What the Next Generation of Safety Leaders Expect from SMS

The next generation of safety leaders entering business aviation expect a Safety Management System in business aviation to be more than a static compliance framework. They expect it to function as a practical management system that supports daily decision making, encourages meaningful reporting, and provides visibility into operational risk before events occur. For these professionals, SMS is not an abstract regulatory requirement. It is a core part of how safety performance is managed, evaluated, and improved.

What distinguishes these expectations from those of previous generations is not a rejection of regulatory structure, but a demand for usability, transparency, and relevance. New safety leaders often come from operational, technical, or data driven backgrounds. They are comfortable with digital tools, expect access to information in near real time, and place value on systems that support learning rather than simply documenting compliance. Their expectations are shaping how SMS programs are designed, implemented, and evaluated across Part 91, Part 135, Part 145, Part 141, and Part 139 operations.

Who are the next generation of safety leaders

In business aviation, the next generation of safety leaders includes newly appointed Safety Managers, Directors of Safety transitioning from operational roles, and Accountable Executives with exposure to modern risk management practices. Many have backgrounds in flight operations, maintenance, training, or quality assurance. Others arrive from adjacent industries where safety management systems have been mature for decades.

This group generally expects SMS to be understandable without extensive interpretation, defensible during audits, and useful outside of regulatory interactions. They are less tolerant of systems that exist only to satisfy oversight expectations and more focused on whether the SMS actually improves operational awareness and risk control.

What they expect from a Safety Management System in business aviation

At a foundational level, the expectations of the next generation align with the intent of FAA 14 CFR Part 5 and ICAO Annex 19. The difference lies in how those requirements are operationalized. New safety leaders expect the SMS to be structured, but not rigid. They expect clear accountability, but not excessive bureaucracy. Most importantly, they expect the system to reflect how the organization actually operates.

These expectations often surface when organizations transition from traditional safety programs to formal SMS frameworks. Understanding the differences between a Safety Management System and legacy safety programs helps explain why these expectations exist and why they matter in modern operations.

Clear ownership and defined accountability

One of the strongest expectations is clarity around roles and responsibilities. Next generation safety leaders expect the SMS to clearly define who is responsible for hazard identification, risk assessment, risk acceptance, and safety assurance activities. Ambiguity around ownership is viewed as a systemic weakness, not a procedural oversight.

Under Part 5, accountability flows from the Accountable Executive through defined management roles. New safety leaders expect this structure to be documented, communicated, and reflected in how decisions are made. In practice, this means risk acceptance authority is defined, escalation thresholds are understood, and safety decisions are traceable.

A reporting system people actually use

Hazard reporting is often the first place where expectations diverge from reality. Next generation safety leaders expect reporting systems to be accessible, intuitive, and responsive. They are less focused on the volume of reports and more concerned with the quality of information and the organization’s response.

A reporting system that is difficult to access, slow to respond, or disconnected from follow up actions undermines trust. New safety leaders expect that reports lead to visible outcomes, whether that is risk mitigation, policy clarification, or feedback to the reporter. This aligns with the principles discussed in guidance on what makes a good hazard report in aviation.

Risk management that reflects real operations

Safety risk management is central to SMS, but its effectiveness depends on relevance. Next generation safety leaders expect risk assessments to reflect real operational conditions rather than theoretical hazards. They are skeptical of generic risk matrices that do not account for operational context.

In business aviation, this expectation is especially important given the diversity of operations. A Part 91 flight department managing a small fleet has different risk exposures than a Part 135 operator conducting frequent charter operations or a Part 145 repair station managing maintenance risks. Effective SMS programs account for these differences and avoid one size fits all approaches.

Why these expectations matter in business aviation

Business aviation operations are often resource constrained, highly dynamic, and subject to varying levels of regulatory oversight. In this environment, an SMS that exists only as documentation provides limited value. Next generation safety leaders recognize that SMS must function as a management tool, not just a compliance artifact.

For Part 135 operators, SMS requirements are explicit and enforceable. For Part 91 operators, SMS is often voluntary but increasingly expected by customers, insurers, and auditors. For Part 145 repair stations, SMS principles support quality and safety objectives even when formal Part 5 compliance is not mandated. Across all cases, expectations are converging around effectiveness rather than formality.

How next generation expectations show up in real operations

In day to day operations, these expectations influence how safety leaders structure their programs. For example, safety meetings are expected to focus on trends and lessons learned rather than reviewing checklists. Risk assessments are expected to inform operational decisions rather than being completed after the fact.

When evaluating incidents or hazards, new safety leaders expect root cause analysis to go beyond individual error and examine systemic contributors. This reflects a broader understanding of how SMS helps identify systemic risk patterns within an organization.

Common misunderstandings that create friction

A frequent misunderstanding is the belief that meeting regulatory requirements automatically satisfies the expectations of modern safety leaders. While compliance is essential, it does not guarantee effectiveness. An SMS can be compliant with Part 5 and still fail to provide meaningful insight or support decision making.

Another misunderstanding is equating technology with effectiveness. While modern SMS platforms can support these expectations, technology alone does not create a strong safety system. Processes, culture, and leadership commitment remain essential.

What good looks like when SMS meets these expectations

When implemented effectively, an SMS aligned with next generation expectations exhibits several characteristics. Safety information flows freely across the organization. Risk decisions are documented and defensible. Trends are monitored and discussed proactively. Leadership engagement is visible and consistent.

In such systems, safety assurance activities are integrated into normal management processes. Audits, evaluations, and performance monitoring are used to improve the system rather than simply demonstrate compliance. This is consistent with what auditors look for in an SMS program during evaluations.

How technology supports these expectations without replacing judgment

Modern SMS software can support the expectations of next generation safety leaders by improving accessibility, consistency, and visibility. Digital reporting tools reduce barriers to reporting. Integrated risk assessment workflows improve traceability. Dashboards and analytics support trend monitoring and safety performance evaluation.

However, technology is a support mechanism, not a substitute for professional judgment. Effective safety leaders use technology to inform decisions, not automate them. The value lies in how well the system supports human decision making within the SMS framework.

Looking ahead

As business aviation continues to evolve, the expectations of safety leadership will continue to influence how SMS programs are designed and evaluated. The next generation is not seeking to reinvent SMS, but to ensure it fulfills its intended purpose as outlined in Part 5 and ICAO Annex 19.

Organizations that understand and adapt to these expectations are better positioned to build resilient safety systems that support both compliance and operational excellence. Over time, this alignment will shape the standard for what an effective Safety Management System in business aviation looks like.