The computed Safety Risk Profile.
Are we getting safer?

See the highlighted block above the contents list. The rest of this article walks through why a single number, the eight components behind it, the four ICAO levels it resolves to, how you drill into it, and the governance loop it feeds.

Every board meeting reaches the same moment. The accountable manager is asked, in plain words, “are we getting safer?” The honest answer lives in dozens of indicators, hundreds of occurrences, a register of hazards and a backlog of corrective actions. Nobody at the table reads all of that. They need one read per risk theme that they can trust and then interrogate.

That is the job of a Safety Risk Profile (SRP): a single score per theme that compresses the operation’s real state into one number the board can act on. The danger with any single number is that it hides more than it reveals — a green tile can sit comfortably over a worsening trend, a degraded barrier or a stalled corrective action. So the score is only useful if two things are true: it is computed from the live records, and you can open it to see why it reads the way it does.

A coloured tile that someone updates by hand each quarter fails both tests. It is an opinion frozen in time, with no math underneath and nothing to drill into. A computed Safety Risk Profile is the opposite: it fuses eight live components, resolves to an ICAO four-level verdict, shows the math, and lets the board walk from the number down to the evidence. One number on the surface; a connected operation underneath.

The Safety Risk Profile score is not a single measurement. It is a fusion of eight components, each answering a different question about the same risk theme. Read together, they describe not just how risky a theme is, but how much you can trust that reading.

• Base risk.The underlying assessed risk of the theme — the starting point before recent movement, controls or evidence are weighed in.
• Trend. Whether the theme is improving or worsening over time. A tolerable theme moving the wrong way is not the same as a tolerable theme holding steady.
• Barrier health. How effective the controls linked to the theme actually are right now. Strong barriers pull a score down; degraded barriers push it up.
• Active signals.The indicators that are firing at this moment — the live evidence that something is happening, not a historical average.
• Corrective-action exposure. How much open corrective work sits behind the theme. A theme propped up by a pile of unfinished actions is more exposed than one that is genuinely controlled.
• Data confidence.How much real evidence the score rests on. A reading built from rich reporting deserves more weight than one inferred from thin data — and the profile says so.
• Surveillance coverage. How well the operation is actually watched for this theme. A blind spot is itself a risk, and the profile accounts for it rather than assuming silence means safety.
• Audit signal load. The weight of open audit findings touching the theme. Findings that have not been closed out are a standing signal the score should not ignore.

Fusing these eight is the difference between a number and an opinion. Two themes can share the same base risk yet read very differently once trend, barrier health and data confidence are weighed in. The fusion is computed from the underlying records, so the same inputs always produce the same score — and the score moves the moment those records move.

A fused score is only useful to a board if it lands on a verdict everyone already understands. eAviora resolves the score to the four risk levels from ICAO Doc 9859 — the Safety Management Manual every operator works to — rendered as full words, never abbreviations.

• Acceptable. The theme is genuinely under control. Routine monitoring is enough; no special action is owed.
• Tolerable. The theme is held, but only because active controls are doing their job. It stays on the radar and the controls stay watched.
• Undesirable. The theme demands attention. Corrective work is expected, and the board is right to ask what is being done and by when.
• Intolerable.The theme cannot be allowed to stand as is. It needs immediate action — or, if it must be accepted for a defined period, a recorded, co-signed acceptance that names who owns the decision.

The four-level verdict is the surface the board reads; the eight components are the explanation underneath it. Because the verdict is derived from the same standard the regulator audits against, the language in the room and the language in the manual are the same. There is no translation step between “the dashboard says amber” and “Doc 9859 says undesirable” — they are one and the same.

A computed score earns trust only if you can take it apart. The Safety Risk Profile is not a sealed tile — it is the top of a stack you can walk down. Open a theme’s verdict and you reach the evidence behind the number.

• The contributing indicators.The Safety Performance Indicators (SPIs) that move the score — which ones are firing, which are near threshold, which are improving. The number is built from them, so it points back at them.
• The linked barriers. The controls whose health the score reflects. You see which barriers are effective, which have degraded, and how that pushed the verdict one way or the other.
• The open corrective actions.The work sitting behind the theme — what is open, who owns it, and whether it has been proven effective. The corrective-action exposure component is not a mystery weight; it is this list.

This is what “the math is shown” means in practice. Every part of the verdict traces to a record someone can read. When the board asks why a theme is Undesirable rather than Tolerable, the answer is not “the analyst felt it was” — it is a degraded barrier, two indicators near threshold and an overdue corrective action, each one clickable. The drill-down is the audit.

A Safety Risk Profile that only gets read is half a system. The point of computing it from live records is that it can drive the governance that acts on it — without anyone re-keying the picture into a meeting pack.

The Safety Action Group.The Safety Action Group (SAG) is where the working-level safety conversation happens. In eAviora its agenda builds itself from live signals — repeated patterns across the operation, indicators that have degraded, and corrective actions that have proven ineffective. The group does not spend its first hour assembling the agenda; the agenda arrives already pointing at the themes the computed profile says need attention.

The Safety Review Board.The Safety Review Board (SRB) is where accountable oversight is exercised and decisions are recorded. Votes are recorded against the record, so who decided what is never in doubt. And where a theme must be accepted rather than driven to zero — an Intolerable or Undesirable risk held for a defined reason — the acceptance is a two-person co-signed risk-acceptance waiver, not a verbal nod that vanishes from the minutes.

This is the loop the score completes. The computed Safety Risk Profile reads the operation; the Safety Action Group works the themes it surfaces; the Safety Review Board decides and records; the corrective actions and barrier changes that follow flow straight back into the next computed profile. One connected operation — live records in, board verdict out, recorded governance closing the loop.

The relevant surfaces: SMS module, Safety analytics. See the related read on a Safety Risk Profile built from live operational signals or contact us to discuss your operation.