Aviation regulations search that quotes the paragraph, names the stricter rule and keeps every team on one reading
A quoted, cross-checked rule answer in minutes, and one reading across every team.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Aviation Regulations Search answers airline rule questions across FAA, DOT, TSA, CBP, EASA and ICAO, quoting the paragraph. Anyone asks in plain words; six agents decide which rules bind the flight, quote every paragraph in force on the as-of date, lay FAA, EASA and ICAO side by side, name the stricter rule and say what they cannot see. An answer becomes a ruling only when the compliance lead or Regulatory Counsel approves it.
How to choose AI for airlines: a buyer's guide to agentic AI solutions →
Updated
Aviation regulations search at most airlines means eCFR in one tab, a PDF of the EASA Easy Access Rules in another and an email to compliance. Crew scheduling, dispatch, consumer affairs, airport and legal teams answer rule questions every day under several regimes at once: 14 CFR, DOT consumer rules, TSA and CBP rules, EASA rules on European flights and the ICAO standards behind them. What comes back is a paraphrase in an inbox, hours later.
Two desks read the same paragraph two ways. Nobody knows which rule actually binds the flight, or which is stricter tonight. Answers quietly depend on an operations specification or an FAA acceptance letter nobody checked, and a reply template can repeat a wrong reading forty times a day. When a rule changes, nobody knows which past answers it overturned — and DOT's maximum civil penalty is $75,000 per violation, counted per passenger or per day.
Where aviation regulatory research by hand spends its time: an estimated split of one cited reply (about 3 h 10 min, from 40 questions timed by compliance), by hand and with the solution. When an answer depends on something the agents cannot see, the confirmation still waits for a person.
Six agents decide what binds, quote every paragraph side by side, name the stricter rule and say what they cannot see; compliance approves the ruling.
Thursday afternoon at Corvane Airways' Chicago O'Hare hub. A hydraulic fault grounds the 787-9 on CV 118 to Frankfurt; Maintenance Control swaps in 767-300ER N674CV and departure moves from 17:45 to 21:25. The crew reports at 16:45, so the planned flight duty period is now 13 h 05 min — more than the 12 hours 14 CFR 117 allows two pilots. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Tessa asks: “Can CV 118 ORD-FRA run with an augmented three-pilot crew for a 13-hour flight duty period under both rules?” The Applicability agent reads the flight: 14 CFR Part 117 binds by law; EASA ORO.FTL does not bind a US operator, but Corvane's FOM 4.3.2 plans EU flights to the stricter of the two; ICAO Annex 6 is background. In 41 seconds, with 14 paragraphs read, the answer comes back: yes, under both, with a third pilot.
“Yes, under both, with a third pilot. The FAA limit is the stricter one tonight.”
Each cell quotes its paragraph with the differing words highlighted. Seat 3A on the 767 reclines 48° with 60 inches of pitch behind a curtain. The FAA's Class 2 needs a flat or near flat position, so under 14 CFR 117.3 it is Class 3: 14 h 00 min under Table C. EASA's Class 2 needs 45° and 55 inches, so under CS FTL.1.205(c) it is Class 2: 15 h 00 min. Any quote opens in full beside the answer, with its version and effective date.
“Stricter tonight: FAA · 14 h 00 min · 55 min to spare”
The follow-up keeps the flight in context. Unaugmented, the limit is 12 hours; the captain and Corvane may extend by up to 2 hours under 117.19(a)(1). At 13 h 05 min the extension is 1 h 05 min — more than 30 minutes, so it can happen only once before rest and must be reported to the FAA within 10 days. EASA leaves up to 2 hours to the commander's discretion under ORO.FTL.205(f).
“Possible, but it needs the captain's agreement and a report to the FAA.”
Tessa sent the answer to the ruling log at 15:04. On Graham's Today screen, draft D-26-0177 sits at the top of Needs you — seat 3A still waiting for Dispatch Standards, decide by 19:25, before the 21:25 departure — beside 7 drafts to approve, 3 different readings and 3 rule changes ahead. This week 1,284 questions were asked, 91% answered with every sentence quoted. He can ask the agents about any of it in plain words.
“D-26-0177 · CV 118, three pilots under FAA and EASA — decide by 19:25”
Corvane's FOM 4.6 lists seats 3A and 3B as Class 3, but the FAA acceptance under AC 117-1 is a letter held by Dispatch Standards, not in the library. So the answer is marked conditional, and one click asks Marcus Delaney exactly what is needed. At 15:19 he confirms seats 3A and 3B as Class 3, from the letter of 12 Mar 2025, and the answer is no longer conditional.
The Applicability agent never assumes an OpSpec or an acceptance it cannot see; it names what it needs.
The draft arrives with its four quotes and the agents' checks: 5 of 5 sentences hold, consistent with RL-0297 for the 787-9 bunk, all paragraphs in force on 15 Oct 2026, seat 3A confirmed. Graham approves with the reason code the agents suggest, “New reading: no prior ruling”, because RL-0297 covers only the 787-9, and adds a note: it applies to every 767-300ER EU flight with three pilots.
Approve, edit or reject — a reason code is required. The agents never approve a ruling.
The approved reading lands at the top of the ruling log as RL-0413, beside 412 others: the 4-hour international tarmac limit, the $1,075 and $2,150 denied boarding limits, APIS batch manifests 30 minutes before doors are secured, card refunds within 7 business days. Each shows its regulation, its paragraph, its approver, its use count and whether it is in force, under review or superseded.
At 06:12 the agent had compared every answer and reply template with the log. Consumer Affairs reply template CA-114, used 12 times since 2 Oct, told 31 passengers that “as a U.S. airline, Corvane is not subject to EU Regulation 261/2004 on flights to the United States.” RL-0388 quotes Article 3(1): it applies to passengers departing from an airport in a Member State. Exposure: about $20,200, estimated at 31 × EUR 600.
“Nothing is sent or changed until Nadia Okafor approves.”
The ICAO Annex 6 Part I amendment on fuel planning applies on 26 Nov 2026. The Change watch agent replayed the 6 rulings that cite it as of that date: 2 need the new Annex wording, 4 are unchanged, and 14 CFR 121.645 still governs Corvane. Graham approves the 2 updated rulings or sends them back, and the 23 people who asked questions those rulings answered can be told in one click.
A proposed rule is context only until it is adopted.
The same rule question, seen by five of the people who carry it — what their day looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six agents decide what binds, quote every paragraph side by side, name the stricter rule and say what they cannot see; compliance approves the ruling.
Reads the case — operator certificate, route, aircraft, crew report time and acclimation, date — and decides which rules bind by law, which apply by company policy and which are background.
Does the 14 CFR search, and the same search across DOT orders, the public parts of 49 CFR, 19 CFR, the EASA Easy Access Rules, EU 261/2004, the ICAO Annexes and the airline's manuals: finds the paragraphs in force on the as-of date and quotes them word for word.
Lays the paragraphs side by side, computes each rule's limit for this case, highlights the words that differ and names the stricter rule.
Re-reads every sentence of an answer against its quote and checks every effective date before the person sees it.
Drafts a ruling from an answer, routes it to the right approver, compares new answers and customer reply templates with the ruling log, and prices the exposure of a different reading.
Reads the Federal Register, DOT, EASA decisions and ICAO amendments every day, replays the approved rulings a change touches as of its effective date and drafts the updates.
Approves rulings; Regulatory Counsel for DOT and border. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Beside every queue the compliance lead can ask the agents a question. Answers quote the rules and the ruling log, and open the item behind them.
Is the CV 118 answer consistent with what we approved before?
Yes, and it adds to it. RL-0297 covers the 787-9 bunk: Class 1, 16 hours under both rules. Tonight's 767 seat is Class 3 for the FAA, so 14 h 00 min governs against 13 h 05 min planned. Nothing in RL-0297 changes; the 767 seat needs its own ruling, D-26-0177, which waits for you.
Why is the FAA stricter than EASA on CV 118 tonight?
Because the same rest seat is classed differently. Seat 3A reclines 48°: the FAA needs flat or near flat for Class 2, so it is Class 3, 14 hours. EASA needs only 45° and 55 inches of pitch, so it is Class 2, 15 hours.
Which drafts are past the clock?
Two drafts are past the 2-business-day clock: D-26-0160 (fuel, yours) and D-26-0158 (tarmac, Nadia's, routine).
What changes for us in November?
Three changes ahead. The nearest that changes a ruling is the ICAO Annex 6 amendment on 26 Nov: 2 of 6 rulings need the new Annex wording; 121.645 still governs.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
How the agents answer is a setting, and changes to answer rules need the VP Regulatory Compliance's approval.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Confidence needed to answer | 0.80 | Below this the agents ask back instead of answering |
| Every sentence quotes a paragraph | Always on | The citation checker blocks any sentence without one |
| Flights to EU airports | Stricter of the two | Stricter of the two (14 CFR 117 and EASA ORO.FTL, limit by limit) · 14 CFR 117 only |
| Proposed rules | Context only | Shown as context, never as the answer |
| Security programs | Locked | Never read; questions go to Corporate Security |
| Routine rulings eligible for bulk approval | Confidence 0.95 or more, rules agree | Set the confidence threshold |
| Before-departure questions | Answered or asked back within 15 min | Notifications and clocks |
| Ruling approvals · different readings · rule changes | 2 business days · 24 hours · 60 days ahead | Notifications and clocks, with a daily digest at 07:00 |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate (the 3 h 10 min baseline from a 40-question timing sample in the sample data; the EU261 exposure as 31 × EUR 600) · “typical” = published figures (DOT maximum civil penalty $75,000 per violation, 2025 adjustment). Rules quoted in the working solution: 14 CFR Part 117 (117.3, 117.13, 117.17 Table C, 117.19), 14 CFR 259.4 and 260.2, 19 CFR 122.49a, EASA Easy Access Rules for Air Operations Revision 24 (CS FTL.1.205, ORO.FTL.205), EU 261/2004 Articles 3 and 7, ICAO Annex 6 Part I 4.10 — shown abbreviated; check the official text before relying on it. Corvane Airways and the people, flights, aircraft, rulings and figures named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Aviation Regulations Search answers airline rule questions across FAA, DOT, TSA, CBP, EASA and ICAO, quoting the paragraph. Anyone asks in plain words; six agents decide which rules bind the flight, quote every paragraph in force on the as-of date, lay FAA, EASA and ICAO side by side, name the stricter rule and say what they cannot see. An answer becomes a ruling only when the compliance lead or Regulatory Counsel approves it.
Yes, when every sentence is tied to its quote. An AI assistant for FAA regulations that paraphrases is no better than an email; here the citation checker re-reads each sentence against the 14 CFR, EASA or ICAO paragraph it cites and blocks any sentence without one. Below 0.80 confidence the agents ask back for the detail they need instead of answering.
In the working solution's sample answer, yes: EU 261/2004 covers passengers departing from an airport in a Member State whatever the carrier (Article 3(1)(a)); the Community-carrier condition applies only to flights into the EU. On a Frankfurt–Chicago flight over 3,500 km, that is EUR 600 per passenger under Article 7(1)(c) unless an extraordinary circumstance applies — a judgment the agents send to Regulatory Counsel.
The same seat can land in different classes. In the sample case a business seat that reclines 48° with 60 inches of pitch is Class 3 under 14 CFR 117.3, because the FAA's Class 2 needs a flat or near flat position, but Class 2 under CS FTL.1.205(c), which needs 45° and 55 inches. With three pilots and a 16:45 start, that gives 14 hours under Table C against 15 hours under EASA, so the FAA governs.
The text does not settle it, and the agents say so instead of guessing. Asked this in the working solution, they quote 14 CFR 259.4(b)(1), explain that it turns on whether passengers were actually offered the chance to deplane, which the text does not define, lay out both readings and send the question to Regulatory Counsel. They never answer without a quote.
Every question can be asked as of a date — the flight, the complaint or the audit — and the paragraphs are quoted as they stood then. The Change watch agent reads the Federal Register, DOT, EASA and ICAO every day, replays the approved rulings a change touches as of its effective date and drafts updates for approval.
Yes. The person asking acts on the answer, Dispatch Standards confirms what the agents cannot see, and only the Director of Flight Operations Compliance or Regulatory Counsel can make an answer a ruling, with a reason code. The agents never approve or change a ruling, never send a customer reply and never read security programs.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your manuals, your sources, your approvers and a sample of past interpretations — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own rule questions first.
Every disability complaint answered within 30 days, with the facts rebuilt and cited.
1-min demoMishandled Wheelchair ReportingEvery damaged chair traced to where it happened, remedied the same day, and counted right.
1-min demoTarmac Delay ComplianceEvery return to the gate started in time, and every DOT report ready the same day.
1-min demoWe'll run Aviation Regulations Search on a sample of your own past rule questions, your manuals and your flights.