The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is urging the FAA to intervene on behalf of general aviation pilots and block the use of FAA-mandated aircraft tracking technology by third parties to assess fees based on aircraft movements — a practice that raises many concerns, including violation of privacy and violation of federal grant obligations by public airports.
The satellite-based technology known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) was made mandatory in 2020 for aircraft flying near busy airports. It allows the FAA to monitor air traffic more effectively than radar, particularly in places where radar coverage is not available.
Using this data to assess landing fees at airports is a purpose for which ADS-B was never intended, AOPA officials noted.
AOPA President and CEO Mark Baker urged FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker to prevent third-party use of ADS-B data for purposes other than optimizing air traffic control safety and efficiency in a Sept. 12, 2024, letter.
Baker voiced concerns about privacy, and the fact that the “practice of using automated processes to impose additional fees on pilots undermines the vital flight training industry and will further discourage pilots from equipping with ADS-B or cause pilots to cut back on flying,” according to the letter.
“Pilot proficiency is a key ingredient to safety and imposing more fees will discourage this,” it continued.
Baker noted that tens of thousands of individual aircraft owners have invested $6,000 (or more) per aircraft, a collective total of $1 billion, to enable the FAA to modernize the nation’s air traffic control system. Unlike airlines, these private owners are unable to recoup expenses — including landing fees, which were not feasible at many airports until ADS-B was implemented.
“We agreed to support the mandate, in large part, because of assurances received that ADS-B was to be used solely to modernize and improve air traffic safety,” Baker wrote.
More recently, Congress expressly prohibited the FAA from using ADS-B data to investigate the actions of airmen in the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act (PL118-63), Baker noted, though third parties are finding other uses for the data: “For example, an increasing number of airports, including many that are grant-obligated, are using or plan to use ADS-B data to identify aircraft so that airports can charge pilots landing fees.”
Baker said this practice undermines the airspace safety that ADS-B was created to enhance.
“The fact that ADS-B data is being utilized as a revenue-generating mechanism is simply wrong and has the potential to create safety issues due to a reduction in pilot training and operational pilot currency,” Baker wrote, adding that while most aircraft are now equipped to transmit ADS-B information, “this practice could discourage those who have not yet done so.”
AOPA recently revealed that some airports in Florida are planning to impose landing fees. If that happens, it could “devastate” one of the most important flight training regions in the country, according to association officials.
What bothers me most is how airport administrators receiving federal grant money are charging landing fees. My federal taxes are already paying a significant portion of your airport’s expenses and now you want me to pay a fee? You’re asking me to pay you twice for the same service. So much for business ethics.
Then there is the “you’re a pilot and so you must be rich” counter-argument. I served 24 years in the military just to save up enough money to pay for Part 61 training and buy an airplane that is the same age as my old man. I resent the label, but the greatest irony to this reply is that the the county and city politicians in our local area calling for these fees are earning annual salaries well in excess of what I ever pocketed. Government officials resorting to this reasoning really ought to take a good look in the mirror.
On the bright side, this is an opportunity for GA pilots to express just how they feel about this growing trend: do your research and don’t frequent airports that levy landing fees. There is no better way to dissuade these greedy officials than by impacting their bottom lines.
The Website provided by Rusty B says, “Airspace Overflight”. I can see a possible misinterpretation, But it calls out Airspace, not parking overnight.
However we have an airport here in Texas, Boerne Stage Airfield 5C1, Which has landing fees captured by either Vector or Virtower plus Ramp fees.
Interesting to read that airports in the general area of Ormond Beach are financially in decent shape. Unfortunately for the taxpayers in Ormond Beach the airport is over a million dollars in debt to the general fund of the city. User fees are the first attempt in years to even attempt to repay. Welcome any thoughts as to how to make this airport “self sustaining” as expected by the FAA. Maybe we can’t afford an airport.
All I can say is it is about time AOPA addressed this issue. I wrote in to AOPA to complain about this issue a year ago and received no help. I guess better late than ever. If AOPA doesn’t address this, skyrocketing insurance prices, ungodly expensive database updates, and the increasingly draconian security requirements, they will kill the aviation industry in the US. To all these greedily municipalities, I have one thought. The FAA pays about 90 Percent of the cost of your airport. It’s up to you to make your airport attractive enough that people want to stop there. Landing frees guarantees pilots will go elsewhere if they can.
For those of us thinking the obvious of turning off ADS-B 5 miles from landing, the FAA is watching you and that’s a rule no no. For those without ADS-B to began with , no problem. For those wanting to beat the system, don’t turn on your transponder when departing to another airport so your N number is not recorded by the FAA in the first place. I’m thinking if Emory-Riddle in Daytona had just bought some fuel from all the airports around them instead of using these airports without supporting them we’d not have this landing fee charge at all of the county airports around Daytona Beach, the epicenter of this issue.
Your fuel purchase idea is certainly interesting. I’m sure there would be other unintended consequences, but, at face value, it is compelling.
Per FAR 91.225[f], …operating an aircraft equipped with ADSB-out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times.
I don’t read anything on removing the ADSB-out equipment from an aircraft that is equipped ?
It seems to me that 3rd-party use of ADS-B information is a gross invasion of privacy. Can anyone imagine a similar device on private land vehicles, reporting to the world on our location and driving habit? I doubt this would be tolerated very long. I was always skeptical of ADB-S for private aircraft, as we could have adopted the simpler privately-developed FLARM devices from Switzerland, created to reduce collisions among sailplanes. But no, we had to reinvent the wheel and get the government involved, with the usual outcomes – less freedom, higher costs. When looking for my next airplane, one benefit of an older plane without an electrical system is that I am not forced to have Big Brother attached to my plane. As far as airport fees are concerned, I think this will solve itself. Those with deep pockets will pay the landing fees, others will move their aircraft elsewhere and not land for fuel or overnight at airports charging fees. I actually see this as a great opportunity for private airport owners, especially in combination with a campground on the field and mogas in a small self-service system. Pilots will flock there.
You should mention that Virtower and Vector Airport Systems already have 100’s of ADSB monitoring-billing systems installed at US airports, mostly without any of us knowing, other than those getting a bill for landing.
See; https://www.vector-us.com/planepass
Yikes! Billing for overflights as well (not even landing)?
Not “over-flight” … but “overnight” as in a few to leave your plane there overnight.