Standards should be built with the industry, not imposed on it.

Every standard, every position paper and every published piece of GCBA guidance is developed through the same route: a cross-disciplinary working group produces a public draft, the draft is opened for consultation, comments are logged and answered, and the Advisory Board formally decides adoption. The method is deliberately slower than a private industry roundtable — and deliberately more accountable.

Working groups deliberately mix perspectives. A group drafting operator due diligence guidance includes brokers, an aviation lawyer, a safety practitioner and, where relevant, an operator representative. Nobody in the room represents only their own commercial interest, and no group produces the final adopted text on its own.

Consultations are open to anyone with a substantive contribution: charter brokers, operators, aviation lawyers, insurance and finance specialists, safety practitioners, client advisors, technology providers, regulators and academic researchers. Contribution does not require GCBA membership. Working-group participation is invitation-based to keep drafting groups small enough to work, but membership of the groups is published.

Each adopted standard is published together with the record of the consultation that shaped it: the number of responses received, a summary of the material comments, the working group's disposition on each theme and the Board's adoption minute. Where a comment resulted in a change, the change is named; where a comment was rejected, the reason is stated. That record is the accountability mechanism that makes an open framework meaningful.

GCBA-supported research is neutral to any single vendor, operator or platform. Where research is co-funded, the contributing party is named. Where a researcher has a relevant commercial relationship, it is disclosed in the published piece. Data collected under GCBA research is anonymised at source unless the participant explicitly consents to attribution.