Understanding SMS Requirements: ICAO Doc 9859 vs. 14 CFR Part 5
Now that the 2024 Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) SMS Final Rule has come into effect, U.S. aviation service providers—especially those newly subject to part 5—must navigate how their safety programs align not just with FAA requirements, but also with international frameworks, such as the Safety Management Manual. Although both documents promote proactive, systemic approaches to aviation safety, there are important differences U.S. operators should understand. Here’s a practical comparison of the two—and what it means for your operation.
Prescriptive vs. Performance-based Approaches
ICAO’s Doc 9859 provides a globally flexible framework emphasizing concepts over specific regulatory language. It’s designed to accommodate a wide range of civil aviation authorities (CAA), from newly developing ones to highly sophisticated systems. It also focuses on broad implementation of the four Safety Management Systems (SMS) components: safety policy, Safety Risk Management (SRM), safety assurance, and safety promotion.
Conversely, part 5 is a performance-based regulation establishing mandatory SMS requirements for certain U.S. operators. Although it allows flexibility in how operators comply, it is still enforceable by law and provides more detailed implementation expectations. AC 120–92D complements part 5 by offering specific, scalable guidance for compliance tailored to U.S. operational environments.
Although ICAO establishes fundamental principles and a broad framework—the “what”—part 5 provides specific requirements and implementation expectations tailored to the U.S. context—the “how.”
Applicability and Enforcement
ICAO Doc 9859 applies internationally to States (ICAO’s term for countries) and service providers through Annex 19 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Safety Management; however, its implementation rests on each country’s CAA. The document encourages States to develop State Safety Programs (SSP) and requires operators and providers to implement an SMS based on their risk exposure.
In the U.S., part 5 is now mandatory for air carriers operating under 14 CFR part 121, many operators under 14 CFR Part 135, commercial air tour operators under §91.147, and specific production and design approval holders under part 21. AC 120–92D provides guidance on how to build, document, and maintain an SMS in accordance with the regulations.
Although ICAO provides recommendations, the FAA is responsible for enforcing compliance.
Scope of SMS Elements
Both systems are based on the same four pillars of SMS, but they differ in their detail level.
- ICAO Doc 9859 provides an in-depth exploration of theoretical concepts, such as accident causation models, organizational culture, and risk prioritization tools. This document is invaluable for training, education, and fostering a deeper understanding of SMS.
- AC 120–92D Chapter 3 translates each requirement in 14 CFR part 5 into practical implementation methods. It includes worksheets, compliance templates, and appendices specifically designed for U.S. operations, making it especially useful for small and medium-sized operators.
The FAA places a greater emphasis on hazard notification, data-driven oversight, and the Accountable Executive’s responsibilities in its rulemaking—key distinctions compared to ICAO’s broader guidance. FAA guidance is more hands-on, while ICAO guidance is more conceptual.
Unique FAA Considerations for U.S. Operators
U.S. operators must address several important considerations.
- Scalability: The FAA acknowledges organizations vary significantly in terms of risk profile and available resources; in its appendix G, AC 120–92D outlines pathways specifically for smaller operators.
- Integration with existing programs: Part 5 is designed to complement, not replace, other safety or compliance initiatives. The FAA encourages operators to integrate existing quality assurance (QA), Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA), and other programs into the SMS framework.
- Legal implications: Noncompliance with part 5 may lead to enforcement actions; however, although ICAO frameworks provide valuable guidance, they do not carry the same direct legal risks for U.S. certificate holders.
FAA regulations require both implementation and documentation, while ICAO focuses on promoting global alignment and education.
Benefits of Harmonizing Both
Although U.S. operators must adhere to FAA regulations, aligning with ICAO principles provides significant advantages, particularly for international operations or partnerships. An SMS that aligns with ICAO guidelines promotes consistent terminology, standardized risk frameworks, and recognition by global regulators.
Pro tip: Use table A–1 in AC 120–92D’s appendix A to cross-reference part 5 elements with ICAO’s SMS framework. It’s valuable for understanding alignment and gaps.
Other Part 5 Differences from ICAO Standards, Recommended Practices, and Procedures
Although part 5 brings the United States closer to full alignment with ICAO Annex 19, the FAA’s Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) explicitly identifies areas where ICAO recommends an SMS but it is not required in the U.S. These include—
- Approved training organizations,
- Maintenance providers supporting operators of aircraft or helicopters engaged in international commercial operations, and
- International general aviation (GA) operators of large or turbojet aircraft under 14 CFR part 91.
This gap means foreign aviation authorities may expect SMS conformance from U.S. operators and service providers—even when the FAA does not require it.
| ICAO Annex 19 Reference | Description | FAA Implementation Status (part 5) |
|---|---|---|
| 3.3.2.1 | - Approved training organizations that are exposed to safety risks related to aircraft operations during the provision of their services | ❌ Not required |
| - Approved maintenance organizations supporting international commercial air transport | ❌ Not required | |
| - Organizations responsible for type design and certain aerodrome operators | ✅ Required | |
| 3.3.2.3 | - International general aviation operators of large or turbojet aircraft under part 91 | ❌ No U.S. criteria established |
ICAO Annex 19 Reference: 3.3.2.1
Description: Approved training organizations that are exposed to safety risks related to aircraft operations during the provision of their services
FAA Implementation Status (part 5): ❌ Not required
ICAO Annex 19 Reference: 3.3.2.1
Description: Approved maintenance organizations supporting international commercial air transport
FAA Implementation Status (part 5): ❌ Not required
ICAO Annex 19 Reference: 3.3.2.1
Description: Organizations responsible for type design and certain aerodrome operators
FAA Implementation Status (part 5): ✅ Required
ICAO Annex 19 Reference: 3.3.2.3
Description: International general aviation operators of large or turbojet aircraft under part 91
FAA Implementation Status (part 5): ❌ No U.S. criteria established
Special Considerations for 14 CFR part 91 Business Aircraft Operators
Although 14 CFR part 5 does not require part 91 operators to implement an SMS, those conducting international flights should take note:
- ICAO to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Operation of Aircraft, Part II, Section 3.3, recommends private business aircraft operators engaged in international general aviation maintain an SMS.
- Some foreign civil aviation authorities require this for permits or ramp inspections, even for noncommercial flights.
Demonstrating SMS Compliance
The International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations (IS–BAO) is the most widely accepted and operationally friendly solution, but it’s not the only one. Operators can also—
- Develop their own ICAO-compliant SMS based on Annex 19 and Doc 9859.
- Voluntarily implement a part 5-compliant SMS using AC 120–92D.
Each approach has pros and cons depending on your resources, operating regions, and audit expectations.
Where to Learn More
- www.IBAC.org: IS–BAO and other global standards
- www.NBAA.org: Business aviation tools and international compliance
- www.ecfr.gov: Full text of part 5
- www.faa.gov: AC 120–92D and guidance
- https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aip_html/part1_gen_section_1.7.html: FAA AIP GEN 1.7 – Differences from ICAO Standards
Need help with SMS adoption?
PAI Consulting can help you take your safety program to the next level.
Contact us today for a consultation and let our expert Senior Aviation Analysts help your aviation SMS program succeed.
Contact us for a consultationDo you have questions or concerns about SMS? Share them with us!
PAI Consulting | Helping you succeed. Learn more.
Any opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not the opinion of PAI Consulting. In addition, this article may contain links to third-party websites. PAI Consulting does not endorse or make any representations about them, or any information, software, or other products or materials found there, or any results that may be obtained from using them.