Missing points regarding QMS and SMS in the airlines

and MROs

Sasho Andonov, MSc, Muscat, 111, Oman1

Nomenclature
QMS = quality management system
SMS = safety management system
QC = quality control
QA = quality assessment
QM = quality manager
SM = safety manager
MRO = maintenance and repair organization (maintenance, repair, overhaul)
RM = Risk Management

Abstract
Nevertheless the change of the quality of the products was introduced at the end of 1940s
by William Edwards Deming in Japan, in the following 15 years it was accepted by
Western economies. Starting from that time, the implementation of Quality
Management System (QMS) has experienced tremendous development. Plenty of tools
and methods were introduced so we may say that this is real science. But what’s
happened with the Quality in aviation? Aviation kept itself sidelines of most of the
happenings in the industry especially in the area of offering services (ATC, Flight
Operations, airlines, etc…). Manufacturers embraced the AS 9100 family but what
happened with the other parts of aviation subjects? Was Quality in aviation going
forward at the same pace as other industries? I doubt it, so let’s speak about some
missing points which are forgotten by aviation’s Quality Managers (QM). Firstly, the
Safety Management System was introduced during the end of 1960s. First in Insurance
and Banking and later in Nuclear and Chemical Industries. In aviation it started at the
late 1990s. And looking for some perspective of the past 25 years there is the question:
Has the main point been achieved? And more important: Are we safer due to
implementation of the Safety Management System (SMS) or this is just due to the new
technologies? Let’s speak about some fundamental missing points regarding SMS. Keep
in mind that introduction of these two management systems happened long time ago,
there are still companies (mostly airlines) which look at the QMS and SMS as just a
formal step forward to satisfy regulation. Unfortunately they cannot see the real gain
which QMS and SMS will bring to them and it is really a pity. In this paper I will try to
touch on some of the missing points in the understanding and implementation of QMS
and SMS especially with the airlines.

I. Introduction

A. Statement of problem
Quality in aviation is not on the same level as quality in industry. Nevertheless the industry made a huge
leap forward with plenty of methodologies and tools to improve the quality (SPC, DoE, Six Sigma, etc…) an
enormous number of aviation professionals dealing with quality are not aware of this and there is almost no
aviation subject dealing with these methodologies and tools especially within airlines and MROs. In this paper I
will discuss my view of “missing points” or “forgotten benefits” of quality improvement into airlines and
MROs.

1
Senior Instructor EASA, Aeronautical Engineering Department, Military Technological College, P.O.B. 262,
P.C. 111, Muscat, Oman
1
Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2015
B. Research question
Obviously there is the gap between the development of the QMS and SMS in the industry and the
development of QMS and SMS in aviation (especially in airlines and MROs). What shall need to be done to
decrease or erase this gap?

II. Present reality regarding aviation

Aviation today, embedded in itself a lot of management systems. Typical systems are: Quality Management
System (QMS), Safety Management System (SMS), Security Management System (SeMS), Environmental
Management System (EMS), Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS), Financial
Management System (FMS) and Documentation Management System (DMS).
Any of these systems has particular place in the subjects dealing with aviation and they are present there
mainly due to the regulatory requirements. Nevertheless these systems are not innovation of aviation, they are
just taken from another industries. Two of these “borrowed” systems have particular place in aviation and these
are: QMS and SMS.

III. Quality Management System

A. History of Quality
Quality was used in industry from the beginnings but the real “scientific” revolution happened in Japan
after the Second War. William Edwards Deming, an American (engineer, statistician, consultant,…) was sent to
Japan to help with the ruined economy. His job actually started in 1950, and until 1960s he was working with
the leaders of Japanese industry. His ideas about structural dealing with quality actually developed and put into
practice the ideas of Walter Shewhart for improving the control of the products in industry.
In the 1970s Japan was established as the second most powerful economy in the world and the Americans
were wondering how country that started from ashes could achieve such a tremendous success. The answer was,
it was due to “American”: William E. Deming. After this success Deming ideas was accepted worldwide.
Industry moved to a structural and systematic way of dealing with quality and the first international standard for
quality was introduced in 1987. It was based on the British BS 5750.
The boost given by Japanese industry success resulted in the with tremendous development of QMS and
particular tools for quality management. Today there are plenty of methodologies and tools used to improve
quality: Statistical Process Control, Design of Experiments, Hypothesis Testing, Pareto, Error Proofing
Methodologies, FMEA, FMECA, 5 Why, Root Cause Analysis, Fishbone Diagrams, Six Sigma, etc… Today
quality management is a real science, but still there are people who disagree with that…
Aviation as manufacturing industry accepted the QMS at the same time as other industries. It happened
when ISO 9001 was “transformed” into AS 9100 where specifics of the aviation were added to the
requirements. But AS 9100 is the standard which was dedicated only to the aircraft manufacturers and spare part
manufacturers. Airlines and MROs which are actually service organizations and do not cope with the AS 9100.
Nevertheless they accepted the “quality movement” but the concept of Quality Control (QC) and Quality
Assessment (QA) was not changed.
When ISO 9001 was introduced also for service organizations, most of the airlines and MROs accepted this
standard. But until the industry moved from a simple management system to a “scientific” approach to quality
there was no development of QMS in airlines and MROs systems. What is worse, plenty of airlines and MROs
are still binding with QC and QA. What causes concern to worry is that the quality concept is still the one from
1980s!

B. Quality in aviation?
Let’s explain the present view of QMS in airlines and MROs through two simple examples. I will use these
examples to show the present understanding of the quality of companies through their requirements of “quality
personnel”, so let’s look at the requirements:

1. Example 1
A MRO in a well-established country in Europe is looking for a Head of Quality Assurance.
My comment: It is strange to me that the company is looking for a Head of Quality Assurance… If you
open EASA Part 145 document and you do “Find” for word “quality assurance” you will hit 0 results. Actually
there are no EASA requirements of “quality assurance”. EASA requests MROs to have person (para
2
Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2015
145.A.30(c)) which will take care of the “quality system” and it requires to establish a “quality system” (para
145.A.65(c))…
If you open ISO 9001:2008 standard and do “Find” for word “quality assurance” you will hit few findings
and all of them actually shows that “quality assurance” does not exist anymore in ISO 9001 standard. But
activity connected with “quality assurance” is still there used as “continual improvement”.
To clarify this let’s speak about the “quality system”: It is actually the Quality Management System
(QMS). QMS is an aggregation of the people, equipment and procedures. Procedures are activities which
connects people with equipment and they need to be documented. If you check ISO 9000 (Vocabulary and
Definitions) you will see that terms Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) are connected and both
are part of the QMS.
Quality Control is defined as “the operational techniques and activities that are used to satisfy quality
requirements” (ISO 9000 definition). Actually QC monitors the quality of the products and services offered by
the company and QC does not allow product or service with poor quality to be in market. In fact, QC cannot
improve quality: it can just provide the chance to manager(s) not to feel ashamed if they present a bad product
or bad service on the market. And what is the “bad” product or service? In aviation it is a product or service
which does not satisfy (comply) with the customer requirements or with the specifications offered by the airline
or MROs. In aviation a “bad” product or service regards not only quality but is also a safety issue!
Quality Assurance (QA) is defined as “the assembly of all planned and systematic actions necessary to
provide adequate confidence that a product, process, or service will satisfy given quality requirements” (ISO
9000 definition). QA uses data gathered through QC and analyzes these data to look for improvements in the
processes used to manufacture the product or offer the service.
QC and QA are actually part of the QMS. The QMS should be shaped so it can provide procedures for QC
and QA. And responsibility for these procedures lies with the Quality Manager (QM)!
The duties of the requested “Head of Quality Assurance” for the company are given below (in italic
together with my comments):
 The overall monitoring, support and accompaniment of Q-relevant projects and topics;
Not much to be done regarding the QA, but plenty to be done by QMS!
 Budget and management responsibility for the quality assurance specialist unit installation and
maintenance;
Again “quality assurance”? Does this company have the QMS implemented and is there any QM???
 Ensure compliance to all quality relevant rules and regulations;
This is pretty much a quality issue which needs to be covered by QMS!
 Toast and ensure continuous process optimization;
These are quality requirements which needs to be covered by QMS!
 Support and advice with respect to unit leaders and the central body for quality assurance in relation
to unit-wide quality topics from installation and maintenance:
Again “quality assurance”? Never mind… Anyway “support and advice” must be covered by QMS
documentation!

So this company is looking for a Head of Quality Assurance but most of his job will be QMS… Will
they look later for QM or they will just not fulfil the QMS requirements? I do not know!

2. Example 2:
A MRO from the UK (which will undertake base maintenance for a well-known airline) is looking for a
Quality Manager. They work with Boeing and Airbus aircraft.
My comment: I do not know why they mention that the company will work with Boing and Airbus. The
Quality Manager must be an expert in QMS not with the aircraft. The QM will take care of QMS
(documentation, procedures, etc…). They must have EASA licensed personnel who deal with aircraft… Or
maybe not???
And here are the duties of QM:
 In conjunction with the Group Quality Manager, negotiating with the Civil Aviation Authority, Federal
Aviation Administration and other Airworthiness Authorities on behalf of the Company, with regard to
maintenance of approvals.
Of course that he will negotiate with the CAA, the FAA and others, but he is responsible only for QMS
and the negotiations will be only for this area! Maintenance of approvals??? Every approval should
have particular person responsible for that!
 Maintaining the independence of the Quality Departments such that the Company complies with Part
145.A.65(c).
I agree! The Quality Department shall be independent and it is directly connected with Director
General of company. Actually the truth is that employees in Quality Department are not working for
3
Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2015
 the company! They are working for the customers (authorities, passengers, etc…), but they are paid by
the company. This may seem very strange… Unfortunately this is true!
 Maintaining and management of the company MOR, IOR reporting schemes as required by Part
145.A.60
Of course! These are all quality issues!
 Maintain up-to-date knowledge of EASA Part 145, Part 147, part M and Part 21 and Subpart G and
SMS Risk based management.
What the hell does he need to do with all these documents? “Up-to date knowledge” is the
responsibility of the managers dealing with these documents. QM is dealing only with company QMS!
 Day to day administration and control of the Quality Department and audit program;
Of course! He is responsible for this!
 Administration of the Company Manuals
Of course! He is responsible for this!
 Administration of the Company Authorizations System to comply with current legislation such that staff
meet the requirements of Part 145.A.35 as appropriate;
This is actually job for Human Resources (HR)! QM has nothing to do with this!
 Negotiations with Manufacturers/Vendors on Quality matters relating to Maintenance of customer
aircraft.
Of course! He is responsible for this!
 Conducting investigations and preparing reports on quality, technical and maintenance issues using
MEDA for the Authorities, Group Quality Manager and the General Manager as appropriate.
Of course! He is responsible for this!
 Ensuring that the Company Health and Safety Policy is adhered to in the areas of responsibility;
This is not responsibility of QM! He has nothing to do with that! Company Health is part of HR and
Safety Policy is responsibility of Safety Manager (SM)!
 Audit review of aircraft documentation and work packs;
Work packs – YES! But aircraft documentation, I doubt! The person who receives the aircraft for MRO
should check the documentation.
 Accomplishing such other duties as may reasonably be directed by the Group Quality Manager.
Buy lunch or refreshments for the personnel, etc… C’mon, he will handle all quality issues directed by
anybody, because this is his job: Quality!!!
 Projecting the Company image and promoting Company interests to customers and potential
customers.
This is for Marketing Department, not for QM!!!

So, this company posted 13 requirements for job of QM, but only 5 are really connected with QMS…
Let’s summarize the comments from these two examples:
These companies are missing plenty a points but the main point missing is: maintaining the quality! This
must be done through systematic way and this way is Quality Management System (QMS).
Maintaining the QMS is daily responsibility and it lasts forever. ISO 9001 has introduced the term
Continuous Improvement and this applies to airlines and for MROs also. So QM must deal with QMS on daily
basis and he cannot deal with things which are not part of QMS. Simply: There is no time for that!
When there is a quality issue then there are methods and tools to find the cause and solve the problem. QM
must be familiar with all of them and he must make a choice as to which one corresponds to real situation of the
company. The most common solution for quality problems is a change of the procedure and there is nothing
wrong with that. Procedures are life documents. They are company standards, but they must follow reality. If
something changes in the process – procedure should also be changed.
Of course there must be operational requirements to change procedure and it does not have to be connected
to cosmetically changes. But changing one procedure can affect other procedures, so the QMS must be always
in balance and the QM is responsible for that balance. Changing the procedure (as overall production of QMS)
is Team Work. QM will monitor later, but if there is something wrong, the Team will meet again and discuss the
problem and particular solutions. A good QM will have job to do every day and he will need a good team to
handle all quality issues. Actually in small MROs (up to 50 employees) there is a possibility to employ one
person as QM to deal with that, but for airline with more than 5 aircraft there is need for a department with at
least 5 employees.
QC and QA are holdovers from the past. These were times when quality was QC and QA and nothing else.
Today, QC and QA are just one part of the QMS and dealing only with them is not sustainable. There are more
issues which are parts of the entire QMS and if something is missing – this is non-compliance!

4
Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2015
C. Missing points regarding quality
So I strongly recommend that airlines and MROs look at for good QM!!! And please understand your
“missing points”:
1. You have to establish a QMS which is effective and efficient! Do not allow yourself to establish pro-
forma QMS because you are spreading money without any real results. Good QMS will elicit the best
from the employees!
2. When you are looking for QM look for a guy who is expert in QMS! The best QMS will not work with
a bad QM! He does not need to know details about the aircraft or piloting or aviation. He will produce,
implement, maintain and control the QMS.
3. Do not look for a person who is familiar with airlines or MROs or aviation. A QM is not a chicken and
he cannot lay an egg, but he knows which egg is good and which one is bad! A good QM understands
that maintaining the quality is Team Work and he will learn very much from the members of the Team.
Even if you have a guy who is a certified EASA engineer his primary job will be QMS. He will deal
with the people, he will not deal with the equipment, so expertise in the engineering is not necessary at
all! If I needed to choose between EASA certified engineer and psychologist for QM, I would choose
second one!
4. Good QMS will bring considerable changes to the company! So good QM must know how to deal with
changes and people. He must have the ability to assure all employees that the changes are for the sake
of all. He can do that if he stick to the quality facts and if he is eloquent regarding the QMS. Good
knowledge of Change Management for QM is more valuable than aviation experience!

IV. Safety Management System

A. History of Safety
In the late 1970s there were two collisions between the aircraft. One was above Zagreb (Croatia) when two
aircraft collided in the air and second one was on Tenerife (the Canary Islands) where two aircraft collided on
the runway. Around 800 people died in these accidents and ICAO raised alarm. Actually the 1970s were the
worst decade in the aviation industry.
After few years of work the ICAO produced document ICAO DOC 9422 (Accident Prevention Manual).
Although it is mostly aimed to pilots, this document established new approach to aviation safety which was
legally introduced in the late 1990s. It is connected by issuing of the ICAO DOC 9859 (Safety Management
Manual). This document actually explains everything which good Safety Management System (SMS) should
contain. At the end of 2013 the Annex 19 (Safety Management) was introduced by ICAO. Today there are
plenty of documents (globally and locally) where requirements for SMS are established by organizations and
national regulatory bodies.

B. Safety in aviation?
Keeping in mind that establishment of SMS requirements occurred almost 20 years ago, still overall
understanding by the aviation community is poor especially with airlines. IATA produced a manual and a
methodology, but as I said airlines are using it “pro-forma” without a clear understanding of the basics of SMS.
Let me try to explain this though two examples:

1. Example 1:
“An extremely successful and ever growing business jet client in one of Asia's most vibrant cities” is
looking for a Safety Manager (SM) and these are the requirements (in italic) and my comments below them:
 Very good knowledge and experience in the functions of the organization e.g. training, aerodrome
operations, maintenance organization management, etc...;
Why? Every company has a different type of organization... Anyway, when he is employed he will
need at least 2 weeks to understand how the company is organized.
 A knowledge of the ANO (Air Navigation Order) for Bermuda and HKCAD (Hong Kong Civil Aviation
Department) and ICAO Annex 6 Part 1 and 2;
Why? He will create the full SMS which will be prepared to fulfil all the obligation of the airline in any
conditions without specifically taking ANO or HKCAD into consideration. Only special requirements
can be added to the SMS, but in the beginnings the company SMS shall fulfil ICAO requirements (as
the state need to fulfil ICAO requirements)!
Why “knowledge of ICAO Annex 6”? He will not deal with aircraft! He will deal with the SMS and
procedures (similar to QMS) and it is Team Work. You may look at like a philharmonic orchestra: the

5
Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2015
 SM is the conductor and he is taking care of the overall performance of the orchestra. He is not an
expert in all instruments. But he needs to be familiar with all procedures!
 A vast knowledge of safety management principles & practices;
Actually he needs to be an expert in Safety Management and not necessarily an expert in aviation.
 Good verbal & written communication skills;
As for every employee…
 Computer literacy;
As for every employee…
 High organizational ability with strong leadership skills;
As for every manager…
So from 5 requirements only one is connected with SMS but even this one is very broadly explained.

2. Example 2:
An airline from respectable country in Europe is looking for Safety Manager and these are the requirements
for the person who will be suitable for position:
 10 years’ experience as aircraft commander;
Why??? It is very strange how the people think that being in charge of an aircraft means that you are
better in safety than other personnel… A long time ago, a pilot explained to me that they are every day
connected with hazards so they are better aware for them than other people… But, statistics in aviation
accidents from year 1950 to year 2000 show that almost 80% of them are caused by human error. And
pilot errors are 88% of all these errors… So I am wondering how the people with such a burden can be
better at safety than others…?
 Independent, task oriented way of working;
Of course! SM is by definition dedicated to the tasks (maintaining the safety!) and they are
independent!
 Accepts managerial responsibility;
I am wondering what this has to do with SMS?
 Capacity for teamwork:
Safety is Team effort, I agree!
 Sufficient knowledge of MS Office;
Is there anyone who cannot deal with MS Office today…? Is there any particular in <S Office that will
help SM to be good…?
 Fluent in German and English languages;
OK! No comment for this one…

So from 6 requirements only 2 are connected with SMS…

Actually there is something more with the SM… Although he must have all capabilities mentioned for QM,
he needs to have excellent knowledge of Risk Management (RM). And this is the most important difference
between the QM and SM. But no one from these two companies was looking for a guy proficient in Risk
Management. And I am really wondering how big the percentage of the SMs in the world is, who are proficient
in Risk Management…
So I strongly recommend to the airlines and MROs to look for a good SM!!! The good SM is the guy who is
good in all aspects of safety in aviation and all of them are important:
1. Safety Policy and Objectives;
2. Safety Risk Assessment;
3. Safety Assurance; and
4. Safety Promotion.

C. Missing points regarding safety

The four aspects presented in the previous chapter are the core of every SMS so if someone is missing,
there is no SMS. And please understand your “missing points”:
1. Safety needs a systematic approach. You have to establish SMS which is effective and efficient! Do not
allow yourself to establish pro-forma SMS because (again similar as with QMS) you are spending the
money and there is no result. I would like to present to you some findings from report of the
Commission for Flight Safety established in 2003 by the White House (USA):
The decreasing of 73% of safety risks will bring to the airlines 620 million US dollars savings every
year. Every safety incident (compared by the number of flights) costs aviation subjects 76 US dollars
per flight. By implementation of only 46 recommended safety improvements this costs decreased to 56
US dollars per flight.

6
Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2015
 So, you make your own calculations…
2. When you are looking for a SM look for a guy who is an expert in SMS! He does not need to know
details about the aircraft or piloting, but he must be very much familiar with ICAO DOC 9859 and
ICAO Annex 19. In addition he must be familiar with all of the safety tools and methodologies
(HAZID, FHA, FTA, ETA, FMEA, FMECA, etc…). He will produce, implement, maintain and control
the SMS. A good SMS will establish good safety practice within the company!
3. Do not look for a person who is familiar with the airlines or MROs. A good SM understands that
maintaining the safety environment is done through Team Work and he will learn a lot from the
members of the Team. And vice versa: the Team will learn a lot from the SM regarding systematic
approach to safety. Even if you have a guy who is a certified EASA engineer, his primary job will be
SMS. He will deal with the procedures and with the people, he will not deal with the equipment, so
expertise in the engineering is not necessary at all!
4. The SM will bring about considerable changes in the company! He must change the overall attitude to
the processes, introducing safety into them! He must have the ability to assure employees that the
changes are for the sake of all (not only for CAAs and for passengers). He can do that if he stick to the
facts and if he is eloquent with the SM. Good knowledge of Change Management for SM is again more
valuable than aviation experience!

V. The future: Integration of QMS and SMS (?)

At the beginning of this decade the professor Erik Hollnagel (Ph.D. in Psychology, University of Southern
Denmark) proposed the new approach to safety. The basic explanation of his proposal is: “How to be safe by
looking at what goes right instead of what goes wrong”. In his book “Safety–I and Safety–II” he named the
present safety as Safety-I and future safety as Safety-II and he explains:
“Focusing on what goes right, rather than on what goes wrong, changes the definition of safety
from ‘avoiding that something goes wrong’ to ‘ensuring that everything goes right’. More
precisely, Safety-II is the ability to succeed under varying conditions, so that the number of
intended and acceptable outcomes is as high as possible. From a Safety-II perspective, the
purpose of safety management is to ensure that as much as possible goes right, in the sense that
everyday work achieves its objectives. This means that safety is managed by what it achieves
(successes, things that go right), and that likewise it is measured by counting the number of cases
where things go right. In order to do this, safety management cannot only be reactive, it must also
be proactive. But it must be proactive with regard to how actions succeed, to everyday acceptable
performance, rather than with regard to how they can fail, as traditional risk analysis does.”

The basics of today safety (Safety-I) are really reactive I agree: an accident happens and we react! But
aviation has recognized that and ICAO said that the approach to safety shall be “proactive” and when we
establish enough data to calculate probabilities we may move to “predictive”. I support the proposal of Dr.
Hollnagel, but I think that we already have a management system which is dealing with his proposal: this is
QMS. Dealing with the quality is actually dealing with “what goes right” (Safety-II). Maybe you ask yourself
how it is possible to speak about quality and have Safety-II. Please do not forget that in 90% of cases
improvement of the quality will improve safety and this is an especially valid statement for aviation.
As you can notice from previous chapters there is very big similarity between position of QM and SM
(establishment of QMS and SMS). Actually I do believe that integration of the QMS and SMS is something
which will happen in the future. This is the only way to integrate “what goes right” with “what goes wrong” and
to deal with that together. There is very strong operational need for that and also economic requirement. And I
think that this is one very important missing point!
In 2011 I submitted a proposal for an Integrated QMS and SMS standard in ANSP - Requirements to CEN
ATM Technical Committee (TC 377-ATM). The standard was the result of few years’ effort by me to gain a
better understanding of the connection between QMS and SMS. Obviously they can be connected on the
documents level and use the same documentation. Also the QMS procedure will be improved with safety
measures. Do not forget that maintaining the good quality of the products and services is best way of achieving
safety, not only in aviation, but also in industry. Of course, the procedures for maintaining the SMS must be
independent, but everything else can be done by integration. Audits can be made by a Team of Auditors who
have good backgrounds in QMS and SMS. Anyway the audit techniques are the same.
My proposal was considered at the TC 377 meeting held on 19th of May 2011 in Keln (Germany), but the
news which I received from there was very disappointing. Disappointment arose from the explanation of the
Committee that there is no need to bring such a standard for the time being because there is no request from
ANSP for such a standard. In addition they could not see any benefit which this standard would bring to the
ANSP…
7
Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2015
 Today the situation with ANSP is that they must implement, maintain and audit two systems: QMS and
SMS. In my humble opinion these two systems need twice as many employees and as much efforts to maintain
the one integrated standard. At least there is need for QM and SM and if you put one person as QM&SM you
are integrating! (?)
Nevertheless in practice I have already experience with such integration. There are plenty companies in the
aviation area which have already established one person who takes care for QMS and SMS. And regulatory
bodies accept this! Almost one year ago I was working for an airline and the name of my position was Quality
Assurance and Safety Manager. Having in mind that I have revised the all QMS and SMS documentation I
produced an integrated QMS and SMS which was pleasure to deal with.
Software companies which produce safety software for aviation subjects already have products which deal
with integrated QMS and SMS. Few years ago, ASQS (Aviation Safety and Quality Solutions), a company from
Luxembourg started by selling of their product Integrated Quality and Safety Management System (IQSMS). Q-
Pulse is one of the products which is wide-spread in the aviation world and it deals with quality, safety and risk
management. So, the future is here and I believe that soon the standard called “Integrated QMS and SMS –
Requirements” will be very useful to the aviation community.

VI. Conclusion

So, although the Quality in the industry passed the long way, the airlines and MROs are lagging behind the
industry. In these aviation subjects Quality is referred to something which is connected only with regulatory
requirements and plenty of companies do not understand the main points and benefits which good QMS could
bring to them. That what is surprising that these subjects do not understand even the basics and maybe this is
reason that they underestimate the power of good QMS. It is really a problem, because there are “unseen
connection” between the Quality and Safety in aviation. So, not taking care of Quality of the services offered
can endanger Safety!
With the Safety there is different situation. Maybe the reason for that is that SMS was introduced into
aviation only 25 years ago and the approach was more systematic. The FAA, EUROCONTOROL and EASA
already had prepared the all necessary guidance materials and methodologies for successful implementation and
maintenance of SMS, so the companies just needed to follow these guidelines. Nevertheless there is only ETA,
FTA and FMEA (FMECA) which are used for quantifying the levels of safety and there is no usage of plenty of
other tools (SPC, DoE, Hypothesis Testing, Pareto, Six Sigma, etc.) already approved for QMS. After initial
implementation the airlines and MROs started to think more on their “economy system” (and profit!) than to
their QMS and SMS, misunderstanding that the profit is missing where accident happens. So they “innovated”
the position of “Quality and Safety Manager”. This is OK only if there is integration of those two systems in the
company. But such a thing never happened and having one guy who is overseeing two very important systems is
pretty much frustrating and dangerous.
Looking for the roots and further development of these two systems I do believe that such a kind of
integration is inevitable. In the future, the QMS and the SMS should be integrated to get maximum benefit from
implementation of the Safety-I and Safety-II.
But first: Do not allow yourself to have “missing points” in your understanding about QMS and SMS! 

REFERENCES

1. International Standard, ISO 9000 – Quality Management System – Vocabulary and Definitions, Third
Edition, International Standard Organization, 2005;
2. International Standard, ISO 9001 – Quality Management System – Requirements, Fourth Edition,
International Standard Organization, 2008;
3. EASA documents (Part M, Part 145, Part ARO, Part ORO,…), European Aviation Safety Agency;
4. ICAO Annex 19, Safety Management, First Edition, ICAO, 2013;
5. ICAO DOC 9859, Safety Management Manual, Third Edition, ICAO, 2013;
6. Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management, Erik Hollnagel, 2014;

8
Air Transport and Operations Symposium 2015