ALERT Act vs. ROTOR Act: Congress’s Aviation Safety Debate Sparks Airport Funding Dispute

‍WASHINGTON — There's a debate in Congress over aviation safety after the January 2025 Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) American Airlines (AA) Flight 5342 crash over the Potomac that has grown beyond just collision-avoidance technology.

Lawmakers are now arguing over how broad the next safety bill should be, how soon new rules should start, and whether airports can keep using ADS-B data for collecting fees and investigations. These issues mark the main differences between the House’s ALERT Act and the Senate’s ROTOR Act and boil the debate down to a matter of scope vs reach.

How ALERT and ROTOR differ

The Senate’s ROTOR Act is a more focused proposal. Supporters say it would require aircraft in controlled airspace to have ADS-B In, expanding cockpit traffic awareness. It also calls for a wider FAA review of airspace safety and information-sharing, especially after the 2025 crash near DCA. The Senate passed the bill unanimously in December 2025, but it missed passing in the House by one vote, even though it had a 264-133 majority.

The House’s ALERT Act is much broader. According to Reuters, the full House is expected to vote on it next week, following committee approvals on March 26. The bill covers more than just cockpit traffic displays. It includes new collision-prevention rules for both civil and military aircraft, updates to air traffic control training and procedures, and a review of operational risks near DCA.

Why ALERT covers more

House committee documents show that ALERT would require aircraft already following TCAS rules to upgrade to ACAS Xa, using both ADS-B In and transponder interrogations. The bill also plans for certain rotorcraft and powered-lift aircraft to add collision-prevention technology, with deadlines set through December 31, 2031. So, ALERT is more than just an equipment update; it is a wider overhaul of the safety system after the accident.

This broader scope also makes ALERT more politically complex. ROTOR is simpler: it mandates wider use of ADS-B In to address a gap revealed by the DCA crash. ALERT is more complicated because it tries to solve several problems at once, giving supporters more reasons to back it but also giving critics more reasons to object.

The main point of contention: Section 105

The main debate within ALERT centers on Section 105, called “Prohibition on certain use of ADS-B data.” The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) argue this rule could greatly restrict how airports use ADS-B information for collecting revenue and conducting investigations. Meanwhile, the Airports Council International - North America (ACI-NA) said after the committee vote that Section 105 would “undermine safety investigations and disrupt how operations and safety-critical infrastructure are funded at American airports.” AAAE also said the rule would stop airports from using ADS-B to collect fees from operators or start investigations.

That matters because the airport side of this debate is not theoretical. For pilot groups, the concern is that safety technology should not become a billing meter. For airports, the concern is that if Congress cuts off one of the automated ways some fields already track and bill operations, the cost of collecting fees and enforcing rules does not disappear; it simply shifts elsewhere.

Where airport exposure is most visible

The loudest public opposition so far has come through trade groups rather than a long list of individual airport statements. AAAE said it had pushed against Section 105 alongside ACI-NA and “individual airports,” but the public-facing campaign has largely been centralized through those associations.

The clearest examples of airport exposure are in places where automated billing is already public. In Florida, Tallahassee International Airport (TLH) says Vector bills general aviation landing fees for FY2026. In Utah, Provo Airport (PVU) says Vector took over billing and collecting landing fees in October 2023.

In Southern California, San Diego County says Vector started billing for McClellan-Palomar Airport (CLD), Gillespie Field (SEE), and Ramona Airport in December 2025. These airports are not leading the political debate, but they clearly show where Section 105 could have a direct impact.

What happens next

If the House passes ALERT, it would not become law right away. Reuters reported that the House and Senate would need to work out the differences between ALERT and the Senate’s ROTOR Act. The next phase will focus not just on whether Congress acts, but on which approach wins: a narrower ADS-B mandate, a broader safety package, or a compromise that combines both.

This is why the debate is more important than it might seem at first. On paper, both bills respond to the same tragedy. In reality, they point to two different futures for U.S. aviation safety policy: one that is more focused and quick, and another that is broader and brings bigger changes.