Propósito – The article examines the regulation carried out by the Civil Aviation Council (CONAC) in the light of the administrative procedural theory of regulation. Methodology/approach/design – The methodology used will be a comparative analysis between the empirical basis of CONAC’s regulatory action between 2014 and 2019 and the assumptions of the process-administrative theory of regulation. The similarities, differences and omissions between practice and regulatory theory will be identified. Results – The comparison between regulatory practice and the administrative procedural theory of regulation shows that the model currently adopted by CONAC does not take account of the assumptions set out in the theory, since it has low predictability and transparency in the decision-making process, little interaction and limited opportunities for criticism and adjustment to regulatory proposals. Practical (optional) implications – The regulatory process carried out by CONAC should be streamlined in order to incorporate greater objectivity, predictability and transparency in order to increase publicity, impersonality and efficiency, in line with the constitutional principles of public administration, as well as to improve the institutional environment with external control bodies and the judiciary. Originality/relevance of the text (optional) – The originality of the article lies in the unprecedented analysis and comparison of the process-administrative theory of regulation with the regulatory practice of CONAC and the civil aviation sector. Its relevance lies in the possibility of streamlining the decision-making process in the civil aviation sector on the basis of regulatory theory.