I am having a very hard time accepting your explanation because, fundamentally, it is a safety management system. You want to give it a very broad definition and say it is just a management system. You could add administrative management, which has nothing to do with safety. Imagine the debate if it was decided that, under the legislation presented here today, an administrative management system could be implemented that would have nothing to do with safety. If that is what you would like to do, we must hear witnesses and users to determine whether they are willing to have an administrative management system imposed on them.
I am not saying that you are wrong, but adopting such a definition poses a problem. If the word “risk” is used, at least there is a focus on safety. We would reduce risk management to the most basic level, improve aviation safety and the safety of the public, and it would still be a safety management system. If you remove the words “safety” and “risk”, this would mean that all kinds of management systems could be imposed, including administrative management systems. This would mean interfering with the management and administration of airlines.
I could be inclined to agree with you, but I would like the airlines to tell me if they would like us to interfere in their administration. The advantage of our definition is that it focuses on safety and risk. If you want to get involved in other management systems, however, I hope the airlines are aware.