01Free
$0forever
Build the habit. No credit card.
- Route readiness checks
- 5 full AI briefings per month
- 1 aircraft profile
- 7-day assessment history
Preflight decision intelligence
The data was neverthe hard part.The decision was.
The claim
A go/no-go is a judgment. It should still be a documented one.
FlightReady resolves your route, aircraft, currency, conditions at analyze time and the corridor’s historical accident record into one explainable readiness assessment. 11 weighted factors. Every source stamped. Every claim cited.
You review the reasoning. You make the call.
KBED → KPWM · 88 nmflight context
departureKBED
destinationKPWM
off time14:20Z
cruise4,500 ft
aircraftC172S · 210 h in type
pilotPrivate · ASEL · 41 h last 12 mo
personal minimums4 limits stored · checked at analyze time
Corridor resolved. Awaiting retrieval
What you are looking at
A demonstration of the assessment surface, rebuilt in the browser from the real factor taxonomy and the real score bands. Figures are illustrative — a live assessment reads your profile and retrieves current conditions when you run it.
Scroll to explore
What one assessment readsretrieved · stamped · cited
Aviation Weather Center · METARTAFSIGMETG-AIRMETPIREPFAA airport referenceNOTAMs where availableNTSB investigation records · historicalTerrain elevation profilePilot certificate & currencyAircraft type & time in typeYour personal minimums
Source availability varies by assessment. Reference to government or open data sources does not imply endorsement of FlightReady by those organizations.
[ 01 ]
The problem
General aviation does not have an information problem.
It has a synthesis problem.
Six failure modes show up again and again in preflight decision-making. None of them are solved by adding another data source.
01
The data was never the bottleneck
Your EFB presents weather, NOTAMs and charts well. What none of it structures is how the pieces combine into a decision.
02
Synthesis happens silently
A marginal ceiling, a gusting crosswind, two weeks since your last flight. Each is survivable alone. The interaction gets weighed in your head, under time pressure.
03
Minimums drift from conditions
Personal minimums get written down once and are rarely compared, line by line, against today's actual numbers.
04
Paper FRATs stop at the form
A static risk form asks the right questions, then makes you score every line by hand with generic weights. The form never sees the data.
05
The corridor's history goes unread
NTSB investigations relevant to this exact route exist, in a database almost nobody queries before a flight.
06
The rationale evaporates
The final call rests on reasoning that is hard to state, hard to teach, and gone by the time anyone wants to review it.
Today · synthesis happens in your head
- Weather app
- EFB charts
- NOTAM list
- Currency in your logbook
- Paper FRAT
- What you remember about the route
With FlightReady · synthesis is on the table
One assessment
The same inputs, scored under published weights, with every source stamped and every claim cited — reviewable by the person who has to fly it.
Advisory · the pilot in command decides[ 02 ]
The system
One assessment, produced in six stages.
Each stage is inspectable. Nothing is inferred from a source that did not answer, and nothing is written that a retrieved record does not support.
Assessment lifecycle01 of 06
[ 01 ]A route is not a flight. Context is.
Frame the flight
Departure, destination, planned time and cruise altitude resolve into a corridor. Your pilot profile, aircraft and personal minimums attach to it. Everything downstream is evaluated against that frame instead of a generic one.
- Corridor geometry resolved from both identifiers
- Departure window, not 'now'
- Cruise altitude held against the terrain profile
- Certificate, currency, time in type, your own limits
KBED → KPWM · 88 nmflight context
departureKBED
destinationKPWM
off time14:20Z
cruise4,500 ft
aircraftC172S · 210 h in type
pilotPrivate · ASEL · 41 h last 12 mo
personal minimums4 limits stored · checked at analyze time
Corridor resolved. Awaiting retrieval
[ 02 ]Every number arrives with a source and an age.
Retrieve and stamp
Weather products are pulled from the Aviation Weather Center at analyze time. Terrain elevations are sampled along the corridor. NOTAM sources are consulted where configured. Anything that fails to answer is marked unavailable — never quietly assumed clear.
- METAR · TAF · SIGMET · G-AIRMET · PIREP
- Issue time and age recorded per record
- Terrain sampled along the corridor
- Unavailable sources labeled, not filled in
KBED → KPWM · 88 nmsource retrieval
METAR · KBED KPWM14 min old
TAF · KPWM41 min old
G-AIRMET · IFR26 min old
Terrain profilestatic model
NOTAMscoverage limited
NTSB corridor recordshistorical
Hatched = source unavailable or partial. Never rendered as all-clear.
[ 03 ]11 factors, published weights, one number.
Score the factors
The composite engine scores each factor 0–100 by fixed rules, then combines them under published base weights. When a factor has no data its weight redistributes across the rest and the confidence figure drops where you can see it.
- Deterministic — same inputs, same score
- Weights renormalize across available factors
- Confidence falls visibly when inputs are missing
- Personal-minimums violations flagged line by line
KBED → KPWM · 88 nmfactor analysis
composite v4 · advisoryWeather and personal minimums carry this result. Confidence 82% — NOTAM coverage was limited, so its weight redistributed.
Weather54
Personal minimums41
Pilot readiness22
Aircraft readiness14
Terrain31
Airports18
personal minimums check
Ceiling ≥ 3,000 ft2,300 ft BKN · exceeded
Visibility ≥ 5 sm6 sm · within
Crosswind ≤ 12 kt14 kt G22 · exceeded
Runway ≥ 3,000 ft7,011 ft · within
[ 04 ]The corridor has a record. Read it.
Ground it in history
NTSB investigation records near the route are retrieved by proximity and weighted by distance and recency. These are historical investigations — decades of completed work — surfaced so you can study the pattern, not predict your flight.
- Corridor proximity search over the investigation corpus
- Weighted by distance and recency
- Report numbers cited, linked to NTSB CAROL
- Historical context — explicitly not a forecast
KBED → KPWM · 88 nmcorridor history
ERA19LA142VFR into deteriorating ceilings — 2019 · 11 nm from corridor
ERA16FA221Loss of control, gusty crosswind — 2016 · 6 nm from corridor
ERA14LA318Continued flight into IMC — 2014 · 18 nm from corridor
Historical investigations near the corridor. Not a prediction.
[ 05 ]The AI writes the reasoning. It never writes the score.
Explain, with citations
A language model drafts the briefing that explains what the deterministic engine found, citing the retrieved records behind each claim. It cannot change the number, add a factor, or produce a claim with no source underneath it.
- Narrative over a fixed score
- Citations to retrieved records
- Refuses to generate without a real source
- Plain language a student can argue with
KBED → KPWM · 88 nmbriefing
Weather is the leading driver of this assessment. The retrieved KPWM terminal forecast holds a broken layer near 2,300 ft through your arrival window, below the 3,000 ft ceiling minimum stored in your profile.
Surface wind at the destination is 240 at 14 gusting 22, which exceeds your 12 kt crosswind limit on the shorter runway. The longer runway is closer to alignment.
Three historical NTSB investigations sit within 20 nm of this corridor, two involving continued VFR flight into lowering conditions. Historical context only — it does not predict this flight. [ERA19LA142] [ERA16FA221] [ERA14LA318]
METARTAF KPWMG-AIRMETERA19LA142ERA16FA221ERA14LA318
[ 06 ]You make the call. The rationale stays.
Decide, and keep the record
You read the factors, question them, and decide. Your decision and its reasoning are saved with a full snapshot of the assessment — a record you can revisit, export, or hand to an instructor.
- Pilot in command decides — always
- Full assessment snapshot saved
- PDF export for training records (Pro)
- A rationale that outlives the flight
KBED → KPWM · 88 nmdecision record
advisory score38 · Elevated
pilot decisionDepart with mitigation
rationale recordedDelayed 90 minutes for the ceiling trend, briefed the longer runway for the crosswind, and set a hard divert to KSFM if the layer had not lifted by mid-route.
snapshot saved · exportable as PDFpilot in command decided
KBED → KPWM · 88 nmflight context
departureKBED
destinationKPWM
off time14:20Z
cruise4,500 ft
aircraftC172S · 210 h in type
pilotPrivate · ASEL · 41 h last 12 mo
personal minimums4 limits stored · checked at analyze time
Corridor resolved. Awaiting retrieval
Advisory only. FlightReady supports a decision, it never makes one. Verify critical information through official aviation sources. The pilot in command decides.
[ 03 ]
Properties, not promises
Four things that are true of every assessment.
These are properties of the system rather than marketing figures. We publish no customer counts, no accuracy claims and no testimonials we cannot show you.
0
Weighted factors per assessment
Published base weights, renormalized across the factors that have data
0–0
Deterministic advisory score
Rule-based composite. The language model never sets the number
0
Weather products read on demand
METAR · TAF · SIGMET · G-AIRMET · PIREP at analyze time
0
Uncited claims in a briefing
With no retrieved source records, the briefing declines rather than invents
Assessment confidence82%
Hatched remainder = what the assessment could not evaluate
Why confidence is shown, not hidden
When a source cannot be reached, its factor weight redistributes across the remaining factors and the assessment’s confidence figure drops where you can see it. A missing NOTAM feed is never rendered as all-clear, and a degraded terrain query never quietly becomes flat ground.
Every source, its behaviour and its limits[ 04 ]
Accident intelligence
The corridor you are about to fly has a written record.
Investigation records near the route are retrieved by proximity and weighted by distance and recency, then cited by report number. Select a marker to read one.
Demonstration · historical NTSB records near a sample corridor
ERA19LA1422019
VFR flight continued into deteriorating ceilings during a late-afternoon cross-country.
11 nm from corridorWeighted by distance and recencyHistorical — not a forecast
Two of these involve continued VFR flight into lowering conditions — the pattern that appears most often in the corridor histories pilots never read. Studying it before departure is the point. Predicting your flight from it is not possible, and FlightReady does not claim to.
[ 05 ]
Method note
A score you cannot interrogate is worthless.
So the weights are published, the bands are defined, and the limits are written down on the same page as the capability.
Base factor weights · composite v4renormalized across available factors
- WeatherAWC · on demand0.25
- Pilot readinessYour profile0.15
- Personal minimumsYour limits0.15
- Aircraft readinessYour aircraft0.12
- TerrainElevation model0.10
- AirportsFAA reference0.08
- Accident historyNTSB · historical0.08
- NOTAMsFAA · varies0.05
- Human factorsYour input0.05
- Weight & balanceWhen provided0.05
- TrafficCorridor context0.02
Relative weights · normalized at run time across available factors · missing data drops confidence
Score bands
Read the full method note0–24
Low
Lower advisory risk across the factors with data available. Still verify official sources.
25–49
Elevated
Elevated advisory risk. Read the drivers and the suggested mitigations before you depart.
50–74
High
High advisory risk. Instructor or safety-manager review is recommended before this flight.
75–100
Review required
Multiple or severe advisory factors detected. Qualified review is recommended.
[ 06 ]
Who it's for
Four ways the same structure earns its keep.
The friction
A weekend cross-country means juggling weather, currency and route hazards across five tabs, forty minutes before you want to be wheels-up.
What changes
One structured review brings conditions, terrain, corridor history and your own minimums into a single explainable assessment you can read in a couple of minutes.
For private pilots[ 07 ]
Where it fits
It sits beside your EFB, not on top of your briefing.
FlightReady is not an EFB, not a charting app, and not a dispatch system. Here is the honest division of labour.
| Part of the workflow | Today | With FlightReady |
|---|---|---|
| Official weather briefing | Flight Service, 1800wxbrief or an approved source — required, and separate | Untouched. FlightReady supplements your preparation and never replaces the briefing |
| Preflight data | Well presented across several apps — the synthesis still happens in your head | The same factors resolved into one reviewable assessment |
| Structured risk review | A paper or static FRAT: right questions, hand-scored, generic weights | The FRAT idea computed — factors scored from retrieved data and your own profile |
| Accident context | Historical NTSB records nobody opens preflight | Corridor-relevant records surfaced with report numbers and links |
| Explaining the result | Manual synthesis with no written rationale | A cited briefing over a deterministic score — the model explains, never decides |
| Training consistency | Instructor feedback after the fact, with no shared framework | One factor structure students and instructors review together |
Still required, every flight
An official preflight briefing.
Flight Service, 1800wxbrief, or self-briefing with approved sources — per the FAA’s AIM and AC 91-92. FlightReady adds structure to your own preparation and claims no part of that obligation.
Never delegated
The go/no-go decision.
A low score is not permission and a high score is not prohibition. Both are inputs to a judgment that belongs to the pilot in command, who is the only party in the loop with something at stake.
[ 08 ]
Flight schools · early access
A program can only teach a decision it can see.
When every student works the same weighted factors before every flight, a debrief starts from evidence instead of memory — and 'marginal weather' stops meaning four different things in four briefing rooms.
01
Students assess before every flight
Route, conditions, aircraft, currency and personal minimums through the same structure — solo or dual.
02
Instructors review the reasoning
The instructor sees the same factor breakdown the student saw, where it flagged review, and what the student decided.
03
The program keeps a record
Saved assessments and PDF export build documented rationale for stage checks, safety meetings and training records.
04
Everyone shares one language
One factor framework across the school, so risk conversations start from the same vocabulary.
Program pricing
$15
per seat / month
2–100 seats, each with full Pro access. Flight-school workflows are in early access — we would rather tell you that than imply a finished product.
[ 09 ]
Pricing
Free to build the habit. Paid when it becomes routine.
02Pro
$20per month
or $192 per year — 20% less
For pilots who fly and review regularly.
- Unlimited AI briefings
- Personal minimums enforcement
- Full accident-corridor intelligence
- Multiple aircraft, full history, PDF export
03Flight school
$15per seat / month
2–100 seats · each seat gets full Pro access
Early access for Part 61 and Part 141 programs.
- Structured student assessments
- Instructor review workflow
- Program-level visibility
- Documented rationale for training records
[ 10 ]
Research
We write down what the records show.
Accident-pattern analysis, decision research and method notes — the reading behind the product.
VMC-into-IMC: Pattern Analysis of Fatal AccidentsNTSB records reveal consistent patterns in VMC-into-IMC fatal accidents — departure time, pilot experience, and route terrain often predict outcomes more than weather severity alone.Accident Analysis · 12 min readNOTAM Comprehension Failure: A Systematic ReviewAnalysis of incident reports where NOTAMs were issued but pilots reported unawareness. The problem is often cognitive load and information presentation, not data availability.Research · 9 min readContinued VFR into IMC: Decision Point AnalysisIdentifying the specific decision points where intervention is most effective in continued VFR-into-IMC scenarios.Accident Analysis · 8 min readHow FlightReady Calibrates Risk ScoresThe statistical methodology behind FlightReady's risk score — NTSB training data, factor weighting, and validation against held-out accident records.Methodology · 14 min read
01
Assess
before every flight
02
Decide
pilot in command
03
Record
rationale saved
04
Review
with an instructor or alone
05
Adjust
minimums, habits, planning
↻ the loop is the product — one assessment is a data point, a hundred is judgment
[ 11 ]
Questions
The ones that actually get asked.
Next stepFly the decision
Fly the decision
you can explain.
Create a free account and run a readiness brief on a route you already know. Compare what the factors say against what you would have decided. That comparison is the whole product.
Free tier · no credit card · advisory decision support