Unintended Consequences

We know the second of those promises has already been broken. Go read Jeremy King’s Words Aloft column from last month if you haven’t already—he dissects some of the pilot community’s reaction to new ADS-B-prompted landing fees. I suppose it was inevitable that airports would start levying fees for service, which is a bitter pill for those of us who remember that many of these airports were supported by federal funding that, in turn, came from fuel taxes. 

I don’t like user fees any more than the next small-airplane owner, but we’re facing an uncertain future in federal funding of airports and, indeed, the entire aviation ecosystem, plus there have long been downward pressures on local municipalities to support their hometown airport. 

Using ADS-B to assess fees is concerning. But some recent FAA enforcement actions that seem to have stemmed from watching ADS-B data are downright frightening. 

I’ll let the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’s new president, Darren Pleasance, take it from here. In a formal letter to the FAA, Pleasance said, “Prior to the mandate, AOPA fully supported equipage as we were assured ADS-B would only be used to improve air traffic safety and airspace efficiencies. We are now seeing FAA enforcement actions based on ADS-B data to prevent legal water landings or frivolous lawsuits where complainants are suing for nuisance, trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress for aircraft flying at 4,000 feet agl in full compliance with FAA requirements.”

What’s more, I have seen apocryphal reports of non-pilots who watch the publicly available ADS-B flight tracks registering complaints of low flying aircraft and overflight of supposedly noise-sensitive areas. I don’t have unassailable proof this is happening, but it’s certainly plausible. 

Imagine someone who doesn’t understand the applicable FARs for airspace and distance from people and buildings, or that the altitude you see on your website of choice is uncorrected pressure altitude. It doesn’t take much to make it look like you’re closer than 500 feet from that farmhouse in the middle of nowhere, at least from the ADS-B data. The opportunities for harassment are broad; the cost for pilots to defend themselves is high.

“Pilots are now being forced to pay expensive legal fees to defend themselves against these questionable enforcement actions and frivolous lawsuits,” Pleasance said. “Moreover, a cottage industry of companies contracting with public-use airports are now using ADS-B data to collect airport fees from general aviation pilots. As you can understand, these actions carry potential safety and individual privacy concerns that must be addressed. Congress also recently took a positive step to further limit the uses of ADS-B data for certain enforcement actions in last year’s FAA Reauthorization.”

I don’t expect this to be the end of it. I take some solace in knowing that my Dynon EFIS records all flight data at least once a second, meaning that I have some evidence of what I’m doing in flight regardless of what the public ADS-B says. (Admissible in court? Probably not.) I carefully download and store this flight data personally, but also upload my files to Savvy Aviation’s free app. I use the app to note trends in engine monitoring, but the system also keeps flight data. It’s another of my backup strategies.

This discussion shouldn’t overshadow the value of ADS-B. The opportunity to have traffic and weather in the cockpit is fantastic. In the modern world, it’s difficult to maintain privacy in any public space and the expectation that ADS-B data would never be used for enforcement actions was naive from the start. But we need due process. We have enough to do up there without worrying if straying near a noise-sensitive area or legally committing backcountry flying at low altitude will get propelled by someone with an ax to grind into a chat with the FAA.