As the House prepares to vote Monday on its version of the ROTOR Act, aviation labor leaders and the head of the National Transportation Safety Board have publicly disputed claims that separate House legislation fully addresses the board’s recommendations following last year’s fatal crash involving PSA Airlines Flight 5342 near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
In a statement released on Friday, Capt. Jason Ambrosi, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, said the bipartisan Airspace Location and Enhanced Risk Transparency Act of 2026, known as the ALERT Act, “regretfully falls short by not implementing a critical NTSB recommendation to require the installation of ADS-B In technology on aircraft known as Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI).”
Ambrosi noted that NTSB found that if the regional jet had been equipped with ADS-B In, the flight crew would have had about one minute to identify conflicting traffic rather than 19 seconds.
“One minute versus 19 seconds. That difference could have saved 67 lives,” he said.
NTSB Chair Responds to Support Claims
NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy addressed reporting from the Washington Times that claims the agency supports the ALERT Act in a Saturday post on X.
“I don’t know who this anonymous NTSB ‘official’ is, however anyone saying we support the ALERT Act and that it fully addresses @NTSB recommendations is flat-out wrong,” Homendy wrote.
I don’t know who this anonymous NTSB “official” is, however anyone saying we support the ALERT Act and that it fully addresses @NTSB recommendations is flat-out wrong. It does not. Ex: It does not implement our longstanding recommendation on ADSB-In, as the ROTOR Act does.… https://t.co/Wq2fCh4Dpn
— Jennifer Homendy (@JenniferHomendy) February 21, 2026
She said the bill “does not implement our longstanding recommendation on ADSB-In, as the ROTOR Act does,” and added that the board is working with congressional committees regarding its concerns.
“As the families said, this isn’t an issue of one bill or the other. Congress can do both,” she wrote.
Compare and Contrast: ALERT Act and ROTOR Act
The House-passed ALERT Act directs the FAA to initiate rulemaking to require certain turbine-powered and other aircraft operating in specified airspace to be equipped with collision mitigation technology capable of receiving ADS-B transmissions. It establishes a negotiated rulemaking process, sets performance requirements and allows for alternative means of compliance, including the use of portable ADS-B In receivers and other equipment. The measure also includes provisions addressing ACAS-Xa and ACAS-Xr collision avoidance systems, air traffic controller training, helicopter route reviews and other operational issues.
By comparison, the ROTOR Act requires the FAA to issue a final rule mandating that aircraft already required to carry ADS-B Out also be equipped with and operate ADS-B In equipment that provides traffic awareness and advisories. The bill sets a compliance deadline of Dec. 31, 2031, and directs the FAA to establish performance standards for integrated alerting capabilities. It also includes provisions narrowing certain ADS-B Out exceptions for sensitive government missions and expanding reporting and oversight requirements.
Ambrosi said the ALERT Act relies on what he described as an “industry-driven rulemaking process” and may not require integrated flight deck ADS-B In across all commercial aircraft.
“We have the data and the verdict is clear: no more exceptions,” he said, adding that ALPA supports the ROTOR Act and is urging House passage.
The House vote on its version of the ROTOR Act is scheduled for Monday.
This article is still confusing and does not clearly illustrate the difference between the two bills.