This article summarizes reporting by The Associated Press, The Washington Post, and NTSB public datas.

Senate Passes ROTOR Act to Close Military Flight Tracking Loophole Following D.C. Tragedy

On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved the Rotorcraft Operations Transparency and Oversight Reform (ROTOR) Act, a critical piece of safety legislation designed to prevent mid-air collisions between military and civilian aircraft. The bill’s passage comes nearly a year after a catastrophic crash near Washington, D.C., claimed 67 lives, exposing dangerous gaps in airspace coordination.

According to reporting by The Associated Press and WTOP, the Senate moved quickly to pass the measure (S. 2503) just hours after approving the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2026. The NDAA contained a provision that safety advocates described as a “loophole,” which allowed Military-Aircraft to fly without broadcasting their location during training missions. The ROTOR Act explicitly closes this gap, mandating that military aircraft broadcast their position during training and proficiency flights.

The legislation now heads to the House of Representatives, where sponsors hope for final approval by January 2026.

Correcting the “Dark” Flight Loophole

The legislative maneuvering on Wednesday involved two distinct bills. First, the Senate passed the massive annual defense spending bill (NDAA). According to legislative analysis, Section 373 of the NDAA permitted military aircraft to disable tracking equipment for “sensitive government missions.” Critics and safety officials argued this definition was being interpreted too broadly, effectively allowing routine training flights to operate “in the dark” within crowded civilian airspace.

To address this immediately, Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) pushed the ROTOR Act through by unanimous consent. As reported by The Washington Post, this “fix-it” bill overrides the NDAA provision regarding training flights.

Key Provisions of the ROTOR Act

• Mandatory Broadcast (ADS-B Out): Military aircraft must use Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology to transmit their location during training and proficiency flights.
• Situational Awareness (ADS-B In): By 2031, all aircraft, civilian and military, must be equipped with “ADS-B In” technology, allowing pilots to view other aircraft positions directly in the cockpit.
• Safety Review: The FAA is mandated to conduct a comprehensive review of airspace safety around major airports.

This legislation should save lives.

, Senator Ted Cruz (via Senate Commerce Committee statement)

The Catalyst: A Preventable Tragedy

The urgency behind this legislation stems from the horrific mid-air collision on January 29, 2025. According to NTSB investigation reports summarized by the media, American Airlines Flight 5342, a Bombardier CRJ-700 regional jet, collided with a U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk Helicopters over the Potomac River near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA).

The crash resulted in 67 fatalities: 60 passengers and 4 crew members on the regional jet, and 3 soldiers aboard the helicopter. Investigators determined that the Army helicopter was conducting a training mission with its ADS-B transponder turned off. Consequently, the airliner’s collision avoidance systems could not detect the military aircraft, and air traffic controllers lacked precise visibility of the helicopter’s movements.

NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy has been a vocal advocate for the reform, stating that the tragedy “could have been avoided” had the helicopter been broadcasting its location. Furthermore, NTSB data revealed a troubling pattern: in the three years leading up to the crash, there were 85 near-misses involving military and civilian aircraft in the D.C. area alone.

Technological Mandates and Industry Pushback

The ROTOR Act pushes the Aviation industry toward full adoption of ADS-B technology. While “ADS-B Out” (transmitting location) is already standard for most commercial aircraft, “ADS-B In” (receiving data from others) is not universally deployed. The CRJ-700 involved in the January crash lacked “In” capability, meaning the pilots relied entirely on Air Traffic Control for separation.

Privacy and Security Concerns

While safety officials celebrate the bill, some stakeholders have raised objections. The Department of Defense (DoD) has historically resisted broad tracking mandates, citing operational security (OPSEC) risks if adversaries can track military movements. The ROTOR Act attempts to balance this by limiting the mandate to training and proficiency flights, rather than combat or sensitive covert operations.

Additionally, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) has expressed concerns regarding data privacy. According to reports from Aviation International News, AOPA President Darren Pleasance argued that third parties currently use ADS-B data for non-safety purposes, such as collecting landing fees or tracking private citizens for enforcement actions. The association has lobbied for strict data-use limitations to ensure pilot privacy is not compromised by the new mandates.

AirPro News Analysis

The inclusion of a 2031 mandate for “ADS-B In” represents a significant shift in regulatory philosophy. Historically, the FAA has focused on “ADS-B Out” to aid air traffic controllers. Mandating “In” capability shifts the burden of situational awareness directly into the cockpit. For regional airlines and general aviation operators, this will likely necessitate a substantial retrofit program over the next five years. While the cost will be high, the January 2025 tragedy demonstrated that relying solely on ground-based control is insufficient in mixed-use airspace where military assets operate alongside commercial jets.

Frequently Asked Questions

When will the ROTOR Act become law?

The bill passed the Senate on December 17, 2025. It must now pass the House of Representatives. Sponsors are optimistic it will be signed by the President in January 2026.

Does this apply to all military flights?

No. The bill specifically targets training and proficiency flights. Sensitive government missions may still be exempt from broadcasting their location to preserve operational security.

What is the difference between ADS-B Out and In?

“Out” transmits an aircraft’s GPS data to ground stations and other planes. “In” allows an aircraft to receive that data and display nearby traffic on a screen in the cockpit.

Sources: Associated Press, The Washington Post, NTSB Reports

This article is based on an official press release from Collins Aerospace (RTX) and supplementary data regarding FAA safety initiatives.

New Software Upgrade Targets “Wrong-Surface” Landings at U.S. Airports

In an effort to mitigate one of aviation’s most persistent safety risks, Collins Aerospace (an RTX business) has deployed a software-based solution designed to alert air traffic controllers when an aircraft lines up to land on the wrong runway, a taxiway, or even the wrong airport. The system, known as STARS Approach Runway Verification (ARV), is now operational at 13 airports across the United States.

According to Collins Aerospace, the technology integrates directly into the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) existing Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS), the primary platform used by controllers to manage air traffic in terminal areas. By utilizing existing surveillance data rather than requiring new ground hardware, the system aims to provide a rapid, scalable safety net for the National Airspace System.

Addressing a Top 5 Aviation Hazard

The FAA has classified “wrong-surface landings” as one of the top five hazards in commercial and general aviation. These incidents occur when a pilot inadvertently aligns their aircraft with a surface other than their assigned runway. While often corrected before touchdown, the potential for catastrophe remains high, particularly if the mistaken surface is a taxiway occupied by other aircraft.

Data cited in safety reports indicates the scale of the issue. Between 2016 and 2018 alone, there were 596 wrong-surface events recorded in the U.S. National Airspace System. While 85% of these involved general aviation aircraft, commercial carriers are not immune. The development of technologies like ARV was accelerated following high-profile “close calls,” such as the July 2017 incident at San Francisco International Airport where an Air Canada jet nearly landed on a taxiway occupied by four fully loaded passenger planes.

How STARS ARV Works

Unlike systems that rely on new sensors installed on the airfield, STARS ARV is a software modification. It utilizes the radar and ADS-B data already feeding into the control tower. The system creates a geometric “capture box” or cone extending from the runway threshold.

If an approaching aircraft’s track falls outside this safe zone, indicating alignment with a taxiway or a closed runway, for a specific duration, the algorithm triggers a visual and audible alert for the controller. This allows the controller to issue immediate corrective instructions to the pilot.

“Any airport that has STARS can easily adapt and utilize ARV with no additional equipment.”

, Chris Rogers, Director of Automation at Collins Aerospace

Advertisement

Real-World Success: The Lincoln Airport Incident

The system has already demonstrated its efficacy in live operations. In the fall of 2023 at Lincoln Airport (LNK) in Nebraska, STARS ARV detected a private jet aligned with the wrong runway while the aircraft was still five miles out from the airport.

According to reports on the incident, the system triggered an alert in the tower, allowing the controller to radio the pilot well before the aircraft reached a critical point. Collins Aerospace executives described the event as a “point of pride,” noting that the early warning converted a potential accident into a routine course correction.

Current Deployment and Future Plans

As of 2024, the FAA has deployed the STARS ARV system to 13 locations. These facilities range from major commercial hubs to smaller regional airports where visual confusion, often caused by parallel runways or complex taxiway layouts, can be a significant risk factor.

Confirmed Operational Locations:

• Austin-Bergstrom International (AUS)
• Lincoln Airport (LNK)
• Gerald R. Ford International (GRR)
• South Bend International (SBN)
• Tallahassee International (TLH)
• Cedar Rapids (CID)
• Lansing (LAN)
• DuPage Airport (DPA)
• Chicago Executive (PWK)
• Elkhart Municipal (EKM)
• Elton Hensley (FTT)
• Branson West Municipal (FWB)
• M. Graham Clark Downtown (PLK)

The FAA has included this technology in its broader “Surface Safety Portfolio,” which also includes the Surface Awareness Initiative (SAI) and Runway Incursion Devices (RID). Plans are reportedly in place to expand ARV deployment to dozens of additional facilities throughout 2025.

AirPro News Analysis

The deployment of STARS ARV represents a significant shift in aviation infrastructure strategy: the move toward software-defined safety. Historically, improving runway safety required pouring concrete, installing physical lights, or deploying expensive ground radar arrays (like ASDE-X).

By leveraging the existing STARS hardware footprint, the FAA and Collins Aerospace are demonstrating that legacy systems can be modernized with algorithmic upgrades. This approach is critical for regional and general aviation airports (like many on the current deployment list), which often lack the budget for heavy infrastructure projects but face the same human-factor risks, such as expectation bias, that plague larger hubs. We expect this “software-first” approach to become the standard for future airspace modernization efforts, allowing safety improvements to roll out months or years faster than traditional hardware projects.

Sources: Collins Aerospace, FAA Surface Safety Portfolio

This article summarizes reporting by NBC News and Yamiche Alcindor.

JetBlue Flight Takes Evasive Action Near Venezuela After Encounter with “Dark” Military Jet

New details have emerged regarding a significant safety incident involving a commercial JetBlue flight and a U.S. military aircraft operating in international airspace near Venezuela. According to reporting by NBC News, the incident occurred on Friday, December 12, 2025, when a JetBlue Airbus A320 was forced to halt its climb to avoid a potential collision with a U.S. Air Force refueling tanker that was not broadcasting its location.

The encounter, which took place near Curaçao, highlights the growing friction between civilian air traffic and increased military operations in the Caribbean. Audio recordings from the cockpit, obtained and released by NBC News, reveal a tense exchange between the commercial pilots and air traffic control immediately following the near-miss.

At AirPro News, we are tracking the implications of this event, particularly regarding the safety protocols for military aircraft operating in busy civilian corridors without active transponders.

“Harrowing Moments” in the Cockpit

JetBlue Flight 1112 had departed from Curaçao (CUR) and was en route to New York (JFK). Approximately 20 minutes after takeoff, while the aircraft was climbing through 33,000 feet, the flight crew visually identified a large military aircraft directly in their path at the same altitude.

According to the data summarized by NBC News, the military aircraft, identified as a U.S. Air Force refueling tanker, had its transponder turned off. This rendered the tanker invisible to the JetBlue aircraft’s automated collision avoidance systems until the pilots made visual contact. The commercial crew immediately stopped their climb to maintain vertical separation.

In the air traffic control audio released by NBC News, the JetBlue pilot expressed immediate frustration regarding the lack of electronic visibility:

“We almost had a midair collision up here. They passed directly in our flight path… They don’t have their transponder turned on, it’s outrageous.”

The pilot estimated that the military jet passed within two to three miles of the commercial airliner’s nose. While this distance may sound substantial to a layperson, at cruising speeds, it represents a margin of seconds. The controller on duty in Curaçao reportedly agreed with the pilot’s assessment, noting that the situation with unidentified aircraft in the region had become “outrageous.”

The Risks of “Dark” Military Operations

The primary safety failure in this incident stems from the military aircraft operating “dark”, flying without an active transponder. Transponders are essential for modern aviation safety, as they broadcast an aircraft’s altitude and position to both ground radar and other aircraft equipped with Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS).

According to the report, the U.S. military has increased its presence in the region for drug interdiction operations and to apply pressure on the Venezuelan government. While military aircraft often disable transponders during sensitive combat or stealth operations to avoid detection by adversaries, doing so in a standard civilian flight corridor poses severe risks.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has previously issued warnings to U.S. carriers regarding the “worsening security situations” near Venezuelan airspace, advising extreme caution. However, this incident suggests that the danger may not only come from foreign actors but also from coordination failures involving U.S. assets.

AirPro News Analysis

The Failure of De-confliction: While military necessity sometimes dictates stealth, the proximity of this incident to a major civilian airport (Curaçao) suggests a breakdown in “de-confliction”, the process of ensuring military and civilian flights do not occupy the same airspace simultaneously. The fact that the Curaçao air traffic controller was unaware of the tanker’s presence until the JetBlue pilot reported it indicates a lack of communication between military command and civilian air traffic authorities.

Systemic Risk: This is not an isolated technical glitch but a systemic risk inherent in mixed-use airspace. When “dark” targets operate near commercial lanes, the safety of passengers relies entirely on the “see and avoid” principle, which is less reliable at high altitudes and high speeds than automated radar systems.

Official Responses

Following the release of the details, the involved parties issued statements regarding the event:

• JetBlue: The airline confirmed the incident and stated they have reported the matter to federal authorities. They emphasized that their crew is trained for various flight situations and will participate fully in the investigation.
• U.S. Air Force: A spokesperson acknowledged the report, stating that safety is a top priority and that they are currently reviewing the facts of the encounter.

Frequently Asked Questions

Was anyone injured on JetBlue Flight 1112?
No injuries were reported. The aircraft took evasive action by halting its climb, but there were no reports of violent maneuvers that caused passenger injury.

Why do military planes turn off their transponders?
Military aircraft may disable transponders to avoid detection by adversarial radar systems during sensitive operations. In this case, it was likely to avoid tracking by Venezuelan military radar.

How close did the planes actually get?
The pilots estimated the horizontal separation was between 2 and 3 miles. Vertically, they were at the same altitude before the JetBlue crew halted their climb.

Sources

• NBC News