Risk Monitoring and Control
The escape committee assessed the project risks frequently especially during
the construction phase and modified the project plans accordingly. For example,
this was done by:
- Continually monitoring of what ferrets were thinking through contacts with
friendly ferrets and reading between the lines. The Intelligence Branch gave Bushell
early warning.
- Devising a system to ensure that tunnels ended up where planned, pointing
in the right direction and built at a level depth and right length. Continuous
daily measurements helped achieve this.
- Continual and careful scrutiny of the tunnel-by-tunnel engineering for signs
of danger, and potential tunnel collapse.
The objective was to:
- assess the probability and impacts of risk,
- close risks were appropriate,
- determine new risks since last meeting.
This was a long, complex project fraught with risks, and as the project progressed
new risks had to be continually considered, as grouped in the Table shown in Figure 7.
|
Risk Identification
|
Probability
|
Impact
|
Mitigation
|
|
Escaping through the tunnel without incident
|
90%
|
Many escapers passing through the tunnel could disturb it and
cause collapse
|
Passing escapers throughput had to be carefully controlled
|
|
Getting away from the camp unnoticed
|
70%
|
Being identified as a PoW, capture, leading to overall alert.[7]
|
Disguises, clothing, identification passes and plausible roles
had to be scrutinized for any flaws (Quality Control)
|
|
Traveling distances unchallenged
|
40%
|
Traveling long distances (min. 300 miles)
|
Using forged passes, having money available, and being able to
talk out of a situation
|
|
Surviving in the open
|
60%
|
Hypothermia or even death
|
Access to food, water, shelter, and heat
|
Figure 7: New risks identified
7. Geneva Convention dictated servicemen not in uniform could be shot.
|
Risk
Response Planning
