Electronic Airport Facility Directories ("A/FDs")

[Justin Gombos]

I'll start with a rant; it's disturbing to find that the Department of
Transportation ("DOT") does not release the AFDs in a useable digital
format.

The DOT cannot legally copyright the AFD, so AFAIK anyone is free to
tear the binding off, scan it, and redistribute it. Is anyone doing
this?

Airnav.com is useful, considering it's the closest thing to a
publication of similar information (and non-raster, which is even
better). However, the keyword is "similar". Airnav makes no
guarantees about providing the same information as the AFD. Can a
pilot legally use airnav's publications instead of the AFD, and still
be compliant with FAR 91.103?

I would guess not, considering the Airnav's caution about the currency
of the information. Any case law on this?

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

[Roy Smith]

Justin Gombos > wrote:
> I'll start with a rant; it's disturbing to find that the Department of
> Transportation ("DOT") does not release the AFDs in a useable digital
> format.

Of course they do. Where do you think places like Airnav get their data
from? True, it's not 100% of everything that's in the AF/D, but it's most
of it. The FAA has been getting steadily better about stuff like this.
You can download PDFs of all the approach plates. You can download
sectionals. You can download the entire nav database (every airport, fix,
navaid, airway, etc, in excruciating detail). You just have to do your
homework to find it.

> The DOT cannot legally copyright the AFD, so AFAIK anyone is free to
> tear the binding off, scan it, and redistribute it. Is anyone doing
> this?

Of course somebody could do it. But I can't imagine anybody would want to.
Scanned images of the pages??? It's hard to think of a more bizarre way to
waste perfectly good electrons.

> Airnav.com is useful, considering it's the closest thing to a
> publication of similar information (and non-raster, which is even
> better). However, the keyword is "similar". Airnav makes no
> guarantees about providing the same information as the AFD. Can a
> pilot legally use airnav's publications instead of the AFD, and still
> be compliant with FAR 91.103?

If you want to play lawyer games, keep buying the green book. If you
simply want to get the useful information you need to conduct your flight
safely, go to Airnav, or places like it. If you think you can do a better
job than Airnav, go download the raw data, spend $9.99 to register a domain
name, and go into competition with them.

[Justin Gombos]

On 2006-04-07, Roy Smith > wrote:
> Justin Gombos > wrote:
>>
>> I'll start with a rant; it's disturbing to find that the Department
>> of Transportation ("DOT") does not release the AFDs in a useable
>> digital format.
>
> Of course they do.

Have a link for that?

> Where do you think places like Airnav get their data from?

I don't think Airnav gets the information from DOT - I think they get
it from the FAA.

> True, it's not 100% of everything that's in the AF/D, but it's most
> of it.

I doubt that getting "most of it" adequitely complies with FAR 91.103.

> The FAA has been getting steadily better about stuff like this.

Perhaps, but the DOT seems to be stuck in the 80s.

> You can download PDFs of all the approach plates. You can download
> sectionals. You can download the entire nav database (every
> airport, fix, navaid, airway, etc, in excruciating detail). You
> just have to do your homework to find it.

In that case, consider this thread "my homework".

>> The DOT cannot legally copyright the AFD, so AFAIK anyone is free
>> to tear the binding off, scan it, and redistribute it. Is anyone
>> doing this?
>
> Of course somebody could do it. But I can't imagine anybody would
> want to. Scanned images of the pages??? It's hard to think of a
> more bizarre way to waste perfectly good electrons.

Fortunately, machines and electrons don't get tired. Drop a stack of
papers on an ADF, and it will go until the stack is empty. The cost
of a few electrons? You can figure it's negligable (and cheaper than
the material wasted in the production of the green book).

> If you want to play lawyer games, keep buying the green book. If
> you simply want to get the useful information you need to conduct
> your flight safely, go to Airnav, or places like it. If you think
> you can do a better job than Airnav, go download the raw data, spend
> $9.99 to register a domain name, and go into competition with them.

Call them spoiled, but some pilots might want to be both practical
(that is, making use of electronic AFDs) and lawful at the same time.
Are you saying this isn't possible?

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

[Roy Smith]

In article <GJCZf.872$Fp4.847@trnddc01>,
Justin Gombos > wrote:

> > You can download PDFs of all the approach plates. You can download
> > sectionals. You can download the entire nav database (every
> > airport, fix, navaid, airway, etc, in excruciating detail). You
> > just have to do your homework to find it.
>
> In that case, consider this thread "my homework".


Well, here's some places to start:

http://avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/catalog/charts/digital/Sectional_Raste
r
https://www2.nima.mil/products/digitalaero/index.cfm
http://www.naco.faa.gov/ap_diagrams_acc.asp?search=jfk&stateSearch=&select=&
submit1=Search
http://www.fly.faa.gov/Products/Coded_Departure_Routes/NFDC_Preferred_Routes
_Database/nfdc_preferred_routes_database.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:38:14 GMT, Justin Gombos
> wrote in <GJCZf.872$Fp4.847@trnddc01>::

>I don't think Airnav gets the information from DOT - I think they get
>it from the FAA.

Isn't that like saying cars aren't manufactured by General Motors;
they come from Chevrolet and Buick? While strictly true, it fails to
draw a revenant distinction. Or am I missing your point?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 06:08:14 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >::

>revenant

That should have been 'relevant.'

[Justin Gombos]

On 2006-04-08, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:38:14 GMT, Justin Gombos
> wrote in <GJCZf.872$Fp4.847@trnddc01>::
>
>>I don't think Airnav gets the information from DOT - I think they get
>>it from the FAA.
>
> Isn't that like saying cars aren't manufactured by General Motors;
> they come from Chevrolet and Buick? While strictly true, it fails
> to draw a revenant distinction. Or am I missing your point?

The issue there is that the AFD is a compilation of information from
different sources, one of which is the FAA. Moreover, even if we
could assume that the DOTs sole source of information were available
digitally the FAA, the FAAs digital products are not necessarily in a
format that's readily useable.

Information slips through the cracks as a result of this arrangement.
For example, you won't find hours of operation for control towers on
the myafd.com pages.

It's wasteful as well as error prone to have multiple organizations
repeating the work of the DOT.

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 14:31:43 GMT, Justin Gombos
> wrote in
<jPPZf.2206$XI6.1173@trnddc05>::

>The issue there is that the AFD is a compilation of information from
>different sources, one of which is the FAA.

What are the others?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 14:31:43 GMT, Justin Gombos
> > wrote in
> <jPPZf.2206$XI6.1173@trnddc05>::
>
> >The issue there is that the AFD is a compilation of information from
> >different sources, one of which is the FAA.
>
> What are the others?

No, Larry. You're not supposed to ask that. Steve's supposed to ask that.

[Ray]

Justin Gombos wrote:
> On 2006-04-07, Roy Smith > wrote:
>> Justin Gombos > wrote:
>>> I'll start with a rant; it's disturbing to find that the Department
>>> of Transportation ("DOT") does not release the AFDs in a useable
>>> digital format.
>> Of course they do.
>
> Have a link for that?
>

Sites like airnav get their airport and navaid info from the FAA
Aeronautical Information Services ATA-100 database. The AIS is,
according to their website is the "single authoritative government
source for collecting, validating, storing, maintaining and
disseminating aeronautical data concerning the United States"

<http://www.faa.gov/ATS/ata/ata100/index.html>

You can get the ATA-100 through a subscription CD service or also if you
register for FTP access. The databases have also been re-published
online at:

<http://aviationtoolbox.org/raw_data/FAA/ATA-100/>

A word of warning though, the raw airport info is contained in a text
file that is 140 Mb when uncompressed. Opening it in windows notepad is
probably not a good idea.

My interpretation is that this data is just as legal as a paper AF/D
since this is the official source of the AF/D. So you can probably
argue that as long as you can verify that the source database is
current, using a website like airnav which parses the database for you
is also legal.

- Ray


--
***************************
Raymond Woo
e-mail: raywoo|at|gmail.com
http://gromit.stanford.edu/ray

[Roy Smith]

In article >, Ray > wrote:

> My interpretation is that this data is just as legal as a paper AF/D
> since this is the official source of the AF/D. So you can probably
> argue that as long as you can verify that the source database is
> current, using a website like airnav which parses the database for you
> is also legal.

Just like using Jepp instrument charts. They just get the raw data from
the FAA and print it up in a convenient form. They don't have any special
signet ring that makes their charts any more official than anybody else's.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>revenant
>
> That should have been 'relevant.'

Oh come on...if you're going to go around correcting every typo in your
posts, we'll be here all day.

:)

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 11:34:29 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

>>>revenant
>>
>> That should have been 'relevant.'
>
>Oh come on...if you're going to go around correcting every typo in your
>posts, we'll be here all day.

and: superseed, superseed!

:-)

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 11:34:29 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>revenant
>>
>> That should have been 'relevant.'
>
>Oh come on...if you're going to go around correcting every typo in your
>posts, we'll be here all day.
>
>:)
>

You've noticed others?

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> You've noticed others?

Of course. There's not any point in commenting on them, for the same reason
there's no point in commenting on typos in posts generally. Even my own
posts have been known to have typos on occasion. As long as everyone
understands what was meant, who cares?

[Justin Gombos]

On 2006-04-08, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 14:31:43 GMT, Justin Gombos
> wrote in
><jPPZf.2206$XI6.1173@trnddc05>::
>
>>The issue there is that the AFD is a compilation of information from
>>different sources, one of which is the FAA.
>
> What are the others?
>

National Aviation Charting Office
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport/Facility_Directory).
Considering myafd.com has the charts and most of the same information,
yet lacks some non-NACO related information suggests that there are
other sources involved as well,

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

[Newps]

Justin Gombos wrote:


>
>
> Call them spoiled, but some pilots might want to be both practical
> (that is, making use of electronic AFDs) and lawful at the same time.
> Are you saying this isn't possible?

Can't figure out why anyone would use that green book. I use the
Airguide. Check notams before you go. What's the problem?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:30:53 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>Can't figure out why anyone would use that green book. I use the
>Airguide. Check notams before you go. What's the problem?

The price of the green book is about 1/6th of the cost of Airguide.

Don't get me wrong; I have a Flight Guide subscription too.
http://www.flightguide.com/

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 20:30:53 -0600, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>
>>Can't figure out why anyone would use that green book. I use the
>>Airguide. Check notams before you go. What's the problem?
>
>
> The price of the green book is about 1/6th of the cost of Airguide.

I haven't ever checked because I didn't care about the price. We have
the green books at the tower and they are horrible. I have the western
and central states and it costs $50 a year, the green books only cost
about $8 a year totasl for two thirds of the country?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 11:54:53 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>the green books only cost
>about $8 a year totasl for two thirds of the country?

http://naco.faa.gov/ecomp/Catalog.aspx?a=AERO+NOS+PUB+AFD
Each region's 56 day AF/D is priced at $4.20. Regional subscriptions
are $19.95.

[Newps]

That's what I thought, those crappy green books are a lot more expensive.



Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 11:54:53 -0600, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>
>>the green books only cost
>>about $8 a year totasl for two thirds of the country?
>
>
> http://naco.faa.gov/ecomp/Catalog.aspx?a=AERO+NOS+PUB+AFD
> Each region's 56 day AF/D is priced at $4.20. Regional subscriptions
> are $19.95.

[Kyler Laird]

Ray > writes:


>You can get the ATA-100 through a subscription CD service or also if you
>register for FTP access. The databases have also been re-published
>online at:

><http://aviationtoolbox.org/raw_data/FAA/ATA-100/>

>A word of warning though, the raw airport info is contained in a text
>file that is 140 Mb when uncompressed. Opening it in windows notepad is
>probably not a good idea.

It's also a little clumsy to interpret their data format. I suggest using
this interface for browsing it.
http://aviationtoolbox.org/old/ATA-100/

I've got some Python code to make manipulating it easier.
http://aviationtoolbox.org/old/FAA_ATA100.py
http://aviationtoolbox.org/old/FAA_ATA100_example.py

--kyler

[Ray]

Kyler Laird wrote:
> It's also a little clumsy to interpret their data format. I suggest using
> this interface for browsing it.
> http://aviationtoolbox.org/old/ATA-100/
>
> I've got some Python code to make manipulating it easier.
> http://aviationtoolbox.org/old/FAA_ATA100.py
> http://aviationtoolbox.org/old/FAA_ATA100_example.py
>
> --kyler

Thanks for the info Kyler, and also thanks for putting the databases
online. Sorry for not crediting you in my post, but I couldn't find
your name anywhere on the website.

- Ray

--
***************************
Raymond Woo
e-mail: raywoo|at|gmail.com
http://gromit.stanford.edu/ray

[Blanche Cohen]

Justin Gombos > wrote:
>On 2006-04-07, Roy Smith > wrote:
>> Justin Gombos > wrote:

>> Where do you think places like Airnav get their data from?
>
>I don't think Airnav gets the information from DOT - I think they get
>it from the FAA.

In case no one mentions it later in this thread, the FAA is a Federal
Agency that belongs to the Dept of Transportation. Or in mathmatical
terms, the FAA is a proper subset of the DOT.