House Committee Advances ALERT Act

Measure includes collision-mitigation requirements, changes for military aircraft operations and limits on some ADS-B data use.

House Set To Vote on ALERT Act Next Week
[Credit: USDA]
Gemini Sparkle

Key Takeaways:

  • The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unanimously advanced the ALERT Act, a bill aimed at enhancing aviation safety through new collision-mitigation technology and improved air traffic procedures.
  • The legislation mandates the FAA to set a deadline, no later than December 31, 2031, for certain aircraft to be equipped with collision-mitigation technology, allowing for alternative compliance methods like portable ADS-B In receivers.
  • The bill also includes provisions for Department of Transportation and Defense cooperation on collision-mitigation systems for military aircraft, specifically mandating ADS-B Out for most rotary-wing training missions in the National Capital Region.
  • While AOPA supports the bill, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) believes it does not go far enough by not requiring a comprehensive ADS-B In suite for commercial aircraft, although the NTSB has now expressed satisfaction with the current wording addressing its safety recommendations.
See a mistake? Contact us.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has advanced the ALERT Act, a bill that would direct the FAA to move on a series of aviation safety measures tied to collision-mitigation technology, air traffic procedures and military aircraft operations. The committee approved the measure by a 62-0 vote on Thursday.

The bill would require the FAA to set a deadline no later than Dec. 31, 2031, for certain aircraft to be equipped with collision-mitigation technology, while also allowing an alternative means of compliance using portable ADS-B In receivers or other equipment that displays on a portable device, electronic flight bag or panel-mounted display.

The legislation also calls for a memorandum of agreement between the Department of Transportation and Department of Defense covering the operation of collision-mitigation technologies and ADS-B Out, or similar systems, on Defense Department aircraft.

Under the bill, manned rotary-wing training missions in the National Capital Region would be required to transmit ADS-B Out or similar technology compatible with commercial traffic alert and collision avoidance systems unless the requirement is waived or the aircraft is conducting a sensitive mission.

AOPA Senior Vice President of Government Affairs and Advocacy Jim Coon expressed support for the bill and praised the bill’s advancement.

“We appreciate the bipartisan work of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and their willingness to listen to the concerns of hundreds of thousands of AOPA members from across the country—ADS-B is a safety tool,” Coon said.

ALPA took a different position on the bill’s equipment provisions. In a statement released Thursday, ALPA President Jason Ambrosi said the union believes the measure does not go far enough.

He said this is the case because it does not require “a comprehensive traffic awareness, traffic alerting and collision avoidance system” enabled by a full ADS-B In suite for commercial aircraft.

Ambrosi said ALPA does not oppose the ALERT Act, but “until comprehensive traffic awareness, traffic alerting and collision avoidance systems that are enabled by a full ADS-B In suite are included, we cannot support the legislation.”

The NTSB expressed its view on Thursday after reviewing the most recent version of the bill on Wednesday that the current wording of the ALERT Act properly addresses its recommendations following last year’s DCA collision. This comes as a shift for the board, whose chair, Jennifer Homendy, previously expressed concerns with a prior version of the ALERT Act.

Matt Ryan

Matt is AVweb's lead editor. His eyes have been turned to the sky for as long as he can remember. Now a fixed-wing pilot, instructor and aviation writer, Matt also leads and teaches a high school aviation program in the Dallas area. Beyond his lifelong obsession with aviation, Matt loves to travel and has lived in Greece, Czechia and Germany for studies and for work.

Continue discussion - Visit the forum

Replies: 3

  1. ADS B in an out should be mandatory on all commercial aircraft.
    Should be mandatory on all aircraft operating in certain airspace such as Washington.
    ATC has tried to kill me several times during a long career.
    TCAS was a godsend; just the awareness of nearby aircraft and developing problems was lifesaving.
    ADS B is better!
    Don’t forget that the controllers fought the implementation of cockpit traffic displays; they didn’t want pilots aware when they messed up.
    Mandatory; no exceptions.
    Allowing exemptions for “Sensitive missions”?
    Suddenly all missions will be sensitive, defeating the purpose.

  2. ADS-B is monitory for all aircraft inside all Mode C veils and Class B.

  3. ADS-B out only is already mandatory. I fly a plane with TCAS II now and I don’t agree with any ADS-B in requirement unless the FAA implements a rule requiring following an ADS-B in advisory like is required with TCAS RA’s. ADS-B in as currently implemented is advisory only. You cannot make changes in heading or altitude on an IFR clearance without an amended ATC clearance unless you actually have that traffic in sight visually. It is good that this ALERT act requires the FAA to allow portable or non-panel mounted ADS-B in equipment because if the FAA goes the certified TSO route like they did with ADS-B out, they will price out most older small airplanes, driving more pilots out of aviation entirely.

Sign-up for newsletters & special offers!

Get the latest stories & special offers delivered directly to your inbox

SUBSCRIBE

Please support AVweb.

It looks like you’re using an ad blocker. Ads keep AVweb free and fund our reporting.
Please whitelist AVweb or continue with ads enabled.