Posted: 1/23/2026 10:17:11 AM EDT
|
From AOPA: I am reaching out today to urge you to contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. House Representative and request them to cosponsor the Pilot and Aircraft Privacy Act – Senate Bill S.2175 and House Bill H.R. 4146, respectively. The Pilot and Aircraft Privacy Act (PAPA), introduced by U.S. Senator Ted Budd (R-NC), and U.S. Representative Bob Onder (R-MO)—both active general aviation pilots—would ensure ADS-B data is used for its intended purpose - air traffic safety and airspace efficiency, and not for collecting fees or opening investigations on pilots. The bills are identical. We, GA pilots, spent more than $500 million complying with the FAA’s 2020 ADS-B Out mandate. After receiving confirmation that ADS-B would serve solely air traffic safety and airspace efficiency purposes, the general aviation community endorsed the mandate. Unfortunately, since the mandate took effect, ADS-B data has increasingly been used for purposes other than air traffic safety. It is widely known that some airports are now partnering with commercial companies to gather ADS-B data and use it to assist in the collection of fees. These third parties are now gleaning aircraft information transmitted from ADS-B data to then access a pilot’s personal information from the FAA’s aircraft registry, without the consent of the aircraft owner or pilot. The Pilot and Aircraft Privacy bill would: Prohibit the use of ADS-B data to assist in the collection of fees from pilots or aircraft owners. Clarify that ADS-B data may be used for its intended purposes of air traffic safety and efficiency. Give the secretary of transportation the discretion to authorize other uses of ADS-B data. Expand, to all federal, state, and local entities, a provision in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 preventing investigations from being initiated based solely on ADS-B data. Ensure airports are transparent with proposed fees and their intended purpose. To be clear, the bill would not prevent airports from imposing fees on pilots, nor would it impede the use of FlightAware, Flightradar24, or other popular flight tracking apps. When this bill becomes law, airports will still be able to impose fees, as long as they are fair and reasonable. Airports could also continue to use ADS-B to monitor traffic counts, understand traffic patterns and flows to help them manage and create operational efficiencies, they just could not use ADS-B data (a safety tool) for fee collection. Please call U.S. Senator Bernie Moreno at (202) 224-2315, U.S. Senator Jon Husted at (202) 224-3353, and U.S. Representative Dave Taylor at (202) 225-3164 and urge them to cosponsor the Pilot and Aircraft Privacy Act. Feel free to share with your elected congressional officials why this legislation (S. 2175/H.R. 4146) is important to you. Here are some suggestions. Using ADS-B data to track private aircraft for fee collection without consent undermines a pilot's trust in the system. Non-safety related use of ADS-B data discourages pilots to equip their aircraft with this technology meant for safety purposes. This bill would ensure ADS-B is used for its intended purpose—enhancing aviation safety and efficiency—not a tool for airport economics. The bill also seeks to protect a pilot’s privacy while ensuring the freedom to fly without undue surveillance or cost. Please know that your voice matters and when Members of Congress hear from hundreds of thousands of AOPA members, it makes a difference. Again, as an AOPA member, it would be very helpful and appreciated if you could take a few minutes to contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. House Representative and urge them to cosponsor the Pilot and Aircraft Privacy Act – commonly known as PAPA. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
Not a fan of ADS-B based billing either  There's a map (which may not be 100% current) that shows where most of the "bad" airports are: link . You can also find this information at the website of the main perpetrator of this evil, Vector US . By all means, take your business elsewhere! Yesterday I received two invoices from Vector US. Sadly, I did not have a choice for those flights, the client required landings there. |
"Cogito, ergo armatum sum."
|
Originally Posted By FB41: Again, what's their legal standing to do so? |
trobertson5-0 I wasn't put in jail for what I did. I was put in it for what I think. There were FBI agents posting in my threads. I've seen the discovery showing this.
LEFTISTS: ”Our violence is speech, your speech is violence!”
LEFTISTS: ”Our violence is speech, your speech is violence!”
|
I thought there was a way to have ads-b out anonymously..for safety, but without sending specific info. Is this not correct? I know if ATC asks you to Ident, you have to do it, but if your just cruising around in class Echo, never entering any Delta Charlie or Bravo, why send more data than necessary to be safe? I get that the misuse of data is always a problem and unavoidable for some. |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
Originally Posted By Jodan1776: And what's their remedy if you don't pay the bill? Originally Posted By Jodan1776: Originally Posted By FB41: Again, what's their legal standing to do so? Vector is a NASTY company. They contract with the cities that run the airports with landing fees (hence their “standing”). If you don’t pay a bill, supposedly they will put a lien on your plane. Tons of stories in the ForeFlight comments for airports saying they shot an approach and didn’t land (or even just transited airspace) and got a bill for landing. Vector knows you won’t spend thousands on an attorney to contest the validity of a $12 landing fee, but they will. |
|
Originally Posted By _DR: I thought there was a way to have ads-b out anonymously..for safety, but without sending specific info. Is this not correct? I know if ATC asks you to Ident, you have to do it, but if your just cruising around in class Echo, never entering any Delta Charlie or Bravo, why send more data than necessary to safe? I get that the misuse of data is always a problem and unavoidable for some. There is, sorta. FAA has access but it creates an alternate that is then blocked from out outside parties to the real aircraft. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/equipadsb/privacy I believe that would prevent just ADSB from being used to bill you, but there are always cameras and AI and such. |
“ Well, it feels like someone took a rubber band and snapped it right on the edge of your anus.” -JThompson
Non Solis radios sed Iovis fulmina mitto
Non Solis radios sed Iovis fulmina mitto
|
Originally Posted By Sierra5: There is, sorta. FAA has access but it creates an alternate that is then blocked from out outside parties to the real aircraft. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/equipadsb/privacy I believe that would prevent just ADSB from being used to bill you, but there are always cameras and AI and such. Originally Posted By Sierra5: Originally Posted By _DR: I thought there was a way to have ads-b out anonymously..for safety, but without sending specific info. Is this not correct? I know if ATC asks you to Ident, you have to do it, but if your just cruising around in class Echo, never entering any Delta Charlie or Bravo, why send more data than necessary to safe? I get that the misuse of data is always a problem and unavoidable for some. There is, sorta. FAA has access but it creates an alternate that is then blocked from out outside parties to the real aircraft. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/equipadsb/privacy I believe that would prevent just ADSB from being used to bill you, but there are always cameras and AI and such. Interesting. This is the one I was thinking of. Only limitation is you can't file a flight plan. But you remain anonymous to FAA as well, I think. Since ADS-B is not required in Echo, in certificated aircraft manufactured before ADS-B became a thing (1990s?) this might be a option if not flying a newer kite. An aircraft operator equipped with a 978-MHz Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) for ADS-B Out can, if the hardware supports it, select its anonymous mode during certain operations. Under the rules, the aircraft must transmit its registration number or the call sign filed on the flight plan "except when the pilot has not filed a flight plan, has not requested ATC services, and is using [an approved UAT transmitting a self-assigned temporary ICAO code.]" https://aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/february/pilot/ads-b-incognito Or maybe FAA still has to approve the code, and you can't just put in "JOE" as your code? Not sure. |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
You might want to go back and re-read the link Sierra5 posted. Originally Posted By _DR: Only limitation is you can't file a flight plan. Originally Posted By _DR: Only limitation is you can't file a flight plan. Because the PIA program can be defeated by anyone sufficiently motivated, a lot of high rollers have effectively abandoned their own jets and gone back to private jet charter services as a basic, and obvious, counter-surveillance measure. Never rent from the same place twice in a row, pay with a variety of shell corp's, etc., etc. But you remain anonymous to FAA as well, I think. Since ADS-B is not required in Echo, in certificated aircraft manufactured before ADS-B became a thing (1990s?) this might be a option if not flying a newer kite. An aircraft operator equipped with a 978-MHz Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) for ADS-B Out can, if the hardware supports it, select its anonymous mode during certain operations. Under the rules, the aircraft must transmit its registration number or the call sign filed on the flight plan "except when the pilot has not filed a flight plan, has not requested ATC services, and is using [an approved UAT transmitting a self-assigned temporary ICAO code.]" At any rate, as much as it pains me to say this, and having been billed by Vector myself, it's pointless to fight them on this except as a matter of principle. If legislation ultimately goes against them, they'll simply switch to using the mature, proven, and equally hated license plate reader (LPR) technology to read N-numbers off of aircraft. |
"Cogito, ergo armatum sum."
|
Originally Posted By aa777888-2: You might want to go back and re-read the link Sierra5 posted. Of course you can. This program is quite popular among the better heeled flyers (turboprops, private/business jets). However, even this program is not infallible. There are people so into tracking the movements of the rich and famous that the "private" transponder code is rapidly correlated to the "true" owner (not the inevitable shell corporation) of the aircraft. Perhaps the most famous example of this involves Elon Musk. Do an internet search for "Elon Musk flight tracking". Because the PIA program can be defeated by anyone sufficiently motivated, a lot of high rollers have effectively abandoned their own jets and gone back to private jet charter services as a basic, and obvious, counter-surveillance measure. Never rent from the same place twice in a row, pay with a variety of shell corp's, etc., etc. Not at all. The FAA knows exactly who you are, because they assigned you the PIA address you put into the transponder. The controllers handling you don't, though. But that is only relevant to the PIA program. Selecting anonymous mode is pointless. I'm not even certain this is an option anymore. If you stay out of Class A, B and C airspace, and stay below 10,000 ft MSL (or below 2,500 ft AGL), and are not on a flight plan, then you can simply turn the transponder completely off. This is not the safest thing to do, but there are quite a few folks flying small airplanes that do this for a variety of reasons. At any rate, as much as it pains me to say this, and having been billed by Vector myself, it's pointless to fight them on this except as a matter of principle. If legislation ultimately goes against them, they'll simply switch to using the mature, proven, and equally hated license plate reader (LPR) technology to read N-numbers off of aircraft. Originally Posted By aa777888-2: You might want to go back and re-read the link Sierra5 posted. Originally Posted By _DR: Only limitation is you can't file a flight plan. Because the PIA program can be defeated by anyone sufficiently motivated, a lot of high rollers have effectively abandoned their own jets and gone back to private jet charter services as a basic, and obvious, counter-surveillance measure. Never rent from the same place twice in a row, pay with a variety of shell corp's, etc., etc. But you remain anonymous to FAA as well, I think. Since ADS-B is not required in Echo, in certificated aircraft manufactured before ADS-B became a thing (1990s?) this might be a option if not flying a newer kite. An aircraft operator equipped with a 978-MHz Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) for ADS-B Out can, if the hardware supports it, select its anonymous mode during certain operations. Under the rules, the aircraft must transmit its registration number or the call sign filed on the flight plan "except when the pilot has not filed a flight plan, has not requested ATC services, and is using [an approved UAT transmitting a self-assigned temporary ICAO code.]" At any rate, as much as it pains me to say this, and having been billed by Vector myself, it's pointless to fight them on this except as a matter of principle. If legislation ultimately goes against them, they'll simply switch to using the mature, proven, and equally hated license plate reader (LPR) technology to read N-numbers off of aircraft. Ok I guess if then if you run ADS-B out, someone is always watching. The PA-28 I usually fly has the ads-b out wired to the nav light switch. Nav lights off, ads-b out off. But honestly, there is so much traffic in this part of north Texas, with all the flight schools, airline approaches, small business traffic and just general aviation, even in the class E, that I would be scared to turn it off, even though I have ads-b in too. |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
It's a safety system. People are getting charges from airports from aircraft shooting approaches and not even putting their wheels on the pavement based on this. So people are turning this safety system off. In many congested areas this is really needed. ADS-B in/out would have helped in a near-miss if the clown flying at the wrong altitude had ADS-B out. I know people who intentionally don't have it because of the misuse. I've known several people killed in multiple mid-air accidents that all would have been preventable with proper use of ADS-B in/out. |
|
Originally Posted By stillerfan: It's a safety system. People are getting charges from airports from aircraft shooting approaches and not even putting their wheels on the pavement based on this. So people are turning this safety system off. In many congested areas this is really needed. ADS-B in/out would have helped in a near-miss if the clown flying at the wrong altitude had ADS-B out. I know people who intentionally don't have it because of the misuse. I've known several people killed in multiple mid-air accidents that all would have been preventable with proper use of ADS-B in/out. I wish they would allow a portable ads-b transmitter, so so I could have "out" in my Champ with no electrical system. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Originally Posted By aa777888-2: . At any rate, as much as it pains me to say this, and having been billed by Vector myself, it's pointless to fight them on this except as a matter of principle. If legislation ultimately goes against them, they'll simply switch to using the mature, proven, and equally hated license plate reader (LPR) technology to read N-numbers off of aircraft. I was thinking this, and without looking at the wording in the FAR regarding exact legibility and all that with N-Numbers, one could be inclined to spoof the ALPR. |