As AI tools move into booking, operations and air traffic, the question of who sets the guardrails is getting louder.

Every AI launch in private aviation raises the same background question: who decides what is acceptable? At NBAA-BACE 2026, several threads came together.

Congress: use the FAA, not a new agency

Rep. Jay Obernolte of California is a pilot and flight instructor, chairs the House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and holds a graduate degree in AI. AIN reported on October 21 that he made the case for the FAA, not a new agency, to write AI rules for aviation. The full article is behind a membership wall, so we can only point to that headline and summary. His position is consistent with comments he made to NBAA in 2024, when he said it is easier to teach an existing regulator like the FAA about AI than to teach a new AI-focused agency about aviation, and that most federal agencies already regulate AI within their own sectors.

The FAA: SMART is a recommender, not a replacement

The agency is using AI itself. FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford told the convention that the SMART traffic management system could help business aviation, and the agency says it provides recommendations rather than replacing controller decisions. Aviation Week reported that Bedford also said SMART is not meant to nationalize airline schedules. Meanwhile, lawmakers have questioned the system's safety testing, training and oversight.

Industry: human oversight is the common theme

NBAA's own programming reflected the same caution. A Flight Deck session was titled Knowledge Acceleration With Human Oversight and focused on where AI can cut friction today and why qualified people still need to stay involved. At a panel on emerging technology, speakers separated advanced automation from AI that can learn and change its own behavior, and one stressed that aviation safety depends on predictability. Jeppesen ForeFlight's design principles, which include certified data, a visible reasoning trail and a human in the loop, sound a lot like what regulators tend to ask for.

Europe is working on it too

EASA, the European aviation safety agency, held its fourth AI Days conference in September in Cologne. The agenda included a concept paper on AI applications and ongoing rulemaking, along with topics like AI assurance, human factors and ethics-based assessment.

Why it matters for private aviation

Most charter-booking AI sits outside safety-critical systems today, so it faces consumer-protection and business rules more than aviation certification. But the line is blurring. As agents begin to suggest replacement aircraft, check trip feasibility or draft customer notices during disruptions, they get closer to decisions that affect safety. Operators will want clear expectations about when a human must sign off.

What to watch

  • Whether Congress takes up the idea of the FAA leading AI rules, and what that would cover.
  • Any outcome from lawmakers' questions about SMART.
  • Whether industry groups publish voluntary standards for AI use in charter and operations.

Bottom line: The technology is moving faster than the rulebook, and the industry is signaling it would rather build in human oversight now than have it imposed later.

Sources: