Transportation - Aviation - Passenger Health and Safety (Aviation Health and Safety Act)
HB639, the Aviation Health and Safety Act, creates new passenger-health and documentation requirements for aircraft carrying “detained individuals,” defined as passengers traveling involuntarily or while restrained. The Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA) must develop a form for such passengers to provide medical information, limited legal information, minor/guardian information, and an acknowledgment that completion is voluntary. Flight crews must distribute and collect the forms, and copies must be kept on board and made available to emergency responders or hospitals in Maryland if an emergency occurs.
The bill also requires fixed base operators (FBOs) and aviation service companies to verify that the forms are on board before servicing the aircraft, and if they service a flight with detained individuals, to request and note the existence and type of warrant authorizing transport. Those entities must compile monthly reports to the MAA documenting flights with detained individuals, warrant status, and whether aircraft were refueled with restrained passengers on board or whether passengers were removed during refueling. In addition, state and local governments may not contract with airlines, or with certain FBOs/aviation service companies serving such flights at BWI Marshall Airport, unless the airline provides evidence of a valid warrant, court order, or gubernatorial extradition authorization.
The bill further prohibits refueling an aircraft while any person on board is in any kind of restraint. If a restrained individual must be removed from the aircraft for refueling, the bill requires that person to be placed in a climate-controlled enclosure with access to restrooms and water. The act takes effect October 1, 2026, and amends Maryland Transportation Article provisions governing aviation operations and the Maryland Aviation Administration.
Overall, the bill’s impact is to impose new operational, reporting, and contracting conditions on aviation service providers, airlines, and the MAA, particularly in connection with flights involving detained or restrained passengers. It also creates a new state-level framework for collecting health and legal information for emergency response purposes and for documenting warrant compliance and refueling practices.
The available voting history suggests the bill ultimately advanced with substantial support: a floor amendment was rejected, and the bill later passed third reading by a wide margin. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded committee debate to indicate detailed concerns or endorsements. The main points of contention apparent from the bill text are privacy and civil-liberties issues around collecting detainee medical and legal information, as well as operational burdens on airlines, FBOs, and state agencies; supporters appear to have framed the measure as an emergency preparedness and passenger safety bill.
HB639 adds new sections to the Maryland Transportation Article requiring the Maryland Aviation Administration to create and manage detainee-passenger forms, requiring flight crews and aviation service providers to handle those forms, and restricting state contracting with airlines and related service providers unless certain warrant or court-order documentation is provided. It also creates a new prohibition on refueling aircraft when any person on board is restrained, with specific care requirements if a restrained person must be removed during refueling. These provisions affect airlines, fixed base operators, aviation service companies, airport operations, and state/local procurement practices, especially at BWI Marshall Airport.
The bill appears to have been generally favorable in the House, as reflected by the successful third-reading vote and the rejection of a floor amendment. Because there are no committee transcripts, the record does not show detailed debate, but the final vote pattern suggests the measure had enough support to pass comfortably. The bill’s stated purpose and structure indicate a safety-and-emergency-response rationale, which likely contributed to its positive reception.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s requirements to collect and share information about detained individuals, including medical history, legal status, and attorney contact information, which may raise privacy, due process, and confidentiality concerns. Another likely point of dispute is the mandate that airlines and service providers produce warrant evidence and the prohibition on state contracts absent such evidence, which could be viewed as imposing immigration- or detention-related enforcement conditions on aviation operations. Operational concerns also arise from the refueling ban and the requirement to remove restrained individuals and provide climate-controlled accommodations, restrooms, and water, which could create logistical and safety burdens for carriers and airport service providers.