Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) president and CEO Darren Pleasance announced today he has sent a letter to Acting FAA Administrator Chris Rocheleau protesting use of ADS-B data in “ways that go beyond its original intent.” Pleasance pointed out that AOPA supported the ADS-B mandate when it was implemented back in 2020, “as we were assured ADS-B would only be used to improve air traffic safety and airspace efficiencies."
“were assured ADS-B would only be used to improve air traffic safety and airspace efficiencies.”
Bull.
MEMBERS warned you back in the day about automated fees and automatic enforcements and privacy concerns and the AOPA did not listen. We warned than anyone with a laptop can set up automated complaints, automated billings, automated notices for thieves when you leave town and automated notices to law enforcement on your movements.
Don’t shovel the lie that owners did not tell AOPA or that government gave AOPA assurances that FAA could control it’s use. It’s not so.
Agreed and that’s one of the reasons I did not renew my AOPA membership this year. Sending a letter to the FAA does exactly what? Some aircraft have a ‘squat’ switch. The meaning may not apply here, but the term fits.
The million+ salary of the AOPA CEO should be reflected by a bit more action than ‘sent a letter to Acting FAA Administrator’.
Just venting and my 2 cents and it’s probably not worth that much… GA is losing the fight to stay aloft.
If I read the article and the replies correctly this is what transpired. Owners warned AOPA that the data would be used for errant purposes. AOPA expressed those concerns and received assurances it would only be used to “improve safety and efficiencies.” This seems to be a failure of the FAA to live up to its commitments to AOPA. The belief that AOPA could have stopped ADS-b implementation in its tracks over this issue inflates the importance of GA influence on FAA policy. The airlines run the show. We are just the zit on the elephant.
The belief that AOPA is just now “surprised” by this is beyond the pale.
The belief that AOPA sending a letter will make a difference now is not sane.
Sorry, but I’m old enough to remember the actual history of events and I’m way too old to swallow organizational horseshyte explanations. Zero encryption means zero control; regardless of what’s “said”.
Good question.
AOPA should be the one to answer that one (before making only ceremonious pronouncements). It’s a bit galling for AOPA to expect members to just swallow irresponsible press release.
Zero encryption means zero control; regardless of what’s “said”.
I’m also old, but too new to aviation to know the history. Was there a request by AOPA or others at the time to include encryption or other privacy safeguards, and were those requests not considered or considered and rejected?
Yes, a request (initiated by Bizjet owners) was made adnd , I think approved. The requirements for bluring the N numbers are less than clear, just more burearucratic BS.
And people wonder why there is little sympathy for those in the FAA and other government departments who got the layoff notices! So far absolutely none of the promised improvements in air traffic volume and safety has happened with ADS-B implementation.
Respectfully, GA aircraft have a pretty high mishap rate. The general public has a right to know who is flying what over their heads, and in what manner. Being smaller than the airliners shouldn’t come with an increase in privacy expectation, because statistically the threat a GA pilot poses to the folks who live at the end of the runway is a lot higher from GA than from part 121 operators. The airspace belongs to the whole country, and the infrastructure that allows GA to exist is largely funded by the general public through fees on tickets, cargo, etc. It is regrettable that GA can’t operate with a modicum of privacy, but it is also very reasonable.
Don’t do things in an aircraft that you wouldn’t want the world to know about. Pretty good principle to fly by.
Maybe there’s an opportunity with the new administration to rein in abuses like this. Rather than trying to control public use of ADS-B data, why not block all public access to aircraft registration information and impose criminal penalties for improper access and use, just like auto registration data? There should also be a prohibition on using any legacy database or data containing personal ownership information other than for law enforcement and search and rescue. That way, even Vector’s cameras can’t be used to send bills.
I am old too, 56 years of aviating over 30K hours. I am also old enough to have been personally aquatinted with the chair of the House Aviation Sub-committee who later became SecTransportion. I know a lot of you think AOPA stands so tall in Washington they can affect the smallest of issues. The fact is they are a bit player in a large game. I know it hurts to find that General Aviation is not as important to others as it is to you, but trust me, in Washington, they don’t care. AOPA is your best hope in a sea of bad choices. If they can get Congress to address one or two problems in a session they are doing pretty good.
Hold on, Brian, would you apply the same standard to other modes of transport? If not, why not? What if cars were required to broadcast their ownership and position constantly? I don’t think the general public would just go along with that. Do you?
Besides, my recollection is not perfect, going to back to the original ADSB-out reg nprm, but I thought some assurance was given by FAA regarding appropriate use of the data.
Maybe, but I suspect the folks living along the Potomac River near DCA, in Toronto, over Philadelphia and in Alaska might disagree with you. While ADS-B might have helped with the first accident listed, it had no bearing in any of the others. Given the death toll from the ones listed, it will be a while before GA catches up to it, so “statistically,” at least for now, 121/135 is not the safe bet it used to be. That said, you make a fair point about that GA cannot operate with a modicum of privacy. I suspect the feds view ADS-B data the same way as your local police department looks at license plates. Courts have long held that there is no “expectation of privacy” while driving your car on a public street. Flying, like driving, is a privilege, not a right.
Arthur, you’re right, this shouldn’t surprise anyone, and a letter at this stage probably won’t change much. No encryption means no control, and that has been clear from the start.
The bigger issue is how ADS-B data is being used for things it was never meant for. Pilots installed it because they were told it would improve safety and efficiency, but now it is being used for enforcement actions, lawsuits, and fee collection. AOPA is right to push back, but fixing this will take more than letters. The FAA and possibly Congress will have to step in to make sure ADS-B is used the way it was originally intended, not as a tool to go after pilots.
When cell phones first came out they broadcast unencrypted. Businesses sprang up that had scanners to catch the conversation, or at least half of it (broadcast and receiving were on two different channels).
Why won’t this happen with ADS-B? Because companies, who had to satisfy upper income clients, controlled the cell phone business. The government controls ADS-B and has zero interest in taking care of its “customers”. The bureaucracy cares first for itself, then for its political circle.
More stories about people using the data to hurt others may sway public sentiment our way - but I wouldn’t count on it. House sitters can answer some of the problems, but businesses will be taken advantage of by those whose scruples are low.
Unintended consequences in our brave now world. Can’t wait to see how AI ties into this - and it will.