Check your documents against the rules
Put a manual beside the requirement it answers to, and see where your wording has drifted.
The AI workspace
for safety & compliance teams.
Chuck reads the rules, your manuals and your safety data, and drafts the document you need. Every answer shows where it came from.
FAA · EASA · UK CAA
Move your focus
from reactive to proactive.
Most of the week goes on paperwork, leaving little time to focus on the proactive and predictive parts of safety management.
How you can use Chuck.
Analyse your safety data
Read a year of reports for the trends, and ask whether something has happened before. The monthly safety pack is drafted from the same work.
Draft the risk assessment
Draft, check or update your risk assessments. Each rating is proposed against your own risk matrix, and the safety meeting decides.
Built for every kind of aviation organisation.
An airline, a maintenance organisation, an aerodrome and an air navigation service provider each answer to their own rules and keep their own manuals. Chuck works from yours.
Operators
Occurrences worked through, and manuals checked against the rules.
Airports & air navigation
Your manuals checked against the rules above them.
Your data
stays yours.
Your data doesn’t train AI models
Not ours, and not our model provider’s. It’s in the contract, so there’s no setting to find and switch off.
Zero data retention at the model provider
Your question and the passages sent with it exist at the provider only while the request runs. Nothing is kept afterwards.
Your documents stay yours
What you upload is stored on our own infrastructure in the UK, and only your organisation can read it.
From our research
All research
Current · Benchmarks
A benchmark for aviation regulation questions
An open benchmark of how well AI answers these questions. Practitioners write them with help from a model, part of the set is held back, the marking is blind, and we’ll publish the method with the results.
Published · Just culture
Same actions, different endings
Do large language models judge flight crews by how a flight ended? We gave three of them 48 real occurrences, each with a safe and a bad ending, and asked them to apply Reason’s culpability decision tree. All three were harsher when it ended badly.
Bring a piece of the work.
An occurrence you’re working on, last year’s reports, or a manual section you think is out of date. We’ll run it with you, so you can see the sources behind each answer and the document it produces.
Book a call