Flight Data Monitoring vs. Flight Data Analysis vs. FOQA

Understanding the Terminology and the Safety Value Behind FDM, FDA and FOQA

Aviation has always relied on data to understand risk. Over the last two decades, however, flight data has become one of the most important tools for preventing incidents before they ever surface in an accident report. Airlines collect vast quantities of information from their flight recorders, but turning raw numbers into operational insight requires a structured program. Depending on where you operate, this program may be called Flight Data Monitoring (FDM), Flight Data Analysis (FDA), or FOQA—Flight Operations Quality Assurance.

Although these three terms sound different, they refer to the same underlying concept. The idea comes from ICAO, which defines the practice globally under the umbrella term Flight Data Analysis. Regional regulators then adopt this concept using their own terminology and frameworks. The challenge is that many operators—even experienced ones—still use these words inconsistently or interchangeably, leading to confusion about obligations and best practices.

To clear the picture, we need to start where the concept originates: ICAO Annex 6.

Flight Data Analysis (FDA): ICAO’s Global Foundation

ICAO Annex 6 sets the foundation for all modern flight-data-based safety programs. It uses the term Flight Data Analysis (FDA) to describe a systematic process where operators collect, process, and evaluate data from routine operations to improve safety.

Unlike accident investigation, FDA focuses on normal flights. The aim is to understand emerging risks, monitor SOP adherence, and detect operational drift long before it becomes a threat.

ICAO expects operators of large and complex aircraft—especially commercial air transport operators—to run some form of FDA program. The exact technical setup is not prescribed, but ICAO is clear about the outcome: flight data must support proactive safety management.

This ICAO foundation is the basis for the regional terms FDM and FOQA.

Flight Data Monitoring (FDM): EASA’s Implementation of FDA

In Europe, the ICAO concept of FDA is implemented through Flight Data Monitoring (FDM). This is the terminology and regulatory requirement operators encounter under EASA Air OPS Part ORO.AOC.130.

Under this rule, operators of large commercial aeroplanes must implement an FDM program. EASA’s Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) further explains how operators should structure and maintain their FDM process, covering elements such as:

• Data acquisition from QARs, FDRs, or ACMS sources
• Confidentiality and Just Culture protection
• Event detection and analysis
• Regular reporting to the accountable manager
• Integration with the Safety Management System (SMS)

FDM is simply Europe’s operationalisation of ICAO Flight Data Analysis, with more explicit regulatory structure.

FOQA: The FAA’s Equivalent to FDM/FDA

In the United States, the equivalent program is known as FOQA (Flight Operations Quality Assurance). FOQA is the FAA’s regional implementation of ICAO FDA, with the major difference that FOQA is voluntary, not mandatory.

➡️ FAA Advisory Circular defining FOQA

Despite its voluntary status, most major U.S. carriers participate because FOQA programs are proven to reduce risk, improve training, and support operational decision-making. The FAA also operates collaborative safety ecosystems such as ASIAS, which allow anonymized sharing of FOQA data across the industry.

FOQA programs must meet strict confidentiality requirements to ensure that operational data is used solely for safety purposes. These protections are a core principle across ICAO, EASA, and FAA frameworks.

Why FDM, FDA, and FOQA Ultimately Mean the Same Thing

Even though each regulatory region uses different terminology, the three concepts share one purpose:
to use routinely recorded flight data to identify risks and improve operational safety.

Here’s the simple alignment:

• Flight Data Analysis (FDA) → ICAO Annex 6 global term
• Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) → EASA implementation of FDA
• FOQA → FAA implementation of FDA

The workflow is identical:

1. Flight data is collected from recorders such as QAR, FDR, or WQAR.
2. Data is decoded and validated.
3. Events are detected using standard or tailored thresholds.
4. Analysts investigate trends and safety implications.
5. Findings feed into decisions, reports, and SMS processes.

Since the underlying purpose is the same, the real difference lies not in the workflow but in the regulatory context and terminology.

How FDA/FDM/FOQA Strengthen the Safety Management System (SMS)

A flight-data-based program is one of the most important inputs into a modern Safety Management System. ICAO’s SMS framework requires operators to identify hazards, assess risks, monitor trends, and implement corrective actions. Flight data is uniquely powerful in this context because it captures operational realities that crews may not report and that management may not see.

Flight data reveals patterns such as unstable approaches, runway excursions avoided, deviations from SOPs, automation dependency issues, or high-energy landings. These insights feed directly into SMS processes:

• Hazard identification
• Risk classification
• Safety performance indicators (SPIs)
• Training and procedural updates
• Airport and route risk assessments

A mature program does more than analyze events—it closes the loop. Airlines share results back to pilots in a non-punitive, constructive manner, reinforcing a Just Culture and ensuring the program improves line operations rather than becoming an administrative formality.

Fliant’s pilot-engagement philosophy for bridging FDA insights back to flight crews can be explored here:
➡️ https://fliant.com/flight-advise

Implementing a Flight Data Monitoring / Flight Data Analysis / FOQA Program

Establishing a flight data program follows a predictable and logical progression, regardless of the region.

The process begins with understanding regulatory obligations—mandatory under EASA for most commercial operators, voluntary under FAA, and strongly recommended by ICAO for large and complex aircraft. Once compliance requirements are clear, the operator defines the program’s scope: the event set, focus areas, reporting cadence, and safety objectives.

A reliable data-capture process comes next. Depending on the fleet and avionics, data may come from Quick Access Recorders (QAR), Wireless QAR (WQAR), Flight Data Recorders (FDR), Digital ACMS Recorders (DAR), or other sources. This data must be consistently extracted, transferred securely, and decoded accurately.

After decoding, event detection logic is applied. This is where SOP deviations, exceedances, and emerging patterns are identified. Skilled analysts or automated analysis tools then evaluate trends, investigate contributing factors, and correlate events with operational contexts such as weather, aircraft type, or specific runways.

Reporting closes the loop: monthly or quarterly safety reports, trend summaries, and focused alerts ensure that leadership, fleet management, and training departments all receive the information they need.

Continuous improvement keeps the program alive. Thresholds are refined, new events added, old events retired, and analytical focus areas adjusted as the operation evolves. The most effective programs integrate additional datasets over time, such as flight plans, weather, or LOSA insights.

Key Considerations for Modernizing or Scaling an FDA/FDM/FOQA Program

Although the concept of flight-data-based safety is universal, operators vary significantly in how they implement it. Some maintain full in-house teams, while others rely on managed services to analyse data and produce reports. Automation is rapidly transforming the landscape, making high-quality analysis accessible even to smaller operators.

Regardless of the model, the essential considerations remain the same:

• Data quality must be consistent and validated.
• Event logic should be transparent, traceable, and defensible during audits.
• Pilot trust must be preserved through confidentiality and constructive communication.
• The program must scale, especially as wireless data offload technologies accelerate data volume.

These principles hold true regardless of whether the program is called FDA, FDM, or FOQA.

Conclusion

Although operators worldwide use different names—Flight Data Monitoring in Europe, Flight Data Analysis under ICAO, and FOQA in the United States—the core purpose behind all three remains the same: learning from everyday operations to prevent tomorrow’s incidents. Whether mandated or voluntary, these programs provide unparalleled visibility into operational risk and form a critical pillar of a modern Safety Management System.

Understanding the terminology helps operators navigate regulatory obligations, but the real value lies in how effectively the program is implemented, integrated into SMS, and embraced by the organisation’s flight crews and leadership.