OneReg warns airports: SMS upgrades looming in 2026

Hundreds of airports worldwide may be forced to replace or significantly upgrade their Safety Management Systems in 2026 as new global and national regulations tighten expectations on how aviation safety risk is managed, according to recent analysis highlighted by OneReg’s chief executive.

Regulatory timelines converge on 2026

Airport Safety Management Systems, or SMS, are moving from best practice to hard regulatory obligation as multiple policy tracks converge on the middle of this decade. International Civil Aviation Organization provisions on state safety programmes and service-provider SMS are being updated, with Amendment 2 to Annex 19 scheduled to become applicable in November 2026, signaling stricter expectations for how risks are identified, reported and mitigated across the aviation system.

In parallel, regional regulators are extending their own frameworks. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency has woven SMS principles into its various operational domains and extended its European Plan for Aviation Safety through the end of 2026, reinforcing a strategic focus on data-driven safety management for aerodromes and other certificate holders. Publicly available documents stress that oversight authorities are expected to assess not only the existence of SMS documentation but also the maturity and performance of those systems.

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration has already adopted rules requiring certificated airports under Part 139 to develop, implement and maintain SMS. Guidance material indicates that affected airports must integrate SMS policies and procedures into their Airport Certification Manuals, with implementation phased in over several years. As grace periods expire around 2026, airports with fragmented or legacy tools may find that incremental fixes are no longer sufficient to demonstrate full compliance.

Together, these developments form the backdrop for OneReg’s warning that many aerodrome operators could discover their current arrangements are not robust enough for the coming regulatory environment, even if they technically meet today’s minimum requirements.

Legacy tools under pressure from modern SMS expectations

Safety Management Systems have long been described in high-level terms as structured approaches to managing safety risk, combining policies, risk assessment, assurance and promotion. In practice, many airports have historically relied on a patchwork of spreadsheets, incident logs, paper manuals and disparate databases to track hazards and document mitigation measures. As long as occurrence reporting and corrective actions could be demonstrated during audits, such arrangements often persisted.

That model is now under pressure. Regulators and industry bodies increasingly frame SMS as a living system that must pull together real-time data from ramp operations, airfield inspections, maintenance, air traffic coordination and tenant activities. Training programs promoted by global airport associations emphasize integrated digital platforms, configurable workflows and analytics capabilities that can capture trends across an entire aerodrome, not just in isolated departments.

Recent approvals of airport SMS manuals in major U.S. hubs highlight how complex these systems have become. Public statements from airports such as Denver and Houston describe comprehensive manuals aligned with FAA expectations, underpinned by coordinated processes across multiple business units. These examples illustrate a shift away from static documentation toward dynamic management systems that must be continually updated as traffic grows, infrastructure changes and new types of operations, from advanced air mobility to large-scale events, place additional demands on safety oversight.

Against this backdrop, OneReg’s chief executive has argued that many existing tools do not provide the traceability, configuration control or cross-organizational visibility that regulators will expect as SMS oversight matures. While some airports can enhance their current platforms, others may find that retrofitting legacy systems is more costly and less effective than adopting purpose-built SMS or compliance solutions.

Global harmonization drives need for unified platforms

Another factor behind the anticipated wave of SMS replacements is the growing push for harmonization across borders. ICAO’s framework is designed to create a common safety language for airlines, airports, maintenance providers and air navigation services. Regional safety plans in Europe, North America and elsewhere draw on that framework to align oversight approaches, and industry training courses marketed globally now reference the same core SMS concepts and timelines.

This harmonization means that multinational airport operators, as well as hubs serving a mix of international carriers, face pressure to present a consistent safety picture to multiple regulators and airline partners. A patchwork of location-specific systems can make it difficult to compare risk profiles, track group-wide performance indicators or respond quickly to emerging concerns. Centralizing on a single platform, or at least on compatible systems, can reduce duplication and make it easier to share lessons learned across a network.

Technology vendors have responded by promoting configurable, cloud-based SMS and compliance platforms designed for airlines and airports. OneReg positions itself among this new generation of tools, advertising integrated manuals, digital workflows and direct mapping to regulatory requirements. Competing providers offer specialized modules for hazard reporting, safety assurance and quality management, aiming to replace older software products originally built for narrower functions such as audit tracking or incident logging.

According to published industry coverage, the appeal of such unified platforms lies not only in compliance but also in efficiency gains. When hazard reports, risk assessments, mitigations and training records live in the same environment, safety teams can spend less time reconciling data and more time interpreting it. That dynamic is likely to intensify as regulators make greater use of performance-based oversight, which relies on consistent, high-quality information from operators.

New operational risks raise the stakes for airports

The pressure to modernize SMS is not just a paperwork exercise. Around the world, aviation systems are contending with new and evolving risks, from increased traffic and staffing shortages to more complex airspace usage. Recent safety debates in the United States, including high-profile midair collision cases and discussions around air traffic control workload, have drawn attention to the limits of traditional procedures and the need for better predictive tools.

Airports are often at the center of these challenges. Rising passenger volumes, rapid turnarounds, construction projects and the introduction of new aircraft types all increase the potential for runway incursions, ramp accidents and airside vehicle conflicts. International sporting events and other major gatherings planned for 2026 will further intensify demand at key hubs, prompting operators to scrutinize whether their current SMS can keep pace with dynamic risk environments.

Regulators and safety organizations increasingly highlight data-driven approaches, such as combining operational data with human factors insights and advanced analytics, to anticipate where incidents might occur. Research into applying language processing and machine learning to air traffic communications and surface movements reflects a broader trend toward proactive risk identification. To benefit from these tools, airports need SMS architectures capable of ingesting and acting on large volumes of structured and unstructured data.

For operators still relying on manual or semi-manual processes, the gap between emerging best practices and current capabilities may become too wide to bridge through incremental change. In such cases, a full system replacement may be the only realistic way to align with the expectations that will be embedded in regulations by 2026.

Cost, culture and capacity challenges ahead

Replacing or significantly upgrading an airport Safety Management System is a substantial undertaking. Beyond the software itself, airports must dedicate resources to process mapping, data migration, user training and ongoing system governance. Smaller hubs with limited safety and IT staff may struggle to absorb these tasks while maintaining day-to-day operations, even if integrated platforms promise long-term efficiencies.

Financial constraints add another layer of complexity. While safety investments are often treated as non-negotiable, airport revenues can be cyclical and subject to external shocks. Operators must balance SMS modernization against competing priorities such as infrastructure upgrades, sustainability initiatives and customer-experience projects. Some may attempt to stretch existing tools further, but doing so risks falling out of step with the more prescriptive and performance-focused oversight anticipated for the late 2020s.

Cultural factors are equally important. Effective SMS relies on open reporting, cross-departmental collaboration and a shared understanding of risk. Introducing a new system without addressing these human elements can lead to low adoption and fragmented data. Training initiatives promoted by industry bodies emphasize leadership commitment and change management as critical components of SMS implementation, alongside technical configuration and documentation.

OneReg’s warning that hundreds of airports could face SMS replacement decisions in 2026 therefore highlights more than a looming software refresh. It points to a wider transformation in how airports conceptualize safety, organize their data and interact with regulators. For many operators, the coming years will test not only their technical readiness but also their capacity to embed modern safety management principles into the core of their operations.