artificial-intelligence

Future of Aviation: Enhancing Safety and Resilience

The aim is clear. A safe, secure, sustainable and resilient international aviation system. I’d add to that list an ambition to continuously improve.

And that’s in the face of the challenge that was recognised 30-years ago. With an aviation system that knows how to archives a high level of safety, even incremental improvement is challenging. Factor in projected air traffic growth that’s unabating. What we know is that that continuously improving the global accident rate requires active interventions.

Since here I can only highlight the key priorities, I’ll choose three aspects of active intervention. Back to what I said earlier in my talk. Aviation is still climbing a maturity ladder. Digitisation has facilitated a growth in proactive work. Initiatives and plans identify actions aimed at solving known aviation safety problems. But the next step remains some way off. It’s that ability to anticipate safety problems before they occur. To predict.

We have the notion of safety intelligence. There are Big Data projects that are gathering large quantities of aviation safety data. Today, what might be called prognostics continues to depend on expert judgement. That’s not negative, as such. In fact, that augmented by objective and trustworthy safety intelligence is a route to the next step in maturity.

In my view, here’s the three categories that must be addressed now and, in the next decade.

One is a foundation stone of aviation safety work. It’s the capability and will to react in a timely manner to events. Not just accidents and serious incidents but any event that elevates aviation safety risks above acceptable levels.

Top operational risk that are likely to need immediate actions are those involving loss of control and those concerning runway incidents.

To take timely corrective action the results of investigation need to be readily available. As pointed out by the industry, across the globe, there’s much scope for improvement here. Timeliness matters.

My next category is that of systemic risks. System wide safety risks. People, organisations, processes, procedures, the human factor and human performance issues.

Much is being done to ensure the effective implementation of safety management systems (SMS). The four pillars of SMS have proven to work – safety policy, risk management, safety assurance and safety promotion.

The acceptance, elimination or mitigation of risks is not an act that begins on one day and stops on the next. Digitation can help but there’s always the dangers of the needle in a haystack or even problems sitting in plain sight.

What’s often weak is the communication of what’s discovered. Believable, understandable straightforward communication to decision makers is vital.

Thirdly, what’s ahead of us is an order of magnitude more complex than what’s gone before. And a rate of change that mindboggling.

I’m calling this emerging aviation safety risks. The question arises; are we ready for advanced leaps in technology? Hydrogen, hybrid propulsion, machine learning, quantum computing, complex airspace networks and robotics. Humans as executive manager whilst retaining control only in emergencies.

It’s a famous quote; data is the new oil. We are ushering in extremely large and complex datasets that will be essential to the workings of automated and autonomous systems. Could data be the new quicksand? This is a huge issue in dense airspace where crewed and uncrewed aircraft must share the airspace.

Another emerging aviation safety risks, that industry and regulators are starting to address is the fact that safety and security have become inseparable. In the past, these disciplines were addressed as silos. That’s no longer viable.

Another emerging aviation safety risk is that of the workforce. Aviation has attracted dedicated professionals who acquire experience and train to a high level of competence. A safety culture has been embedded. In this respect the fundamentals of aviation safety remain constant.

The rapid growth of technology is a two-edged sword. Now, there are many opportunities for future generations, but aviation may not be at the top of the list of choices, as it has been. There’s a serious aviation safety risk if serious investments are not made, people are not motivated and able to gain the competencies needed by a rapidly changing industry.

To sum up. Everything I’ve spoken of can only be addressed in partnerships. In the past, the aviation industry and its regulators have proven themselves to be imaginative, resilient and forward looking.

The challenges ahead, dare I say, are even greater. Levels of integration, interdependency and rapid technology adoption are off the charts. Yet, I believe we can continually improve global aviation safety. We can step up.

POST: Farnborough International Air Show 2026. 20-24 July 2026.

Perceptions of Aviation Professionals

Let’s see what aviation stereotypes look like. There’s a wide selection of free images on-line. There’s a typical view of the crew of an aircraft. It didn’t take long to find one.

I can point out the obvious gender related features of such images, but what first caught my eye were the aircraft engines. They were way to far out on the wings. I suspect our good friend artificial intelligence may have generated such a colourful image.

Now let’s go for an Air Traffic Controller. The image that came up did have plus points. It did give an impression of what a controller’s job is about, at least as much as a simple graphic image can. I did expect to see a radar screen with dots on it as part of the image. A controller sitting at a desk with buttons to press and a window to look out of sums up the basic picture.

Next my on-line search was for an aircraft mechanic. Now, I started this search with low expectations of what might come up. The picture I got was of a hanger with two large aircraft to the left and right. Standing in the middle of this scene was a man in overalls moving an aircraft engine on a trolly. Proportions were off, in that the engine diameter was half the hight of the mechanic. Yes, the stereotype of a workingman with a spanner persists.

So, what have I discovered? Not much really. Or not much that didn’t fit the title of time-honoured stereotype. Images that pigeonhole jobs as done by people who dress in a particular way and are surrounded by the equipment of their trade. Roles, age, race and gender are fixed in a traditional pattern. I do draw the conclusion that, for all the daily hype, artificial intelligence is not going to do anything original when faced with a simple question about specific job.

This isn’t good. If the latest advance in technology is locked into classical and predicable images from the archives, then it’s not so advanced at all.

Why does this matter? Well, there’s a great deal of concern about where the next generation of professional in aviation are going to come from. Our wish to fly is affected by lots of social, environmental, and economic factors. Overall, the trend over coming decades is in one direction – up. More flights, more aircraft, and the need for more people to operate the system.

If the generic images of the professional roles in aviation are stuck in the past, then that’s not going to help. It’s off-putting. There are those young people who may find the traditional professional stereotypes appealing. My guess is the majority are unlikely to think this way.

In an on-line environment where artificial intelligence regurgitates the past this technology may drive us backwards. Not for one moment does the image of a workingman with a spanner need to be demoted. What needs a touch of imagination is a portrayal of images more akin to reality. A changing reality too.

[Yes, the title image is an appropriately prompted artificial intelligence generate one provided by WordPress].

Modern Polymath

It’s easy to conclude that there’s no such thing as a polymath in the 21^st century. So expanded is the field of human knowledge that no one person can have a sufficient overview of every academic, cultural, political, and economic discipline. Not only that but the ability to articulate concepts and ideas in an understandable manner.

If I were to think of a classical polymath, I’d instantly go to American Benjamin Franklin. It’s even how he is described in literature. Here, I’m going back to the 18^th century. In the multimedia age, there are numerous influential intellectuals who have become spokespersons for their discipline, but none stride across a vast range.

We segment and partition knowledge, and pepper it with dedicated terms, that it’s way more than a human head full. Specialisation is both a curse and a God send. Generally, the intensification of study of each and every subject has been a bonus to human progress.

There’s become an excess in manipulation of language to suite each scientific endeavour. That goes for politics and economics too. Particularisation does tend to create distance between those who dig deeply into specific subjects.

To help unravel ingrained complexity there’s a respectable number of writers and YouTubers who try their best to communicate. If anything, the demand for this skill is increasing as we move from the traditional paper-based publications, say New Scientist, to the myriads of social media platforms. Then the issue becomes which one speaks with authority.

I started this piece with a thought in mind. It really was to say something complementary about the BBC. Yes, a media organisation that gets a fair share of criticism, but the world would be a much poorer place without it. Its roots are deep.

A popular British pastime is quizzing. That has played a part in TV and Radio since they were invented. A quiz is both entertaining for the participants and those who look on. Like a modern-day mediaeval tournament, a display of quick thinking and astonishing depth or range of knowledge. A test that allows us all to take part even if we come away all too aware of how little we know. Not so much unsettling as a quick return the earth.

Is there’s no such thing as a polymath in 2026? As an avid watcher of the BBC’s University Challenge[1], I’m struck by the breadth of questioning and the ability of the teams of students to find answers to the most tortuous questions. Obscurity knows no bounds.

On questions of famous paintings, I have a preprogrammed response. It’s either Titian or Tintoretto. It’s surprising how many times that works. Try as I might, I rarely get into double figures however much I guess. It’s always worth a punt. Sitting in the back if my memory are facts that I’ve no idea how they lodged there over the years.

Watching the winning teams of students, I do wonder if the notion of a polymath is dead. It does restore my faith in the infinite variety of human capabilities. This counteracts the fancy marketing blurb that accompanies machine learning software. Practically, humanity is far from becoming obsolete.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t6l0

Determinism in Aviation Safety

The arrow of time. We fly from past, to live in the present and anticipate the future. Sir Isaac Newton would be proud of us. By unravelling laws, that where always there, the means to anticipate the future was illuminated.

In civil aviation, we have devised and grown a whole regulatory system that depends on learning from the past, doing calculations today and flying with a belief that we know what’s going to happen next. Flying is predicated on a reasonable degree of predictability. There’s clear logic in this way of thinking. Just imagine powering up a couple of massive jet engines and starting a take-off roll without being extremely confident that at a certain speed the laws of physics will do their part and the ground is left behind.

We don’t establish a reasonable degree of predictability by looking at a crystal ball or taking up alchemy. Yes, we do still depend on reasoned expert opinion in addition to doing calculations. The minute those expert opinions start to shift away from grounded reasoning and careful deliberation then danger is afoot. This is one of the arguments for treading carefully when political opinions start to come to the fore. The laws of physics are not established by a public opinion poll. Nevertheless, it’s equally polarising to say that there’s no political dimension in the aviation regulatory system.

Anyway, that’s not the subject that was on my mind. Conversations about Artificial Intelligence (AI) are more prolific than those about self-help books. Even the shelves of popular high street bookstores are starting to fill up. The non-fiction titles with AI, either as the main subject or as an adjunct are numerous. It’s the fashion to write something literate or purely speculative.

I’ve mentioned the word “determinism” before. It can be interpreted philosophically or in a more scientific and technical manner. Determinism is a belief in the inevitability of causation. That chain of cause and effect that is so familiar to anyone reading an aviation accident report.

Understanding what causes something to happen in a moment in time goes back to my initial subject of a reasonable degree of predictability. In aircraft certification, no matter how complex the system, when presented with a system safety assessment we expect a comprehensive and reasoned set of statement. Predictions about the “what ifs”. What if an aircraft part fails and what happens next? What happens in combination with other failures?

This is where AI is potentially problematic. All the reasoned arguments in the world go out of the window if a system, subject to the same conditions, behaves one way on a Monday and differently on a Friday. Not to mention the weekend. I could say, AI is remarkably human in that respect.

The subject that was on my mind is not the inner working of complex aircraft systems. Certification experts are on that one. It’s possible to put boundaries around the behaviour of some aircraft systems. What’s more fascinating is the evolution of AI interactions with us mere mortals.

Let’s say I have the responsibility for return to service of a transport aircraft that has been subject to maintenance. A pile of documentation will provide the evidence that the work conducted has been correctly completed. It conforms. Amongst that paperwork might be an output from an AI driven diagnostic system that flashes a green light to say everything is fine.

Now, playing with the “what ifs”. What if it’s not fine given that the conditions experienced were way outside the AI systems training and it does a creative hallucination. The person signing the release to service documentation would have no idea or facility to question the green light. But it’s their signature that matters in the process of return to service.

There is a point of concern.

POST: There’s a lot going on out there Enhancing aviation safety with artificial intelligence: A systematic literature review on recent advances, challenges and future perspectives – ScienceDirect

Evolution of

Looking at the weird and wonderful picture of an unlikely lump of materials with wires hanging off, it’s easy to dismiss. A laboratory experiment that drew together theory and practice to produce a brand-new electrical device. Not something that occurred in nature. Even though its behaviour is of that of materials in nature.

Certainly, the implications of this experiment could not have been fully understood at the time. That said, progress to industrialise this new device was rapid. By the time of 1956, the “inventors” were awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics. In 1947, the transistor, was a fruitful combination of science and practical thinking in a laboratory where that was encouraged.

Bell Laboratories, given its history was a logical place for arguably the most important modern invention to be first put together. Arguing over “most important” there are several matters to consider. For one, how universal, how ubiquitous would this humble device become? Would it have a dramatic impact of everyday life for decades after its invention? Would it change every aspect of human organisation? Would its design, development and production become essential to the world? The simple answer – yes.

My first encounter with the germanium transistor was as a boy in the 1970s. Stripping them out of junked radios and record player amplifiers. Building simple circuits. PNP germanium junction transistors were tiny tin cans with three colour coded leads. With a soldering iron and a primitive breadboard there were plenty of designs in popular magazines to copy. Now, this is considered as vintage technology since germanium has long given way to silicon.

The clock, the radio, the bathroom scales, my shaver, my toothbrush, even in my bathroom every appliance contains circuits that are transistor based. It would be possible to live without some of these items, or at least substitute them with the mechanical versions, but that’s only for eccentrics, museums and heritage houses.

In 1947, the prototype transistor was on a bench being studied. It came along too late to play a part in the huge leap forward technology made during World War II. What became apparent is that the technology that had been developed using thermionic valves was convertible into a transistor-based versions. Size shrank and performance improved dramatically.

What’s my message? It’s another way of looking at so called artificial intelligence. Technology doesn’t come out of the blue. It doesn’t plot new pathways in the first years of its invention. It often takes things we already do and speeds them up or makes them cheaper or makes them more lethal.

We create another stepping stone upon which further developments can take place. So, maybe there is a South Sea Bubble about to burst. Much of the frantic investment that has taken place assumes that artificial intelligence is of itself a wonder. Let’s say it isn’t. The wonder is what it will allow us to do. Much of that side of the coin is a massive unknown. Much as the three who invented the solid-state transistor could not have envisaged tens of millions of them stuffed inside every computer chip on the planet.

Vintage germanium components are sough after by specialists. Apparently, audio amplifiers sound better to those who are sensitive to certain musical tones. Artificial intelligence has a proliferation of applications. A lot are gimmicks. Some are extremely serious.

POST: It’s often the boring stuff that can best be improved rapidly, note: One real reason AI isn’t delivering: Meatbags in manglement • The Register

Civilization’s Edge

Civilizations rise and fall. That’s not new in the human experience of the last couple of thousand years. One of the causes of failure is an encounter with an entirely unexpected threat. When I say “unexpected” I mean unprepared for threat. Then finding that the defences that have been constructed fall simply and quickly because they didn’t anticipate that threat.

Another reason for failure is a perpetual human characteristic. Arrogance. Everyday imagining that the pinnacle of achievement is – now. Look how smart we are in the 21^st Century. Capable, Superman like, of leaping so far ahead of our forefathers.

I’m a child of the analogue age. I was born into the space age. What that brought us, by necessity, was the digital computer in all its myriads of forms. Yet, from day one, it’s no better that a mass of fast switches. Ones and noughts. Nothing more. Nothing less.

With miniaturisation and an understanding of how materials work a massive, global, interconnected digital system, called the INTERNET, has been constructed. It’s flexibility and utility are undeniable. Its extended human capabilities way beyond that of past generations.

Now, I can start a sentence with “however” or “but” or despite this fact. The whole enterprise is still an unfathomable, dynamic number of ones and noughts.

There’s a kind of vulnerability that is elemental. Whatever might be written about powerful Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems it’s fair to say that the “A” is entirely accurate but the “I” is a bit of a myth. Mimicking intelligence is more the order of the day. That does make people shudder because that mimicking is so fast and draws on a massive amount of information. Seemingly that surpasses human capabilities. It doesn’t.

I write not of the machines that we have today but of those to come. I’ll resist the mention of the number 42. What’s happening is an acceleration of developments. These highly versatile tools that are permeating every aspect of life are not frozen in time. They overhaul themselves on a regular basis. What comes next is indeed machines that make machines. Algorithms that write algorithms.

Humanity is unprepared for the emergence of an intelligence that genuinely fits that bill. The whole idea of sovereignty and human autonomy might go out of the window. The ability to exercise control over where we are going is lost.

There are a lot of wealthy folks who are of a libertarian frame of mind who don’t seem too concerned about this race to the point of loss of control. This could be an expression of arrogance or ignorance or both. It could be the ultimate expression of short-termism.

It’s going to require real effort to hang on to democratic systems where we all have a stake in the direction of travel of our society. Money buys influence. Now, that influence is adverse to the idea of trying to regulate or moderate the advance of technology.

Civilizations rise and fall. Are we racing towards a cliff edge? Put aside climate change for a moment. Stop me from any tendance to doom-monger. My thought is that a comfortable, stable, prosperous society needs regulator instruments that work to mitigate threats. Let’s not be persuaded to ignore that reality.

Future of Engineering

I do find it astonishing that back in the early 1990s I was still producing handwritten material that then got typed up by a typist. Then, were edits and errors needed correcting, “cut and paste” really meant cutting and pasting paper. Applying Tipp-Ex correction fluid was normal. Wonder who uses that now? It’s still available.

Engineering practice adopted word processing rapidly from that time on-ward. It’s now almost inconceivable that anyone would get someone else to type up their work. Early lap-top computers that weighted heavily on the shoulders, were carried to meetings as necessity but not love. The joys of trying to find a printer that would work was a daily mission.

In about 30-years we’ve gone from that primitive introduction to the digital realm to machines that want to write papers and reports for us. From brick like “portable” computers that required cables and batteries that drained in minutes to the complete world being available on-line anywhere on the globe.

The mechanisms by which engineering design and development were done have advanced in such a way as to make the past seem rather curious. I’m not saying that we’ve become ever cleverer and more inventive with the passage of time, just that the speed of trail and error has increased dramatically.

Past mechanisms did make the ability to change a path, once set on that path, difficult. I remember the reluctance to introduce changes unless an overwhelming case could be made. In this new situation, making changes still has a cost associated with it, but the resistance to change isn’t so much driven by the processes used.

What’s happing, like it or not, is that artificial intelligence’s transformative impact is touching, or will be touching, everything we do. That includes engineering design and development.

I’d say it’s a good time to be an innovator. In theory, it should be possible to explore many more possibilities that could be explored in the past. That is for the same level of cost in time and money. There’s not a single part of engineering practice that will not be impacted. Classrooms, meeting rooms and workplaces where the business of communicating technical ideas and testing them goes on, will be fertile ground for the application of AI.

I don’t think we understand just how transformative the impact will be on engineering. It’s not all upside either. Technology’s promises are great. There are perils too.

AI can only know what it’s been trained on. That maybe extremely extensive. However, innovation comes from creativity and inventiveness where the past may only be a partial guide. Also, there’s the danger of overreliance on these almost magical tools too. New skills must develop to be critical and knowledge of the deficiencies of complex algorithms.

All of this is a bit different from paper, correction fluid, scissors and tape. What an exciting time to be a young engineer.

Evolving Communication

What happens when only a small percentage of the population can read and write? A historical perspective on that question gives the answer: feudalism. If texts are all in Latin and only the priesthood can read Latin, then it’s obvious what the results will be. That the priesthood acquires a superior power to that of the ordinary citizen.

Our interactions are what gives us our freedom. It’s difficult to challenge authority if that authority is holding all the cards. The means to communicate, and the willingness to do so, are integral to a free society. A democratic society.

Speculation about a future where humans spend most of their time interacting with machines is reasonable. In the last couple of decades, the increase in the number of machines that occupy more of our time is notable. Every trip to the supermarket[1] there’s the opportunity to enter a shop and leave without a single word to anyone. Not even a simple greeting or snippet of small talk. This is often sold as a benefit, faster, easier, less hassle.

If life can be conducted without the need for human communication, there are those who will take that path. Some will be by default and others willingly walk that path. If a majority do this then the balance of power shifts to advantage those who control the machines.

Before I go off on some dystopian movie plot, it may be as well to say that lot of new forms of communication have sprung up too. Those who play computer games and interact with other players all over the world. Such capabilities never existed until relatively recently.

What’s most concerning is the gradual distancing that is happening in politics. This might account for some of the disillusion that’s now evident. Gone are the days of major names addressing crowds directly. The idea that a political candidate would stand on a soapbox[2] in a public place and drum out their views and beliefs is getting remote. Such old-fashioned grass-roots campaigning methods are seen as dangerous and riddled with pitfalls.

Better a short video on a social media site is seen to be the substitute. Certainly, safer than standing up to a protest group or alternatively standing with them. Although, to be accurate, security has always been a matter of concern for public speakers. Taking onboard changes, verbal human to human communication is far from dead. It’s taking different forms. Mediated by the digital world we now act and speak differently. Post-COVID a degree of social etiquette has been lost.

Maybe this is why the UK Liberal Democrats are making so little impact on the national stage. With so many more elected members than one of their right-wing adversaries they still command less newspaper column inches (another old-fashioned term).

Like King Cnut[3], it’s foolish to think that the digital tide can be stopped. People must roll with it. If that means having a virtual pet or an artificial friend that will all become part of life’s colourful pageant. Small talk at a bus stop will never go away. However new ways of talking about the things that matter are happening – better adapt.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2025/aug/24/are-we-heading-for-a-world-where-no-one-ever-needs-to-talk-to-another-human-being

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/30/newsid_3739000/3739176.stm

[3] https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/King-Cnut-The-Great/

Why ‘Artificial’ in AI May Be Misleading: A Deeper Look

On reflection it seems strange to me that the biggest commercial push in technology should be called Artificial Intelligence (AI). Universally, this term has seeped into the daily media as being the only form of shorthand for the coming transformation in our lives.

Generally, the word “artificial” isn’t associated with desirable qualities. If I say that it’s opposite is “natural” then there is a wide gulf between the two. It couldn’t be clearer. Place a plastic garden chair next to an antique wooden chair – case proven.

Imagine a marketing campaign for artificial cosmetics as opposed to natural cosmetics. Which one do you think would be the more successful? It’s honest to say that a product is artificial given that it’s manufactured but it’s much more appealing to talk about its natural roots.

A desire to elevate natural content has a historical context. It’s the industrial revolution that provided society with a rich wealth of choice. Trouble is that a legacy image of dark satanic mills[1] and grim-faces of exploited workers is written deep into our culture. The natural world was assaulted and abused by the unstoppable steam roller of the industrial revolution.

It’s reasonable to refer to a complex digital system as an artifact. Not in the way of an archaeological discovery. More like a popular game, chess, checkers or go, in that it’s extant and associated with a set of practices and rules.

Today, AI doesn’t exist in nature. It may be inspired by nature, in terms of analogies with the workings of our brains. Neural networks and memory. Interconnections of circuits and wires and their arrangements are a human creation.

Having written the above, it does make me think; what will happen in 1000 years? A long time for our social structures and organisation but no time at all for any inhabitants of the Earth. Will someone be writing academic tones on the natural history of computers? Humans will be looking at them, and their evolution wondering how and why they got to do what they do. Much as we might now study ravens, rats and rabbits.

Surely AI will evolve. A natural process. Current systems will inevitably have deficiencies and flaws that get corrected in future generations. Experimentation is a human domain. Give it several decades and machines will be doing it for themselves.

The word “artificial” has a big downside. Although I’m having a lot of difficulty in thinking of a better general word. In my long-term scenario, what’s coming is a new branch of evolution. We know, the complexity of human behaviour is largely conditioned by our environment. We adapt. What AI may become, continuity dependent, will likely follow a similar path.

Whenever I visit the Natural History Museum[2] in London I like to look in on our ancestors. Today, our species, Homo sapiens, is the only human living. We once lived amongst our other human ancestors. Homo is the Latin word for “human” and sapiens is derived from a Latin word meaning “wise”.

There’s a story for you. Will AI eventually become Machina sapiens?

[1] “Dark Satanic Mills” is a phrase from William Blake’s poem.

[2] https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-origin-of-our-species.html

Enhancing Transport Safety

There’re claims that Artificial Intelligence (AI) will make transport safer. It’s to put a positive spin on the introduction of AI. Implying that existing safety deficiencies can be addressed with the power of AI.

It’s difficult to disagree with this simple assertion. There’s a list of risks that continue to be troubling. With directed design effort there are functions that AI can perform that mean it can have an advantage over conventional systems. With good design, no doubt high performing systems can be constructed.

In aviation, for example, if I consider the top five fatality risks, there’s a persistence of specific categories. We never seem to get away from loss of control in-flight (LOC-I) being high on that grim list. Runway related issues persist, and the hardy perennial of mid-air collision remains. Over the years progress has been made addressing controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), but that category of destructive events never disappears.

It’s fascinating to see that the industry thinks that AI itself is a risk[1]. High probability but low impact. This is considering a broad description of risk rather than a safety focus. Here the concern is related to the difficulties of practical implementation of this new technology.

Marketing people will big up the possibilities brought about by AI. This is what’s going on in relation to the most recent mid-air collision fatal accident. With sound justification given how crude elements of air traffic management are in specific locations.

We will never entirely displace “see and avoid” as a means of collision avoidance. Scanning the horizon looking for other air users. In my opinion, relying on this technique in relatively busy traffic areas is unwise, to say the least. This is where airborne AI assistants have much operational safety potential. Sucking up multiple information sources and processing masses of information to give accurate and instant advice. Such systems can be designed to give real-time updates not only to improve situation awareness but give avoiding action guidance, or even automated responses.

Let’s get back to the general assertion that AI will make aviation safer. On this one I’d be more cautious. For example, looking at LOC-I incidents and accidents there’s a complex mix of causal factors, and circumstantial factors. In addition, there’s the complexity of potential recovery actions too. Solving problems in 4-dimentions whatever the weather, whatever any damage incurred and however pilots react. This is where the probability numbers start to stack up.

That catch all disciplines “human factors” makes outcomes particularly difficult to calculate. Accidents are known where pilots and automation fight each other to produce bad outcomes.

AI is a machine. It will speedily crunch numbers in a mechanical manner. An extremely advanced manner but without emotion or, yet, not matching the imaginative capabilities of the human brain. Or for that matter the sophistication of human senses.

Would exceptional capable AI have saved Swissair Flight 111[2], for example? Sadly, I think not. On the day, likely an automated airborne system would have made the same decisions as the pilots. Decision making without the sense of precisely how the aircraft fire was developing would still have been hamstrung. I could raise other cases too.

Will AI make transport safer. In part. Not as a universal cure all.

[1] https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/reports/risks-2025-brief/

[2] https://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1998/a98h0003/a98h0003.html