Jeppeson

[Aluckyguess]

Jeppeson sure has a nice little monopoly going. $760.00 to get the updates
for my mx 20 and Apollo 60 GPS.
Dang.

[Mxsmanic]

Aluckyguess writes:

> Jeppeson sure has a nice little monopoly going. $760.00 to get the updates
> for my mx 20 and Apollo 60 GPS.
> Dang.

And the margins are probably around 99.9999%, since generating an update
probably requires no more than pressing a button.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Blanche]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Aluckyguess writes:
>
>> Jeppeson sure has a nice little monopoly going. $760.00 to get the updates
>> for my mx 20 and Apollo 60 GPS.
>> Dang.
>
>And the margins are probably around 99.9999%, since generating an update
>probably requires no more than pressing a button.

Not really. Creating the distribution media is pushing the button. But
acquiring the data from the appropriate CAA (civil aeronautical
agency), verifying & validating it, then ensuring it's in a format
suitable for distribution for the corresponding hardware/software...

That's what you're really paying for.

Of course I'm not a happy camper either, when I need to update the
GPS. But at least I understand the process involved.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> Jeppeson sure has a nice little monopoly going. $760.00 to get the
> updates for my mx 20 and Apollo 60 GPS.
> Dang.

How often do you have to update?
Crash Lander

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche writes:

> Not really. Creating the distribution media is pushing the button. But
> acquiring the data from the appropriate CAA (civil aeronautical
> agency), verifying & validating it, then ensuring it's in a format
> suitable for distribution for the corresponding hardware/software...
>
> That's what you're really paying for.

Over, and over, and over, even though it's a one-time conversion, highly
automated, that costs very little. There are no white-haired scribes
transferring data from one sheet of parchment to another, even though the
final product is priced as though there were.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Apr 5, 7:10 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Aluckyguess writes:
> > Jeppeson sure has a nice little monopoly going. $760.00 to get the updates
> > for my mx 20 and Apollo 60 GPS.
> > Dang.
>
> And the margins are probably around 99.9999%, since generating an update
> probably requires no more than pressing a button.


Good god; the fjukkkwitedness is just beyond belief:


Bertie

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Aluckyguess writes:
>
>> Jeppeson sure has a nice little monopoly going. $760.00 to get the updates
>> for my mx 20 and Apollo 60 GPS.
>> Dang.
>
> And the margins are probably around 99.9999%, since generating an update
> probably requires no more than pressing a button.
>
And paying engineers to design the software that backs up pushing the
button. Maintaining a cartography staff to handle the fact that there
are holes in the government provided data. Maintaining 24/7 customer
support for people who can't figure out how to download the data. Oh,
and paying for liability insurance or self insuring in case someone
gets a judgement. Oh and maintaining legal counsel to defend against
a number of lawsuits pending against them at any given time claiming
they were responsible for real or perceived responsibility in an
accident.

Oh yeah, it's such a profitable business that Google and every
other computer company is clamoring to get into the biz.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> And paying engineers to design the software that backs up pushing the
> button. Maintaining a cartography staff to handle the fact that there
> are holes in the government provided data. Maintaining 24/7 customer
> support for people who can't figure out how to download the data. Oh,
> and paying for liability insurance or self insuring in case someone
> gets a judgement. Oh and maintaining legal counsel to defend against
> a number of lawsuits pending against them at any given time claiming
> they were responsible for real or perceived responsibility in an
> accident.

All that, plus a 95% mark-up for profit.

> Oh yeah, it's such a profitable business that Google and every
> other computer company is clamoring to get into the biz.

It's not a free market.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Blanche]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Blanche writes:
>
>> Not really. Creating the distribution media is pushing the button. But
>> acquiring the data from the appropriate CAA (civil aeronautical
>> agency), verifying & validating it, then ensuring it's in a format
>> suitable for distribution for the corresponding hardware/software...
>>
>> That's what you're really paying for.
>
>Over, and over, and over, even though it's a one-time conversion, highly
>automated, that costs very little. There are no white-haired scribes
>transferring data from one sheet of parchment to another, even though the
>final product is priced as though there were.

Actually, there is. 1/4 of the first floor of the main offices is
dedicated to an extremely human-labor-intensive activity that must
validate and verify *each and every* item of information when it
comes in from the various CAAs. I didn't notice any "white-haired scribes",
oh wait -- yes, there were a couple of gentlemen that might be offended
at the term.

Then the data is verified and validated a *second* time.
Add to this the time constraints - there are four cycles of
7/14/28/56 days depending on need. Then and only then can the data
be converted to the JAD - Jeppesen Aviation Database, from which
all Jepp data is munged.

Every time an airport changes a frequency, identifier, phone number,
runways, departure procedures, approach procedures, terminal information,
fixes (intrument, visual, GPS), low-enroute, high-enroute, *anything*.
And it happens more frequently than most people realize imagine.

And, Jepp handles the world. When I use the term CAA, that's the generic
for any country's aviation authority. In the US, it's the FAA. There's
also the JAA, and others.

The advantage of living in the Denver area - Jepp is located just
west of the 17-35 runway of KAPA. When you decide to visit, I'll
happily arrange a tour.

[Kev]

On Apr 5, 1:10 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Aluckyguess writes:
> > Jeppeson sure has a nice little monopoly going. $760.00 to get the updates
> > for my mx 20 and Apollo 60 GPS.
> > Dang.
>
> And the margins are probably around 99.9999%, since generating an update
> probably requires no more than pressing a button.

Don't they wish. Updates have to be compiled, verified manually and
then checked again. You're talking about things like the change in
elevation of a tower you could run into, for example, so lives are at
stake. They have to be put in the correct chart, and perhaps other
markings moved around. And that's just a tiny piece compared to all
the frequency, runway, nav aid, taxiway, etc changes each cycle.

Anyone who's spent their evening doing the update sheet dance with
their paper binder, knows a minor part of the pain from the end user
standpoint ;-)

Kev

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
>
> And, Jepp handles the world. When I use the term CAA, that's the generic
> for any country's aviation authority. In the US, it's the FAA. There's
> also the JAA, and others.
>
> The advantage of living in the Denver area - Jepp is located just
> west of the 17-35 runway of KAPA. When you decide to visit, I'll
> happily arrange a tour.


And on the other side of the street is the 5th hole at Inverness Golf Club,
a beautiful par 3 of about 175-180 yards over the water...

Ahhhh, memories!!!

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> All that, plus a 95% mark-up for profit.

Jepp would be doing better if it were.

>
>> Oh yeah, it's such a profitable business that Google and every
>> other computer company is clamoring to get into the biz.
>
> It's not a free market.
>
How so? It's certainly possible for others to get into it.
Howie Keefe was in the printed chart business for years both
in reproducing the government charts and in producing his
own charts when the government didn't have something
comparable.

There are any number of people doing EFB and GPS-on-PDA
and GPS-on-computer products using combinations of
government and self produced data.

All you gotta do is get your data in line and convince
Garmin and the other manufacturers that it would be in
their best interest to either switch to you or offer
the customers a choice.

[Jon]

On Apr 5, 10:10 am, Blanche > wrote:
> >Blanche writes:
>
> [useless excretions snipped]
>
> Actually, there is. 1/4 of the first floor of the main offices is
> dedicated to an extremely human-labor-intensive activity that must
> validate and verify *each and every* item of information when it
> comes in from the various CAAs. I didn't notice any "white-haired scribes",
> oh wait -- yes, there were a couple of gentlemen that might be offended
> at the term.
>
> Then the data is verified and validated a *second* time.
> Add to this the time constraints - there are four cycles of
> 7/14/28/56 days depending on need. Then and only then can the data
> be converted to the JAD - Jeppesen Aviation Database, from which
> all Jepp data is munged.
>
> Every time an airport changes a frequency, identifier, phone number,
> runways, departure procedures, approach procedures, terminal information,
> fixes (intrument, visual, GPS), low-enroute, high-enroute, *anything*.
> And it happens more frequently than most people realize imagine.
>
> And, Jepp handles the world. When I use the term CAA, that's the generic
> for any country's aviation authority. In the US, it's the FAA. There's
> also the JAA, and others.
>
> The advantage of living in the Denver area - Jepp is located just
> west of the 17-35 runway of KAPA. When you decide to visit, I'll
> happily arrange a tour.

I was there the week of the 19th for the RAA Flt. Tech. Cmte
conference. Impressive facility.

The president came in for a quick brief to us, and someone in the
audience asked him why the electronic versions are not cheaper than
hardcopy. What you indicate above concurs exactly what he said wrt
format conversions, V&V, etc. being the bulk of the process.

Regards,
Jon

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Blanche writes:
>
>> Not really. Creating the distribution media is pushing the button. But
>> acquiring the data from the appropriate CAA (civil aeronautical
>> agency), verifying & validating it, then ensuring it's in a format
>> suitable for distribution for the corresponding hardware/software...
>>
>> That's what you're really paying for.
>
> Over, and over, and over, even though it's a one-time conversion, highly
> automated, that costs very little. There are no white-haired scribes
> transferring data from one sheet of parchment to another, even though the
> final product is priced as though there were.
>


Ahhh.....just one more of the many concepts well beyond your apparently
crippled ability to read, comprend and understand. Special thanks for TODAYS
reminder.

Let's simplify for the benefit of the poster. Forget all the details about
updates, liability and approvals. In the American system of free enterprise,
there are enough innovative and hard working people, that if any one could
offer the same service and cut the price by setteling 90% profits, you could
find a phone book full of vendors offering the same service. Gee... I wonder
why you can't?

But then again, if it's that easy, and we all know you are so damned smart -
spend a little less time guiding tourists and flying your sim, and start
your on service. Surely with even 85% profits, you could live, eat and still
get your PPL in France. We'll be watching for it.

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche writes:

> Actually, there is. 1/4 of the first floor of the main offices is
> dedicated to an extremely human-labor-intensive activity that must
> validate and verify *each and every* item of information when it
> comes in from the various CAAs.

How do they do that from a desk?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Don't they wish. Updates have to be compiled, verified manually and
> then checked again. You're talking about things like the change in
> elevation of a tower you could run into, for example, so lives are at
> stake. They have to be put in the correct chart, and perhaps other
> markings moved around. And that's just a tiny piece compared to all
> the frequency, runway, nav aid, taxiway, etc changes each cycle.
>
> Anyone who's spent their evening doing the update sheet dance with
> their paper binder, knows a minor part of the pain from the end user
> standpoint ;-)

So what are their actual margins? What do you get for $760, how much does it
cost them to produce it, and how many people are paying that amount?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 5, 8:55 am, "Jon" > wrote:
> On Apr 5, 10:10 am, Blanche > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >Blanche writes:
>
> > [useless excretions snipped]
>
> > Actually, there is. 1/4 of the first floor of the main offices is
> > dedicated to an extremely human-labor-intensive activity that must
> > validate and verify *each and every* item of information when it
> > comes in from the various CAAs. I didn't notice any "white-haired scribes",
> > oh wait -- yes, there were a couple of gentlemen that might be offended
> > at the term.
>
> > Then the data is verified and validated a *second* time.
> > Add to this the time constraints - there are four cycles of
> > 7/14/28/56 days depending on need. Then and only then can the data
> > be converted to the JAD - Jeppesen Aviation Database, from which
> > all Jepp data is munged.
>
> > Every time an airport changes a frequency, identifier, phone number,
> > runways, departure procedures, approach procedures, terminal information,
> > fixes (intrument, visual, GPS), low-enroute, high-enroute, *anything*.
> > And it happens more frequently than most people realize imagine.
>
> > And, Jepp handles the world. When I use the term CAA, that's the generic
> > for any country's aviation authority. In the US, it's the FAA. There's
> > also the JAA, and others.
>
> > The advantage of living in the Denver area - Jepp is located just
> > west of the 17-35 runway of KAPA. When you decide to visit, I'll
> > happily arrange a tour.
>
> I was there the week of the 19th for the RAA Flt. Tech. Cmte
> conference. Impressive facility.
>
> The president came in for a quick brief to us, and someone in the
> audience asked him why the electronic versions are not cheaper than
> hardcopy. What you indicate above concurs exactly what he said wrt
> format conversions, V&V, etc. being the bulk of the process.
>
> Regards,
> Jon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nothing that a little competition couldn't solve.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Apr 5, 3:28 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
> > And paying engineers to design the software that backs up pushing the
> > button. Maintaining a cartography staff to handle the fact that there
> > are holes in the government provided data. Maintaining 24/7 customer
> > support for people who can't figure out how to download the data. Oh,
> > and paying for liability insurance or self insuring in case someone
> > gets a judgement. Oh and maintaining legal counsel to defend against
> > a number of lawsuits pending against them at any given time claiming
> > they were responsible for real or perceived responsibility in an
> > accident.
>
> All that, plus a 95% mark-up for profit.
>
> > Oh yeah, it's such a profitable business that Google and every
> > other computer company is clamoring to get into the biz.
>
> It's not a free market.

Oh herre's a surprise; you're wrong again:


Bertei

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 5, 6:07 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Aluckyguess writes:
>
> >> Jeppeson sure has a nice little monopoly going. $760.00 to get the updates
> >> for my mx 20 and Apollo 60 GPS.
> >> Dang.
>
> > And the margins are probably around 99.9999%, since generating an update
> > probably requires no more than pressing a button.
>
> And paying engineers to design the software that backs up pushing the
> button. Maintaining a cartography staff to handle the fact that there
> are holes in the government provided data. Maintaining 24/7 customer
> support for people who can't figure out how to download the data. Oh,
> and paying for liability insurance or self insuring in case someone
> gets a judgement. Oh and maintaining legal counsel to defend against
> a number of lawsuits pending against them at any given time claiming
> they were responsible for real or perceived responsibility in an
> accident.
>
> Oh yeah, it's such a profitable business that Google and every
> other computer company is clamoring to get into the biz.

I don't believe the interface is open. No one else can get into the
biz. This is what generated several law suites against Atari and
Intellivision when I was a kid. Someone just needs to challenge them
in court to open these interfaces on the basis of anti-trust.

-Robert

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Kev writes:
>
>> Don't they wish. Updates have to be compiled, verified manually and
>> then checked again. You're talking about things like the change in
>> elevation of a tower you could run into, for example, so lives are at
>> stake. They have to be put in the correct chart, and perhaps other
>> markings moved around. And that's just a tiny piece compared to all
>> the frequency, runway, nav aid, taxiway, etc changes each cycle.
>>
>> Anyone who's spent their evening doing the update sheet dance with
>> their paper binder, knows a minor part of the pain from the end user
>> standpoint ;-)
>
> So what are their actual margins? What do you get for $760, how much does
> it
> cost them to produce it, and how many people are paying that amount?
>

Why, you would just argue with it.

[Judah]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in :

> Jeppeson sure has a nice little monopoly going. $760.00 to get the
> updates for my mx 20 and Apollo 60 GPS.
> Dang.

The law of supply and demand. If it wasn't worth $760 to you, you'd live
without it or switch platforms to something cheaper...

[Ron Natalie]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
> I don't believe the interface is open. No one else can get into the
> biz. This is what generated several law suites against Atari and
> Intellivision when I was a kid. Someone just needs to challenge them
> in court to open these interfaces on the basis of anti-trust.
>
The interface doesn't need to be open. CompanyX needs to sell
the Garmins and Honeywell/Bendix/Kings, and Chiltons of the world
to convince them that they should allow the support (or push for
a standard interface). That's all part of what a free market is.
There's no artificial obstacle from someone getting into the biz
other than the fact that Jeppesen has been doing it for a very
long time.

[Kev]

On Apr 5, 12:44 am, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
> Jeppeson sure has a nice little monopoly going. $760.00 to get the updates
> for my mx 20 and Apollo 60 GPS.
> Dang.

Somebody on eBay is selling Apollo database cards for $109.

What's each device update costing you apiece?

I agree that, whatever, it's a lot !!

Kev

[Aluckyguess]

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jeppeson sure has a nice little monopoly going. $760.00 to get the
>> updates for my mx 20 and Apollo 60 GPS.
>> Dang.
>
> How often do you have to update?
> Crash Lander
That is for the year. I had to buy thier datacard reader also that was
150.00.
>
>

[Aluckyguess]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in :
>
>> Jeppeson sure has a nice little monopoly going. $760.00 to get the
>> updates for my mx 20 and Apollo 60 GPS.
>> Dang.
>
> The law of supply and demand. If it wasn't worth $760 to you, you'd live
> without it or switch platforms to something cheaper...

If there is a cheaper platorm let my know what it is.

[Aluckyguess]

"Kev" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Apr 5, 12:44 am, "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
>> Jeppeson sure has a nice little monopoly going. $760.00 to get the
>> updates
>> for my mx 20 and Apollo 60 GPS.
>> Dang.
>
> Somebody on eBay is selling Apollo database cards for $109.
>
> What's each device update costing you apiece?
>
> I agree that, whatever, it's a lot !!
>
> Kev
The price I quoted was for the year. I have the cards. The MX 20 comes with
all the charts.
>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 5, 12:21 pm, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> > I don't believe the interface is open. No one else can get into the
> > biz. This is what generated several law suites against Atari and
> > Intellivision when I was a kid. Someone just needs to challenge them
> > in court to open these interfaces on the basis of anti-trust.
>
> The interface doesn't need to be open. CompanyX needs to sell
> the Garmins and Honeywell/Bendix/Kings, and Chiltons of the world
> to convince them that they should allow the support (or push for
> a standard interface). That's all part of what a free market is.
> There's no artificial obstacle from someone getting into the biz
> other than the fact that Jeppesen has been doing it for a very
> long time.

Then we don't need anti-trust laws at all.

-Robert, MBA

[Judah]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in :

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in :
>>
>>> Jeppeson sure has a nice little monopoly going. $760.00 to get the
>>> updates for my mx 20 and Apollo 60 GPS.
>>> Dang.
>>
>> The law of supply and demand. If it wasn't worth $760 to you, you'd live
>> without it or switch platforms to something cheaper...
>
> If there is a cheaper platorm let my know what it is.

It's called the Very high Omnidirectional Radio system.

I believe you can get all the information for this platform for less than
$50/yr, and perhaps even free on certain websites. It's not as fancy or
colorful as an MX-20, of course. But it certainly is priced right.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> The interface doesn't need to be open. CompanyX needs to sell
> the Garmins and Honeywell/Bendix/Kings, and Chiltons of the world
> to convince them that they should allow the support (or push for
> a standard interface). That's all part of what a free market is.
> There's no artificial obstacle from someone getting into the biz
> other than the fact that Jeppesen has been doing it for a very
> long time.

Just like Microsoft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Aluckyguess writes:

> That is for the year. I had to buy thier datacard reader also that was
> 150.00.

So add another $760+ to the yearly cost of flying. How many hours do you fly
per year?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> The law of supply and demand. If it wasn't worth $760 to you, you'd live
> without it or switch platforms to something cheaper...

If you're required to keep the database up to date, you don't have much
choice.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kev]

On Apr 5, 2:24 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> So what are their actual margins? What do you get for $760, how much does it
> cost them to produce it, and how many people are paying that amount?

Taking a little more time to think it over, it's true that once the
data is collected into a digital form, then in theory Jepp could just
"press a button" and come up with updates for various GPS avionics.

They'd still need engineers to keep the compression methods up to
date, come up with check software, etc. So what's the cost for
that? Well, let's see. For example, Garmin sells about $250
million / year in aviation GPS. Probably that includes handhelds.
Judging from aircraft sales, etc, let's guess that means about 2,000+
panel-installed units per year. Let's say there's now about 10,000
units that buy updates. Just a very rough estimate.

10,000 x $300 = $3 million a year. Around here, that pays for about
15 engineers. With no profit. Gotta have that, so make it five
engineers and two million profit. Not huge.

The above numbers could be really far off, of course, and ignores a
lot of things. But I don't think it's 99% profit.

Fire away, financial types.
Cheers, Kev

[Robert Barker]

And looking out the east windows is runway 17R/35L at KAPA about 200 feet
away...


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Blanche" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> And, Jepp handles the world. When I use the term CAA, that's the generic
>> for any country's aviation authority. In the US, it's the FAA. There's
>> also the JAA, and others.
>>
>> The advantage of living in the Denver area - Jepp is located just
>> west of the 17-35 runway of KAPA. When you decide to visit, I'll
>> happily arrange a tour.
>
>
> And on the other side of the street is the 5th hole at Inverness Golf
> Club, a beautiful par 3 of about 175-180 yards over the water...
>
> Ahhhh, memories!!!
>

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote
> Judah writes:
>
> > The law of supply and demand. If it wasn't worth $760 to you, you'd live
> > without it or switch platforms to something cheaper...
>
> If you're required to keep the database up to date, you don't have much
> choice.

You can choose to fly without it. GPS is nice to have but it isn't
absolutely necessary, at least not yet anyway.

Anyone who has purchased one of these units hopefully went into it knowing
that there was a single source for the database updates and also what the
cost of the updates were. If not, well, you can hardly blame Jepps for
that.

BTW, if you choose to download your updates the service drops to something
like $350 per year plus a one-time charge of around $120 for the programmer,
IIRC.

BDS

[BDS]

On Apr 5, 2:24 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> So what are their actual margins? What do you get for $760, how much does
it
> cost them to produce it, and how many people are paying that amount?

All that matters is whether the service that is being provided is worth what
it costs. It doesn't really matter whether the supplier makes a 10% profit
or a 99.999% profit, as long as the value is there.

If the profit margins are high enough there will eventually be competition
in some form or another.

BDS

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> The interface doesn't need to be open. CompanyX needs to sell
>> the Garmins and Honeywell/Bendix/Kings, and Chiltons of the world
>> to convince them that they should allow the support (or push for
>> a standard interface). That's all part of what a free market is.
>> There's no artificial obstacle from someone getting into the biz
>> other than the fact that Jeppesen has been doing it for a very
>> long time.
>
> Just like Microsoft.


How so...skitzo?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Aluckyguess writes:
>
>> That is for the year. I had to buy thier datacard reader also that was
>> 150.00.
>
> So add another $760+ to the yearly cost of flying. How many hours do you
> fly
> per year?
>

Why, it's optional. Pilots are not REQUIRED to use it.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> How so...skitzo?

Microsoft has a de facto position of dominance because of factors largely
beyond its control but favorable to it. The same applies here with Jeppesen.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Taking a little more time to think it over, it's true that once the
> data is collected into a digital form, then in theory Jepp could just
> "press a button" and come up with updates for various GPS avionics.

I doubt that they are furnishing their data at cost, especially given their de
facto monopoly.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kev]

On Apr 6, 12:53 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Kev writes:
> > Taking a little more time to think it over, it's true that once the
> > data is collected into a digital form, then in theory Jepp could just
> > "press a button" and come up with updates for various GPS avionics.
>
> I doubt that they are furnishing their data at cost, especially given their de
> facto monopoly.

One question would be: is insurance a factor ? Unlike MSFS, where
moving all the world's bridges to one location was just a humorous
software goof, Jeppesen could probably get sued big time if you ran
into something misplaced on their GPS data.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> One question would be: is insurance a factor ? Unlike MSFS, where
> moving all the world's bridges to one location was just a humorous
> software goof, Jeppesen could probably get sued big time if you ran
> into something misplaced on their GPS data.

I dunno. I read something about another company that had bad data and a crash
occurred partly in consequence of that, and yet they seem to have gotten away
with it. Those posts could have been trolls, so I don't know for sure.

In theory the PIC is responsible for flight safety and cannot easily pass off
his problems to other parties. However, that concerns mostly his license, not
all forms of potential liability. So I'm not sure what the insurance
situation would be. Jeppesen is part of Boeing, so it presumably has very
deep pockets.

I don't understand why the only source is Jeppesen. What happened to the U.S.
government, the primary supplier of the source data?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> How so...skitzo?
>
> Microsoft has a de facto position of dominance because of factors largely
> beyond its control but favorable to it. The same applies here with
> Jeppesen.
>

You don't even understand your operating system do you?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Kev writes:
>
>> Taking a little more time to think it over, it's true that once the
>> data is collected into a digital form, then in theory Jepp could just
>> "press a button" and come up with updates for various GPS avionics.
>
> I doubt that they are furnishing their data at cost, especially given
> their de
> facto monopoly.
>

What monopoly, the one you imaged? Not a factor for the rest of us.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> You don't even understand your operating system do you?

I used to write operating systems.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> You don't even understand your operating system do you?
>
> I used to write operating systems.

Yeah I know, you fly 747s too.

[Ron Natalie]

BDS wrote:

> If the profit margins are high enough there will eventually be competition
> in some form or another.
>
Which was my point. If it were 99% profit, someone else would be
trying to do it.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> Which was my point. If it were 99% profit, someone else would be
> trying to do it.

I guess if nobody has a problem with paying as much as it costs now, prices
aren't likely to diminish.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Natalie]

>
> One question would be: is insurance a factor ? Unlike MSFS, where
> moving all the world's bridges to one location was just a humorous
> software goof, Jeppesen could probably get sued big time if you ran
> into something misplaced on their GPS data.
>
As I've already pointed out not only is INSURANCE an issue, but
Jepp either has or contracts for a lot of legal services. They
are a convenient target for lawsuits (because the government is
harder to sue).

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:

Deeper pockets make them a deep target.

>
> I don't understand why the only source is Jeppesen. What happened to the U.S.
> government, the primary supplier of the source data?
>
Because the government doesn't produce it in a directly usable form.
If a company wanted to subscribe to it from the feds, convert it to
a reasonable format for use in the GPS, do whatever quality checks
they think necessary (blue screening your PC is an annoyance, crashing
a NAV system is one of those things that leads to death and/or
lawsuits), and distribute it, they are welcome to.

Again, the fact that you have a company that's been doing it for a
long time (remember Jepp got into this market *BEFORE* the government)
and is currently doing a very good job at an acceptable price makes
it harder for a new comer to come in and undercut.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> Which was my point. If it were 99% profit, someone else would be
>> trying to do it.
>
> I guess if nobody has a problem with paying as much as it costs now, prices
> aren't likely to diminish.
>
People have a problem with it. Pilots are cheap *******s. The problem
is the margins aren't what you imagine them to be.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> People have a problem with it. Pilots are cheap *******s. The problem
> is the margins aren't what you imagine them to be.

How were you able to determine what the margins are?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Blanche]

And *why* are we continuing to argue this with Anthony?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> People have a problem with it. Pilots are cheap *******s. The problem
>> is the margins aren't what you imagine them to be.
>
> How were you able to determine what the margins are?

Why, couldn't you comprehend the answer the first three times we told you.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Robert Barker" > wrote in message
...
> And looking out the east windows is runway 17R/35L at KAPA about 200 feet
> away...

What part of

>>> Jepp is located just
>>> west of the 17-35 runway of KAPA. When you decide to visit, I'll
>>> happily arrange a tour.

Did you miss, Mr. Redundancy?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> And *why* are we continuing to argue this with Anthony?

Why is anyone agruing ANYTHING with Anthony? You might as well argue with
your dog or cat.

[Aluckyguess]

enough to justify in my mind
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Aluckyguess writes:
>
>> That is for the year. I had to buy thier datacard reader also that was
>> 150.00.
>
> So add another $760+ to the yearly cost of flying. How many hours do you
> fly
> per year?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jon]

On Apr 6, 12:00 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> "Blanche" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > And *why* are we continuing to argue this with Anthony?
>
> Why is anyone agruing ANYTHING with Anthony? You might as well argue with
> your dog or cat.

Why does a dog lick itself?

;)

[RomeoMike]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>
> Why is anyone agruing ANYTHING with Anthony? You might as well argue with
> your dog or cat.
>
>

Precisely. After a short hiatus, he's become more aggressive and
invasive than ever due to a new batch of people willing to engage him.
It's worse than ever. The value of the NG is fading away.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Why, couldn't you comprehend the answer the first three times we told you.

There was no answer, only speculation similar to my own.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Apr 6, 7:13 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Maxwell writes:
> > You don't even understand your operating system do you?
>
> I used to write operating systems.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.



Yeah right.

How do I know you´re lying?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Apr 6, 3:34 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Judah writes:
> > The law of supply and demand. If it wasn't worth $760 to you, you'd live
> > without it or switch platforms to something cheaper...
>
> If you're required to keep the database up to date, you don't have much
> choice.

Yes, you do, fjukktard



Bertie

[Blanche]

Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
>"Blanche" > wrote in message
>> And *why* are we continuing to argue this with Anthony?
>
>Why is anyone agruing ANYTHING with Anthony? You might as well argue with
>your dog or cat.

I love arguing with my dog! She usually wins, but is very eloquent.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> If you're required to keep the database up to date, you don't have much
> choice.

Are you required to keep the database up to date?

[Kev]

On Apr 6, 12:59 pm, RomeoMike > wrote:
> Precisely. After a short hiatus, he's become more aggressive and
> invasive than ever due to a new batch of people willing to engage him.
> It's worse than ever. The value of the NG is fading away.

After a tiny hiatus where no one wasted time bashing him, and thus
threads were short and sweet, Bertie came along. Now a lot of
otherwise intelligent people are posting crap again.

Look at this thread. Remove all of Maxwell, Bertie, and Mx's replies,
and you'd be back to just a few posts... all with actual aviation
content.

Kev

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Why, couldn't you comprehend the answer the first three times we told
>> you.
>
> There was no answer, only speculation similar to my own.
>

BS, you're just trolling now. I know you to well.

[Maxwell]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Blanche" > wrote in message
> ...
>> And *why* are we continuing to argue this with Anthony?
>
> Why is anyone agruing ANYTHING with Anthony? You might as well argue with
> your dog or cat.

Don't you dare insult my Weimarainers like that. Take it back this instant.

Their comprehension skills are demonstratedly twice those of MX. But then
again, maybe that's just because they actually listen.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Are you required to keep the database up to date?

Depends. In theory, you don't need the database to be up to date. But if you
have an accident, the FAA might determine that your failure to do so meant
that you did not avail yourself of all available information in order to avoid
the accident, and that could be a problem.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Depends. In theory, you don't need the database to be up to date. But
> if you have an accident, the FAA might determine that your failure to do
> so meant that you did not avail yourself of all available information in
> order to avoid the accident, and that could be a problem.

Exactly what information is only available in a GPS database update?

[Ron Natalie]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ron Natalie writes:
>>
>>> People have a problem with it. Pilots are cheap *******s. The problem
>>> is the margins aren't what you imagine them to be.
>> How were you able to determine what the margins are?
>
> Why, couldn't you comprehend the answer the first three times we told you.
>
>
I work for a company that provides real geodesic computer software
(albeit not to end user pilots) and prepares mission planning
information. Much as with Jepp, if we screw up, people die
(well, the WRONG people die at least).

It's never as easy, even in the production environment as pushing
the button and watching the end user product come out the other side.

Even the commercial software we produce costs are SUBSTANTIAL compared
to the price of distribution.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
>> Are you required to keep the database up to date?
>
> Depends. In theory, you don't need the database to be up to date. But if you
> have an accident, the FAA might determine that your failure to do so meant
> that you did not avail yourself of all available information in order to avoid
> the accident, and that could be a problem.
>
Sorry bozo. If you actually took an instrument flight course and
understood the underlying regulations you would understand that it
is far more involved in that. The legal documents that accompany
a REAL installation spell out the specific rules. Flaunting them
can run you in trouble REGARDLESS if the violation of the rules
caused an accident.

Furhter, in practice, you are using the database as the SOLE MEANS
of navigation in a phase of flight that is VERY CLOSE to the ground
and obstacles. It's just plain not safe to be putzing around with
unknown data.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Exactly what information is only available in a GPS database update?

All the information the database contains, if you have no other source.
Additionally, if you depend on the information in the database update, and
it's wrong because you failed to update it, and you have an accident, you are
not using all available information.

In other words, it's not illegal to have an out-of-date database, but if you
have an accident, your failure to keep the database up to date will work
against you, as it is negligent and prevents you from having all available
information (because an updated database was available, but you didn't get
it).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> Furhter, in practice, you are using the database as the SOLE MEANS
> of navigation in a phase of flight that is VERY CLOSE to the ground
> and obstacles. It's just plain not safe to be putzing around with
> unknown data.

Yes. As I've said, while you aren't strictly required to have an up-to-date
database, if an accident occurs, not having a current database may count
against you.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Judah writes:
>
>> Exactly what information is only available in a GPS database update?
>
> All the information the database contains, if you have no other source.
> Additionally, if you depend on the information in the database update, and
> it's wrong because you failed to update it, and you have an accident, you
> are
> not using all available information.
>
> In other words, it's not illegal to have an out-of-date database, but if
> you
> have an accident, your failure to keep the database up to date will work
> against you, as it is negligent and prevents you from having all available
> information (because an updated database was available, but you didn't get
> it).
>

Totally clueless MX, this whole conversation is going right over your head.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Exactly what information is only available in a GPS database update?
>
> All the information the database contains, if you have no other
> source.

You have to have another source, fjukkwit.


Berti e

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> All the information the database contains, if you have no other source.
> Additionally, if you depend on the information in the database update,
> and it's wrong because you failed to update it, and you have an
> accident, you are not using all available information.

If you don't have a current GPS database, you MUST use another source as
primary for navigation. Otherwise it is negligence.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > All the information the database contains, if you have no other source.
> > Additionally, if you depend on the information in the database update,
> > and it's wrong because you failed to update it, and you have an
> > accident, you are not using all available information.
>
> If you don't have a current GPS database, you MUST use another source as
> primary for navigation. Otherwise it is negligence.

"All the information the database contains, if you have no other source."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "All the information the database contains, if you have no other source."

Just because you neglect to acquire relevant charts and information for a
flight doesn't excuse you from your responsibility to know where you are
going and what you need to do when you get there.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Judah writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > All the information the database contains, if you have no other source.
>> > Additionally, if you depend on the information in the database update,
>> > and it's wrong because you failed to update it, and you have an
>> > accident, you are not using all available information.
>>
>> If you don't have a current GPS database, you MUST use another source as
>> primary for navigation. Otherwise it is negligence.
>
> "All the information the database contains, if you have no other source."
>

You really are brain dead aren't you?

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> Furhter, in practice, you are using the database as the SOLE MEANS
>> of navigation in a phase of flight that is VERY CLOSE to the ground
>> and obstacles. It's just plain not safe to be putzing around with
>> unknown data.
>
> Yes. As I've said, while you aren't strictly required to have an up-to-date
> database, if an accident occurs, not having a current database may count
> against you.
>
It will count against you even if you don't have an accident. The
FAA never ramp checks guys jerking off in Paris.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> In other words, it's not illegal to have an out-of-date database, but if you
> have an accident, \

No, what part of YOUR WRONG do you not understand?

The IFR-approved GPS's (for the most part) require the up-to-date
database in their flight manual. That flight manual is a legal
document that is required by the Supplemental Type Certificate
that legally allowed the GPS to be installed in the plane.

It is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT.

You as usual are confusing this group with your made up disinformation.
Go away until you spend the time to actually learn what you are talking
about.

[Ron Natalie]

Judah wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> All the information the database contains, if you have no other source.
>> Additionally, if you depend on the information in the database update,
>> and it's wrong because you failed to update it, and you have an
>> accident, you are not using all available information.
>
> If you don't have a current GPS database, you MUST use another source as
> primary for navigation. Otherwise it is negligence.

It is not just negligence, it is a violation of the FARs.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> No, what part of YOUR WRONG do you not understand?

I understand it, but I know that it's an incorrect assertion.

I find it amusing that people say I'm wrong, then restate what I said and say
it's right. I guess they just can't tolerate me saying it instead of them.

> The IFR-approved GPS's (for the most part) require the up-to-date
> database in their flight manual. That flight manual is a legal
> document that is required by the Supplemental Type Certificate
> that legally allowed the GPS to be installed in the plane.
>
> It is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT.

Not for you as a pilot, if you are not using it to fly IFR. If you are using
it as a supplementary navigational aid to fly VFR, or if you are not using it
at all, it need not be up to date.

See 91.213 and 91.205 for details.

> You as usual are confusing this group with your made up disinformation.
> Go away until you spend the time to actually learn what you are talking
> about.

I have. See above.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> It will count against you even if you don't have an accident. The
> FAA never ramp checks guys jerking off in Paris.

Which regulation requires that the database be current?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

>> If you don't have a current GPS database, you MUST use another source
>> as primary for navigation. Otherwise it is negligence.
>
>
> It is not just negligence, it is a violation of the FARs.


You guys are making this **** up. It depends on the box. Most approach
approved boxes will not go into approach mode unless the database is
current. You can use them for any other purpose as long as you have
verified the data is correct. The non approach boxes are the same way,
as long as the data is correct, it need not be a current database.

[Judah]

Newps > wrote in
:

>>> If you don't have a current GPS database, you MUST use another source
>>> as primary for navigation. Otherwise it is negligence.
>
> You guys are making this **** up. It depends on the box. Most approach
> approved boxes will not go into approach mode unless the database is
> current. You can use them for any other purpose
> as long as you have verified the data is correct.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How do you verify the data is correct?

By using another source.

[Newps]

Judah wrote:
> Newps > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>>>If you don't have a current GPS database, you MUST use another source
>>>>as primary for navigation. Otherwise it is negligence.
>>
>>You guys are making this **** up. It depends on the box. Most approach
>>approved boxes will not go into approach mode unless the database is
>>current. You can use them for any other purpose
>>as long as you have verified the data is correct.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> How do you verify the data is correct?
>

Has the airport moved? The VOR?


> By using another source.

Your context means within the plane while flying, which is flat wrong.

[Judah]

Newps > wrote in
:

> Has the airport moved? The VOR?

The GPS I use includes runway and frequency information, too. This would be
included in the GPS update, and need to be verified using an alternative
source if the update was not purchased. Your statement implies that you
assume that the GPS update is irrelevant barring a major plate shift.

If that is your belief, I disagree.

> Your context means within the plane while flying, which is flat wrong.

Not at all.

My context was in response to Manic's statements implying that there is no
alternative to buying a GPS update, and his expression that if someone fails
to update his GPS database, he cannot get "all available information".

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> No, what part of YOUR WRONG do you not understand?
>
> I understand it, but I know that it's an incorrect assertion.
>
> I find it amusing that people say I'm wrong, then restate what I said and
> say
> it's right. I guess they just can't tolerate me saying it instead of
> them.
>
>> The IFR-approved GPS's (for the most part) require the up-to-date
>> database in their flight manual. That flight manual is a legal
>> document that is required by the Supplemental Type Certificate
>> that legally allowed the GPS to be installed in the plane.
>>
>> It is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT.
>
> Not for you as a pilot, if you are not using it to fly IFR. If you are
> using
> it as a supplementary navigational aid to fly VFR, or if you are not using
> it
> at all, it need not be up to date.
>
> See 91.213 and 91.205 for details.
>
>> You as usual are confusing this group with your made up disinformation.
>> Go away until you spend the time to actually learn what you are talking
>> about.
>
> I have. See above.
>

Still haven't mastered that reading and comprehension thing have you, or is
this just another one of your lame assed attempts at a troll.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> It will count against you even if you don't have an accident. The
>> FAA never ramp checks guys jerking off in Paris.
>
> Which regulation requires that the database be current?
>

You're the living version of Wikipedia, you tell us?

[d.g.s.]

On 4/5/2007 10:13 PM Mxsmanic jumped down, turned around, and wrote:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> You don't even understand your operating system do you?
>
> I used to write operating systems.

So? Who cares? What does this have to do with aviation?
--
dgs

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> Not for you as a pilot, if you are not using it to fly IFR. If you are using
> it as a supplementary navigational aid to fly VFR, or if you are not using it
> at all, it need not be up to date.
>
> See 91.213 and 91.205 for details.

You didn't restrict your comments to secondary use for VFR. You said
you only needed to worry if you got into an accident. By the way
neither of those regs apply here.

What applies is 91.9. Everything in that flight manual supplement
becomes a rule when you install the thing in the plane.
>
>> You as usual are confusing this group with your made up disinformation.
>> Go away until you spend the time to actually learn what you are talking
>> about.
>
> I have. See above.
>
Obviously not.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> It will count against you even if you don't have an accident. The
>> FAA never ramp checks guys jerking off in Paris.
>
> Which regulation requires that the database be current?
>
91.9 says I must operate in compliance with the operating limitations
for my aircraft. The Flight Manual supplement for the IFR GPS is such
a limitation.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Still haven't mastered that reading and comprehension thing have you, or is
> this just another one of your lame assed attempts at a troll.

I pointed to the relevant regulations. Your turn.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> You didn't restrict your comments to secondary use for VFR.

The whole discussion concerned VFR, the only type of flying that most pilots
here know.

> What applies is 91.9. Everything in that flight manual supplement
> becomes a rule when you install the thing in the plane.

Not if there's nothing in the manual that imposes a restriction.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> You're the living version of Wikipedia, you tell us?

I already have.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> 91.9 says I must operate in compliance with the operating limitations
> for my aircraft. The Flight Manual supplement for the IFR GPS is such
> a limitation.

What flight manual supplement?

Section 91.9 requires that you respect limitations in the flight manual. But
if no limitation is in that manual, 91.9 does not apply. You're essentially
saying "it's not allowed if it's not allowed," but if it's not disallowed,
that statement is moot.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I pointed to the relevant regulations. Your turn.

How is 91.205 relevant? GPS is not discussed at all in that section.

How is 91.213 relevant? The GPS, while not up to date, still operates.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> You're the living version of Wikipedia, you tell us?
>
> I already have.
>

No you didn't dip ****, you just asked the question, that's why you snipped
your question.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> 91.9 says I must operate in compliance with the operating limitations
>> for my aircraft. The Flight Manual supplement for the IFR GPS is such
>> a limitation.
>
> What flight manual supplement?
>
> Section 91.9 requires that you respect limitations in the flight manual.
> But
> if no limitation is in that manual, 91.9 does not apply. You're
> essentially
> saying "it's not allowed if it's not allowed," but if it's not disallowed,
> that statement is moot.
>

He just told you, and you just snipped it. Clearly you are simply just
trolling again.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> How is 91.205 relevant?

It establishes the minimum default equipment complement for certain categories
of flight. For example, 91.205(b) establishes the minimum equipment required
for VFR flight during the day.

> GPS is not discussed at all in that section.

Because GPS is not required equipment. QED.

> How is 91.213 relevant? The GPS, while not up to date, still operates.

91.213 defines the conditions under which an aircraft may be flown when one or
more pieces of equipment or instruments on the aircraft are inoperative.

Since the FARs don't specifically address the currency of GPS databases, at
worst a GPS with an expired database could be considered inoperative, thus
91.213 applies.

Under this section, if a valid MEL exists, and the GPS with a current
databases is on it, and it is not allowed to be inoperative for the category
of flight you have in mind on the MEL, you may not fly with an expired
database. If no MEL exists, you can fly, because GPS with a current database
is not otherwise required for any general categories of flight, provided that
you do not consider it a hazard (using it as the sole means of navigation
would make an inoperative or out of date GPS a hazard).

And so on. In summary, if no document exists that says you must have an
operative GPS with a current database to fly, and you are not relying on the
GPS as your sole means of navigation, you can fly with a non-current database.
Nevertheless, if you have an accident because you used expired data from the
database, you can still get in trouble, because either (1) it was in fact your
sole means of navigation, in which case you were negligent in not keeping it
current; or (2) it was not your only means of navigation but you failed to
cross-check it against other sources that were current, which is also
negligent on your part.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> And so on. In summary, if no document exists that says you must have an
> operative GPS with a current database to fly, and you are not relying on
> the GPS as your sole means of navigation, you can fly with a non-current
> database. Nevertheless, if you have an accident because you used expired
> data from the database, you can still get in trouble, because either (1)
> it was in fact your sole means of navigation, in which case you were
> negligent in not keeping it current; or (2) it was not your only means
> of navigation but you failed to cross-check it against other sources
> that were current, which is also negligent on your part.

Exactly.

So therefore, as I stated at the beginning of this painful thread, if one
does not want to pay $760 to update his GPS database, he certainly DOES have
a choice. Several choices in fact.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> So therefore, as I stated at the beginning of this painful thread, if one
> does not want to pay $760 to update his GPS database, he certainly DOES have
> a choice. Several choices in fact.

Not if he wants an up-to-date database. There's only one supplier, so it's
that supplier or nothing at all.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Not if he wants an up-to-date database. There's only one supplier, so
> it's that supplier or nothing at all.

If you change the question every time you get an answer, you will never get a
satisfactory answer to your question.

[Maxwell]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Not if he wants an up-to-date database. There's only one supplier, so
>> it's that supplier or nothing at all.
>
> If you change the question every time you get an answer, you will never
> get a
> satisfactory answer to your question.

Give it up Judah, you have done a good job of making your point to everyone
except MX, and he either ODed on his meds today or has to be just trolling
as usual.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
>> So therefore, as I stated at the beginning of this painful thread, if one
>> does not want to pay $760 to update his GPS database, he certainly DOES have
>> a choice. Several choices in fact.
>
> Not if he wants an up-to-date database. There's only one supplier, so it's
> that supplier or nothing at all

There is only once supplier for the GPS as well. Everybody who buys
an IFR GPS knows what the story on updates is. Do you think it would
be any better if you HAD to buy your updates from Garmin?
..
>

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> There is only once supplier for the GPS as well. Everybody who buys
> an IFR GPS knows what the story on updates is. Do you think it would
> be any better if you HAD to buy your updates from Garmin?

Do different manufacturers of GPS units have different suppliers for the
databases, or do all the databases come from Jeppesen?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> If you change the question every time you get an answer, you will never
>> get a satisfactory answer to your question.
>
> Give it up Judah, you have done a good job of making your point to
> everyone except MX, and he either ODed on his meds today or has to be
> just trolling as usual.

Have I? I didn't think I made my point until that very last post.

;)

[Thomas Borchert]

Maxwell,

> But then again, if it's that easy, and we all know you are so damned smart -
> spend a little less time guiding tourists and flying your sim, and start
> your on service. Surely with even 85% profits, you could live, eat and still
> get your PPL in France. We'll be watching for it.
>

All talk, no action - that's MX. He knows everything better, but he can't make
a dime on it. And it's never his fault. AND he prides himself on being a
logical thinker. Yeah, right.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > You don't even understand your operating system do you?
>
> I used to write operating systems.
>

Those two statements work together real well, don't you think?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[James M. Knox]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> 91.9 says I must operate in compliance with the operating limitations
>> for my aircraft. The Flight Manual supplement for the IFR GPS is
>> such a limitation.
>
> Section 91.9 requires that you respect limitations in the flight
> manual. But if no limitation is in that manual, 91.9 does not apply.
> You're essentially saying "it's not allowed if it's not allowed," but
> if it's not disallowed, that statement is moot.

That's one reason I like my GX60 IFR GPS (originally made by Apollo,
which was bought by UPS, and now owned by Garmin). It has no
restriction in the supplement against flying with an out-of-date
database. [It DOES require that the pilot verify that any approach to
be flown is still current.]

The straight Garmin IFR GPS manuals (if I recall correctly) *require* a
current database to be used in approach mode. I think the King manuals
do also.



-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1300 Koenig Lane West fax 512-371-5716
Suite 200
Austin, Tx 78756
-----------------------------------------------

[Maxwell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell,
>
>> But then again, if it's that easy, and we all know you are so damned
>> smart -
>> spend a little less time guiding tourists and flying your sim, and start
>> your on service. Surely with even 85% profits, you could live, eat and
>> still
>> get your PPL in France. We'll be watching for it.
>>
>
> All talk, no action - that's MX. He knows everything better, but he can't
> make
> a dime on it. And it's never his fault. AND he prides himself on being a
> logical thinker. Yeah, right.
>

Confused and conflicted. Gee, what does that indicate?

[Maxwell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic,
>
>> > You don't even understand your operating system do you?
>>
>> I used to write operating systems.
>>
>
> Those two statements work together real well, don't you think?
>

Especially for some who must see himself as under employed.

[Aluckyguess]

That is what I have the GX60
"James M. Knox" > wrote in message
2...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Ron Natalie writes:
>>[i]
>>> 91.9 says I must operate in compliance with the operating limitations
>>> for my aircraft. The Flight Manual supplement for the IFR GPS is
>>> such a limitation.
>>
>> Section 91.9 requires that you respect limitations in the flight
>> manual. But if no limitation is in that manual, 91.9 does not apply.
>> You're essentially saying "it's not allowed if it's not allowed," but
>> if it's not disallowed, that statement is moot.
>
> That's one reason I like my GX60 IFR GPS (originally made by Apollo,
> which was bought by UPS, and now owned by Garmin). It has no
> restriction in the supplement against flying with an out-of-date
> database.
>
> The straight Garmin IFR GPS manuals (if I recall correctly) *require* a
> current database to be used in approach mode. I think the King manuals
> do also.
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> James M. Knox
> TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
> 1300 Koenig Lane West fax 512-371-5716
> Suite 200
> Austin, Tx 78756
> -----------------------------------------------

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Why, couldn't you comprehend the answer the first three times we told
>> you.
>
> There was no answer, only speculation similar to my own.
>

Oh borther.

Bertie