--- title: "EASA Safety Performance Indicators (SPIs) · Avioverse" description: "What Part-145, Part-CAMO, Air Ops and aerodrome rules say about SPIs, leading vs lagging, what an SPI record holds, and four worked SPIs with targets." url: "https://avioverse.aero/guides/easa-safety-performance-indicators-monitoring" --- # EASA Safety Performance Indicators: What the Rules Say, and a Worked SPI Set What Part-145, Part-CAMO, Air Ops and aerodrome rules say about SPIs, leading vs lagging, what an SPI record holds, and four worked SPIs with targets. [Dionysis Kefalas](https://avioverse.aero/articles/author/dennis-kefalas) 25 Sep 2026 17 min read For Part-145, CAMO and Air Ops staff Part 1 of 2 in Safety Management Systems Show parts Hide parts 1. 1 EASA Safety Performance Indicators (SPIs) 2. 2 [EASA Hazard Identification and Risk Management](https://avioverse.aero/guides/easa-hazard-identification-safety-risk-management) Quotes checked on 25 Sep 2026 against 5 sources. Show sources Hide sources - EASA Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness (Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014) — 2 Sep 2025 revision - EASA Easy Access Rules for Air Operations (Regulation (EU) No 965/2012) — 27 Mar 2026 revision - EASA Easy Access Rules for Aerodromes (Regulation (EU) No 139/2014) — 13 Mar 2026 revision - EASA Easy Access Rules for ATM/ANS Provision of Services (Regulation (EU) 2017/373) — 12 Mar 2025 revision - EASA Easy Access Rules for the Basic Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2018/1139) — 16 Jan 2023 revision On this page ## Fourteen reports, compared with what? The safety review board pack at ExampleMRO has one slide on safety performance: 14 internal safety reports this quarter, up from 11. The accountable manager asks whether that is good or bad. Nobody can say. The number has no denominator, no target and no owner. EASA's answer is in the management system rules. For Part-145 organisations and CAMOs, the AMC describe safety performance monitoring and measurement as the process that verifies safety performance against the safety policy and objectives, and list "evaluation of safety performance indicators" as one route to continuous improvement. For complex air operators, the AMC list safety reporting, studies, reviews, audits and surveys. Of the domains compared here, only the aerodrome implementing rule names both safety performance indicators and targets. None of these texts gives you a list of SPIs, a target value or an alert-level method. Choosing them is the organisation's work, and this guide shows how. ## Key facts - An SPI is "a parameter used for monitoring and assessing safety performance"; a target is "a planned or intended objective for complying with safety performance indicators over a given period of time". - 145.A.200(a)(3), CAMO.A.200(a)(3) and ORO.GEN.200(a)(3) require risk mitigation "and verify their effectiveness". None uses the word "indicator". - The Part-145 and Part-CAMO AMC compare performance "with the safety policy and the safety objectives" and list "evaluation of safety performance indicators" under continuous improvement. - The complex-operator AMC lists safety reporting, studies, reviews, audits and surveys. - For aerodrome operators, ADR.OR.D.005(b)(5) refers to "the safety performance indicators and safety performance targets of the safety management system". - EASA guidance for complex air traffic services providers splits indicators into leading and lagging. - The Part-145 safety review board monitors "the safety performance against the safety policy and objectives". No text quoted here sets a review frequency, a target value or an alert-level method. ## What EASA means by an SPI and an SPT The definitions sit in the Basic Regulation. [Article 3 (full rule text)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/basic-regulation/chapter-i-principles/article-3) Definitions > For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply: > > \[…] > > (25) ‘safety performance’ means the Union's, a Member State's or an organisation's safety achievement, as defined by its safety performance targets and safety performance indicators; > > (26) ‘safety performance indicator’ means a parameter used for monitoring and assessing safety performance; > > (27) ‘safety performance target’ means a planned or intended objective for complying with safety performance indicators over a given period of time; Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) 2018/1139, Easy Access Rules for the Basic Regulation, 16 Jan 2023 revision. The indicator is the parameter: a count, a rate, a percentage. The target is the value you plan to reach. Safety performance is defined by both, so a parameter alone, like the ExampleMRO slide, says nothing about performance. See the [Article 3 rule page](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/basic-regulation/chapter-i-principles/article-3) and the term pages for [safety performance indicator](https://avioverse.aero/glossary/easa/safety-performance-indicator) and [safety performance target](https://avioverse.aero/glossary/easa/safety-performance-target). ## Part-145: safety performance monitoring under 145.A.200 The rule never says "indicator". It says verify. [145.A.200 (full rule text)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/continuing-airworthiness/part-145/section-a-technical-and-organisation-requirements/145-a-200) Management system > (a) The organisation shall establish, implement and maintain a management system that includes: > > \[…] > > (3) the identification of aviation safety hazards entailed by the activities of the organisation, their evaluation and the management of the associated risks, including taking actions to mitigate the risks and verify their effectiveness; > > \[…] > > (b) The management system shall correspond to the size of the organisation and the nature and complexity of its activities, taking into account the hazards and the associated risks inherent in those activities. Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness, 2 Sep 2025 revision. An SPI shows that verification in numbers. Point (b) is why a small line maintenance organisation and a large base maintenance organisation need different sets. See the [145.A.200 rule page](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/continuing-airworthiness/part-145/section-a-technical-and-organisation-requirements/145-a-200). [AMC1 145.A.200(a)(3) (full rule text)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/continuing-airworthiness/part-145/section-a-technical-and-organisation-requirements/145-a-200#amc1-145-a-200-a-3) Management system > SAFETY MANAGEMENT KEY PROCESSES > > \[…] > > (d) Safety performance monitoring and measurement > > (1) Safety performance monitoring and measurement should be the processes by which the safety performance of the organisation is verified in comparison with the safety policy and the safety objectives. > > (2) These processes may include, as appropriate to the size, nature and complexity of the organisation: > > (i) safety reporting, which may also address the status of compliance with the applicable requirements; > > \[…] > > (v) other indicators relevant to safety performance, which may be generated by automated means. > > \[…] > > (f) Continuous improvement > > The organisation should continuously seek to improve its safety performance and the effectiveness of its management system. Continuous improvement may be achieved through: > > \[…] > > (4) monitoring the recurrence of incidents and occurrences; > > (5) evaluation of safety performance indicators and reviews of all the available safety performance information; and > > \[…] Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness, 2 Sep 2025 revision. Three things follow. Each SPI should trace to a safety objective, because that is its yardstick. The list is proportionate, so a short set is a legitimate answer. And SPIs sit under continuous improvement, beside monitoring recurrence: they exist to be evaluated, not only collected. Point (d)(2)(v) can cover counts pulled straight from a maintenance information system. This is AMC, one accepted way to meet the rule ([How to Read EASA Rules](https://avioverse.aero/guides/how-to-read-easa-regulations) explains the difference). The full [AMC1 145.A.200(a)(3)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/continuing-airworthiness/part-145/section-a-technical-and-organisation-requirements/145-a-200#amc1-145-a-200-a-3) includes the reviews, audits and surveys elided above. ## Part-CAMO: the same structure, one integration point [CAMO.A.200 (full rule text)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/continuing-airworthiness/part-camo/section-a-organisation-requirements/camo-a-200) Management system > (a) The organisation shall establish, implement, and maintain a management system that includes: > > \[…] > > (3) the identification of aviation safety hazards entailed by the activities of the organisation, their evaluation and the management of associated risks, including taking actions to mitigate the risks and verify their effectiveness; > > \[…] > > (d) Notwithstanding point (c), for air carriers licensed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, the management system provided for in this Annex shall be an integrated part of the operator’s management system. Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness, 2 Sep 2025 revision. [AMC1 CAMO.A.200(a)(3) (full rule text)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/continuing-airworthiness/part-camo/section-a-organisation-requirements/camo-a-200#amc1-camo-a-200-a-3) Management system > SAFETY MANAGEMENT KEY PROCESSES > > \[…] > > (d) Safety performance monitoring and measurement > > (1) Safety performance monitoring and measurement should be the process by which the safety performance of the organisation is verified in comparison with the safety policy and the safety objectives. > > \[…] > > (f) Continuous improvement > > \[…] > > (5) evaluation of safety performance indicators and review of all the available safety performance information; and > > \[…] Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness, 2 Sep 2025 revision. A CAMO's data differ (repeat defects, deferred items), but the logic matches Part-145. Point (d) matters for an airline's own CAMO: its SPIs belong to the operator's management system, so review them alongside flight operations. See the [CAMO.A.200 rule page](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/continuing-airworthiness/part-camo/section-a-organisation-requirements/camo-a-200) and [AMC1 CAMO.A.200(a)(3)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/continuing-airworthiness/part-camo/section-a-organisation-requirements/camo-a-200#amc1-camo-a-200-a-3). ## Air operators: ORO.GEN.200 The operator rule carries the same verify-effectiveness hook. [ORO.GEN.200 (full rule text)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/air-ops/part-oro/subpart-gen/oro-gen-200) Management system > (a) The operator shall establish, implement and maintain a management system that includes: > > \[…] > > (3) the identification of aviation safety hazards entailed by the activities of the operator, their evaluation and the management of associated risks, including taking actions to mitigate the risk and verify their effectiveness; Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, Easy Access Rules for Air Operations, 27 Mar 2026 revision. The detail is in the AMC for complex operators. [AMC1 ORO.GEN.200(a)(3) (full rule text)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/air-ops/part-oro/subpart-gen/oro-gen-200#amc1-oro-gen-200-a-3) Management system > COMPLEX OPERATORS — SAFETY RISK MANAGEMENT > > (a) Hazard identification processes > > \[…] > > (2) All reporting systems, including confidential reporting schemes, should include an effective feedback process. > > \[…] > > (d) Safety performance monitoring and measurement > > (1) Safety performance monitoring and measurement should be the process by which the safety performance of the operator is verified in comparison to the safety policy and objectives. > > (2) This process should include: > > (i) safety reporting, addressing also the status of compliance with the applicable requirements; > > (ii) safety studies, that is, rather large analyses encompassing broad safety concerns; > > (iii) safety reviews including trends reviews, which would be conducted during introduction and deployment of new technologies, change or implementation of procedures, or in situations of structural change in operations; > > (iv) safety audits focussing on the integrity of the operator’s management system, and periodically assessing the status of safety risk controls; and > > (v) safety surveys, examining particular elements or procedures of a specific operation, such as problem areas or bottlenecks in daily operations, perceptions and opinions of operational personnel and areas of dissent or confusion. Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, Easy Access Rules for Air Operations, 27 Mar 2026 revision. This AMC never uses the phrase "safety performance indicator". Operators still need indicators, because a trend review needs a number to trend. Point (a)(2) offers one ready-made: "an effective feedback process" can be measured, and the ExampleAir set below does. Non-complex operators have a shorter AMC on the same page. Read [AMC1 ORO.GEN.200(a)(3)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/air-ops/part-oro/subpart-gen/oro-gen-200#amc1-oro-gen-200-a-3), and [Part-ORO Operations Manual and Management System](https://avioverse.aero/guides/easa-operations-manual-management-system) for the wider system. ## Aerodromes: where the rule names targets [ADR.OR.D.005 (full rule text)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/aerodromes/organisation-requirements-part-adr-or/subpart-d/adr-or-d-005) Management system > (b) The management system shall include: > > \[…] > > (5) the means to verify the safety performance of the aerodrome operator’s organisation in reference to the safety performance indicators and safety performance targets of the safety management system, and to validate the effectiveness of safety risk controls; Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 139/2014, Easy Access Rules for Aerodromes, 13 Mar 2026 revision. [AMC1 ADR.OR.D.005(b)(5) (full rule text)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/aerodromes/organisation-requirements-part-adr-or/subpart-d/adr-or-d-005#amc1-adr-or-d-005-b-5) Management system > SAFETY PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT > > (a) Safety performance monitoring and measurement should be the process by which the safety performance of the aerodrome operator is verified in comparison to the safety policy and objectives, identified safety risks and the mitigation measures. > > (b) This process should include the setting of safety performance indicators and safety performance targets, and measuring the aerodrome operator’s safety performance against them. Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 139/2014, Easy Access Rules for Aerodromes, 13 Mar 2026 revision. When you read that "EASA requires SPTs", this is usually the text behind it, and it applies to aerodrome operators. A Part-145 organisation or CAMO that sets targets is choosing good practice. See the [ADR.OR.D.005 rule page](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/aerodromes/organisation-requirements-part-adr-or/subpart-d/adr-or-d-005) and its [AMC1 (b)(5)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/aerodromes/organisation-requirements-part-adr-or/subpart-d/adr-or-d-005#amc1-adr-or-d-005-b-5). ## The four domains side by side | Domain | Where to look | What the text says | SPIs named | Targets named | | --------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------- | ---------------- | | Part-145 | 145.A.200(a)(3); AMC1 145.A.200(a)(3) | "verify their effectiveness"; "evaluation of safety performance indicators" | In the AMC | No | | Part-CAMO | CAMO.A.200(a)(3); AMC1 CAMO.A.200(a)(3) | Same wording; for licensed air carriers, part of "the operator’s management system" | In the AMC | No | | Air Ops (complex operators) | ORO.GEN.200(a)(3); AMC1 ORO.GEN.200(a)(3) | Reporting, studies, reviews, audits, surveys; "an effective feedback process" | No | No | | Aerodromes | ADR.OR.D.005(b)(5); AMC1 ADR.OR.D.005(b)(5) | "safety performance indicators and safety performance targets" | Yes, in the rule | Yes, in the rule | ## Leading and lagging indicators EASA's clearest wording on indicator types is guidance for complex air traffic services providers. It transfers well to maintenance and flight operations. [GM1 ATS.OR.200(3)(i) (full rule text)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/atm-ans/part-ats/subpart-a/ats-or-200#gm1-ats-or-200-3-i) Safety management system > SAFETY ASSURANCE — COMPLEX ATS PROVIDERS > > (a) Leading indicators > > (1) Metrics that measure inputs to the safety system (either within an organisation, a sector or across the total aviation system) to manage and improve safety performance. > > \[…] > > (b) Lagging indicators > > Metrics that measure the outcome of the service delivery by measuring events that have already occurred and that impact safety performance. There are two subsets of lagging indicators: > > (1) Outcome indicators: These include only the occurrences that one aims to prevent, for example fatal or catastrophic accidents. Depending on the system, the severity of the occurrences that are included as outcome indicators can be adjusted to include all accidents and serious incidents. > > (2) Precursor indicators: These indicators do not manifest themselves in accidents or serious incidents. They indicate less severe system failures or ‘near misses’, and are used to assess how frequently the system comes close to severe failure. Because they are typically more numerous than outcome indicators, they can be used for trend monitoring. > > (c) Safety management system > > In the case of a complex air traffic services provider, the SMS should include all of these measures. Risk management efforts, however, should be targeted at leading indicators and precursor events. The reason for doing this is to reduce the number of accidents and serious incidents. Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) 2017/373, Easy Access Rules for ATM/ANS Provision of Services, 12 Mar 2025 revision. In a maintenance organisation, CAMO or operator, the split looks like this: | Type | ExampleMRO (Part-145) | ExampleAir (CAMO and flight operations) | | ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- | | Leading | Sampled shift handovers with a complete record (%) | Safety reports closed with feedback to the reporter on time (%) | | Lagging, precursor | Maintenance-induced occurrences per 1,000 work orders | Repeat defects per 1,000 departures | | Lagging, outcome | Serious incidents with a maintenance cause | Serious incidents | Outcome indicators sit at zero most months, which is why they cannot steer. Precursors give enough events to trend. Leading indicators show whether a control is in use before it fails. Pair each precursor with a leading indicator on the same hazard. The GM is on the [ATS.OR.200 rule page](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/atm-ans/part-ats/subpart-a/ats-or-200#gm1-ats-or-200-3-i). ## What an SPI record should contain The rules stop at the process. The record below is good practice, not a regulatory template: it lets someone other than the author understand, recalculate and challenge the SPI. | Field | What to write | ExampleMRO, SPI 1 | | ------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | Name | Plain words, unit included | Maintenance-induced occurrences per 1,000 work orders | | Why it exists | The objective or hazard it tracks | Tasks left incomplete after an interruption | | Type | Leading, or lagging (outcome or precursor) | Lagging, precursor | | Formula | Numerator ÷ normaliser × multiplier, terms defined | Maintenance-induced occurrences ÷ work orders closed × 1,000 | | Data source | System, who extracts, when | Safety reports classified by the safety office; planning system | | Frequency | Period and cut-off | Monthly, completed months, entered by the 10th | | Target (SPT) | Value, direction, basis | 1.0 or lower; last 12 months averaged 1.1 | | Alert levels | Values and what each triggers | Yellow 1.5: next board. Orange 2.0: safety manager review in five working days | | Owner | A named role | Safety manager | | Review | When the SPI itself is reviewed | Every six months, and when work-order counting changes | | History | Month each change applies from | New formula from July; earlier months keep the old one | Do not skip the normaliser. Without it, a busy month looks worse than a quiet one for no safety reason. ## A worked SPI set for ExampleMRO and ExampleAir ExampleMRO is a Part-145 organisation with base and line maintenance. ExampleAir is an air carrier with its own CAMO. All figures are illustrative. | SPI | Organisation | Type | Formula | Data source | SPT | Yellow | Orange | Owner | | -------------------------------------------------------- | ------------ | ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ------------ | ------ | ------ | ------------------------------- | | 1. Maintenance-induced occurrences per 1,000 work orders | ExampleMRO | Lagging, precursor | Occurrences ÷ work orders closed × 1,000 | Safety reports; planning system | 1.0 or lower | 1.5 | 2.0 | Safety manager | | 2. Sampled handovers with a complete record (%) | ExampleMRO | Leading | Complete records ÷ handovers sampled × 100 | Quality team samples 40 sheets a month | 95 or higher | 90 | 85 | Base maintenance manager | | 3. Repeat defects per 1,000 departures | ExampleAir | Lagging, precursor | Repeat defects (per ExampleAir's definition) ÷ departures × 1,000 | Technical log; operations data | 2.0 or lower | 2.5 | 3.0 | Head of CAMO technical services | | 4. Safety reports with feedback within 21 days (%) | ExampleAir | Leading | Reports with feedback in 21 days ÷ reports closed × 100 | Safety reporting system | 90 or higher | 80 | 70 | Safety manager | SPI 2 is the leading partner of SPI 1: both watch tasks left incomplete across a shift change. SPI 4 measures the feedback process from the ORO.GEN.200 AMC. The 21 days is ExampleAir's own procedure, not a regulatory figure. **Running one month.** In March, ExampleMRO closed 2,450 work orders and classified 3 occurrences as maintenance-induced. 3 ÷ 2,450 × 1,000 = 1.22 per 1,000 That misses the SPT of 1.0 but stays under yellow: a target miss, not an alert. Someone still decides: investigate, act, or record why no action is needed. In April, 5 occurrences against 2,380 work orders gives 2.10, past orange, and the five-day review starts. **Why the bands need care.** At about 2,400 work orders a month, one occurrence moves the rate by roughly 0.4. Two events are on target, three miss it, four reach yellow, five reach orange. The whole structure is three events wide, so treat one yellow month as a prompt, not a verdict. For rare events, a trend rule (two misses in three months, say) or a rolling 12-month rate reads better. Deriving targets and alert levels from a baseline, small-number traps included, is covered in [SPI Alert Levels and Targets: A Worked Example](https://avioverse.aero/articles/spi-targets-alert-levels-worked-example). ## Reviewing SPIs: who looks and what they decide [AMC1 145.A.200(a)(1) (full rule text)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/continuing-airworthiness/part-145/section-a-technical-and-organisation-requirements/145-a-200#amc1-145-a-200-a-1) Management system > ORGANISATION AND ACCOUNTABILITIES > > \[…] > > (b) Safety review board > > \[…] > > (3) The safety review board should monitor: > > (i) the safety performance against the safety policy and objectives; > > (ii) that any safety action is taken in a timely manner; and > > (iii) the effectiveness of the organisation’s management system processes. Quoted word for word from Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness, 2 Sep 2025 revision. Point (d) of the same AMC lets an organisation work without a formal board where its size and complexity justify it, subject to a risk assessment and the competent authority's agreement; the board's tasks then go to the safety manager. [AMC1 CAMO.A.200(a)(1)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/continuing-airworthiness/part-camo/section-a-organisation-requirements/camo-a-200#amc1-camo-a-200-a-1) and the complex-operator [AMC1 ORO.GEN.200(a)(1)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/air-ops/part-oro/subpart-gen/oro-gen-200#amc1-oro-gen-200-a-1-2) give the board a similar list. None says how often, so set a cadence in your procedures: monthly data, a fixed board review, and a yearly review of the set itself, plus one whenever the organisation changes. The decision matters more than the chart. For each miss, record the number, the owner's conclusion and the next step. "Noted" is not a conclusion. A no-action decision carries a written reason, so the next board sees whether the same reason keeps returning. When an SPI points to events that need analysis, [Occurrence Analysis and Follow-up in the SMS](https://avioverse.aero/guides/occurrence-analysis-follow-up-sms) covers the loop. The Part-145 text is at [AMC1 145.A.200(a)(1)](https://avioverse.aero/regulations/easa/continuing-airworthiness/part-145/section-a-technical-and-organisation-requirements/145-a-200#amc1-145-a-200-a-1). ## Five ways an SPI set stops working - **Counts with no normaliser.** Fourteen reports means nothing until you know per what. - **Borrowed targets.** Another organisation's target reflects its fleet and reporting culture, not yours. - **Silent formula changes.** If counting changes in July, mark July, or the trend line lies. - **Only lagging indicators.** By the time a precursor moves, the control has already failed. - **Acknowledged, never decided.** Noting an alert without a decision is not monitoring. The hazards your SPIs watch come from hazard identification and risk assessment, the next guide in this series: [hazard identification and safety risk management](https://avioverse.aero/guides/easa-hazard-identification-safety-risk-management). The public [SMS hazard library](https://avioverse.aero/risks) is a starting list. ## Doing this in Avioverse **Safety Performance Indicators** has two tabs, **Tracked SPIs** and **Reference library**. **Add SPI** offers **Choose from reference library** or **Create a custom SPI**. Each library definition shows its source, either derived from the UK CAA's CAP 3114 example SPIs or written by Avioverse, and the library says: "Alert & action thresholds aren’t prescribed — they depend on your fleet and baseline." Setup runs in three steps: **Definition**, **Tracking**, **Review**. In Definition you answer **What are you tracking?** (a count, a rate, a percentage and so on), pick or create the measures and choose **Show per**, such as per 1,000. **Try a sample calculation** tests the formula without saving. In Tracking you **Set a Safety Performance Target**, choose **Lower is better** or **Higher is better**, add a **Yellow alert (optional)** and **Orange alert (optional)**, set **Target applies from**, and in a team workspace pick the **Responsible person** who receives alerts. Each month you **Enter monthly data** for a completed month and Avioverse calculates the value. A missing measure or a division by zero leaves the month unassessed. A miss shows **SPT exceeded**, or **Yellow alert** or **Orange alert** if it also crosses those lines. Optional trend rules flag consecutive or repeated misses. With no SPT, nothing is flagged. A flagged month waits for a person. **Acknowledge** records that you saw it and does not close it. **Create task** adds a linked "Investigate…" task; completing it resolves the exceedance. **Reviewed — no action required** needs a written reason. Changes apply from a month you choose, with earlier versions under **Saved versions**. Each SPI exports to PDF and **Measurement history (CSV)**. The assistant can set up an SPI and, once you approve the preview, import monthly values from a pasted table (or an attached file on a paid plan). It cannot set targets or alert levels. Values come only from what you enter or approve; indicators, targets and responses stay your decisions. Educational content, not regulatory compliance advice. Verify against the current regulation text before relying on it. ## In this series ## Frequently asked questions ### Does EASA require safety performance indicators in a Part-145 organisation? 145.A.200(a)(3) requires the organisation to manage its safety risks, "including taking actions to mitigate the risks and verify their effectiveness". AMC1 145.A.200(a)(3) lists "evaluation of safety performance indicators" as one way to achieve continuous improvement. Neither text names specific SPIs, so the organisation chooses them. ### Does EASA set SPI targets or alert levels? Not in the Part-145, Part-CAMO or Part-ORO texts quoted in this guide. For aerodrome operators, AMC1 ADR.OR.D.005(b)(5) says the process "should include the setting of safety performance indicators and safety performance targets". The values are still the operator's to set. ### What is the difference between an SPI and an SPT? Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 defines a safety performance indicator as "a parameter used for monitoring and assessing safety performance", and a safety performance target as "a planned or intended objective for complying with safety performance indicators over a given period of time". The SPI is what you measure. The SPT is the value you plan to reach. ### What is the difference between leading and lagging indicators? In EASA's guidance for complex air traffic services providers, leading indicators are metrics that measure inputs to the safety system. Lagging indicators measure events that have already occurred, and split into outcome indicators and precursor indicators. ### Who reviews safety performance indicators, and how often? Under AMC1 145.A.200(a)(1), the safety review board monitors "the safety performance against the safety policy and objectives". The texts quoted in this guide set no review frequency, so write one into your own procedures. ### How many SPIs does a Part-145 organisation need? The rules set no number. 145.A.200(b) says the management system "shall correspond to the size of the organisation and the nature and complexity of its activities". A short set that traces to your objectives and main hazards, and that the board actually reviews, works better than a long list. ## Related - [SPI Alert Levels and Targets: A Worked Example Article · 12 min](https://avioverse.aero/articles/spi-targets-alert-levels-worked-example) - [Hazard Identification and Safety Risk Management under EASA Guide · 17 min](https://avioverse.aero/guides/easa-hazard-identification-safety-risk-management) - [Occurrence Analysis and Follow-up in the SMS Guide · 5 min](https://avioverse.aero/guides/occurrence-analysis-follow-up-sms) - [Part-ORO Operations Manual and Management System Guide · 5 min](https://avioverse.aero/guides/easa-operations-manual-management-system) - [Part-145: The Approved Maintenance Organisation Guide · 4 min](https://avioverse.aero/guides/easa-part-145-approved-maintenance-organisation) - [CAMO and CAO Continuing Airworthiness Bodies Guide · 7 min](https://avioverse.aero/guides/easa-camo-continuing-airworthiness-management-organisation) Written by Dionysis Kefalas. Retired Hellenic Air Force Captain and founder of Avioverse. [About the author](https://avioverse.aero/articles/author/dennis-kefalas) [Or request early access →](https://avioverse.aero/register?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fapp.avioverse.aero%2Fspis%3Fview%3Dcatalogue) Share [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https%3A%2F%2Favioverse.aero%2Fguides%2Feasa-safety-performance-indicators-monitoring)[X](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Favioverse.aero%2Fguides%2Feasa-safety-performance-indicators-monitoring\&text=EASA%20Safety%20Performance%20Indicators%20\(SPIs\))