Overview: On October 13, Reuters reported that more than twenty U.S. lawmakers have called on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to suspend the use of a new AI tool in the Washington area, which is designed to assist with flight management. The tool, named SMART, began limited operation at three airports in the Washington area on September 21, and concerns regarding its transparency and safety are growing.
According to Reuters, on October 13, more than twenty U.S. lawmakers sent a request to the FAA, asking them to suspend the use of the new AI tool that assists with flight management in the Washington D.C. area. The tool has been in use for less than a month.
According to reports from Aerotime and other media outlets, the tool, named SMART (Strategic Management of Airspace, Routes, and Trajectories), began limited operation on September 21st at Reagan National Airport (DCA), Dulles International Airport (IAD), and Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI). This initiative stems from a 12-year contract worth $875 million awarded by the FAA to Air Space Intelligence in June. Aerotime reports that the software analyzes airline flight plans, weather conditions, airport capacity, and airspace restrictions to identify locations where traffic demand may exceed available capacity. It also updates predictions as conditions change, providing FAA management and airlines with a shared operational overview.
In fact, concerns surrounding this tool emerged even before its launch. According to a Politico report on September 18, the FAA's process of promoting this AI tool caused tension among airlines. Subsequently, the FAA shifted to a more low-key and cautious approach, using it to assist with flight schedule management.
Discussions are also taking place at both academic and public levels. According to a report published by the University of Cincinnati in early October, a professor of aerospace engineering at the university, at the invitation of local media outlet WKRC, explained to the public the potential risks and benefits of the FAA using AI to modernize air traffic control. Based on publicly available reports, the main concerns of all parties are focused on issues such as whether the basis for the system's recommendations is transparent and how safety responsibilities are defined – these questions are not unexpected for a tool that directly affects flight scheduling.
According to aviation media reports, SMART will initially operate in the Washington area for a limited trial period of approximately 90 days, rather than taking over air traffic control completely. As previously stated on the FAA website, the platform integrates 200 data streams, including weather patterns, flight paths, traffic flow, and air traffic controller schedules. An AI engine comprehensively analyzes this data and presents information on flight destinations, the system's capacity, and potential congestion areas, for reference by air traffic controllers and traffic management personnel.
At a launch event on September 21, U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg stated, according to Politico, that the new system will not replace human air traffic controllers. This statement is seen as the FAA's attempt to address safety concerns and define the boundaries between human and machine – predictions will be left to the system, but decisions will remain with licensed air traffic controllers and traffic management personnel.
The call for a pause from lawmakers can be seen as a manifestation of institutional prudence as AI enters safety-critical areas – the launch of the technology is just the beginning; whether a “verifiable, explainable, and accountable” operational mechanism can be established will determine how far these tools can go. For the FAA, instead of repeatedly explaining itself in public, it should use operational data during the trial period to address concerns. For other regions that are also testing AI for air traffic control, this situation is equally valuable as a reference: while it is important to get the technology up and running first, it is equally essential to ensure that Congress, airlines, and the public can understand how the system makes decisions. The direction of the evaluation during the subsequent 90-day trial period is worth continued attention.