Differing Perspectives of Viewing Aviation SMS
Liberty University
AVIA 409 - Safety Management Systems
Professor: Andrew Walton
2022
Differing Perspectives of Viewing Aviation SMS
It’s easy to forget just how young aviation safety management systems (SMS) are as their own defined
entity. Aviation SMS has truly changed the aviation landscape, but there will certainly be more change as
organizations reduce resistance to the change and continue to internalize and practice the mandated
SMS regulations.
Many of the central tenets of modern aviation SMS go back much further in history, but as a cohesive
whole, 2016 will mark only the end of the first decade for formally solidified SMS in the United States
and worldwide.
Tracing the origins of such a colossal safety framework is tough because of:
So many different influences;
Differing interpretations; and
Differing timelines in different countries.
Moreover, it’s clear that in the history of aviation SMS that there is no specific beginning time, but
rather is the subject of an evolutionary process, with various combinations and influences from other
management fields, such as ISO 9000's quality management systems. Nonetheless, there are some
major milestones in the 50 years of SMS, from various influences and roots to what we formally call
aviation SMS today.
Quality Management Systems (QMS) Roots
Many of the modern concepts of safety in aviation SMS can be found in safety system concepts from the
60s and 70s, and largely from other management systems (i.e. quality management systems (9000
series) and environmental management systems (14000 series)).
There are many overlaps between the structure of QMS and SMS. Current SMS concepts stress a similar
approach towards reaching similar end goals as ISO-9000: they both use a-
Structured
Documented
Process
In the 1980's several authorities, such as the New Zealand Internal Quality Assurance and European Joint
Aviation Authority (now replaced by EASA), both required that their quality management systems
incorporated oversight of an accident prevention program. The Federal Aviation Administration quickly
followed suit as well.
Before this, the standard safety improvement model was totally reactionary.
1. Wait for an accident
2. Investigate it to see what went wrong
3. Make changes to avoid the same accident in the future
I may be going out on a limb in saying this, but it is my belief that the principle in QMS of *preparing* for
creating a quality system was the initial inspiration for SMS’ concept of hazard identification and risk
management processes.
Even if that isn’t true, it’s impossible to ignore, both from historical evidence with EASA, the FAA, and
other authorities, as well as from the system theory shared by both SMS and QMS, that aviation SMS
was initially sparked as an offshoot of QMS principles. Of course, aviation SMS would quickly go through
some pretty radical changes to distinguish itself from QMS.
When one considers the QMS requirements for an ISO 9001 compliant company, one is left with no
doubt that aviation SMS requirements are derived from the ISO 9000 framework.
Turning Point for Aviation SMS
Fast forward about 10 or 15 years after various aviation authorities started looking into incorporating
safety oversight into their QMS programs. It’s the 1995 aviation safety summit that includes 950
representatives from airlines, unions, regulators, and various other aviation organizational
denominations.
1995 would prove to be a turning point for aviation SMS branching into its own discipline. For one, the
FAA’s Administrator, David Hinson, worked to cooperate on reaching a goal of 0 accidents. Perhaps this
was the first, large-scale, international “proactive” safety meeting, as in, projecting forward with
common goals.
The 2-day meeting resulted in three things:
1. Identification of 540 “issues” by the various delegates
2. FAA creation of a new Office of System Safety
3. An FAA issued an Aviation Safety Action Plan with 173 initiatives
Again, as said, words like “plan” and “initiative” are simply variations of “proactive.” The difference
between this and the past is rather striking: it’s the difference between basing standards on a current
plan and future goals, versus basing standards on past accidents.
Such an approach has turned out to be the logical step before current SMS concerns, which, rather than
focusing on the specific accident, are more concerned with the precursors for an event. Precursors are
the tools of proactive and predictive SMS because they identify risks before the risks have actually
materialized.
Four Pillars of SMS
In a previous article on the history of the 4 Pillars of Aviation Safety, Steve Corrie offered great detail on
the history of the Four Pillars. The Four Pillars of SMS-
Safety Policy
Safety Promotion
Safety Assurance
Safety Risk Management
-would turn out to play a decisive role in carrying SMS from an "FAA department" and “action plan” to a
full-fledged system structure on par with QMS.
Incidentally, the Four Pillars of SMS originated with James P. Steward, the former directo of Transport
Canada. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Int’l, developed its SMS around the Four Pillars in the
year 2000.
It would be from the work of ALPA, Int’l that such authorities as the FAA and International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) would adopt the 4 pillars framework.
Just a few years later, the stage was set for modern versions of aviation SMS to start rolling out. That
year ICAO began requiring member states' operators to develop and implement SMS for greater safety.
That same year, the FAA focused its SMS efforts toward its certificate holders:
Aircraft operators
Aircraft maintenance organizations
Air navigation service providers
Airport operators
Around the same time, authorities from other countries, such as Transport Canada; also committed to
implementing aviation SMS. Today, we easily see that Australians and Canadians have left to become
world leaders in aviation SMS implementations among their operators. I believe this is due to the
decisive leadership and dedication of their civil aviation authorities.
In 2015, the final SMS rule passed legislation for FAA air carriers to have an SMS program in place by
2018. It is the final “nail in the coffin” so to speak for U.S. operators. It has been a long time to come,
due primarily to the democratic nature of the United States legislative process.
The most important issues left regarding the “place” of aviation SMS going forward will be, in my
opinion, the relationship between QMS and SMS. Judging from the number of comments, and interest in
the relationship between these two areas, it’s quickly stepping onto the hot plate of consideration.
Things like:
Should SMS come full circle to its roots, and be fully integrated with QMS?
Should SMS be absorbed under the greater umbrella of QMS
Should both systems be managed separately, alongside each other?
The push seems at this point towards full integration. And why not? An operator who doesn't have a
QMS may as well use the SMS to improve operational processes while complying with regulatory
requirements. To me, it makes perfect sense. Operators may as well benefit from QMS processes while
they expend time and energy on their SMS implementations. This approach of dual implementation has
efficiency and benefits the operator.
