Who is developing in-time safety—and what has actually been demonstrated? Explore named programmes, their AI role and the next milestone worth watching.
Sentinel’s opening assessment. In this sample, NASA and the FAA-sponsored ResilienX work provide direct IASMS evidence. EASA develops assurance guidance; CAAS has a named AI trial target; Boeing reports AI use in safety analysis. These are different contributions—not a global league table. Open each record for sources and limitations.
10 of 10 programme records · Sources checked 16 September 2026 · Not a live feed
United StatesDirect IASMS
NASA
Research agency
IASMS flight and simulation research
TechnologyDemonstrated in research
System-Wide Safety project concluded
NASA describes drone flight tests and simulation work combining monitoring, assessment and mitigation. Its System-Wide Safety project page subsequently records the project as concluded.
Professionally reviewedRecord revision 1Source check: 2026-09-16Next check due: 2026-09-21Professional review: 2026-09-16 · Aviation-safety editorial review of the baseline evidence summary, classification, limitations and publication suitability. Not regulatory approval or independent certification.
AI ROLE
Predictive risk support and human-autonomy teaming are research themes; the test report does not establish that every tested function uses machine learning.
Sentinel assessment & source record
Sentinel’s assessment · AI interpretation
A substantial direct IASMS research foundation in this source sample. Historical demonstrations must remain distinct from current programme activity.
What this does not prove
Neither these experiments nor the archive notice establish worldwide deployment status. Previously announced future tests need fresh confirmation.
Next evidence to watch
A named successor programme, technology transition or operational evaluation with published boundaries and results.
Milestone / event date
2024 flight tests; reported 2 April 2025. Project archive notice: 16 February 2026.
2026-09-16 · Existing Global Watch baseline carried into the tracker; no fresh source verification claimed.
2026-09-16 · Revision 1 professionally reviewed and approved for publication. Programme facts and source-check dates unchanged.
Sentinel’s interpretation is AI-generated. Professional review applies only when recorded for this revision.
United StatesDirect IASMS
FAA-sponsored · ResilienX-led team
Regulator-sponsored research / technology supplier
Security and performance monitoring for UTM
TechnologyTest results reported
Completed contract report; follow-on status unconfirmed
The contractor report describes FRAIHMWORK monitoring service health, integrity and performance, with contingency management and selected failure-mode tests in a UTM ecosystem.
Professionally reviewedRecord revision 1Source check: 2026-09-16Next check due: 2026-09-21Professional review: 2026-09-16 · Aviation-safety editorial review of the baseline evidence summary, classification, limitations and publication suitability. Not regulatory approval or independent certification.
AI ROLE
Automated monitoring and mitigation are explicit. The source report does not establish a specific machine-learning role for the whole system.
Sentinel assessment & source record
Sentinel’s assessment · AI interpretation
More concrete than a concept announcement: a named system, test scope and documented failure scenarios. FAA sponsorship is not blanket FAA operational approval.
What this does not prove
Contractor-authored evidence hosted by FAA; test results do not prove independent safety benefit or nationwide implementation.
Next evidence to watch
A named operational deployment, its approval scope, ongoing performance and independent evaluation.
Milestone / event date
Final report for FAA contract 697DCK-23-C-00287; exact publication date not established from the report.
2026-09-16 · Existing Global Watch baseline carried into the tracker; no fresh source verification claimed.
2026-09-16 · Revision 1 professionally reviewed and approved for publication. Programme facts and source-check dates unchanged.
Sentinel’s interpretation is AI-generated. Professional review applies only when recorded for this revision.
EuropeEnabling capability
EASA
Aviation safety agency
AI assurance and human–AI teaming guidance
Policy & guidanceProposed guidance
Proposal evidenced; final adoption not established
EASA has proposed an AI trustworthiness framework and further concept-paper guidance. These are evidence of regulatory development, not approval of a particular AI system.
Professionally reviewedRecord revision 1Source check: 2026-09-16Next check due: 2026-09-21Professional review: 2026-09-16 · Aviation-safety editorial review of the baseline evidence summary, classification, limitations and publication suitability. Not regulatory approval or independent certification.
AI ROLE
Assurance of aviation AI, including AI assistance and human–AI teaming.
Sentinel assessment & source record
Sentinel’s assessment · AI interpretation
An important assurance track to watch alongside technical demonstrations. Rules and technology progress answer different questions.
What this does not prove
A consultation or proposed issue is not a final rule. This record does not claim the 2025 consultation is still open.
Next evidence to watch
Final adopted material, applicability dates and documented application to a named aviation use case.
Milestone / event date
NPA 2025-07 announced 10 November 2025; proposed concept-paper Issue 03 dated June 2026.
The programme combines safety reports, flight, traffic and weather data for shared analysis. The reviewed page describes development through 2026 and a planned operational phase.
Professionally reviewedRecord revision 1Source check: 2026-09-16Next check due: 2026-09-21Professional review: 2026-09-16 · Aviation-safety editorial review of the baseline evidence summary, classification, limitations and publication suitability. Not regulatory approval or independent certification.
AI ROLE
Big-data and data-science analysis are explicit; a particular AI model or autonomous mitigation capability is not established here.
Sentinel assessment & source record
Sentinel’s assessment · AI interpretation
A relevant foundation for shared safety intelligence. Its institutional and data-governance work matters as much as analytical tools.
What this does not prove
The page includes a January 2024 update. Reaching the target year is not proof that the transition happened.
Next evidence to watch
An explicit operational-phase announcement and delivered analytical outcomes with evaluation details.
Milestone / event date
Development began September 2022. Programme page describes a target transition in 2026.
2026-09-16 · Existing Global Watch baseline carried into the tracker; no fresh source verification claimed.
2026-09-16 · Revision 1 professionally reviewed and approved for publication. Programme facts and source-check dates unchanged.
Sentinel’s interpretation is AI-generated. Professional review applies only when recorded for this revision.
SingaporeEnabling capability
Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore
Regulator / air navigation service provider
AI Multi Sector Planner and Digital ATCO Assistant
TechnologyDevelopment; trial planned
Multi Sector Planner trials announced for 2027
CAAS says it has developed an AI Multi Sector Planner for trials from 2027 and is developing a Digital ATCO Assistant.
Professionally reviewedRecord revision 1Source check: 2026-09-16Next check due: 2026-09-21Professional review: 2026-09-16 · Aviation-safety editorial review of the baseline evidence summary, classification, limitations and publication suitability. Not regulatory approval or independent certification.
AI ROLE
Controller support: planning across sectors and anticipating traffic or weather conditions. These are decision-support initiatives.
Sentinel assessment & source record
Sentinel’s assessment · AI interpretation
A clearly identified, forward-looking AI programme with a stated trial target. It belongs on the watchlist, not in a list of completed IASMS deployments.
What this does not prove
The announcement does not supply trial outcomes or establish a system-wide IASMS implementation.
Boeing reports using advanced analytics and machine learning to support teams identifying potential product hazards, including analysis of in-service data.
Professionally reviewedRecord revision 1Source check: 2026-09-16Next check due: 2026-09-21Professional review: 2026-09-16 · Aviation-safety editorial review of the baseline evidence summary, classification, limitations and publication suitability. Not regulatory approval or independent certification.
AI ROLE
Hazard identification and decision support for safety specialists.
Sentinel assessment & source record
Sentinel’s assessment · AI interpretation
A concrete example of AI within safety work—not just an autonomy vision. Evidence quality must remain visibly distinct from independent evaluation.
What this does not prove
The manufacturer’s own account does not quantify a causal safety improvement or establish complete IASMS deployment.
Next evidence to watch
Published evaluation methods, error rates, human oversight and independently examined safety outcomes.
Milestone / event date
Chief Aerospace Safety Officer report reviewed 16 September 2026; individual AI deployment date not stated.
2026-09-16 · Existing Global Watch baseline carried into the tracker; no fresh source verification claimed.
2026-09-16 · Revision 1 professionally reviewed and approved for publication. Programme facts and source-check dates unchanged.
Sentinel’s interpretation is AI-generated. Professional review applies only when recorded for this revision.
READ THE STATUS, NOT THE HYPE
One programme. Several separate questions.
We track evidence, not a single maturity percentage. Technical progress and policy progress are different tracks. Programme activity is separate from the highest milestone documented.
The source explicitly identifies IASMS work or tests. This does not, by itself, mean operational approval.
Enabling capability
Relevant AI, analytics, assurance or safety-intelligence capability—not proof of a complete IASMS.
Related activity
Adjacent AAM, UTM or regulatory work whose IASMS implementation link is not established.
Evidence & freshness
Each record distinguishes event, source and review dates. An official plan supports a planned milestone; an OEM claim remains self-reported. “Not verified” is not “not happening.”
NEXT IN THE RESEARCH QUEUE
Coverage is deliberately unfinished.
This first edition is a selected public-source baseline, not a worldwide census or a ranking of safety performance. These organisations are queued for programme-level verification, not labelled as laggards.
MalaysiaCAAM
Not yet assessed in this edition
ChinaCAAC and Chinese OEMs
Not yet assessed in this edition
United Arab EmiratesGCAA and AAM operators
Not yet assessed in this edition
JapanJCAB and industry partners
Not yet assessed in this edition
OEM / supplier expansionCollins Aerospace and Honeywell
Not yet assessed in this edition
No real-time surveillance, accident prediction or automatic website updating is running here. Research findings require review before this dated record changes. Explore the permanent research archive →