Defining and developing corporate aviation leadership
Strategies for building high-performing flight departments.
By David Bjellos
ATP/Helo. Gulfstream G650
Senior Contributor
Many corporate flight departments have surpassed 50 years of continuous operations, with a growing number approaching 75. They have all matured and adapted to an increasingly complex world – with mixed results. This article will attempt to quantify and categorize the challenges of necessary leadership skills, what is required today, and what the future holds for a new generation.
Flight departments grew in the early years because visionary chairmen recognized the value of time in using aircraft for executive transport.
Men like Tom Watson, former chairman of IBM (WWII Consolidated B-24 Liberator pilot), and Arthur Godfrey (radio and TV personality and noted civilian airman), used their aircraft in the 1950s, 60s, and beyond to promote their businesses.
Since they couldn’t run their companies and the flight departments simultaneously, they usually chose their ranking pilot to oversee flight operations. These were airmen with strong piloting skills, but often lacking the necessary finance, team building abilities, and strategic vision to align flight operations with corporate goals. Early leadership consisted of little more than pairing crews and quelling pilot complaints about time off, fatigue, and petty dislikes. We know these traits today as human factors. The moniker has changed but the whine remains identical.
Today’s complexity of regulatory requirements, airspace, and particularly aircraft requires a detailed methodology for attaining skills that cover the technical aspect. The far more difficult specific challenge is management of human capital.
Industry decided long ago that the corporate version of human resources was sufficient to administer the flight departments, but good luck finding a single airman or technician who rates their HR department with high praise. This dysfunction is endemic to our industry as a whole and especially acute at companies with a large, global (and public) presence. We shall address these 2 topics separately.
Technical leadership
Technical proficiency in a corporate flight department is critical to ensuring safety, operational reliability, regulatory compliance, and alignment with corporate strategy. Unlike traditional management, which emphasizes administration and oversight, technical leadership blends aviation expertise, systems integration, and task-specific people development into a cohesive framework that delivers both operational excellence and corporate value.
Leadership must exhibit and apply best practices of technical excellence in modern corporate aviation,
outlining how it serves as both a safeguard and a strategic enabler for the business.
Business aviation operates at the intersection of aviation complexity and executive expectations. It provides safe, secure, and efficient mobility for senior leadership and key personnel, often under tight schedules while conducting global operations.
In this environment, technical expertise/leadership is obligatory. No matter the size of the operation, the expertise responsibilities are shared between the director of aviation, director of maintenance, technicians, and pilots.
This ensures that flight operations are executed with precision, that aircraft remain airworthy and technologically current, and that personnel are guided by a culture of safety and professionalism. At its best, technical leadership translates aviation expertise into business continuity and reputational strength for the corporation.
Key dimensions of technical leadership include mastery of aircraft performance, avionics, and flight procedures; regulatory compliance across FAA Part 91/135, ICAO, and other international authorities; and demonstrated leadership in cockpit decision-making and crew resource management (CRM).
On the maintenance and engineering side, key traits include oversight of maintenance programs to ensure safety and cost control; coordination with OEMs, MROs, and regulatory bodies on airworthiness directives; and adoption of predictive maintenance and digital record-keeping systems.
Technology integration must include implementation of digital flight planning tools, EFBs, and data analytics; adaptation to evolving avionics and connectivity solutions (eg, ADS-B, data link); and leading the department through transitions to new technology platforms.
In terms of safety and risk management, it’s important to establish a proactive safety culture supported by the safety management system (SMS); oversee incident/accident investigations and root cause analysis; and assess risks through FOQA, ASAP, and operational trend monitoring.
On the regulatory and standards compliance side, leaders anticipate regulatory changes impacting operations and maintenance; manage audits (ARGUS, BASC, IS-BAO, Wyvern) with precision; and integrate aviation compliance into corporate governance structures.
Also, concerning people and team leadership, it’s important to mentor pilots, technicians, and support staff; promote continuing education and professional certifications; and translate technical requirements into executive-level communication.
Technical leadership in a corporate flight department is more than operational oversight – it’s a strategic function. By combining aviation expertise with people leadership and business alignment, technical leaders safeguard not only aircraft and passengers but also corporate continuity and reputation.
For organizations that rely on aviation to achieve their objectives, investing in strong technical leadership is a direct investment in safety, efficiency, and corporate value.
Human factors
Strategic leadership in a corporate flight department is the deliberate integration of technical and human factors disciplines into a unified model. Many flight departments describe these models as flight/general operations manuals (FOM/GOM). They are supplemented by detailed standard operating procedures (SOPs) and a robust method for ensuring compliance (in-house training/checking, specialized course summary for Part 142 training providers, and deliberate and frequent operational meetings).
While technical leadership ensures that aircraft and systems function reliably, human factors leadership ensures that people operate effectively and within their limits. Together, they create a flight department that is safe, resilient, efficient, and strategically aligned with corporate goals.
For corporations that depend on aviation as a business enabler, investment in integrated leadership is not optional, but a direct investment in safety, continuity, and organizational excellence. Technical leadership and human factors leadership coexist not as separate silos but as 2 halves of a strategic leadership framework for corporate flight departments.
Strategic impact of integrated leadership
Flight departments that succeed in balancing technical and human factors leadership deliver measurable benefits. Operational reliability, for example, is a result of higher dispatch rates and fewer disruptions. Error reductions result in fewer incidents through proactive error management. An enhanced safety culture yields transparent, accountable, and resilient organizational behavior.
Other benefits from integrated leadership include cost efficiency, because smarter maintenance and operational planning reduce downtime and expenses; talent sustainability, derived from a culture of mentorship, respect, and professional growth, which improves retention; and the corporate reputation that results from reliable, professional aviation operations that reinforce executive confidence and brand image.
Implementation roadmap
To achieve this integrated model, a corporate flight department can follow this implementation roadmap:
1. Leadership commitment. The accountable executive and flight department management must commit publicly and explicitly to integrating technical and human factors
leadership.
2. Assessment and gap analysis. Conduct a comprehensive review of existing training, procedures, and culture. Use anonymous surveys, safety reports, and internal audits to identify gaps in both technical and human factors areas.
3. Revised training and development. Update training curricula to reflect an integrated approach. Partner with providers specializing in advanced CRM and human factors training tailored for corporate aviation.
4. Mentor and coach development. Identify and train high-potential leaders and seasoned crew members to serve as mentors and coaches. Equip them with the skills to provide constructive feedback on both technical and human performance.
5. Policy and procedure revision. Ensure that departmental policies and SOPs promote explicitly human factors principles, such as checklist protocols and clear communication standards.
6. Performance management integration. Modify performance reviews to include evaluations of human factors competences. This formalizes their importance and encourages their practice.
7. Sustained promotion and reinforcement. Promote the department’s commitment to integrated safety. Do so regularly through newsletters, safety meetings, and positive recognition of behaviors that exemplify strong technical and human factors leadership.
Conclusion
In our demanding world of corporate aviation, leadership is the primary determinant of a flight department’s safety and effectiveness – and, ultimately, its success. By purposefully cultivating and integrating both technical and human factors leadership, a flight department can move beyond a reactive safety posture to a proactive, resilient, and continuously-improving process.
This requires a cultural shift and a strategic investment in the department’s most valuable asset – its people. The result is a safer, more professional, and, ultimately, more thriving aviation service that meets the rigorous demands of modern business.
Numerous industry and academic solutions are available for strengthening both technical and strategic leadership skills. There are plenty of educational institutions specializing in the corporate aviation structure, such as the University of Virginia Darden School of Business, the Viterbi School associated with the University of Southern California, NBAA’s Leadership Conference and its proprietary certificate in corporate aviation management (CAM), the Roberto Goizueta School of Business at the University of Georgia, the Business Aviation Safety Summit (BASS) presented by the Flight Safety Foundation, and numerous independent groups like the Aviation Directors Roundtable and the Chief Pilots Roundtable.
Not everyone wants to be in a leadership function, but for those who do, the reviewed guidelines are time-tested, expected, and all but mandatory in today’s marketplace for talent. Is all the extra work and time away from home worth the efforts? Only you can answer that question, because your goals are unique, and so is every airman/woman.
For those who wish to remain as traditional pilots, focusing on operational issues and trip continuity, it is just as important to understand the needs of the corporation and the tools the leadership team use to achieve those goals. “That’s not my job” is a phrase that should rarely – if ever – be heard in a corporate flight department.
Senior contributor David Bjellos has been writing for PP since 2004. He is an active airman flying a G650 based in south Florida.