Integrated Risk Assessment and Activity Control Portal
Data will be saved and automatically loaded year-wise from Firebase Firestore.
This web application is designed to record aviation security quality assurance risks, calculate risk scores, document immediate and corrective actions, determine residual risk after CAP, and transfer selected records to the final Risk Register.
Risk Score = Likelihood + Consequences + Vulnerability
The score is calculated on a 3.0–30 scale and the system automatically assigns the risk tolerability level.
Low 3.0 to 7.5
Medium Low 7.6 to 13.5
Medium 13.6 to 19.5
Medium High 19.6 to 25.5
High 25.6 to 30
Findings identified through audits, inspections, tests, observations, and exercises can be recorded here for corrective action tracking and review.
| Likelihood (L) | Consequence (C) | Vulnerability (V) | Total risk score | Risk rating | How to use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | Enter scores from 1 to 10 in the first three cells. The total and rating calculate automatically. |
| Band | Likelihood (L) | Consequence (C) | Vulnerability (V) | Risk score | Risk rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH | 9-10 | 9-10 | 9-10 | 25.6 to 30 | HIGH |
| MEDIUM-HIGH | 7-8 | 7-8 | 7-8 | 19.6 to 25.5 | MEDIUM-HIGH |
| MEDIUM | 5-6 | 5-6 | 5-6 | 13.6 to 19.5 | MEDIUM |
| MEDIUM-LOW | 3-4 | 3-4 | 3-4 | 7.6 to 13.5 | MEDIUM-LOW |
| LOW | 1-2 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 3.0 to 7.5 | LOW |
| Risk level | Required action |
|---|---|
| HIGH Risk: | Requires immediate action in the form of specific counter measures or emergency procedure/s |
| MEDIUM-HIGH Risk: | Requires specific actions to address with appropriate counter measure/s |
| MEDIUM Risk: | Requires positive action on the part of management to address with appropriate counter measure/s |
| MEDIUM-LOW Risk: | Requires review of existing measures to identify possible improvement/s |
| LOW Risk: | Managed by existing measures – can be accepted with minimal or no action/s |
| Likelihood rating | Adversarial scenario | Management / control failure |
|---|---|---|
| HIGH (rated as 9 or 10) | A highly credible and imminent scenario. An act of unlawful interference of this type has occurred against a comparable target in the past few years; or there is confirmed, current evidence of adversary capability, intent, and active operational planning directed at this or a comparable target. | A confirmed, ongoing or recently concluded systemic breakdown of a critical security control, affecting the organization broadly. The failure has persisted over a significant period, no effective compensatory measures have been applied, and the probability of a security consequence arising directly from this failure is very high. |
| MEDIUM-HIGH (rated as 7 or 8) | A clearly credible scenario. Relatively recent examples of comparable acts of unlawful interference exist; or there is credible evidence of early-stage planning, hostile surveillance, or reconnaissance directed at this target or target category. | A significant control failure confirmed across multiple personnel, positions, or locations. Compensatory measures have not been implemented or are demonstrably inadequate. The probability of a security consequence is elevated and the organisation's exposure is not contained. |
| MEDIUM (rated as 5 or 6) | An essentially credible scenario supported by some evidence of adversary intent and capability, and possibly some historical precedent, but with no confirmed evidence of current operational planning against this target. | A control failure of limited scope, confined to an isolated group of personnel or a single location. Some compensatory measures may exist but their effectiveness has not been verified. The probability of a security consequence is moderate and dependent on whether the gap is exploited. |
| MEDIUM-LOW (rated as 3 or 4) | A scenario for which there are no, or no recent, examples of an act of unlawful interference of this type. Some evidence of adversary intent exists, but the method appears insufficiently developed for a successful act or has likely been superseded by other methods of attack. | A minor or short-duration control deficiency. Effective compensatory measures were applied during the gap period, limiting exposure. The deficiency has been identified through routine monitoring and does not indicate broader systemic weakness. The probability of a security consequence is low. |
| LOW (rated as 1 or 2) | A theoretically plausible scenario but with no historical examples, no signs of active planning, and no apparent adversary capability currently directed at this target type. | An isolated, promptly identified, and fully remediated control deficiency. Compensatory measures were in place and effective throughout the gap period. The deficiency is attributable to an individual administrative oversight rather than any systemic weakness. |
| Impact rating | Security effectiveness | Regulatory & Legal | Reputational & Operational |
|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH (rated as 9 or 10) | Hundreds of deaths. Billions of USD in direct economic impact. Severe and sustained disruption to services and confidence in the civil aviation system. | Suspension or revocation of operating authorization. Criminal prosecution of individuals or the organization. Mandatory State-level regulatory intervention. | Total and sustained loss of passenger and stakeholder confidence. Prolonged operational shutdown. Significant long-term reputational damage at international level. |
| MEDIUM-HIGH (rated as 7 or 8) | Some but not all of the HIGH security effectiveness consequences above. | Formal non-conformity finding requiring a mandatory corrective action plan. Potential enforcement notice or financial penalty. Regulatory intervention in operations. | Significant reputational damage at regional or national level. Substantial operational disruption requiring major management intervention and resource reallocation. |
| MEDIUM (rated as 5 or 6) | Tens of deaths. Tens or hundreds of millions of USD in direct economic impact. Substantial disruption to services and confidence in the aviation system. | Audit finding (non-conformity or observation) requiring documented corrective action. Regulatory notification obligation triggered. Material risk of follow-up inspection. | Moderate reputational harm. Operational disruption requiring resource reallocation. Coverage in industry or trade media. Internal management escalation required. |
| MEDIUM-LOW (rated as 3 or 4) | Some but not all of the MEDIUM security effectiveness consequences above. Possibly some deaths and injuries; limited economic impact; some disruption to system confidence. | Audit observation or minor finding. Documented in the compliance record. Corrective action recommended but no formal enforcement action anticipated. | Minor reputational impact, contained within the organisation. Operationally disruptive but manageable within existing resources and without external escalation. |
| LOW (rated as 1 or 2) | Possibly some injuries. Limited economic impact. Some disruption to services and confidence in the aviation system. | Administrative noting or improvement observation only. No formal audit finding. No regulatory notification obligation triggered. | Negligible reputational impact. Minimal operational disruption. Managed through routine internal processes with no external visibility. |
| Vulnerability rating | General mitigation position | Operational / control-failure risk detail (all AVSEC areas) |
|---|---|---|
| HIGH (rated as 9 or 10) | No mitigating measures are in general effect, either because no Annex 17 / ISARP requirement applies or because no realistic effective measure is available. | No effective control framework, monitoring, or supervisory verification mechanism is in place for the relevant AVSEC area. Critical procedures or safeguards are absent, bypassed, or not implemented; records and accountability are unavailable; the organization has little or no visibility of the exposure; and no realistic compensatory measures are active. This may affect training and certification, permits and access control, SRA / tenant areas, baggage, aircraft security, cargo and mail, catering, audits, contingency arrangements, or security operations. |
| MEDIUM-HIGH (rated as 7 or 8) | Mitigation exists but has limited scope; important areas or aspects of the risk are not covered by requirements or measures in general effect. | Controls exist but are demonstrably failing or have major gaps in one or more critical AVSEC areas. Repeated or widespread exceptions remain undetected or unresolved, such as invalid approvals, access-control bypasses, screening or protection failures, weak chain-of-custody controls, overdue audit actions, or inadequate contingency readiness. Supervisory oversight is ineffective and compensatory measures are absent, delayed, or insufficient. |
| MEDIUM (rated as 5 or 6) | Features of both MEDIUM-HIGH and MEDIUM-LOW are present; mitigation is partially effective. | Controls are partially implemented and only partly effective. Documentation, verification, supervision, screening, protection, audit follow-up, or operational readiness is inconsistent. The issue is limited in scope or location, but some affected personnel, activities, assets, or records have not yet been fully identified. Existing compensatory measures may reduce exposure but their effectiveness has not been fully verified. |
| MEDIUM-LOW (rated as 3 or 4) | Mitigating measures are generally in place but may be immature or only partially effective. The broad Annex 17 / ISARP requirements are met but are capable of further development. | Controls are generally in place, documented, and functioning across the relevant AVSEC area. Isolated exceptions may occur, but they are normally identified promptly through routine audits, inspections, tests, monitoring, supervision, or operational review. Corrective actions and proportionate compensatory controls are applied without significant delay, with no evidence of a broader systemic weakness. |
| LOW (rated as 1 or 2) | Clear Annex 17 / ISARP requirements exist and mitigating measures generally regarded as effective are in widespread use. | A mature, documented, and risk-based control system is in place for the relevant AVSEC area. Requirements, approvals, access controls, screening or protection measures, records, traceability, audits, drills, supervision, and periodic reviews are applied as relevant and routinely verified. Exceptions are promptly detected, escalated, corrected, and supported by effective documented compensatory procedures during any gap period. |
Source: AVSEC Risk Assessment Matrix.docx | Reorganized into editable tables.
This module is independent from Quality Assurance Risk Assessment and Risk Register. Each area has a separate table with separate Firebase Firestore year-wise storage. Risk column uses risk wording, not finding/scenario wording.
Security Quality Assurance Activity Schedule. This integrated module uses the main-site login mode and selected assessment year.
| Area | Findings Value | Incident Total | Info Total | Other Total | Area Total | Alert |
|---|
Risk-based annual inspection schedule generator for the selected assessment year. This page is separate from the Activity Schedule Dashboard.
| Risk Ratio / Index From | Risk Ratio / Index To | Inspection Count | Range Preview |
|---|
| Area | Code | Risk Ratio | Inspection Count (2-5) | Weeks | Data Used | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Click Generate Now to analyze the selected year risk data. | ||||||
When Automatic Backup is on, successful Firebase Firestore saves create a full-site snapshot for the selected year. A snapshot includes Quality Assurance Risk Assessment, Risk Register, all Department Risk Register area tables and the integrated Activity Schedule Dashboard. Manual backups still work even when Automatic Backup is off. Only the latest 20 snapshots are retained.
| No. | Backup Time | Reason | QA Rows | Risk Register Rows | Department Rows | Activity Items | Mode | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open this page after selecting a year. | ||||||||