Air travel is one of the safest modes of transportation, as demonstrated by numerous years of performance statistics. However, close calls, such as the recent incident between a Delta flight and an Aero Mexico regional jet in Mexico City, make people wonder if we might be facing greater risks in aviation than in the past.
With these fears looming, technology that promotes itself as ‘smart’ has started creeping into the aviation sector. It’s no shocker, really.
Technologies like Smart Landing and Smart Runway are marketed with claims that they’ll heighten safety levels for pilots during critical phases like takeoffs and landings, as well as when navigating around airports. Even so, we shouldn’t forget that air traffic is still heavily managed by air-traffic control, which is run by humans who can make mistakes.
The big question is: Does this ‘smart’ label make a real difference in these technologies, or is it just a clever marketing gimmick?
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is on top of all air-traffic incidents and near-misses. They give special names to runway dangers, calling them runway incursions. In 2024, there were 1,758 of these events, averaging out to about 146 a month. It’s worth noting that this number has remained pretty stable for the past few years, apart from the direct impact of the pandemic in 2020 and 2021.
While this total might sound alarming, considering that approximately 45,000 flights take to the skies every day, the actual incidence of runway incursions is quite minimal. That being said, even rare incidents can lead to accidents.
The FAA rates runway incursions based on their severity. For the most part, we’re fortunate because many are considered benign, designated as Category C and D. These happen when an airplane is positioned incorrectly, but the crucial part is that there’s typically enough time to avoid collisions. So, even if these errors are recorded, their real risk to planes and passengers is low.
However, there’s a flip side. The more severe Category A and B incursions can pose real dangers. The near-miss in Mexico City fits into the high-risk Category A.
Out of 1,758 runway incursions last year, only nine were classified as either Category A or B—making them less than 1% of the total. If an accident had occurred during one of these close calls, we can only imagine the pressure lawmakers would have placed on improvements in aviation safety.
Interestingly, Smart Landing and Smart Runway technologies aim to lessen pilot errors, which are linked to 80% of aviation accidents. Such technologies help alert pilots when they stray from the established procedures or air traffic instructions, providing essential extra time to correct their paths and evade possible mistakes.
If these smart tools do lead to fewer pilot errors, you’d think that would indicate increased flight safety. But how do we actually gauge that safety boost?
Take Southwest Airlines, for example. They’ve recently implemented these ‘smart’ technologies on their fleet of Boeing 737s, which offers a unique chance to see if these innovations live up to the hype.
However, due to the infrequent nature of runway incursions—especially the risky ones—sifting through the data to find actual benefits may be a herculean task. Plus, considering that incursions usually involve multiple airplanes, if only one is utilizing smart tech, it complicates drawing clear conclusions.
We’re likely to hear some anecdotal feedback from Southwest pilots about the technology’s advantages. But stories alone won’t suffice to prove the positive impacts. Moreover, if other airlines start adopting these systems across their fleets, we might eventually see a reduction in runway incursions—particularly in the non-critical Category C and D incidents.
If the FAA mandates these technologies for every aircraft in the national airspace, it should simplify capturing the results.
Just because we tag something as ‘smart’ doesn’t guarantee an improvement in its functionality. The key takeaway is how they actually perform compared to systems without these technologies. Clearly, finding ways to quantify success in such scenarios can be tricky. When it comes to rare occurrences like airplane near-misses, the difficulty level shoots up.
____
Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a computer science professor at the Grainger College of Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. His work in risk-based analytics aims to resolve challenges in public policy. This article was initially published by The Hill.
____
© 2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
