NTSB Rejects House Aviation Proposal Citing Critical Safety Loopholes
Washington D.C., Friday, 27 February 2026.
Following a collision claiming 67 lives, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy rejected the House’s “watered-down” aviation bill, warning that continued technology exemptions undermine critical safety mandates.
Regulatory Standoff Over Aviation Safety
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has formally declared its opposition to the Airspace Location and Enhanced Risk Transparency (ALERT) Act, a legislative alternative proposed by House Republican leadership following the collapse of earlier safety reforms. In a letter sent to lawmakers on Thursday, February 26, 2026, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy stated the board could not support the bill in its current form, arguing it is misleading to suggest the measure fulfills the agency’s safety recommendations [1][4]. Homendy characterized the proposal as “watered-down,” criticizing provisions that she argues exploit the grief of victims’ families to advance a political agenda without delivering necessary safety mandates [1]. This confrontation marks a significant escalation in the rift between federal safety investigators and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Legislative Turbulence and Pentagon Intervention
The current impasse follows the rejection of the bipartisan Rotorcraft Operations Transparency and Oversight Reform (ROTOR) Act by the House of Representatives on Tuesday, February 24, 2026 [2][3]. Although the Senate had passed the measure unanimously in December 2025, the House vote of 264–133 failed to reach the necessary supermajority required for the specific suspension procedure used [2][6]. The measure fell agonizingly short of passage; with 397 total votes cast, the two-thirds threshold required 265 votes, meaning the bill failed by a single vote [6]. This defeat was largely precipitated by a sudden reversal from the Pentagon, which withdrew its support just days prior on February 22, citing “unresolved budgetary burdens and operational security risks” [2][6].
The Technology Gap: ADS-B In vs. Out
From a technical perspective, the divergence between the NTSB and House leadership centers on the specifications for Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology. The NTSB insists that preventing future collisions requires aircraft to be equipped with both ADS-B Out (broadcasting location) and ADS-B In (receiving location data of others) [4][5]. Chair Homendy criticized the ALERT Act for only requiring that aircraft be “capable” of receiving transmissions rather than operationally active, drawing a sharp analogy: “My iPhone with ForeFlight is capable of receiving ADS-B In transmissions. That doesn’t mean it’s operational” [3]. Furthermore, the NTSB warns that the ALERT Act retains “wholesale exemptions” for certain aircraft and airspace, effectively preserving the safety loopholes that contributed to the Flight 5342 tragedy [3][5].