Hello Hamad, LVO risk assessments (RA) usually contain confidental safety performance information and are, at least to my knowledge, not (publicly) shared amongst competing operators. So therefore maybe some general words on what I have so far agreed on with operators applying for an LVO approval. The RA is usually based on suitable (safety) performance indicators that reflect the intended operations / technology (ie approach coupler, autoland, HUD, EFVS) being used. The SPI should be measurable, most favourably based on flight data (FDM). A load full of best practice guidance on how to use flight data for performance monitoring is, for example, provided by EASAs European Operators Flight Data Monitoring forum (EOFDM), especially on runway excursion, LOC and CFIT. Some guidance is also given in GM1 SPA.LVO.105(g). However, pilot reporting and manual analysis on approach and landing performance usually contributes to the RA to some extend. A RA usually needs to be based on a number of operations (approaches/landings) using the LVO airborne equipment and the LVO-SOP in non-LVO weather conditions through which the suitability of the safety monitoring system and adequacy of the safety performance is demonstrated prior to receiving the approval. So the RA is basically a "test run" of the safety performance monitoring system to be used after having received the approval. A RA is required when introducing aircaft models/series or LVO airborne equipment or LVO-SOP/AOM which are new to the operator. It is usually not required when "only" adding a new aircraft to an existing fleet of identical or sufficiently similar aircraft for which the operator already holds an LVO approval.