If you're free on Friday, December 30th, and you're a C1-rated member, I could use your assistance for the Denver ARTCC FNO. We're almost fully staffed down below (TRACON/ATCT), but I could use 2 additional hands to work some high sectors at Denver Center. We are anticipating a lot of traffic.

Congrats Danny!

I laugh every time I hear Kyle's cheesy sign off: "This is Kyle Warner, frequency changed approved..."

I do a facepalm every time I hear that. Hahh

Isak,

On what basis do you feel it is appropriate to lecture us about the VATUSA test center policies? Just curious.

[img]http://www.ltaviation.com/images/fail.jpg\\\" border=\\\"0\\\" class=\\\"linked-image\\\" /]

LOL

I'm not signing a petition; this is a real world issue with real world consequences. One poster says "I fly online with MSFS and not having charts would very much ruin the exprience. Also, what about real pilots who use laptops to bring up charts? Come on FAA, this isn't cool." How does that at all substantiate the importance of the issues? It doesn't, and there are many others like it on that petition. Write Congress. Here's why:

Congress has actually authorized the FAA to do this under this law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...21----000-.html According to the law, the FAA cannot make a profit, though I suppose the numbers could be skewed (and then reported later by the inspector general or something).

There are many different solutions they could take in reducing operating expenses that do not include initiating a fee. They could switch to all paper charts again, and then let websites digitize and distribute for free. They could limit their own digital distribution service to third party companies. In combination or separately, Congress could get rid of the provision that allows us to be double-taxed.

One other major concern I have is that VFR pilots will no longer care to look up information on IFR approaches that are being conducted at airports. Free distribution especially contributes to safety of flight in this instance.

I'm still wondering if anyone knows about any other federal government services that require fees. Just curious.

Rahul,

The problem is that when it comes to fees, proposals for them rarely disappear unless there is a very vigorous opposition to them. User fees in both the Bush and Obama administration are a prime example of that, and we have AOPA and EAA to thank for their lobbying against that issue. I feel the same way about the chart fees; in a way, it's almost like because user fees are no longer on the table, they want to collect funds from chart distribution, which to me is unacceptable.

Also, I feel that 3rd parties will start subscription services as a means of surviving this. Individuals will have access via those parties.

This makes no sense. For 50 years the FAA has provided charts for free (except for the cost of shipping), and all of a sudden they terminate that service, switch to an all-online distribution, and then decide to start charging for it? What is this? There are so many online distributors who get the charts, house them on their own servers, and allow users to access them for free, which reduces the burden on the FAA servers. The more sensible thing would be to simply distribute the charts to such companies as Airnav, FlightAware, etc. and let them continue with their service (OH, and keep people employed at those locations, too). This is clearly another tax/fee hike that somebody in the DoT wants because they're completely incapable of doing any sort of budget management. Totally inexcusable!

Might be time for another petition just like we did with the AIRAC commercialization several years ago.