The Largest Security-Cleared Career Network for Defense and Intelligence Jobs - JOIN NOW

Military

Risk Management Procedures--Training


1. Commander's Guidance. To assist the Commander in developing safety policy, goals, objectives and priorities, the S3 (Safety):

a. Retrieves the unit's past (minimum of one year) accident reports (METL-related only) from hard copy files or from the Army Safety Management Information System (if not available in unit, task local Safety Office for this information).

b. Analyzes the reports to determine cause factors and reasons. A summary of the most frequent Armywide factors and reasons is at Enclosure 2.

c. Prepares a report that identifies the most probable and most severe types of accidents to be expected during the upcoming planning and execution phases of training. The report should also identify the most likely reasons for these accidents and corrective control options for selection by the commander.

d. As directed, develops safety input for quarterly training guidance and for SOP.

2. Planning Phase (Safety Assessment). S3 (Safety) develops input to Commander's Training Assessment by executing the following actions:

a. Safety Quiz. Develops a quiz (example aviation and ground quizzes available on request from Installation Safety Office or Army Safety Center) to determine soldier knowledge of safety guidance specified by the unit (e.g., SOP) and the area of operations (e.g., home-station installation or CTC). Administers the quiz to all soldiers and sets a minimum passing score (e.g., 80 percent). Results will be rolled up from platoon to brigade level enabling commanders and leaders at each level to identify what safety guidance their soldiers do not know and to establish training to provide that knowledge. Sample results are at Enclosure 3 and Enclosure 4.

b. Next Accident Assessment - Individuals (versions tailored for aviators and ground personnel available on request from Installation Safety Office or Army Safety Center). Administers to all soldiers. Permits soldier to assess his risk of causing an accident (soldier does not reveal this result). Additional "blank-box" form requires each soldier to identify action(s) he will take to reduce his risk plus action(s) he needs the chain of command to take. This feedback is rolled up from platoon to brigade level enabling commanders and leaders to see what changes their soldiers believe would improve unit safety. Example of risk-reduction actions is at Enclosure 5.

c. Next Accident Assessment - Leaders (versions tailored for aviators and ground personnel available on request from Installation Safety Office or Army Safety Center). Each leader completes the assessment for each soldier he immediately rates. Assessment establishes the risk of each soldier causing an accident and the reasons for the risk. Leader enters the scores on the summary sheet and retains as a record of risk reduction progress. Summary sheets are rolled up from platoon to brigade, enabling commanders and leaders to determine the percentage of high risk soldiers, reasons for the risk and control options. Example result is at Enclosure 6.

d. METL Risk Assessment. Each officer and NCO estimates the accident risk for each METL task. For each task rated as "High" or "Extremely High," they provide the reasons. This subjective assessment prioritizes the unit's METL by accident risk so controls can be focused on tasks most in need. Example result is at Enclosure 7 and Enclosure 8.

e. Safety Observations. Observe unit's BOS functions and METL training in action. Interview commanders, key leaders and selected soldiers. Review training guidance of the unit and next higher level. Objective is to obtain information about the force protection ability of each BOS function.

f. Analyze and record data. Organize findings from the quiz, next accident assessments and safety observations into a report that establishes the basis for input into the Commander's Training Assessment. Example input is at Enclosure 9.

3. Execution Phase (Risk Management). During the training mission, the commander and staff perform operational risk management procedures as described in the next section. The unit's risk management and safety performance is observed as follows:

a. Observer/controllers (O/Cs) are assigned to observe, record and report on the unit's performance. For home-station exercises, O/Cs typically come from sister units. For CTC exercises, O/Cs are from the resident operations group.

b. The flow chart at Enclosure 10 may be used by O/Cs as a guide in observing the unit's risk management performance.

c. The form at Enclosure 11 may be used by O/Cs to record observed safety/fratricide incidents. At Enclosure 2 is a summary of safety factors to standardize information recorded on the observation form at Enclosure 11. The flow chart at Enclosure 12 may be used by O/Cs to determine the reasons for safety/fratricide incidents observed.

4. Assessment Phase (After-Action Review (AAR)).

a. The O/Cs analyze their observations and provide an assessment to the unit commander. The chart at Enclosure 13 is an example of how the risk management assessment can be presented. The chart at Enclosure 14 is an example of how the safety assessment can be presented. O/Cs should report any safety controls considered unnecessarily restrictive and any other opportunities to improve training realism/effectiveness.

b. The S3 (Safety) assesses how well unit performance meets the commander's safety guidance and provides recommended changes to safety guidance and controls.

c. Commander uses AAR information to determine if the unit's performance meets his safety guidance, the effectiveness of controls implemented during the planning and execution phases and ensures that necessary changes are fed back into the training management cycle and SOP.

Vignette - Task Organization for a Tactical Road March

Vignette - Planning Logistical Release Points (LRPs)



Risk Management Integration--Summary
Risk Management Procedures--Operations



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list


One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger - by Matthew Yglesias