The Safety Question Worth Asking Before Your Next Charter

This story is a sneek peak into our upcoming 2026-2027 BJT Buyers' Guide. Make sure you are signed up to receive a free copy!

In the wake of recent high-profile accidents and incidents involving both commercial and private operators, business aircraft charter customers have been reaching out to their providers for reassurance of safety protocols. This passenger concern is timely because providers of air taxi lift can inform them that they are either already in compliance with, or in the process of complying with, a new set of requirements that aim to improve safety, even surpassing the already excellent standards of the business aviation community.

Passengers on private and air taxi aircraft should be aware that the flight departments providing their lift are already adhering to high standard operating procedures required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), aircraft owner/operator company policy, or both. In April 2024, air taxi/charter providers, air ambulance operators, air tour operators, and major parts manufacturers were given three years to prepare a new all-encompassing guidance document—the safety management system (SMS). The compliance deadline is May 28, 2027.

How SMS Evolved

In a nutshell, an FAA SMS is intended to be a comprehensive tool for improving safety and risk factors of aviation-related air and ground operations under both normal and emergency circumstances. The concept of an SMS was first proposed nearly 30 years ago. In 1997, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the U.S. agency responsible for investigating aviation accidents, introduced the SMS concept and recommended it for transportation organizations.

For nearly three decades since, NTSB investigations into accidents in various modes of transportation, including aviation, have regularly cited organizational factors as major contributors to accidents. The agency has repeatedly issued recommendations that SMS be adopted as a way to prevent future accidents and improve overall safety. Over the 16-year period spanning 2007 through 2023, the Safety Board issued 18 recommendations to the industry and the FAA regarding SMS for aviation organizations. While Safety Board recommendations do not have the force of law, recipients are required to respond with their intentions.

In 2009 and 2012, the FAA chartered two government advisory and rulemaking committees (ARCs) to provide advice on implementing SMS in aviation regulations. Industry stakeholders on these ARCs included individual companies and trade associations representing private and charter business aircraft operators, design and manufacturing suppliers, repair stations, and training organizations. These ARCs expressed industry support for SMS and recommended that the FAA publish rules requiring the use of SMS by aircraft operators as well as larger maintenance companies and major airports.

In 2015, the FAA published its first aviation SMS rules and required implementation by all U.S. airlines. Over the ensuing years, the agency has expanded the SMS requirement to apply to major airport and maintenance operations.

On April 26, 2024, the FAA published its long-anticipated SMS rules for air taxi, air ambulance, air tour operators, and specified manufacturers—with compliance expected no later than May 28, 2027. When the final rules were adopted, the FAA estimated they covered approximately 1,848 Part 135 operators (all but four had fewer than 1,500 employees) and 1,056 air tour operators (about a third of which had only one aircraft).

Importantly, new applicants applying to be an air taxi or air tour operator after the effective date of the rule, April 26, 2024, must have an SMS as part of their original operator application for certification. New and pending applicants for manufacturer production certification will be required to submit SMS implementation plans as part of their certification process. Once an implementation plan has been submitted to the FAA, applicants will have 36 months to start using their SMSs.

Although U.S. private and fractional owner business aircraft operations are not yet required to have safety management systems, some of these operators have still submitted an SMS under a formal FAA voluntary program. Interestingly, pressure for implementation has often come directly from aircraft owners and private and fractional owner passengers, who have learned about the SMS initiative on their own.

How Passengers Are the Focus

A safety management system, as described by the FAA, is a “formal, top-down, organization-wide approach to managing safety risk and ensuring the effectiveness of safety risk controls. It includes systematic procedures, practices, and policies for the management of safety risk. An SMS is a management system integrated into an organization’s operations that enforces the concept that safety should be managed with as much emphasis, commitment, and focus as any other critical area of an organization.”

As a required minimum, an SMS must include the following four components: safety policy, safety risk management, safety assurance, and safety promotion. The SMS objective is to reduce incidents, accidents, and fatalities “by aiding aviation organizations in identifying hazards and mitigating the risk of those hazards before they lead to an incident or accident.” Advocates of SMS contend that by identifying hazards and controlling and continually assessing risk and safety performance, an SMS promotes a company-wide culture of safety.

Notably, air taxi companies in the process of building their SMS have pointed to passenger conduct as a safety hazard. Not fastening seatbelts, ignoring crew instructions—and above all—pressuring the pilots to land at the destination airport regardless of adverse weather conditions, have led to serious accidents. Consequently, don’t be surprised when the crew shows you an excerpt from their company’s SMS about passenger expectations, if the circumstances warrant.

The new regulations require a so-called “accountable executive” to assume overall responsibility for maintaining and updating the SMS. In larger organizations with their own flight departments and a charter division, this duty usually falls to the flight department manager or a designated top executive. The executive would also likely be a frequent and senior passenger. In smaller organizations, SMS integrity often falls to the aircraft owner or chief pilot.

There is a heavy dose of documentation and record-keeping requirements. The FAA says this paperwork is necessary because of the mandate for providing notification of hazards to a so-called “interfacing person,” that, to the best of the notifying person’s knowledge, could address the hazard or mitigate the risk. For example, interfacing persons for an air taxi could be any organization that the operator conducts business with, such as a fixed base operator (FBO), a repair station, airports, or the aircraft manufacturer.

An operator’s customers, however—such as revenue passengers—would not ordinarily be considered interfacing persons because passengers are not responsible for or expected to contribute to the safe operation of the aircraft (besides not interfering with the operation).

The total package is not only intended to comply with minimum standards and regulations, but also places increased emphasis on the overall safety performance of the organization. It must encompass: flight operations; operational control (who has responsibility for a specific flight); dispatch and flight following (tracking the position of each aircraft); maintenance and inspections; cabin safety (passenger expectations); ground handling and aircraft servicing; regulatory compliance; and training. 

Sources of Assistance

Your lift providers do not have to attempt the arduous task of drafting an FAA-acceptable SMS program alone. There are excellent sources to help in the process, including at least two guidance documents from the FAA itself. The first, simply called Safety Management Systems (SMS), is a wealth of information that breaks down the regulatory legalese and complex wording of the rules into plain language explanations of all key elements.

Another helpful FAA document is a 130-page advisory outlining the steps needed for creating an SMS. This document can assist private aviation organizations in receiving “FAA acknowledgment” of their voluntary SMS. Additionally, the advisory provides organizations with a method to meet International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 19, which is a management framework for an SMS acceptable to ICAO member nations, including the U.S.

Because air taxi and commercial air tour operators range widely in complexity and size, the document states that SMS policies, methods, and procedures can be “tailored” as needed. Importantly, it provides examples of how an organization may integrate “new practical, economical, and effective SMS methods and procedures that complement their existing operations and processes while leveraging the policies, procedures, or methods already in place” that comply with SMS requirements.

To emphasize the scalability of SMS to all sizes of operations, the rule itself includes examples of how small aviation organizations, such as a single-pilot operator, could scale implementation of their SMS requirements to the size and complexity of their organization. For instance, confidential hazard reporting is not required for certain single-pilot organizations.

A number of private companies market SMS consultation services, and aviation trade associations offer help to their members in building an SMS. These organizations and other groups supporting operators to transition to the SMS expect inquiry levels to increase as the deadline nears. However, operators are experiencing delays in getting their proposed SMS approved, mainly caused by incomplete information submitted to the FAA.

With only a few months remaining until implementation is required, an FAA spokesperson in the second quarter told BJT that 191 (about 10.5%) of 1,815 air taxi operators have submitted to the agency their declaration of compliance.

A Case of Failing to Adhere

Not having a formal safety management system—not precisely following the SMS you already have—has been cited as a cause or factor in several accidents. One of the most notable accidents in which an operator’s SMS was not sufficiently followed was the Jan. 26, 2020, crash of an air taxi Island Express helicopter that killed all nine aboard, including former basketball great Kobe Bryant.

With the assistance of a vendor using both FAA and international guidance, Island Express had an SMS since 2013 that was not required at the time by the FAA. According to the SMS manual, the director of operations (DO) was the designated accountable executive who reported to the company’s president and had ultimate responsibility for the SMS. When interviewed, the president said he was aware of the SMS but was not involved with it or in the company’s day-to-day flight operations.

A review of the SMS manual and interviews with the DO, safety officer, and other company personnel revealed that Island Express used “select” SMS tools provided by the vendor. The company did not implement the entire program as outlined in its SMS manual. The NTSB concluded that one of the accident causal factors was Island Express Helicopters’ “inadequate review and oversight of its safety management processes.”

The FAA regional inspector said he was aware of the SMS but was not involved with its development or oversight. Had Island Express’ SMS been required by the FAA, it would have been subject to FAA oversight to “inspect the SMS for alignment with FAA objectives and to provide feedback to help the company implement the entire program.”

Another finding in the final report serves as a lesson to aircraft owners who are also business aircraft passengers: they are also responsible in making sure the SMS is being followed correctly and completely. Island Express received external safety audits from three companies that were generally favorable, and the company was not required to address all the noted items. There were no records to indicate that Island Express opted to perform any of these noted items. The report for an August 2018 audit noted, in part, that the company was not using all of the available SMS tools, particularly the safety committee meetings, formal tools to measure the effectiveness of the SMS, and other measures to manage change processes.