AI in Aviation Safety Management: Part 1 – Foundation
Before the Algorithm: What Must Exist Before AI Can Support Your SMS
Artificial Intelligence is no longer a future concept. It’s here, it’s accessible, and it’s increasingly being discussed in boardrooms, executive meetings, and vendor pitches across aviation.
From document preparation and data analysis to predictive insights and automation, AI is often presented as a way to make Safety Management Systems more efficient, more intelligent, and more proactive.
And in some cases, it can.
But before aviation organizations ask what AI can do for their SMS, a more important question needs to be asked:
Is the SMS itself ready?
This article is the first in a multi-part Acclivix Insights series exploring AI risks, opportunities, and responsibilities in aviation safety management. Rather than starting with tools or technology, we’re starting where safety leadership should always begin - with foundations.
AI Is an Amplifier, Not a Substitute
AI does not create safety culture.
AI does not own risk.
AI does not replace judgment, accountability, or leadership.
What AI does very well is amplify what already exists.
If your safety data is reliable, your processes are clear, and your leadership is engaged, AI may help surface patterns and insights that were previously difficult to see.
If those foundations are weak, AI does not fix them - it accelerates confusion, obscures accountability, and creates false confidence.
In aviation, where safety management is a regulated, auditable, and accountability-driven system, it’s important to make this distinction.
Before AI, the SMS Must Work on Its Own
A functioning and effective SMS should stand on its own - without AI.
Before considering AI-assisted safety management, executives should be confident that:
Hazards are being reported consistently and smoothly
Risk assessments are current, understood, and used
The safety risk profile meaningfully informs decisions and priorities
Corrective actions are tracked, closed, and verified
Quality assurance processes actually test effectiveness
Leadership actively engages with safety data, not just receives it
If these fundamentals are not already in place, introducing AI does not improve safety performance - it adds complexity to an already fragile system.
AI should support a mature SMS, not compensate for an immature one.
Human Oversight Is Not Optional
One of the most common misconceptions about AI is that it reduces the need for human involvement.
In aviation safety management, the opposite is true.
AI-generated outputs, whether they’re trends, correlations, risk alerts, or summaries must always be:
Reviewable
Challengeable
Explainable
Documented
Accountability under an SMS cannot be delegated to an algorithm.
When a hazard is missed, a risk is misjudged, or a corrective action is ineffective, regulators will not ask what the AI did. They will ask what leadership knew, reviewed, and approved.
Human involvement is not a limitation of AI. It is a requirement of safe operations.
Readiness Is a Leadership Question, Not an IT Question
Decisions about AI in SMS are often framed as technical or software decisions.
They are not.
They are leadership decisions about:
Governance
Risk tolerance
Accountability
Trust
Regulatory defensibility
Executives do not need to understand how AI models work, but they do need to understand how AI fits within their safety management framework, and where its authority begins and ends.
If an executive cannot clearly explain:
What AI is being used for
What data it has access to
How its outputs are validated
Who is accountable for decisions informed by it
Then the organization is not ready to deploy it in a safety-critical context.
A Simple Readiness Check
Before pursuing AI-assisted SMS capabilities, consider the following foundational check:
Our SMS produces reliable safety data today
Our leadership team actively uses SMS outputs
Our QA processes verify effectiveness, not just compliance
Our safety culture encourages reporting and learning
We can clearly explain how safety decisions are made
If these statements cannot be confidently answered as being true, then your organization’s priority is not AI - it is strengthening the SMS itself.
What’s Coming Next in This Series
In the coming months, this series will explore AI in aviation safety management through a leadership and governance lens, including:
Data ownership, confidentiality, and trust
Accountability, auditability, and regulatory expectations
Human factors, automation bias, and safety culture
Where AI can help today - and where it shouldn’t (yet)
How executives can govern AI responsibly in safety-critical systems
We’ll keep the focus where it belongs: on safe operations, defensible decisions, and sustainable safety performance.
Because in aviation, technology should never lead safety - leadership does.
Let’s Continue the Conversation
For many aviation organizations, the questions raised in this article are not about technology, they’re about confidence, clarity, and readiness.
If you’re not yet able to answer the readiness questions with a clear and confident “yes,” that’s not a failure. It’s a valuable insight - and often the starting point for meaningful improvement.
At Acclivix, we work with airport executives and safety leaders to:
Assess whether SMS foundations are truly functioning and effective
Facilitate practical, executive-level discussions about SMS maturity and accountability
Support targeted training for leadership teams and safety practitioners
Help evaluate and implement management system tools in a way that strengthens - not replaces - human oversight
Whether you’re preparing your organization for future use of AI, looking to strengthen your existing SMS, or simply want an experienced, independent perspective to guide the conversation, we’re here to help.
If this topic has sparked questions or discussion within your leadership team, we’d welcome the opportunity to continue the conversation.
👉 Reach out to Acclivix to explore what support might look like for your organization.