3-63 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.
3.7 Subpart F, SMS Documentation and Recordkeeping.
3.7.1 SMS Documentation.
3.7.1.1 References. Sections 5.95 and 145.215.
3.7.1.2 Part 5 Requirement.
§ 5.95, SMS documentation.
Any person required to have an SMS under this part must develop and maintain the following SMS documentation:
(a) Safety policy.
(b) SMS processes and procedures.
3.7.1.3 Discussion.
3.7.1.3.1 Part 5 does not require aviation organizations to develop and maintain an SMS manual. All that part 5 requires an aviation organization to do is document their SMS safety policy and SMS processes and procedures. How this is accomplished is up to the aviation organization. Larger organizations are likely to have an SMS manual whereas 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.
3.7.1.3.2 The aviation organization should also implement a distribution system (if needed) to ensure documents dealing with SMS processes and procedures are promptly updated whenever there is a change.
3.7.1.4 Implementation Strategies. The following examples demonstrate ways aviation organizations might choose to implement SMS documentation based on where the aviation organization may fall on the spectrum of size or complexity. The following are examples only and are not the only ways the requirements could be met.
3-64
3.7.1.4.1 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. 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. Aviation organizations on the higher end of the size or complexity spectrum may institute documentation and recordkeeping processes using WBAT, other third-party providers, unique software applications, or development of new database tools to support risk reporting and analysis. These organizations should examine existing tools and infrastructure, as it is likely that these can be leveraged (modified) to meet SMS requirements.
3.7.1.5 Considerations for Small and Single-Individual Organizations. While single-pilot organizations are not required to maintain a manual system per § 135.21, they are still required to document their SMS safety policy and SMS processes and procedures. How this is accomplished is up to the aviation organization.
3.7.2 S MS Records.
3.7.2.1 References. Section 5.97.
3.7.2.2 Part 5 Requirement.
§ 5.97, SMS records.
Any person required to have an SMS under this part must:
(a) Maintain records of outputs of safety risk management processes as described in subpart C of this part. Such records must be retained for as long as the control remains relevant to the operation.
(b) Maintain records of outputs of safety assurance processes as described in subpart D of this part.
Such records must be retained for a minimum of 5 years.
(c) Maintain a record of all training provided under § 5.91 for each individual. Such records must be retained for as long as the individual is employed by the person.
(d) Retain records of all communications provided under § 5.93 or § 5.57 for a minimum of 24 consecutive calendar months.
3.7.2.3 Discussion. Organizations are required to retain documents associated with the outputs of SRM processes for as long as the risk control remains relevant to the operation. For SRM processes that do not result in any risk controls being implemented or where risks are acceptable, aviation organizations are not required to retain these documents. While part 5 does not require an organization to retain a system analysis when no risk control is developed, aviation organizations may find it useful to retain this analysis for future use.
3-65 Part 5 requires documentation of risk assessments and risk controls and any supporting data used in the SRM process be retained for as long as the risk control remains appropriate for the operations. These outputs serve as evidence of the organization reviewing the system and finding the associated hazards and residual risks acceptable. Outputs of the safety assurance processes must be retained for a minimum of 5 years. Section 5.23 requires the members of management and the accountable executive to review the outputs of the SRM and safety assurance processes to ensure the effectiveness of safety risk controls and that the SMS is functioning as designed.
Documentation showing the process owners and accountable executive have reviewed these documents should also be retained. Training records must show when the individual initially received training to attain the competencies necessary for their position. Proof of recurrent training completion must also be retained as documentation of maintaining the competencies required for their position. Superseded recurrent training records must be retained in accordance with the aviation organization’s record retention processes and procedures for as long as the employee is employed by the aviation organization. Records of safety communications and hazard information sharing must be retained for a minimum of 24 consecutive calendar months.
Attendance rosters from meetings or training events also provide documentation of employees that have received the safety communications.
3.7.2.3.1 Aviation organizations are required to retain the outputs of their SRM processes. Section 5.97(a) requires maintaining these records for as long as the associated risk control remains applicable to the current operational activities. While not a regulatory requirement, it is a good policy to retain all SRM documentation so work previously conducted can be reviewed by future SRM workgroups. This has the potential of reducing duplicative work or undoing existing risk controls.
3.7.2.3.2 Aviation organizations are also required to maintain records of their safety assurance outputs and retain them for a minimum of 5 years. As with an SMS, the process used for safety assurance outputs needs to be appropriate for the aviation organization. A good practice would be to develop a method of documenting who in the organization has reviewed the data. Other sections of this part require a review of this data to ensure risk controls are working properly and organizational objectives are being met; this would be an appropriate way to meet this requirement.
3.7.2.3.3 Training records need to be retained for each individual in the organization with duties and responsibilities under the SMS. These records must be maintained as long as the individual is employed by the organization. There is no provision for purging SMS training records. SMS training records are in addition to any other required training records from other parts. It is key to ensure the process developed for record retention is appropriate for the size and complexity of the aviation organization.
3-66
3.7.2.3.4 Records of all safety communications are required to be retained for a minimum of 24 consecutive calendar months. 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 files 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.
3.7.2.4 Implementation Strategies. The following examples demonstrate ways aviation organizations might choose to implement this requirement based on where the aviation organization may fall on the spectrum of size or complexity. The following are examples only and are not the only ways the requirements could be met.
3.7.2.4.1 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, and completed forms that are kept in file cabinets or binders.
Aviation organizations on the higher end of the spectrum of size or complexity may identify an individual or small staff to coordinate document maintenance and retention. This staff may use a combination of paper and electronic media or a combination of both to administer the process. Some records may be retained by department heads in accordance with a procedure delegating this responsibility. Some aviation organizations may have a dedicated records staff or department whose duties include document distribution and records retention. Due to the size and complexity of the organization, the use of technology is probably more pronounced.
3.7.2.5 Single-Individual Organizations. Single-pilot operations and single-individual organizations pose unique situations when implementing an SMS. As a result of these factors, the following regulatory section is excepted from the implementation requirements for 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 aircraft.
Section 5.97: Any person required to have an SMS under this part must:
(d) Retain records of all communications provided under § 5.93 or § 5.57 for a minimum of 24 consecutive calendar months.
3.7.2.5.1 Single-individual organizations are not required to have a safety communication process or procedure; therefore, there is not a requirement to retain records of communications.
3-67
3.7.2.6 SMS Documentation and Recordkeeping Example. In an effort to raise awareness of the calibrated tool issue and employee reporting, Flyslow Aviation’s management included discussions on these areas as a monthly topic during employee meetings (§§ 5.23(2)(iii) and 5.93). In addition, management also posted signs and posters in the breakroom and work areas.
Rosters of meeting attendees were retained as well as a copy of the agenda topics (§ 5.97(d)).
Note 1: In this example, § 5.91 would not be required as the training requirement addresses SMS processes and procedures. Calibrated tool usage, which is the subject of the training, is covered by other regulations and not the SMS.
Note 2: Flyslow Aviation has control of the calibrated tool program and the associated hazards. If the hazard was under the control of an interfacing organization, then Flyslow Aviation would communicate the hazard under § 5.57.
4-1 CHAPTER 4. IMPLEMENTATION: BUILDING A SAFETY MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM (SMS)
4.1 Process Overview.
4.1.1 Title 14 CFR Part 5 Regulatory Requirements. Title 14 CFR part 119 certificate holders (CH) authorized to operate under 14 CFR part 121 must show compliance with all revised part 5 requirements by May 28, 2025 (part 5, § 5.7(a)).
4.1.1.1 Existing part 119 aviation organizations authorized to operate under 14 CFR part 135 or aviation organizations conducting air tours under a 14 CFR part 91, § 91.147 Letter of Authorization (LOA) with an existing SMS need to review their existing SMS programs for compliance with part 5 (§ 5.9(a)).
Areas found not in compliance, that need to be added, or that have been changed should be identified and addressed. Once the aviation organizations have implemented and developed an SMS meeting the requirements of part 5, they must submit a declaration of compliance stating the SMS meets the requirements of part 5 prior to May 28, 2027.
4.1.1.2 New applicants for a part 119 certificate authorizing them to operate under part 121 or 135 or air tour operators requiring a § 91.147 LOA must demonstrate they meet the applicable regulatory requirements of part 5 prior to issuance of a certificate or LOA (§§ 5.7(b) and 5.9(b), as applicable). New applicants must meet part 5 requirements as a part of the certification process as defined in the Air Operator and Air Agency Certification and Application Process in FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 2.
4.1.2 Aviation Organizations Voluntarily Implementing an SMS. Aviation organizations that seek FAA acknowledgement of their voluntary SMS should develop and implement an SMS that meets part 5. They should submit a declaration of compliance once this has been accomplished. The FAA will validate SMS implementation as a part of routine surveillance activities. For information pertaining to a voluntary SMS, refer to Order 8900.1, Volume 17, Safety Management System.
4.2 Building an SMS. The first step in developing an SMS is mapping out and analyzing the aviation organization by developing an organizational description. The initial mapping and analysis start by describing and documenting the organizational structure and looking at the internal interfaces and external interfaces with other aviation organizations.
4.2.1 Organizational Description.
4.2.1.1 The organizational description should detail each of the aviation organization’s activities by function as well as the management personnel responsible for the organization’s departments (e.g., flight operations, training, ground operations, cabin safety, dispatch, and maintenance). The organizational description may also include, for example, a discussion of external interfaces, such as using contractors for fueling and deicing operations, maintenance functions, etc. It is also common for representatives
4-2 of various employee groups to be discussed and described during the organizational description process. Existing aviation organizations could review their LOAs, operations specifications (OpSpecs), or ratings and limitations to determine if their organization is properly described.
4.2.1.2 As a part of the organizational description, aviation organizations should describe and document key positions for risk acceptance. Managers and process owners should also be identified in this analysis. Process owners sometimes occupy positions that may not be considered management but are in a position to accept risk or change processes or procedures in their area. An example of this could be a battery shop technician or lead dispatcher.
4.2.2 D eveloping a Plan of Action. To develop a plan of action for SMS development and implementation, aviation organizations need to understand their current state of compliance with the requirements of part 5. This should include programs already adopted that may meet the requirements of part 5. One way to accomplish this is by conducting a gap analysis and documenting the results in a compliance statement. A gap analysis involves analyzing and assessing the aviation organization’s existing programs, systems, processes, and activities with respect to part 5. If a process in the aviation organization satisfies part 5, the analysis should document how that process meets the requirements. This may be accomplished by referencing the process or procedure in the manual system (if required) where the requirement is discussed. Aviation organizations may use any technique to identify what needs to be accomplished to implement an SMS.
Many organizations have developed spreadsheets with the part 5 requirements in one column with the next column being used to describe how the organization meets the requirement or what the organization needs to develop to “fill the gap.” For detailed information on developing and completing a compliance statement, see Appendix D, Guidance for Developing a Compliance Statement.
4.2.3 Organizational Processes. Many aviation organizations may find that they have most of the elements of part 5 in their current operational processes. While these processes may not entirely fulfill the requirements (e.g., they may be limited in scope (do not cover the entire organization) and interoperability (do not interface sufficiently to form a “system”)), credit should be taken for those areas already meeting part 5 requirements.
Areas that are deficient should be addressed and processes developed. Existing processes may be internally developed or from third-party contractors’ products or services. The goal here is to ensure that all part 5 requirements are met.
4.2.4 Regulatory and Voluntary Programs. A list of regulatory and voluntary programs that may be appropriate for inclusion in the SMS to satisfy the requirements can be found in Chapter 5, Integrating Existing Safety Programs Into the Safety Management System (SMS).
5-1 CHAPTER 5. INTEGRATING EXISTING SAFETY PROGRAMS INTO THE SAFETY
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SMS)
5.1 Purpose of This Chapter. This chapter explains how existing safety programs may be integrated into the SMS safety assurance processes. The FAA encourages the continued use of existing safety programs as an input into the safety assurance processes to ensure the safety performance of aviation organizations. Expanding current safety programs across the entire aviation organization is one way to provide a comprehensive systems approach to safety assurance. These programs would be accepted as one means of meeting some of the provisions of 14 CFR part 5, § 5.71, but they may not fully meet the requirements. Other means may be required.
Note: I t is not the intent or purpose of an SMS to override any existing regulatory standards or alter approval and acceptance processes that already apply to the aviation organization.
5.2 Discussion of Individual Programs. The following are FAA or FAA-sanctioned programs that could be integrated into an SMS. This is not intended to be an all-inclusive listing, and other programs may also satisfy SMS requirements.
5.2.1 C ontinuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS).
5.2.1.1 Program. A CASS is required by 14 CFR part 121, § 121.373 and part 135, § 135.431. A CASS is a quality assurance system that monitors and analyzes the performance and effectiveness of the air carrier’s Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP).
5.2.1.2 I ntegration. A CASS overlaps some part 5 required SMS safety assurance functions (§ 5.71). A CASS could be a standalone system or a subsystem within an SMS. A CASS may be maintained separately; however, it would probably be beneficial to integrate a CASS within the SMS. However accomplished, it is imperative to understand that a CASS should supply information to the SMS. The SMS may even support a CASS through the use of Safety Risk Management (SRM) and safety assurance processes applied to CASS needs. An SMS may evaluate the CASS to ensure that all critical CASS elements are being performed and controlled and all outcomes are acceptable in accordance with FAA Order 8900.1 and AC 120-79, Developing and Implementing an Air Carrier Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System.
5.2.2 Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP).
5.2.2.1 Program. The ASAP is meant to encourage voluntary reporting of safety issues and events that come to the attention of a participating aviation organization’s employees. ASAPs include processes for intake of data from employees, analysis of the data, and development of corrective actions within a confidential environment. ASAP is accepted by the FAA but is not a required program. ASAP development, implementation, acceptance, and operation are detailed in AC 120-66, Aviation Safety Action Program. An
5-2 ASAP may provide some protection from sanctions due to a regulatory noncompliance to participating employees.
5.2.2.2 Integration. An ASAP can be used to satisfy some SMS requirements (§ 5.71(a)(7)). For example, the ASAP can be used to partially satisfy the requirement for a confidential reporting system. Employee groups not covered by an ASAP would need some type of confidential employee reporting system. In the event of termination of an ASAP program, those covered employees would be required to have a confidential employee reporting system. The ASAP requires analysis and corrective action; however, it does not require analysis of patterns or trends across reports that would identify systemic problems. This information should be analyzed through the safety assurance and SRM processes.
5.2.3 A viation Safety Reporting System (ASRS).
5.2.3.1 Program. The FAA ASRS uses the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a third party to receive aviation safety reports.
ASRS does not provide an explicit requirement for corrective actions nor does it provide sufficient detailed data with which to adequately analyze specific systems or processes. Another limitation of ASRS is it does not provide information to the aviation organization that a report has been submitted.
5.2.3.2 Integration. Trend and global systemic information may be appropriate for safety assurance analysis under SMS. While the actual submitted report is not available for the aviation organization to input into their SMS, ASRS provides periodic reports on various hazards that have been identified. They have a monthly newsletter called “Callback” that looks at submitted reports and provides an analysis of what happened based on the submitter’s comments. A review of these reports could be useful if input into the safety assurance component and monitored to ensure they are not present in the current operational environment. For additional information, refer to AC 00-46, Aviation Safety Reporting Program.
5.2.4 Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA).
5.2.4.1 Program. FOQA is a voluntary program for the routine collection and analysis of digital flight data generated during aircraft operations. The FOQA program is another potential tool in an aviation organization’s SMS to monitor operational data and provide data analysis and assessment. FOQA program development, implementation, acceptance, and operation are covered in AC 120-82, Flight Operational Quality Assurance.
5.2.4.2 Integration. FOQA can be used to satisfy some SMS safety assurance requirements (§ 5.71). FOQA requires data collection and analysis but stops short of requiring corrective action. Thus, this requirement would be dependent on the configuration of the specific aviation organization’s
5-3 program. FOQA, if present, must interface with the aviation organization’s other safety programs and their SMS.
5.2.5 V oluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP).
5.2.5.1 Program. The VDRP provides incentives for an aviation organization to voluntarily identify, report, and correct instances of regulatory noncompliance. The FAA will review, accept, and oversee corrective actions and conduct followup surveillance. The FAA’s acceptance of the voluntary disclosure foregoes legal enforcement action and protects from release, when specific criteria are met, qualifying disclosures and corrective actions. For additional information on the VDRP, refer to AC 00-58, Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program.
5.2.5.2 I ntegration. VDRP data can be a useful source of safety information.
Section 5.71(a)(6) requires aviation organizations to investigate any discoveries of a potential noncompliance with regulatory standards or other safety risk controls that are documented in the organization’s processes and procedures. Data gathered during an investigation, subsequent development, and implementation of a corrective action should be integrated into the data analysis, assessment, and validation processes of a service provider’s SMS safety assurance.
5.2.5.3 Joint Discovery. If a regulated entity voluntarily agrees to conduct a joint audit (inspection) with the FAA during which an apparent violation is discovered either by the organization or FAA members of the audit (inspection) team, the FAA may accept a voluntary disclosure submitted by the organization even though the FAA has already learned of the apparent violation during the course of the joint audit (inspection). For additional information, refer to Order 8900.1, Volume 11, Chapter 1, Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program.
5.2.6 In ternal Evaluation Program (IEP).
5.2.6.1 Program. The IEP is a safety process that, through inspections, audits, and evaluations, assesses the adequacy of managerial controls and processes in critical safety systems. The FAA encourages (and the Department of Defense (DOD) requires) using an IEP to increase awareness management and employees’ responsibility to follow organizational safety practices and comply with all regulatory requirements. IEP is the subject of AC 120-59, Internal Evaluation Programs, and AC 145-5, Repair Station In ternal Evaluation Programs.
5.2.6.2 I ntegration. An IEP can be part of a safety assurance process. If used by an aviation organization, an IEP can satisfy the internal evaluation requirement of § 5.71. Aviation organizations are encouraged to input any findings from an IEP into their safety assurance processes to ensure they are tracked for any
5-4 negative trends, and, if needed, SRM could be applied and appropriate controls developed and integrated. Since an IEP is not covered by a standalone regulation or formal voluntary program approval process, its use within an SMS is dependent on the configuration.
5.2.7 L ine Operations Safety Audit (LOSA).
5.2.7.1 Program. The LOSA is a formal process where qualified observers ride in the jump seat during regularly scheduled flights to collect safety-related data on various weather and visibility conditions, operational complexities, and flightcrew performance. A LOSA program is not formally approved or accepted by the FAA. LOSA is the subject of AC 120-90, Line Operations Safety Audits.
5.2.7.2 I ntegration. A LOSA program could be used to satisfy part of the internal audit requirements of § 5.71. LOSA results, if present, should be included in the safety assurance data acquisition process. Many organizations provide a service for smaller operators wanting to participate in a LOSA program.
5.2.8 A dvanced Qualification Program (AQP) .
5.2.8.1 Program. The AQP is a systematic methodology for developing training program components for air carrier crewmembers and dispatchers. An AQP incorporates data-supported quality control processes for validating and maintaining the effectiveness of curriculum content. AQP is the subject of AC 120-54, Advanced Qualification Program.
5.2.8.2 Integration. The AQP can be used to satisfy a portion of the SMS safety assurance monitoring requirement (§ 5.71(a)(1)). The aviation organization may elect to use or develop an AQP depending on their unique operational complexities.
5.2.9 O ther Information Sources. Other sources of information to be considered are safety recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Aviation organizations should review these recommendations as part of their safety assurance functions to determine if there are any potential hazards that could exist in their processes or procedures. Manufacturers’ mandatory Service Bulletins (SB), Service Difficulty Reports (SDR), and Airworthiness Directives (AD) are also sources of potential hazards that could affect operations. Information for Operators (InFO) and Safety Alerts for Operators (SAFO) are also sources of information that should be reviewed and integrated into the safety assurance process, if applicable.
5.3 U se of Third -Party Providers to Assist in SMS Implementation and Maintenance.
5.3.1 The FAA and many industry stakeholders have gained significant experience with SMS principles in the years since part 5 was originally published. As SMS requirements expand to other organizations, the FAA expects more third-party providers to offer
5-5 services to aid aviation organizations in developing and implementing a part 5 compliant SMS.
5.3.2 Aviation organizations may work with a third-party provider to develop or implement an SMS that meets part 5 requirements. A third-party SMS provider could assist in developing the SMS and training the operator to use it. Producing and providing software applications to aid in SMS documentation and recordkeeping are other potential support services of third-party providers. Other options could include not only development and training but the third-party provider could also operate some parts of the SMS on behalf of the aviation service provider. As an example, many third-party providers offer mediation services for employee ASAP reporting programs. The organizations serve as mediator and de-identify the reports, meet with the FAA to discuss the report, and work to develop a corrective action to mitigate the reported hazard or reason for the report. The third-party provider would then provide periodic reports on the aggregated ASAP reports received and moderated with corrective actions so the aviation organization could enter the data into their SMS for monitoring if it is applicable to the activities conducted by the aviation organization.
5.3.3 When considering utilizing a third-party organization to assist with SMS management, there are some areas that cannot be delegated. For instance, the accountable executive responsibilities and roles cannot be delegated to a contractor.
5.3.4 Aviation organizations are encouraged to leverage their existing SMS processes, whether developed in-house or developed by third-party contractors, to meet part 5 requirements and to utilize all available industry resources, such as educational institutions, international organizations, and FAA guidance and support. Aviation organizations remain fully responsible for ensuring regulatory compliance.
Note: The FAA does not endorse the use of any specific product or third-party provider. The responsibility for ensuring compliance with part 5 remains with the aviation organization.