PAPA Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Onder, Robert F. [R-MO-3]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 26, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to enhance privacy for aircraft owners by limiting the commercial and governmental use of ADS-B tracking data and to increase transparency and accountability in how public-use airports impose and utilize fees on general aviation.
What it actually does
The bill, titled the "Pilot and Aircraft Privacy Act of 2025," restricts the use of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data to prevent its use for generating revenue from aircraft owners without their consent, while explicitly allowing its use for air traffic control safety. It also expands privacy protections for ADS-B data to all levels of government. Furthermore, it imposes new transparency and usage requirements on public-use airports before they can levy landing or takeoff fees on general aviation aircraft, ensuring such fees are used solely for airside safety projects.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is crucial for protecting the privacy of pilots and aircraft owners, preventing the misuse of readily available ADS-B tracking data for commercial exploitation or unwarranted surveillance. They contend that the provisions regarding general aviation fees will ensure fairness and transparency, preventing airports from imposing arbitrary charges and ensuring that any collected fees directly contribute to airside safety, benefiting the entire aviation community.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that restricting the use of ADS-B data beyond air traffic control could hinder innovation in aviation services or limit data-driven safety improvements that could benefit the broader public. Regarding airport fees, some might contend that the new transparency and usage requirements could create an undue administrative burden on airports, potentially delaying necessary infrastructure projects or limiting their financial flexibility to address diverse operational needs.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a quick and informed review.
Section 2(a)
Prohibiting Revenue Generation from ADS-B Data
This provision explicitly forbids any person, government agency, or other entity from using data gathered through Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) systems to identify aircraft for the purpose of collecting revenue from the aircraft's owner or operator, unless the owner or operator has given their consent. This aims to prevent commercial entities from monetizing flight tracking data without permission.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for protecting the privacy rights of pilots and aircraft owners, preventing their flight data from being used for commercial gain without explicit permission. They contend it addresses a growing concern about data exploitation in the digital age.
Critics contend
Some might argue that this restriction could limit the development of innovative services that leverage ADS-B data, potentially hindering market efficiency or the creation of new value-added services for the aviation community.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances individual privacy rights against potential commercial innovation and the broader availability of aviation data for various uses.
Section 2(b)
Clarifying ADS-B Data Use for Air Traffic Control and Other Purposes
This section clarifies that ADS-B data may be used by air traffic controllers to track aircraft and improve air traffic safety and efficiency. However, it also stipulates that ADS-B data may not be used for any other proposed purpose unless the Secretary of Transportation, following a public notice and comment period, determines that such use is consistent with the privacy protections outlined in the Act.
Section 3
Broadening ADS-B Privacy Protections to All Government Levels
This section amends existing law (49 U.S.C. 46101(c)) to expand the entities prohibited from using ADS-B data in certain ways. Previously, this limitation applied only to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. The amendment extends this prohibition to "neither the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration nor any other Federal, State, local, territorial, or Tribal official," significantly broadening the scope of governmental entities bound by ADS-B data use restrictions.
Section 4
Regulating Airport Fees on General Aviation Aircraft
This section adds a new provision (49 U.S.C. 40133) requiring public-use airports to meet specific transparency conditions before imposing landing or takeoff fees on general aviation aircraft. Airports must publicly disclose efforts to reduce non-airside expenses, seek other revenue sources, detail airside safety project costs, and assess the fees' impact on general aviation. Crucially, any revenue generated from these fees must only be used for airside safety projects. The FAA Administrator is authorized to issue regulations.
Expands the existing limitation on the use of ADS-B data from only the FAA Administrator to include "any other Federal, State, local, territorial, or Tribal official."
Section 3
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing statutes, but it requires familiarity with the U.S. Code to fully understand the impact.
Case for: Supporters argue that amending existing law is the most efficient and legally precise way to modify established regulations, ensuring consistency within the U.S. Code.
Case against: Critics might argue that such amendments by reference make legislation less accessible to the public and non-specialist policymakers, obscuring the full implications of the changes.
Estimated impact: Significantly broadens the scope of government entities subject to ADS-B data use limitations, impacting all levels of government.
Defines "general aviation aircraft" as an aircraft used for "personal, recreational, flight training, or for purposes other than scheduled airline operations or military flights."
Section 4(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure clarity and avoid ambiguity for terms used within a specific section.
Case for: Supporters argue that a clear and comprehensive definition is essential for the precise application of the fee requirements, ensuring that the intended aircraft types are covered and others are excluded.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against clear definitions, though the scope of the definition itself could be debated if it were seen as too broad or too narrow by different aviation sectors.
Estimated impact: Determines the exact scope of aircraft subject to the new airport fee regulations, impacting a significant portion of non-commercial and non-military aviation.