Sites That Are Against AI in Aerospace: Key Voices to Know

The primary “sites” and voices resisting the unchecked integration of Artificial Intelligence in aerospace are major pilot unions and safety advocacy groups rather than single-issue anti-AI blogs. Key platforms include the websites of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), and the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA), all of which vehemently oppose Single-Pilot Operations (SiPO) and AI systems that seek to replace human oversight. Additionally, the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and research hubs like the Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity (CLTC) host critical reports and campaigns warning against the safety risks of “black box” algorithms in the cockpit. These sites serve as the digital headquarters for the “human-centric” safety movement, providing the most robust counter-narrative to the tech industry’s push for autonomous aviation.

The Growing Resistance in the Skies

The aerospace industry is currently in the grip of a technological fever dream: the vision of single-pilot airliners, fully autonomous drones, and air traffic control systems managed by algorithms. While manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing push forward with “Project Connect” and other autonomous initiatives, a powerful coalition of resistance has emerged.

This resistance is not composed of anti-technology Luddites, but rather the most experienced professionals in the industry – pilots, safety investigators, and ethical researchers—who argue that the rush to automate is outpacing the safety guarantees required for human flight.

For users looking to understand the risks of AI in aviation, the most informative “sites” are the digital platforms of these advocacy groups. This article details the key organizations, their digital footprints, and the specific arguments they are marshaling against the removal of the human element from the flight deck.

1. The Pilot Unions: The Frontline of Defense

The loudest and most politically active voices against AI-driven automation are the labor unions representing professional pilots. Their websites are not just informational portals; they are campaign hubs against “Reduced Crew Operations” (RCO) and “Single Pilot Operations” (SiPO).

Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l (ALPA)

• The Stance: ALPA, the world’s largest pilot union, has launched a massive public awareness campaign titled “Safety Starts with Two.” Their central argument is that AI and automation, no matter how advanced, cannot replicate the intuition, adaptability, and cross-checking capability of two human pilots working in tandem.
• Key Arguments:
  • Incapacitation Risk: If an AI system fails or the single remaining pilot becomes incapacitated, there is no redundancy.
  • The “Black Swan” Event: AI is trained on historical data. It struggles with unprecedented events (like the Miracle on the Hudson) where human creativity is required to save lives.
  • Cybersecurity: ALPA frequently highlights that removing a pilot and relying on ground-based AI links increases the aircraft’s vulnerability to hacking.

European Cockpit Association (ECA)

• The Stance: The ECA is arguably the most aggressive voice in Europe against the EASA (European Union Aviation Safety Agency) possibly relaxing rules to allow AI to take over the role of the co-pilot during cruise phases.
• Website Content: Their site features detailed position papers on “Human-Centric AI.” They distinguish between assistive AI (which they support) and replacing AI (which they oppose).
• One Strong Voice: The ECA’s “One Means None” campaign is a vital resource for understanding why European pilots are threatening industrial action over AI integration. They argue that AI in the cockpit is being driven by profit (saving pilot salaries) rather than safety innovation.

International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA)

• The Stance: representing over 100,000 pilots globally, IFALPA coordinates the international resistance. Their website hosts technical manuals and working group reports that dissect the failures of current automation.
• The “Black Box” Problem: IFALPA’s technical committees have published papers warning that machine learning algorithms are “black boxes”—even the engineers often don’t know why the AI made a specific decision. In aviation, where every accident must be explainable to prevent recurrence, they argue this opacity is unacceptable.

2. Safety Watchdogs & Ethical Research Groups

Beyond the unions, several independent organizations and academic bodies use their websites to publish rigorous data questioning the readiness of AI for safety-critical aerospace functions.

International Society of Air Safety Investigators (ISASI)

• The Site’s Value: While not an activist group, the ISASI website is a repository of accident investigation wisdom. Recent conference papers and presentations available on their platform have begun to question how accident investigators can possibly audit an AI system after a crash.
• The Argument: If an AI pilot crashes a plane, who is liable? The coder? The dataset? The sensor manufacturer? ISASI members warn that without clear answers to these legal and technical questions, AI integration is premature.

The Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity (CLTC) – UC Berkeley

• The Report: Their seminal report, “The Flight to Safety-Critical AI,” is a must-read. It challenges the narrative that aviation must adopt AI to stay modern.
• The “Race to the Bottom”: The CLTC website discusses the geopolitical pressure (the “AI Arms Race”) that might force aerospace companies to cut corners on safety certification to beat competitors. They serve as a key academic check on industry hype.

International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF)

• Public Sentiment: The ITF website is crucial for seeing the passenger perspective. They have commissioned global surveys revealing that the flying public is overwhelmingly opposed to removing pilots in favor of automation.
• Advocacy: They frame the AI push as a labor rights issue, arguing that aerospace companies are using “technological progress” as a Trojan horse to de-skill the workforce and lower wages, potentially at the cost of passenger safety.

3. The “Internal” Resistance: Regulatory Skepticism

Even within the bodies designed to regulate aviation, there are websites and pages dedicated to the limitations of AI.

EASA’s “Ethics for AI in Aviation”

While EASA is working on certifying AI, their own “Ethics for AI” page reveals deep internal conflict. They regularly survey aviation professionals (pilots, engineers, controllers), and the results published on their site are often damning.

• The Credibility Gap: EASA’s own reports show that a majority of aviation professionals do not trust current AI to handle emergency scenarios. This “internal” resistance is powerful because it comes from the experts who would be expected to use the tools.

Statistical Reality: The Trust Gap

One of the most compelling reasons to visit these sites is to access the data that manufacturers often ignore. The following table summarizes recent findings from reports hosted by the ITF, University of Queensland (UQ), and EASA, highlighting the massive disconnect between tech ambition and public/expert trust.

The AI Trust Deficit in Aviation (2024-2025 Data)

Note on Statistics: The “4,000x higher risk” metric refers to the gap between the near-perfect safety record of modern commercial aviation (one fatal accident per millions of flights) and the current error rates of high-end machine learning models, which, while impressive, cannot yet guarantee the “six nines” (99.9999%) reliability required for flight critical systems.

Deep Dive: Why These Sites Matter

The “Human-in-the-Loop” Philosophy

All the sites mentioned above share a common philosophy: Human-in-the-Loop (HITL).

Aerospace manufacturers often pitch AI as a way to reduce “human error,” citing that 70-80% of crashes are caused by pilot error. However, the sites above counter this by highlighting the “human save” rate.

• The Untold Statistic: For every pilot error that causes a crash, there are thousands of instances where a pilot intervenes to correct a mechanical failure, a sensor glitch, or an ATC error. AI cannot replicate this “save” capability because it cannot improvise.
• Resource: The European Cockpit Association website has a dedicated section specifically tracking incidents where human intervention saved the aircraft from automation failure (e.g., the 737 MAX MCAS disasters, where the automation was the threat).

The Cybersecurity Frontier

A less discussed but critical angle found on CLTC Berkeley and ALPA sites is the threat of remote warfare.

• If an aircraft is flown by AI, it requires a data link.
• If it has a data link, it can be jammed or spoofed.
• A human pilot on board is “air-gapped”—they cannot be hacked.
• The resistance argues that moving toward AI pilots creates a national security vulnerability that did not exist before.

The Economic Argument

The International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) site offers a unique “follow the money” perspective. They argue:

• Cost Cutting: The push for AI is driven by a desire to reduce the global pilot shortage without paying higher wages to attract new pilots.
• Liability Shielding: If an AI crashes a plane, manufacturers may try to hide behind “learning algorithm” unpredictability to avoid liability.
• These sites are essential reading for investors who want to understand the risks of investing in autonomous aviation startups. If the unions refuse to fly the planes and the public refuses to board them, the technology is a stranded asset.

Conclusion

While the tech press often covers the “miracles” of aerospace AI, the sites listed in this article offer a necessary reality check. They represent the “immune system” of the aviation industry—organizations dedicated to ensuring that safety regulations are written in blood, not code.

The consensus among these key voices—ALPA, ECA, ITF, and safety researchers—is clear: AI has a place in aviation as a tool to assist pilots, handle data, and optimize routes. However, they draw a hard line in the sand against AI as a replacement for the human crew. Their websites provide the technical data, survey results, and ethical arguments necessary to understand why the cockpit door is likely to remain guarded by humans for decades to come.