Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE) on Thursday called for congressional negotiators to remove an ADS-B provision from the House-passed ALERT Act as lawmakers work to reconcile the measure with the Senate’s ROTOR Act. Section 105 would restrict public and private entities from using ADS-B information to generate revenue from aircraft owners and operators unless they consent.
The House passed the ALERT Act 396-10 in April following the January 2025 midair collision near Reagan Washington National Airport. The Senate legislation does not include a comparable restriction on the use of ADS-B data.
Dispute Over Section 105
The section in question would also generally prevent federal, state, local and tribal officials from beginning civil investigations based exclusively on ADS-B data.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that revenue losses resulting from the restrictions would be small. CASE argues the provision could interfere with the ability of state and local governments to collect aircraft-related taxes and fees.
CASE also released a YouGov poll it commissioned of 1,000 likely 2026 midterm voters. On an initial description of the provision, 36% supported it, 25% opposed it and 39% were unsure. After respondents were presented arguments for and against the measure, opposition rose to 49%, while 28% supported it.
“This is a tax break for the jet-set, paid for by average working Americans who will never set foot on a private aircraft,” CASE Chairman Gerard Scimeca said in the organization’s announcement.
FAA, AOPA Oppose ADS-B Billing
During a May 19 Senate Aviation Subcommittee hearing, Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., asked FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford whether ADS-B had been intended to serve as a “fee collecting, tax collecting device.” Sheehy is a co-sponsor of separate legislation that would restrict the use of ADS-B for fee collection, and AOPA has supported incorporating those protections into the ALERT Act.
“No, sir,” Bedford replied. “It was intended to be a safety and situational awareness tool.” Bedford also told the committee that the FAA had advised airport operators that the agency “frown[s] on the concept of using ADS-B information for revenue collection at airports.”
Section 105 would not prohibit airports from charging landing fees; it would restrict the use of ADS-B transmissions to identify aircraft for collection purposes without consent. Montana, Florida and Louisiana have already adopted their own restrictions on ADS-B-based billing for at least some GA aircraft.
Why the hell would anybody consent to being bilked by ADSB. Don’t our tax dollars pay enough for these airports? Just another money grab by our so called government.
Everytime i flight plan a flight, that’s one of the first things I do. Look up to see if there’s any additional fees attached to said airport i want to land at. If so, i reroute around it. Flying is expensive enough.
I challenge you to sit with your local airport manager and ask if your tax dollars are adequately funding today’s airport expenses. Ask why there is a need to increase revenues to support your use of the public airport. Then learn how you can advocate for increased funding for general aviation airports.
Agree. If we want the airports to work with us, then we should be willing to work with them to support our mutual interests.