An FAA move to restrict public access to aircraft owner information based on the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act has inspired both laudatory and concerned reactions across the aviation ecosystem.
Groups such as NBAA and AOPA hail the privacy changes and possible expansion of them; increased privacy and security protections have long been a priority for the business and general aviation community, especially in the decades since individuals could track aircraft movements online.
However, airport officials, aircraft transaction attorneys, and some industry associations warn of potential operational, financial, and legal consequences of blanket blocking of that information.
Implemented earlier this year, the changes were mandated by Section 803 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Public Law 118-63), enabling owners to submit privacy requests through the Civil Aviation Registry Electronic Services (CARES) system. Names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of registered owners can be withheld from public FAA websites at the owners’ request.
In addition, the FAA is considering whether to automatically withhold personally identifiable information from the public aircraft registry by default while providing owners with a means to access their data when necessary. A request for comment closed in early June, drawing more than 300 submissions.
“Publicly available, personally identifiable aircraft information has helped enable flight-stalking by anyone, anywhere in the world, with any motive,” NBAA commented in early June, backing the increased privacy. In congressional testimony, NBAA president and CEO Ed Bolen said the industry supports protections that mitigate threats without creating unintended consequences.
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) also supported the move. “This program is long overdue and a significant win for pilot privacy,” said AOPA president and CEO Darren Pleasance. He added that AOPA would continue working with Congress and the FAA to ensure pilots’ private information remains fully protected.
Meanwhile, title company representatives fear that complete privacy limitations could lead to problems with aircraft titling and sales. “Making sure that people cannot track flights is not a bad goal. There are security reasons, there are safety, maybe even confidentiality reasons for businesses,” acknowledged AIC Title Service general counsel Bruce Marshall wrote in one of the comments. “But the problem is…the FAA was co-mingling operational information, ADS-B information, and ownership information. The registry originated so that you could follow the legal documents and have some way of determining ownership and interests in aircraft.”
The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) warned the FAA that removing data without preserving access for verified users would hinder national programs, such as the FAA’s own aircraft inventory. AAAE urged the agency to develop a secure-access portal for credentialed airport users, noting that the statutory authority for privacy applies to “individuals,” not corporate entities.
State revenue agencies echoed the concern. The Missouri Department of Revenue said removing public registry data would harm tax compliance and recommended formal information-sharing agreements between the FAA and state governments if access is restricted.
Aircraft financiers and attorneys worry the changes would upend due diligence and open the door to fraud. “It would be like buying a house and not checking the title,” said Clay Healey of AIC Title. “We can’t do our jobs for people.” He warned that removing ownership data “crushes the business.”
Scott McCreary of McAfee & Taft, writing on LinkedIn, called the registry changes “inherently more complex” than past FAA digital reforms. He noted that registry access is critical for parties establishing or verifying ownership, liens, and operational structures. McCreary urged the FAA to maintain full document access in its Public Documents Room for vetted users.
The FAA aircraft registry is an owner-based system, meaning it often lists the legal titleholder, not necessarily the aircraft operator. In many cases, the operator is a lessee, trust beneficiary, or related company. As McCreary noted, restrictions on LLC disclosures could also unintentionally expose beneficial owners even when privacy structures are in place.
In light of the widespread criticism, stakeholders are urging the FAA to adopt a tiered-access approach that protects individual owners while maintaining verified access for those with operational, legal, or regulatory responsibilities. NBAA stressed that the FAA can strike a balance that achieves both goals.
Meanwhile, industry advocates continue to call for transparency, dialogue, and regulatory nuance. “There is no way we can exist if they take all that information away,” Healey said. “It’s unbelievable that this is happening.”
These protections are the latest effort to shield owners as technology has increasingly made that more difficult.
“As soon as the technology was available to track, people wanted to do it,” said Doug Carr, NBAA’s senior vice president of safety, security, sustainability, and international operations. “This began back in the mid- to late 1990s, when the internet was still nascent and ascendant.”
But at the same time, people began to question whether their movements needed to be on the internet in real-time. Security, along with personal and business privacy concerns, was immediately raised.
By the early 2000s, the business aviation community began to ask for a program to shield this access to information, in real time. “At the time, the default was the ability to track all traffic,” he said.
NBAA gathered impact stories from business leaders who found their competition had been a step ahead by tracking their aircraft patterns to individuals being followed by their “biggest fans.” The cases have been numerous, including sports figures’ trades discovered by reporters tracking them, and activists targeting celebrities through aircraft movements. Even war veterans would return home to face protestors who had tracked their aircraft.
“All of these people, for various security or competitive reasons, had real concerns. It illuminated the types of concerns people might have when they get tracked and their flights get broadcast in real time,” Carr said.
Initially, attempts to stem such activity resulted in the Block Aircraft Registration Request (BARR), which would enable operators to ask the FAA to shield aircraft registration information from flight trackers working with the agency. Those flight trackers abided by such activity.
But the number of organizations and individuals who tracked aircraft and released that information online—outside of the BARR program—grew, requiring tweaks to the program. And then, the advent of mandatory ADS-B provided another means of unmasking aircraft movements, leading to the transition of the BARR to the Limited Aircraft Data Display and Privacy ICAO Address programs.
The protection of the aircraft registry is the latest layer of protection. Carr concedes that it is not a complete answer. “There is no silver bullet to this. What it will do is make it harder to identify a blip in the air and who it is, because today, that information is easily referenced with the aircraft registry database at the FAA. By protecting the ownership information, there will not be a direct contact or connection between an aircraft in the air and the registry information of that blip in the air at the FAA database.”
Carr acknowledged the concerns that there are several legitimate reasons for people who need to access the registration information. “For a host of other legitimate reasons, there is value in providing access to that information,” he said.
But as the FAA explores that access, Carr continued, to start with, “there are basically two statuses—You’re in the program or you’re not. While it sounds good, that may not be the best approach.”
NBAA agrees with the creation of a pathway for authorized users to access the information. He noted that it is in place with state driver’s registries. “It’s that approach that we think would facilitate a reasonable balance between requests for privacy for privacy protection and the security that comes with that.”
NBAA is hoping that the FAA will work with industry to strike a balance on new privacy protections surrounding the aircraft registry to ensure those who need access to certain aircraft registration information can still get it while still safeguarding operations.
The association is joining title companies, airports, aircraft transactional attorneys and others who are seeking a more flexible approach to changes in the aircraft registry that will shield information at the request of owners.
Implemented earlier this year, the changes were mandated by Section 803 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Public Law 118-63), enabling owners to submit privacy requests through the Civil Aviation Registry Electronic Services (CARES) system. Names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of registered owners can be withheld from public FAA websites at the owners’ request.
In addition, the FAA is considering whether to automatically withhold personally identifiable information from the public aircraft registry by default while providing owners with a means to access their data when necessary. The agency had asked for comments on the implementation of the law. That request closed in early June, drawing more than 300 submissions.
NBAA hailed the privacy changes and possible expansion of them. Increased privacy and security protections have long been a priority for the business and general aviation community, especially in the decades since individuals could track aircraft movements online.
However, at the same time, it acknowledges that this raises issues for those who use the information for transactional and other purposes. Doug Carr—NBAA’s senior v-p of safety, security, sustainability, and international operations—acknowledged the concerns that there are several legitimate reasons for people who need to access the registration information. “For a host of other legitimate reasons, there is value in providing access to that information,” he said.
But as the FAA explores that access, Carr continued, to start with, “there are basically two statuses—You’re in the program or you’re not. While it sounds good, that may not be the best approach.”
Others in comments have voiced their own concerns. Title company representatives fear that complete privacy limitations could lead to problems with aircraft titling and sales. “Making sure that people cannot track flights is not a bad goal. There are security reasons, there are safety, maybe even confidentiality reasons for businesses,” acknowledged AIC Title Service general counsel Bruce Marshall wrote in one of the comments. “But the problem is…the FAA was co-mingling operational information, ADS-B information, and ownership information. The registry originated so that you could follow the legal documents and have some way of determining ownership and interests in aircraft.”
Aircraft financiers and attorneys worry the changes would upend due diligence and open the door to fraud. “It would be like buying a house and not checking the title,” said Clay Healey of AIC Title. “We can’t do our jobs for people.” He warned that removing ownership data “crushes the business.”
Scott McCreary of McAfee & Taft, writing on LinkedIn, called the registry changes “inherently more complex” than past FAA digital reforms.
The FAA aircraft registry is an owner-based system, meaning it often lists the legal titleholder, not necessarily the aircraft operator. In many cases, the operator is a lessee, trust beneficiary, or related company. As McCreary noted, restrictions on LLC disclosures could also unintentionally expose beneficial owners even when privacy structures are in place.
In light of these concerns, stakeholders are urging the FAA to adopt a tiered access approach that protects individual owners while maintaining verified access for those with operational, legal, or regulatory responsibilities. NBAA stressed that both goals can be achieved.
Carr noted that state driver’s registries already have tiered access in place for authorized users. “It’s that approach that we think would facilitate a reasonable balance between requests for privacy for privacy protection and the security that comes with that.”
The efforts to shield registration information come as technology increasingly has made privacy—and security— more difficult “As soon as the technology was available to track, people wanted to do it,” Carr said. “This began back in the mid- to late 1990s, when the internet was still nascent and ascendant.”
NBAA has gathered impact stories from business leaders who found their competition had been a step ahead by tracking their aircraft patterns to individuals being followed by their “biggest fans.” The cases have been numerous, including sports figures’ trades discovered by reporters tracking them, and activists targeting celebrities through aircraft movements. Even war veterans would return home to face protestors who had tracked their aircraft.
Carr concedes that the registration changes are not a complete answer. “There is no silver bullet to this. What it will do is make it harder to identify a blip in the air and who it is, because today, that information is easily referenced with the aircraft registry database at the FAA.”