LeSving wrote:
It is on the edge of being a scam, and people can sue you for that alone (false marketing etc).
As long as you’re clear about what you’re offering, I don’t see how such a lawsuit could be successful. It’s not illegal to provide low value or useless service.
This gets more interesting with a difficult destination. For example where AIP is not available in English. I could pay for a pure convenience service, it would depend on what exactly is being offered.
@what_next I’m not familiar with the law but the obvious question is where exactly is the line. When do I become an organizer.
Martin wrote:
This gets more interesting with a difficult destination. For example where AIP is not available in English. I could pay for a pure convenience service, it would depend on what exactly is being offered.
A VFR nav app is a typical convenience service. It can never be anything more because the regulations regarding PIC, planning and operation. Even a homebuilt kit is a convenience service, due to the regulations. Those things can never be anything else. Nevertheless, it is clear what you are paying for. You pay for the license of using an app that puts relevant and updated information on an electronic device in a certain useful way, and you pay for materials, prefabbed parts and a license to build an aircraft of a certain design. In both cases you are entitled to compensation if the app stops working, stops doing what it is supposed to do, or the kit comes with faulty parts. You are not entitled for compensation if the app provides wrong information, or the aircraft does not fly when finished, or even worse, it will kill you on the first flight.
I mean, supplying enroute and terminal charts is so specific that it cannot be misunderstood. The service is you are the provider of those charts. You are essentially the shipping company delivering the charts as well as the printing company. There are also copyrights and stuff involved for these charts, so the service involves obtaining the rights to distribute copies. This is no convenience service, this is distribution of legal copies of official charts from the AIP. Alternatively you could create you own charts, which would be a convenience service. The first alternative is what most people would expect, and they also would expect that you would send them updated copies if needed (which would be no problem when they pay €300 for it 
) I link to the appropriate pages in the AIP would be much easier and costs nothing, but is probably not silver spoon enough 
Only some general info would be more than enough IMO (where to get info)
Anyway, IMO it is those more down to earth practical things that are important to put some thought behind. Parking, food, lodging, fuel. These things are more straight forward, and no one will sue you for being a poor organizer.
LeSving wrote:
A VFR nav app is a typical convenience service. It can never be anything more because the regulations regarding PIC, planning and operation.
Please explain this with reference to the actual regulations (part-NCO).
I think there is a “deeper” thing with VFR and everything to do with VFR: the ICAO compliant PPL training, essentially unchanged since WW1-WW2, teaches you to fly and navigate visually. That IMHO makes it very very hard to sue a data provider (volunteer or commercial) – unless the error was to do with something that cannot be seen visually e.g. notam, airspace, etc and even then the litigation potential is limited because (in Europe) you can recover only your actual loss. You cannot sue for €1M for hurt feelings because you got the CAA interview without tea and biscuits.
How could that be different in Germany?
I guess a notam / mapdata provider might have to pay out the pilot’s fine. However, there are awfully few cases where a criminally convicted person managed to get compensation from somebody.
IFR is different.
Peter wrote:
I think there is a “deeper” thing with VFR and everything to do with VFR: the ICAO compliant PPL training, essentially unchanged since WW1-WW2, teaches you to fly and navigate visually. That IMHO makes it very very hard to sue a data provider (volunteer or commercial) – unless the error was to do with something that cannot be seen visually e.g. notam, airspace, etc
You can use radio navigation and can fly above clouds (it’s hard to visually navigate using clouds ). How about flying into a blind canyon based on a faulty data? Hitting a power-line or cable that isn’t in an obstacle database?
LeSving wrote:
This is no convenience service, this is distribution of legal copies of official charts from the AIP.
Of course it can be a convenience service. If someone finds out where exactly what I need is sold, goes there instead of me and brings it right under my nose, isn’t it a convenience? I certainly wouldn’t expect someone to actually get a licence for creation and distribution of copies. Resale should be fine.
LeSving wrote:
Alternatively you could create you own charts, which would be a convenience service.
Not that I wouldn’t call a convenience service.
LeSving wrote:
You are not entitled for compensation if the app provides wrong information
I wouldn’t (universally) bet on that. First of all, you have certain protection as a consumer. If the error originated with their supplier, it’s up to them or their insurance company to recover the cost. If an error on their part resulted in some information not being displayed, the app isn’t delivering what it promised. Of course you can try getting around that with disclaimers making it look like a completely useless tool (something just for fun) but it might not be effective everywhere.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Please explain this with reference to the actual regulations (part-NCO).
At least you wrote “please”
NCO.GEN 135 a) 10) and also
NCO.GEN 135 d)
and 216/2008
It specifies “current and suitable aeronautical charts”, but there is no specification to what is meant by “current and suitable” other than the general info in the AMC. So it is up to the PIC to determine if whatever charts and info he has, actually are “current and suitable”. IMO SD or EasyVFR are very current and suitable, but none of them have any obligation by the authorities to actually deliver something that is according to some specs, because there are no specs. Therefore they cannot be anything but convenience services. They are no different than a paper notebook and a pencil. They do whatever the programmers have programmed them to do, and it’s the pilot’s responsibility to determine if they do what the pilot wants them to do. You cannot sue SD if you suddenly find out that the app no longer is “current and suitable”. If I remember the disclaimer correct, they are only meant to be an aid in flight planning and help in situational awareness.
Peter wrote:
I think there is a “deeper” thing with VFR and everything to do with VFR: the ICAO compliant PPL training, essentially unchanged since WW1-WW2, teaches you to fly and navigate visually.
The more I think about this, the more sure I am that this is a good thing. Just imagine the price and size and quality and usefulness of an “electronic VFR box” if it were to be certified. It wouldn’t even exist.
Martin wrote:
If an error on their part resulted in some information not being displayed, the app isn’t delivering what it promised
That’s the catch. It doesn’t promise to be anything more than an aid in flight planning and situational awareness. If the pilot assumes it can be used for more than that, that’s his responsibility. According to part NCO, a pilot is free to assume that.
LeSving wrote:
You cannot sue SD if you suddenly find out that the app no longer is “current and suitable”. If I remember the disclaimer correct, they are only meant to be an aid in flight planning and help in situational awareness.
Right. If SD is actually a “convenience service” it is because that’s what it is held out to be — not because of anything written in part-NCO.
Airborne_Again wrote:
If SD is actually a “convenience service” it is because that’s what it is held out to be — not because of anything written in part-NCO.
Well, if you completely disregard the responsibility and duties of the PIC that is true, but that is definitely not according to Part NCO. Part NCO does not care what you use, only that the information you have available on board is up to date and roughly corresponds to the AMC. You can use your own drawings and paper notes or draw stuff on the back of your hand if you want, or any combination of whatever is available. It is not important what you have, as long as you have the information available in the cockpit when flying, that is what NCO.GEN 135 a) 10) and NCO.GEN 135 d) (and b, c) say.
No matter how much SD wants to “down rate” their software in their disclaimer, it does indeed contain every single bit of information that a VFR pilot needs according to part NCO and the AMC, in my opinion at least. Updated aviation maps, current AIRAC, radio frequencies, airspaces and so on.
It is not EASA, not ICAO, not SkyDemon not EasyVFR that is responsible, it’s the PIC – always. There exists no such thing as a certified VFR database, so this leaves no other possibility. It isn’t a requirement that all information is 100% “correct”, only that it is relevant for aviation purposes and up to date and is available in the cockpit. The requirement for availability would suggest a backup of some kind is a good idea, pads and phones do fail and then all information is gone. If that happens, and you have no backup device or anything, you are indeed breaking the rules in Part NCO and are not allowed to fly.
According to NCO, SD could very well say they guarantee everything a VFR pilot would ever need in terms of info laid out in the AMC. It wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever. For SD that would be a very stupid thing to do, because everyone could demand their money back for every little miss.
So if you take a paper chart and it gets sucked out the window/door/lavatory or your dog eats it, and you don’t have a second one as a backup, you are “indeed breaking the rules” as well?
LeSving wrote:
Well, if you completely disregard the responsibility and duties of the PIC that is true, but that is definitely not according to Part NCO.
I don’t follow your argument at all. I can not possibly see how the responsibility of the PIC can extend to guaranteeing the trustworthiness all sources (s)he is using. That would be a practical impossibility. Does your interpretation of part-NCO mean that the ICAO 1:500.000 charts are also “convenience services”? Is the AIP a “convenience service”? If not, why not?
