The ALERT Act requires the FAA and Department of Defense to move quickly on a package of technical, regulatory, and procedural changes aimed at reducing close‑call encounters in the National Airspace System. It directs rapid studies and rulemaking for next‑generation airborne collision avoidance systems (ACAS‑Xa for fixed wing and ACAS‑Xr for rotorcraft), launches a negotiated rulemaking to require collision mitigation technology on many turbine‑powered civil aircraft, and orders a string of operational reviews and working groups focused on helicopter routes, controller training, communications, and controller alerting tools.
The bill also inserts a new chapter into Title 10 directing the Secretary of Defense to sign a memorandum of agreement with DOT/FAA governing use of ADS‑B and collision mitigation technologies by DoD aircraft (including specific measures for manned rotary‑wing operations in the National Capital Region). For industry and operators this means phased retrofit and equipage deadlines, new training and human‑factors workstreams, and explicit protections and procedures for DoD operational security.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs the FAA to evaluate and mandate ACAS‑Xa and ACAS‑Xr equipage, convene committees and negotiated rulemaking on collision mitigation systems, and implement multiple working groups and technical assessments (training, alerting, anti‑blocking tech, safety tools, helicopter charting and separation). It also requires DOT and DoD to negotiate an MOA covering ADS‑B and special‑mission handling and adds statutory standards for DoD rotary‑wing safety management.
Who It Affects
Air carriers (parts 121/135/91), rotorcraft operators, avionics makers, modification shops, air traffic controllers and their unions, airport operators (notably Reagan National and Potomac TRACON), and DoD aviation units operating in U.S. airspace—especially rotary‑wing units in the National Capital Region.
Why It Matters
This bill forces concrete timelines and formal stakeholder processes—rulemaking committees, negotiated rulemaking, and statutory DoD–FAA agreements—so that equipment, training, and operational procedures move from study to enforceable policy. It creates crosscutting expectations for surveillance (ADS‑B) use, human‑factors work, and DoD transparency while carving out security‑sensitive paths for defense operations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The ALERT Act is procedural: it prescribes who the FAA must convene, what studies must be done, and by when rulemaking steps must happen. For ACAS‑Xa (the successor ACAS standard for most transport and turbine aircraft) the bill requires an FAA feasibility evaluation within 180 days and formation of an aviation rulemaking committee shortly thereafter to set certification and retrofit timelines.
The FAA must propose rule changes to require ACAS‑Xa on the aircraft already required to carry traffic‑alert and collision‑avoidance systems, modify minimal performance standards to add richer aural and directional cues, and publish a final rule on a statutory schedule tied to the committee’s report.
For rotorcraft the bill forces standards development and a separate rulemaking (ACAS‑Xr) with a comparable committee process, and it defines “selected rotorcraft” (civil rotorcraft operating in Class B airspace) as the initial scope. Separately, the FAA must convene a negotiated rulemaking on collision mitigation systems for a broad set of turbine and other civil aircraft, with the final rule required within two years of initiation.
That final rule explicitly requires ADS‑B In capability on covered aircraft, audible alerts to flight crews, human‑factors‑informed mounting and field‑of‑view considerations, and a requirement that resolution advisories rely on at least two independently verified data sources (but it also permits an approved alternative means of compliance such as portable ADS‑B receivers).The bill layers operational fixes and monitoring tools on top of the equipage mandates: working groups on controller training; a federally funded R&D center contract to develop a real‑time safety risk assessment tool; time‑based flow management at Potomac TRACON; assessments of anti‑blocking radio technology and conflict alert improvements; required annual helicopter route chart reviews and explicit charting of vertical separation and route ceilings/floors; and a new process to notify and track airborne loss‑of‑separation events and feed de‑identified data into safety‑analysis programs. On the defense side, a new Title 10 chapter mandates a DoD–DOT memorandum of agreement (due September 30, 2026) to reconcile ADS‑B usage, protect sensitive mission data, and require ADS‑B Out for many manned rotary‑wing training flights in the National Capital Region unless specifically waived.
The Department of Defense must also implement rotary‑wing safety management systems and improve flight‑data monitoring and training on congested airspace by March 1, 2027.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The FAA must set an ACAS‑Xa evaluation within 180 days and convene an ARAC‑style committee; the Administrator has statutory deadlines to propose and finalize rule changes requiring ACAS‑Xa on the aircraft already mandated to carry TCAS/ACAS.
The FAA must develop ACAS‑Xr minimum performance standards for rotorcraft by Dec 31, 2026 and follow with a committee and rulemaking to require ACAS‑Xr on rotorcraft operating in Class B airspace.
The bill mandates a negotiated rulemaking on collision mitigation systems; the final rule must require covered turbine aircraft to have ADS‑B In capability, audible alerts, and resolution advisories driven by at least two independently verified data sources, with an effective compliance deadline no later than December 31, 2031.
DOT and DoD must sign a memorandum of agreement by Sept 30, 2026 that governs ADS‑B and collision‑mitigation use on DoD aircraft; the MOA will require, except when waived, ADS‑B Out for manned rotary‑wing training in the National Capital Region after an agreed date.
DoD must implement robust manned‑rotary‑wing safety management systems, initial and recurring training for crews in congested Class B airspace, and improved flight‑data monitoring; statutory target dates (mostly March 1, 2027) are set for these defense actions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
ACAS‑Xa feasibility evaluation
This section forces an FAA feasibility study within 180 days on lowering inhibit altitudes and expanding ACAS‑Xa alerting across more of the flight envelope. The statute requires FAA to consult a long list of stakeholders (air carriers of different types, manufacturers, bargaining reps, and human‑factors experts) and to weigh pilot/controller workload, training impacts, potential overlapping alerts, and air traffic procedures during critical phases. Practically, that evaluation becomes the factual basis for later certification and rule decisions—so manufacturers and operators should prepare to document human‑factors and procedural impacts for the record.
ACAS‑Xa rulemaking and MOPS modification
The Administrator must establish an aviation rulemaking committee to formulate findings and recommendations on certifying and equipping “selected aircraft” with ACAS‑Xa. The bill sets an explicit sequence: committee report within a year, NPRM within 18 months of the report, and a final rule within a year after the NPRM. It also directs modification of minimum operational performance standards to add richer aural cues (clock position, relative altitude, range, vertical tendency) and directional traffic symbology—mandates that shape certification test criteria and retrofit feasibility assessments.
ACAS‑Xr for rotorcraft
The FAA must work with standards bodies to publish ACAS‑Xr MOPS and create a separate rulemaking committee for rotorcraft, with the committee reporting within a year and the FAA issuing a final rule within prescribed timeframes (NPRM and final rule windows laid out in statute). The provision deliberately scopes ‘selected rotorcraft’ to civil rotorcraft in Class B airspace and requests feasibility analysis on retrofits, antenna reuse, component availability, and certification complexities—practical inputs manufacturers and STC/modify shops will need to prepare for.
Negotiated rulemaking for collision mitigation systems
Instead of a pure FAA‑led NPRM, the bill requires a negotiated rulemaking process and specifies committee composition across carriers, rotorcraft, GA, manufacturers, unions, STC holders and subject‑matter experts. The statute prescribes required considerations (ADS‑B/Mode S/Mode C data fusion, two independent data sources for resolution advisories, supply‑chain capacity, alignment with ACAS rulemakings) and sets deadlines: committee deliberations within 18 months and a final rule within two years of initiation. The final rule must mandate ADS‑B In capability on covered aircraft, audible alerts, human‑factors‑aware installations, and allow alternative means of compliance such as portable ADS‑B solutions.
Controller practices, training, and safety risk tools
A set of working groups is mandated: a possible MOU review for supervisory time‑on‑position; a controller training working group to revise initial/recurrent training on threat and error management and visual separation; and an FFRDC contract to build a real‑time safety risk assessment tool for controllers. Each group must produce reports and triggers near‑term rulemaking for recurrent training changes—so training organizations and ATC unions should expect a rapid administrative and regulatory push to modify syllabi and simulator usage.
Operational changes around Reagan National and helicopter route reform
The bill directs a Reagan National arrival‑rate assessment (with a rulemaking to update 14 C.F.R. part 93 allocation periods), requires Potomac TRACON time‑based flow management implementation, validates facility classification levels, and mandates annual helicopter route chart reviews plus immediate route deconfliction where needed. It requires charted vertical separation (altitude ceilings/floors) near airports and updates to terminal and visual charts so pilots of fixed‑wing and rotary aircraft have clearer lateral and vertical situational awareness.
Close‑proximity data, alerting tech, and operational documentation
The FAA must define ‘close proximity encounters,’ develop parameters to monitor them, and create a process to notify involved parties and feed de‑identified data into ASIAS and similar systems. The Administrator also must assess anti‑blocking radio tech, form task forces to improve controller conflict alerts, tighten post‑incident drug/alcohol testing determinations and training, and establish digitized documentation practices for position combinations and miles‑in‑trail reviews—measures aimed at improving detection, root‑cause analysis, and institutional memory.
DoD‑related aviation safety and MOA requirements
The bill inserts a new Title 10 chapter requiring a DOT–DoD memorandum of agreement by Sept 30, 2026. The MOA must address how DoD aircraft—especially fighter/bomber/unmanned and special‑mission platforms—will be accommodated if they lack collision mitigation or ADS‑B, while prescribing ADS‑B Out use for many DoD manned rotary‑wing training flights in the National Capital Region unless waived. The DoD retains control to protect operational security, but must also implement rotary‑wing safety management systems, crew training for congested Class B airspace, and improved flight‑data monitoring on statutory timelines (largely March 1, 2027).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Air traffic controllers — get more data, improved alerts, a safety risk tool, and revised training and conflict‑alerting systems that aim to reduce surprise events and support decision making during high workload.
- Passengers and commercial operators — potential reduction in midair close calls and clearer separation around airports (notably Reagan National) through mandated equipage and operational reforms.
- Avionics and modification industry — a near‑term market for ACAS‑Xa/Xr components, ADS‑B In systems, STCs and retrofit work with multi‑year equipment and certification demand.
- Airport operators (e.g., Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority) — clearer route charts and procedural frameworks that reduce risk exposure and provide data for planning and capacity decisions.
- Safety analysts and aviation researchers — mandated data sharing, definitions for close‑proximity events, and new datasets (de‑identified loss‑of‑separation records) improve analysis capability.
Who Bears the Cost
- Air carriers and rotorcraft operators — capital and labor costs to retrofit aircraft with ACAS‑Xa/Xr and collision mitigation tech, plus training and potential operational constraints to meet charting/separation rules.
- Small operators and certain general aviation pilots — equipage burdens (even with alternative compliance options), and potential restrictions operating into Class B/C airspace.
- Modification shops and supply chain — compressed timelines could strain capacity, increasing lead times and retrofit costs during the mandated compliance windows.
- The FAA and DOT — program management, rulemakings, committee support, new safety‑data systems, and capital work (anti‑blocking tech, conflict‑alert upgrades) will require staffing and budget execution.
- Department of Defense — implementation of MOA obligations, ADS‑B posture for certain missions, enhanced training, flight‑data monitoring investments, and potential operational tradeoffs to preserve security while meeting FAA expectations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill forces a classic trade‑off: increasing automated surveillance, equipage, and data sharing to reduce collision risk versus the human‑factors, workload, cost, and national‑security risks those same measures can create; solving one side (better detection and alerts) risks making operations noisier, more expensive, or less secure unless technology, training, and procedures are tightly coordinated.
The bill stacks procedural deadlines and multiple stakeholder processes onto the FAA and DoD, which reduces political wiggle room but creates a heavy implementation load. Equipage mandates depend on realistic certification paths and supply‑chain capacity: ACAS‑Xa/Xr performance standards and retrofit feasibility will determine whether the deadlines are workable or merely aspirational.
The negotiated rulemaking for collision mitigation attempts to balance surveillance‑based automation with human‑factors protections (audible alerts, field‑of‑view mounting, two‑source verification), but the devil will be in the signal‑to‑noise tradeoffs—tighter alerting can reduce collision risk yet increase nuisance alerts and controller/pilot workload if not carefully tuned.
On the defense side, the MOA structure recognizes operational security but also asks DoD to make substantial transparency and equipage moves (ADS‑B Out carriage in the NCR for many rotary‑wing training flights). That will require careful, classified risk assessment and technical mitigations to avoid revealing sensitive capabilities, while still allowing commercial aircraft and controllers the situational awareness improvements the bill intends.
Finally, the bill prescribes many working groups and studies; without defined funding lines and a clear program office to sequence rulemakings, stakeholder consultations and technology upgrades, implementation could produce staggered or inconsistent outcomes across communities of operators and facilities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.