US dataswitch to UK
Air Traffic Controllers
informing pilots about nearby planes or potentially hazardous conditions, monitoring aircraft within a specific airspace and directing ground traffic, including taxiing aircraft. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: compiling information about flights from flight plans. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, providing on-the-job training to new air traffic controllers, stays yours. The tools change hands, the accountability doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Control air traffic on and within vicinity of airport, and movement of air traffic between altitude sectors and control centers, according to established procedures and policies. Authorize, regulate, and control commercial airline flights according to government or company regulations to expedite and ensure flight safety. The job title says “air traffic controllers”. The real job is the part underneath: providing on-the-job training to new air traffic controllers. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But air traffic controllers is not one task. It is 23 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is providing on-the-job training to new air traffic controllers, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 20%
- changing shape
- 32%
- staying human
- 48%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 40 out of 100 (35–45 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 23 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for air traffic controllers is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 2 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
6 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Relaying air traffic information, such as courses, altitudes or expected arrival times, to control centers
This is reading one thing and writing another: air traffic information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Relay air traffic information, such as courses, altitudes, or expected arrival times, to control centers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 62 out of 100 (58–66 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Passing routine flight details between centres is data transfer that systems already handle.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Organizing flight plans or traffic management plans to prepare for planes about to enter assigned airspace
This is reading one thing and writing another: flight plans in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Organize flight plans or traffic management plans to prepare for planes about to enter assigned airspace.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 62 out of 100 (58–66 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Preparing the traffic picture for aircraft about to arrive is planning from data already held.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Compiling information about flights from flight plans
This is reading one thing and writing another: information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Compile information about flights from flight plans, pilot reports, radar, or observations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Pulling flight details together from plans, radar and reports is exactly what flight data systems do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Completing daily activity reports and keeping records of messages from aircraft
This is reading one thing and writing another: activity reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Complete daily activity reports and keep records of messages from aircraft.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Daily activity reports and message logs are routine record keeping built from data already captured.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Changing shape
7 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Informing pilots about nearby planes or potentially hazardous conditions
The software now makes the first pass at pilots, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Inform pilots about nearby planes or potentially hazardous conditions, such as weather, speed and direction of wind, or visibility problems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (36–44 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: The weather and traffic picture is already in the system, but federal rules keep a certified controller on the radio.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Alerting airport emergency services in cases of emergency or when aircraft are experiencing difficulties
The software now makes the first pass at airport emergency services, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Alert airport emergency services in cases of emergency or when aircraft are experiencing difficulties.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Raising the alarm follows a set procedure, though a controller is the accountable person who triggers it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Contacting pilots by radio to provide meteorological
The software now makes the first pass at pilots, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Contact pilots by radio to provide meteorological, navigational, or other information.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (36–44 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: The information itself is routine to assemble; a certificated controller passes it to the pilot.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
10 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Monitoring aircraft within a specific airspace
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for aircraft within a specific airspace, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Monitor aircraft within a specific airspace, using radar, computer equipment, or visual references.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (31–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Radar tracking is already computerised, though tower work still involves looking out of the window.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring or directing the movement of aircraft within an assigned air space or on the ground at airports to minimize delays and maximize safety
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for the movement of aircraft within an assigned air, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Monitor or direct the movement of aircraft within an assigned air space or on the ground at airports to minimize delays and maximize safety.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (20–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Tracking and sequencing traffic suits software well, but the law requires a certificated controller to direct it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing flight path changes or directions to emergency landing fields for pilots traveling in bad weather or in emergency situations
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for flight path changes, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Provide flight path changes or directions to emergency landing fields for pilots traveling in bad weather or in emergency situations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Diverting an aircraft in an emergency is judgment under pressure that only a certificated controller may make.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 13 tasks
Reviewing records or reports for clarity and completeness and maintaining records or reports
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Review records or reports for clarity and completeness and maintain records or reports, as required under federal law.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checking records for completeness and keeping them is document work software handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Analyzing factors, weather reports, fuel requirements or maps to determine air routes
shifting to AIThis is reading one thing and writing another: factors, weather reports, fuel requirements or maps in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Analyze factors such as weather reports, fuel requirements, or maps to determine air routes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 62 out of 100 (58–66 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Choosing routes from weather, fuel and maps is calculation against well-documented rules.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Conducting pre-flight briefings on weather conditions
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at pre-flight briefings, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Conduct pre-flight briefings on weather conditions, suggested routes, altitudes, indications of turbulence, or other flight safety information.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (49–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Weather and route briefings can be assembled automatically, though pilots often want to ask questions.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Determining the timing or procedures for flight vector changes
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at the timing or procedures, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Determine the timing or procedures for flight vector changes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 47 out of 100 (43–51 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Working out when and how to turn an aircraft is calculation against documented rules.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Checking conditions and traffic at different altitudes in response to pilots' requests for altitude changes
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at conditions, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Check conditions and traffic at different altitudes in response to pilots' requests for altitude changes.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 47 out of 100 (43–51 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Checking traffic and conditions at other altitudes is a lookup the system already supports.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining radio or telephone contact with adjacent control towers
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at radio, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Maintain radio or telephone contact with adjacent control towers, terminal control units, or other area control centers to coordinate aircraft movement.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Coordinating with neighbouring units follows set procedures, but the accountable person on the line is a controller.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Issuing landing and take-off authorizations or instructions
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for take-off authorizations, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Issue landing and take-off authorizations or instructions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (28–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Sequencing is well understood by software, yet only a certificated controller may legally issue a clearance.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing pilots to runways when space is available or directing them to maintain a traffic pattern until there is space for them
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for pilots, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Direct pilots to runways when space is available or direct them to maintain a traffic pattern until there is space for them to land.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (28–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Deciding who lands next follows documented rules, yet issuing the instruction is legally a controller's act.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Transferring control of departing flights to traffic control centers and accept control of arriving flights
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for control of departing flights, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Transfer control of departing flights to traffic control centers and accept control of arriving flights.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (28–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Handoffs are already largely automated, but transferring control remains a certificated controller's legal act.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Initiating or coordinating searches for missing aircraft
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for searches, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Initiate or coordinate searches for missing aircraft.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Starting a search pulls in several agencies, and the controller carries responsibility for the call.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Inspecting, adjusting or controlling radio equipment or airport lights
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: radio equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Inspect, adjust, or control radio equipment or airport lights.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 19 out of 100 (12–26 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Radios and airfield lighting need someone on site when equipment has to be inspected or adjusted.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing ground traffic, including taxiing aircraft, maintenance or baggage vehicles or airport workers
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for ground traffic, including taxiing aircraft, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Direct ground traffic, including taxiing aircraft, maintenance or baggage vehicles, or airport workers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (12–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Ground movements depend on seeing the airfield, and instructions must come from a certificated controller.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing on-the-job training to new air traffic controllers
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for on-the-job, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide on-the-job training to new air traffic controllers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Trainee controllers learn by working live traffic beside an experienced mentor who takes responsibility.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $148,080a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 22,510in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: air traffic information in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: compiling information about flights from flight plans and relaying air traffic information, such as courses, altitudes or expected arrival times. What it cannot do is be answerable: on-the-job needs a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Compiling information about flights from flight plans is going; providing on-the-job training to new air traffic controllers is not.
So, given all that: 20% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 32% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 48% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 23 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (providing on-the-job training to new air traffic controllers) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles providing on-the-job training to new air traffic controllers, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to air traffic controllers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was airline pilots, copilots, and flight engineers: only about 6% of its durable work is work you already do. Your own job splits about 20/80: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “inform pilots about nearby planes or potentially hazardous conditions”, and let the exposed end go.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Airline Pilots, Copilots, and Flight Engineers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already compile information about flights from flight plans, pilot reports, radar, or observations, and their equivalent is to instruct other pilots and student pilots in aircraft operations and the principles of…. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Commercial Pilots
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already transfer control of departing flights to traffic control centers and accept control of…, and their equivalent is to coordinate flight activities with ground crews and air traffic control, and inform crew…. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $123,220 against your $148,080, 16.8% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Airfield Operations Specialists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already direct ground traffic, including taxiing aircraft, maintenance or baggage vehicles, or airport workers, and their equivalent is to manage wildlife on and around airport grounds. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $56,850 against your $148,080, 61.6% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 20% of its task weight, across 23 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Aircraft pilots and air traffic controllers is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Aircraft pilots and air traffic controllers. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for air traffic controllers, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 20% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for air traffic controllers. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for air traffic controllers launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Air Traffic Controllers?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 23 official task statements scored for Air Traffic Controllers (United States, SOC 53-2021), 20% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 40 out of 100 (range 35–45, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Air Traffic Controllers” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Compile information about flights from flight plans, pilot reports, radar, or observations” (88/100, very high); “Complete daily activity reports and keep records of messages from aircraft” (88/100, very high); “Review records or reports for clarity and completeness and maintain records or reports, as required under federal law” (72/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Air Traffic Controllers” stay human?
- About 48% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Provide on-the-job training to new air traffic controllers” (8/100, minimal); “Direct ground traffic, including taxiing aircraft, maintenance or baggage vehicles, or airport workers” (16/100, minimal); “Provide flight path changes or directions to emergency landing fields for pilots traveling in bad weather or in emergency situations” (18/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Air Traffic Controllers” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 20% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 48% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Air Traffic Controllers calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 23 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 2 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.