From the first day in the aviation pipeline, risk management is preached to Navy pilots and naval flight officers. It is part of every flight brief, reviewed during every safety stand down, and reinforced by every commanding officer. Today’s aircrews are inundated with safety requirements that, if not actively managed, may distract them from the overall goal: accomplishing the mission. Programs such as crew resource management, operational risk management, and threat and error management are designed as risk management tools but often become risk avoidance measures in practice.
“Excessive risk aversion can prevent accomplishment of the mission, as it may inhibit a force to assume the risks necessary.”
— Fredric Westerdahl, “Risk Aversion: As Perceived by U.S. and Swedish Officers,” 2011
Aircrews can easily identify hazards associated with any flight. The skill required to assess those hazards and mitigate the risk associated with them to continue the mission, however, tends to be underdeveloped and rarely practiced until a year or more into an officer’s first sea tour. Daily “go/no-go” decisions are based on simple factors such as weather and maintenance—hardly ever requiring higher level mitigation processes.
Squadrons need to create opportunities for junior aircrew to discuss and apply more complicated risk management decisions that include mission accomplishment factors. Mission command requires aircrews to make time-critical risk decisions on station, based on higher headquarters’ guidance, without perfect communications up and down the chain.
Here’s a scenario: A P-8A combat aircrew is tracking a submarine when an unforecasted thunderstorm develops in the operating area. From recent mishaps in the community, it is well known that the P-8A is more susceptible to severe lightning strike damage than the P-3C. One obvious option is for the mission commander to abort the mission and accept losing contact on the submarine for an extended period to keep the aircraft and its crew safe. This nearly guarantees avoiding a lightning strike or any other unexpected hazard associated with the storm.
However, the mission commander instead could assess how large an area the convective activity covers and the direction and speed the storm is traveling. Is it possible to drop buoys ahead of the target and let the storm pass while holding a safe distance away and then return to prosecute a smaller time-late datum or even maintain contact?
Both options acknowledge the hazard and mitigate the risk to keep the aircraft and its crew safe, but only one balances risk with mission accomplishment. This type of analysis needs to be implemented and practiced to help aviators think past the most immediate and obvious option in time-critical situations.
To train and empower young officers to make mission-balanced decisions, the Navy needs to review the definition of “risk management.” According to Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations, “risk management is the process of identifying, assessing, and controlling risks arising from operational factors and making decisions that balance risk cost with mission benefits.” The process does not stop once the hazards are identified and assessed.
One option to ensure a thorough risk management evaluation during perilous situations is to apply a standard decision-making procedure. A method commonly taught to patrol plane commanders in the maritime community involves five questions:
- What is the risk?
- How does it affect me?
- What can I do to mitigate it?
- What do the publications say?
- What is my decision?
To fully encompass the risk management definition, two questions should be added:
- How does this affect the mission?
- Am I making this decision at the right level?
To answer these additional questions, mission and aircraft commanders must pause and think past the easiest way to avoid the hazard. It forces them to consider mission priority and potentially accept necessary risk to accomplish that mission, and it also should ensure they have the support of their superiors and fully understand the guidance set forth.
“The commander has overall responsibility for risk management integration and is the risk acceptance authority.”
Doctrine from warfare publications, commander’s guidance, daily intention messages, and standard operating procedures guide decision-making at the unit level. Commanders must be wary of instituting too many safety requirements, which could overwhelm aircrews and hinder a squadron’s ability to complete the mission. Instructions must be designed to place trust in the operators.
“Each minor risk averting measure might in itself seem perfectly logical and reasonable,” but “put together they may have a paralyzing effect on the performance of units.”
— Fredric Westerdahl, “Risk Aversion: As Perceived by U.S. and Swedish Officers,” 2011
Aviation is inherently risky. That will not change. It is incumbent on the commander to provide clear, concise guidance to subordinate units down to the mission commander or trigger puller on station to ensure they understand what risk is acceptable and what is not.
Based on the commander’s guidance, effective risk management becomes everyone’s responsibility. But without proper planning and controls, poor risk decisions can jeopardize the mission, possibly with fatal consequences and irreparable damage. Senior officers must establish well-defined instructions to guide but not strangle the decision-making process of the operators who work for them. For the mission commanders on station, it is equally important that they respect the commander’s instructions and accept responsibility for mission accomplishment through methodical risk assessments and decision-making processes.
Accept that risk is inherent to the job, but also learn to overcome it to achieve mission objectives. As Fredric Westerdahl noted, “Overly cautious inactivity pacifies people and is generally more dangerous than activity.” Safety is a priority, but mission accomplishment is paramount. Our military cannot become so risk averse that we obstruct or prevent mission accomplishment through poor risk management.