Aviation April 1, 2026

"Ground Vehicle Tracking at Regional Airfields: Why the Communication Layer Is the Decision"

Advanced surveillance technology covers 35 major U.S. airports. For the hundreds of regional and general aviation airfields below that threshold, the communication architecture underpinning vehicle tracking rarely gets the scrutiny it deserves.

The aviation industry has spent decades developing some of the most sophisticated ground surveillance technology in the world. ASDE-X radar, Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (ASSC), Runway Status Lights — the FAA's toolkit for tracking aircraft and vehicles on the movement area is genuinely impressive at the airports that have it.

The problem is coverage. ASDE-X is in use at 35 major airports in the United States. ASSC is operational at just nine airports. For the hundreds of regional, business, and general aviation airfields below that threshold — including many handling significant ground vehicle traffic, maintenance operations, and runway-adjacent construction — the question of how vehicles are tracked in real time is still largely unanswered.

And as those airports look to fill that gap, many are reaching for the most available tool: cellular GPS tracking. It's worth asking whether that's the right call.

Why Vehicle Tracking Matters More Than It Used To

Between 2011 and 2017, 12,857 runway incursions were reported in the United States. The FAA's most recent data shows some progress — in fiscal year 2024, the FAA reported nine serious Category A and B runway incursions, a 59 percent reduction from the 22 serious incursions reported in fiscal year 2023. That's meaningful improvement. But the overall picture still reveals a persistent vulnerability.

Of all runway incursion types, 17 percent are vehicle and pedestrian deviations. These aren't pilot errors or ATC miscommunications — they're ground vehicles in the wrong place. And the FAA has been actively encouraging airports to voluntarily equip their vehicles with Runway Incursion Warning Systems and vehicle ADS-B transmitters precisely because the technology gap at the vehicle level is real and acknowledged.

The question isn't whether airports should be tracking ground vehicles in real time. That conversation is settled. The question is: what communication layer should that tracking run on, and does it matter?

We think it does. Significantly.

The Communication Layer Nobody Is Scrutinising

When a safety manager, operations director, or procurement team evaluates a ground asset tracking system — covering vehicles, equipment, and personnel operating in and around the movement area — the conversation typically centres on the device: accuracy, battery life, form factor, software interface. The radio link that carries that data — the communication layer — rarely gets the same scrutiny.

It should. Because the communication layer determines how the system behaves under exactly the conditions where it matters most.

Cellular GPS tracking routes location data through third-party carrier towers. For most logistics applications, that's an entirely reasonable architecture. But airfields introduce specific operating conditions that stress this model in ways worth understanding:

High-activity periods are when cellular tracking systems tend to degrade. Cellular networks are shared infrastructure, handling simultaneous transmissions from thousands of devices. Most providers prioritise voice traffic over data using Quality of Service (QoS) settings — and you have no control over that prioritisation. When activity on or near your site increases, your tracking data must compete with everything else on the network. Variable communication delays of 150ms or more are common, and those delays increase significantly under heavy load.
Dead zones concentrate in the wrong places. Large metal structures, hangars, fuel farms, and the complex geometry of apron environments are exactly the conditions that create cellular dead zones. And dead zones on a carrier network aren't something an airport can fix — you're dependent on infrastructure you don't control.
Cellular creates a cybersecurity exposure. Every cellular tracking system requires an external IT connection, routing operational data through third-party infrastructure. For airports with OT network isolation requirements or sensitive movement data, this isn't a theoretical concern.
Data leaves the site. Location intelligence on ground vehicle movements is operationally sensitive. Cellular architectures route that data through vendor platforms and carrier infrastructure by design.

Private ISM Radio handles congestion differently. Collision avoidance — preventing multiple assets from transmitting simultaneously — is designed into the system using time-slot or frequency separation (TDMA or FDMA). You decide how the network handles congestion on your site. The system's behaviour under load is predictable, not emergent.

What Private ISM Radio Offers in This Environment

A private ISM radio network inverts these dependencies. Infrastructure is owned and managed on-site, data never leaves the airfield boundary, and the system is engineered specifically for the environment rather than sharing bandwidth with whoever else is on the network.

The practical differences for airfield applications:

Deterministic latency — private radio can be engineered for sub-80ms round-trip timing, consistent regardless of external conditions. Cellular delivers 150ms or more under ideal conditions, and more importantly, it varies. A system that's sometimes fast and sometimes slow is harder to trust than one that's consistently predictable. For a vehicle moving at speed near a hold-short line, the difference between knowing where it was 80ms ago and 300ms ago isn't trivial.
Dead zone control — coverage gaps are solved by adding receivers, on your timeline, under your control.
No external IT dependency — no cybersecurity exposure, no third-party data routing.
No ongoing data cost — upfront infrastructure investment, no per-device subscription.

One physical trade-off worth acknowledging: ISM radio operates on lower frequency bands, which means larger antennas than cellular. For vehicle-mounted equipment on an active airfield, that's a practical consideration in specification — not a dealbreaker, but something to design for rather than discover during installation.

For tracking applications that extend beyond the airfield boundary, cellular remains the more practical choice. But for on-site real-time vehicle tracking in safety-critical zones — movement area monitoring, apron management, runway-adjacent construction — the case for a private, deterministic, on-site network is strong.

The Broader Question for Regional Airports

The FAA's push to expand vehicle ADS-B and runway incursion warning systems is well-intentioned and important. But the NTSB has issued recommendations calling on the FAA to develop technologies providing situational awareness to both controllers and pilots of ground-based hazards — and the implementation path at most airports runs directly through the question of what communication infrastructure underpins those technologies.

Investing in vehicle tracking devices that run on a communication layer prone to congestion, dead zones, and variable latency is solving half the problem. The sensor is only as reliable as the network carrying its data.

For regional airports beginning to build out their ground vehicle tracking capability — and for the contractors, ground handlers, and maintenance organisations operating within those environments — the communication architecture decision deserves the same rigour as the device selection.

What to Actually Evaluate Before Specifying a System

If you're assessing ground vehicle tracking for an airfield environment, the device spec sheet is the wrong place to start. Start with the communication layer.

Ask three questions. First: what is the round-trip latency under peak operational load, not ideal conditions? Any vendor should be able to provide this. If they can't, that's an answer. Second: what happens to coverage in hangar environments, fuel farm areas, and locations with significant metal infrastructure? Walk the site with a test device before signing anything. Third: where does your location data go, and who has access to it?

If the system is cellular-based, map where your dead zones are before deployment rather than after. If the system is private radio, confirm you have a clear path to extending coverage as your operational footprint changes.