Arthur_Foyt
Giving EVERYONE on the planet access to real time tracking of air traffic was always a mistake. When you think of how many nefarious uses there are for that, “fees” are way down the list of concerns.
1 reply
Giving EVERYONE on the planet access to real time tracking of air traffic was always a mistake. When you think of how many nefarious uses there are for that, “fees” are way down the list of concerns.
1 reply
Once an airport management decides to take on fees related to safety then they are responsible for an extra level of safety. When they fail to deliver, they will be sued and the insurance companies will step in.
Unfortunately, we have to have an ‘ADS-b fee’ accident before this money grab ends. For example, what if a pilot has not paid his extortion and the airport refuses permission to land? What FAR is the airport management going to use for landing denial justification?
2 replies
To me, ADS-B reminds me of EZ-Pass. Both were government programs that sold themselves as a convenience to the public.
In the case of ADS-B “Out”, the government got better air traffic control abilities, and the “In” gave the public weather and traffic visibility.
EZ-Pass, for those who don’t know, is a transponder that is carried in a car that is used to automatically pay tolls. The government gets better/easier toll collection, and the travelling public gets the convenience of not being stuck in toll-booth traffic.
But, just like with ADS-B, the EZ-Pass transponder is a defacto tracking device. And it would be extremely easy for the government to see if someone was speeding by simply checking the travel time between two toll boths. The government realized that if they did this, NO ONE would sign up for EZ-Pass. So, as far as I know, it’s forbidden to use EZ-Pass data to issue speeding tickets.
It seems to me the same restriction should be applied to ADS-B. The only allowable use should be for its primary purpose of safety, such as air-traffic control and collision avoidance. Any use for enforcement or revenue should be disallowed.
1 reply
Suppose a pilot turns off ADS-B to avoid fees- and is then involved in a mid-air collision?
On Labor Day, I gave a young man his first GA airplane ride as a Young Eagle. I get back and describe where we went and did when the Father says, "We were watching your ADS-B AND listening to you on LiveATC. It’s a brave new world out there …
If this poopus maximus keeps up … people will start removing the ADS-B units IF their situation permits. Those of us that were leery of it are now justified in our concerns, sadly.
I remember when toll roads appeared in the 50’s. They said ‘as soon as the road is paid for, the tolls will go away.’ How’d that work out for everyone? Imagine paying ADS-B prices for the toll transponder only to learn ‘they’re’ using it to spy on you! This is but another nail in the coffin that will bury GA ultimately. The shortage of A&P’s / IA’s servicing GA is another.
I have no idea where you get your facts when reporting a story, but UPS didn’t “invent” ADS-B. Period. I was there flying the mentioned 757 and 767 aircraft.
Long before ADS-B came into being, UPS purchased the company that developed the well-known Apollo LORAN and the subsequent GPS receivers and associated avionics. They actually bought the company to develop the DIAD handheld computer used by their drivers.
That company developed avionics to utilize ADS-B technology. They had some very bright people, but in no way did they invent ADS-B. The company and UPS were heavily involved in tests of ADS-B technology in Alaska and other places.
UPS intended to use ADS-B to develop a merging and spacing protocol to reduce the vectoring required during inbound pushes to their hubs at night. That is where the savings in fuel was to come. They developed and installed, at great expense, a dedicated Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) for the 757 and 767 aircraft. The EFB wasn’t anything like the iPads used today. It was a huge box permanently installed to the left and right side of the captain and first officer’s seats respectively.
That piece of avionics along with associated equipment installed on the glareshield was used to facilitate the merging and spacing scheme. Unfortunately, it was a colossal failure due to the ATC requirement to integrate non-participating aircraft flying into the hub and other technical issues.
After it became clear that merging and spacing wasn’t going to happen, the EFBs were removed. Not long after, UPS sold their UPSAT subsidiary to Garmin.
I agree with you Arthur. There are several intentionally deviant goals that a person or entity could achieve by using publicly available ADS-B data. Scenarios that make airport fee collection relatively innocent. In a number of ways, ADS-B tracking availability creates vulnerabilities in safety and security. Much like the liberal application of small UAS into the NAS creates the same concerns.
I’m someone here on the front lines in Florida, fighting this usage of ADS-B. Our airport manager floated a proposal to implement these fees here in Fernandina Beach (KFHB) by Vector. The airport pays for Virtower to collect operations data that is useful to help in planning, getting grants, etc. So this proposal by their offshoot company Vector seemed like a good idea to him, a way to collect more money for all the growth he wanted to implement at the airport. His presentation to the City Council was met with a lukewarm response. Then he presented it to our local pilot group and was TROUNCED by the idea. The arguments are all the same as above, and since I’m the AOPA volunteer representative I approached our regional manager. At first she said AOPA wouldn’t weigh in on the matter too heavily, so I was happy to see they changed their minds. We pay taxes on every gallon of AvGas we buy, no matter where, so that the system can stay solvent and infrastructure improved. Adding fees on top of that, especially using a system that we had to invest heavily in for our aircraft, is just egregious. The good news for us is that this manager has moved on to a different airport in Colorado (no bad feelings for him, this was just a better fit for what he wants to do) so it seems like this idea is dead for now. But we remain ready to fight against it should the time come.
I readily agree that money is the root of all evil - and good. Let’s be honest, without financial incentives very little is done. But that does not justify opportunistic leaches usurping the system.
The flying public needed to be convinced that they should buy into ADS-B with expensive equipment. We could just as easily have decided to avoid class Charlie and Bravo airspace and kept several thousand dollars in our wallets, but without participation, the system loses value. We were sold a system that would cost the FAA money to build and cost the participants money to equip for, but it would provide efficiencies to the FAA ($ savings over time) and increased safety for the aviators. Win-win. It also required trust that it would not be abused.
If I had been told that I should spend several thousand dollars so that anyone tracking government data could decide at their discretion that I should be billed any amount they choose, or scrutinized for possible violations and sued or fined, I would have immediately said “No thank you”.
As an example, I enjoy using Google Maps, it is a fantastic service. I know Google collects my data and sells it. They can provide the mapping service to me because they make money from the meta data the users generate. But if Google started selling my location to local municipalities in order that they charge me a virtual “toll” because I happened to drive through their town, or issuing citations because I didn’t appear to make a full and complete stop at an intersection, I would immediately delete every Google app off my phone, use paper maps and leave my phone at home. I suppose they would all say they were within their rights to do it, and maybe they want to discourage traffic from out-of-towners, but for my part, I would immediately stop participating in the service that facilitated it.
The airports that are opting in to this service readily admit that they are participating in the program in order to discourage students from utilizing their field. I don’t necessarily enjoy a pattern full of students, but if they are permitted to use ADS-B to push out specifically targeted unwanted traffic, it won’t be long before ADS-B data is used to support a litany of restrictive and punitive measures that will twist and contort the flying public according to the whim of any political activist on every municipal and town board across the country.
Allowing unrestricted use of ADS-B data by third parties for purposes other than aviation safety and efficiency is a mistake and will drive participants out of the system.
1 reply
If that’s their stated reasoning, I believe that would put them in violation of FAA rules that require public airports to provide equal access to all potential users. I certainly hope AOPA or others would pick up on that and sue those airports and the city councils that approved such measures.
“kerfuffle“ is likely the word you were looking for…
Perhaps the FAA needs to block ownership information from the FAA aircraft registry database. I’ve never understood why it is public. I can’t look up a license plate and find a car owner’s name and address. And for many good reasons. There’s crazy people out there. You cut someone off on the highway and now you get a rock through your living room window.
2 replies
Russ, I want to help you with your “origins of ADS-B” portion of your article. Briefly, the UAT was invented by The MITRE Corporation in the mid-1990s as a full-featured low-cost ADS-B/FIS-B/TIS-B solution for GA that would not further congest the 1090 band. In the late 90’s, the Tomorrow (sp?) Corporation in Salem developed the first commercial prototypes with MITRE for use by the FAA’s Capstone program in Alaska and SafeFlight21 program in the lower 48. UPS, as a forwarding thinking organization purchased Tomorrow and renamed the company as UPS Aviation Technologies (UPS-AT). UPS was very active testing ADS-B with the SafeFlight 21 program. UPS-AT was later purchased by Garmin and was named Garmin-AT. MITRE continued to support the Capstone and Safeflight 21 programs until 2007, when the FAA created a national ADS-B program. 1090 ADS-B had a very different development and implementation history.
1 reply
I discussed the use of ADSB for FAR violations with a DAR said it that ADSB alone can’t be used solely as a means for issuing a violation. Then I asked about Martha and the bridge and he said the Ohio DOT had a crew on the bridge at the time that saw her fly under the bridge. Also the sky beacon isnt very reliable below 1000-1500’ AGL since it requires the appropriate towers to trigger their response. Unlike my more expensive Garmin gear that tracks me down to short final. In fact after studying the skybeacone I don’t think it would be approved today.
Good point. Block our names and addresses from open databases OR owners need to spend $5 to re-register our planes under our own made up “LLC’” names.
If the FAA would prohibit airports that receive Federal funding from charging aircraft owners for self fueling, you would see Fuel Clubs, much like Flying Clubs to share the upkeep of fuel farms either for MOGAS, 100UL or plain old 100LL and the revenues that support the airport would dry up. Local taxes would rise to pay for an airport and soon the airport would ditch the ADS-B data grab.
Also since anyone is permitted free access to my identified data, why can’t the FAA or EPA etc, put a “cookie” on it and record the amount flown and send a tax bill annually?
1 reply
Money hungry states have taken notice. ADS-B also is apparently being used by states for collecting sales tax because an aircraft is on record as originating and terminating flights at an airport within the state, so the owner must live there and it must be based there, and there is no previous record of sales tax collected by that state.
“Taylor Swift might be happy but some lesser lights actually ensure their movements are well known and then there’s that pesky First Amendment.” There’s nothing “First Amendment” guaranteeing government data is available to citizens for unrestricted use. Think tax returns, Social Security medical records and claims, and classified data.
The real problem here is that it isn’t “government” data, but data that anyone with a free FlightAware-provided radio can access themselves.
The Florida installations are not the first to have ASDB monitoring and billing.
Vector Aviation Systems has over 200 installations and a number in California that have been operating for a few years now.
So, it’s not a new ‘service’ , it’s just been made very public and pilots are now being made aware of this .
This is not the first time the public funded a system (via taxes ) developed for and by the government and its contractors then got charged BILLIONS to use tech they already paid for! What tech do I speak of why sat. Communications and services. The technology to use an orbiting repeater and bounce telephone calls then t.v. pictures off of them to phones and radios world wide was developed by the government of the united states first for DOD use , then companies used this new knowlege to build television satellites and evolveinto DtV, not only did they use publicly funded and developed methods to build the satellites, how did they get to orbit?? Why on top of a rocket derived from DOD missile technology from a government owned facility full of government equipment staffed by persons employed by the government. So why do I now have to pay a monthly bill to watch my T.V. full of advertising an hour t.v. show is about 35 to 40 % commercials! So now I must buy a satellite t.v. service or pay for cable (acquires programming from same satellite) and endure high frequency advertisements inserted into the shows i try to watch, trying to get me to spend money on certain products for use of a whole lot of technology my parents and myself paid for through taxes we paid to build this wonderful sales pitch device ?? So no I am not surprized that ADS-B is going to be used for profit by some one , just the way things developed by our tax dollars are used for anything but our benefit! History repeats its self yet again…
BTW, Vector Airport Systems has been doing business since 2011, 13 years now, and few of us knew anything about it,
see; https://www.vector-us.com/planepass
" Generating Hundreds of Millions in Aircraft Fee Revenue…"
OK, let’s look at enhancing some comparable systems, and try to predict the reaction of the population involved:
Under either of those scenarios, having a single piece of information (license plate, name, tail number, phone number, current location) would allow anyone to know who and where that person is. This is not dystopian science fiction. How fast do you think the general population would revolt? Or do you think that the vast majority of Americans are so stupid that they would agree to it in order to get instant fast-food coupons nearby?
The camel’s nose is already under the tent, and it’s getting much more difficult to write dystopian science fiction.
2 replies
We’re getting there already.
That was a reasonable and generally accepted way of paying for road maintenance.
Enter, the electric car.
They don’t buy fuel (directly), so they don’t pay highway taxes.
As electric cars become more and more popular, highway fuel tax revenue has started dropping. States are facing budget shortfalls (exacerbated by more fuel-efficient cars overall).
The solution? A per-mile highway tax.
Bu most politicians fear imposing such a tax just because it’s a new tax. And unlike fuel taxes that are baked into the price-per-gallon, a mileage tax would be highly visible, likely appearing as a bill in the mail or annual registration fee.
But what’s not really being discussed is how those miles would be counted. A simple number is not sufficient - states would want to charge out-of-state drivers (just like they currently do when long-distance drivers buy fuel far from home). This means tracking where every registered vehicle has been.
An additional tax and Big Brother surveillance? That’s a tough sell for even the best politician.
Why would an airport ever disallow landing approval?
The FBO or airport authority is collecting the fee. The tower doesn’t care about collections. I’m assuming a tower in your scenario. Non towered would mean they can’t deny you anything.
If the plane/pilot owes money, landing at the same airport is what they would hope for. Now you are on the ground and you get booted and can’t leave. No safety issue and they have possession of your airplane.
Not just Americans, but most people around the world. This is, after all, how social media works (except without the coupons). Give people something for “free” and they’ll willingly give away a lot of information.
Airports receiving FAA funding cannot prohibit self-fueling ( a private club would be considered the same as an individual) so long as it met a single standard for safety. However they could impose a flowage fee per gallon the same as if a commercial operator was pumping it.
I landed at an airport where there was nothing in any publication on the airport that there were landing fees - not even in the FEES section on ForeFlight. (Since changed). I ignore the bill they sent as they don’t have the right to charge landing fees without notification. I also red-exed that airport to never use it again. Nor will I use any airport with landing fees. We already pay a flow fee with fuel so these airports are double dipping. Europe has been charging all kinds of fees since nearly the beginning. Airway, ILS, center, etc. hundreds of dollars in fees PLUS higher taxes on fuel and yes high landing fees. To land on a grass strip in England used to be a pound sterling per landing. That was 40 years ago. I’m sure it’s up to £25 now PER LANDING.
We need to sue cities who charge landing fees AND charge fuel flowage fees. That would be like paying a fee to drive into a gas station and then pay taxes on the fuel you buy.
Respectfully Russ, no. Safety is a consideration, as is cost for most of us. For me, it’s privacy. In my truck, I can choose to take a route that does not require a toll-road transponder. In my plane, there are huge swaths of airspace that I cannot traverse (much less land) without ADS-B/out. And those swaths are growing.
NO on ADS-B commercialization. ADS-B has greatly enhanced aviation safety and efficiency by providing accurate, real-time data on aircraft. It improves coverage in areas where radar doesn’t reach and helps manage air traffic more effectively. While exact numbers on accident prevention are hard to pinpoint, ADS-B clearly boosts safety, especially when combined with outside-the-cockpit scans. However, using ADS-B for non-safety purposes, such as billing or surveillance, is inappropriate. Aircraft owners paid for “safety” equipment for “safety” purposes, and diverting it for other uses could weaken its primary purpose and reduce its effectiveness. Keep ADS-B focused on enhancing safety and efficiency, not on commercial applications.
This is good as far back as it goes. My employer’s Magnavox Research Lab participated in the first GPS simulation (1970s) test using small transmitters on the desert floor. I was visiting the lab when the results came in showing that the accuracy was twice as good as calculated. During the whoop la several of us private pilots realized that it could be used for a real 3D collision avoidance system, not a 2D bandaid like TCAS. Everything was classified so nothing happened until KAL007 was shot down, Reagan released the basic signal to the world, and the FAA finally accepted GPS (RTCA Task Force 1). A wise FAA management decided that the Korean War era technology 1090-ES version of ADS-B might not work and asked Mitre to take a clean sheet of paper and develop UAT. After four years, the 1090-ES standards group at RTCA was still screaming at each other so they authorized a UAT group. Within a year, UAT’s TSO was published (an FAA record) and 1090-ES took another year. At the Oct 2000 UPS/FedEx/Airborne-sponsored OpEval in Louisville, UAT was perfect; 1090-ES still had problems. Finally, who in their right mind would authorize two data links that don’t talk to each other and then require only the transmitter? (Unless they didn’t want the pilots to separate themselves?)
Privacy is important, scum are ‘protesting’ outside of people’s homes.
BTW, Canada already has user fees for ATC, its system is independent of the government safety regulator.
(Governance of Nav Canada is effectively by a committee of user groups. Seems to work, after some difficulty early on, key is continued cooperation among the user groups. Beware term ‘privatization’. is misleading for the Canadian system.)
With airports given to local committees of professional engineers, accountants, and politicians etc. (Many airports were already owned by cities and private entities, such as Kelowna BC IIRC.)
Benefit is much less fussing about improvements to the system, as utility connects to revenue.
Would car owners stand for people being able to stalk them in real time by copying their license plate number?