Story ID: 
Aircraft Registry Reforms Raise Transparency Concerns
By: Amy Wilder
Caption: Experts urge balance between transparency and privacy
Word Count: 1164
The FAA’s privacy initiatives risk undermining one of the aircraft registry’s core purposes—identifying the true owner—a panel of business aviation experts said last week at the Corporate Jet Investor Miami conference,  Vedder Price shareholder Eddie Gross moderated the panel, which discussed the balance between privacy and transparency in U.S. aircraft registration, as well as if the registry is “losing its attraction.” Panelists Bruce Marshall of AIC Title Service, Jack Gilchrist of Gilchrist Aviation Law, and Scott McCreary of McAfee & Taft also explained how new rules under the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 might reshape aircraft transactions and industry market intelligence.
Marshall dismissed the notion that the FAA registry is losing relevance, calling it “one of the gold standards” that continues to add value to aircraft ownership. He noted that while about 50,000 to 60,000 aircraft were removed during the FAA’s three-year re-registration cycle starting in 2010, the registry has since grown to more than 307,000 aircraft. He said the registry remains among the world’s most important because its ownership history gives buyers and lenders confidence that they are dealing with the true owner of an aircraft.
Gilchrist and McCreary agreed that the FAA registry remains unique in its reliability. “It’s maybe one of the only systems in the world where you can retrieve full document records from ‘birth’ to present,” Gilchrist said. McCreary noted that “there are more business jets all over the world” and that increases in foreign registrations do not signal an FAA decline. “The whole idea that the FAA is losing this mojo is kind of fake news,” he said.
The discussion soon turned to privacy and the impact of implementing Section 803 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, which allows owners to shield personal information in the Civil Aviation Registry Electronic Services (CARES) system. As reported by AIN in July, the agency’s plan to expand privacy protection drew more than 300 comments by the end of the comment period, many of which supported safeguards for individuals but warned of unintended consequences for title searches, financing, and tax enforcement.
McCreary said the industry’s “hyper focus on the information that’s of record with the FAA” overlooks the fact that much unwanted flight tracking occurs based on information sourced outside registry systems. For example, “they’re tracking the aircraft from, you know, somebody flies from point A to point B and posts a selfie with their aircraft.” Gilchrist agreed, calling the privacy language in the reauthorization act “way over the top.” The measure, he said, “sort of tried to kill a gnat with a hammer, and they didn’t even kill the gnat.”
The panelists emphasized that the FAA’s privacy response conflates ownership data with operational tracking information from ADS-B. Marshall warned that “by eliminating the names and addresses of the individuals, of the owners of those aircraft, they’re really and truly suddenly taking individual aircraft and making that an opaque structure.” He added that the agency’s latest proposal—to extend privacy protections to companies and other entities—could make even legitimate ownership risky in terms of compliance with know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering regulations.
CARES has become the nexus of both the transparency and privacy debates. McCreary explained that CARES was developed to digitize aircraft records and facilitate compliance with Government Accountability Office recommendations dating back to 2020. “It’s a technology upgrade,” he said, but added that the way the FAA is implementing it “is really kind of concerning for the industry.”
The panelists described a widening gap between the FAA’s modernization effort and the needs of registry users. Gilchrist said the system is “not near what it has to be” to serve as a complete electronic registry. “We’ve had very little interaction with the FAA in connection with what’s required in this system to make it functional for the public as a whole,” he said. There’s tension between the “NBAA’s initiative on, let’s keep information private” and the GAO saying “we want it accessible to people.”
That tension, he continued, clashes with legal precedents and the FAA registry’s role as the nation’s central document repository for aircraft titles and liens. “The FAA regulations…the U.S. transportation code, actually require that it be available to the public,” Gilchrist said. Marshall reinforced that point, noting “decades of old court decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States saying that that is the function and purpose of that registry.”
Gross noted that the GAO audit sought to reduce paperwork and improve coordination with law enforcement agencies, while privacy protections later imposed by Congress introduced contradictory requirements. Marshall said the result is “a conflict between these initiatives,” with operational data on aircraft movements now “commingled” with ownership information.
The panelists expressed concern that restricted access could lead to serious compliance failures and fraud. “If you have an undisclosed owner of an aircraft, it basically turns the buyer’s acquisition of that aircraft into a ‘Let’s Make a Deal’ game,” Marshall warned.
“Behind door number one, you have the undisclosed seller who happens to be a cyber terrorist. Behind door number two, you have the undisclosed seller who’s a money launderer and human trafficker. And behind door number three, possibly you have the actual owner of that aircraft.”
Without clear access, he said, legitimate buyers and lenders risk their own funds and potential enforcement action.
There was a consensus among panelists who voiced frustration that the FAA has not engaged directly with industry representatives about registry concerns. Marshall said firms have tried through NAFA and GAMA “to open the doors and develop a dialog,” but without success thus far.
McCreary observed that the registry’s management has shifted from local officials to federal oversight. “A lot of the oversight for the registry…it seems like it’s being conducted more in D.C. now than locally,” he said. Marshall added that, in the past, “we knew those people for years,” but “we don’t have this constant interaction that we used to have.”
Asked about possible solutions, the panelists called for tiered access allowing qualified professionals continued visibility into registry data. “We still have the ability and the access behind the scenes, the people that really need to know,” Marshall said. McCreary said permittees in the FAA public documents room should continue to have unfettered access.
Gilchrist closed the session by reiterating that privacy in flight operations cannot be achieved through the registry. Instead, he and Marshall urged the FAA to separate operational tracking systems, such as ADS-B, from ownership databases. “That information and data should be kept separate from the ownership information,” Marshall said. “Take it away from what we need to do to be able to transact, buy, and sell aircraft.”