jliltd said:
My experience about 10 years ago is they charge about $29,999.99 because that is one cent less than where the bill gets audited for usury by either insurance or regulators. No matter the flight length. This limit may have gone up since.
Click to expand...

They may charge that but they don’t collect anything close to that.
 
YellowJacket RV9 said:
I work on an EMS helicopter and just had a timely encounter. This morning we landed at a small airport to meet local EMS to pick up a critical trauma patient. While we were moving the patient from the ambulance onto our stretcher, just outside the rotor arc of the still-running helicopter, a man from the FBO walks out onto the ramp with a paper invoice and says to us "I know you guys are busy but how do you want to deal with the ramp fee?". He wasn't joking. Maybe they will add it to the patient's bill?
Click to expand...
I’ve flown in to Tallahassee a few times on pilots n paws missions & million air waived the fees bc I was on a charity mission.
 
MacCool said:
They may charge that but they don’t collect anything close to that.
Click to expand...
In our case my brother tried to negotiate with Native Air to no avail. They wouldn't come off one penny. He was a poor dirt farmer so he declared bankruptcy. So everybody lost except the lawyers.
 
I've considered opting out of any data reporting that goes to sites such as flightaware.
You can opt out with the FAA here.

My wife likes to follow me on my cross country flights, but I can have her follow me on my Garmin InReach, which I can control.
Many celebrities or high end flyers elect to opt out. You'll see the notice on flightaware.
I suspect this would restrict these preditory companies from getting your data.

With opting out & anonymous mode, it would at least make it difficult to track. Can't help with the cameras though.

Edit: FWIW, I just opted out. I'll update this thread in a few days.
 
Last edited:
roadrunner20 said:
I've considered opting out of any data reporting that goes to sites such as flightaware.
You can opt out with the FAA here.

My wife likes to follow me on my cross country flights, but I can have her follow me on my Garmin InReach, which I can control.
Many celebrities or high end flyers elect to opt out. You'll see the notice on flightaware.
I suspect this would restrict these preditory companies from getting your data.

With opting out & anonymous mode, it would at least make it difficult to track. Can't help with the cameras though.

Edit: FWIW, I just opted out. I'll update this thread in a few days.
Click to expand...
Note that ADS-B exchange does not recognize the opt-out, nor would any private receivers. My flight school had all of their planes LADD flagged, but I can still follow them easily with ADS-B exchange. Vector Airport Systems may already put ADS-B receivers at the airports wishing to collect landing fees, and ignore your opt-out when they record your broadcast at the airport. I don't see much benefit to opting out.
 
skirting_virga said:
Note that ADS-B exchange does not recognize the opt-out, nor would any private receivers. My flight school had all of their planes LADD flagged, but I can still follow them easily with ADS-B exchange. Vector Airport Systems may already put ADS-B receivers at the airports wishing to collect landing fees, and ignore your opt-out when they record your broadcast at the airport. I don't see much benefit to opting out.
Click to expand...
My understanding, the opt out would prevent the FAA distribution to third parties.
I wonder if squawking anonymous cancels out the ground equipment or do they convert the incoming datestream ICAO, if it's available while anonymous.
 
roadrunner20 said:
My understanding, the opt out would prevent the FAA distribution to third parties.
I wonder if squawking anonymous cancels out the ground equipment or do they convert the incoming datestream ICAO, if it's available while anonymous.
Click to expand...
Anonymous Mode is only available with Mode C coupled with UAT out. Not available for 1090ES. Mainly because Mode S has always provided full identification broadcast. So UAT equipment that has Anonymous Mode never cancels out any "ground equipment" whether or not Anonymous Mode is enabled or not. In fact, no approved ADS-B out equipment of any either type (978 or 1090ES) ever cancels out air or ground equipment nor does air or ground equipment ever do anything but receive the transmitted ICAO data.

Here is the basic simple way that UAT Anonymous Mode works. UAT 978Mhz "out" equipment has an internal random number generator. When the Anonymous Mode switch is enabled and the aircraft is squawking VFR this random number generator creates a randomized code that replaces the real ICAO code that is transmitted from the onboard equipment. This is before any data is transmitted from the aircraft. So in this state, at no time is the actual ICAO information available to any external system. So the ground equipment, LADD system, PIA system or cloaking requests to 3rd party data providers like Flightaware are meaningless because at no time can anybody tell who you really are. This includes the gubmit' including FAA and military (verified personally by interviewing systems engineers and the FAA). That's not a big impediment to law enforcement or the FAA because they have plenty of other ways to track down aircraft whether anonymous or non-anonymous. You are still a target after all.

Remember that Anonymous Mode doesn't make an aircraft "invisible". Just anonymous. Anonymous Mode doesn't sacrifice safety in any way. An aircraft with Anonymous Mode active while squawking VFR still shows up in the system and other aircraft and ATC can still see you and your heading, speed and altitude. But your target is stripped of identifying information, typically your registration number and type. So as an analogy if there was a traffic law that required every automobile on the road to broadcast the owner's name and contact information in a rear-window display at all time during operation, there could be an exclusion for certain cars who had a little different system that doesn't require the display. However, all the cars can travel down a multi-lane interstate safely by doing is the actual real case, see and avoid. Don't need to know who owns all the cars, just need to not hit any of them. So aircraft with 1090es would be like the cars with the personal information display and the aircraft with active Anonymous Mode would be like the actual case of cars today with the drivers and owners unknown until the insurance cards are needed.

Can you imagine of state DMVs required all cars to have that rear window information display? The lawsuits would hit and the outcry by privacy and safety experts would be loud. Why should airplanes not have the same protections?

Also, third-party data tracking systems use 1090ES receivers almost exclusively. UAT 978 is rarely monitored but I know of one service provider who has tried adding UAT receivers, but with little deployment. So even if an UAT-equipped aircraft doesn't have Anonymous Mode enabled they rarely show up anyway, sometimes even when squawking a discrete code with ATC enroute.
 
Last edited:
If only this was true on all UATs. Attached, again, is the first 5 seconds of my "anonymous mode on" start up.

I marked out my ID. Add your own pun.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240913_125205.jpg
    Screenshot_20240913_125205.jpg
    973.9 KB · Views: 77
Last edited:
jliltd said:
Can you imagine of state DMVs required all cars to have that rear window information display? The lawsuits would hit and the outcry by privacy and safety experts would be loud. Why should airplanes not have the same protections?
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly and I have been pissed from day one that the FAA posts online all pilot and aircraft registration info. With any company that would be considered a data breach and I would be offered 3 years of credit monitoring service. There is absolutely no reason that info needs/should be public. Unfortunately that boat has sailed.
Back to subject of post.
 
Last edited:
MacCool said:
To be fair...I'm not jumping to conclusions regarding uAvionix' silence on this issue given that, AFAIK, they haven't said anything about it publicly, including on their social media pages. Thus far, in my experience, they've been a pretty good company so I'm giving them the benefit of a doubt until they declare one way or the other. If they remain silent...well...I guess I'd take that as significant.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that uAvionix makes a ground-based ADS-B receiver (https://uavionix.com/products/pingstation-3/) that uses the same ADS-B chip used in the echoUAT and skySensor. uAvionix has sold a bunch of these receivers to airports and FBOs. Vector bought them as well.
 
compjtc said:
My understanding is that uAvionix makes a ground-based ADS-B receiver (https://uavionix.com/products/pingstation-3/) that uses the same ADS-B chip used in the echoUAT and skySensor. uAvionix has sold a bunch of these receivers to airports and FBOs. Vector bought them as well.
Click to expand...
Or just use a STRATUS/STRATUX receiver connected to a tablet or a laptop with appropriate software. Not particularly hard for a software savvy person to do. Heck, you can build your own ADS-B receiver with parts and step by step instructions that are readily available on line. Here is one I found with just a quick GOOGLE search: https://www.flightaware.com/adsb/piaware/build/
 
Last edited:
GalinHdz said:
Or just use a STRATUS/STRATUX receiver connected to a tablet or a laptop with appropriate software. Not particularly hard for a software savvy person to do. Heck, you can build your own ADS-B receiver with parts and step by step instructions that are readily available on line. Here is one I found with just a quick GOOGOE search: https://www.flightaware.com/adsb/piaware/build/
Click to expand...
Yes, I built a raspberry PI system in the early days of ads-b.
Never thought of them using the same system grounds based.
 
[email protected] said:
Maybe I look at this in a different light. I don't mind a small charge for using facilities that are kept in good repair and are clean. I think these facilities should waive the fees if fuel is purchased.

Now the downside. This is becoming a cash cow for the FBO. Whatever percentage that is getting back to the city I am betting it is small and not used to better the airport.

I WILL NOT do business with Signature anymore if there is an airport within any kind a distance that they don't have a monopoly with. They are unreasonable and are killing airports for GA where they operate.

My .02 cents worth.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm not paying $10 for the privilege of paying Signature $45 to "handle" me
 
1Beege said:
What are the chances this is why you can't get an Echo anymore and the "fix" is taking so long?
Click to expand...
I dunno. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might wonder if there's something in uAvionix' new software that came out with the encoder for the EchoUAT that was done at the behest of Vector Airport Services. But I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm reserving judgement, confident that ultimately the truth will out. Easier for me to shrug off, as landing fees are a rarity around here ATM and nothing on the horizon so far.
 
I escaped this kind of system over 40 years ago only to see it creep into existence here in the US, very slowly and relentlessly.
When I left Switzerland in 1979 only the most affluent could afford to fly and maintain currency requirements.
The Canadians have also embraced this sort of fee and tax collecting scheme, charging even for ATC communications by the minute as do Europeans.
The Soviets went a step further and rewarded folks who tattled on their friends. But then, we all know how things worked out for them.
It's too bad, we seem compelled to do all the wrong things first before we decide to do the right thing. Trouble is, we destroy generations of innovation and talent in this
misguided process of raising revenue, when a simple and cost effective tweak in gas taxes would solve the problem much more efficiently.
 
bobnoffs said:
walt, that helicopter probably charges $15000 for a ride. money makes the world go round.
Click to expand...
The average cost of a helicopter medical flight is more like 30-35K$…If you are still breathing politely decline flight…just kidding, they do save lives …
 
RVFlyer said:
Excellent suggestion. I’ll certainly add it to our strategy discussion. Also, thank you for pointing out in a previous message that these systems are not only ADSB based. As you pointed out, Vector also has camera based systems such as at DAL.
Click to expand...

Several hundred small airports in Australia use a company called AvData to collect landing and parking fees.

For the most part, they use VHF receivers tuned to the CTAF to record tail numbers, transcribed into billing records by business process outsourcing outfits in the Philippines. The bills get mailed to the registration holder at the end of the month.

At some airports they have traffic cameras on the taxiways.

They've recently started using flight plan data: If you file, you'll get a bill from AvData for your destination even if you divert and never arrive. They have a billing@ email address so you can clear up their errors, but it's still a pain in the butt.

There are all kinds of ways to bill for airport usage, and focusing on ADS-B as a culprit is a bit of a distraction, it's just one method among many. The important thing is public use of public resources: The city probably doesn't bill for the use of taxpayer-funded boat ramps, parks, or highways. But they've normalized billing for taxpayer-funded airports.

- mark
 
Marlonyoung said:
Operating with you transponder off
Click to expand...
Exactly. If your aircraft is equipped with ADS-B equipment the rule says that equipment must be in good shape and must be on and transmitting at any time the aircraft is operated anywhere on the ground or in the air within the USA. That means anytime the engine is on. Including taxiing to the fuel pumps or doing a maintenance run up on your own private strip hundreds of miles from the nearest rule airspace. AOPA and we as individual aircraft owners really blew it letting the "always on" mandate slip by during the NPRM process.
 
What if an ADSB goes on the fritz? Can the aircraft be placarded as ADSB inop, with instructions to avoid ADSB airspace? This is in reference to systems that have ADSB separate from transponder, such as Garmin gdl-82. Not integrated xponder and ADSB systems.
 
wsquare said:
What if an ADSB goes on the fritz? Can the aircraft be placarded as ADSB inop, with instructions to avoid ADSB airspace? This is in reference to systems that have ADSB separate from transponder, such as Garmin gdl-82. Not integrated xponder and ADSB systems.
Click to expand...

FAR 91.255(g)(1).

- mark
 
roadrunner20 said:
My understanding, the opt out would prevent the FAA distribution to third parties.
Click to expand...
Companies that accept FAA ADS-B data are required by the FAA to honor LADD requests, otherwise no access. ADS-B Exchange give the one-finger salute to the whole system and puts LADD status on their track information.

ds
 
Something else to think about is the number of privately owned airports that are barely getting by with basic services. I own a small public use airport in PA and the only income I get from transients is about $.50 a gallon for the fuel they buy. It takes a lot of 172s to pay for the cost of a fully EPA compliant fuel system, not to mention paved runway and ramps, night lighting, etc. Based airplanes cover the majority of those expenses with hangar rents, but they are barely enough.

In other words, you might think about frequenting small airports that really need your support. When I was starting out in aviation (53 years ago), there were 14,500 privately owned, public use airports. Over 10,000 of those have closed..........
 
Dart11 said:
Something else to think about is the number of privately owned airports that are barely getting by with basic services. I own a small public use airport in PA and the only income I get from transients is about $.50 a gallon for the fuel they buy. It takes a lot of 172s to pay for the cost of a fully EPA compliant fuel system, not to mention paved runway and ramps, night lighting, etc. Based airplanes cover the majority of those expenses with hangar rents, but they are barely enough.

In other words, you might think about frequenting small airports that really need your support. When I was starting out in aviation (53 years ago), there were 14,500 privately owned, public use airports. Over 10,000 of those have closed..........
Click to expand...
Very interesting perspective. It's not always clear when a small airport is looking for traffic and fuel sales. Some are just there to service their locally based aircraft, and don't want transient traffic that potentially disturbs the NIMBYs.
 
Dart11 said:
Something else to think about is the number of privately owned airports that are barely getting by with basic services. I own a small public use airport in PA and the only income I get from transients is about $.50 a gallon for the fuel they buy. It takes a lot of 172s to pay for the cost of a fully EPA compliant fuel system, not to mention paved runway and ramps, night lighting, etc. Based airplanes cover the majority of those expenses with hangar rents, but they are barely enough.

In other words, you might think about frequenting small airports that really need your support. When I was starting out in aviation (53 years ago), there were 14,500 privately owned, public use airports. Over 10,000 of those have closed..........
Click to expand...
Agreed. We need more hangars, and the big airports have no interest in building them for us or even letting us build our own. Need more of this kind of airport.
 
Dart11 said:
Something else to think about is the number of privately owned airports that are barely getting by with basic services. I own a small public use airport in PA and the only income I get from transients is about $.50 a gallon for the fuel they buy. It takes a lot of 172s to pay for the cost of a fully EPA compliant fuel system, not to mention paved runway and ramps, night lighting, etc. Based airplanes cover the majority of those expenses with hangar rents, but they are barely enough.

In other words, you might think about frequenting small airports that really need your support. When I was starting out in aviation (53 years ago), there were 14,500 privately owned, public use airports. Over 10,000 of those have closed..........
Click to expand...
I can see how it would be difficult to keep a privately owned airport open these days. Up here, non-restricted private airports are very rare, especially those with lighting and paved runways. And...they would have to compete with a very large number of tax-supported city/county public-use airports.

If I owned an airport, I can see the value/necessity of charging landing fees, but in a 50 mile radius from here there are 10 other such public municipal airports. It would be hard to compete.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps if the question is restated. Suppose an aircraft has 2 radios, and one goes on the fritz? The owner is satisfied with one radio. Owner placards the radio inop, removes power, and log entry. The aircraft is legal to fly. Suppose an aircraft ADSB goes on the fritz? The FAR says it must remain on, but this assumes it is operational. The FAR provides a procedure to take aircraft to repair, IF owner wants to take aircraft to repair facility. Does the FAR specifically say the ADSB must be repaired? Or can it be placarded as inop? Is the ADSB part of an aircraft Minimum Equipment List?
 
There are public airports that accept FAA Airport Improvement Project funds, and the “strings” that come with the funds. There are fully private airports that are not eligible for FAA grant funds. These airports generally require advance permission to land, unless you’re an owner. And there are private airports that allow public access. These are not eligible for FAA grant funding, but allow anyone to land. A percentage of the fully private airports, and private public airports are actually airparks, that are residential communities with a runway. A percentage are privately owned by a single entity. A percentage are owned by like minded folks with hangars. And other variations of ownership. Fully private and private public airports may have interest in landing fees, but probably don’t have the landing volume to attract a company like Vector. Public airports, that are largely grant funded, have the volume of landings to attract a company like Vector.
 
wsquare said:
Perhaps if the question is restated. Suppose an aircraft has 2 radios, and one goes on the fritz? The owner is satisfied with one radio. Owner placards the radio inop, removes power, and log entry. The aircraft is legal to fly. Suppose an aircraft ADSB goes on the fritz? The FAR says it must remain on, but this assumes it is operational. The FAR provides a procedure to take aircraft to repair, IF owner wants to take aircraft to repair facility. Does the FAR specifically say the ADSB must be repaired? Or can it be placarded as inop? Is the ADSB part of an aircraft Minimum Equipment List?
Click to expand...
Deactivating inop equipment is not uninstalling it. My impression is that inop equipment must be repaired or removed at annual.
I see no mandate to install ADSB.
I see no mandate to prevent Removing ADSB equipment.
I see a mandate to have ADSB to access some airspace but a deviation authorization made available from the mandate to access that airspace where it is required (ADSB airspace).
I wonder if there is a mandate that it is diffacult and onerous to uninstall ADSB?
 
Soooo…. If ADSB goes on the fritz, can it be declared inop, and removed at next annual / CI? Just trying to understand, since nothing lasts forever.
 
wsquare said:
EAA seems to be giving up. Not a good sign.

Click to expand...
Like water flows downhill, fees appear where there are people willing to pay them, or unable to avoid them. EAA seems to be acknowledging this fact that has 1000s of years of history.

There's only one way to avoid these fees spreading like wildfire, and that's for local communities to stop selling the public's infrastructure and creating monopolies or oligopolies.

If we are going to accept these fees - which it looks like we are - then the only things to push for are cost transparency, competition (ha!), and then a clear process of redress when they send erroneous invoices.

Case in point - driving from Chicago to Oshkosh in a rental car a couple of years ago, the toll roads don't accept money or credit cards - they require you to register on a website, create an account, and pay by credit card. They didn't take any of my multiple credit cards for some reason, and the "helpline" could not help. Many phone calls and eventually 100s of dollars later, I finally got this cleaned up. Sure felt like a scam to me, and I can see this kind of thing happening with these automated landing fee companies.
 
wsquare said:
EAA seems to be giving up. Not a good sign.

Click to expand...
That article describes precisely the evolution of landing fees levied by local councils here - just 15y or so after us.

As I said before I doubt they actually return much cash to the local government owners of the airport.
Besides rampant and dangerous non compliance - not using the radio at all or using someone else’s call sign - the other issue is collecting.
Having been stung by some clown on the other side of the country using ones callsign now many legitimately charged people basically don’t pay on principle and run the process to the bitter end making them prove it was you. By the time they’ve sent 4 letters and referred it to a collector, there’s no money left…

It’s a dopey system sold on an unrealistic promise to local govt bureaucrats that don’t understand they’re being had. Countless nice little regional flyins here just disappeared and ended up on private/ag strips. Tourism $$ just disappeared.

Maybe the greater scale at play in the USA exposes the fallacy more efficiently than it has here. I hope so
 
DanH said:
Not necessarily.

The article's theme is "All politics is local". It's absolutely true. The best defender of your airport is you.

The airports with landing fees will be the ones where the locals gave up.
Click to expand...
Hard to disagree completely, but "the locals" you refer to, are a tiny fraction of the total locals deciding on something. If 1/1000 of the local community are pilots, it's not going to take many neighborhood people to dominate the conversation and vote to use landing fees to preserve their "quiet skies". All it will take is somebody circulating word that there is a meeting to reduce airplane traffic. Democracy = might makes right, and pilots are the minority.

IMO this takes regulation at the national level, otherwise we get one local airport that decides to reduce traffic through fees, and the nearby other airports follow suit one-by-one to prevent the displaced practice traffic from spilling over to them. It will turn into a growing patchwork of fee and non-fee in metro areas until the only places you can fly to for free are one-street towns a hundred miles from anywhere.

Federally exempt piston/turboprop traffic <12,500# from paying any landing, "handling", or ramp fees for day use, and the problem goes away. Somebody needs to swing an iron fist to get it to stop, otherwise we're going to quickly become Europe.

EDIT: I don't know if GA will survive the feedback loop of decreasing volumes leading to increasing prices, compounded by companies willing to torch the entire industry to pump next quarter's profit. Textron execs don't give a damn if half-million dollar trainers result in having nobody to fly their bizjets in 20 years - that's somebody else's problem. They only care about making more money next year. IMO GA won't survive that stuff PLUS the assault on small airports and training traffic that is finding new tools to fight with every year.
 
Last edited:
Some of us also pay county/state property tax on our airplanes. Will they opt us out of county & state landing fees? Or exempt our property tax?
 
Last edited:
skirting_virga said:
If 1/1000 of the local community are pilots, it's not going to take many neighborhood people to dominate the conversation and vote to use landing fees to preserve their "quiet skies".
Click to expand...

Chris, are you on a first name basis with your local councilmen and/or commissioners ? Do any of them stop to shake hands with you on the street? Have you ever bought them a beer, or told 'em they're doing a good job?

That's the reality of political influence.

skirting_virga said:
Somebody needs to swing an iron fist to get it to stop..
Click to expand...

Always the "somebody", rarely the "follow me".
 
DanH said:
Chris, are you on a first name basis with your local councilmen and/or commissioners ? Do any of them stop to shake hands with you on the street? Have you ever bought them a beer, or told 'em they're doing a good job?

That's the reality of political influence.
Click to expand...
I'm going to be brutally honest with myself about this one: I am not the ambassador my community needs. I'll attend meetings and vote for my local airfields, but nobody will benefit from me talking to the city council. To be honest, in this area, I'm convinced the city council has significantly anti-aviation members whose opinions will not be swayed by individuals representing the [very small] pilot community. I don't think we have nearly the influence you are suggesting.

DanH said:
Always the "somebody", rarely the "follow me".
Click to expand...
This needs to be done at the national level. AOPA, EAA, and whatever allies they can scare up. I'm a member and I pay dues. We can't have a perfect network of pilot-ambassadors trying to stem a NIMBY anti-aviation tide. The first local airport to put up fees will be the camel's nose in the tent.
 
I gotta agree with the EAA here...this is a local issue. There are many state, county, municipal, and local governmental units that can address these things effectively without inviting the Federal government's legislative nose under the tent of local administrative issues.
 
MacCool said:
I gotta agree with the EAA here...this is a local issue. There are many state, county, municipal, and local governmental units that can address these things effectively without inviting the Federal government's legislative nose under the tent of local administrative issues.
Click to expand...
Most of aviation is federally regulated, including airspace. Without federal pre-emption, condo associations would declare traffic patterns to be "trespassing" and sue local airports or their users out of existence. I'm under the impression that FAA grant money is what sustains many small airports and that money comes with strings attached that dictate how municipalities are allowed to use the land. I'm not a huge fan of the FAA, and certainly not AAM-300. I can appreciate the perspective of feeling that federal regulation is excessive, or at least excessively bureaucratic... But so much of aviation already falls under federal law that we might as well use this framework to support our interests in GA. Local politics are, in general, too fickle and too easily corrupted to rely on for keeping GA use healthy. We need national policy that will bolster airports in all states against local attempts to limit use, and landing fees will be the next battle on that front. I promise I'm not trying to be a crank, but the people who want to kill GA (or profit off it) will easily "divide and conquer" if GA enthusiasts can't succeed in nationally limiting the movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.