The Pilot and Aircraft Privacy Act of 2025 (PAPA Act) prohibits any person, government agency, or other entity from using automatic dependent surveillance‑broadcast (ADS‑B) data to identify aircraft for the purpose of obtaining revenue from the aircraft owner or operator without that owner or operator’s consent. The bill preserves ADS‑B use by air traffic controllers for safety and efficiency, and requires the Secretary of Transportation to use notice-and-comment rulemaking before allowing other non‑safety uses.
Separately, the bill adds a new section to Title 49 that forces public‑use airports to publish specific transparency items before imposing landing or takeoff fees on general aviation aircraft, restricts revenues from those fees to airside safety projects, and authorizes the FAA Administrator to issue implementing regulations and reporting requirements. Together the privacy and fee provisions target commercial tracking businesses, airport revenue practices, and the data flows that underlie them—issues with direct operational and compliance implications for airports, flight schools, avionics and tracking companies, and general aviation operators.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bans use of ADS‑B data to identify aircraft for the purpose of charging or obtaining money from aircraft owners or operators unless the owner/operator consents, while still allowing ADS‑B for air traffic control. It also amends Title 49 to add a requirement that public‑use airports make public specified analyses before levying landing/takeoff fees on general aviation and confines those fee revenues to airside safety projects.
Who It Affects
General aviation aircraft owners and operators, flight schools, nonprofit aviation groups, public‑use airports and their operators, FAA and air traffic controllers, and commercial flight‑tracking and data‑aggregation businesses that monetize ADS‑B broadcasts.
Why It Matters
This bill shifts where revenue can be collected and who can monetize raw flight‑tracking data, creating new privacy protections for aircraft operators while imposing transparency and use limits on airport fees. That combination alters revenue models for airports and third‑party data firms and raises practical enforcement and implementation questions for regulators.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The PAPA Act tackles two distinct but related parts of modern aviation: the public broadcast of aircraft location data and how airports charge general aviation. First, it targets ADS‑B, the unencrypted broadcasts many aircraft emit containing position and identification information.
The bill flatly prohibits any person, government agency, or entity from using that ADS‑B data to identify aircraft for the purpose of obtaining money from the owner or operator unless the owner or operator consents. It preserves the fundamental operational use: ADS‑B remains available to assist air traffic controllers for tracking and safety.
For any uses beyond air traffic control, the bill requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct notice‑and‑comment proceedings and explicitly determine that a proposed use is consistent with the statute before allowing it. That creates a procedural safety valve: non‑controller uses are not categorically forbidden, but they require a federal administrative determination after public input.The bill also amends existing statutory language in 49 U.S.C. 46101(c) to extend its restriction from only the FAA Administrator to all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal officials.
In practice, that broadens which public officials are barred from whatever specific use 46101(c) prohibits (as modified by the bill), making the statutory restraint more widely applicable across governmental actors.Separately, the Act adds a new 49 U.S.C. §40133 that governs when public‑use airport owners/operators can impose landing or takeoff fees on general aviation aircraft. Before levying such fees they must publish (1) what they have done to reduce non‑airside expenses, (2) efforts to secure non‑GA revenue, (3) detailed cost estimates and the portion of fees earmarked for airside safety projects with a timeline, and (4) an assessment of the fees’ impact on general aviation stakeholders (pilots, students, nonprofits, supporting businesses).
Revenues from those fees can only be spent on airside safety projects. The FAA Administrator is authorized to issue regulations or reporting requirements to implement these provisions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill forbids any person, government agency, or entity from using ADS‑B data to identify aircraft to obtain revenue from the owner or operator without that owner or operator’s consent.
ADS‑B remains explicitly available for air traffic controllers to track aircraft and support safety and efficiency; any other use requires a Secretary of Transportation determination after notice and public comment.
Section 3 broadens the existing statutory restriction in 49 U.S.C. 46101(c) so it applies to the FAA Administrator and to all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal officials.
New 49 U.S.C. §40133 requires public‑use airports to publish four specific disclosures (non‑airside expense reductions, alternative revenue efforts, airside safety project costs and fee allocation, and impact assessments) before imposing landing/takeoff fees on general aviation aircraft.
Revenues from fees imposed on general aviation aircraft are limited by statute to airside safety projects, and the FAA Administrator may promulgate regulations and reporting requirements to implement the rule.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short names: the Pilot and Aircraft Privacy Act of 2025 and the PAPA Act of 2025. This is purely stylistic but signals the bill’s dual focus on pilot privacy and aircraft/airport finances.
Prohibition on monetizing ADS‑B identification without consent; controller exception
Bars any person, governmental agency, or entity from using ADS‑B data to identify an aircraft for the purpose of obtaining revenue from the owner/operator unless that owner/operator consents. It preserves ADS‑B use for air traffic control (tracking and safety) and creates a process requiring the Secretary of Transportation to use notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before allowing other uses. Practically, this targets companies and actors who use broadcast ADS‑B feeds to find owners and charge parking, fines, or fees, and forces non‑controller commercial uses to undergo formal administrative review.
Expansion of 49 U.S.C. 46101(c) coverage
Amends the text of 49 U.S.C. 46101(c) by changing the actor referenced: where the existing law references only the FAA Administrator, the bill replaces that phrasing with language stating neither the Administrator nor any other federal, state, local, territorial, or tribal official may (perform the barred action). That mechanical amendment broadens which public officials are governed by the statutory restriction, increasing the reach of the preexisting prohibition without altering its substantive target in this bill.
New §40133 — transparency and use limitations for GA landing/takeoff fees
Adds a new statutory slot that requires public disclosure by public‑use airport owners/operators before they impose landing/takeoff fees on general aviation aircraft: evidence of cost‑cutting outside the airside, efforts to find other revenue sources, detailed airside safety project cost estimates and the share of fees to be applied, plus an impact assessment on GA stakeholders. It narrowly confines fee revenue to airside safety projects and authorizes the FAA Administrator to issue regulations or reporting requirements to enforce and standardize the new disclosure and use rules. The provision defines general aviation aircraft by use (personal, recreational, flight training, or non‑scheduled operations).
Technical update to chapter analysis
Adds §40133 to the chapter 401 table of contents. This is administrative and ensures the new statutory section appears in the statutory index.
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
- General aviation aircraft owners and private pilots — gain statutory protection against third parties identifying their aircraft via ADS‑B for the purpose of extracting money without consent, reducing risk of targeted billing or commercial solicitations tied to their broadcasts.
- Flight schools and student pilots — receive added protection because the bill requires an assessment of impacts on training organizations before airports impose GA fees, and fee revenues are limited to airside safety projects rather than broader airport costs.
- Air traffic controllers and FAA operational users — retain clear statutory authority to use ADS‑B for tracking, safety, and efficiency, preserving core operational functions and avoiding interference with ATC workflows.
Who Bears the Cost
- Public‑use airports and airport operators — must perform and publish additional analyses before imposing GA landing/takeoff fees, may face narrower permitted uses for collected fee revenue, and could see reduced fee flexibility to fund non‑airside projects.
- Commercial flight‑tracking and data‑aggregation companies — lose or must restructure revenue streams that monetize ADS‑B identification for billing, targeted services, or owner lookups unless they obtain owner consent or secure a Secretary determination permitting the use.
- State, local, territorial, and tribal officials — where 49 U.S.C. 46101(c) previously restrained only the FAA Administrator, the amendment now limits the actions of other officials as well, potentially constraining local revenue‑generation schemes tied to ADS‑B data.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing pilot privacy and protection from commercial monetization of location data against operational, transparency, and revenue needs: restricting ADS‑B monetization protects individual operators and small GA stakeholders but narrows revenue opportunities for airports and third‑party businesses and raises enforcement and technical questions about consent and how to reconcile an open broadcast architecture with property and privacy expectations.
The bill creates clear policy goals but leaves important implementation details open. It prohibits using ADS‑B to identify aircraft for revenue purposes without consent, yet it does not specify the mechanism for obtaining or recording consent, nor does it provide an enforcement regime (civil penalties, criminal sanctions, or a private right of action).
That gap raises questions about how regulators or owners would police commercial trackers and what remedies would be available if actors violate the ban.
On the airport side, the statute mandates disclosure and earmarks fee revenue to airside safety projects, but it does not cap fees, set uniform standards for the required analyses, or define what qualifies as an 'airside safety project' beyond common understanding. The FAA’s authority to issue regulations helps, but until the agency promulgates standards, airports and fee payers will face uncertainty.
Finally, because ADS‑B is an unencrypted broadcast designed for interoperability, restricting downstream commercial uses may push more activity behind contractual or consent regimes, but the bill does not address technical feasibility, data‑ownership claims, or how federal preemption and state/local finance needs will interact in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.