The information security rules ask a question that safety managers already know how to answer: what could go wrong, how bad would it be, and what are you doing about it? The only genuinely new part is the category of things that can go wrong. The machinery for handling them, you already own.
That is the framing that makes this manageable for a smaller operator. Here are the five places we most often see it go sideways.
1. Handing it to IT and calling it done
The IT department knows about firewalls, patching and access control, and all of that matters. What IT usually cannot do is judge whether a particular compromise would affect flight operations or airworthiness — which is the entire point of the requirement. The scope is not "our systems". It is "the systems whose failure could reach the aircraft".
The assessment needs someone who understands the operation sitting next to someone who understands the infrastructure. Neither alone produces a defensible answer.
2. Building a second management system
The strong temptation is to stand up a parallel structure: a separate register, a separate review meeting, separate reporting. It doubles the administrative load and guarantees that the two systems will diverge.
Information security risks belong on the same register, scored on the same matrix, reviewed in the same meeting as everything else. The consequence you are assessing — disruption to flight operations or maintenance — is the same consequence you already assess. Only the cause is new.
3. Forgetting the suppliers
Most smaller operators depend heavily on external systems: EFB and chart providers, maintenance data exchange, flight planning, crew rostering. Your exposure runs through those interfaces, and the fact that the system belongs to someone else does not move the risk off your register.
The practical starting point is an inventory: which external systems touch the operation, what would happen if one were unavailable or gave wrong data, and who at that supplier you would actually call. That last column is more often blank than anyone expects.
4. Confusing "we have controls" with "we can show we have controls"
Plenty of organisations do sensible things — access reviews, signed software packages, backups that are actually tested. Very few can produce the evidence on request, because the sensible thing was done and not recorded.
Demonstrating compliance is a separate activity from being compliant, and it is the one that gets left until an audit is announced. Recording as you go costs minutes. Reconstructing costs weeks.
An unrecorded decision and a decision never taken look identical from the outside. Only one of them is unfair — and only you know which.
5. Treating it as a one-off project
Threats change, suppliers change, systems get replaced. An assessment produced once and filed is out of date within a year, and its existence can be worse than nothing because it creates confidence that is no longer justified.
Set a review cycle proportionate to the risk, with named owners and dates the system enforces. Most reviews will conclude that nothing changed. That conclusion, recorded, is exactly the evidence you need.
A reasonable first afternoon
List every external system that touches flight operations or maintenance. For each, note what breaks if it is unavailable, what breaks if it gives wrong data, and who owns the relationship. That list is not a compliance deliverable — it is the thing everything else is built on, and most organisations have never written it down.
This is a practitioner's view, not legal or regulatory advice. Always work from the current published regulation and any guidance material issued by your competent authority.
Want to see how the information security register works in practice? Book a demo and we'll walk through it with your own setup.