Re: [Flightgear-devel] DAFIF Will No Longer Be Available to Public
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:27:00 +0100, Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ..one way is point .gov and .com people to if someone flies into an Aussiestani or Canuckistani tower, is it jihad, and who get's sued? That doesn't work so well outside of the U.S., because other countries don't have the same culture of litigation. In Canada, for example, the loser often pays the winner's court costs in a civil action, so if I try to sue the government or a big corporation and lose, I might have to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in their legal fees. Even if I win, the award will be only reasonable, not spectacular (i.e. I might get awarded $1M to help pay my costs if I'm in a wheelchair, but I probably won't get an extra $59M in punitive damages). Still, COPA has made similar arguments, along the lines of look at how much an accident costs the government in SR, investigation, medical costs, etc. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] DAFIF Will No Longer Be Available to Public
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:38:13 -0500, David wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:27:00 +0100, Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ..one way is point .gov and .com people to if someone flies into an Aussiestani or Canuckistani tower, is it jihad, and who get's sued? That doesn't work so well outside of the U.S., because other countries don't have the same culture of litigation. In Canada, for example, ..agreed, but does it work against politicians? My impression is these sissies can be remote-controlled with litigation and press. the loser often pays the winner's court costs in a civil action, so if I try to sue the government or a big corporation and lose, I might have to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in their legal fees. Even if I win, the award will be only reasonable, not spectacular (i.e. I might get awarded $1M to help pay my costs if I'm in a wheelchair, but I probably won't get an extra $59M in punitive damages). Still, COPA has made similar arguments, along the lines of look at how much an accident costs the government in SR, investigation, medical costs, etc. ..aye, wtg, although that's not on my budget the press and you voters give up waaay to early, look to Ukraina. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] DAFIF Will No Longer Be Available to Public
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 10:36:19 +1100, Nick Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I must have missed it, sorry about that. Oh yeah, 2 months ago was exam time, I stopped reading the list for a few weeks. No harm done. We're all unhappy, of course, but it's hard for non-Americans like me to complain too much -- the U.S. is removing information about our countries that our own governments never made freely available in the first place. The FAA database is still available for the U.S., but other governments (like mine) do not make their aero data available freely at all, and we've been lucky that the U.S. has made data for Canada, Europe, Asia, etc. available. It's so bad that the Garmin 296 GPS (which displays terrain and manmade obstructions) does not even display towers in Canada, because the Canadian government wanted royalties for every Garmin unit sold (!!!). I guess we can all thank AOPA that GA's right to exist (and the things it depends on) continues to be recognized in the US. -Kip ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] DAFIF Will No Longer Be Available to Public
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 10:36:19 +1100, Nick Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I must have missed it, sorry about that. Oh yeah, 2 months ago was exam time, I stopped reading the list for a few weeks. No harm done. We're all unhappy, of course, but it's hard for non-Americans like me to complain too much -- the U.S. is removing information about our countries that our own governments never made freely available in the first place. The FAA database is still available for the U.S., but other governments (like mine) do not make their aero data available freely at all, and we've been lucky that the U.S. has made data for Canada, Europe, Asia, etc. available. It's so bad that the Garmin 296 GPS (which displays terrain and manmade obstructions) does not even display towers in Canada, because the Canadian government wanted royalties for every Garmin unit sold (!!!). The real solution to this problem is to come up with a worldwide, peer-reviewed open-source aero database, for use both by the simulation community and by the aviation community. That's an enormous undertaking, of course. Originally, the excuse for pulling DAFIF was the Australian government's attempt to sue Jeppesen for royalties on Australian aero data, or something similar. Now, the reason is simply national security. I wonder if the Australian thing died out, or if it was just easier to use the security boilerplate than to get into the complex legal details. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] DAFIF Will No Longer Be Available to Public
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:34:19 -0500 David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Originally, the excuse for pulling DAFIF was the Australian government's attempt to sue Jeppesen for royalties on Australian aero data, or something similar. Now, the reason is simply national security. I wonder if the Australian thing died out, or if it was just easier to use the security boilerplate than to get into the complex legal details. I'd bet the latter -- I suspect the national security-ish lines in the FR entry are in there only because every decision the Federal government makes anymore gets some kind of national security justification. What I didn't see was some kind of notification about an official comment period. Normally, when a policy change takes place, the first announcement in the FR mentions a period during which comments can be made. I didn't see that in there. This is significant in that comments made in response to policy changes like this actually do matter. I had breakfast yesterday with two senior executives in the Federal bureaucracy (both GS 15 or higher) who were very emphatic that commenting during the comments period is worthwhile: in subsequently making their decision official or in changing it to something else, the agency in question *must* substantively address the comments received. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgpnsNQmBlsEr.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] DAFIF Will No Longer Be Available to Public
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:03:58 -0500, Chris wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What I didn't see was some kind of notification about an official comment period. Normally, when a policy change takes place, the first announcement in the FR mentions a period during which comments can be made. I didn't see that in there. This is significant in that comments made in response to policy changes like this actually do matter. I had breakfast yesterday with two senior executives in the Federal bureaucracy (both GS 15 or higher) who were very emphatic that commenting during the comments period is worthwhile: in subsequently making their decision official or in changing it to something else, the agency in question *must* substantively address the comments received. ..one way is point .gov and .com people to if someone flies into an Aussiestani or Canuckistani tower, is it jihad, and who get's sued? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] DAFIF Will No Longer Be Available to Public
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:18:36 +0100, Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FlightGear has used the Peel database for quite some time (always?) and just recently (one or two years ago) Robin started to use DAFIF. Prior to that we only had data contributed by volunteers. Now we have a better base to start with and can start contributing the changes again. There's a lot more information in the DAFIF, like airways, radio frequencies, etc. We're not using most of that yet in FlightGear, with with AI aircraft and ATC, it will be getting increasingly important. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] DAFIF Will No Longer Be Available to Public
On Friday, 10 December 2004 00:57, Nick Coleman wrote: The DoD is going to stop making DAFIF available to the public. I don't know TerraGear at all, but I thought I'd give a heads up just in case it uses it. I'm surprised someone else hasn't commented on this yet. Losing DAFIF access will be a pretty big blow to X-Plane and FlightGear. The DAFIF data is the primary source of global airports and navaid data that we use in FlightGear. It is not the only source of info but it is the primary source. The other sources are just little bits and pieces - nothing on a global scale like DAFIF. So we are now esentially stuck with a dataset that is going to age and get inaccurate as time goes on and things are updated and changed in the real world. Frequencies, new navaid equipment, etc. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] DAFIF Will No Longer Be Available to Public
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 01:06:56 +0200, Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm surprised someone else hasn't commented on this yet. We had a discussion a couple of months ago, when the topic first came up. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
[Flightgear-devel] DAFIF Will No Longer Be Available to Public
The DoD is going to stop making DAFIF available to the public. http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco/SpecialNotices/FR-04-25631.pdf and http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco/SpecialNotices/NGA_Public_Sale_Discont_Notice.pdf I don't know TerraGear at all, but I thought I'd give a heads up just in case it uses it. Nick ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
