The source data for FF/Jeppesen comes from multiple suppliers, not just FAA. And there's some interesting overlap along, for example, the US/Canadian border that needs to get resolved.Boatguy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 12:12 amThere are no technical issues here, the data being transferred is trivial text. This is strictly a lack of desire to cooperate between Jeppesen and Garmin because they are competing for our EFB and charts spending. Had Garmin not had such a narrow NIH mentality and simply purchased FF before Jeppesen, or stayed in their hardware lane, we would have a much better customer experience. Now that the competition is rigidly in place between two arrogant competitors, we will see the minimum interoperability that each begrudgingly thinks is required.
To their credit, Jeppesen knows they are a content and services company. I doubt you see these problems between Jeppesen and say Honeywell or Rockwell who build avionics for passenger jets. Garmin is confused about their core competencies. Jeppesen and Garmin both get their monthly data from the FAA, then Garmin takes a week longer than Jeppesen/FF to process it. Which company has more competency in software content management?
Just so you know FlightPlan Go also uses the Connext interface.
The basic assumption that perhaps limits what happens here is the bias is to flight plans that can actually be filed, be it VFR or IFR, as opposed to arbitrary routes that would be indecipherable to the various agencies.
In my opinion, the things they are already providing are immensely helpful in reducing the inflight workload. No one said they needed to do this.