Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
7The original research approach for this study relied strongly on obtaining copies of AEPs and airport disaster exercise evaluations. Unfortunately, multiple efforts to obtain this in- formation directly from airports resulted in limited successâ the reasons for which were documented in periodic reports to ACRP. Essentially, many airports were either concerned about sharing even their basic plan, indicated they did not have the time to provide that information, or did not respond to calls and emails. Other strategies had to be employed to ob- tain copies of AEPs and to gather information about how air- ports were organized to respond to all hazards and the extent to which they did emergency planning with surrounding ju- risdictions and followed the principles of the incident com- mand system on which NIMS is based. Since obtaining AEPs was problematic, the team attempted to derive some basic information via a questionnaire (shown in Appendix A), at least to get a sense of what resources air- ports had identified for disaster response and how they were organized. The questionnaire was designed to capture back- ground information on airport emergency preparedness and the internal structure for responding to disasters, while also requesting a copy of the airport AEP and any exercise cri- tiques from recent drills. We also held meetings with representatives from the Associ- ation of American Airport Executives, the International Asso- ciation of Airport and Seaport Police, the Port Security Coun- cil, and the Airports Council International. These organizations suggested 32 airports in the various categories that were known to have strong elements in their emergency plans that could be documented for the project. The organizations also agreed to distribute information about the project with links to the ques- tionnaire so that all airports could have an opportunity to par- ticipate. Despite these efforts, only 13 airports became involved in the questionnaire. They are identified in Table 1, while the re- sponses are summarized in the third chapter. Through the efforts of FAA Project Panel liaison, Paul Freidman, the research team did eventually obtain 18 AEPs. FAAâs cooperation was instrumental in acquiring this impor- tant component of information. The team developed a tool to evaluate AEPs in terms of NIMS criteria (minus those as- pects of NIMS that were assessed to be irrelevant to airports and that environment) and per the incident command struc- ture. A copy of the tool is found in Appendix B. The results of the AEP evaluations are discussed in Chapter 3. While the AEP sample was limited, it did reflect a range of airport sizes and locations as well as different types of man- agement and ownership. The review provided a window on what AEPs cover in general; the level of detail they provide; the gaps; and the extent to which they reflect many, some, or only a few of the NIMS standards. The AEPs yielded clues as to where airports are the best prepared and where preparedness planning should be more fully developed and documented. The researchers met with top officials from the Washing- ton Metropolitan Airport Authority (which includes Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport); spoke with a representative from the Minneapolis/Saint Paul air- port; and received comprehensive plans from Mike Mandella, Port of Seattle Fire Department, and a member of the ACRP Panel for this project. A thorough literature search was un- dertaken. The most relevant of the publications and other sources that were found are listed in the References section. With regard to learning how well AEPs worked when ap- plied during airport disaster drills (and therefore what aspects of regional planning needed a fresh focus), the research team again encountered roadblocks. There is a dearth of available airport critiques for exercises or after-action reports about the response to actual events. The research team searched the literature and checked the DHS Lessons Learned Information System website. No documents were found that were specific to airport emergencies or exercises of airport-based scenar- ios. Given these roadblocks, the team again approached the task from a different perspective. The team reviewed the lessons learned and best practices from non-airport emergencies for their applicability to the C H A P T E R 2 Research Approach
airport environment. The problems and solutions encoun- tered by other entities when faced with a major incident are relevant to any organization in which public protection and disaster response are vested. A major source of this informa- tion was the Technical Report Series of the U.S. Fire Adminis- tration (now part of DHS), which has been an essential part of their mission for almost three decades and contains over 75 post-disaster analyses. Finally, as writing of the draft final report proceeded in win- ter of 2008, it was discovered that the FAA was about to release for comment new guidelines and a template for airport re- gional emergency planning based on NIMS and Incident Command System (ICS), Advisory Circular 150/5200-31B. The Circular directs airport operators to produce AEPs that are âfunctionally oriented, comprehensive in the assignment of responsibilities, and coordinated at all levels.â The Circular addresses the format of AEPs and gives pro- visions for systematically determining the threats and hazards to which an airport may be vulnerable. It also calls for the in- volvement of local communities and State and Federal agen- cies in airport emergency management and preparedness. In short, the Circular covers many of the same elements as this ACRP-sponsored research. Thus, the ACRP project under- went another major change as the research team had to shift the focus to making this report supportive of and compatible with the governmentâs pending publication, without dupli- cating their information or causing confusion. This report is now structured to complement the FAAâs pending ruling, with an emphasis on the areas of airport emer- gency planning which the research indicated should be first in line for further development and which identifies accepted practices that can help airport managers augment their AEPs. 8 Airport Index City/State FAA Region 1. Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field B Boise, ID Northwest Mountains 2. Boston/Logan E Boston, MA New England 3. Midway Airport D Chicago, IL Great Lakes 4. Denver IAP Airport E Denver, CO Northwest Mountains 5. Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport E Atlanta, GA Southern 6. Jackson Municipal Airport Authority C Jackson, MS Southern 7. Chattanooga Lovell Field Airport C Chattanooga, TN Southern 8. MacCarran International Airport E Las Vegas, NV Western Pacific 9. Minneapolis/Saint Paul E Minneapolis/Saint Paul, MN Great Lakes 10. Reagan National Airport and Washington Dulles Airport C and E Arlington County and Loudon County, VA Eastern 11. Sacramento Airport C Sacramento, CA Western Pacific 12. Seattle/Tacoma Airport E Seattle, WA Northwest Mountains 13. Tulsa Airport D Tulsa, OK Southwest Table 1. Airports that responded to the research questions.
