A substantive amendment. v2 significantly expands the scope of the expert review panel's mandate to include international obligations and specific FAA orders, while also adjusting the composition of the panel and increasing the threshold for recommendation endorsement. Access to information for the panel is also refined, with new limitations and clarifications regarding classified and FAA-created records.
FAA SMS Compliance Review Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 14, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes an independent expert panel to thoroughly review and recommend improvements to the FAA's safety management systems, aiming to enhance aviation safety through external scrutiny and increased accountability.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator to convene an independent expert panel within 60 days of enactment. The panel will comprehensively review the FAA's agency-wide Safety Management System (SMS), assessing its compliance with existing orders, effectiveness of its components, safety culture, internal audit processes, integration across FAA lines of business, personnel training, and voluntary safety reporting programs. The panel must submit a report with findings and recommendations to the Administrator and Congress within 180 days of its first meeting, which the FAA must publish. The Administrator is also required to provide regular congressional briefings on implementation and publicly explain any non-concurrence with recommendations.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that an independent, expert review is crucial for identifying gaps and improving the effectiveness of the FAA's Safety Management System (SMS), especially given the increasing complexity of air traffic and aviation operations. They contend that a thorough assessment will lead to a more robust safety culture, better integration of safety practices across all FAA divisions, and ultimately, a safer national airspace system for the traveling public and aviation personnel. Proponents highlight the inclusion of diverse stakeholders, including labor organizations and industry experts, as a strength that will ensure a holistic and practical set of recommendations.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that establishing another review panel could be redundant or unnecessarily bureaucratic, potentially diverting resources and attention from ongoing internal FAA safety initiatives. They might contend that the FAA already has mechanisms in place for continuous safety improvement and that an external panel, even an expert one, might not fully grasp the operational nuances or could create delays in implementing necessary changes. Some might also express concern about the composition of the panel or the potential for its recommendations to be overly broad or difficult to implement without significant cost.
The bill is moderately detailed but concise enough that an informed reader can understand its core provisions and implications within the typical timeframe allotted for legislative review.
Section 2(a)(1)
Independent Expert Panel Establishment
This provision requires the FAA Administrator to convene an independent expert panel within 60 days of the bill's enactment. The panel's primary purpose is to review and evaluate FAA orders and policies to inform the agency's implementation of a comprehensive and integrated Safety Management System (SMS). It also specifically requires the panel to consider the United States' obligations under international civil aviation conventions, particularly ICAO Annex 19.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that an independent panel ensures an unbiased and thorough assessment of the FAA's safety systems, free from internal pressures. The inclusion of international obligations ensures that the FAA's SMS aligns with global best practices, enhancing the U.S. position in international aviation safety.
Critics contend
Some might argue that the FAA's internal safety experts are already well-equipped to conduct such reviews, and an external panel, while independent, might lack the institutional knowledge to make truly effective recommendations without significant ramp-up time.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between ensuring independence and leveraging existing institutional knowledge. While independence is valuable, a lack of deep internal understanding could lead to less practical recommendations.
Section 2(a)(2)
Comprehensive Review Mandate
This section details the specific areas the expert panel must review. These include the FAA's SMS compliance with existing orders, actual and projected safety enhancements, effectiveness of the four core SMS components (policy, risk management, assurance, promotion), safety culture, internal audit processes, integration of SMS across FAA lines of business (Air Traffic Organization, Aviation Safety Organization, Office of Airports), personnel understanding and training, and the efficacy of Voluntary Safety Reporting Programs. It also tasks the panel with considering whether the U.S. should advocate for changes to ICAO Annex 19.
Section 2(a)(3)
Diverse Expert Panel Membership
This provision specifies the required composition of the independent expert panel. It mandates representatives from NASA, various aviation labor organizations (pilots, air traffic controllers, safety inspectors), independent subject matter experts with significant experience, air carrier employees, representatives from part 21 certificate holders (manufacturers), other aerospace industry representatives, and non-voting members from the U.S. Mission to ICAO and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). It also allows for up to five FAA employees to serve as advisory members.
Section 2(a)(5), 2(a)(8), 2(b)
Report Submission, Publication, and Administrator Accountability
The panel must submit a report with findings and recommendations (endorsed by at least 2/3 of appointed members) to the Administrator and Congress within 180 days of its first meeting. Dissenting views must be appended. The Administrator must publish this report within 5 days. Furthermore, the Administrator must brief Congress every 90 days for two years on the status of implementing concurred recommendations. For any recommendations not concurred with, the Administrator must publish a detailed explanation within 6 months of the report's submission.
The review panel's report must contain findings and recommendations "that are endorsed by at least 2/3 of the appointed members of the review panel."
Section 2(a)(5)(A)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice to ensure that recommendations carry significant weight and broad consensus from a diverse panel, rather than being driven by a simple majority that might not reflect widespread agreement.
Case for: Supporters would argue that requiring a two-thirds majority ensures that only the most critical and widely supported recommendations are formally presented, giving them greater legitimacy and increasing the likelihood of FAA adoption. It prevents recommendations from being pushed through by a narrow faction.
Case against: Critics might contend that a supermajority requirement could make it difficult for the panel to issue strong recommendations, especially on contentious issues where consensus is hard to achieve. This could lead to watered-down or fewer recommendations, potentially undermining the panel's effectiveness.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly impacts the substance and quantity of the final recommendations, potentially leading to more robust but fewer proposals.
Members of the review panel who are not Federal Government officers or employees "shall only have access to, and be allowed to inspect, information provided to the FAA pursuant to section 40123 of title 49, United States Code, and part 193 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, in a de-identified form."
Section 2(a)(6)(A)(ii)
Why it matters:This is standard practice to protect sensitive safety data, especially information voluntarily reported by industry, which is often de-identified to encourage reporting without fear of punitive action. It balances the need for panel access with privacy and confidentiality concerns.
Case for: Proponents argue this protection is essential for maintaining the integrity of voluntary safety reporting programs, which rely on confidentiality to encourage participation. De-identifying data allows the panel to analyze trends without compromising individual or company privacy.
Case against: Critics might suggest that restricting non-federal members to de-identified data could limit their ability to conduct a truly in-depth review, especially if specific incidents or operational details are crucial for understanding systemic issues. Some might argue that full access, under strict non-disclosure, would be more effective.
Estimated impact: Ensures continued trust in voluntary safety reporting programs while still allowing expert review of aggregated data.