MAVIS: what the Met Office’s new platform means for pilots, operators and offshore teams

A step towards integrated Met data

The Met Office has started rolling out the Met Office Aeronautical Visualisation Service, or MAVIS. It brings together four separate services into one place: Aviation Briefing Service, Network Weather Resilience, HeliBrief and OpenRunway. With a single login you can view METARs, TAFs, UK charts and configurable map layers for both planning and day-of-operation decisions.

MAVIS sits in beta today and is not approved for operational use during the development and dual-running period. Treat it as a preview rather than your legal or operational source. That said, it’s a great time to jump in and look at the features.

I’m genuinely impressed with what I’ve seen so far (despite some expected Beta issues) and whilst I won’t be hanging up my premium Windy account just yet, it certainly has a secure place in my future planning rituals.

What is genuinely new

Two things stand out: modern visualisation and personalisation, something previously unseen in MetO offerings. MAVIS adds Red-Amber-Green thresholding on TAFs and METARs so sites can flag when your pre-set limits are breached. You can pin locations, save base maps, and bring in layers such as observed lightning or sea-surface temperature as they arrive. UK and near-Europe SIGMETs now display inside the portal. Each feature looks small, yet together they speed up the process of a good met review before every flight and when connected to the internet, will allow swift conditions updating in flight.

For offshore helicopter operations, MAVIS matters because HeliBrief is on the same retirement path as ABS and NWR. The aim is a single interface where deck decision makers, flight dispatch, and crews all see an aligned picture with the same thresholds and highlights. That is a better human-factors outcome than juggling portals at 05:30.

Timelines and the small print

ABS and NWR are scheduled to retire in Spring 2026, with transition into MAVIS beginning in Autumn 2025. If you rely on the free ABS for GA flying, note that ABS Premium will not be replicated at initial MAVIS release. The Met Office plans an equivalent in 2026 but has not given a firm date. For now, ABS remains available and Premium continues at £24, with the service ending in March 2026. Plan your switch and avoid surprises during check-rides or club trips.

Airports and airlines using OpenRunway should expect the same migration window. The headline remains the same: one platform instead of many, with OpenRunway functionality absorbed into MAVIS before Spring 2026.

Why this consolidation makes sense

Putting planning, situational awareness and alerts in one place reduces clicks and the risk of divergent interpretations. MAVIS supports mobile use (although its currently buggy on some platforms), custom layouts and pinned sites. For smaller operators and GA, a single, consistent interface lowers the training burden for new pilots and club members. For airports and offshore teams, one shared display improves collaboration when thresholds tip into amber or red. I can see this being a real benefit in winter North Sea operations.

Where to be cautious

Do not swap your operational briefings over yet. MAVIS is not an operational source during beta and dual running. Keep using ABS, NWR, HeliBrief or OpenRunway as appropriate until the formal cutover. Expect some data and layers to appear or change as access controls firm up, and expect adjustments in what individual users can see as the service hardens. I truly hope, for the GA community, that the Met Office keep high data levels free and acessible – if there is a user group desperately in need of accurate data its the GA flier.

Practical actions to take this month

  1. Map your workflows. Write down how you brief today and identify what MAVIS will replace. If you run offshore or airport operations, capture who sets thresholds, who owns watchlists, and who sends notifications. For the GA flier, think about your self briefing process. For me, it currently runs General Synopsis, F214, F215, GAMET and then to Windy. How will this process change?
  2. Freeze your minima and thresholds. MAVIS makes it easy to encode the limits you already use. Agree those values now so your team does not tune to taste later. If you’re a GA pilot and don’t have met limits, now might be a good time to think of them.
  3. Train to the visual language. RAG thresholding, pinned sites and layered maps will change how pilots scan. For training providers, build short sims or tabletop exercises that teach where to look first, then standardise that scan.
  4. Budget and access. If you or your club relies on ABS Premium features, note the gap before a MAVIS premium tier arrives. Keep ABS credentials valid until your first successful operational day on MAVIS.

The bigger picture

MAVIS is not just a fresh coat of paint. It is the Met Office pulling regulated and commercial aviation weather tools into one consistent experience, with a stronger focus on human-centred design. If the production version stays honest to the beta and retains the useful features we have seen so far, this will land well across GA, airports and offshore operations. The prize is faster decisions with less friction, which is exactly what you want when the cloud base is sliding and the deck is getting wet.

Why I’m Glad I got a GNav Question wrong, and so should you be.

If we want pilots who can think, not just pass, then this is the course correction we’ve needed.

I recently completed the UK CAA General Navigation professional exam, often “feared” as one of the toughest of the ATPL syllabus and enough to send many a student professional pilot into cold sweats. Nervously I opened the results email as it landed from the CAA and gasped in horror.

After more than two decades as a professional navigator, a postgraduate diploma in applied navigation, and a stint as Head of Navigation for one of the fighting arms of the UK Ministry of Defence; someone who has charted transoceanic courses, mentored young officers on storm avoidance, and explained variation so many times I can recite WGS-84 facts in my sleep whilst calculating more great circle vertexes than I care to remember; I had this in the bag.

And yet, to my horror — I missed one.

Learning Objective 061.01.08.02.03, to be precise: calculating average ground speed during descent from TAS and wind velocity at various altitudes. A fair question, and one we might usually tackle over a coffee and a briefing map. But on that day, I fluffed it.

Perhaps I fat-fingered the calculator. Perhaps I was overconfident. But more importantly: I’m glad I got it wrong.

Because this wasn’t just a lesson in staying sharp — it was proof that the Civil Aviation Authority’s newly refreshed ATPL exam structure is finally doing what it should: testing knowledge, not memory.

The Rote Learning Trap: Why “Gaming the Exam” Has Put Safety at Risk

Let’s be brutally honest: for too long, ATPL theory, particularly in subjects like General Navigation, has been something of a cheat code. A vast cottage industry of question banks and memory drills has allowed thousands of candidates to pass without ever fully and truly understanding what they were doing.

Controversial, and perhaps many will be angry at me for suggesting so. But my experience through the professional pilot exams has shown me just that. For every committed student who works hard to nail the theory, there are those who think that “banking it all the way” is the key to success. Whether I think calculating a magnetic course to an NDB from a position on a polar stereographic chart is a useful skill or not for today’s INS-gilded pilot, I’ll keep to myself. That said, many students could tell you that the “answer is C”, without being able to explain what, or why.

It got so bad that the UK’s Chief Theoretical Knowledge Instructors (CTKIs) formally raised the issue at their November 2024 meeting. Their concerns were clear: students were passing exams by rote, not understanding. That’s dangerous. Not just for the students, but for the future of professional aviation.

Enter the CAA’s Winter Question Task, a strategic overhaul of the question bank, starting in March 2025 and set to reshape how all ATPL theory exams are delivered.

New Format, New Standards: Type-in Answers and What They Mean for CPL/ATPL students

The updated system introduces new question formats across all subjects:

• Type-in answers – no options, just your raw answer. Know it or don’t.

• Inline (cloze) questions – test layered understanding.

• Multi-select questions – require critical discrimination, not gut instinct.

• Reduced reliance on MCQs – which previously encouraged pattern spotting and lucky guessing.

The emphasis now? Understanding, application, precision.

Which brings me back to my error. I wasn’t misled by four options or tricked by clever wording. I simply didn’t execute the calculation properly. The exam didn’t hand me cues; it demanded I know. That’s the system working exactly as intended.

The Role of ATOs: From Content Delivery to Competence Development

This shift presents a challenge, and a responsibility, for ATOs.

Too many training providers have become dependent on drilling question banks. Their internal assessments mirror MCQ-heavy formats, reinforcing shallow learning and surface-level comprehension. Students learn to pass, not to understand, the “last 300 becomes the bastion of learning”.

Now, with type-in questions, there’s nowhere to hide. If a student doesn’t grasp the fundamentals, if they’ve never mentally estimated a descent profile from varying winds, they will be found out.

Good. That’s how aviation training should be.

It is incumbent on every TKI and ATO to teach not just what the syllabus says, but why it matters — and how to apply it under pressure. Classroom sessions must become more interactive. Mental models and practical reasoning must take centre stage. Because theory, when stripped of application, becomes a liability.

Dear Student Pilots: This Is Your First Job Interview

Let’s turn to the candidate perspective, especially those aiming for airline careers.

ATPL theory isn’t just a box to tick. It’s the first real test of how you study, how you solve problems, and how you manage high cognitive load under time pressure.

Airlines know this.

Some will even screen CVs based on TK scores. Not because high marks guarantee a good pilot, they don’t, but because they indicate the mindset behind the achievement. Were you methodical? Did you study deeply? Can you apply knowledge when it matters? Or did you memorise your way through it?

When you’re sweating in a multi-crew sim check, faced with real-world crosswinds, a fuel discrepancy, and a reroute in deteriorating weather, rote recall won’t help you. But understanding will.

The new exam structure helps identify who will thrive in those moments. As a pilot, you are paid not for your ability to recite definitions, but for your ability to think, under stress, in time-critical situations, with lives on the line.

A Final Word From a Humbled Navigator

I didn’t write this piece to pat myself on the back for “smashing” GNav, nor to bemoan the one I missed. I wrote it because that mistake reminded me, starkly, that true mastery means always being open to learning, to improvement, and to challenge.

This system now reflects the values we say we want in aviation: rigour, professionalism, and safety through understanding.

So, if you’re preparing for your exams: embrace the difficulty. Seek clarity, not just recall. Understand the triangle of velocities not because it’s examinable, but because it’s a tool that will one day keep you safe.

And if, like me, you get one (or more) wrong, good. That means the system is finally doing its job.

This article was published in https://www.ftnonline.co.uk/ August 2025, written by @checksd

Doncaster Sheffield: A Welcome Return, but at What Cost to General Aviation?

The news that Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) is on track to reopen should be cause for celebration. Any investment in UK aviation, especially in a region that needs better connectivity, deserves support. For those of us who live and breathe flying, the return of an operational airport, jobs, and commercial routes is positive. Yet as a general aviation pilot, I see the plans through a double lens: optimism on one side and concern on the other.

For the last 18 months, the skies around Doncaster have been unusually open. When the airport closed in 2022 and its controlled airspace was deactivated in February 2024, a large swathe of South Yorkshire reverted to Class G. For many of us in light aircraft, that meant the freedom to route directly across the area without negotiating a clearance from a pressured controller. Cross-country planning became simpler, instructional flights more efficient, and we had a break from feeling like the lowest priority in a busy Class D environment. It also offered a practical option for northerners to head south while avoiding the busy Lincolnshire and East Anglia areas with their high volume of military activity.

Now, with Doncaster Council and Mayor Ros Jones committing millions to bring the airport back to life, controlled airspace will almost certainly return. That is where the unease begins.

Controlled airspace: necessary but constraining

Nobody disputes that commercial airports need controlled airspace. IFR arrivals and departures require protection, and safety margins demand it. History around Doncaster shows, however, that implementation can come at a real cost to general aviation.

When the CTR and surrounding CTA shelves were active, transit was possible in theory but tricky in practice. Clearances could be slow, sometimes denied, or re-routed in ways that made local navigation exercises unnecessarily complex. Some CTA bases sat as low as 1,500 feet. In anything less than perfect weather, GA pilots were pushed into uncomfortable margins between cloud and terrain or forced into long detours around the zone.

Controllers were not hostile to light aircraft. The issue was workload, priorities, and system design. IFR traffic came first. In a unit like Doncaster, a two-seat trainer on a practice navex rarely received priority.

Reopening is welcome, but a revived Class D bubble will bring back constraints that many local pilots had briefly lived without.

The creeping squeeze from drones and temporary danger areas

Layered on top is a newer challenge: BVLOS drone operations.

Last year’s widely discussed Apian application for a temporary danger area near Newcastle is a case in point. The proposal sought to accommodate drone trials for medical deliveries, with general aviation effectively excluded from a large, frequently used area for the duration. Temporary danger areas like this are increasingly common. Each closure may be short-lived, but together they erode GA’s freedom to operate.

The combination of permanent controlled airspace and rolling temporary restrictions creates a patchwork of no-go areas. For a private pilot planning a straightforward VFR cross-country, the map grows more complicated each season. Unlike large commercial operators or well-funded drone projects, GA cannot simply buy more technology or hire airspace managers to handle the bureaucracy. We absorb the extra workload, take the longer detour, or scrub the flight.

A vision for coexistence

General aviation does not oppose growth. Most of us welcome the expansion of flying in all its forms, including airline passengers, freight, and innovative drone services. Aviation thrives when it grows.

Coexistence must be genuine rather than lip service.

For Doncaster, any reintroduced controlled airspace should include practical VFR corridors that enable easy and safe transit. Clearances for light aircraft should be routine, supported by staffing levels and procedures that recognise GA as a stakeholder rather than a nuisance. The Manchester Low Level Corridor shows what is possible.

For drones, transparency and proportionality should guide danger-area design. If a drone can operate safely in a smaller box, keep the restriction smaller. If coordination can replace outright exclusion, make coordination the default. When closures are necessary, regulators should consult and communicate properly with the GA community.

A shrinking sky

This is bigger than Doncaster. Across the UK, controlled airspace continues to thicken. The CAA faces pressure to accommodate new entrants, from commercial drones to advanced air mobility. Airports large and small are applying for more controlled volumes to contain new PBN procedures.

Each change may be justified on its own terms. Viewed cumulatively on a chart, the effect is clear. The open Class G sky is shrinking. With it goes some of the joy of simple, direct, seat-of-the-pants flying.

Doncaster’s reopening symbolises both sides of the story. On one hand, it proves that aviation still matters to the regions and that investment can revive an airport. On the other, it reminds us that gains for one corner of aviation can translate into tighter constraints for another.

A call for balance

As GA pilots, we do not oppose Doncaster’s return. We welcome it. We ask for balance and inclusion.

Controlled airspace should be smart rather than sprawling. Drone corridors should be flexible rather than blunt. Temporary danger areas should remain the exception rather than the creeping norm.

If general aviation becomes boxed out by an expanding lattice of restrictions, we risk losing not only freedom of the skies but the grassroots foundation of aviation itself. That foundation includes young pilots building hours, instructors passing on knowledge, and weekend flyers who keep small airfields alive.

The reopening of Doncaster Sheffield can be a success. It can also be a turning point where regulators, airports, and innovators choose coexistence over exclusion. Otherwise, the skies we once called free will feel like narrow corridors that we are permitted to use only on sufferance.

Turning Regulatory Challenges into Practical Solutions

At ConsultDCT, we take pride in supporting organisations as they navigate complex certification and regulatory requirements. Recently, we were pleased to assist a public sector client with a particularly challenging certification process.

The task was not simply about compliance — it was about finding a pathway that worked in practice as well as on paper. By combining our in-house legal knowledge with operational expertise, we ensured the client could meet their obligations while maintaining credibility and effectiveness in delivery.

Our approach was threefold:

  1. Specialist Legislative Review
    Using our in-house legal knowledge, we carried out a detailed review of the relevant legislation and certification requirements, providing clarity on the framework in which the organisation was operating.
  2. Identifying Regulatory Challenges
    From this review, we pinpointed the specific areas where regulation created operational complexity or potential barriers.
  3. Developing a Compliant Delivery Plan
    We proposed a delivery plan that was both fully compliant and operationally credible, ensuring the organisation could achieve certification without undermining its ability to operate effectively.

This project illustrates the value that ConsultDCT brings: the ability to translate complex regulation into clear, practical solutions. By bridging the gap between governance frameworks and operational realities, we help our clients succeed with confidence.

With access to government-experienced and security-cleared consultants, ConsultDCT is also well placed to support not only government bodies but also think tanks, non-departmental public organisations, and industry associations. From policy advice and regulatory review to operational impact assessments, we provide insight grounded in both legislative knowledge and practical delivery.

The “Exempted Route” to Completing Commercial Knowledge for Flight Instructors

Many aspiring flight instructors are unaware of a little-known option: undertaking the Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL) theoretical knowledge exams without enrolling in a full groundschool course.

A formal CPL groundschool typically involves 300+ hours of structured tuition and costs several thousands of pounds. For determined PPL holders looking to move into instruction, that can be a significant barrier. The exempted route offers a cost-effective alternative.

Let’s be clear—this path is not for the faint-hearted. Self teaching requires commitment, drive and a slight hint of lunacy. There are many resources currently available open source on the internet to support learning, the knowledge gained through PPL tuition will certainly help, and the CAA kindly provide a full list of the Learning Objectives that are examined. With focussed energy, it is possible to complete the examinations within a 6-9 month window, subject to being able to find a suitable exam sittings.


1. What the Exempted Route Is

For candidates aiming for an FI(A) certificate who do not need a CPL issued, Part-FCL allows you to sit and pass the CPL theoretical knowledge (TK) examinations without first completing an approved CPL TK course.

Those exam passes:

  • Count only for meeting the FI prerequisite.
  • Do not qualify you for CPL licence issue.

CAA guidance (FCL.915.FI) states that aspiring instructors who intend to teach the PPL syllabus must have:

“…passed the CPL theoretical knowledge examination, which may be taken without completing a CPL theoretical knowledge training course and which shall not be valid for the issue of a CPL.” – UK Civil Aviation Authority

In practice: You can meet the FI prerequisites more flexibly and cheaply. If you later decide you want a CPL issued, you must then complete an approved CPL TK course (CAA Form 5004 / ATO certificate) and may need to re-validate or re-sit exams so they are valid for licence issue.

Note: A statutory appeal has been submitted to the CAA challenging the requirement for candidates who already passed the exams to resit them if subsequently completing an approved groundschool to progress a CPL application, on the basis that it adds burden without improving safety.


2. Who This Route Is For

  • PPL(A) holders building towards FI(A) who want to instruct (initially as FI(R), then ab-initio PPL once restrictions are lifted). You must still meet the usual FI experience requirements—hours, cross-country, instrument time, recent SEP flying, and the pre-entry test.
  • Important: Without CPL/ATPL TK passes, an FI(A) may only instruct for the LAPL (and associated ratings). To instruct ab-initio PPL students, you must have CPL-level (or ATPL-level) theoretical knowledge passes.

3. The Exams You’ll Sit (CPL(A) TK)

The CPL(A) theoretical knowledge syllabus includes 13 subjects at CPL level:

  • Air Law
  • Aircraft General Knowledge (Systems & Instrumentation)
  • Mass & Balance
  • Performance
  • Flight Planning & Monitoring
  • Human Performance
  • Meteorology
  • General Navigation
  • Radio Navigation
  • Operational Procedures
  • Principles of Flight
  • VFR Communications

(Full details: CAA Theoretical Knowledge Examinations)


4. How to Book and Sit the Exams (Without CPL Course)

  1. Register via the CAA e-Exams system
  2. Submit SRG1192 Form
    • On the form, for Licence Held, enter: “PPL – Exam Application for FI issue only.”
  3. Follow the exam attempt rules (FCL.025):
    • All exams must be passed within 18 months (from the end of the month of your first attempt).
    • Maximum 6 sittings and 4 attempts per subject.
  4. Validity of passes:
    • For CPL or IR licence issue: passes are valid for 36 months (when taken with a full course).
    • For FI(A) purposes under the exempted route: the results do not expire.
  5. CPL licence issue later:
    • If you later seek a CPL, you must complete an approved CPL TK course and provide the ATO’s course completion certificate (CAA Form 5004).

5. Key Links

Why GPS Denial in the UK Should Concern GA Pilots – And Why Backup Navigation Must Be Practised and Tested

In an age where digital avionics, moving maps, and GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite Systems) have become ubiquitous in General Aviation (GA), it’s tempting to take GPS for granted.

For many private pilots, cross-country flying now involves little more than programming a route into a GPS unit or app and following the magenta line. But what happens when that line disappears?

Over the past few years, the world has seen a marked rise in GPS jamming and spoofing events, particularly in regions near military training areas and strategic infrastructure. While this trend might initially sound like a nuisance for commercial or military operators, it’s something that every GA pilot should treat as a serious threat, not just to convenience, but to safety.

The Reality of GPS Denial in the UK

GPS denial takes two main forms: jamming, which blocks or interferes with satellite signals, and spoofing, where false signals are broadcast to mislead receivers. In the UK, such interference has been increasingly recorded around areas like Salisbury Plain, The Wash, the Scottish Highlands, and the North Sea—areas that often intersect popular GA routes.

While NOTAMs may occasionally warn of jamming exercises, these are not always well-publicised or easily interpreted by the average GA pilot, and their coverage can extend far beyond expected zones. Additionally, there’s growing concern about unintentional interference from consumer devices, illegal jammers, and hostile state actors.

GPS is a passive system, aircraft receive signals but don’t transmit—so there’s no warning when it fails. No buzzing alarms. No flickering screens. You might just notice your aircraft is now flying over an unexpected landmark, and your ‘current position’ is now… nowhere.

Why GA Is Particularly Vulnerable

Unlike commercial operators who often fly with inertial reference systems, dual GNSS receivers, or access to air traffic navigational support, the average GA pilot might be relying entirely on:

  • A single GNSS unit (perhaps embedded in a tablet)
  • A moving map application like SkyDemon, ForeFlight, or Garmin Pilot
  • Minimal recent practice with DR (Dead Reckoning) or VFR chart-based navigation

The combination of these factors makes GA particularly susceptible to spatial disorientation, airspace infringements, and navigational error in the event of GPS loss. This is especially true in marginal visibility, poor weather, or near controlled airspace boundaries.

A Call to Return to Core Navigation Skills

Aviation, at its heart, is a discipline of redundancy and preparation. That’s why we check alternate aerodromes, carry spare fuel, and keep paper charts in our flight bags (don’t we?). But how often do we truly practice fallback navigation techniques?

Pilots should regularly test themselves on:

  • Dead reckoning: Estimating position based on heading, time, and ground speed
  • Map reading: Interpreting visual features and correlating them with a VFR chart
  • Timed legs: Using accurate clocking to confirm position between turning points
  • Diversion planning: Rapidly selecting and flying to an alternate route or aerodrome

Flying a short route with the GPS intentionally turned off, or covered, can be an excellent refresher. Club fly-outs or training days can incorporate this as a challenge or exercise.

Regulatory and Instructional Support

There is growing recognition in the UK CAA and EASA communities that over-reliance on GPS has degraded essential pilotage and navigation skills. Instructors and examiners should take the initiative to:

  • Simulate GPS failure during PPL and post-qualification training flights
  • Emphasise traditional navigation skills during biennial flight reviews
  • Encourage electronic device discipline—i.e., flying with it turned off during sections of a flight

Conclusion: Prepare for When, Not If

GPS is one of the greatest advancements in modern aviation, but it is not invulnerable. As reliance increases, so too does the consequence of its absence. For GA pilots flying in a congested, complex airspace like the UK’s, complacency can lead to disorientation or infringement in minutes.

Treat backup navigation not as an emergency procedure, but as a core competency. If we train as though GPS will fail, we ensure our safety and self-sufficiency when—not if—it does.

Author’s note:

If you’re a GA pilot, challenge yourself this month. Plan and fly a short route entirely using dead reckoning and visual fixes. No GPS, no moving map. You might rediscover both the challenge and satisfaction that comes from truly navigating by air

Artificial Intelligence in Aviation Education…

…a Double-Edged Sword

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the way we live, work—and learn. In aviation, it promises powerful tools for pilots, instructors, and operational planners alike. From streamlining flight planning and simulating weather patterns to providing tailored learning platforms, AI offers incredible potential.

But like any new technology, it comes with significant caveats—particularly in education and assessment.

The Rise of AI in the Cockpit and Classroom

Flight training is no stranger to innovation. Modern pilots are expected to work hand-in-hand with increasingly sophisticated onboard systems, many of which rely on AI-driven data processing. On the ground, AI tools can generate checklists, parse weather charts, and simulate emergency procedures with impressive realism. Aviation students now have access to AI-powered tutors, dynamic question banks, and voice-assisted flight manuals.

This technological leap is meant to support learning, not replace it.

Yet a troubling trend is emerging: students leaning too heavily on AI to shortcut the learning process. Assignments, knowledge checks, and even exam prep are now frequently completed with AI’s help. With tools like ChatGPT, students can generate full answers to complex technical questions—often in seconds. The results appear thorough, grammatically sound, and even reference regulations or aircraft systems convincingly.

But here’s the catch: they’re not always right.

When AI Gets It Wrong

AI tools excel at pattern recognition and language generation. However, they lack true understanding—and, critically, accountability. While an AI model might confidently explain the principles behind an accelerated stall, it might conflate load factor with angle of attack, or misrepresent the effect of flap deployment at various speeds.

In high-stakes professions like aviation, that’s not just a technical error—it’s a potential safety hazard.

There have been documented cases where AI-generated aviation content provided misleading or incorrect answers to key questions. For example, in 2024, several pilot forums flagged AI-generated explanations about VOR navigation and RNAV procedures that appeared credible but contained dangerously inaccurate assumptions. Students who rely solely on AI outputs may absorb these errors without realising, especially if they’re under time pressure or lack the experience to spot subtle flaws.

This video shows a brilliant example of how AI can get something relatively simple wrong, and how the competent pilot can easily identify its error.

The Core Question: Who Gets the Right Answer?

Ultimately, aviation demands critical thinking, situational awareness, and a deep understanding of complex systems. AI can help reinforce these qualities—but it cannot replace them. That’s why experienced instructors, examiners, and operational mentors remain irreplaceable.

As AI becomes embedded in flight operations and training, the key challenge is not “Can AI answer this?” but rather: “Can the student understand why the answer is right—or wrong?”

Navigating the Future Responsibly

At Consult DCT, we embrace the benefits of AI when used as a tool—not a crutch. We encourage students and professionals to approach AI critically: test its outputs, cross-reference with trusted sources, and always apply human judgment.

The future of aviation will undoubtedly be shaped by AI—but it’s the human pilot who must remain in command.

A race to presumption?

Following the tragic loss of Air India Flight AI171 (VT-ANB), many in the aviation community have been quick to assume the worst — that the dual engine shutdown was a result of intentional pilot action. But in the rush to post expert takes, are we neglecting due process and deeper questions?

The AAIB India preliminary report clearly states both engine fuel control switches moved to CUTOFF within one second. But it stops short of attributing intent.

The accompanying cockpit audio captures one pilot asking: “Why did you cut off?” — met with a stunned denial. This is not the voice of malice; it’s the voice of confusion.

Yet commentary across LinkedIn, Twitter, and industry channels echoes one refrain in immediate response: “The pilot did it.”

What concerns us most is the eagerness of seasoned professionals — some with safety in their titles — to publicly declare intentionality, before root cause analysis is complete. This isn’t just speculative. It’s corrosive.

EASA SIB NM-18-33 (2018) already flagged the possibility of accidental disengagement of fuel control switches due to faulty or insecure locking mechanisms on the very same aircraft type. Its non-mandatory advisory status meant this known risk didn’t lead to structural changes or enforced inspections.

The AAIB report identifies no crew incapacitation, no CVR evidence of panic or sabotage — only the fact that two switches moved. So why are so many people leaping ahead of the evidence?

This incident should not become another case study in hindsight bias and “armchair CRM.” Speculating before final reports are released erodes public trust, diminishes investigative integrity, and places undue emotional pressure on the families and colleagues of those lost.

The focus now should be:

1. Investigating whether mechanical, ergonomic, or design factors made accidental switch movement possible

2. Revisiting the sufficiency of NM-18-33, given that its very concern may have materialised

3. Supporting a fact-driven, non-punitive approach to understanding how this disaster unfolded

#airindia #dreamliner #aircrashinvestigation