Private pilots do not want ADS-B data used to help airports levy landing fees; airports say, why not?
US lawmakers are still tussling over legislation to require aircraft carry ADS-B In collision avoidance technology, nearly one-and-a-half years after a deadly midair collision sparked cross-industry support for better collision-prevention systems.
The Senate and House of Representatives have yet to reach a compromise, with issues including whether airports should be permitted to use Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data to track aircraft for the purpose of levying landing fees.
Such data can be useful to some small airports that, while they might already charge landing fees, are not set up to track all landings at all hours, meaning they might not always have records of who should be billed.
The point has divided private pilots and airports.
“The House version of the legislation contains a provision, not in the Senate version, that airports are very concerned with,” American Association of Airport Executives chief executive Todd Hauptli told lawmakers during a 23 June Senate aviation subcommittee hearing.
That provision “would preclude airports from their ability to use ADS-B for fee collection purposes”, he adds.
The House and the Senate already passed competing bills that would both require most aircraft to have at least a form of ADS-B In, with technical differences. The Senate is now working to reach consensus in a final bill.
The need for improvements was revealed again by a close call at Boston on 20 June, when a Delta Air Lines jet aborted landing to avoid an American Airlines aircraft.
But while seemingly all players think ADS-B In should be required (with caveats related to technical details and timing), the airport-fee debate is among stumbling blocks.
The House bill, but not the Senate, included a provision specifically prohibiting anyone from using ADS-B data for revenue-collection purposes. Such data is useful to some small airports that, while they might already charge landing fees, are not set up to track all landings at all hours, meaning some pilots never pay.
SEATBELT ANALOGY
Private-pilot trade group Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has supported the no-tracking-for-revenue measure and similar laws passed in states like Florida.
“AOPA believes ADS-B is a significant safety tool intended to help prevent midair collisions. ADS-B should not be used to collect fees by airports or tax collectors,” the group says. “We want more pilots to equip with this safety technology and not be disincentivised from doing so.”
One argument goes that without a tracking prohibition for revenue purposes, private pilots might be inclined to turn off ADS-B In to avoid detection and subsequent charges.
During a 19 May committee hearing, Montana Republican senator Tim Sheehy made that point with a comparison to vehicle seatbelts, saying drivers would be more likely to un-click if not doing so might land them an invoice.
FAA administrator Bryan Bedford also expresses concern about ADS-B-derived fees.
“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,” he said during a 19 May Senate aviation subcommittee hearing.
“SKIP-LANDING-FEES MEASURE”
AOPA’s stance has prompted allegations that some private pilots’ support keeping the current system because it provides opportunities to fly under fees.
Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at libertarian think tank Reason Foundation calls ADS-B “an information tool, as well as a safety tool” and calls the House’s provision a “skip-landing-fees measure”.
“[ADS-B] identifies every aircraft, which is why it is the fairest way to avoid private planes evading landing fees,” he writes in a recent column.
Airports are not backing down.
AAAE’s Hauptli doubts pilots would actually turn off the systems to avoid “small landing fees”, he told lawmakers on 23 June. ADS-B In is “an important tool… for airports to be able to use that for fee collection”.
The FAA already requires aircraft to have ADS-B Out, which transmits an aircraft’s position at least once every second to ground stations, aiding air traffic controllers.
ADS-B In – while not mandated but carried by some aircraft – receives ADS-B Out data, showing pilots the location of nearby aircraft and issuing alerts of potential collisions.
Large commercial jets already have a separate collision-avoidance technology called Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS), but its limitations were made clear in January 2025 when a US Army Sikorsky UH-60L Black Hawk collided midair with a PSA Airlines MHIJR CRJ700 regional jet, killing all 67 people on both aircraft.
The CRJ pilots received an aural TCAS advisory of “traffic, traffic” 19s before the collision, but the advisory provided no other details, such as the helicopter’s location.
Had the aircraft had ADS-B In, the pilots would have received aural and visual alerts, including with the position of the traffic, 59s prior to the collision, and a second aural alert 35s prior, potentially preventing the accident, the NTSB said.
The post Why the US Congress is still struggling to pass an ADS-B In mandate first appeared on FlightGlobal.