The use of ADS-B data in airport landing fee programs has recently drawn increased attention as more airports adopt charges tied to flight activity and as pilot groups push back against the practice. AOPA has said more than 100 U.S. airports have adopted fee structures. State lawmakers in places such as Florida and Arizona have also moved to limit how ADS-B information can be used in billing. The issue has surfaced in high-volume training markets as well, including the Phoenix area, where new fees at Falcon Field and Mesa Gateway have added to concerns about cost, traffic shifts and access for light aircraft operators.
“I think what’s got people upset is the fact that we have created a safety technology called ADS-B,” FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford told FLYING in an exclusive interview. “Aircraft are certainly better with it. Pilot situational awareness is better with it. But if we have people making a bad safety decision to avoid rates and charges, that’s where I think the FAA wants to throw the penalty flag … that’s not the intended use of ADS-B.”
Bedford said airports are generally allowed to assess charges for services. But he indicated concern about how those fees are being imposed if the result is to encourage pilots to turn off avionics. He described ADS-B as a “critical safety tool” and drew a distinction between airport cost recovery and practices that could affect safety-related decision making in the cockpit.
Pilot groups and lawmakers have raised similar concerns. At AOPA’s SUN ’n FUN town hall this month, association leaders pointed to federal and state efforts to keep ADS-B limited to safety and operational purposes. They also warned that some pilots have reported shutting off equipment near airports where they believe the data is being used for billing.
Bedford did not say that the FAA is preparing immediate new rulemaking. But his comments suggest the agency is watching the issue more closely as airports, operators and policymakers continue to argue over whether and where any line should be drawn regarding how ADS-B data is used.
Bedford’s full interview will appear in print in FLYING’s June Ultimate Issue.
Administrator better get off his behind and take action to stop billing based on ADS-B data before pilots and owners revolt and do it for him. That will kill any alleged “benefit” of ADS-B, which has turned out to be questionable anyway.
Turning off the avionics to avoid detection. Great. What could possibly go wrong here?
Matt, perhaps you’re flying in a quiet part of the country. Where I’m flying, I routinely have three to six “targets” close to my altitude, often taking similar routes over the ground (in either direction) and see them on ADSB long before Flight Following says anything - if it even does say anything (the controllers are busy). ADSB is a huge traffic awareness tool. Now that I know what’s out there I’d be like a cat in a roomful of rocking chairs without it.
As for creating an incentive to turn it off in the high-traffic areas close to airports, well, that headline just writes itself.
While ADSB may be great for safety, it’s terrible for security. It’s the same as opening up “find my phone” to the general public. We need blanket anonymization.
If I ran an airport, I would just say that anyone without ADS-B still has to pay. Why should some people get out of paying? It’s not fair.
(I’m not arguing for landing fees, but this is a way to keep the safety factor if we must have them.)
If you don’t have ADSB IN, it won’t benefit you at all.
Agreed. There’s probably a way to encrypt the tail number, in a way that ATC can decode it but not anyone else.
The issue isn’t solely related to ADSB… OCR scanning a high resolution tail number is child’s play.
The real issue is about vocal anti-aviation real estate developers and nearby residents seeing a way to pressure local officials to bleed GA to death. This is like granting small towns the option of putting tollgates on the interstate highways.
Local control will adversely affect the value, utility and safety of the NAS — A valuable national asset that serves all citizens. The FAA needs to take a HARD STAND against locally controlled fees on GA and use every method at their disposal to SHUT THEM DOWN EVERYWHERE.
Most states have privacy laws that prevent the misuse of personally-identifiable information (PII). ADS-B Out certainly provides PII. That fact that it’s being broadcast over the airwaves unencrypted shouldn’t nullify the fact that it’s PII. If an airport misuses the PII, then I would think they are exposing themselves to a lawsuit involving privacy laws.
Yes, bbgun06.
The airports are lazy.
(BTW, don’t airports usually vary landing fee by size of aircraft?)
Two points: 1- The root of the problem is underfunded GA airports - let’s work together on the real problem. 2 - Pilots are NOT shutting off their ADS-B to save a few bucks. That is an unsubstantiated lie confirmed by tracking systems and local ATC. It is just a lie to push the “no fee” narrative. Unfortunately, the Administrator appears to have bought the lie.
No security is part of the design. The idea is that any airplane can see any other airplane instead of requiring that the info be routed through ATC. In areas where there is no ATC, ADS-B provides anti-collision warning, in addition to standard eyeballs, that we’ve never had before. If it saves a single life, it’s worth it. FBOs need to cover expenses. Just a part of doing business. Not thrilled with that, but it’s the way life is. And if ADS-B helps keep FBOs in business, that’s not really a bad thing as long as they don’t abuse it. But they need human eyeballs on the airplanes to verify that they’re actually a billable customer and not just a mindless click from the computer. If the FBO has no input from an employee about an airplane, what service can they claim to have provided? Using clicks from ADS-B might be acceptable if it’s being used to evaluate employee performance for customer contacts, not for direct mindless billing. Definitely not for counting airplanes under ATC instructions to taxi across your ramp to make way for another airplane on the taxiway.
N-numbers are not PII. They identify an aircraft, not the person flying it.
The N number gives anyone enough information to look up the owner on the FAA’s public aircraft database. If that was restricted, then I’d say the N number is not PII (like an automobile license plate), but it’s not restricted. It’s a gray enough area that the courts would have a field day with a lawsuit. If an airport authority was sued successfully for misusing PII, that would make all of them think twice about it.