Regulatory framework
Maximum 20 pointsInternationally aligned provisions and national guidance support assured in-time safety management.
GLOBAL WATCH / EVIDENCE REGISTER
Programme & evidence tracker.
Follow named programmes from ambition to demonstrated capability. See the evidence, its limits and the professional review behind each assessment.
10 records monitored · not a score10 professionally reviewed
10 means 10 selected programme and evidence records—not 10/10, not 10% adoption, and not a worldwide total. This count can grow as verified records are added.
All ten current record revisions have been professionally reviewed: six baseline records on 16 September and four updated records on 27 September 2026. Records are research references, not operational guidance, safety ratings or regulatory approvals.
THE DESTINATION · PROPOSED BENCHMARK
What would a full global score look like?
A mature, connected IASMS ecosystem: emerging risks detected in time, effective interventions supported by evidence, and accountable human oversight.
100/100Proposed full-maturity benchmarkNot today’s score
Current global score: not yet assessed
Baseline assessment in development. The 10-record tracker is a selected evidence register, not a representative global adoption survey. No numerical score is published.
IASMS.com’s proposed editorial framework—not an ICAO, regulator or industry-endorsed index. The weights below are provisional design choices, not validated measurements.
| Dimension | Maximum points | What full maturity would look like |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory framework | 20 | Internationally aligned provisions and national guidance support assured in-time safety management. |
| State and authority adoption | 15 | Implementation and oversight are evidenced across the defined global set of aviation authorities. |
| Operator and aerodrome adoption | 20 | Sustained operational use spans airlines, aerodromes, air navigation and maintenance—not just trials. |
| Connected safety data | 15 | Timely, reliable and securely governed data exchange supports action across participating organisations. |
| Predictive capability | 10 | Validated monitoring and prediction give decision-makers useful warning and time to intervene. |
| Human–AI governance | 10 | Qualified professionals retain accountable oversight, with defined authority, audit trails and safe fallback arrangements. |
| Interoperability and standards | 5 | Shared definitions, interfaces and assurance practices enable systems to work together. |
| Demonstrated safety outcomes | 5 | Credible independent evaluation demonstrates earlier intervention and sustained risk reduction. |
| Total proposed benchmark | 100 | All criteria met across a defined, globally representative assessment scope. |
What full maturity would look like
Eight dimensions · 100 possible points
State and authority adoption
Maximum 15 pointsImplementation and oversight are evidenced across the defined global set of aviation authorities.
Operator and aerodrome adoption
Maximum 20 pointsSustained operational use spans airlines, aerodromes, air navigation and maintenance—not just trials.
Connected safety data
Maximum 15 pointsTimely, reliable and securely governed data exchange supports action across participating organisations.
Predictive capability
Maximum 10 pointsValidated monitoring and prediction give decision-makers useful warning and time to intervene.
Human–AI governance
Maximum 10 pointsQualified professionals retain accountable oversight, with defined authority, audit trails and safe fallback arrangements.
Interoperability and standards
Maximum 5 pointsShared definitions, interfaces and assurance practices enable systems to work together.
Demonstrated safety outcomes
Maximum 5 pointsCredible independent evaluation demonstrates earlier intervention and sustained risk reduction.
Total proposed benchmark: 100 points
All criteria met across a defined, globally representative assessment scope.
100/100 would not mean zero risk, zero accidents or autonomous safety management. It would mean full maturity against published criteria, within a stated assessment scope and date—not proof that every organisation worldwide has adopted IASMS.
Before scoring, we must define the countries and organisations assessed, coverage thresholds, evidence rules and scoring anchors; test the proposed weights; and obtain professional review. Missing evidence will be labelled unknown, not treated as zero implementation. Any future score must show coverage, uncertainty, methodology version and review date.
DATED EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT · 26 SEPTEMBER 2026
Global IASMS Evidence Monitor
What the selected register documents—not a worldwide implementation percentage. 2 direct IASMS records; 7 enabling-capability records; 1 related-activity record. The baseline classification was professionally reviewed on 16 September 2026; four updated records were professionally reviewed on 27 September 2026.
Plans & development
Targets and development activity; delivered outcomes not established.
Research tests documented
Tests reported within a defined research scope; not operational approval.
Operational use reported
OEM-reported enabling capability; not independently verified complete IASMS.
Product capability described
Product description; customer deployment scope unverified.
Policy & guidance
Includes proposals, roadmaps and published guidance—not implementations.
Worldwide operational IASMS deployment total: not established. The bars show the composition of this 10-record sample, not global adoption, safety performance or progress towards completion. No trend is calculated until a comparable dated edition exists.
10 of 10 programme records · Sources checked 26 September 2026 · Not a live feed
United StatesDirect IASMS
NASA
Research agency
IASMS flight and simulation research
TechnologyResearch tests reported; project concluded
2027 hurricane-relief tests were planned; completion is unverified
NASA reported a simulation with 12 drone pilots managing up to six beyond-visual-line-of-sight drones, and said related hurricane-relief flight tests were planned for 2027. The System-Wide Safety project page later stated the project had concluded and would no longer be updated.
Professionally reviewedRecord revision 2Source check: 2026-09-26Next check due: 2026-10-05Professional review: 2026-09-27 · 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
- Whether a successor conducted the announced tests, plus published scope, results and operational transition evidence.
- Milestone / event date
- NASA reported 2024 drone tests and a 5 March 2025 simulation; its System-Wide Safety project was marked concluded on 16 February 2026.
EVIDENCE TRAIL
NASA drone-safety experiments Agency research reportPublished 2 April 2025; page updated 22 June 2026; accessed 26 September 2026NASA System-Wide Safety archive Agency programme statusArchive notice 16 February 2026Change history
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.
2026-09-26 · Revision 2 drafted from new or corrected primary-source evidence; held for owner professional review.
2026-09-27 · Owner approved revision 2 for publication after professional review of the evidence summary, classification, limitations and publication suitability.
Sentinel’s interpretation is AI-generated and professionally reviewed before publication.
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: 2026-09-26Next check due: 2026-10-05Professional 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.
Change history
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.
2026-09-26 · Primary sources rechecked. No material change to this record; its approved content is retained.
Sentinel’s interpretation is AI-generated and professionally reviewed before publication.
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: 2026-09-26Next check due: 2026-10-05Professional 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.
EVIDENCE TRAIL
EASA announces its first AI regulatory proposal Regulator announcement10 November 2025AI concept paper — proposed Issue 03 Proposed regulator guidanceJune 2026Change history
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.
2026-09-26 · Primary sources rechecked. No material change to this record; its approved content is retained.
Sentinel’s interpretation is AI-generated and professionally reviewed before publication.
EuropeEnabling capability
EASA and Data4Safety partners
Agency / States / industry partnership
Data4Safety
TechnologyDevelopment phase documented
2026 operational-transition target; completion unverified
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: 2026-09-26Next check due: 2026-10-05Professional 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.
Change history
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.
2026-09-26 · Primary sources rechecked. No material change to this record; its approved content is retained.
Sentinel’s interpretation is AI-generated and professionally reviewed before publication.
United KingdomEnabling capability
UK Civil Aviation Authority
Aviation regulator
AI-enabled occurrence-report processing
TechnologyPilot testing reported
AI sorting and labelling of Mandatory Occurrence Reports; outcomes not published
The CAA says it is testing whether AI can sort and label Mandatory Occurrence Reports faster and more accurately. The public update gives no measured accuracy, error rates, human-review controls or safety outcomes.
Professionally reviewedRecord revision 2Source check: 2026-09-26Next check due: 2026-10-05Professional review: 2026-09-27 · Aviation-safety editorial review of the baseline evidence summary, classification, limitations and publication suitability. Not regulatory approval or independent certification.
AI ROLE
AI-assisted processing of occurrence reports; operational scope and performance results are not specified in this source.
Sentinel assessment & source record
- Sentinel’s assessment · AI interpretation
- A practical SMS intelligence use case worth following. The reported pilot activity is not an evaluation or an approved operational capability.
- What this does not prove
- The public update reports testing but is not a pilot evaluation or implementation certificate.
- Next evidence to watch
- Evaluation of sorting quality, error rates, human review and any operational use; distinguish a trial from an approved safety capability.
- Milestone / event date
- CAA commitment in March 2026; CAA AI page reports testing in Spring 2026.
EVIDENCE TRAIL
CAA Artificial Intelligence — Spring 2026 MOR pilot update Regulator programme updateSpring 2026 update; accessed 26 September 2026CAA CAP3226 — Statutory Charges FY2026/27 response, page 22 Regulator work-plan statementMarch 2026Change history
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.
2026-09-26 · Revision 2 drafted from new or corrected primary-source evidence; held for owner professional review.
2026-09-27 · Owner approved revision 2 for publication after professional review of the evidence summary, classification, limitations and publication suitability.
Sentinel’s interpretation is AI-generated and professionally reviewed before publication.
SingaporeEnabling capability
Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore
Regulator / air navigation service provider
AI Multi Sector Planner and Digital ATCO Assistant
TechnologyDevelopment; trials planned
Multi Sector Planner trial target: 2027; read-back error detector live trials planned for later in 2026
CAAS says it has developed an AI Multi Sector Planner for trials from 2027 and is developing a Digital ATCO Assistant. It also says its automated pilot-controller read-back error detector is due to enter live trials later in 2026. No trial start or outcome is established here.
Professionally reviewedRecord revision 2Source check: 2026-09-26Next check due: 2026-10-05Professional review: 2026-09-27 · 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.
- Next evidence to watch
- Confirmation of either trial starting; operating boundaries, controller workload, read-back error rates, fallback behaviour and safety-assurance results.
- Milestone / event date
- CAAS announcement: 22 July 2026. Multi Sector Planner trials from 2027; read-back error detection live trials later in 2026.
EVIDENCE TRAIL
CAAS upgrades air navigation services capabilities Authority programme announcement22 July 2026; accessed 26 September 2026Change history
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.
2026-09-26 · Revision 2 drafted from new or corrected primary-source evidence; held for owner professional review.
2026-09-27 · Owner approved revision 2 for publication after professional review of the evidence summary, classification, limitations and publication suitability.
Sentinel’s interpretation is AI-generated and professionally reviewed before publication.
EuropeEnabling capability
Airbus
Aircraft OEM / digital services
Skywise aviation data analytics
TechnologyProduct capability described
OEM describes available AI analytics; deployment scope unverified
Airbus describes Skywise as a data platform using AI to analyse information from disparate sources.
Professionally reviewedRecord revision 1Source check: 2026-09-26Next check due: 2026-10-05Professional 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
AI-based data analysis. Specific deployed models, safety-critical uses and assured performance are not established by this overview.
Sentinel assessment & source record
- Sentinel’s assessment · AI interpretation
- A relevant industry capability, but a product description cannot settle how it performs in a particular operator’s SMS.
- What this does not prove
- OEM self-description, not independent validation or evidence that Skywise is a complete IASMS.
- Next evidence to watch
- A named operator case study with deployment dates, safety use case, accountable decisions and outcome evidence.
- Milestone / event date
- Current Airbus product overview accessed 26 September 2026; no dated implementation milestone established.
EVIDENCE TRAIL
Airbus — Artificial intelligence, Skywise section OEM product statementUndated product overview; accessed 26 September 2026Change history
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.
2026-09-26 · Primary sources rechecked. No material change to this record; its approved content is retained.
Sentinel’s interpretation is AI-generated and professionally reviewed before publication.
United StatesEnabling capability
Boeing
Aircraft OEM
AI and machine learning in safety-data analysis
TechnologyUse reported by OEM
Reported internal application; independently unverified
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: 2026-09-26Next check due: 2026-10-05Professional 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.
EVIDENCE TRAIL
Boeing Chief Aerospace Safety Officer report OEM self-reported useRolling report page; accessed 26 September 2026Change history
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.
2026-09-26 · Primary sources rechecked. No material change to this record; its approved content is retained.
Sentinel’s interpretation is AI-generated and professionally reviewed before publication.
AustraliaRelated activity
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Aviation regulator
RPAS and AAM Strategic Regulatory Roadmap
Policy & guidanceRoadmap published
Late-2024 review captured in January 2025; no later activity status verified
CASA’s roadmap sets out regulatory development, systems assurance and safety/resilience work for remotely piloted aircraft and advanced air mobility. CASA describes its website as the status source, but the checked activity page still shows a 30 January 2025 update.
Professionally reviewedRecord revision 2Source check: 2026-09-26Next check due: 2026-10-05Professional review: 2026-09-27 · Aviation-safety editorial review of the baseline evidence summary, classification, limitations and publication suitability. Not regulatory approval or independent certification.
AI ROLE
No specific operational AI safety capability is established by this roadmap record.
Sentinel assessment & source record
- Sentinel’s assessment · AI interpretation
- Useful context for the environment in which future IASMS capabilities may operate. AAM preparation alone is not IASMS adoption.
- What this does not prove
- The PDF and online activity page both predate this review by over a year. Roadmap targets do not establish delivery, current activity or IASMS adoption.
- Next evidence to watch
- A fresh update to the living roadmap pages and any named IASMS or AI safety-assurance trial with documented results.
- Milestone / event date
- PDF version 2.1, January 2025, captures the late-2024 review. The online airspace activity page was last updated 30 January 2025.
EVIDENCE TRAIL
CASA RPAS and AAM Strategic Regulatory Roadmap Regulator roadmap snapshotJanuary 2025 · version 2.1; accessed 26 September 2026CASA Airspace and traffic management activity status Regulator online activity pagePage updated 30 January 2025; accessed 26 September 2026Change history
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.
2026-09-26 · Revision 2 drafted from new or corrected primary-source evidence; held for owner professional review.
2026-09-27 · Owner approved revision 2 for publication after professional review of the evidence summary, classification, limitations and publication suitability.
Sentinel’s interpretation is AI-generated and professionally reviewed before publication.
GlobalEnabling capability
ICAO
International standards and guidance body
Safety Intelligence Manual — Doc 10159
Policy & guidanceGuidance published
Manual described in official guidance overview
ICAO describes guidance on collecting, processing, analysing and using safety data and information.
Professionally reviewedRecord revision 1Source check: 2026-09-26Next check due: 2026-10-05Professional 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
A foundation for safety intelligence, not an AI implementation or authorisation.
Sentinel assessment & source record
- Sentinel’s assessment · AI interpretation
- The organisational intelligence discipline remains relevant whether analysis uses AI or conventional methods.
- What this does not prove
- A manual does not prove State implementation. National applicability and controlled text must be checked separately.
- Next evidence to watch
- Documented national implementation and practical, evaluated uses of AI within safety-intelligence governance.
- Milestone / event date
- Doc 10159 complements Doc 9859 and supports Annex 19 Amendment 2.
EVIDENCE TRAIL
ICAO — Safety Intelligence Manual overview International guidance overviewOfficial overview accessed 26 September 2026Change history
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.
2026-09-26 · Primary sources rechecked. No material change to this record; its approved content is retained.
Sentinel’s interpretation is AI-generated and professionally reviewed before publication.
AI research. Professional review. A dated record.
Sentinel prepares evidence summaries and proposed changes. An aviation safety professional reviews the claim, operational context, source quality, uncertainty and publication suitability. A completed review applies only to the identified revision—not to later changes or the programme itself.
Maintenance cycle
Research checks are scheduled for the first Monday of each month, with the next run due 5 October 2026. The task has no recorded run yet; a schedule is not proof that a check occurred. This source review was performed manually on 26 September. Each record retains its source-check date and next due date; missed checks are marked overdue.
Research findings are proposed updates until professionally approved. Material changes require a new revision and renewed review. A programme can be closed while its historical evidence remains useful. No material change, inaccessible sources and unverified milestones must be recorded explicitly.
Global news, checked against evidence
The scheduled research watch scans international aviation and technology news for programme leads, then seeks regulator, research-agency, operator or manufacturer evidence. Duplicate reports about one programme do not increase the count. Conflicting reports and inaccessible evidence remain unresolved; absence from this selected register does not establish inactivity.
Professional approval checklist
- The named programme and its scope match the primary sources.
- Source publication dates, event dates and check dates are distinct.
- Plans, tests, operational use and scoped approvals are not conflated.
- AI interpretation, vendor claims and independent evidence are labelled.
- Limitations, human accountability and the next evidence needed are clear.
Public review records show the review date, revision and scope. Approval is an editorial assessment, not independent certification. Source-check dates advance only after an actual evidence check.
Change record · 26 September 2026
Primary sources were rechecked for all ten records. Four revision 2 updates concern NASA System-Wide Safety, the UK CAA occurrence-report pilot, CAAS air-traffic-management trials and CASA roadmap currency. The owner professionally reviewed and approved these exact revisions on 27 September 2026. The other six records retain their 16 September revision 1 wording and approval. No global adoption score is assessed or published.