Skydemon (merged thread)

Jan_Olieslagers wrote:

@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.

I don’t know about Android but I spend about £250/year on GP and associated add-ons. I’m also fortunate enough to have worldwide IFR Jepp coverage as overlays but that is silly money (paid for by one of my customers).

Turning to the discussion, I personally find that the Garmin data is the most accurate. In the same breath, I think SD still has the best user interface for VFR flight although GP is far better for IFR, especially with the Autorouter interface.

Going back a few years there was a huge piece of European work on the provision of accurate and timely aeronautical data. In fact, the inability to ensure accuracy in 4 dimensions was a real show-stopper as far as Single European Skies were concerned. I believe SESAR took some of this forward but have no real visibility of more recent developments. It all goes back to the efficacy of data transfer.

So where you get everything that SD does, with its great UI including support for ppl/vfr to ppl/ir for £89/year all in ?

just sayin

achimha wrote:

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.

This kind of funding is problematic IMO because of many reasons:

• In reality, the taxpayer funded part is often much bigger than half, especially if we take all costs (e.g. infrastructure, civil servant pensions and other benefits etc) into account and user fees only cover a smaller part of the actual cost, but they are a very good excuse to make goverment-produced data proprietary.
• Fees for data access deter small players. EAD’s fees may be reasonable (or even insignificant) for SkyDemon or another already established business, but it is prohibitive for individual developers who could come up with innovative new applications. (Similarly, the “user fee” I pay to HgCAA to renew my SEP class rating is a much bigger chunk of my flying budget than the rating renewal of an active FI or commercial/airline pilot, even if the absolute fee is the same.)
• I as a pilot don’t feel that providing navdata in a useable format is a service to me. I could fly everywhere with accurate terrain data only (which is available for free in reasonable quality mainly because the Americans very rightly put taxpayer-funded data into the public domain) if the governments had not established airspaces with restrictions or special regulations. Providing information about these restrictions and rules in a reasonable way (i.e. not a list of coordinates in a PDF document that I would have to plot manually) is not a service, it should be an obligation.

Providing information about these restrictions and rules in a reasonable way (i.e. not a list of coordinates in a PDF document that I would have to plot manually) is not a service, it should be an obligation.

Very true, since a breach is a criminal offence, thus airspace regs are criminal law, and access to the criminal law must be free to all.

However if a country publishes VFR charts they can argue that those are sufficient IAW your PPL training. That is what I think gets all the governments “off the hook”. It would also mean that a prosecution for an airspace breach which is not depicted on the chart currently in the shops might be impossible, and that may well be the case, but since CAS busts are rarely prosecuted we aren’t likely to find out about what Steve Jobs would call “edge cases”

It also means all the tablet products can contain any number of errors and flying with one won’t be a useful defence for you.

It is hard to see a system that works so well, fosters growth in GA, and that hundreds of thousands of private pilots enjoy and then somehow try to make lemonade out of the lemony system(s) in Europe.

If you are a private individual, you shoudln’t have to pay for these services.
If you are a corporate entity, you should.

The government is supposed to serve the people. The citizens.
Companies benefit from the conditions that environment produces, which is always conducive to business. (Free people move more, spend more, and develop more).

No complaints from my side, I’ve just seen where the grass is actually green.

SD is the best value for money in VFR planning/navigation, no question. Works great, looks great, is great.
That won’t last forever, though.
At some point, a service-oriented company will invade the ‘old shores’ and SD will cry that they are the local brew and international corporations are taking over.
Just trying to help them grow, that’s all.
Curt replies don’t foster growth.

I attended an AOPA event with Naviair in Denmark. The same problem was discussed. It was promised that the affected areas would be Notamed.
Job solved.
On another note even though there clearely is some payware issue there is everywhere a constant program to avoid infringements. Now the first objective must be to clearly make the areas that can be infringed visible.

This will come as no surprise to some maybe… but I think SD are adopting exactly the right approach here by trying to force DFS to do the right thing.

There is absolutely no question that this information should be properly promulgated via publicly available sources.

That would be true only if DFS care… They can prosecute a pilot for a bust, regardless of nav tools used. A PPL is supposed to fly with VFR charts, and Germany does publish good VFR charts.

Peter wrote:

That would be true only if DFS care…

As evidenced by the referenced thread, they do care and the problem was addressed after SkyDemon had raised it.

SkyDemon should have been more proactive here.

They can prosecute a pilot for a bust, regardless of nav tools used. A PPL is supposed to fly with VFR charts, and Germany does publish good VFR charts.

DFS cannot prosecute anybody, they are a private company (100% state owned though). They can forward information about an alleged infringement to the authorities which would then prosecute. I am not aware of a single case that was due to a pilot using current map material from whichever source. There is no requirement to use DFS VFR charts.

Peter wrote:

That would be true only if DFS care… They can prosecute a pilot for a bust, regardless of nav tools used. A PPL is supposed to fly with VFR charts, and Germany does publish good VFR charts.

Gave me a good chuckle. Thanks for that.

achimha wrote:

they are a private company (100% state owned though)

Isn’t that an oxymoron?