If I may, to a minimal degree, take the side of the SkyDemon developers/database maintainers:
IMHO it it is not realistic to expect 100% complete and accurate VFR data from anyone. At least here in BE, the VFR maps produced even by a government agency have always been notorious for the errors they contained, very often blatant discrepancies with the AIP.
Even using the best and most recent sources of information one can miss out on some crucial detail. This is why a phone call for PPR – formal or informal – is such a good idea, as is talking to FIS or ATC even when it is not mandatory. Or otherwise, keep a very very low profile.
It is a bit of a boutade, but still: those who clamour for totally reliable data are only one step away from those who whine when the weather deviates from what their app told them it would be. Life has become too simple for some people.
@Dave: what would be the cost for using Garmin navigation data on an Android device during one year? I feel the difference in price will be much greater than the difference in quality. But to each their own, of course.
[[edit to add afterthought]] And why can’t EASA impose its member states to publish their aeronautical data in a consistent electronic format? To avoid frolics like DFS’s mentioned above? That would perfectly fit the spirit of the European institutions. Or would that be a job for ICAO? But then it would take forever to get implemented.
Perhaps I need to qualify my little boutade to point out it is not meant as a personal attack on anyone; rather I regret the spreading mentality that one click on a smartphone should solve any problem/issue/task.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
IMHO it it is not realistic to expect 100% complete and accurate VFR data from anyone.
Agreed – that is not realistic. It’s not realistic to expect 100% fail-save functionality from any (software) product.
What I do expect from a respectable commercial vendor, however, is to strive towards that ideal at all times. What I don’t expect them to do is telling me why they won’t do it and telling me wo is to blame.
LeSving wrote:
If you actually know the errors anyway, then what is the problem?
I know the errors (some of them huge) of SkyDemon charting for Hungary and even this way I already had a close call with the real extent of one of the grossly incorrectly depicted airspaces earlier this year. And I of course don’t know about the errors in other countries…
Peter wrote:
IMHO there will never be a liability on the producer of a “VFR” nav product
Nobody wants liability from them. But even without liability, it is unacceptable to completely leave out official sources, because it is inconvenient for them to process.
Whether a ~£100/year product should deliver the full data is a good debate. The way these tools are used in practice by the vast majority of their users, it probably should.
How else could they be used? Am I suppose to order all official charts, browse through all AIPs and AIP SUPs before all potential flights? I don’t think so.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
IMHO it it is not realistic to expect 100% complete and accurate VFR data from anyone.
Of course it isn’t realistic. But saying that they ignore some official sources due to them not being convenient for their processing, and telling those customers who complain that the problem was not with them and the customer could go somewhere else if they wanted proper data display is not good business practice.
It is the PIC’s responsibility to check that he got all the needed information and that it is correct no matter how much you pay SD “do do it for you”.
Sure, but isn’t that a commonplace ?…. that’s not the issue.
The issue is, that once alterted about the problem, they’re entering into the blame game instead of just offering a fix. They’ll always be dealing with these kinds of problems, with all the countries they’re covering.
Don‘t tell me this is the first time. And it won’t be the last time. They need staff to deal with this.
I actually think the national CAAs (and not just European ones) don’t really want to publish anything at all for free. They regard all data as their property and want to make money from everything. Hence for example the threat to the USA which resulted in the closure to public access of DAFIF, and the litigation in Australia against Jeppesen which got settled out of court under terms which have remained highly confidential but IMHO involved Jepp paying to the CAAs for publishing their data.
The CAAs have to publish data IAW ICAO obligations which is why we have the AIP PDFs which are deliberately created to be not machine readable. The data could just as easily be stuffed into a database, and probably lives in one in the respective CAA’s airspace directorate, but they don’t want it machine readable. Whenever this comes up, somebody says there is machine readable data but actually there isn’t – not data suitable for constructing a VFR chart. IFR airway chart, yes, but few IFR pilots fly with a chart. Some years ago I had a discussion on this topic with the then UK CAA head of charts and he avoided the issue in a manner which made the whole deal really obvious.
The low-end VFR app developers like SD thus have to get the data out of the free sources i.e. the national AIP PDFs, and various oddball sources collated by other people, some of whom perhaps get paid for it.
What will happen in the future? SD grew on the back of a fanatical following, via heavy marketing via one UK “aviation pub site” 
on which anybody saying anything critical would get beaten up, mostly by one of their beta test team and occassionally by the proprietor PFMS/EVFR have been around since for ever (had to go commercial after DAFIF access was closed in 2005). Then we have Foreflight; not sure if they yet appreciate the sheer size of the task of creating and maintaining yet another private European VFR database. Counting the no longer going Navbox, and Jepp’s excellent quality but feature-crippled MFDVFR, it would be about the 6th or 7th one In the meantime, Garmin have the resources to eat everybody’s lunch if they choose to, with GP.
Speaking of items missing in SD’s database, I don’t really think it matters to them. Their main market is the UK, followed a long way behind by Germany, and then I guess with small user groups elsewhere. And with only English speaking pilots typically reporting issues or feeding back anything at all, this probably isn’t a priority.
they don’t want it machine readable
That’s stating the obvious. It is why I think they should be forced to by the rulemakers. After all these are supposed to serve the interests of the population in general, and (in Europe) the holy principle of open and free competition. It remains of course to be seen where/how the CAA’s will make up for the (perceived) loss of income.
I actually think the national CAAs (and not just European ones) don’t really want to publish anything at all for free.
Indeed! Pay taxes, so that these public services will be provided, and then pay again for the service.
One of the very reasons the Colonies revolted against Britain 250 years ago: double taxation.
This is probably one of the things I hate most about Europe; pay in tax, and then pay in person. WHY PAY TAXES in the first place?
Ugh, Europe, so haughty about things political, but so retarded about things governmental.
Yeah, I stopped wasting my time on the SD Forum. It isn’t even entertaining anymore.
They did recently add the radio tab, which is something that’s been missing and I’m really glad to see… so good development happens, but I’d be glad to switch to an app from a company that wants to serve, and be connected with its customers. (Checking out EasyVFR atm, actually)
Peter wrote:
which is why we have the AIP PDFs which are deliberately created to be not machine readable. The data could just as easily be stuffed into a database, and probably lives in one in the respective CAA’s airspace directorate, but they don’t want it machine readable
The data for a large number of CAAs is available via Eurocontrol EAD in machine readable format (AIXM 5.1). It is not free of charge but the terms are reasonable and the money goes to EAD, not the CAAs. Eurocontrol EAD is becoming a world AIP repository with lots of countries all around the globe moving to it.
SkyDemon et. al. use this digital data from EAD.
AF wrote:
Pay taxes, so that these public services will be provided, and then pay again for the service.
One of the very reasons the Colonies revolted against Britain 250 years ago: double taxation.
If the government agency gets half of its funding from tax money and the other half via charges for their services, this is what you consider to be double taxation? This mixed funding is very common in Germany. Charge the ones benefitting from the service but not for the full cost because the society chooses to jointly support the existence of the service. I used to pay 12% of what it cost the municipality to provide a kindergarden in user fees — same thing.
AF wrote:
so good development happens, but I’d be glad to switch to an app from a company that wants to serve, and be connected with its customers.
Although I’m not happy with SD’s approach to fixing data issues and the style of communcation with customers on their forum in this regard, I do generally find that they’re very actively but also carefully developing their product further and also listening to customers as they move along.
