FAA Administrator Bedford: ADS-B Was Built for Safety, Not Billing

FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford told the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation in May 2026 that ADS-B was designed as a safety tool — not a billing mechanism — and that the FAA will actively work to prevent airports from using transponder data to charge landing fees. The remarks carry weight: they represent the first time the FAA administrator has directly opposed ADS-B billing on the record before Congress, and they arrived as federal legislation to ban the practice is gaining real momentum.

What ADS-B Billing Actually Is

ADS-B Out — the transponder technology that broadcasts an aircraft's identity, position, and altitude — became mandatory for most airspace in 2020. Airports receive this broadcast data and can use it to identify arriving aircraft. A growing number of airports have begun using that identification to generate automatic landing fee invoices, bypassing the traditional self-reporting system where pilots logged their own arrivals.

Pilots never consented to this use of the data. The FAA never intended it. And a mounting coalition of pilots, advocacy organizations, and now the FAA administrator himself say it's wrong.

The airports currently or planning to use ADS-B-based billing include:

What Bedford Said

Testifying before the Senate Commerce Subcommittee, Bedford stated plainly that ADS-B "was intended to be a safety and situational awareness tool" — and that using it to identify aircraft for billing purposes contradicts that intent. He committed the FAA to "stepping up" its efforts to discourage airports from implementing or continuing ADS-B-based fee programs.

This is not a rulemaking. The FAA administrator cannot unilaterally prohibit the practice — airports receive ADS-B data through third-party aggregators and are not directly regulated by the FAA on fee policy. But Bedford's public position matters, both for ongoing grant assurance investigations and as a signal to Congress.

The Legislative Path

Two pieces of federal legislation would codify a nationwide prohibition:

The ALERT Act passed the House with Section 105 intact. Senate reconciliation with the ROTOR Act — which does not contain an equivalent provision — is the critical battleground. If Section 105 survives conference, ADS-B billing at federally funded airports becomes illegal nationwide.

At the state level, Florida and Montana have already enacted bans. At least a dozen other states are actively considering similar legislation.

The Airport Counterargument

Airport operators who have implemented ADS-B billing argue that landing fees are a legitimate revenue source, that the data is publicly broadcast, and that pilots who operate at their facilities should pay for the services provided. Some have framed the billing as a modernization of fee collection — more accurate and harder to evade than honor-system logbooks.

Flight schools have pushed back hardest. At Falcon Field, CAE Aviation Academy and Thrust Flight estimate the incoming fee structure could cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars annually — costs that would ultimately be passed to student pilots already paying elevated training rates. Both schools have filed an FAA Part 13 complaint against the City of Mesa.

What AOPA Is Doing

AOPA has been the most vocal national advocate against ADS-B billing, and praised Bedford's Senate testimony as a strong signal. The organization has been lobbying for Section 105 of the ALERT Act and supporting the state-level legislative campaigns in states including Texas, Colorado, and Virginia.

What this means for GA pilots: If you operate at any airport in a major metro area — particularly in Arizona, Texas, or Florida — check whether your destination has implemented or announced ADS-B billing. Flight schools, frequent pattern-work pilots, and anyone doing repeated touch-and-goes at an affected airport will feel this most acutely. The federal legislative outcome, expected during 2026 Senate reconciliation, will likely determine whether this becomes a nationwide standard or gets cut off at the knees.

The Broader Principle

The ADS-B mandate was sold to the GA community as a safety investment. Pilots upgraded their avionics, paid the installation costs, and accepted the mandate in exchange for the promised traffic awareness and ATC modernization benefits. Using that same mandatory equipment to generate billing data — without consent and contrary to the original intent — represents a fundamental breach of the implicit agreement pilots accepted.

Whether Congress agrees will become clear when the ALERT and ROTOR Acts go to conference.