Every certificated operator has an SMS (SGSO, in Portuguese). Few have an SMS that works.
The difference is easy to recognize: in the first case, there is a handsome manual written for the certification, a binder of forms nobody fills in, and a safety meeting that happens when it happens. In the second, the hazards identified on Tuesday's flight show up in Wednesday's analysis, become mitigating actions with an owner and a deadline, and the manager can answer in five minutes "what are the three biggest risks in our operation today?".
This article is about crossing from the first to the second.
What the regulation asks for — and what it really wants
The SMS structure required of Brazilian operators under RBAC 135 (Brazil's equivalent of FAR Part 135), aligned with ICAO Annex 19, follows the four classic pillars:
- Safety policy and objectives — the formal commitment, defined responsibilities, a designated safety manager;
- Risk management — hazard identification, risk analysis and classification, mitigations;
- Safety assurance — monitoring of indicators, audits, change management;
- Safety promotion — training and communication.
But what the authority wants to see, behind the pillars, is one thing only: evidence that the cycle runs. Hazard reported → risk assessed → mitigation implemented → effectiveness verified. An impeccable manual with a stalled cycle is worth less, in an audit, than a simple system with the cycle turning every week.
Why most SMS die
In small and medium operations — which is the reality of air taxi and Brazilian executive aviation — the SMS almost always dies for the same three reasons:
1. Reporting is work. If reporting a hazard requires finding the form, printing it, filling it in by hand and handing it to someone, the pilot reports in the first month and never again. A report has to fit on a phone, in two minutes, in the gap between legs.
2. The report falls into a hole. Whoever reports and never finds out what happened to the report stops reporting. Just culture is not only about not punishing — it's about giving feedback.
3. Safety lives apart from operations. The SMS in one system (or binder) and the operation in another. Result: the data that would feed the indicators — flights, crew, airports, occurrences — has to be retyped, and nobody retypes forever.
Notice that none of the three is a technical-knowledge problem. They are friction problems.
The indicators that make sense in a real operation
Forget for a moment the ideal dashboard with thirty metrics. A small or medium-sized operation can sustain half a dozen well-chosen indicators:
- Report rate per period — a culture indicator, not a hazard indicator. Reports going up is a sign of health, not of a problem;
- Average time between report and analysis — measures whether the cycle runs;
- Open vs. overdue mitigating actions — the metric that most gives away a paper SMS;
- Risk distribution of operations (e.g., G/Y/R classification of assessed flights) — shows trend, not an isolated event;
- Recurrence of hazards by category — points to where to invest in training and procedure.
With these five, the safety meeting stops being a reading of minutes and becomes a decision.
A 90-day roadmap to get the SMS off paper
Days 1–30: unblock reporting. Put in place a reporting channel that fits in the crew's pocket. Communicate the just-culture policy again — in conversation, not in a memo. Goal: the first real voluntary report.
Days 31–60: make the cycle turn. Every report received gets an analysis with a risk classification and a reply to whoever reported, even if the reply is "assessed, acceptable risk, thank you". Mitigations get an owner and a deadline.
Days 61–90: measure. Build the dashboard with the five indicators above. Present it at the safety meeting and — important — keep the evidence. That evidence is exactly what the inspectors want to see.
Where Alis comes in
Alis was designed to solve the friction problem: the SMS lives inside the same platform where the operation happens. The hazard report is made in the same environment as the logbook; the risk analysis inherits the flight data automatically; mitigating actions have an owner, a deadline and a status; and the safety dashboard feeds itself — with no retyping.
And the Smart Flight Kit closes the link almost no SMS has: risk assessment before the flight, with a structured risk score (Green/Yellow/Red), PAVE threats and recorded mitigations. Each assessed flight becomes historical data for your SMS.
Want to see the cycle turning with your operation? Book a demo — we show you from report to dashboard in twenty minutes.
This article is informational and does not replace consulting ANAC's current regulations or your operation's approved manuals.