The Airmen Certificate Accessibility Act (H.R. 2247) allows pilots to present digital copies of certain certificates, like an airman or medical certificate, to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspectors. Previously, pilots were required to show physical copies of these documents when requested by FAA inspectors or other authorized officials. The bill mandates that the FAA update its regulations to accommodate the acceptance of digital copies, which can be stored on electronic devices or cloud storage.
Supporters of the Airmen Certificate Accessibility Act highlight its modernization of pilot documentation requirements, aligning with digital advancements. Media coverage has praised the bill for increasing convenience for pilots, reducing the burden of carrying physical documents, and enhancing accessibility through the use of digital technology. This change is seen as a step forward in streamlining processes within the aviation industry.
Critics of the bill express concerns about potential security risks associated with digital documentation, such as issues related to data breaches or unauthorized access to sensitive information. Some media outlets have raised questions about the readiness of FAA infrastructure to handle the transition to digital certificates and ensuring that all pilots have equal access to the necessary technology to comply with the new regulations.
The analysis of the bill H.R. 2247: Airmen Certificate Accessibility Act, sponsored by Tim Burchett, shows no direct overlap between the sponsor's top donor industries and the subject matter of the bill. This suggests that there is a low risk of conflicts of interest in this case. The bill pertains to airmen certification, while the sponsor's top donors are from various industries, none of which directly relate to aviation or airmen certification. Furthermore, the lobbying activity related to this bill's policy area does not involve any of the sponsor's top donors. Therefore, there is no evidence of a money trail that could suggest a potential conflict of interest.
Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.
| Client | Lobbying Firm | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| ?C3.AI, INC. | ZERO MILE STRATEGIES | $75,000 |
| MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC US INC | MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC US, INC. | $70,000 |
| CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS | SC PARTNERS LLC | $40,000 |
| OPSLAB | ZERO MILE STRATEGIES | $37,500 |
| SKYSAFE | ZERO MILE STRATEGIES | $30,000 |
| PATTERN ENERGY GROUP LP | SC PARTNERS LLC | $30,000 |
| ONEBRIEF | ZERO MILE STRATEGIES | $30,000 |
| EDP RENEWABLES NORTH AMERICA LLC | SC PARTNERS LLC | $30,000 |
| ENERGYRE, LLC | SC PARTNERS LLC | $20,000 |
| OW NORTH AMERICA | SC PARTNERS LLC | $20,000 |
| SPACE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION | SC PARTNERS LLC | $20,000 |
| COMBINED HEAT AND POWER ALLIANCE (FORMERLY ALLIANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL EFFICENCY) | SC PARTNERS LLC | $20,000 |
| Q HYDROGEN | SC PARTNERS LLC | $10,000 |
| SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA | HOBBS, STRAUS, DEAN & WALKER, LLP | undisclosed |
| WTW, INC. | SC PARTNERS LLC | undisclosed |
Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026