Full-Spectrum Risk Understanding

“For Alert Force, For Alert Force: KLAXON—KLAXON—KLAXON!” Those of you with experience in the nuclear mission of the Air Force may be a little triggered by this phrase. Memories immediately spring to mind of jumping up from a cribbage game, sprinting from the alert facility to your Air Force-issue extended cab truck, and racing to the awaiting alert aircraft as fast as the “blue steel” would go. With the commander’s guidance to respond to the aircraft as expeditiously as possible, young aircrew and flying crew chiefs are naturally competitive, hoping to push themselves and their equipment to achieve the fastest time. When I was on alert, squealing tires during responses were common, and I can neither confirm nor deny I was in a vehicle that was on two wheels briefly during a high-speed turn. I can confirm, however, that I was in the audience with other alert crews while receiving the business end of a fiery and not-safe-for-work lecture from our Group Commander on prudent driving during exercise responses!

Back then, as a young captain, I was very familiar with the risks associated with the KC-135’s nuclear mission and the need to launch quickly. The concern by our Group Commander about our driving seemed secondary at best and pedantic at worst. After a few more years of experience and exposure to risk-based thinking, I am one hundred percent in the “drive prudently, even during a nuclear alert” camp. What changed my stance was a greater understanding of full-spectrum risk.

Full spectrum risk understanding, at its essence, means considering all the hazards and their likelihood of impacting mission success and Airmen’s safety over a given time span. It also means developing a diverse quiver of risk mitigations to be applied to the right risks at the right time. One way to think about full-spectrum risk is to break it down into intrinsic and extrinsic categories.

Intrinsic risk is the risk to the mission and Airmen that exists simply from taking all necessary actions for the mission to happen without outside interference. We are often not good at recognizing and dealing with the risks we take every day as part of the job. The early morning wake-up, the precheck of the lavatory service truck, the climb onto the aircraft wing to service hydraulic fluid, the build-up of pallets for the load plan, and the flying through congested airspace on departure—all these actions have inherent risk. This risk exists even when we accomplish each task correctly and according to the technical order. We often take these risks for granted because they are routine or mundane.

Extrinsic risk, on the other hand, is all the risk imposed by factors beyond the control of Airmen. These risks include such things as adversary actions (the enemy always gets a vote) or weather (we cannot really change this—I have tried). As Airmen, we tend to be goal-oriented and results-driven; we plan contingencies for things we cannot directly control. Mission planners and tacticians commonly start from a desired effect occurring in the objective area (OA) and work backward from that point. They will identify all necessary events, the challenges that need to be overcome, and the risks involved at each step due to the enemy and/or environment. Warfighting Airmen of all specialties develop a finely tuned ability to see the risks from outside forces and implement countertactics or mitigations. In short, Airmen get good at getting it done despite outside factors.

Both intrinsic and extrinsic risks can compromise the mission but vary in likelihood over the course of time.

Understanding full-spectrum risk is knowing how both categories relate to the success or failure of the mission at different phases.

I could write a cool math equation to describe this relationship, but you would immediately stop reading and make this issue into a coaster for your STANLEY^© tumbler. Suffice it to say it takes a broad perspective, experience, and judgment to do so successfully.

It is also important to understand when a specific risk mitigation measure is helpful and when it becomes counterproductive. For example, aircrew may reduce, change, or extinguish external lighting when operating in a combat area or OA to reduce the aircraft’s visual signature. This countermeasure, in turn, lowers the risk of being seen, tracked, and targeted by adversary weapons, thus decreasing the chance of being shot down. When the aircraft leaves the combat area, however, this same countermeasure makes the aircraft less visible to friendly forces or commercial traffic; it increases the risk of a midair collision with another aircraft. Good full-spectrum risk management takes time and location into consideration when applying risk mitigation measures.

If we go back to the scene of the responding nuclear crew, we can see the wisdom of my old Group Commander. He was right to be concerned with the driving habits of the crews and crew chiefs because they jeopardized the success of the mission and safety of the Airmen more than any adversary action at the time. He rightfully saw the outsized intrinsic risk we were creating and responded with the correct mitigation of his own (see the aforementioned butt-chewing).

We should all strive to develop a more holistic view of risk in our professional and personal lives. The mundane risks we take every day deserve our attention as much as our specific mission risks during deployment and employment. This broader understanding of the full spectrum of risk will help us all make better choices. And, if anyone runs into my old Group Commander, tell him sorry about the crew vehicle tires and skid marks on the parking ramp.

Aim High!