AI for ANSP safety and compliance teams
Chuck reads your unit manual and safety assessments beside the requirements above them.
Sample data. Wexmoor Air Traffic Services is a fictional ANSP.
A change, and its safety assessment checked.
Every change to the functional system needs its safety argument. Chuck reads your assessment beside what the requirement asks it to cover, and lists what is missing for your safety team to decide on.
Two jobs take most of a unit’s documentation time: keeping the unit manual in line with the requirements above it, and the safety assessment every operational change needs. Both are mostly reading and pulling evidence together. Chuck does that reading and drafting, and cites the requirement where its library holds it.
The unit manual and the safety argument.
A unit under EASA can have its manual read against the ATM/ANS common requirements and the controller licensing regulations, row by row. MATS Part 1 and CAP 670 are UK CAA publications and aren’t in the library. Two things don’t need the library at all: drafting the safety argument for a change from your notes and evidence, and reading your occurrence reports as a set.
- Your unit manual read beside the requirements above it
- The safety case for a change drafted from your notes and evidence, in Word
- Occurrence reports read as a set, each theme traced to its reports
What air traffic service units can put in place.
- An occurrence worked through with you, its coding and reportability proposed
- A year of your occurrence reports read as a set, with themes, counts and direction
- Your own manuals read beside the regulations
- Your wording set against a requirement row by row, exported to Excel
- Documents drafted to Word or PDF
- Answers from the regulation text, cited to the provision and, where the source publishes one, the amendment
- A shared project for each audit or investigation, holding its documents and chats
Common questions
Does the AI cover air traffic services regulations?
The EASA library holds the ATM/ANS common requirements and the controller licensing regulations. It doesn’t hold the UK CAA’s MATS Part 1 or CAP 670, and where it can’t support an answer, Chuck says so.
Can it check our safety assessment for a change?
Yes. It reads your assessment beside what the requirement asks it to cover and lists what’s missing, citing the provision where the EASA library holds it. It can also draft the safety case from your notes and evidence. Whether the argument is enough stays with your safety function.
Can it check our unit manual against the regulations above it?
Yes, for the rules its library holds. Where the source publishes an amendment, it summarises what changed and which sections of your manual it touches. It sets your wording against the requirement for your team to check, and drafts any section that needs rewriting.
It’s built around operator departments. Does it fit an ATS unit?
The work is the same shape. Your unit manual is the operations manual, your competence scheme and training plan are the training and checking programme, and the safety assessment for a change is the risk assessment. We’re happy to walk through the fit for your unit before you commit.
Can it read our occurrence reports as a set?
Yes. It groups the hazards and contributory factors separately and traces each theme back to its reports. It describes what’s in the reports and makes no forecast.
Tell us how you operate.
Bring a manual section you think has drifted, or a year of reports nobody has read as a set, and we’ll run it through Chuck in front of you. We’ll tell you straight if we’re not the right people for it.