Why Spreadsheets Fail as SMS Tools
- Michael Sidler
- Feb 1
- 5 min read
Why spreadsheets fail as SMS tools is a common question among business aviation operators beginning their Safety Management System journey. Spreadsheets are familiar, inexpensive, and appear flexible. For many organizations, they seem like a practical way to track hazards, risk assessments, audits, and corrective actions. However, as an SMS matures, spreadsheets consistently fail to support the structure, traceability, and oversight required to manage safety risk effectively in real-world operations.
In business aviation, an SMS is not a static record-keeping exercise. It is a living system that connects hazard identification, risk assessment, mitigation, assurance, and promotion across departments and over time. Spreadsheets struggle to support this interconnected model. While they may work temporarily for isolated tasks, they create gaps that undermine compliance, visibility, and decision-making as operational complexity increases.
What Is an SMS Tool Intended to Do?
A Safety Management System in business aviation is designed to systematically identify hazards, assess risk, implement mitigations, and verify effectiveness. Under FAA 14 CFR Part 5 and ICAO Annex 19 principles, the system must demonstrate control of safety risk, continuous monitoring, and management accountability.
An effective SMS tool should support, at a minimum:
Structured hazard reporting
Consistent risk assessment methodology
Traceable mitigation actions
Monitoring and measurement of safety performance
Documented management review and decision-making
Spreadsheets are general-purpose data containers. They are not designed to enforce workflow, preserve relationships between records, or maintain a reliable audit trail. These limitations become critical as an SMS grows beyond basic documentation.
Why Spreadsheets Are Appealing to Operators
Spreadsheets are often adopted because they feel accessible. They require no specialized training, can be quickly customized, and are already in use for other administrative tasks. For smaller Part 91 operators or organizations early in SMS implementation, spreadsheets may appear to meet initial needs.
Common reasons operators rely on spreadsheets include:
Low upfront cost
Familiarity across departments
Perceived flexibility
Ease of sharing via email or shared drives
These advantages are real but short-lived. As hazard volume increases and regulatory expectations expand, the weaknesses of spreadsheets begin to affect safety oversight.
Where Spreadsheets Break Down in Practice
Lack of Data Integrity and Version Control
Spreadsheets are highly vulnerable to version drift. Multiple copies, manual edits, and informal sharing practices make it difficult to determine which version is current. This creates risk when safety decisions rely on outdated or incomplete information.
In an SMS context, this undermines confidence in:
Hazard status
Risk ratings
Mitigation ownership
Closure verification
During audits or management reviews, operators may struggle to demonstrate authoritative records.
Inconsistent Risk Assessment Application
Most spreadsheets rely on manual data entry for severity and probability scoring. Without built-in logic or validation, different users may interpret scales differently. Over time, this results in inconsistent risk assessments that cannot be reliably compared or trended.
This is particularly problematic when evaluating systemic risk patterns or monitoring changes over time, a core expectation of Safety Assurance under Part 5.
Poor Traceability Across SMS Elements
An SMS requires clear linkage between hazards, risk assessments, mitigations, and assurance activities. In spreadsheets, these relationships are often implied rather than enforced.
For example:
A hazard may be listed on one tab
Mitigations tracked on another
Verification notes stored separately
Audit findings maintained in a different file entirely
Without enforced relationships, it becomes difficult to demonstrate that risks are actively managed rather than simply recorded.
Limited Visibility for Management Oversight
Accountable Executives and Directors of Safety require timely, accurate insight into safety performance. Spreadsheets do not provide real-time visibility or structured summaries without significant manual effort.
This limits the ability to:
Identify emerging risk trends
Prioritize resources
Support informed management decisions
Demonstrate active leadership involvement
In business aviation, where operations often span flight, maintenance, and ground activities, fragmented visibility increases organizational risk.
Why This Matters in Business Aviation Operations
Business aviation operations are diverse and dynamic. Aircraft utilization, mission profiles, crew schedules, and maintenance activities can change rapidly. An effective Safety Management System in business aviation must adapt to this variability while maintaining consistency.
Spreadsheets struggle to scale across:
Multiple aircraft
Multiple bases
Contract crews or maintenance providers
Mixed regulatory environments
For Part 135 operators, where SMS is required, regulators expect a demonstrable system that goes beyond record keeping. For Part 145 repair stations, safety risk management must integrate with quality systems and audit processes. Spreadsheets make these integrations difficult to sustain.
Common Misunderstandings About Spreadsheet-Based SMS
A frequent misconception is that regulators prohibit spreadsheets. This is not accurate. Regulations focus on outcomes and system effectiveness, not specific tools. However, inspectors and auditors evaluate whether the SMS actually functions as intended.
Another misunderstanding is that spreadsheets can be fixed with better discipline. While training and procedures help, they cannot compensate for structural limitations such as:
Manual enforcement of workflow
Lack of automated tracking
Absence of built-in accountability
These issues tend to resurface regardless of organizational intent.
Practical Examples From Real-World Operations
Consider a recurring hazard related to unstable approaches. In a spreadsheet-based system, each report may be logged individually with no automatic connection to prior events. Identifying a trend requires manual filtering and interpretation.
If mitigations are implemented, tracking whether they reduce occurrence requires additional manual analysis. If staff turnover occurs, institutional knowledge may be lost with the spreadsheet owner.
By contrast, a structured SMS environment supports aggregation, trending, and verification as part of normal operations, reducing reliance on individual effort.
What “Good” Looks Like When Implemented Correctly
A well-functioning SMS tool supports consistency and accountability without adding administrative burden. Characteristics of effective implementation include:
Standardized hazard reporting fields
Consistent risk scoring aligned to organizational criteria
Clear ownership of mitigations
Automated status tracking
Documented review cycles
Good systems make it easier to do the right thing than the wrong thing. They support Safety Risk Management and Safety Assurance as continuous processes rather than periodic exercises.
How Technology Supports SMS Without Replacing Judgment
Technology does not replace safety leadership or professional judgment. Instead, it provides structure and visibility that support informed decision-making.
Modern SMS software enables:
Centralized data management
Controlled workflows
Trend analysis over time
Secure access across roles
Audit-ready documentation
This aligns with the intent of Part 5 and ICAO Annex 19, which emphasize systematic control of safety risk rather than ad hoc record keeping.
When used correctly, technology allows safety professionals to focus on analysis and improvement instead of administrative maintenance.
Part 91 operators may adopt SMS voluntarily, often starting with simpler tools. However, as operations grow, spreadsheet limitations emerge quickly.
Part 135 operators are required to demonstrate a functioning SMS. Inspectors expect traceability, consistency, and management involvement that spreadsheets struggle to support.
Part 145 repair stations face additional complexity integrating safety risk management with quality and audit programs. Fragmented tools increase the risk of missed findings or incomplete corrective action tracking.
Across all operational types, the underlying challenge remains the same. Spreadsheets do not scale reliably as SMS tools.
A Forward-Looking Perspective
Spreadsheets have a place in aviation operations, but that place is limited. As safety programs evolve into formal Safety Management Systems, the need for structured, reliable tools becomes unavoidable.
Understanding why spreadsheets fail as SMS tools helps organizations make informed decisions about how they manage safety risk. The goal is not technology adoption for its own sake, but the ability to demonstrate control, learn from data, and continuously improve safety performance in business aviation.
