintained by whomever at the company so I expect to
> pay something for the subscription or a one time update as I did, but
> we are getting gouged like no other hobby / industry that I know of.
> $300 is simply scalping.

Like I said, get rid of the RNAV equipment. Under you circumstances,
you would be better off.

Tauno Voipio wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Frank Stutzman wrote:
>>
>>> Sam Spade > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> A lot of effort goes into compiling the data; waypoints, nav aids,
>>>> frequencies, airport data, special use airspace boundaries and
>>>> altitudes, etc, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Most of which is done on the tax payers dime. Yes, Jeppesen does add
>>> value. For example, they compile it into different formats for
>>> vendors as well as a lot of cross checking and data validation.
>>> However, the real hefty lifting is done by government agencies. As
>>> the end consumer essentially ends up paying for the base information
>>> twice (once
>>> to Jeppesen and once through their taxes), I'll side with the OP and say
>>> that Jeppesen is indeed overpriced.
>>>
>>>
>>>> And, the companies, Jeppesen and Garmin, aren't in business for the
>>>> fun of it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yup, and they are welcome to charge as much as they can get for it.
>>> And they
>>> can charge a lot for it because they are the only game in town.
>>> However,
>>> if there was any other source for this information, you can bet I for
>>> one
>>> would be encouraging the competition.
>>
>>
>> The taxpayers pay for instrument approach procedures and
>> route/development maintenance.
>>
>> The nav database is of little use to anyone until Jeppesen does a lot
>> of work on it.
>>
>> Special use airspace boundaries are painstakenly reconstructed by
>> Jeppesen from the arcane rule-making source. NACO has to do the same
>> to make Sectionals and TACs, and those aren't exactly free, either.
>>
>> The compliation of airport, nav-aid and comm frequencies from many
>> sources isn't easy, either.
>>
>> The taxpayer is being had by the fact NACO gives away its approach
>> charts. Those are distinct and separate from the development of the
>> IAP. No other country in the world gives away their approach charts.
>
>
>
> That's not completely true, go to http://ais.fi/, click the IN ENGLISH
> tab and then eAIP link. You will get the whole AIP, including all
> route and approach charts.
>
> A similar system is at least on the Estonian AIP pages.
>
Because I told speak Fin I don't know what that is all about. If the
data are current that are the exception. And, I don't need to learn
seversl chart formats to fly internationally.

On Oct 14, 5:21*am, Sam Spade > wrote:

> And, it is pointless to try to explain it here.
>
> Perhaps you should sell the Garmin IFR unit and do your limited IFR
> flying with VOR and ILS.- Hide quoted text -

I do fly ground based as primary as I stated before, but that doesn't
change the fact that the updates are rediculously overpriced. And to
suggest to selling a unit that promotes situational awareness is
ludicrous just because you feel the price of subscription is a
reasonable price. I suspect you are in the very minority of this
group of people who find $300 - $400 annual subscription appropriately
reasonable..

I don't fly everyday and that subscription price per use is
rediculous. I am not arguing with you in that there should't be a
subscription price, but aviation is being gouged. Unrelated expense
but an example of how bad we are getting gouged. I had to replace a
nav light. I could have gone to Lowes and bought the bulb for 38
cents. No, I paid $40.00! Same concept with the GPS data update
expenses.

We live in the computer age and you can't tell me alot of this stuff
hasn't become automated over time...... It's not like there is
material to be had other then a data card. No trees cut down, no
paper mill costs and so on. Hell, there isn't even mailing costs with
the advent of downloadable data.

BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Oct 13, 11:47 am, Ross > wrote:
>
>> I paid roughly $390.00 year for my KLN-89/B subscription. I downloaded
>> from the B-K sight and took my laptop to the airplane.
>
> Just curious, as that price is rediculous. Did you feel you got your
> "moneys" worth out of a $400.00 update per year? Or were you like me
> that pretty much maintained currency by flying local approaches.
> Ironically, with my 430, it doesn't have the minimums in the database,
> so I still have to have my paper charts with me!
>
> /snip/

> Like I said from get go, I don't expect a free lunch since the
> database must be maintained by whomever at the company so I expect to
> pay something for the subscription or a one time update as I did, but
> we are getting gouged like no other hobby / industry that I know of.
> $300 is simply scalping.

For me I felt that it was worth it only because it was part of flying
and the associated costs. The /89/B is a far cry from what you have, but
it did the job for me. It was certified for en route, terminal, and
approach. I was never a hard IFR pilot. But I wanted up to date
database. I used to use Jepp paper charts, but they were expensive and
covered TX and the surrounding states. More area than I would ever fly
and updating the manuals was a pain. I switched to NACO charts and only
had North TX and OK/AR where I usually flew. And they sent me a whole
new set each time. I ordered though Sportys (always hoping that all my
purchases would win one of their airplane give aways). I knew people
that would only print the free charts off the internet and fly. But,
what happens if you land somewhere you do not have a chart? ATC can read
one out to you and you can construct it on a piece of paper, but I would
not want to try to do that and fly - no auto pilot in the plane I had.


--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

Sam Spade wrote:
> Tauno Voipio wrote:
>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Stutzman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sam Spade > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> A lot of effort goes into compiling the data; waypoints, nav aids,
>>>>> frequencies, airport data, special use airspace boundaries and
>>>>> altitudes, etc, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most of which is done on the tax payers dime. Yes, Jeppesen does add
>>>> value. For example, they compile it into different formats for
>>>> vendors as well as a lot of cross checking and data validation.
>>>> However, the real hefty lifting is done by government agencies. As
>>>> the end consumer essentially ends up paying for the base information
>>>> twice (once
>>>> to Jeppesen and once through their taxes), I'll side with the OP and
>>>> say
>>>> that Jeppesen is indeed overpriced.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And, the companies, Jeppesen and Garmin, aren't in business for the
>>>>> fun of it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yup, and they are welcome to charge as much as they can get for it.
>>>> And they
>>>> can charge a lot for it because they are the only game in town.
>>>> However,
>>>> if there was any other source for this information, you can bet I
>>>> for one
>>>> would be encouraging the competition.
>>>
>>>
>>> The taxpayers pay for instrument approach procedures and
>>> route/development maintenance.
>>>
>>> The nav database is of little use to anyone until Jeppesen does a lot
>>> of work on it.
>>>
>>> Special use airspace boundaries are painstakenly reconstructed by
>>> Jeppesen from the arcane rule-making source. NACO has to do the same
>>> to make Sectionals and TACs, and those aren't exactly free, either.
>>>
>>> The compliation of airport, nav-aid and comm frequencies from many
>>> sources isn't easy, either.
>>>
>>> The taxpayer is being had by the fact NACO gives away its approach
>>> charts. Those are distinct and separate from the development of the
>>> IAP. No other country in the world gives away their approach charts.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's not completely true, go to http://ais.fi/, click the IN ENGLISH
>> tab and then eAIP link. You will get the whole AIP, including all
>> route and approach charts.
>>
>> A similar system is at least on the Estonian AIP pages.
>>
> Because I told speak Fin I don't know what that is all about. If the
> data are current that are the exception. And, I don't need to learn
> seversl chart formats to fly internationally.


Please read again: CLICK THE IN ENGLISH TAB, and try again.

There is an ICAO standard format for the charts,
which our AIS follows to the letter.

--

Tauno Voipio

On Oct 14, 11:55*am, Ross > wrote:

> I knew people
> that would only print the free charts off the internet and fly. But,
> what happens if you land somewhere you do not have a chart? ATC can read
> one out to you and you can construct it on a piece of paper, but I would
> not want to try to do that and fly - no auto pilot in the plane I had.

Glad to hear that you feel you do get your money's worth out of the
subscription. I guess when I compare the electronic world to paper,
it just doesn't equate in my simple mind that my few (relatively
speaking) IFR flights justify the $300+ cost when I can get a lot more
flight time in the fuel aspect. As you can see from my videos, I
actively seek hard IFR so I want and need every tool in my tool kit
and for holds, having the 430 even with an outdated data card for
situational awareness makes my life just that much simpler.

Agree with you about printing charts as I know some that will only
print charts for their departure, destination and alternate, but I use
a program called ATP (Aviator Trip Pack) which prints all airports
underneath my flight path (user defineable for corrider width) so I
dont' get caught "under-charted" nor as you point out, should I have
to depend on ATC for what is my responsibility of being adequately
prepared for diversion.

http://cmensys.com/ is the program I use. At this point, I am using
version one for my IFR planning as I haven't quite bought into the
Google mapping part. Program author EXTREMELY responsive to input
and version two is still work in progress. Cost? Freeware. Large
learning curve from get go, but once you get it, it's rather addictive
and simplifies IFR planning to a few clicks of the mouse. Prints two
charts per page (landscape) where you fold the page in half and tear
it (I'm too lazy to get scissors) LOL and viola, you have kneeboard
size charts.

ATP program best thing since sliced bread, makes it a snap to give me
what I need rather then having 5 different booklets of appproach
plates, ruffling through various states to find what I need on my once
a year trip from MS to OH or MD.

Local approaches, naturally, I only print the airports KJAN, KHKS and
KMBO.

To streamline what I need, I print only precision and ground based
approaches along my flight path, and for my departure, destination and
alternate, I print ALL approaches available (including GPS's).

>"BeechSundowner" > wrote in message
...
>On Oct 14, 5:21 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>I do fly ground based as primary as I stated before, but that doesn't
>change the fact that the updates are rediculously overpriced. And to
>suggest to selling a unit that promotes situational awareness is
>ludicrous just because you feel the price of subscription is a
>reasonable price. I suspect you are in the very minority of this
>group of people who find $300 - $400 annual subscription appropriately
>reasonable..

Jeppesen will charge what the market will take and not a penny more. Simple
supply and demand issue. Yes, they have the infrastructure in place but the
market is a small one and they need to make a profit. I think they've
already made an attempt to accomodate the spamcan drivers with the
availability of regional database subscriptions.

If there really is a market for someone else, that should be good news to
someone reading this. However, my gut tells me it will sound like a good
idea until the quote for liability insurance arrives.

Marco

BeechSundowner wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:55 am, Ross > wrote:
>
>> I knew people
>> that would only print the free charts off the internet and fly. But,
>> what happens if you land somewhere you do not have a chart? ATC can read
>> one out to you and you can construct it on a piece of paper, but I would
>> not want to try to do that and fly - no auto pilot in the plane I had.
>
> Glad to hear that you feel you do get your money's worth out of the
> subscription. I guess when I compare the electronic world to paper,
> it just doesn't equate in my simple mind that my few (relatively
> speaking) IFR flights justify the $300+ cost when I can get a lot more
> flight time in the fuel aspect. As you can see from my videos, I
> actively seek hard IFR so I want and need every tool in my tool kit
> and for holds, having the 430 even with an outdated data card for
> situational awareness makes my life just that much simpler.
>
> Agree with you about printing charts as I know some that will only
> print charts for their departure, destination and alternate, but I use
> a program called ATP (Aviator Trip Pack) which prints all airports
> underneath my flight path (user defineable for corrider width) so I
> dont' get caught "under-charted" nor as you point out, should I have
> to depend on ATC for what is my responsibility of being adequately
> prepared for diversion.
>
> http://cmensys.com/ is the program I use. At this point, I am using
> version one for my IFR planning as I haven't quite bought into the
> Google mapping part. Program author EXTREMELY responsive to input
> and version two is still work in progress. Cost? Freeware. Large
> learning curve from get go, but once you get it, it's rather addictive
> and simplifies IFR planning to a few clicks of the mouse. Prints two
> charts per page (landscape) where you fold the page in half and tear
> it (I'm too lazy to get scissors) LOL and viola, you have kneeboard
> size charts.
>
> ATP program best thing since sliced bread, makes it a snap to give me
> what I need rather then having 5 different booklets of appproach
> plates, ruffling through various states to find what I need on my once
> a year trip from MS to OH or MD.
>
> Local approaches, naturally, I only print the airports KJAN, KHKS and
> KMBO.
>
> To streamline what I need, I print only precision and ground based
> approaches along my flight path, and for my departure, destination and
> alternate, I print ALL approaches available (including GPS's).

I also may be in a different position than you. Both kids out of
college. Fuel and hangars at my airport are about the cheapest around,
the airplane (when I had it) was paid for, I did owner assisted
maintenance, had a very good mechanic that taught me alot. But I still
figured I put out about $8K a year to run the plane., but I did sell it
for almost twice what I paid for it. Not bad for owning for 12 years.
And in the current economy.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

BeechSundowner wrote:

>
> We live in the computer age and you can't tell me alot of this stuff
> hasn't become automated over time......

That's correct, I am unable to tell you the facts.

Marco L wrote:


>
> If there really is a market for someone else, that should be good news to
> someone reading this. However, my gut tells me it will sound like a good
> idea until the quote for liability insurance arrives.
>
> Marco
>

Jeppesen was in dire straights because of all the litigation they
constantly face. Had the LA Times not sold them to Boeing they would
likely be out of business by now.

BeechSundowner > wrote:

> I use a program called ATP (Aviator Trip Pack)
>
> http://cmensys.com/ is the program I use. At this point, I am using
> version one for my IFR planning as I haven't quite bought into the
> Google mapping part. Program author EXTREMELY responsive to input
> and version two is still work in progress. Cost? Freeware.

I agree completely. This is a great program, and it's FREE. I found the new version to be much more
intuitive and easy to use, with excellent support from the developer.

Mike

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Jeppesen was in dire straights because of all the litigation they
> constantly face. Had the LA Times not sold them to Boeing they would
> likely be out of business by now.

Did not know that. Interesting info Sam. Thanks.

>"BeechSundowner" > wrote in message
...

>I don't fly everyday and that subscription price per use is
>rediculous. I am not arguing with you in that there should't be a
>subscription price, but aviation is being gouged.

What's really at issue here is the 28-day cycle. For the database to be
up-to-date for that (approx) one day that you fly, it will be up-to-date for
the other 27 days. Sounds like what you want is a per trip update system at
an appropriate price. Other than to change the cycle to daily, the only
other way is to put an expiration on the database where you can't use it.
That's a major software and TSO certification change and a lot of work for
very little cost benefit.

We simply need more pilots and more airplanes in the system. It will fix a
number of cost issues.

Marco

Mike Adams wrote:
> BeechSundowner > wrote:
>
>
>> I use a program called ATP (Aviator Trip Pack)
>>
>>http://cmensys.com/ is the program I use. At this point, I am using
>>version one for my IFR planning as I haven't quite bought into the
>>Google mapping part. Program author EXTREMELY responsive to input
>>and version two is still work in progress. Cost? Freeware.
>
>
> I agree completely. This is a great program, and it's FREE. I found the new version to be much more
> intuitive and easy to use, with excellent support from the developer.
>
> Mike
So, no one pays for it?

Sam Spade > wrote:

> Mike Adams wrote:
>> BeechSundowner > wrote:
>>
>>> I use a program called ATP (Aviator Trip Pack)

> So, no one pays for it?

Not that I can tell. I asked the developer if this is just a hobby, or if he hopes go commercial with it
eventually, but never got a clear answer. It's very capable for freeware. I would expect it to at least follow
the shareware pricing model to generate a little revenue, but it's totally freeware for now.

Mike

On Oct 15, 10:10*am, Mike Adams > wrote:

> Not that I can tell. I asked the developer if this is just a hobby, or if he hopes go commercial with it
> eventually, but never got a clear answer. It's very capable for freeware. I would expect it to at least follow
> the shareware pricing model to generate a little revenue, but it's totally freeware for now.
>
> Mike

It used to be shareware and the developer went to freeware.

On Oct 15, 9:16*am, Sam Spade > wrote:

> So, no one pays for it?-

Dunno about you...

If you paid for freeware, you were scalped.

On Oct 15, 9:05*am, "Marco L" <mmleon(AT)yahoo.com> wrote:

> What's really at issue here is the 28-day cycle. For the database to be
> up-to-date for that (approx) one day that you fly, it will be up-to-date for
> the other 27 days.

Providing of course I fly in the beginning of the cycle. If I depart
on day 27 and return 3 days later, the card is out of date. This has
not happened to me but can happen.

Ironically, from personal observations, very little is changed that is
housed on the data card in the few airports I have frequented. I have
seen frequency changes, runway length changes and the such, but in my
7 years of instrument
flying I have only seen one fix change. (TUP was changed to OTB)

Obviously, I better know the runway and frequency changes before
getting into the plane, but on the off chance a divert is needed, the
data card would need to be current for a non eventful outcome IF and a
big IF I depended on the data card for flight decision making. Since
I print all approach plates for airports enroute, I don't depend on
the data card.

The data that I see constantly change that is not housed on the Garmin
430 data card are the minimums so all the CRITICAL information I need
on an approach isn't even on the card!

> Other than to change the cycle to daily, the only
> other way is to put an expiration on the database where you can't use it.
> That's a major software and TSO certification change and a lot of work for
> very little cost benefit.
>
> We simply need more pilots and more airplanes in the system. It will fix a
> number of cost issues.

I agree with all that you say above, and again, I expect cost to be
incurred in getting access to this host of valuable information but
$300+ for one GPS approach that never got executed was a big expense
to incur this year.

Yep I also agree, more GPS equipped planes would be helpful in the
supply and demand :-) but along with bringing down the price of GPS
data cards, we need to bring down the cost of maintaining our birds to
beef up that supply and demand needs of GPS cards.

wrote:
> On Oct 15, 9:16 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>So, no one pays for it?-
>
>
> Dunno about you...
>
> If you paid for freeware, you were scalped.

All the software I use in aviation is certified. Don't know of any
freeware there.

On Oct 15, 5:59*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 9:16 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>So, no one pays for it?-
>
> > Dunno about you...
>
> > If you paid for freeware, you were scalped.
>
> All the software I use in aviation is certified. *Don't know of any
> freeware there.

And your point being?

ATP is free, nobody pays for it is the answer to your question above.

The argument electronic v paper is irrelevant. Thats' only the
delivery mechanism. What you're really paying for is the JAD - the
Jeppesen Aviation Datbase and the part of it that you want..

The JAD is not just the US. It's got data from every country's
aviation facility, or at least the ones that Jepp can acquire (sometimes
it costs, sometimes provided by the government, as with the FAA)

And every time Jepp gets a new release of data, it has to be validated and
verified before it's put into the database. That's both a manual and
automated process. There's lots of people involved checking the data.

ATPII - there's no info on the web page as to system requirements. Not everyone
uses Windows.

wrote:
> On Oct 15, 5:59 pm, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 15, 9:16 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
>>>>So, no one pays for it?-
>>
>>>Dunno about you...
>>
>>>If you paid for freeware, you were scalped.
>>
>>All the software I use in aviation is certified. Don't know of any
>>freeware there.
>
>
> And your point being?
>
> ATP is free, nobody pays for it is the answer to your question above.

You usually get what you pay for. I don't know of any aviation
charities for pilots.

Blanche wrote:

> The argument electronic v paper is irrelevant. Thats' only the
> delivery mechanism. What you're really paying for is the JAD - the
> Jeppesen Aviation Datbase and the part of it that you want..
>
> The JAD is not just the US. It's got data from every country's
> aviation facility, or at least the ones that Jepp can acquire (sometimes
> it costs, sometimes provided by the government, as with the FAA)
>
> And every time Jepp gets a new release of data, it has to be validated and
> verified before it's put into the database. That's both a manual and
> automated process. There's lots of people involved checking the data.
>
Spot on. But, you're wasting your breath in this forum.

On Oct 16, 9:14*am, Sam Spade > wrote:

> You usually get what you pay for. *I don't know of any aviation
> charities for pilots.

What are you talking about? I am not complaining one iota about the
program, in fact quite the opposite.

The program ATP far exceeds my expectations and the fact that it's
free shows that quality can come at a price of being free without the
greed of the likes of Jeppeson.

Just because you choose not to explore options affordable doesn't take
away the value of the program for others.

wrote:
> On Oct 16, 9:14 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>You usually get what you pay for. I don't know of any aviation
>>charities for pilots.
>
>
> What are you talking about? I am not complaining one iota about the
> program, in fact quite the opposite.
>
> The program ATP far exceeds my expectations and the fact that it's
> free shows that quality can come at a price of being free without the
> greed of the likes of Jeppeson.
>
> Just because you choose not to explore options affordable doesn't take
> away the value of the program for others.
>

Do you realize what you're saying? That you like having someone
volunteer their time and talent to make your hobby less expensive?
Would you like me to wash and wax your airplane for you for gratis?

On Oct 16, 8:13*pm, Sam Spade > wrote:

> Do you realize what you're saying? *That you like having someone
> volunteer their time and talent to make your hobby less expensive?
> Would you like me to wash and wax your airplane for you for gratis?

If you offered, and did a good job I'd be a fool not to accept. Do I
expect it?

No, I don't expect anything for gratis, but I won't turn it down. The
developer is giving his time and effort to make a program. I (and
other users) am giving him our time during the trial and error part.
It's a win win situation for all.

Not quite sure why you find the current expense of aviation acceptable
when there are others doing what they can to bring down the expense of
flying and enhancing safety. If I can use ATP to save a couple
hundred dollars in chart expenses per year, you can bet I will do it.

Just because you use "certified" software doesn't mean it's the best
software out there.

On Oct 15, 11:05*pm, Blanche > wrote:
> The argument electronic v paper is irrelevant.

Actually it is relevant with regards to expense. If I want to just do
local approaches in MS for this month, I can purchase a book of plates
for less then 10.00 (I think that's the going price for NACO, Jeppeson
is higher I think). That book is certified just as accurate as the
electronic version. Takes the same amount of people and labor. I
don't use Jeppeson, but they do issue paper charts. Trip to Ohio for
NACO plates probably would have costed about 50 to 75 dollars. I
don't know the Jeppeson cost, but I am sure it's higher.

I can't pick and choose what I want or need on a month to month basis
for the Garmin 430 card. The cost for the electronic version isn't
justifiable IN MY EYES compared to the paper product.

wrote:

> Just because you use "certified" software doesn't mean it's the best
> software out there.

Perhaps not. But, at least it's been validated as airworthy.

On Oct 17, 7:54*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Just because you use "certified" software doesn't mean it's the best
> > software out there.
>
> Perhaps not. *But, at least it's been validated as airworthy.

Since when is software validated as airworthy?

Can you show me what the FAA standards are to make it "airworthy?

wrote:
> On Oct 17, 7:54 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Just because you use "certified" software doesn't mean it's the best
>>>software out there.
>>
>>Perhaps not. But, at least it's been validated as airworthy.
>
>
> Since when is software validated as airworthy?
>
> Can you show me what the FAA standards are to make it "airworthy?

You obviously want an argument, not a discussion.

wrote:

> On Oct 15, 11:05 pm, Blanche > wrote:
>
>>The argument electronic v paper is irrelevant.
>
>
> Actually it is relevant with regards to expense. If I want to just do
> local approaches in MS for this month, I can purchase a book of plates
> for less then 10.00 (I think that's the going price for NACO, Jeppeson
> is higher I think). That book is certified just as accurate as the
> electronic version. Takes the same amount of people and labor. I
> don't use Jeppeson, but they do issue paper charts. Trip to Ohio for
> NACO plates probably would have costed about 50 to 75 dollars. I
> don't know the Jeppeson cost, but I am sure it's higher.
>
> I can't pick and choose what I want or need on a month to month basis
> for the Garmin 430 card. The cost for the electronic version isn't
> justifiable IN MY EYES compared to the paper product.

You should take up a different hobby.

In article >,
says...


>>> That's not completely true, go to http://ais.fi/, click the IN ENGLISH
>>> tab and then eAIP link. You will get the whole AIP, including all
>>> route and approach charts.
>>>
>>> A similar system is at least on the Estonian AIP pages.
>>>
>> Because I told speak Fin I don't know what that is all about. If the
>> data are current that are the exception. And, I don't need to learn
>> seversl chart formats to fly internationally.
>
>
>Please read again: CLICK THE IN ENGLISH TAB, and try again.
>
>There is an ICAO standard format for the charts,
>which our AIS follows to the letter.
>
>--

It may not be that simple. US users are familiar with the TERPS
presentation, which is not used in most of Europe. Pans-Ops is similar, but
does require some further study to interpret all the details correctly.
Jeppesen regroups the information in a familiar way in all countries, and
this can be a real help, rather than having to learn new charting
conventions every hal-hour as you cross from one smallish country to the
next.

By curiosity, do you have a similar link for the Latvian and Lithuanian
charts, in English?
Cheers
>
>Tauno Voipio

On Oct 17, 9:06*am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 7:54 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> >>>Just because you use "certified" software doesn't mean it's the best
> >>>software out there.
>
> >>Perhaps not. *But, at least it's been validated as airworthy.
>
> > Since when is software validated as airworthy?
>
> > Can you show me what the FAA standards are to make it "airworthy?
>
> You obviously want an argument, not a discussion.

No, you claim there is some certification process for software for it
to be airworthy. If there is such a thing, you should be ready to back
up what you post.

Otherwise, what you say about it being validated as airworthy has no
foundation.

On Oct 17, 9:06*am, Sam Spade > wrote:

> You should take up a different hobby.

Why? Just because you think flying expenses are reasonable doesn't
prohibit me from commenting about how ridiculous the aviation
community is being gouged.

In article >,
Blanche > wrote:

> And every time Jepp gets a new release of data, it has to be validated and
> verified before it's put into the database. That's both a manual and
> automated process. There's lots of people involved checking the data.

I don't understand this. Doesn't Jepp get their data from the FAA?
Isn't the underlying data already V&V'd by the time Jepp gets it?

Actually, does anyone here know the actual process by which approach
plates are generated? I can get approach plates in electronic form
(PDF) for free from the FAA. How are these plates produced? I presume
they are not hand-drawn, that they are automatically generated from some
underlying data, which would be the same underlying data that Jepp uses
to produce its plates, and so there's no reason this couldn't be a
completely automated process. It seems to me that all Jepp is doing is
reformatting data that is already in the public domain, in which case it
isn't really worth that much of a premium. But if this is true, why
hasn't a competitor stepped up to the plate (so to speak)?

rg

VOR-DME wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>>>> That's not completely true, go to http://ais.fi/, click the IN ENGLISH
>>>> tab and then eAIP link. You will get the whole AIP, including all
>>>> route and approach charts.
>>>>
>>>> A similar system is at least on the Estonian AIP pages.
>>>>
>>> Because I told speak Fin I don't know what that is all about. If the
>>> data are current that are the exception. And, I don't need to learn
>>> seversl chart formats to fly internationally.
>>
>> Please read again: CLICK THE IN ENGLISH TAB, and try again.
>>
>> There is an ICAO standard format for the charts,
>> which our AIS follows to the letter.
>>
>> --
>
> It may not be that simple. US users are familiar with the TERPS
> presentation, which is not used in most of Europe. Pans-Ops is similar, but
> does require some further study to interpret all the details correctly.
> Jeppesen regroups the information in a familiar way in all countries, and
> this can be a real help, rather than having to learn new charting
> conventions every hal-hour as you cross from one smallish country to the
> next.
>
> By curiosity, do you have a similar link for the Latvian and Lithuanian
> charts, in English?

Hello,

Sorry - I have not needed to go so far away without
the built-in Jeppesen in G1000 of our DA-42. (Actually
it's not very far - the Latvian border is about an hour's
flight from my home base, EFHF, Helsinki-Malmi.)

Also, the international cooperation in my work has been
principally limited to Estonia in the southerly direction.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

wrote:
> On Oct 17, 7:54 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Just because you use "certified" software doesn't mean it's the best
>>> software out there.
>> Perhaps not. But, at least it's been validated as airworthy.
>
> Since when is software validated as airworthy?
>
> Can you show me what the FAA standards are to make it "airworthy?

Fair question, as it seems to me. The FAA certifies domestic approaches
by flying them. FAA charts have data tables which depend on surveys.

The military flies hi dollar heavies on the charts and navaids contained
in DAFIF. (from the defense agency charting service...)
But DAFIF has mistakes. They are corrected as they are found.

Brian W

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> > Perhaps not. *But, at least it's been validated as airworthy.
>
> Since when is software validated as airworthy?
>
> Can you show me what the FAA standards are to make it "airworthy?

Software itself isn't really certified. The FAA certifies
the hardware and software together.

But RTCA DO-178B documents software considerations for
certification of software. DO-200A and DO-201A contain
standards, if you will, for data/databases used in avionics.

Note that these RTCA documents are not available for free.

On Oct 23, 12:29*am, Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> " > wrote:
> > > Perhaps not. *But, at least it's been validated as airworthy.
>
> > Since when is software validated as airworthy?
>
> > Can you show me what the FAA standards are to make it "airworthy?
>
> Software itself isn't really certified. *The FAA certifies
> the hardware and software together.
>
> But RTCA DO-178B documents software considerations for
> certification of software. *DO-200A and DO-201A contain
> standards, if you will, for data/databases used in avionics.
>
> Note that these RTCA documents are not available for free.

Ah, thanks Bob. What you bring out makes sense for the software
installed in IFR certified panel mounted GPS's.

But Sam was referring to computer based software in the beginning of
this "sub thread" (for lack of a better term) about the Aviation Trip
Pack program (ATP) not being validated as "airworthy".

I don't think there are any computer based "FAA approved software".

I know of references for FAA approved flight briefing sites, but no
reference to the software in itself. ATP reaches out to DUAT for the
briefing which makes my briefing through that software legal from what
I understand, but the software itself does not have a FAA stamp of
approval. Same for Golden Eagle software that accesses duats.com
website.

Hope this makes sense!

wrote:
....
> I don't think there are any computer based "FAA approved software".
> ...

I AM nit-picking here, no more....

The FAA offers for download to the people who need it, a PC application
which will compute the spherical geometry for the distance and angle
between two lat/lon coordinate pairs, or location of a point at a given
distance and bearing from a given lat/lon etc., etc.

If you need a standard computation for navaid siting etc., this is it.

It offers to even fewer people the data tables on which they base the
specifications for airfields and navaids, for checking and finding
corrections.

Brian W

On Oct 23, 7:00*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I don't think there are any computer based "FAA approved software".

> I AM nit-picking here, no more....
>
> The FAA offers for download to the people who need it, a PC application
> which will compute the spherical geometry for the distance and angle
> between two lat/lon coordinate pairs, or location of a point at a given
> distance and bearing from a given lat/lon etc., etc.
>
> If you need a standard computation for navaid siting etc., this is it.

Ahh, appreciate this kind of nit pick and distinction. I never knew
this, and probably 99.95 percent of the IFR rated pilot population are
not aware of this.

I was pretty much talking about the generic public domain software
such as ATP, Golden Eagle, AOPA flight planner (before they went to
web based) that interacted with whatever FAA website that provides the
approach charts.

Sounds to me the software you describe though wouldn't be used for
"just downloading approach charts", am I correct in this assumption?

wrote:
> On Oct 23, 7:00 pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> I don't think there are any computer based "FAA approved software".
>
>> I AM nit-picking here, no more....
>>
>> The FAA offers for download to the people who need it, a PC application
>> which will compute the spherical geometry for the distance and angle
>> between two lat/lon coordinate pairs, or location of a point at a given
>> distance and bearing from a given lat/lon etc., etc.
>>
>> If you need a standard computation for navaid siting etc., this is it.
>
> Ahh, appreciate this kind of nit pick and distinction. I never knew
> this, and probably 99.95 percent of the IFR rated pilot population are
> not aware of this.
>
> I was pretty much talking about the generic public domain software
> such as ATP, Golden Eagle, AOPA flight planner (before they went to
> web based) that interacted with whatever FAA website that provides the
> approach charts.
>
> Sounds to me the software you describe though wouldn't be used for
> "just downloading approach charts", am I correct in this assumption?

Affirmative

Brian W

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
> Jeppesen have a captive market in all the commercial operators who fly
> with Jepp charts.

Captive means there's no alternative. Commercial operators have alternatives
(NACO) but don't avail themselves of that option.

Why?

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>>> Jeppesen have a captive market in all the commercial operators who fly
>>> with Jepp charts.
>>
>>Captive means there's no alternative. Commercial operators have
>>alternatives
>>(NACO) but don't avail themselves of that option.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>
> NACO does USA only. There is a world outside the USA (if only a very
> small and insignificant one I must admit :)).
>
Correct....sorta.

Now, considering that only a tiny fraction of airlines and commercial
operators operate outside US borders, explain why the purely domestic
operators don't just go with the virtually free NACO option.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

>
> "Peter" > wrote in message

>>>Captive means there's no alternative. Commercial operators have
>>>alternatives
>>>(NACO) but don't avail themselves of that option.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>>
>>>
>> NACO does USA only. There is a world outside the USA (if only a very
>> small and insignificant one I must admit :)).
>>
> Correct....sorta.
>
> Now, considering that only a tiny fraction of airlines and commercial
> operators operate outside US borders, explain why the purely domestic
> operators don't just go with the virtually free NACO option.

Another reason is that some airlines get a customized version of the charts from Jeppesen with the
company's own routes and procedures included, that are not part of the normal published set.

Mike

"Mike Adams" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Peter" > wrote in message
>
>>>>Captive means there's no alternative. Commercial operators have
>>>>alternatives
>>>>(NACO) but don't avail themselves of that option.
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> NACO does USA only. There is a world outside the USA (if only a very
>>> small and insignificant one I must admit :)).
>>>
>> Correct....sorta.
>>
>> Now, considering that only a tiny fraction of airlines and commercial
>> operators operate outside US borders, explain why the purely domestic
>> operators don't just go with the virtually free NACO option.
>
> Another reason is that some airlines get a customized version of the
> charts from Jeppesen with the
> company's own routes and procedures included, that are not part of the
> normal published set.
>

Yup!

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote
>
>>> NACO does USA only. There is a world outside the USA (if only a very
>>> small and insignificant one I must admit :)).
>>>
>>Correct....sorta.
>>
>>Now, considering that only a tiny fraction of airlines and commercial
>>operators operate outside US borders
>
> That is an amazing statement.

Fact.