FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford told lawmakers this week that ADS-B was not intended to be used as a fee-collection tool. His comments come as Congress considers aviation safety legislation following the January 2025 midair collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
Bedford Says ADS-B Is A Safety Tool
Bedford was questioned during a Tuesday Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation, Space, and Innovation hearing on the FAA’s response to National Transportation Safety Board recommendations issued following the collision. Over the course of the hearing, Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., asked Bedford whether ADS-B should be used by airports or government entities to assess fees or taxes.
“No, sir. It was intended to be a safety and situational awareness tool,” Bedford said.
Responding to follow-up questioning, Bedford continued, “We frown on the concept of using ADS-B information for revenue collection at airports, and if we need to step up that in terms of how aggressively we dissuade that, we will.”
Sheehy, a general aviation pilot, said using ADS-B for billing could create an incentive for aircraft owners and operators to avoid broadcasting their position. Sheehy is also an original cosponsor of the Pilot and Aircraft Privacy Act, which would prohibit the use of ADS-B data for fee collection.
Sheehy is an original cosponsor of the Pilot and Aircraft Privacy Act, which would prohibit using ADS-B data for fee collection. That provision is also included in Section 105 of the House-passed ALERT Act, while the Senate-passed ROTOR Act addresses broader rotorcraft transparency and oversight issues following the DCA collision.
“Senator Sheehy is spot on with his observations regarding the misuse of an aircraft collision avoidance technology to collect taxes and fees,” AOPA Senior Vice President of Government Affairs and Advocacy Jim Coon said “AOPA also applauds Administrator Bedford’s agreement on this issue, especially as the House and Senate work out differences between these important aviation safety bills.”
AOPA said at least a dozen states are considering legislation to prevent ADS-B from being used to collect fees. Florida recently enacted a ban and the Louisiana House passed similar legislation.
Airport Groups Oppose Billing Restrictions
Some airport groups have expressed opposition to ADS-B billing restrictions. The American Association of Airport Executives and Airports Council International-North America, for instance, said in March that the PAPA language in the ALERT Act would limit airports’ ability to use ADS-B data to collect takeoff or landing fees or support investigations. The groups have argued that the provision could shift costs to local communities and delay airport investments. AAAE said it will continue working to keep the language out of any final aviation safety bill.
The pilots breaking federal regulations by avoiding broadcasting should be held accountable, not create a burden to airports attempting to collect needed revenue to sustain the aviation system. When do we get to the root of the problem? Advocate for general aviation airport funding!
AND I’m tired of hearing technology was only intended for one thing and can never be used for another efficient purpose (GPS, Internet, etc.) ADSB was recognized for potential commercial purposes: - NEXTGEN: THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE-BROADCAST CONTRACT
On October 17, 2007, a hearing was held before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure House of Representatives, 110th Congress, First Session*. A discussion was held to discuss the use of ADS-B and the company ITT Corporation who was contracted to oversee ADS-B for the FAA. On page 9/33 of the transcript:
“Additionally, the contractor is allowed, subject to FAA approval, to develop the data for other aeronautical uses, which would result in a reduction of the costs of the contract to the FAA while allowing the contractor to recoup its investments.”
On page 27/33:
“FAA owns the data, but through the contract, FAA has consented to ITT being able to market, to package, to sell that data to users who might be interested. They might include air carriers. Our information is that UPS indicated they would certainly be interested, airports as well. Then they would find a multitude of uses, and we know that ITT is certainly looking on that prospect favorably.”
Technology can be use for more that one purpose EXCEPT when it defeats or conflicts with the original SAFETY purpose of the technology. There are emergency exit signs in my office. When people hang Christmas decorations from them, the Fire Marshall comes through and tells everyone to cut it out. It’s an important safety system that should not be obstructed for some other purpose. Likewise ADS-B. No one says you can’t collect revenue to support your airport. Find your own way to do it. Don’t piggyback on an important safety system and obstruct its usage.
Airports and management can figure out some other way to assess fees.