New Rule Allows Military Aircraft to Turn Off ADS-B Transmissions

Under the FAA's new ADS-B off rule, defense aircraft such as the EA-18G Growler pictured here, can obtain authorization to turn their ADS-B Out transmissions off. Photo: Boeing

U.S. federal, state and local government aircraft performing sensitive operations are now permitted to fly with their installed automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) position reporting electronics turned off, according to a new rule published by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Thursday.

Under the new rule, aircraft conducting operations related to homeland security, law enforcement, national defense and intelligence that could be compromised by transmitting real-time aircraft position information are permitted to disable ADS-B transmissions after obtaining proper authorization from the FAA.

Changes to the FAA’s ADS-B Out airspace requirement come following several years of interagency meetings held between the FAA, Defense Department (DOD), Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Leadership from those agencies expressed strong concerns about adversaries being able to easily gain public access to real time ADS-B flight identification and positional data. A provision in the fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act also prevents the FAA from mandating ADS-B installations on certain DOD aircraft.

Security concerns associated with ADS-B Out are not solely caused by the abilities of the ADS-B transponders, but instead by the proliferation and wide availability of new inexpensive ADS-B ground receivers and applications than can track ADS-B equipped flights for 100 to 300 miles. In comparison to older Mode S transponders, ADS-B provides more detailed information including aircraft registration number, longitude, latitude, dimensions and velocity.

According to a description of the new policy, several alternatives to the new rule were considered that the FAA ultimately deemed too time consuming to meet the Jan. 1, 2020 ADS-B Out mandate, or required costly investments by DOD and other agencies. One alternative was to mask the identity of ADS-B Out equipped DOD aircraft, which defense officials determined still would not meet their needs because third parties would still be able to identify the aircraft location, velocity and altitude.

Other alternatives included the use of encryption for sensitive aircraft or a new exemption process where agencies could petition the FAA for the authority to turn ADS-B Out transmissions off. However, since no encryption solution for ADS-B currently exists and an exemption process requires agencies to submit their requests at least 120 days in advance of the exemption need, these alternatives were also decided against.

Through the rule change, the FAA has tasked its system operations security division with accepting requests from each individual agency requiring the authority to turn their ADS-B Out transmissions off. A major goal for the FAA is to avoid coordinating ADS-B Out transmission cancellations on a per-mission basis. Instead, the systems operations division will review requests submitted by the highest possibly agency organization level.

“Once an agency has determined the broad mission sets that should be excepted from the transmitting requirement using its internal policies and assessment criteria, it must contact the FAA for authorization to conduct these broad mission sets without transmitting,” FAA officials wrote in the new policy statement.

While the new rule is effective immediately, the FAA is allowing comments to be submitted about the rule change through September 16, 2019.

Receive the latest avionics news right to your inbox

  • Vlad Lenin

    So what you saying is the needs of the state outweigh air safety. Gotcha!

    • Indy Q

      Yes, pretty sure the billions we spend on making military aircraft difficult to detect would be pretty useless if we required them to publicly advertise their position, speed, heading during military operations to anyone with a $200 receiver.
      Here’s an experiment for you on a local level…I suggest you go to your local police station and tell the chief you want to install gps transponders on their vehicles so the public knows where they are at all times. Let us know how that goes.

      • Ryan Bassette

        Your arguments miss or entirely ignore the point; you then attempt to make an analogy that isn’t genuinely relevant. What, precisely, would be the argument in favor of equipping police cruisers with publicly accessible GPS tracking? A supersonic F-15C not announcing it’s position while in civilian airspace can have dire consequences. We don’t drive land vehicles (cruisers or otherwise) in IFR conditions. The scenario you describe, the multi-billion dollar F-35 or F-22, again, isn’t relevant to the case the state is making here. Neither of those (or anything similar) is being used for homeland drug interdiction etc. Not saying there isn’t a case to be made, but your arguments don’t apply here.

        • EAA 614 EAA 614

          As a general rule, military jets do not fly supersonic at altitudes that would affect civilian aircraft, at least not over CONUS. They do in warning areas(offshore), and possibly in CONUS restricted areas.
          The SR-71 did fly supersonic over CONUS, but well above above civilian traffic(see Brian Shul’s Youtube video “Speed Check”).

          • Saiga 1

            I am 2 yrs. late on this discussion, but I appreciate you viewing my recent post to the article, as I would appreciate your thoughts on the subject of tracking US military aircraft.

    • James Anderson

      As always.

  • Saiga 1

    Since January 6, 2021, I have noticed a dramatic and unbelievable decline in tracking or the operation of US military traffic. I use the ADS-B Exchange, and before the 6th, it was not uncommon to routinely track 1,500 military aircraft. Immediately after the 6th, it is now common to only view less than ten…. any thoughts?