Risk Assessments

Moderator: jimothy_183

Post Reply
User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2811
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Risk Assessments

Post by Ryan » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:25 am

How do we weigh up the risk vs benefit ratio within the CQB environment as it is such fast-paced is there a way to do so or is it all pre-planned based on experience? As Gabe Suarez says "risk is the currency of CQB."
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

User avatar
jimothy_183
Military
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: Risk Assessments

Post by jimothy_183 » Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:01 pm

IMO CQB is so fast paced that you will rarely get to deliberate on a tactical decision so this is an area where experience from training and other real situations will be what allows you to make decisions quicker.

Old pilot's proverb: You start off with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The idea is to fill the bag with experience before the luck runs out.
semper acer , semper velox , semper trux , semper promptus

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2811
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Risk Assessments

Post by Ryan » Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:04 pm

Yes, that is true. Well for instance we are going down a hallway. We understand its dangers being a linear danger area. We come to a door. We understand the dangers of the fatal funnel. I guess it's all about adaption, adaption to risks therefore is an interesting subject. The kinds of risks and risk factors that may present itself within CQB are numerous.
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

User avatar
tacticalguy
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:48 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Risk Assessments

Post by tacticalguy » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:10 pm

I weigh the potential gain; hostages, stopping further rampages, etc. There are times when it pays to sit on a perimeter and "let things sort themselves out" rather than put your people in harm's way for little or no gain. This may not be a politically correct attitude but, if there is armed and suicidal murder suspect barricaded in a house, alone, maybe spending a little more time going over EVERY single contingency in the back of the SRT van at the staging area isn't a bad thing. I'm just sayin'...
If you have `cleared' all the rooms and met no resistance, you and your entry team have probably kicked in the door of the wrong house.
(Murphy's Cop Laws)

The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan. (Von Clausewitz)

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2811
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Risk Assessments

Post by Ryan » Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:15 am

Yes, I suppose there's a big mental game too it. As if you were walking down a street, weighing up cover, effectiveness of that cover, where you could run to, how you could engage. When you look at a one-story, square building you can weigh up the cons, the probability of layout, create its very own risk factor. As such the risk factor associated with smoking that leads to a possibility of cancer, the risk factor of this type of layout that leads to this type of clearance.


Low Risk (Excellent ability to utilize the capacity and translate the talent into decisions; reduces the potential for errors and mistakes).

Situational Risk (Very good ability to utilize the capacity especially in well defined areas; however, there are specific situations that can interfere with the translation into decisions).

Conditional Risk (Limited access to the capacity indicating actual conditions that will increase the potential for mistakes and errors and restrict the transfer into decisions).

Real Risk (Restricted access to the capacity indicating the ability is consistently unavailable and individuals are subject to mistakes and errors in judgment).

How we modify risk to suit us is where it counts? One day luck will run out, risk will catch up to you. What happens then is based on pure personal skills such as thinking patterns and computing speeds.

Risk is made up of environmental risk for example a centre fed room as opposed to corner fed or a linear danger area such as a street. Risk is made up of personal risk based on choice for example if I conduct the SBU drill over cover, do I lessen my risk in this situation? If I didn't then could I have signed my own death wish? Risk is made up of team risk for example the team as a whole putting themselves on the line in a potentially dangerous spot. Task risk for example a C-IED Engineer in Iraq may be at more bloody risk than a REMF!
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2811
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Risk Assessments

Post by Ryan » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:51 am

If we look at the a Militarized response to risk we see a Risk Scale with the identifiable problems for the on-the-ground soldiers and a list of risk reduction measurements. From this an appropriate response can be easily mustered. Then again one of those 'in the moment' responses may be more suitable depending on what is happening.

Paul Howe during Black Hawk Down (as stated per Mark Bowden's book) was assessing the key and dangerous (red) terrain infront of him; he assessed that the enemy had an angle on one of the corners of a building where two soldiers were injured. He therefore came to the conclusion to stay the heck away from it! He found a "safe spot" in amongst this lead of fire where he was away from the vast majority of shooters line of fire and angles, he could therefore engage in relative safety even though the environment around him had the taste of cordite in the air, the sound of the SNAP of rounds feet from him, he was safe in that position, at least for a short time. I believe, if I'm not mistake, a soldier hugged the dangerous corner and was hit, confirming Paul Howe's thoughts and notions of a shooter camping out that area.

METT-TC could therefore be classed as a formal risk scale because you are weighing up your capabilities or potential capabilities versus the enemies then again versus the demonstrated informal version Paul Howe conducted on the job; the only extra to help during those situations is to try to communicate it to as many people as possible, if the need to explain was mitigated (i.e. a common tactical sense equation such as a linear danger area, stay out of it!) then that would free up time and commitment to non-combat areas.

Image

Image

If we were to make a CQB related risk assessment tool we could therefore add in possibilities and plausible appropriate actions to events. Barricaded suspect -> Hold or pull out. Don't go bunker bustin' without this! One man down, CONTACT is running, emergency response may be this! It would at least allow a way to learn, record and analyze situations and the potential for similar future situations, for example the start of a war - unknown risk - it's giving you base line data for which you can adjust SOP's and IOP's. The anatomy of these situations and how we break them down.
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

4Bravo1
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:48 pm

Re: Risk Assessments

Post by 4Bravo1 » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:44 pm

The biggest thing I have found a need for is to let the team know when you are going deliberate. In most of my operations, there was a certain point that we let people know to slow down because we no longer had surprise. We would begin flooding initially using the dynamic method and we would then switch to deliberate at a certain point. ROE, logistics, and other factors would often not allow us to flashbang every room. Additionally if you use the dynamic "immediately enter into the room" tactic as a default, you are stuck using a hammer whether or not you have nails, screws, or something else in front of you.

Now if we are talking overall risk assessment when deciding the method: call out, dynamic, deliberate, stealth, rescue, breaching, etc. thats a whole different story. Most teams have some type of "advance" or close target recon sheet to evaluate the situation, and most police departments use a risk assessment matrix when deciding to call in SWAT for the operation.

Post Reply

Return to “CQB General Discussions ”