|
by Jerry Colonna
Imagine arguing against traffic signals because some drivers might run red lights. That’s essentially what the Colorado Pilots Association (CPA) suggests when it claims pilots will turn off their ADS-B tracking equipment if airports impose landing fees. ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast) is the FAA-mandated system that reduces mid-air collision risk and improves situational awareness. Turning it off to dodge a $5 or $10 fee isn’t just illegal—it’s reckless. Using that as an argument is like opposing seatbelt laws because a few drivers won’t buckle up. Most pilots are responsible neighbors who know safety comes first. The issue isn’t them—it’s the handful of pilots, instructors, and flight schools who put their pocketbooks above safety. The Problem: Overuse and Congestion General aviation airports like Longmont’s Vance Brand face mounting pressures. Colorado’s favorable weather and airspace have attracted more flight schools. Rocky Mountain Metro Airport’s former director even bragged about recruiting more training flights to the area. The result: congested runways, crowded skies, and more noise and pollution for surrounding communities. Taxpayers already subsidize general aviation heavily through state and federal grants. But those subsidies don’t cover growing the needs for maintenance, staffing, or safety improvements. The FAA’s grant assurance program, which often narrow the gaps in airport budgets, expects airports to be fiscally self-sustaining. Landing fees—a small charge per landing—improve both fairness and safety. More than 300 grant-obligated, public-use airports in the U.S. already use them. In Colorado, Durango, Eagle, Loveland, Buena Vista, and Telluride have fees scaled by aircraft size—modest, legal, and effective. Separating Neighbors from Abusers Opponents claim fees unfairly punish “all pilots.” That isn’t true. Fees can be scaled by aircraft weight or frequency, and waived for medical flights and community services. Heavy users—for-profit flight schools or transient aircraft making hundreds of takeoffs and landings monthly—should contribute their fair share. Right now, taxpayers bear these costs. It’s important to make this distinction: responsible local pilots aren’t the problem. It’s irresponsible operators who threaten to turn off safety equipment rather than support the facilities they use. Opponents also argue fees are “illegal” or “too difficult to collect.” Neither is true:
Landing fees aren’t about excluding aviation. They’re about fairness: pilots paying for runway use just as golfers pay greens fees or drivers pay tolls. They’re about sustainability: keeping airports viable without overburdening taxpayers. And most of all, they’re about safety: ensuring our runways and skies aren’t overwhelmed by those who treat them as free, unlimited resources. Responsible pilots have nothing to fear from modest, transparent landing fees. The loudest objections come from those most likely exploiting the system for profit. Landing fees are among the simplest, fairest, and most effective tools to keep airports safe, sustainable, and accountable. They protect responsible pilots, support communities, and ensure shared resources are well maintained..The choice is clear: safety and fairness—or letting a few irresponsible actors dictate the rules for everyone else. See original article here. |
Archives
October 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed