If you're having trouble viewing this email, you can view it in a browser here
(https://mailchi.mp/24bf13d19505/aviation-policy-news-244?e=cd4b5cfcaf) .
https://reason.org?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776
Aviation Policy News
By Robert W. Poole, Jr.
Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow and Director of Transportation Policy
March 2026
In this issue: ()
* Why ADS-B/In is essential for air safety (#a)
* NASA reforms Artemis lunar program (#b)
* Why can’t the FAA and the Pentagon communicate and coordinate? (#c)
* D.C. ground stop explained (#d)
* Does the Dallas/Ft. Worth area need a third airport? (#e)
* Canada’s private airport security screening (#f)
* News Notes (#g)
* Quotable Quotes (#h)
Why ADS-B/In is Essential for Aviation Safety ()
As I write this, a battle is underway in Congress about competing aviation
safety measures—the ALERT Act
(https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7613/text?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
and the ROTOR Act
(https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2503/text?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
. Both are claimed to improve aviation safety, but the ROTOR Act would provide
much greater safety improvements.
The largest point of contention is that the Rotorcraft Operations Transparency
and Oversight Reform (ROTOR) Act, which passed the Senate unanimously, concerns
all aircraft that already broadcast their speed and position via what is called
ADS-B/Out. But for other aircraft to benefit from this information, they need
to be equipped with ADS-B/In. The latter allows aircraft to receive the ADS-B
information broadcast by essentially all aircraft in controlled airspace. The
Airspace Location and Enhanced Risk Transparency (ALERT) Act, thanks in part to
opposition from the general aviation community, would not require increased use
of ADS-B/In, as the ROTOR Act does.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has, for several decades, been
calling for ADS-B/In to be required as the obvious complement to ADS-B/Out.
Last month, the Washington Times claimed
(https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/feb/21/republican-rift-threatens-upcoming-house-vote-airline-safety-bill/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
that someone at NTSB was supporting the ALERT Act. "An NTSB official said
privately that many within the agency support the ALERT Act because it includes
all the agency’s recommendations," the Washington Times reported.
That prompted this response
(https://x.com/JenniferHomendy/status/2025284038865682571?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
from NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy:
“I don’t know who this anonymous NTSB ‘official’ is, however anyone saying that
we support the ALERT Act and that it fully addresses NTSB recommendations is
flat-out wrong. It does not implement our longstanding recommendation on
ADS-B/In, as the ROTOR Act does. Whoever said this has no idea that we are
actively working with the committees to address our concerns with ALERT.”
The NTSB has provided a side-by-side comparison of the two bills, cited by Jeff
Davis of the Eno Center for Transportation on Feb. 27. ALERT requires only a
subset of aircraft to be equipped with technology “capable of” receiving
ADS-B/In transmissions, which is not the same as providing that information to
the cockpit crew. Second, ALERT applies only to turbine-powered aircraft and
only in a subset of airspace. It also exempts several types of aircraft covered
by the ROTOR Act. ALERT also requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
administrator to set up a rulemaking committee to require that this narrower
set of “covered” aircraft be equipped with “collision mitigation” technology,
whatever that means. The NTSB notes that it is unfamiliar with collision
“mitigation” technology and repeats that “We believe that all aircraft should
be equipped with technology that avoids collisions, not mitigates them.”
If the NTSB’s long-standing recommendation for ADS-B/In had been adopted by the
FAA years ago, and applied also to military aircraft that operate in civil
airspace, the deadly collision between a regional jet and an Army helicopter at
Reagan National Airport would have been prevented, The helicopter training
flight would have been broadcasting its trajectory via ADS-B/Out and the
regional jet crew would have seen it on their ADS-B/In display. Yet the
Pentagon is now opposing the ROTOR Act.
Why is the House of Representatives opposing the ROTOR Act?
It seems likely to me that the House Aviation Caucus, many of whose members are
friends with general aviation organizations, is opposed to the ADS-B/In
requirement as an unfunded mandate on private planes. So I asked a
knowledgeable aviation consultant what it would cost for a general aviation
plane to add ADS-B/In. He explained that the same companies that produced the
original ADS-B/Out boxes for private planes are now producing units that
include both the transmitter (Out) and the receiver (In) in the same unit, with
virtually the same weight and dimensions as the original ADS-B/Out unit. He
estimated that adding ADS-B/In should cost less than $1,000. Alternatively, a
complete replacement of the existing box with one that includes both Out and In
and integrates with either a primary flight display or multi-function display
would be less than $3,000.
Those able to afford a private plane have no excuse for opposing a critically
important safety improvement because it would cost them between $1,000 and
$3,000. ADS-B/In should be required for the widest possible array of aircraft
in controlled airspace. This change should be supported by everyone concerned
about aviation safety.
» return to top (#top)
NASA Reforms Artemis Lunar Program ()
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Administrator Jared
Isaacman late last month released plans
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-artemis-moon-program-overhaul/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
to streamline the agency’s Artemis return-to-the-Moon program. It scraps a
number of costly projects and makes the overall program less expensive and more
likely to succeed.
Last summer, Reason Foundation published a detailed report by aerospace
engineer Rand Simberg, “Why Commercial Space Should Lead the U.S. Return to the
Moon
(https://reason.org/policy-study/commercial-space-should-lead-us-return-to-moon/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
.” Simberg’s report proposed that NASA should cancel a number of components of
the Artemis program—and Isaacman has proceeded to do that.
As Eric Berger reported
(https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/02/nasa-shakes-up-its-artemis-program-to-speed-up-lunar-return/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
in Ars Technica, Isaacman has terminated:
* The Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) for the SLS rocket;
* The Block 1B upgrade of SLS;
* The Mobile Launcher 2 (no longer needed due to EUS being cancelled).
Follow-up news articles suggested (as Simberg recommended) that the planned
Lunar Gateway, intended to orbit the Moon, could also be cancelled, as it is
not required for the commercial vehicles that would actually carry out the
lunar landings. Politico Pro Space reported
(https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-pro-space-preview/2026/03/06/senate-backs-nasas-moon-plans-00816035?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
that a current Senate NASA bill deleted language from the original version of
the bill that referred to Gateway as “critical for the United States to
maintain a presence on and around the Moon.”
Irene Klotz reported in Aviation Week
(https://aviationweek.com/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
(March 9-22, 2026) that Isaacman wants to increase the SLS launch rate to at
least once per year, which is part of the rationale for cancelling previously
planned additions to its configuration. Freezing the SLS configuration is part
of his plan to increase the pace of launches.
Isaacman has also commented several times that a non-reusable heavy-lift launch
vehicle (like SLS) is not cost-effective. It is clear from many statements he
has made that SLS’s days are numbered, now that we have far more cost-effective
reusable launch vehicles, including the huge SpaceX Starship, which is intended
to have key roles in the Artemis lunar program. Congress has mandated that SLS
remain the primary heavy-lift NASA launcher for Artemis missions, but just
about everyone in the space-launch community appreciates that its ancient
technology and enormous cost mean its days are numbered.
Isaacman also welcomed the 2026 annual report
(https://www.nasa.gov/asap-reports/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) released on Feb. 25. It pointed
out that the previous Artemis plan’s third launch (Artemis III) would rely on a
dozen first-time technologies, adding considerable risk. As Klotz reported,
Isaacman welcomed this message, saying that “What we are doing is exactly in
line with what ASAP asked us to do. . . . It should be obvious that you don’t
go from one uncrewed launch of Orion and SLS, wait three years, go around the
Moon, wait three years and land on it. . . . NASA has been working on these
plans, knowing this is not the right approach. . . . We did not just jump right
to Apollo 11. We did it through Mercury, Gemini, and lots of Apollo missions,
with a launch cadence of every three months. We should be getting back to
basics and doing what we know works.”
» return to top (#top)
Why Can’t the FAA and the Military Communicate and Coordinate? ()
The recent laser incident near El Paso Airport illustrates the ongoing problem
of a lack of coordination between the FAA and other agencies, including the
Defense and Homeland Security departments. That lack was illustrated in last
year’s fatal collision at Reagan National Airport between a small airliner and
an Army helicopter. And we observed the same problem in last month’s debacle of
the FAA closing down the airspace at El Paso Airport due to Army laser tests at
nearby Fort Bliss.
The New York Times had a lengthy article on “The Debacle that Led to the
Closure of El Paso’s Airspace
(https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/14/us/politics/el-paso-airspace-closure-faa-pentagon.html?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
.” As recounted in this article, during spring 2025, Pentagon officials
briefed Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg on plans to deploy high-energy
lasers near the Mexican border to take out drones being used to smuggle drugs
into the United States. The reporters’ Pentagon sources said that Feinberg
believed DoD could proceed without having to coordinate with DOT or FAA. When
they used a laser at Fort Bliss, very near El Paso Airport, FAA Administrator
Bryan Bedford was caught off guard and announced a 10-day closure of the
airspace around the airport.
Denials have come from several sources, but the Times reporters cite a Feb. 6
email from the FAA’s “top lawyer” warning the Pentagon that deploying a laser
there without restricting flights would create “a grave risk of fatalities” to
air travelers in that area. Another email from the FAA attorney warned 14
senior officials at DoD and the White House National Security Council of the
FAA’s likely action to close the El Paso Airport airspace.
The Times story goes on to report that discussions between DoD and the FAA had
been ongoing in the aftermath of the collision at Reagan National Airport, as
well as regarding El Paso and planned laser testing. The Pentagon insisted
there would be no risks to civil aviation from the Fort Bliss laser tests, but
the FAA asked for the military’s data so that it could do its own analysis (per
its role as the federal aviation safety regulator). But the FAA was not given
that data. A Jan. 23 email from DoD’s Mark Ditlevson to FAA chief counsel
William McKenna simply informed him that the laser system was now operational.
McKenna responded on Feb. 6 that the FAA was concerned about the safety of
airliners and passengers. But on Feb. 9, Customs & Border Protection deployed
and operated their new laser, aiming at what they thought was a drone, but
which turned out to be a metallic balloon. Later that day, Ditlevson responded
to the FAA lawyer that DoD was not changing its laser plans. And that led to
the FAA announcing that airspace in the El Paso region would be closed for all
flights under 18,000 ft. Fortunately, higher-level communications led to the
airport being reopened within 8 hours.
In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee on Feb. 12, NTSB Chair
Jennifer Homendy noted that “there has been miscommunication or no
communication between at least the Army and FAA for years.” She added, “I don’t
understand it. People can’t talk? It’s astounding to me, but it’s not
surprising to what we’ve seen from the (DCA collision) investigation.”
» return to top (#top)
D.C. Ground Stop Explained ()
On Friday, March 13, air traffic serving five airports in the Washington, D.C.
area was subject to a ground stop lasting 2.5 hours. Flights to and from
Washington Reagan (DCA), Dulles (IAD), Baltimore Washington (BWI), Andrews, and
Richmond were halted, and huge numbers of air travelers had their trips
disrupted.
The ground stop was called due to the evacuation of controllers from the
Potomac Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility. As reported in
numerous media accounts, the controllers evacuated due to a strong chemical
odor, but they returned after 2.5 hours, and the TRACON went back online. Some
media reported that the odor came from a circuit board that overheated.
A former FAA engineer whom I’ve known for many years filled in the rest of the
story. The smoldering circuit board was on a 25-year-old voice switch. It had
not been maintained and likely had layers of accumulated dust and filthy air
filters. An obvious question is this: Why was this (and all the other
electronics at Potomac) not being maintained?
The answer is that years ago, the FAA moved to a policy of “replace on fail”
for most of its systems nationwide. This appears to mean no ongoing maintenance
of ancient systems. That, in turn, suggests that other failures of this kind
could well happen at many other air traffic control (ATC) facilities.
Why was such a short-sighted policy decision made? During the 1990s, the FAA
experienced operating budget shortfalls due to the Office of Management &
Budget (OMB) not understanding the need for adequate maintenance funding. This
led the executives running FAA Technical Operations to adopt “fix on fail” to
save money. Prior to that decision, ATC equipment had been maintained 24/7 by a
workforce of more than 6,600 technicians doing this for all of the FAA’s ATC
facilities. That number is now roughly 4,000, and a shortage of training funds
means technicians are not learning how to maintain every critically important
type of equipment.
My source tells me that the Air Traffic Organization’s senior officials have
not brought this mistaken “fix-on-fail” maintenance policy to the attention of
either the FAA administrator or the Department of Transportation secretary.
Since this foolish policy applies across the entire National Airspace System
(NAS), similar equipment failures could occur anywhere in the system. Problems
like what occurred at Newark TRACON last year would not be happening in a
disciplined, well-run air traffic organization with a viable systems
engineering staff. Today, that staff no longer exists (according to a number of
my ex-FAA contacts).
The highly-touted “Brand New ATC System
(https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/brand-new-air-traffic-control-system-bnatcs-fact-sheet?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
” is a one-time program to replace some of the ancient systems with new ones.
But it does not address foolish policies such as “replace on fail.” The FAA’s
aviation customers should demand wiser policies than this. But without serious
organizational reform, such as converting the Air Traffic Organization to a
utility paid for by its customers, these built-in problems will remain in place.
» return to top (#top)
Does the Dallas-Ft. Worth Area Need a Third Airport? ()
While some aviation people in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) metroplex are
imagining vertiports and electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOLs),
officials in McKinney are upgrading their general aviation (GA) airport, known
as TKI, into the region’s third commercial airport. With the two major airports
dominated by major airlines (American has 82% market share at DFW and Southwest
has a 98% market share at Love Field), the vision of TKI director Ken Carley
deserves a serious look.
Carley told
(https://simpleflying.com/dallas-third-airport-on-track-open-year-end/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
Simple Flying that he started thinking about this in late 2018 when several
airlines asked if there was any interest in expanding TKI into a commercial
airport. One factor is TKI’s location, about 35 miles northeast of Dallas,
serving fast-growing Collin County and two other counties north of it. It is a
long trip from up there to DFW or Love. So one factor is serving a growing
local air travel market.
What kinds of airlines might actually be interested, assuming a suitable
terminal and runway(s) of sufficient length? My best guess is low-cost carriers
(LCC) such as Allegiant, Avelo, Breeze, Frontier, and (if it survives) Spirit.
I doubt if the amount of added capacity would be enough to interest Delta,
which is not a major player at either DFW or Love. Aviation consultant Courtney
Miller agrees that LCCs are most likely to be interested in entering the DFW
market in this manner, where they would not have to vie for runway use with the
majors.
The initial expansion, already underway, is a terminal with four gates costing
$79 million (compared with the planned $165 million terminal at New Haven, to
serve mostly Avelo). TKI airport fees would likely be far lower than at DFW or
Love. The terminal’s external walls and the parking lots are under
construction, and the aircraft apron is nearly complete, per Simple Flying. TKI
has a 7,000 ft. runway and has begun work on a parallel taxiway. The article
cites TKI’s target for having the project completed by November, and some
reports say that Avelo has already signed up.
What might interfere with this ambitious plan? One necessity for beginning
airline operations is TSA screening or its equivalent. For an airport this
size, TSA’s Screening Partnership Program (which allows interested airports to
hire TSA-approved contractors) might be a better fit, but TSA’s application
process is tedious and time-consuming. Another is possible opposition from the
current users of the airport: general aviation. Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA) and National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) might not
be comfortable with having airliners using some of the capacity of their
runways, and their opposition could be a problem.
Nevertheless, adding a third airport and LCC service to the metroplex would be
an important addition to northern Texas air travel.
» return to top (#top)
Canada’s Private Airport Security Screening ()
By Michel Kelly-Gagnon
The Washington Post editorial board recently cited
(http://washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/02/23/tsa-airport-security-dhs-privatize/?itid=lk_inline_manual_1&utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
several relevant examples of successful private security screening in foreign
airports. However, it did not mention another compelling example close to
America: Canada. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) was
established in 2002 as part of an enhanced air travel security system after
Sept. 11, 2001. CATSA directly employs about 400 full-time staff and contracts
with various private security companies that employ about 8,000 officers to
conduct screening at airports across Canada. These officers apply vigorous
standards established by this government and wear CATSA uniforms.
By entrusting such private security agents to provide security instead of
unionized bureaucrats, Canadian airports have ended up outperforming their
American counterparts on most metrics. A 2017 study by the Heritage Foundation
found that Canada spent about 40 percent less per capita on aviation security
than the U.S. and approximately 15 percent less per traveler. Yet despite these
lower costs, CATSA screened 159 travelers per hour compared with 150 for TSA.
Canada’s model of highly trained private security professionals providing
pre-boarding security screening and physical security at airports could thus
serve as a concrete source of inspiration for long-awaited changes for TSA,
helping it deliver a more-efficient and cost-effective service to the traveling
public in the United States. Canada’s experience over the past two decades also
illustrates that these policy objectives can be achieved without conceding an
inch in terms of security standards.
This article is based on Mr. Kelly-Gagnon’s letter to the editor in the March 5
issue of The Washington Post. He is the president of IEDM and was the founding
president of the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI).
» return to top (#top)
News Notes ()
Electronic Flight Strips at DCA Tower—At Last
Last month, the FAA announced that electronic flight strips have finally come
to the control tower at Reagan National Airport. The e-strips are part of the
new Terminal Flight Data Manager (TFDM) system FAA is gradually installing at
only 49 towers, rather than a previous plan to equip 89 towers (out of a total
of 142 federal towers). The idea of replacing paper flight strips dates back to
the FAA’s 1983 AAS program, which was terminated in 2000 with little to show
for its time and spending. By contrast, Nav Canada developed and tested its
e-strips in-house in 1998, and the operational version was certified in 2003.
By 2006, it had been installed in all of Canada’s towers and TRACONs, and by
2009, it was in all Nav Canada facilities, including general aviation airport
towers. The company’s NAVCANstrips have been sold to other ATC providers and
are in use in Australia, Dubai, Italy, and the U.K.
SpaceX Announces Space Traffic Management System
Jeff Foust reported
(https://spacenews.com/spacexs-unveils-space-traffic-management-system/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
in SpaceNews that SpaceX is developing a space situational awareness (SSA)
system called Stargaze. It uses images from star trackers on its nearly 10,000
Starlink satellites to identify and plot the orbits of other satellites. The
system collects nearly 30 million observations each day and uses that
information to calculate potential close calls and issues data messages to
other satellite operators. Foust reports that initial beta tests are getting
positive reviews from other satellite operators.
Air France Gets Opposition on Shift to Charles de Gaulle (CDG) Airport
Aviation Daily reported (March 2) that Air France’s announced shift of most of
its current flights at Paris Orly Airport to much-larger CDG is running into
environmental and noise objections. The operator of both airports, Group ADP,
is moving forward with expansion plans at CDG, anticipating a 19% increase in
flight movements by 2050 and a 38% increase in passenger numbers. Those
projections have aroused opposition from mayors and members of Parliament over
both noise and environmental impacts. Environmental group Transport &
Environment would prefer no CDG expansion, which it estimates would allow only
82 million annual passengers by 2050, rather than ADP’s expectation of 105
million.
NASA to Use Existing Upper Stage for Artemis Missions
NASA has cancelled the $3 billion Boeing Exploration Upper Stage for the
Artemis lunar missions. Instead, it has shifted to the existing ULA Centaur V,
which is used on ULA’s Vulcan rockets. NASA’s announcement noted that this
change will save large sums and reduce risk by making use of a proven upper
stage.
Flight Cap at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport Killed by Court
The Dutch Council of State, the highest court in the Netherlands, has ruled
that the flight cap of 478,000 flight movements per year at Amsterdam Airport
Schiphol is not legal. It found that the government did not properly write the
decree. The ruling, which cannot be appealed, means the government will likely
draft a revised version that it hopes will be approved.
Another FAA-Approved Controller Training Program
U.S. DOT last month announced that Aims Community College in northern Colorado
has been approved as the 11th school to join the FAA’s controller training
initiative. Students who pass the FAA-approved training course (and pass
aptitude and medical checks) can be assigned to an FAA air traffic facility for
on-the-job training. These 11 schools provide training comparable to the
training provided by the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City.
China Lands a Booster Rocket after its Launch
Earlier this month, as Politico Pro Space reported
(https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-pro-space-preview/2026/02/20/space-race-heats-up-00789841?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
on Feb. 20, China announced the powered landing of the booster rocket of its
Long March-10. The launch put a Mengzhou spacecraft into orbit, in a test of
that vehicle, which is designed to convey astronauts to a lunar orbit. This is
the first known recovery of a booster rocket in China.
Bangalore Airport Considers Bidding on Upcoming Privatizations
In Infralogic
(https://infralogic.com/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
on Feb. 24, Rouhan Sharma reported that Bangalore International Airport
(BIAL) has hired Grant Thornton Bharat as its advisor. The Airports Authority
of India is expected to invite proposals to privatize as many as 11 airports.
The government has created five “bundles,” each consisting of two or three
airports. Six larger airports were privatized in 2019, all of which were
acquired by Adani Group. The first round of privatizations, in 2006, led to GMR
winning the Delhi airport and GVK winning Mumbai.
Ditching Obsolete Federal Buildings May Save the Government $50 Billion
In a 27-page report released early this month, the Public Buildings Reform
Board (PBRB) argued that “a glut of old and unused federal buildings” is
costing the General Services Administration (GSA) $50 billion in deferred
maintenance liabilities. When government tenants move out and GSA rents
replacement office space, it ends up paying to maintain both the obsolete
building and the newly leased space. The PBRB’s acting chair, D. Talmadge
Hocker, told Politico that “Congress is never going to be able to appropriate
its way out of this problem. The only way to handle this is through a radical
reduction in the GSA’s portfolio size.” The two FAA office buildings on the
Mall in D.C. are among these obsolete buildings.
Astronaut Lives Were at Stake in 2024 Boeing Starliner Failure
NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman disclosed last month that the Starliner
launch to the International Space Station in 2024 has been designated as a
“Type A Mishap” that resulted in at least $2 million in damage and put the crew
members’ lives at risk. The Starliner suffered thruster failures as it
approached ISS for docking, in addition to helium leaks that led to a temporary
loss of complete control. NASA would not allow any astronauts to return to
Earth on the damaged Starliner. Orlando Sentinel space reporter Richard Tribou
revealed
(https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2026/02/19/there-will-be-accountability-nasa-says-leadership-failed-amid-boeing-starliner-mission/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
that the report from NASA’s Program Investigation Team “raises major questions
about the future of the Starliner spacecraft.”
What Would It Cost to Rename Palm Beach International Airport?
Last month, the Florida legislature, in a highly partisan move, approved
legislation that would rename PBI as “President Donald J. Trump International
Airport.” The measure would also prohibit local governments from naming or
renaming airports, leaving that up to the state legislature. The cost of
changing PBI’s name was estimated by airport officials as $5.5 million, but the
bill offers Palm Beach County only $2.75 million. The Trump family company
filed three trademark applications based on the new airport name, which could
be used for watches, jewelry, clothing, etc.
What Will ATC Integrator Get Paid?
FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford announced that national security firm Peraton’s
contract to manage the brand-new-air-traffic-control system will be paid $1.5
billion to oversee the many contracts involved. He also said that President
Trump negotiated a $200 million discount off the initial proposed contract
price. Peraton is owned by Veritas Capital.
MIT Students Design Ultra STOL Aircraft Model
Aviation Week reported (Feb. 23-March 8) that a team of MIT students invented a
super-short takeoff and landing (STOL) model aircraft using “blown lift” to
enable super-short takeoffs and landings. That took place in 2019, and the
results led to Electra.aero’s EL2 super-STOL demonstrator and its larger EL9
that is now in development. The MIT students (by now, I presume, grad students)
are looking into the use of ducted fans rather than propellers to enable higher
cruise speeds in addition to short-field performance.
AutoFlight Developing 10-Seater eVTOL
Aviation Week experts Ben Goldstein and Graham Warwick were very impressed with
a flying prototype VTOL that weighs 5.7 metric tons, seats 10 passengers, and
has a reported 200 km range with a 1,000 kg payload. Its hybrid version claims
up to 1,500 km range carrying 1500 kg. Consistent with its longer range and
increased passenger capacity, it is the first eVTOL to include a lavatory. The
reporters also note that the target market is not short-range commuting but
scheduled regional shuttles. If all these claims are valid and the price is
competitive, this could be a viable commercial product. AutoFlight is a Chinese
company, and it’s not clear if this project has been funded privately or by the
government. It’s definitely worth watching.
American Airlines Plans $1 Billion Terminal Investment at MIA
As its contribution to a $9 billion modernization underway at Miami
International Airport, American has announced large planned upgrades to its
existing main terminal. The most notable is to convert the regional jet
boarding area into a three-level facility with 17 new gates and jetways for
all-weather boarding of these aircraft. Other AA improvements are a new baggage
handling system and direct third-level access to Customs and Border Protection
facilities.
London City Airport Proposes Shallower Approaches and Larger Aircraft
London City Airport (LCY) is known for its steep 5.5-degree approach for
landing, but it is considering the implementation of a shallower approach of
4.49 degrees. This change would enable larger narrow-body aircraft such as the
A320neo to use the airport. LCY officials argue that the new approach would
enable larger, quieter, and more fuel-efficient airliners to serve the airport.
These aircraft would use somewhat less fuel and generate less noise and less
CO2 than current aircraft serving the airport. Larger aircraft could enable LCY
to handle more passengers per year without increasing the number of flights.
Chile Adds 36 Months to Santiago Airport Concession
Infralogic reported (Feb. 20) that the government has added three years to the
long-term concession of Santiago’s Arturo Merino Benitez Airport. The extension
resulted from a 2024 ruling by an arbitration commission.
» return to top (#top)
Quotable Quotes ()
“Contractors are key and critical in areas that are not in our core
competencies. . . . When it comes to aerospace-related engineering, launch
operations, on-orbit operations at mission control, flight-test programs from
within our aeronautical division, those are all areas where that talent should
live inside the organization. If not, you create a lot of external
dependencies, and those external dependencies have to work with your prime
contractors, which have hundreds of subcontractors that use different software
tools, different systems for exchanging information. When you wind up in that
environment, it shouldn’t be surprising that projects take longer than they
should, and sometimes they cost a lot more than they should. So we’re trying to
bring that back in-house. We’re going to do it very, very quickly, and it’s
certainly the right direction for NASA.”
—Jared Isaacman, in Irene Klotz, “Fast Five with NASA Administrator Jared
Isaacman
(https://aviationweek.com/space/budget-policy-regulation/fast-five-nasa-administrator-jared-isaacman?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
,” Aviation Week, Feb. 12, 2026
“The majority of commercial airports across Europe use private services for
security screening. Frankfurt Airport in Germany and Heathrow Airport in the
United Kingdom work with private firms, but no one considers these major hubs
to be any less safe. In America, airports are allowed to apply to run their own
security with private companies, and they’ve had success. San Francisco
International operates under this model, and routinely ranks as one of the best
in America. A big part of that is because it’s so easy for passengers to move
through security.”
—Editorial Board, “Privatize Airport Security
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/02/23/tsa-airport-security-dhs-privatize/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
,” The Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2006
“[JSX CEO Alex] Wilcox points out that Dallas and other cities are putting in
infrastructure for electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing air taxis. ‘There is a
ton of money right now chasing eVTOL infrastructure,’ he says. ‘I have my
doubts about the certification timeline and the practical utility of these
vehicles. Along comes Electra, probably years ahead of eVTOL in terms of
certification timeline, more or less a standard Part 23 airplane, no new rules
required. I think they have a multi-year head start. . . . I think there is
going to be a significant infrastructure that only this airplane is going to be
able to access for a good period of time.’”
—Alex Wilcox, in Graham Warwick, “Flying Ultra Short
(https://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/20260209?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
,” Aviation Week, Feb. 9-22, 2026
» return to top (#top)
This issue of Aviation Policy News is also available online here
(https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/why-ads-b-in-is-essential-for-aviation-safety/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
.
Previous editions of
this newsletter are archived here
(https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
and all of Reason Foundation's aviation policy research and analysis is here
(https://reason.org/topics/transportation/air-traffic-control/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
.
Donate to Reason Foundation
(https://reason.com/donate/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776)
https://www.youtube.com/reasontv?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776
https://x.com/ReasonFdn?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776
https://www.instagram.com/reasonmagazine/?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776
https://www.facebook.com/ReasonFoundation?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776
https://www.tiktok.com/@reasonmagazine?utm_source=Reason+Foundation&utm_campaign=af5b930b5d-reason_policy%7Caviation_policy%7C2026_March&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a215e95f7-af5b930b5d-589230776
Copyright (C) 2026 Reason Foundation. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.
Our mailing address is:
Reason Foundation
5737 Mesmer Ave
Los Angeles, CA 902306316
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?
Update your preferences
(https://reason.us10.list-manage.com/profile?u=eeb19ce21180de2f45ab9ac5e&id=1a215e95f7&e=cd4b5cfcaf&c=af5b930b5d)
and the emails you receive.
To stop receiving all emails from Reason, click unsubscribe
(https://reason.us10.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=eeb19ce21180de2f45ab9ac5e&id=1a215e95f7&t=b&e=cd4b5cfcaf&c=af5b930b5d)
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised: 20250507
You are receiving The Mifnet because you requested to join this list.
The Mifnet is largely a labor of love, however the infrastructure isn't exactly
cost-free. If you'd care to make a small contribution to the effort, please
know that it would be greatly appreciated:
https://wardell.us/url/mifbit
All posts sent to the list should abide by these policies:
1) List members acknowledge that participation in Mifnet is a privilege--not a
right.
2) Posts are always off the record, absent specific permission from the author.
3) The tone of discussions is collegial.
4) Posts are expected to be in reasonably good taste.
5) We discuss ideas and not personalities, and we don't speak ill of other
Mifnet members.
* The Mifnet WEB SITE is:
https://www.mifnet.com/
* To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list at any time please visit:
https://lists.mifnet.com/
OR: SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: [email protected]?subject=leave
* Send Mifnet mailing list POSTS/SUBMISSIONS to:
[email protected]
* You may reach the person managing The Mifnet at:
[email protected]
* Please consider the DIGEST version of The Mifnet, which consolidates all list
traffic into 1-3
messages daily. See instructions at:
https://lists.mifnet.com/
* Manage your personal Mifnet SUBSCRIPTION at:
https://lists.mifnet.com/
* For a list of all available Mifnet commands, SEND THIS MESSAGE via email:
[email protected]?subject=help
* View The Mifnet LIST POLICIES and PRIVACY POLICY at:
https://mifnet.com/index.php/policies
* View instructions for Mifnet DELIVERY PROBLEMS at:
https://mifnet.com/index.php/delivery-problems
* View The Mifnet LIST ARCHIVE at:
https://lists.mifnet.com/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/
