SMS in the Maintenance World: Same Goal, Different Perspectives

I’m a big observer…always have been. In the SMS and aviation world, I tend to notice things that feel just a little off-center. I absorb them, turn them over, and try to puzzle out why they exist and what might bring them back into alignment with what’s required or simply what’s needed to make things work better.

The issues that consistently land in my personal “top three” are training and retention, acceptance of risk assessments in the maintenance department, and ERP drills.

I’ve already written about training in past blogs, so here I want to focus on SMS in the maintenance world; specifically, how it’s received, interpreted, and sometimes misunderstood. Training is a given. Most operators do their best to train SMS concepts at the right level for each team. Yet there’s one sector where I’ve consistently observed the most pushback on risk assessments as a community: maintenance and line service technicians.

This observation isn’t meant as a critique; rather, it comes from working with countless operators to build and mature their SMS programs. Of all departments, maintenance is often the most challenging to engage…not because they don’t care about safety, far from it, but because they see safety differently.

One of the clearest ways this difference shows up is in how each group approaches a core SMS tool: the risk assessment.

A Familiar Example: Risk Assessments

Let’s take a very common SMS tool: the risk assessment.

In Flight Operations, the reaction is usually something like:

“Sure, no problem. We’ll give it a go, tweak it to fit the mission, flag what keeps us up at night, and monitor it as needed.”

The mindset is practical and time-bound. The assessment shouldn’t take long or distract from the mission, but it can be a useful talking point and a way to ensure everyone is aligned before the flight.

Now contrast that with what I often hear in maintenance:

“Do we really have to? We do this every day. We follow the book and get the job done. This just feels like a chore and a distraction.”

From the maintenance perspective, the work is already highly visible, highly procedural, and tightly regulated. They’re on the floor, where everyone can see what they’re doing. To them, safety isn’t a form…it’s embedded in the AMM, the sign-offs, the inspections, and the accountability of their certificate.

Same Task, Different Personalities

What we’re really talking about here isn’t resistance: it’s personality and professional identity.

Pilots are trained to make decisions in dynamic, time-compressed environments. They’re comfortable managing risk in real time, often with incomplete information. A risk assessment feels like an extension of what they already do mentally before every flight.

Maintenance technicians, on the other hand, are trained to eliminate uncertainty. Precision, procedure, and verification are the job. Risk isn’t something to be managed, it’s something to be engineered out before the aircraft is released. When you ask a maintenance team to complete a risk assessment for a task they’ve done a hundred times, it can feel redundant or even insulting.

To be clear, there are always exceptions. I’ve met pilots who think risk assessments are a paperwork exercise, and maintenance teams who won’t lift a tool without a morning huddle and a discussion of what could go wrong. But as a general observation, these cultural differences show up again and again.

Why This Matters for SMS Buy-In

As a Safety Manager, buy-in doesn’t come from policy language, but from understanding. If you approach SMS with a one-size-fits-all mindset or lead with a “you have to” message, resistance is almost guaranteed before you ever collect meaningful data.

Maintenance teams don’t need to be convinced that safety matters. They live safety through procedures, inspections, and sign-offs. What they need to understand is how SMS tools add value beyond what they already do well. Pilots, meanwhile, don’t need more paperwork, rather they need SMS processes that fit the operational reality of decision-making in dynamic environments.

A strong Part 135 SMS recognizes these differences and designs systems that respect both perspectives.

A Takeaway for Leaders

For leaders, the message is simple: SMS effectiveness depends on how well you understand the people using it. Pilots and maintenance professionals share the same goal: safe, compliant operations. They just approach that goal through very different lenses.

The role of leadership is not to force alignment, but to create it. That means listening before directing, adapting SMS tools to the realities of each department, and reinforcing that safety is a shared responsibility supported - not burdened - by the system.

When leaders acknowledge these differences and lead with respect, SMS stops feeling like a mandate and starts functioning the way it was always intended: as a practical tool that strengthens safety across the entire operation.