Washington, United States: US lawmakers have urged the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to pause the use of its new artificial intelligence-enabled air traffic management system in the Washington, DC, region, citing unanswered questions about safety testing, personnel training, implementation and oversight. In a congressional letter dated 9 October 2026 and published on 13 October, the lawmakers asked US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford to provide evidence that the system had been adequately evaluated before entering operational use.
The initiative is being led by Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, April McClain Delaney of Maryland, Don Beyer of Virginia, Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia and Sarah Elfreth of Maryland. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland were among the other lawmakers associated with the wider congressional effort. More than two dozen lawmakers have called for the deployment to be paused.
McClain Delaney said: “I’m calling on the FAA to pause this rollout, show us the safety testing, and explain who is accountable when something goes wrong.” Ocasio-Cortez also called for a pause on 13 October, stating: “Air traffic control leaves zero margin for error.”
The letter raises concerns that lawmakers have not received safety evaluation and testing reports and have not been informed of sufficient efforts to train aviation safety personnel to use the tool. It also questions the transparency surrounding the FAA’s decision to introduce artificial intelligence into a safety-critical environment, particularly when reports indicate that some frontline aviation personnel received only days of notice, or no notice, before deployment.
The lawmakers have asked the FAA to respond by 19 October 2026. Their request does not constitute a suspension order, and no confirmed FAA decision to halt SMART had been established in the latest reporting available on 14 October.
The congressional letter identifies three principal areas requiring clarification.
Safety testing: Lawmakers want details of the evaluations completed before SMART entered service, the system’s performance during severe weather and equipment outages, and whether any safety-review requirements were waived during the contracting process. They are seeking evidence that the tool can be used reliably when air traffic operations face challenging conditions.
Consultation and training: The FAA is being asked what consultation took place with airport authorities, airlines and frontline aviation safety personnel before deployment. Lawmakers also want details of the training provided to controllers and other personnel, together with clear procedures explaining how SMART’s recommendations should influence operational decisions. These concerns are particularly significant because air traffic controllers are already working under staffing pressures.
Evaluation and accountability: Lawmakers want the FAA to explain how it will measure SMART’s performance during its initial 90-day evaluation, what standards must be met before nationwide expansion, and who would be accountable if a recommendation from the system contributed to an aviation safety incident.
The lawmakers’ position is that modernising air traffic management must not come at the expense of transparent safety assessments, proper training or clearly defined human oversight. They want the agency to answer these questions before proceeding with the rollout.
SMART stands for Strategic Management of Airspace, Routes, and Trajectories. It is an AI-supported flight scheduling and air traffic management tool developed by Air Space Intelligence (ASI) under an FAA contract announced in June 2026.
The system brings together more than 200 data streams, including airline schedules, weather conditions, flight paths, airport capacity, airspace availability, traffic demand, operational restrictions and air traffic controller staffing information. Its analytical engine combines these inputs to produce visualisations and identify potential congestion, scheduling conflicts and weather-related constraints before they disrupt operations.
Rather than waiting for congestion or disruption to develop, the system is intended to help aviation specialists anticipate problems and consider changes to flight schedules, departure times, arrival flows and routes. The aim is to improve the use of available airspace, reduce delays and cancellations, and make flight operations more predictable.
SMART does not directly control aircraft or replace air traffic controllers. Its recommendations are reviewed by FAA personnel, and local air traffic control leadership can accept or reject the suggested scheduling changes. The tool is designed to support decisions made by aviation professionals, not to transfer operational authority to an AI system.
The distinction is central to the current dispute: although the FAA says people remain in control, lawmakers want greater transparency about how the system was tested, how its recommendations should be used and what safeguards apply when it encounters abnormal operating conditions.
The FAA began limited operational use of SMART on 21 September 2026 in the Washington, DC, region. The initial deployment covers three airports:
- Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Arlington, Virginia, serving the Washington, DC, region.
- Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
- Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport in Maryland.
The initial deployment is intended to help aviation personnel manage disrupted schedules, particularly when severe weather causes flight cancellations or reduces available airspace capacity. The FAA plans a staged expansion to other parts of the United States over the following months, subject to the programme’s implementation and evaluation.
The three-airport deployment is the immediate focus of the congressional request. The lawmakers want the FAA to explain the basis for introducing SMART at these locations and the safeguards governing its continued use before the programme expands.
When SMART was unveiled on 21 September, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy described the technology as a scheduling tool designed to help the FAA anticipate operational problems and reduce disruption. He said the administration wanted to improve how American airspace was managed while reducing delays, cancellations and pressure on air traffic controllers.
In its 21 September announcement, the FAA said SMART’s recommendations would be reviewed by agency staff and that local leadership could accept or reject scheduling suggestions. The agency presented the system as part of a broader effort to improve traffic flow, use available airspace more efficiently and reduce disruptions.
The immediate issue is whether the FAA can provide lawmakers with sufficient information about SMART’s safety evaluations, training arrangements and oversight before proceeding with further deployment. The initial 90-day evaluation and the standards for any nationwide expansion are central to the questions raised in the letter.
The FAA’s stated position is that SMART provides decision-support recommendations while human personnel retain authority. The lawmakers, however, want documented evidence explaining how the system was assessed, how staff were prepared to use it and who would be responsible if its recommendations contributed to an incident.
As of 14 October 2026, the congressional demand for a pause was the latest confirmed development. The FAA’s response deadline was still five days away, and there was no verified confirmation that the agency had suspended SMART. The next significant development will be the agency’s response and whether it changes the system’s operational status or planned expansion.
