Appendix G G-2 Table G-1. Small Aviation Organization Implementation Strategies and Considerations Section Implementation Strategies Considerations for Small and Single Individual Organizations Subpart B – Safety Policy.
§ 5.21, Safety policy. The safety policy and code of ethics statement requirements are not expected to vary between aviation organizations; however, the processes and procedures described in part 5, § 5.95 SMS documentation and how they are documented could vary due to the complexity of the processes being described. The safety policy and code of ethics statement could be a part of the organization’s safety manual or included in other existing documentation or manuals. For aviation organizations not required to maintain manuals, it could be integrated into a compliance statement discussing how the organization meets the requirements. Under part 5, the safety policy and SMS processes and procedures only need to be documented.
A single-individual organization is not required to have a process to communicate safety information throughout the aviation organization.
Note: The following section does not apply to those organizations with a single pilot who is the sole individual performing all necessary functions in the conduct and execution related to, or in direct support of, the safe operation of the aircraft: §§ 5.21(a)(4), (a)(5), and (c).
§ 5.23, Safety accountability and authority.
Aviation organizations are required to define the duties and responsibilities of the accountable executive. The accountable executive has the ultimate responsibility for safety management within the organization.
In single-individual organizations, the personnel structure will be very simple and consist of the person in charge being the accountable executive, who is responsible for ensuring all required duties and activities are accomplished. In a small organization, other management personnel should be identified since they would have a role in how the organization is managed on a day-to-day basis.
In single-individual organizations, this structure will be very simple and consist of the sole individual being the accountable executive and assuming the various roles and responsibilities, which would normally be assigned to other members of management. The single individual would also be responsible for accepting all risks associated with the aviation organization’s products or services.
As their organizational duties change, which could happen many times during the day, the single individual could be said to be changing hats as their role changes as they manage the activities required in § 5.23.
Note: The following section does not apply to those organizations with a single pilot who is the sole individual performing all necessary functions in the conduct and execution related to, or in direct support of, the safe operation of the aircraft: §§ 5.23(a)(2), (a)(3), and (b).
§ 5.25(a) and (b), Designation and responsibilities of required safety The accountable executive is responsible for ensuring that sufficient management personnel are clearly designated for ensuring the safety of operational and SMS processes.
In a single-individual operation, these duties would be filled by the accountable executive.
Note: The following section does not apply to those organizations with a single pilot who is the sole individual performing all necessary
Appendix G G-3 Section Implementation Strategies Considerations for Small and Single Individual Organizations management personnel.
Accountable executive.
In smaller organizations, the accountable executive may directly supervise operational processes. This individual may serve in multiple positions within the organization.
Small organizations may not have the resources for a designated representative to monitor the effectiveness of the SMS as a full-time position. A small organization may add the safety manager duties to an existing role (e.g., operations manager).
functions in the conduct and execution related to, or in direct support of, the safe operation of the aircraft: § 5.25(b)(3).
§ 5.25(c), Designation of management personnel.
These responsibilities may be carried by the accountable executive as defined in § 5.23(a)(1) or as collateral duties by managers referred to in § 5.23(a)(2), or the aviation organization could assign the tasks of supporting SMS functions to other management personnel.
In a single-pilot organization, the accountable executive would perform these designated duties as part of their duties under § 5.25.
Effective communication of safety information is still important, even in a single-pilot or single-individual organization. Communication would be focused outside of the organization (i.e., regular communication with aviation system stakeholders, industry associations, clients, the FAA, and other organizations).
Note: The following section does not apply to those organizations with a single pilot who is the sole individual performing all necessary functions in the conduct and execution related to, or in direct support of, the safe operation of the aircraft: § 5.25(c).
§ 5.27, Coordination of emergency response planning.
A small, noncomplex organization’s emergency response plan (ERP) might consist of a checklist of simple steps involving who to call when and what information to impart and a regularly updated list of contact details. When considering the ERP, succession planning should be considered. If a member of management is removed from their position to address an emergency, there should be another individual trained and competent to step into the position to ensure the organization continues to function as designed. This could even take place when the individual is away for other reasons. Common sense must prevail; processes need to be workable and tailored for the operation. In other words, do not over think it!
Effective communication of safety information is important, even in a single-pilot organization. In an organization with a single pilot or single individual, the communication focus may be outside the organization (e.g., regular communication with aviation system stakeholders, industry associations, clients, the FAA, and other organizations). Interfacing with maintenance, fixed-based operators, and flight followers (if one is used) all require communication so they are aware of the aviation organization’s activities. This will aid in scheduling support activities as well as having someone keep an eye out in case plans do not go as predicted.
In a single-pilot or single-individual organization, this could be met by simply filing flight plans with air traffic control (ATC) or leaving an
Appendix G G-4 Section Implementation Strategies Considerations for Small and Single Individual Organizations envelope with emergency contact information at the local Fixed-Base Operator (FBO) if the aircraft does not return on time.
Note: The following section does not apply to those organizations with a single pilot who is the sole individual performing all necessary functions in the conduct and execution related to, or in direct support of, the safe operation of the aircraft: § 5.27(a) and (b).
Subpart C – Safety Risk Management.
§ 5.51, Applicability. Aviation organizations must document (where required) when the Safety Risk Management (SRM) processes are to be implemented based on the requirements in § 5.51.
In small or single-pilot, sole-individual organizations, all of the risk management tasks could be accomplished by the accountable executive.
§ 5.53(a) and (b), System analysis and hazard identification.
The system analysis could be performed by the owner/manager and/or another assigned employee(s). An analysis could consist of a discussion among managers, such as the Director of Operations (DO) and/or Chief Pilot or other individuals designated by them.
SRM elements and their intended outcomes are the same regardless of the size and complexity of an organization. The breadth and degree of analysis is where the aviation organization will tailor the processes to their size, complexity, and operating environment.
Aviation organizations should consider how their service providers and contractors interact with the organization. Identify the areas where risk could be introduced into the operations.
Outputs of the system analysis, which define the function and purpose of the system, the system’s operating environment, an outline of the system’s processes and procedures, and the personnel, equipment, and facilities necessary for the operation of the system, should be retained. Appendix B, Sample Safety Risk Management (SRM) Worksheets, provides an example of a set of SRM worksheets that could be used as paper records or converted to a variety of software applications, including In small or single-pilot, sole-individual organizations, all of the risk management tasks could be accomplished by the accountable executive.
In single-individual organizations, the accountable executive already has a good idea of the core risks and any control measures that can easily be applied. The accountable executive does not have to be a risk specialist because they will most likely know the risks in the organization already.
Consider whether the SRM processes and procedures developed are simple and work for the organization to actively look for safety issues.
In a small organization, the question “how does the organization identify safety issues from occurrence or incident reports?” should be asked.
These organizations could record the outputs of their system analysis in a simple recording medium, such as a worksheet or a notebook, a common desktop software, or a third-party software program or provider (e.g., WBAT).
Appendix G G-5 Section Implementation Strategies Considerations for Small and Single Individual Organizations desktop spreadsheets or the Web-Based Application Tool (WBAT) (see Appendix H, References and Additional Information).
§ 5.53(c), System analysis and hazard identification.
While there is no appreciable difference between the expected outcomes in a single-individual organization versus a larger organization, how you store, communicate, and track aspects associated with risk management may vary based on the size and complexity of the organization. For example, it may be accomplished by using worksheets completed manually, computer spreadsheets, or commercial software.
The output of hazard identification could be recorded in a simple recording medium, such as a spreadsheet, paper files, or a third-party software program or provider (e.g., WBAT).
Hazard identification could be performed by the owner/manager (accountable executive) and/or another employee(s), often as part of the system analysis.
In small or single-pilot, sole-individual organizations, all of the risk management tasks could be accomplished by the accountable executive.
In single-individual organizations, the accountable executive already has a good idea of the core risks and any control measures that can easily be applied. The accountable executive does not have to be a risk specialist because they will most likely know the risks in the organization already.
Consider whether the SRM processes and procedures developed are simple and work for the organization to actively look for safety issues.
In a small organization, the question “how does the organization identify safety issues from occurrence or incident reports?” should be asked.
§ 5.55(a), Safety risk assessment and control.
In smaller or lower complexity aviation organizations, risk analysis could be performed by the owner/manager (accountable executive) and/or another employee(s).
It might be performed in conjunction (by the same individual/group) with system analysis, hazard identification, risk assessment, and risk control.
In small or single-pilot, sole-individual organizations, all of the risk management tasks could be accomplished by the accountable executive.
In single-individual organizations, the accountable executive already has a good idea of the core risks and any control measures that can easily be applied. The accountable executive does not have to be a risk specialist because they will most likely know the risks in the organization already.
Consider whether the SRM processes and procedures developed are simple and work for the organization to actively look for safety issues.
In a small organization, the question “how does the organization identify safety issues from occurrence or incident reports?” should be asked.
Appendix G G-6 Section Implementation Strategies Considerations for Small and Single Individual Organizations § 5.55(b), Safety risk assessment and control.
In a small or lower complexity aviation organization, risk assessments could be performed by the owner/manager (accountable executive) and/or other employee(s) making the risk decisions. Risk acceptance would also probably be conducted by this individual/group. While similar to a Flight Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT), the risk assessment required by § 5.55 is to determine if the residual and associated risks to the process are acceptable. Quite often, a risk matrix is utilized to determine if any residual risk or substitute risk are acceptable to the aviation organization. A FRAT would be used to determine if conditions are acceptable for a specific flight to commence. It is important not to confuse the purpose of these two distinctly different tools and their application.
The outputs of this process could be recorded on paper or via an electronic medium, such as a third-party software program or provider (e.g., WBAT).
In small or single-pilot, sole-individual organizations, all of the risk management tasks could be accomplished by the accountable executive.
In single-individual organizations, the accountable executive already has a good idea of the core risks and any control measures that can easily be applied. The accountable executive does not have to be a risk specialist because they will most likely know the risks in the organization already.
Consider whether the SRM processes and procedures developed are simple and work for the organization to actively look for safety issues.
In a small organization, the question “how does the organization identify safety issues from occurrence or incident reports?” should be asked.
§ 5.55(c) and (d), Safety risk assessment and control.
In aviation organizations with a lower complexity or size, the risk control process could be a documented activity performed by the owner/manager (accountable executive) and/or other employee(s) designing and evaluating the risk controls. It might be performed in conjunction (by the same individual/group) with system analysis, hazard identification, risk analysis, and risk assessment.
While there is no appreciable difference between the expected outcomes in a single-individual organization versus a larger organization, how you store, communicate, and track aspects associated with risk management will vary based on the size and complexity of the organization.
Small organizations should consider how their service providers and contractors interact with the organization. In a small organization, the question “where are areas that risk could be introduced into the operations?” should be asked.
In very small organizations, individuals across the organization should be aware of the organization’s biggest risks and what actions are in place to mitigate them.
SRM for single-individual organizations does not need to be overly complex. In a single-person organization, the question “are you looking for and documenting hazards?” should be asked.
Appendix G G-7 Section Implementation Strategies Considerations for Small and Single Individual Organizations For any of these organizations, tracking or storing SRM outputs could be accomplished by using worksheets that are completed manually, computer spreadsheets, or commercial software, such as WBAT.
§ 5.57, Notification of hazards to interfacing persons.
Aviation organizations must provide hazard notifications to interfacing organizations that, to the best of their knowledge, could address a hazard or mitigate the hazard’s risk (§ 5.57).
This requirement is limited to hazard notifications to those interfacing organizations that contribute to the safety of the products or services you provide.
Note: Per § 5.3, a ha zard is defined as “a condition or an object that could foreseeably cause or contribute to an incident or aircraft accident.” Reporting under § 5.57 should only occur for issues you have identified as hazards, and the report should only be provided to the interfacing organization you believe can best address the hazard or mitigate its risk. Section 5.57 does not require the reporting of concerns that are not hazards
(e.g., commercial issues between companies) as the intent of § 5.57 is to facilitate timely sharing of safety information.
A small organization could communicate identified hazards to another organization via email, telephone call, or other means as appropriate.
Subpart D – Safety Assurance.
§ 5.71(a)(1), Safety performance monitoring and measurement.
Monitoring o perational processes.
Some aviation organizations might utilize the line managers and departmental or key management personnel to observe and review day-to-day activity, noting work task inconsistencies and potential safety issues.
Flight operations quality assurance (FOQA) and Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA) programs may also be sources of information to monitor operations.
In small or lower complexity organizations, most of the data/information-gathering for monitoring of operational processes will likely occur as a normal business process by the management personnel (e.g., accountable executive) who are directly involved in the day-to-day operations. For example, regularly reviewing
(e.g., weekly, monthly, or quarterly) the flight dispatch logs and crewmember duty records is a form of monitoring and could be conducted during the normal course of duties.
§ 5.71(a)(2), Safety performance monitoring and measurement.
Processes used will vary based on the size and complexity of the organization and the aviation service the organization provides or supports. Monitoring of the operational environment involves practices that are similar to those of monitoring operational processes. For example, seasonal weather conditions may Small or single-individual organizations might keep a log tracking operational issues or deviations from existing processes and procedures. This information could be used to detect changes in the operating environment. Information sharing with other organizations could also provide input to changing operational environments.
Appendix G G-8 Section Implementation Strategies Considerations for Small and Single Individual Organizations Monitoring operational environment.
require aviation organizations to change their scheduling, routes, and aircraft utilization.
§ 5.71(a)(3), Safety performance monitoring and measurement.
Auditing operational processes and systems.
Organizations should develop procedures for auditing that describe the audit process, criteria, scope, frequency, method for selecting auditors, and methods of documentation and recordkeeping. Audit planning should take into account the safety criticality of the processes to be audited and the results of previous audits.
The results of audits can be recorded in paper format (e.g., a common logbook-style binder) or in electronic media (e.g., a desktop spreadsheet program or a program such as WBAT).
In smaller or lower complexity aviation organizations, the auditing process could be carried out periodically by the accountable executive/owner, key management person, or a trained employee as a collateral duty. Audits may also be carried out as a subfunction of normal business processes. For example, comparisons of deferred maintenance logs and repair part receipts are a form of safety auditing that are probably already accomplished routinely.
A single-individual organization should review their records on a defined interval to look for trends in operational performance that could identify ineffective processes and procedures.
§ 5.71(a)(4), Safety performance monitoring and measurement.
Evaluations of the SMS and operational processes and systems.
In a small organization, the evaluation process could be carried out periodically by the accountable executive/owner. In larger organizations, evaluations could be performed by a key management person or designated employees as a collateral duty. The process could be accomplished by the Director of Safety (DOS) or the safety department on a monthly, quarterly, or other periodic basis, as determined by the information needs of the accountable executive or other senior management decisionmakers.
A single-individual organization should review their records on a defined interval to look for trends in operational performance that could identify ineffective processes and procedures.
Appendix G G-9 Section Implementation Strategies Considerations for Small and Single Individual Organizations § 5.71(a)(5), Safety performance monitoring and measurement.
Investigations of i ncidents and accidents.
Aviation organizations need to define the types of incidents and accidents that require investigations. Part 5 only requires incidents and accidents that directly affect the aviation product or service be investigated.
Processes used will vary based on the size and complexity of the organization and aviation service the organization provides or supports. Investigations should focus on what went wrong rather than who caused the error and emphasize improvement of safety performance.
In smaller or less complex aviation organizations, investigations can be conducted by the accountable executive or assigned employees.
Investigations can be conducted by a safety department with additional assigned line personnel providing technical expertise.
Investigation is a necessary activity within any SMS, regardless of the organization’s size. If, as a single-individual organization, you do not have a process to conduct investigations, consider using industry resources outside of your organization or contracting services from a third-party provider. As a one-person organization, you know exactly how it operates. With a sound documented process to conduct an investigation, you should be able to come up with relevant conclusions as long as you remain objective.
§ 5.71(a)(6), Safety performance monitoring and measurement.
Investigations of reports of potential non-compliances.
An SMS does not relieve aviation organizations from other regulatory requirements. This also includes documented processes and procedures that may be contained in maintenance manuals or Aircraft Flight Manuals (AFM) or those that are organization specific.
Methods of conducting investigations of potential noncompliance could be accomplished in a manner similar to that for investigations of accidents and incidents.
§ 5.71(a)(7), Safety performance monitoring and measurement.
Confidential e mployee reporting system.
An employee reporting system need not be highly sophisticated to be effective. The employees might report a hazard either orally or in a note or email to their supervisor. Several industry groups provide an employee reporting program for small aviation organizations and provide management and de-identification of information. They also provide access to other de-identified reports so identified hazards can be integrated into the participating aviation organization’s SMS.
Aviation organizations on the higher end of the size or complexity spectrum may have an existing online employee reporting system or Aviation Safety Action Programs (ASAP) for some employee groups.
In small organizations, data collection for the reporting system can take many forms, from a simple suggestion box to organizational websites or intranets or a dedicated email address. Data management can be accomplished with a common desktop spreadsheet, database software, or specialized software, such as WBAT.
Note: The following section does not apply to those organizations with a single pilot who is the sole individual performing all necessary functions in the conduct and execution related to, or in direct support of, the safe operation of the aircraft: § 5.71(a)(7).
Appendix G G-10 Section Implementation Strategies Considerations for Small and Single Individual Organizations § 5.71(a)(8), Safety performance monitoring and measurement.
Investigations of hazard notifications.
Documentation and retention of these notifications can be in a spreadsheet, notebook, or other means that would ensure the hazard is appropriately addressed.
Single-individual organizations should have a process for documenting and managing hazards shared from other organizations transmitted to them in the course of operations. Methods of conducting investigations of hazard notification could be accomplished in a manner similar to that for investigations of accidents and incidents.
§ 5.71(b), Safety performance monitoring and measurement.
Data analysis.
The outputs from data analysis could be recorded in a simple recording medium (e.g., a notebook, paper files, a common desktop software, specialized systems, or a third-party software, such as WBAT).
In a small aviation organization, data acquisition may consist of making notes about how things did not go as planned, how communications were compromised at low altitude in certain flight route segments, etc. This data could be reviewed on a regular basis (perhaps monthly or quarterly). Hazards could be analyzed using SRM, and mitigating actions could be recorded as changes to procedures, minimum performance requirements, etc. are identified.
In a single-individual organization, the accountable executive will perform this function. In a small organization, this could be accomplished by another member of management.
§ 5.73, Safety performance assessment.
The results of assessments can be recorded in a paper or electronic medium (e.g., in a common logbook-style binder, electronic file folder, common desktop software, specialized system, or third-party software program, such as WBAT).
In a small or lower complexity aviation organization, safety performance and assessment could be a documented activity performed by the accountable executive or a coordinated activity between the accountable executive and other operational managers, supported and coordinated by the DOS if the organization has this position. Risk acceptance would also normally fall to managers within this group.
In small organizations, the reactive data gathered may not be statistically significant due to small sample sizes. This can be managed by looking beyond the data within your own organization.
Where available, the organization could include data from industry organizations and associations, related industries, regulatory bodies, and safety boards.
For single-individual organizations, an internal review (a self-assessment) may be as effective as a formal audit. Networking
Appendix G G-11 Section Implementation Strategies Considerations for Small and Single Individual Organizations with other similar organizations and sharing safety information may provide insights into vulnerabilities that may exist in the organization’s processes and procedures.
§ 5.75, Continuous improvement.
Continuous improvement decision making is an output of the Safety Performance Assessment (SPA) process. Therefore, corrective actions discussed during the assessment apply to continuous improvement activities. The managers, committees, or working groups that make assessment decisions for the aviation organization would also determine the appropriate corrective actions based on the situation.
There would be no difference in how this section is addressed by any aviation organization based on size, complexity, or scope of operations.
Subpart E – Safety Promotion.
§ 5.91, Competencies and training.
Aviation organizations may choose to either train their employees in house or contract the training to outside vendors.
Whichever option is taken, the training must be specific to the SMS and aviation activities conducted. Training can be in person or virtual based on organizational needs. Training should be modular so only the material pertinent to the position within the organization is presented.
A small or low-complexity organization with only a few employees would likely complete online training to meet this requirement.
Aviation organizations on the higher end of the size or complexity spectrum could have a training department that develops and conducts the training.
The knowledge and experience gained by a single individual developing the organization’s SMS is likely sufficient to meet training requirements for the organization. In a small organization, consider whether the safety manager or the individual assigned the associated duties (if there is one in a small organization) has received SMS training.
§ 5.93, Safety communication.
In smaller or lower complexity aviation organizations, communicating safety considerations to employees may be simple and direct. For example, the accountable executive could conduct regular all-hands/employee meetings, such as “hangar talk sessions.” Additionally, communication could include regular and periodic briefings to the employees, posting the status of safety issues on bulletin boards, emails to employees, and face-to-face meetings with division management teams.
Aviation organizations with only a few employees could utilize a required reading list consisting of material from industry or other sources. The selected material would be applicable to the Small organizations should consider the methods they will utilize when sharing information with other aviation service providers they interface with. Methods used can be as simple or as complex as the organization chooses, but they should be consistent. Maintaining a “Journey Log” or “Unusual Occurrences” log may be useful for regular review and reinforcement of safety concerns identified when performing the aviation service. This will facilitate entering the occurrences into the safety assurance component (§ 5.71) for tracking and resolution.
Appendix G G-12 Section Implementation Strategies Considerations for Small and Single Individual Organizations operations conducted. Documentation of what was reviewed would meet the requirements of § 5.97(d).
Note: The following section does not apply to those organizations with a single pilot who is the sole individual performing all necessary functions in the conduct and execution related to, or in direct support of, the safe operation of the aircraft: § 5.93.
Subpart F – SMS Documentation and Recordkeeping.
§ 5.95, SMS documentation.
Smaller organizations might use a compliance statement or spreadsheet listing the part 5 requirements and how the organization meets the requirements. SMS documentation may be maintained either as hard copies or electronically. It may be contained in a General Operations Manual (GOM) or Repair Station Manual (RSM) or any other combination of documentation and manuals that is appropriate for the organization. However, the documentation is maintained, the organization should ensure it remains up to date.
In a small or lower complexity aviation organization, the owner/manager (accountable executive) or designee may be responsible for maintaining and distributing current versions of guidance documents. Single-pilot organizations, while not required to maintain a manual system per 14 CFR part 135, § 135.21, are still required to document their SMS safety policy and SMS processes and procedures.
Documentation may consist of a set of typewritten documents, spreadsheets, and forms that are kept in file cabinets or binders. They may also use WBAT or other third-party providers. Managers of medium-complexity organizations need the same type of information to make decisions; however, the volume is typically larger than that of a low-complexity organization and smaller than that of a high-complexity organization.
§ 5.97, SMS records. The process developed for record retention should be appropriate for the aviation organization. As an example, digital photographs of safety-related posters or signs in a maintenance hangar could be retained as a record of the communication.
Read-and-initial documents would also provide a record.
Hangar talks and flight crew alerts are also types of communications that would be retained. These communications can be retained electronically or in paper format. The method utilized should be appropriate to the size and complexity of the aviation organization.
In smaller or lower complexity aviation organizations, the owner/manager (accountable executive) or designee may be responsible for maintaining auditable records. Documentation may consist of handwritten records, spreadsheets, phone and email logs, and completed forms that are kept in file cabinets or binders.
Note: The following section does not apply to those organizations with a single pilot who is the sole individual performing all necessary functions in the conduct and execution related to, or in direct support of, the safe operation of the aircraft: § 5.97(d).
Appendix G G-13 G.3 Sample Scenarios. In the paragraphs below, we will use fictional aviation service provider Flyslow Aviation as an example of how a typical organization could integrate part 5 requirements into their operations and how different safety issues they encounter are addressed.
G.3.1 G eneral Applicability Example.
G.3.1.1 To meet the requirement to implement an SMS, Flyslow Aviation starts by reviewing their organization to consider the operating environment, personnel needed, any interfaces with other organizations and facilities, and materials needed to provide their aviation service or product. They may identify flight operations, maintenance, dispatch, and training departments as areas that support the aviation product or service. They might also identify external organizations that support the aviation product or service, such as fuel service providers, third-party maintenance, and catering. All this information would be documented in an organizational description that can be used to ensure all aviation-related areas are considered in the SMS development.
G.3.1.2 To ensure part 5 is fully integrated into the organization, Flyslow Aviation may develop a compliance statement for their internal tracking to document how they already meet the requirements of part 5. While not required for existing operators, a compliance statement makes identifying existing processes and procedures as well as existing methods and voluntary programs easier to verify when documenting how an organization meets the regulatory requirements. This is accomplished for all departments and areas identified in the organizational description.
G.3.2 D esignation of Management Personnel Example. Flyslow Aviation has chosen to use an existing required management individual required under 14 CFR part 119, §§ 119.65 and 119.69 or part 145, §§ 145.151 and 145.153 to fulfill these responsibilities. As Flyslow Aviation grows and expands, they could establish a safety department with designated personnel assigned this requirement.
G.3.3 Safety Policy Example. Flyslow Aviation recognizes the key to a successful organization is open communication and strong leadership. They identify the accountable executive and management representatives (§ 5.23) and start working on the safety policy. While developing safety objectives (§ 5.21(a)(1)), management reviewed the organization’s performance indicators as well as reports from previous audits. Management then determined a reduction in uncalibrated tools being issued by the tool room would be an appropriate objective for the coming year. Management communicates the organization’s goal of reducing uncalibrated tool issuance by 20 percent by publishing an updated safety policy (§ 5.21(c) and (d)) and through employee meetings (§ 5.23). Management also develops processes and procedures describing how employees are expected to accomplish their duties and responsibilities under the SMS.