Vector Landing Fee Managment company

Let'sgoflying! said:
would love to acquire
Click to expand...

It’s in the FB group. The KML file was made by the guy who started the group after Vector’s CEO posted the list of every facility they have a contract with in the group. It’s the list I shared a few posts up.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com

If you don’t want to FB, PM me your email and I’ll email the KML file and the raw data to you.
 
speed cameras and toll booths send you a photo of your license plate to “prove” you did the thing they’re billing you for.

Curious- What does the bill look like? Exact time of the landing? Runway number? Ads-b data source? Photo of the plane in some position on the runway?
 
wait a minute, I've been to a few of those airports in the last year, no bill. Is this a brand new thing?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
wait a minute, I've been to a few of those airports in the last year, no bill. Is this a brand new thing?
Click to expand...
Some have a lower weight limit below which you are not billed.

The bill just has a landing and a date, if I recall correctly. My first bill was for a young eagles event I flew in. Wonderful.
 
I posted this in another thread but it fits here too.

This is just the beginning as I see it. People say ..well it's just $3 or whatever but as soon as they get in there they can start raising prices. I'm waiting for the day in the future where in order to get FF or ATC you need to provide your credit card number. I'm telling you it's heading this way and if we don't stop this now it will get way worse. Just my opinion but this is what you get with unbridled capitalism with no safeguards. Hell look at the car market where new Mercedes, Tesla and what not have paid subscriptions for car enhancements. It's only a matter of time before it gets filtered to other car makers.
 
bentmettle said:
speed cameras and toll booths send you a photo of your license plate to “prove” you did the thing they’re billing you for.

Curious- What does the bill look like? Exact time of the landing? Runway number? Ads-b data source? Photo of the plane in some position on the runway?
Click to expand...

44f457f1e8c68a4b4c39a0d2a2621fac.jpg
 
In Michigan, what part of landing on a runway allows a lien? I'm not a lawyer, so my plain english reading of this is that someone had to "do something" in order for a lien to be allowable. Is there a different applicable statue maybe? Me landing a plane is not someone else furnishing supplies, labor or material, nor is a landing storage, maintenance, keeping, or repair.

So I guess I'm wondering if their ability to enforce these fees via lien, at least in Michigan, is non-existent?

MCL - Section 259.205 - Michigan Legislature

www.legislature.mi.gov www.legislature.mi.gov
259.205 Garage keeper lien.


Sec. 205.

A garage keeper who in pursuance of any contract, expressed or implied, written or unwritten, furnishes any labor, material, or supplies has a lien upon any aircraft stored, maintained, supplied, or repaired by him or her for the proper charges due for the storage, maintenance, keeping, and repair of the aircraft and for gasoline or aviation fuel, electric current, or other accessories and supplies furnished or expenses bestowed or labor performed on the aircraft at the request or with the consent of the registered owner of the aircraft, whether the owner is a conditional sale vendee or a mortgagor remaining in possession or otherwise. The garage keeper may detain the aircraft at any time it is in his or her possession within 90 days after performing the last labor or furnishing the last supplies for which the lien is claimed. The lien, to the extent it is for labor and material furnished in making repairs upon an aircraft, has priority over all other liens upon the aircraft.
 
TCABM said:
It’s in the FB group. The KML file was made by the guy who started the group after Vector’s CEO posted the list of every facility they have a contract with in the group. It’s the list I shared a few posts up.
Click to expand...
Only problem is, the KML file is only good for *now* and my guess is they are frequently adding airports.

If you really care if there is a fee, probably better to call the airport directly. Or at least the FBO you plan on using.
 
Salty said:
The companies whole purpose is to make money by making it easy for entities to bill aircraft owners.
Click to expand...
I agree, obviously landing fees with the Vector ADS-B based system are a tempting money grab for airports, unwittingly facilitated by IT paid for by the Federal Government and the aircraft owner in the name of safety. Little to do with what airports can do legally, or with what they need to do, and a lot to do with what we have unintentionally made easy for Vector and the airports.

Other than the ease of billing driving the thin edge of the wedge financially, I think there is an even bigger problem right now than the problem of paying extra to land: billing may be easy for the airport, but in order to settle even a small fee the pilot has a disproportionate effort added to his logistics for a given flight. This goes along with the endless additional logistics we’ve had thrust upon us elsewhere in life, by people finding easy IT based methods to transfer their problems onto their customers: who thought that 10 years ago that it would be normal practice to make a restaurant reservation for a small party, every time, instead of just showing up. Plenty of people and restaurants think that now, and the burdensome expectation was similarly created by internet services. Soon to be mandated electric cars and charging is much the same, enabled by an internet based system which does little for the user but add extra planning and hassle to driving from A to B, versus spontaneous stops at any gas station. And if you think there won’t be more layers of nonsense in aviation, fly in Europe some time where it’s already happened over the last 20 years. A short cross country there is like making a moon shot: ‘booking out’ from your departure airport, prior permission required for landing (in writing), fees for landing and sometimes en route, flight plans often necessary, email correspondence back and forth to make the reservation required for paid overnight parking, handling and associated fees and on and on. All promoted greatly by IT and the ability to monitor, communicate and bill. This has bogged down the utility of flying until it’s gone, and whatever ease of travel they had has collapsed under the weight of the planning and logistics needed to do something we using US infrastructure take for granted as being similar to traditional travel by gasoline powered car. The Vector business model is the start of a US version of the same situation with the freedom, flexibility and ease of US GA travel starting in a mindless IT-driven ‘hassle plus payment for anything’ direction, eroded as never before and following a trend we’ve already seen in other areas of life.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
News to me...Do you have credible evidence?
Click to expand...
Well, one can pick away at the details but in terms of new car sales (quoting from the link ) it’s like this, isn’t it?

“For the past several years, multiple states have followed California on two key electric vehicle mandates. One is the 2035 gas-powered car sales ban. And then the other is the 2042 Advanced Clean Fleets rule, which states that all trucks in California must be zero-emissions by 2042. While there are others, such as the 2036 diesel big rig truck and bus sales ban, the first two are the primary policies.

Currently on board the 2035 mandate are California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington, with partial signing-ons by Colorado, Delaware, Minnesota and New Mexico. A few more have signed with the 2042 mandate, comprising of California, Washington, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Oregon. Several states are also currently contemplating it, including Maine, Connecticut, Hawaii, and North Carolina”
 
Last edited:
Tusayan said:
Well, one can pick away at the details but in terms of new car sales (quoting from the link it’s like this, isn’t it?

“For the past several years, multiple states have followed California on two key electric vehicle mandates. One is the 2035 gas-powered car sales ban. And then the other is the 2042 Advanced Clean Fleets rule, which states that all trucks in California must be zero-emissions by 2042. While there are others, such as the 2036 diesel big rig truck and bus sales ban, the first two are the primary policies.

Currently on board the 2035 mandate are California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington, with partial signing-ons by Colorado, Delaware, Minnesota and New Mexico. A few more have signed with the 2042 mandate, comprising of California, Washington, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Oregon. Several states are also currently contemplating it, including Maine, Connecticut, Hawaii, and North Carolina”
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Advanced Clean Cars 2 applies mostly to light cars and trucks, and has been passed into law by California, and a host of other states.

The EPA granted California a waiver to pre-empt federal emissions regulations, so it's set to effectively become law in California and other states. The other programs haven't received a waiver permitting them to go into effect, so the clean fleets program timelines almost certainly would slip.

What does it actually require? The regulations require a phase in battery electric and long range plug in hybrids - so yes, manufacturers wouldn't be able to offer ICE only vehicles in those states after 2035.

What they would be able to sell is a hybrid with battery pack large enough to meet the regulated drive distances, at which point power to the drivetrain would be provided by an ICE engine instead of the battery, in most instances through a generator (series hybrid like a diesel locomotive).

Cars and Light-Trucks are Going Zero - Frequently Asked Questions | California Air Resources Board

Visit the Advanced Clean Cars II web site for more information on the regulations.
ww2.arb.ca.gov ww2.arb.ca.gov
 
M20K said:
Garmin and my avionics guy tell me my plane is capable of doing a RNAV RNP Approach (RNP Authorization Required (AR) Approach), but that doesn't mean I'm ever going to fly one. :cool:
Click to expand...

If you are referring to a recent Garmin AFMS, for example The GTN750Xi, the ICAO PBN Nav Specification for procedures that we in the US title as "RNAV (GPS)" use the "RNP APCH" ICAO PBN Nav Specification. "RNP APCH - GPS" also appears in the the PBN equipment box on recent approach charts to identify that the procedure complies with the ICAO PBN Nav Specification (example RNAV (GPS) RWY 5 at KEQY). Other countries title these procedures as "RNP RWY XX". This is often confused with procedures that we in the US title as "RNAV (RNP)" which are authorization required (AR) and the new charts specify "RNP AR APCH - GPS" in the PBN equipment Box (example RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 36C at KCLT). ICAO designates these as complying with the PBN Nav Specification "RNP AR APCH". So an approach that complies with "RNP APCH" is just a regular GPS type approach to LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, LPV, or LP minimums and does not require authorization.
 
John Collins said:
US title as "RNAV (RNP)" which are authorization required (AR)
Click to expand...
Yes, I was talking about and RNP which requires authorization. I guess it was a poor reference, but I was just saying that even though the Vector website says they are capable of billing for Overflights, they won't charge a US aircraft (in the US). Similar to how my plane may be "technically" capable of flying and RNP, I'm never going to get one since *I* don't meet the criteria. (Training, carrier, etc. for whatever is needed to be authorized.)
 
M20K said:
Yes, I was talking about and RNP which requires authorization. I guess it was a poor reference, but I was just saying that even though the Vector website says they are capable of billing for Overflights, they won't charge a US aircraft (in the US). Similar to how my plane may be "technically" capable of flying and RNP, I'm never going to get one since *I* don't meet the criteria. (Training, carrier, etc. for whatever is needed to be authorized.)
Click to expand...
Garmin GPS systems GTN/GNS/G1000 are not authorized to fly RNAV (RNP) and these procedures won't show in the database, regardless if you meet the criteria. That is why I did not understand your reference to RNP. Of course you won't be able to fly these procedures with one of the mentioned systems. If you are flying with one of the mentioned systems in your Mooney, they are not "technically" capable of flying RNAV (RNP). To do so, they would have to comply with AC 90-101, but they don't. They comply with AC 90-105A.
 
John Collins said:
Garmin GPS systems GTN/GNS/G1000 are not authorized to fly RNAV (RNP) and these procedures won't show in the database, regardless if you meet the criteria. That is why I did not understand your reference to RNP.
Click to expand...
It comes from a discussion with Garmin when I was trying to figure out the codes (even before the installation). Garmin guy was telling me much more than I was asking and went off that with what I was installing it could do RNP Approaches. Questioned him and he said if it was installed in (some carrier or company)'s plane they could to the RNP and I had the same stuff.

So I always just took him at his "Garmin" word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top