PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 6, 2025
Military Helicopter Training Safety Act of 2025
This bill requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to report on the feasibility of installing a traffic alert and collision avoidance system in each military rotary-wing aircraft. Additionally, DOD must also report on the feasibility of installing automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast IN (ADS-B IN) capability in each military rotary-wing aircraft. (ADS-B IN generally provides operators of properly equipped aircraft with weather and traffic position information.)
People & committees
Rep. Barrett, Tom [R-MI-7] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 2, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1898 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1898 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1898 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1898 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-06 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on whether two types of aircraft safety equipment could be installed in every military helicopter or other rotary-wing aircraft. Both reports would be due within 90 days after enactment. The bill would require feasibility studies, without requiring installation.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the feasibility of installing a traffic alert and collision avoidance system in each military rotary-wing aircraft.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the feasibility of installing automatic dependent surveillance–broadcast IN capability in each military rotary-wing aircraft.
Section 1 would name the bill the Military Helicopter Training Safety Act of 2025.
This Act may be cited as the Military Helicopter Training Safety Act of 2025.
Section 2 would require the collision-avoidance report to examine installation costs, effects on civilian-airspace safety and necessary cockpit changes. The equipment studied must meet the cited federal aviation regulation or its successor; the bill does not reproduce that regulation.
(1) an analysis of the cost associated with installing a traffic alert and collision avoidance system in each military rotary-wing aircraft; (2) an analysis of the effect of installing such systems in such aircraft on the safety of civilian airspace; (3) an identification of any changes to the configuration of the cockpit of such aircraft that would be necessary in order to install such systems;
the term traffic alert and collision avoidance system means a collision avoidance system in compliance with section 121.356 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation.
Section 3 would require a separate report on equipment called automatic dependent surveillance–broadcast IN. That report would also examine installation costs, effects on civilian-airspace safety and necessary cockpit changes. The supplied text names this capability without explaining its technical operation.
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the feasibility of installing automatic dependent surveillance–broadcast IN capability in each military rotary-wing aircraft.
(1) an analysis of the cost associated with installing automatic dependent surveillance–broadcast IN capability in each military rotary-wing aircraft; (2) an analysis of the effect of installing such capabilities in such aircraft on the safety of civilian airspace; (3) an identification of any changes to the configuration of the cockpit of such aircraft that would be necessary in order to install such capabilities;
Both reports would have to address implications for combat, training and domestic security operations. These are subjects for analysis, not established findings that installation would help or hinder those operations.
(4) any implications the installation of such systems would have for combat, training, or domestic security operations;
(4) any implications the installation of such capabilities would have for combat, training, or domestic security operations;
For either type of equipment, if the Secretary determines that installation is not feasible, the corresponding report would have to recommend similar systems or capabilities that could be installed instead.
(5) if the Secretary determines that the installation of such systems in such aircraft is not feasible, recommendations regarding similar systems or capabilities that could be installed instead.
(5) if the Secretary determines that the installation of such capabilities in such aircraft is not feasible, recommendations regarding similar systems or capabilities that could be installed instead.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 2, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Armed Services on March 6, 2025. It does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-02T21:57:57Z. 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-06. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 2, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI