An Industry Sponsored Alternative for SMS Compliance

This article is the fifth in a series to simplify the understanding of the SMS processes. The entire series can be found here.

The previous article addressed the current dilemma for operators of States without guidance for safety management system (SMS) implementation.  For those who operate across International boundaries red flags ought to be flying high.

With regard to commercial operators, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) deadline for SMS has already passed (January 1, 2009) and many are operating internationally without meeting this requirement.  Non-commercial operators will be facing the same predicament when the ICAO requirement becomes applicable for them in November 2010.

Don’t be fooled by the ICAO deadline

The ICAO deadline is primarily for the States to create their rules.  If a State doesn’t have a regulatory agency the ICAO deadline will apply.

The fact that many States have already implemented the requirement for an SMS is being overlooked.  For example; Canada currently requires an SMS for private aircraft operators, via the Private Operator Certificate (POC).  Keep in mind that third-country aircraft operated into, within, or out of the territory where the Treaty applies are subject to appropriate oversight at State level within the limits set by the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention).

A Closer Look at the ICAO Requirement

Annex VI – Part I – International Commercial Air Transport – Aeroplanes places the responsibility for the guidance of SMS implementation on the States;

3.2.1 States shall establish a safety programme in order to achieve an acceptable level of safety in the operation of aircraft.

3.2.4 From 1 January 2009, States shall require, as part of their safety programme, that an operator implement a safety management system acceptable to the State of the Operator that……

Annex VI – Part II – International General Aviation – Aeroplanes, has different wording and places the responsibility for the SMS on both the pilot-in-command and the operator;

2.1.1.1 The pilot-in-command shall comply with the laws, regulations and procedures of those States in which operations are conducted.

3.3.2.1 An operator shall establish and maintain a safety management system that is appropriate to the size and complexity of the operation.

The affect of the difference between Part I and Part II, in the United States, is that many commercial operators have been waiting for the FAA to provide guidance, which hasn’t happened on other than a cursory level.  Non-commercial operators have known from the onset that they would be left to fend for themselves.  This void created the need for an industry sponsored standard.

Alternative to State Sponsored SMS

The ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) allow States to accept and reference industry codes of practice, and guidance material developed by an industry body, as an acceptable means of compliance.

The International Business Aviation Council (IBAC), a council of business aviation associations from around the world, has created the International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations (IS-BAO).

IS-BAO is a code of best practices designed by the business aviation industry.  It has received recognition as a means of SMS compliance from a growing list of regulatory agencies, such as; ICAO, The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Bermuda DCA, and Cayman Island Registry.

IS-BAO for Commercial Operators

The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) has recognized IS-BAO as an acceptable means of SMS compliance for both commercial and non-commercial operators.

More on IS-BAO in future articles.