If this is allowed to proceed any safety benefits with ADS-B will go away due to pilots turning off their transponders. If the FAA thought it was a challenge to get owners to equip with ADS-B, owners will never trust the FAA for any further equipment mandates, especially since the ADS-B mandate was sold as being able to handle more traffic, something that has not happened. Rubbing that in by using ADS-B data for increased fees will eventually backfire on the agencies trying to do that.
To John Eiff - Please consider the alternative of not imposing fees while other airports do - more fuel sales, more overnight tie down fees, more hotel rooms occupied, more car rentals, more restaurant sales, more of everthing which generates revenue for the airport and the community. What are you trying to accomplish?
1 reply
General Aviation is a dying dinosaur that needs to go away, something that rising costs should help accelerate. The entire fossil fueled aviation world will become ever harder to justify, the deeper we sink into climate change. What remains of aviation, short range EVSTOLs, will only need heliports, not long paved strips. Our entire economy is going to have to evolve into a more locally centered, less transportation dependent model. We can dig in our heels, cling to past habits, and make the inevitable changes more draconian, or look forward, take a big gulp, and evolve voluntarily in the necessary direction.
5 replies
That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have seen in recent memory. Why are you even on the website?
Deland will get more fees from other services to pay for expanded service demands. Also, why can’t local flight schools file for exemptions and fees targeted to commercial traffic?
Wouldn’t that “balance” against the fees imposed at other airports?
The tech always goes this way: Good intentions, punitive applications, marketing, taxation and finally, fraud and abuse. How long before we pass a dozen miles away and get billed for landing? Does any of us have confidence in the FAA’s dispute mechanism to actually defend themselves?
Be02drvr is on the over control bandwagon. General aviation is covered by my right to freely wander. GA is still a freedom we enjoy in this country.
Climate Change will always happen. To believe it is solely driven by man is to ignore the bulk of the science and embrace only the voices that agree with you. Suddenly, the Atlantic is cooling. Climate alarmists can’t explain it. It takes great arrogance to believe we are in charge of global weather.
3 replies
Like a previous poster mentioned, operators at DED will simply turn off their transponders and ADS-B to avoid landing fees. The other airports listed in the article all live under overlying airspace that requires ADS-B use. DED does not. While I can sympathize with the increase in training operations as a fellow central Floridian, I think there are other opportunities to engage the local flight training community to mitigate this issue.
The first thing that comes to mind when I think of Deland is the fatal midair that occurred 20+ years ago. It’s sad that airport leadership is considering this proposal which will ultimately make Deland a less safe and more unpredictable place to operate.
The FAA’s dispute mechanism would be the incorrect avenue of defense in this case as the FL muni airports are entering into contracts with private business entities that are utilizing their own tech to capture already publicly available ADS-B data and tailor it for fee collection purposes. The correct line of defense is to pressure the local gov’ts to reverse course on this issue or better yet, pressure the Congressional reps and senators into legislation that blocks ADS-B data altogether.
“AOPA wrote, “[ADS-B data] was never intended to be used to collect fees, or to enable aircraft tracking by third parties”
Another horse shyte statement from AOPA; Of course pilot organizations knew that fees and enforcements and advertisers and automatic ticketing would result from ADS-B open broadcasts. Any city or authority can simply auto-generate bills and send them directly to the aircraft owner and there will be zero way to fight them. AOPA denying that now is just appalling.
Since they can use cameras to capture N numbers, the ADSB argument may not make a difference.
There are numerous airports with landing fees, like KJKA landing fee, or as some is calling, (ramp fee) is $50 light single, $100 for light twin, this landing fee or ramp fee should not be allowed if the airport is receiving any type federal funding.
I know that this is going to be controversial, but why shouldn’t GA airport users pay fees? Every other airport user pays fees…passengers, cargo, rental car companies, and airlines. A private pilot purchases an aircraft for $100K+ and expects a hangar for a bargan price and to land for free. The airport is built and maintained by the taxpayers (federal, state and/or local) and used by a small percentage of the population. The financial model needs to reflect this reality. Only time will tell whether this causes private aviation to be out of reach for some. I seriously doubt it will make much of an impact.
3 replies
We already pay Federal, State and local taxes so get off this “we have to pay our fair share” argument. The government wastes our tax dollars in the General Fund when it steals it from the Aviation Trust Fund.
Another grab under false pretenses.
Aviation fuels subject to 6% sales and use tax. Aviation fuels also subject to the environmental protection regulatory fee: $0.0100/gal. Subject to Petroleum Inspection fee: $0.0010/gal and the $0.0200/gal Petroleum Tank Cleanup fee (when in effect). Subject to $0.0004/gal Environmental Protection Fee.
[
Why not charge for filing flight plans?
For turning on runway lights?
For every time you talk to a tower?
Point is that GA already pays huge upfront costs as well as fees and taxes so the very idea that we also need added user fees "because why not " is a very bad argument.
1 reply
I am only posing the question of “what makes a private pilot different from others who are paying usage fees?” Don’t airline passengers pay all of the same taxes?" Generally speaking, automotive fuel has far more fees (varies by state) attached to it than aviation fuel. I’m a generally conservative person, and don’t advocate the “fair share” argument in most cases. However, I think in this case, the government has crossed the line toward subsidizing private aviation activities.
1 reply
Good point! What he is trying to accomplish is making money for nothing instead of putting in the work to provide services. General aviation is successful because everybody pulls their own weight and contributes for the good of all.
Every driver should pay every time they drive on a public road. Every boater should pay every time they use a public boat ramp. Every mother should pay every time they take their kids to a public park.
Let me get this straight…a private enterprise is going to use a Federally funded system (ADSB) to collect a fee from users of a Federally funded airport but yet the same private enterprise probably isn’t going to pay anything for such ability. Seems like the government should charge an equivalent for use of the ADSB in such an occasion.
Which now brings up the topic of having available facilities in which GA aircraft can access. If the FBO has the only transient ramp on the airport and also charges a fee, wouldn’t this more than likely be “double dipping” on the part of the airport?
1 reply
You seem to not understand that the USA system was created for safety first and then for safety next as well. If you call helping GA safety “subsidizing” then you misunderstand the history and traditions and purpose of GA in the USA.
OK Bill, I’ll bite. My airport, KSSI, a small nontowered airport, but very active, according to our county, produces around 21 million dollars to the area’s coffers. Our county has 3 airports that produce about 160 million economic impact.
General Aviation, including “private pilots” is demonstrably a huge economic driver for communities all over the country.
To say we are overly subsidized is akin to saying “it’s just rich guys playing with their toys at our expense”.
And just where does 2025 even enter into this?
Stirring the pot, huh!
This will spread out of greed and stupidity. Those with separate ADS/B units will likely turn them off when not near Class B & C airspace. There is also a way to make ADS/B anonymous through the FAA. Maybe everyone will sign up for this. See link. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/equipadsb/privacy
Volvo, Ford and others have abandoned ground based EVs as impractical. Fossil fuel is stored solar energy, stable and safe. EVs depend on manufacture of peak demand, stable terrestrial energy and there is only one solution: Nuclear power which the same folks that think solar cells will power the world block by any means possible.
The proposed landing fees are unnecessary, especially when fuel taxes already provide sufficient revenue for airport maintenance. Adding extra fees just increases the financial burden on GA pilots without offering significant benefits to airport infrastructure. Additionally, using ADS-B data for invoicing is a misuse of the system—it’s designed for safety, not billing. These fees could harm flight training programs and local aviation communities. Instead of creating more obstacles, we should support the growth of general aviation in Florida and everywhere else. AOPA’s stance is correct…
Excellent points. I get FlightAware alerts that my aircraft departs an airport near Santa Barabara, California. It happens multiple times a year. I have asked both the FAA and flight aware about this, but it continues and has for years. I am based more than 2000 nm from there. Long before ADS-B, I got a bill from PHX for a landing fee at an airport I’ve never visited. The dispute process was tedious even though I had flight logs to prove the airplane at the time was down for engine overhaul and was based in the east. I can’t imagine a spoofed/misprogrammed ADS-B transponder dispute nightmare. Sort of like Redflex speed traps, I imagine, except you don’t even need to be there.
Some of us private pilots purchase airplanes for $25,000 and pay thousands in taxes, hangar fees, annual inspections, transponder certs, and nuisance fees. which are distributed to airports to insure their availability. Corollary: Pay a fee to use a freeway entrance ramp, another for the exit ramp, another for each rest stop you pass, another per ton-mile tax, and the gas taxes which pay for all the highways. Pretty soon that trip to grandma’s will cost you $500 plus gas and gas taxes. We pay for every mile we fly through avfuel taxes and the government does not need to lay more than a mile of asphalt at each end. Give us a couple of miles of runway and we are free to roam. Give the governments an inch of taxation and they will take 10000 times that.
1 reply
That is a sound basis for discussion and the data is a good justification for the government’s involvement in the airport world. However, wouldn’t such data also be the basis to say that passengers, airlines and cargo operators shouldn’t pay fees as well? The question becomes what should the role of the government be here and how are private ops different from commercial ones? I’m not endorsing a radical departure from the current model - but I think a cost benefit discussion is appropriate on every level of airport operations. I really appreciate the data - it makes the discussion more constructive.
I agree that user fees are a slippery slope and that the government has grown larger than it should be. Airport fees are a tough discussion. Most airports work to defer their maintenance projects in order to match the funds that they receive. I think that we have a rapidly deteriorating system that is going to need more funding to keep it viable. I don’t think that will come from the traditional sources in the needed amounts. Small aircraft landing fees may need to be part of the solution.
1 reply
"Small aircraft landing fees may need to be part of the solution’
Adding more costs has never have been a solution for growth.
We know this by simply looking at GA in Europe.
Such ideas are demonstrably non-productive.
Are you nuts!! How did you get from a ‘green’ website to this one. This is for supporters of aviation not anti-supporters. 
In my opinion, this discussion shows a lot of different viewpoints, from dismissive, sarcastic, and caustic comments to more thoughtful ones. A lot of people are upset about using ADS-B data to charge fees, which isn’t what the system was made for. ADS-B was created to improve safety and air traffic control, so using it for billing seems like a bad move. There’s also a real concern that pilots might start turning off their transponders to avoid these fees, which could make flying less safe.
Another big issue is whether these fees are even needed, especially since some of the airports have gotten plenty of federal funding and seem to be doing just fine. AOPA made a good point that the fees don’t seem necessary, and I agree with that. It feels like there’s a disconnect between what’s being said about needing more revenue and the actual financial situation at these airports.
On the flip side, some people made good suggestions that could be a better solution. Instead of charging landing fees, why not focus on things like selling more fuel, collecting fees for overnight parking, or encouraging more local business? It seems like a smart way to keep the airports financially healthy without putting extra pressure on private pilots.
The best ideas in the conversation are the ones that try to balance the needs of the airports with the concerns of the pilots. Some suggested that flight schools should be exempt or that fees should target commercial flights instead of general aviation. That sounds fair to me. Others also mentioned that there should be rules to stop ADS-B data from being used in ways that hurt the aviation community, which seems like a sensible step.
In the end, while there’s frustration, I think there’s a chance for a productive conversation. The aviation industry is changing, but we need to make sure we’re keeping safety, fairness, and the growth of general aviation in mind when we make decisions like this.
2 replies
More government has never been the solution either. By the time a dollar of tax money that is destined for an airport filters through the federal channels, how much makes it to the purpose. Landing fees stay local and have a direct benefit to your airport on a dollar for dollar basis. The idea may be distasteful but the discussion is certainly worthwhile.
Nope, it’s not “worthwhile” if you want to just go out and shoot 10 T&G’s at your airport and they charge for each one of them. Saying this is a benefit for local pilots is laughable.
Well said. The issue is not black and white, nor is every airport’s financial picture the same. I know that most are behind on their maintenance programs on both airport infrastucture and facilities. Funding from state and local sources vary widely, and some areas of the country support aviation better than others.
While it is convenient to paint with a broad brush, this is probably more appropriate as a local conversation.
I think that we can all agree that I was correct when I said “I know this is going to be controversial…”!
Keep on Flyin’
How can this be happening in Florida, the state with no income tax and led by Governor DeSantis? How can he allow this to happen in his state?
HA.!!! Yet another reason that I did not install ADSB-out…!!!
You can see my mode -C, but not who I am.!
As others note, financial situations vary widely between airports. I would think fees would be most attractive to airports that have something to “sell”, for example one of the few SoCal airports that charge a landing fee is Catalina Island, KAVX, a privately-owned/public use facility. The fee, which pushes $40, doesn’t seem to be much of a turnoff because the destination itself is lovely and unique to the area. It also helps make up for their lack of government funding, but it’s doubtful many pilots even know that is the case. Imposing a fee at my home base, also privately owned & financed but open to public use, would only mean our stop-in traffic would drop to zero!
County and municipal governments also fund airports. If they can offset using taxes by collecting user fees from the folks who use the airports many will jump at the opportunity.
For example, politicians hear their constituents ask why should their taxes pay for a road or bridge they don’t use? The result is tolls.
True or not, the public considers flying is only for the rich folks who can pay for it. Even though most bass boats cost more than an average airplane.
Maybe the landing fees will offset the loss of income from reduced visits for fuel and services.
It certainly is an easy solution for the airport. They just sit back and let the money roll in.
It would be interesting to read Virtower’s proposal to the airports.
This is why my airplane will never have ADSB.
While I fully agree with the spirit of your comments, and hate to pick nits, let’s recognize that (like driving) flying is a privilege that is earned, not a freedom. I searched through the Constitution and couldn’t find any reference to an inalienable “right to freely wander,” nor to hold a pilot’s certificate, and (for better or worse) GA doesn’t have it’s own “Second Amendment” protections.
Again, I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but let’s keep our freedoms and privileges in perspective.
Not certain if you are working from the same definition of GA as the rest of the world. If it isn’t military or scheduled air carrier (ie: American, United, Delta); it is GA. That includes literally everything that you are ignoring. Fire fighting, med-evac, agricultural, corporate, air charter, cargo, aerobatics, aerial photography, air taxi, bush flying, gliders, instruction, skydiving, police, search and rescue, hot air balloons, commuter, etc. You really think that EV is the end of all of this?
Here in the State of Washington, William Fairchild airport is using the same company to bill users of this airport. The private airport where I am based, W28, only allows touch and goes a day. How are we supposed to train our students?
The part of this story that catches my attention is the implication that the fees are intended to drive away the students, not to bring in any badly needed revenue. I believe the discussion about paying our fair share is irrelevant, and we should be more concerned about the stipulation that federal funding provided to municipal airports requires that all sectors of GA receive equal access to the airport and not be excluded. I would anticipate that this will be part of AOPA’s thrust as they launch a legal challenge to this practice.
This reminds me of the discussion several years back about the Illinois Tollway System considering using the toll booth data to send out speeding tickets to those who managed to get to the next toll booth a bit too soon. The general reaction was: You’re going to need a big box to hold all the transponders that will be returned the first time you do this.
Your post is absurd. Where do you think the future airline pilots come from? Police and ambulance helicopters? Fire fighting aircraft?
While we all yearn for improved technology, what we have now is pretty good. Your objection seems to be, while stupid, is the use of fossil fuels to power aircraft, large and small.
$3 per thousand pounds? This is what Torrance Airport in Sthn California has started charging. Of course, they want to close the city owned airport and this is another notch in their belt to make pilots go away.
I think that outfit should have to pay a $10,000/mo “user fee” for commercial use of ADS-B data. 
If a private aircraft doesn’t pay and the airport uses a collection agency. Then the collection agency makes money and the airport looses money. There’s a lot of behind the scenes expenses collecting money. Just one law suite from mistaken identity (or midair) will use up all the tax collections. Airports should investigate the liability of fees. Just sayin’. 