Comparison
SMS consultant vs software: what each actually gives you
We sell software, so read this with that in mind. We have still tried to write it the way we would explain it on a call, including the cases where a consultant is the better answer.
They solve different problems
The framing "consultant or software" is usually wrong, because the two address different halves of the same obligation.
- A consultant designs your SMS. Gap analysis, safety manual, procedures, an implementation plan the FAA will accept, and expert judgement about how to scale the system to your operation. This is a project, and it ends.
- Software operates it. Capturing hazards, scoring risk, tracking controls, distributing bulletins, and keeping every record in a form you can produce years later. This is continuous, and it does not end.
| Consultant | Software | |
|---|---|---|
| Typical cost | $15,000–$50,000 one-off | $99–$599 per month |
| Produces | Manual, procedures, implementation plan | Operating records, risk register, evidence trail |
| Interprets the rule for you | Yes — their core value | Only insofar as the workflow encodes it |
| Still working for you in 2027 | Only if re-engaged | Yes |
| Handles day-to-day reporting | No | Yes |
| Chases you about an unverified control | No | Yes |
| Can be audited by the FAA | Their documents can | Your operating record can |
When a consultant is genuinely the right call
We would rather say this plainly than pretend otherwise:
- You have not started and do not know what Part 5 requires. Software will not teach you the rule. A good consultant will, and will produce a manual scaled to your operation faster than you will.
- Your implementation plan was rejected or you never submitted one. That is a regulatory relationship problem, and it wants a human who has handled it before.
- You are complex. Multiple certificates, unusual operations, international exposure. Judgement matters more than workflow.
- You are preparing for a specific audit with a short fuse. No platform fixes a three-week deadline.
When a consultant alone leaves you exposed
The failure mode we see most often: the engagement ends, the manual is excellent, and eight months later the operator has three hazard reports on a shared drive, no risk scores, and nothing that demonstrates safety assurance. The Declaration of Compliance does not ask whether you have a good manual. It asks whether the system is implemented and functioning.
A manual describes intent. Records demonstrate practice. The rule is satisfied by the second one.
What we do not do
We do not write your safety manual, we do not represent you to your FSDO, and we do not provide regulatory advice. Onboarding assistance means we help you configure the system and get your policy, ERP and risk matrix in place — not that we make compliance judgements on your behalf.
We also publish, openly, which of the twelve elements this platform does not yet carry. You can see that on the coverage map. Three of them are not implemented. A consultant would cover those; we do not pretend to yet.
See whether it fits your operation
Twenty minutes, no card. Tell us what certificate you hold and where your implementation plan stands, and we will show you the parts that apply to you.