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.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org Research Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration SubScriber categorieS Aviationâ â¢â SafetyâandâHumanâFactors A I R P O R T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M ACRP SYNTHESIS 60 Airport Emergency Post-Event Recovery Practices A Synthesis of Airport Practice conSultantS James F. Smith Smith-Woolwine Associates, Inc. Floyd, Virginia Kim Kenville KimâKenvilleâConsulting Grand Forks, North Dakota and John M. Sawyer JMSâAirfieldâSafetyâConsultingâLLC Goodyear, Arizona
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in transportation of people and goods and in regional, national, and inter national commerce. They are where the nationâs aviation sys- tem connects with other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research is necessary to solve common oper- ating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the airport industry. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The ACRP carries out applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agencies and are not being adequately addressed by existing federal research programs. It is modeled after the successful National Cooperative Highway Research Program and Transit Cooperative Research Program. The ACRP undertakes research and other technical activities in a variety of airport subj ect areas, including design, construction, maintenance, operations, safety, security, policy, planning, human resources, and administra- tion. The ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can coop- eratively address common operational problems. The ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary partici- pants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry orga- nizations such as the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA), the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) the TRB as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract with the National Academies formally initiating the program. The ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of air- port professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials, equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research organizations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibilities, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort. Research problem statements for the ACRP are solicited period- ically but may be submitted to the TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing coop- erative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the intended end-users of the research: airport operating agencies, service providers, and suppliers. The ACRP produces a series of research reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other interested parties, and industry associations may arrange for work- shops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by airport-industry practitioners. ACRP SYNTHESIS 60 Project A11-03, Topic S04-12 ISSN 1935-9187 ISBN 978-0-309-27186-8 Library of Congress Control Number 2015933594 Â© 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB or FAA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Airport Cooperative Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. Published reports of the AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academyâs purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org
TOPIC PANEL S04-12 HILARY FLETCHER, Jviation Inc., Denver, CO ALEX M. KASHANI, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Dulles, VA TOSHIA SHAVIES MARSHALL, San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, CA ELAINE S. POTOKER, Loeb-Sullivan School of International Business and Logistics, Maine Maritime Academy, Castine, ME STEVEN E. RUNGE, Houston Airport System, Houston, TX MEAGHAN SMALLEY, Jacksonville Aviation Authority (JAA), Jacksonville, FL JACQUELINE YAFT, Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles, CA ANDREA L. SCHWARTZ FREEBURG, Federal Aviation Administration (Liaison) CHRISTINE GERENCHER, Transportation Research Board (Liaison) SYNTHESIS STUDIES STAFF STEPHEN R. GODWIN, Director for Studies and Special Programs JON M. WILLIAMS, Program Director, IDEA and Synthesis Studies JO ALLEN GAUSE, Senior Program Officer GAIL R. STABA, Senior Program Officer DONNA L. VLASAK, Senior Program Officer TANYA M. ZWAHLEN, Consultant DON TIPPMAN, Senior Editor CHERYL KEITH, Senior Program Assistant DEMISHA WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant DEBBIE IRVIN, Program Associate COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS, Director, Cooperative Research Programs MICHAEL R. SALAMONE, Senior Program Officer JOSEPH J. BROWN-SNELL, Program Associate EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications ACRP COMMITTEE FOR PROJECT 11-03 CHAIR JULIE KENFIELD, Jacobsen/Daniels Associates, Garden Ridge, TX MEMBERS JOSHUA ABRAMSON, Easterwood Airport, College Station, TX DEBORAH ALE FLINT, Port of Oakland, Oakland, CA DEBBIE K. ALKE, Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, MT DAVID N. EDWARDS, JR., Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission, Greer, SC LINDA HOWARD, Independent Aviation Consultant, Bastrop, Texas ARLYN PURCELL, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, New York, NY CHRISTOPHER A. WILLENBORG, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, East Boston, MA FAA LIAISON PAUL DEVOTI AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION JOHN L. COLLINS AIRPORTS CONSULTANTS COUNCIL MATHEW J. GRIFFIN AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONALâNORTH AMERICA LIYING GU TRB LIAISON CHRISTINE GERENCHER Cover figure: Santa Paula Airport, January 2006 (Ventura County Sheriffâs Air Unit photo).
FOREWORD Emergency management theory and practice has focused primarily on the top priority of safety, especially for aircraft rescue and firefighting. As a result, while many studies and plans address emergency preparedness, mitigation, and response at airports, on the whole the recovery phase receives at best a cursory treatment. The objective of this synthesis is to gather commonalities and effective practices from representative commercial and general aviation airports regarding post-event recovery. Information used in this study was acquired through a review of the literature and inter- views with airport operators and industry experts. James F. Smith, Smith-Woolwine Associates, Inc., Floyd, Virginia; Kim Kenville, Kim Kenville Consulting, Grand Forks, North Dakota; and John M. Sawyer, JMS Airfield Safety Consulting LLC, Goodyear, Arizona, collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on the preceding page. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were accept- able within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As prog- ress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand. Airport administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which infor- mation already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and prac- tice. This information may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviat- ing the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the airport industry. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire airport community, the Airport Cooperative Research Program authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing project. This project, ACRP Project 11-03, âSynthesis of Information Related to Airport Practices,â searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor consti- tute an ACRP report series, Synthesis of Airport Practice. This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. PREFACE By Gail R. Staba Senior Program Officer Transportation Research Board
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The researchers wish to acknowledge the generous sharing of time and experience by the airport experts who contributed to this study by being interviewed or providing documentation: Airport Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Blue Grass Airport (Lexington) Blue Ridge Regional Airport Bob Hope Airport (Burbank) Boise International Airport Boston Logan International Airport BuffaloâNiagara International Airport Centennial Airport DallasâFort Worth International Airport Denver International Airport George Bush Intercontinental Airport GulfportâBiloxi International Airport Jacksonville International Airport John F. Kennedy International Airport Joplin Regional Airport LaGuardia Airport LambertâSt. Louis International Airport Los Angeles International Airport Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport Memphis International Airport MinneapolisâSt. Paul International Airport Newark Liberty International Airport North Little Rock Airport Oakland International Airport Orlando International Airport Owatonna Degner Regional Airport Page Municipal Airport Phoenix Deer Valley Airport Rocky Mount Metro Airport Saint Paul Downtown Airport San Francisco International Airport Santa Paula Airport Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport Sloulin Field International Airport Soldotna Airport Washington Dulles International Airport Yampa Valley Airport (Hayden) Yuma International Airport Throughout the study, the topic panel and the ACRP project officer provided sound advice, practical assistance, and encouragement. Contributors Dustin Havel, Brian Grefe Amy Caudill, Scott Lanter Jason Davis Patti Clark Sarah Demory Bob Donahue, Catherine Obert William Major, Karen Renna Lorie Hinton Craig Mammel, David McCurdy Jessica Birnbaum, Dave Cunningham, Lisa Gahm Mark Bull, Cheryl Hamilton, Rich Albert, Steve Runge Casey Lyons, Don Shepley Meaghan Smalley Susanne DesRoches Steve Stockam Susanne DesRoches William Korte, Jeff Lea, Glen Pudlowski Katherine Alvarado, Nancy Castles, John Kinney, Gina Marie Lindsey, Jacqueline Yaft Ron Nodal, Brian Raley John Greaud Kristi Rollwagen, Paul Sitchko Susanne DesRoches, Sarah McKeon Harry Barrett, Clay Rogers Craig Simon (background interview; airport not included in study) Tom Draper Dave Beaver Rick Olson, Jeff Reed, Ray Varner Ed Faron, Joshua Ross Kenny Maenpa Kristi Rollwagen, Paul Sitchko Christopher Birch, Dale C. Carnes, Antonio Eshabarr, Rob Forester, Toshia Shavies Marshall, Ralf Ruckelshausen Rowena Mason Greg Kelly, Fred McCosby Steven Kjergaard Kyle Kornelis Matthew Crosman, Alex Kashani Dave Ruppel Gen Grosse, Lona Schugart, Gladys Wiggins
CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY 3 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Overview, 3 Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, Recovery, and Their Relation to Resiliency, 4 How Recovery Matters, 5 Types of Incidents That Require Recovery, 5 Irregular Operations and Recovery, 6 Scope of This Study, 7 Study Methodology, 7 Selection of Airports, 7 Literature Review, 8 Interviews and Data on Responses, 8 Case Examples, 9 Data Analysis, 10 Results, 10 11 CHAPTER TWO CASE EXAMPLES Case Example 1: Aircraft Accident: San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Asiana 214 Crash of July 6, 2013, 11 Incident and Response, 11 Recovery, 13 Common Incident Objectives, 13 Lessons Learned, 15 Summary, 18 Case Example 2: Natural Disaster: Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) Ice Storm of December 5â7, 2013, 18 Incident and Response, 19 Recovery, 19 Common Incident Objectives, 20 Lessons Learned, 21 Summary, 22 Case Example 3: Criminal Act: Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Active Shooter Incident of November 1, 2013, 23 Incident and Response, 23 Recovery, 24 Common Incident Objectives, 26 Lessons Learned, 26 Summary, 27 Case Example 4: Systems Failure: Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) Electrical Outage from Hurricane Sandy on October 29, 2012, 28 Incident and Response, 28 Recovery, 29 Common Incident Objectives, 32 Lessons Learned, 32 Summary, 35
36 CHAPTER THREE FINDINGS The Meaning of âAirport Closedâ and âAirport Open,â 36 A Major Culture Shift Has Occurred, 37 Effective Management Practices and Lessons Learned, 37 Advance Planning and Preparation, 38 Command and Control, 40 Mutual Aid, 41 Comprehensive Crisis Communications, 42 Operations and Logistics, 43 Employee Care, 44 Customer Care, 45 Assessment, Revision, and Validation, 46 Evaluating and Measuring the Effectiveness of Recovery Plans and Actions, 47 Existing Issues, 47 Architecture of Unified Command at Airports, 47 Extent of Commitment to NIMS and ICS in Recovery, 48 Extent of Commitment to EOC in Recovery, 48 Integration of Mutual Aid and Other Partners in Airport EOC, NIMS, and ICS During Recovery, 48 Status of Comprehensive Crisis Communications Planning and Implementation, 49 Metrics and Other Methods for Evaluating Recovery Plans and Procedures, 49 Introduction to the List of Airport Emergency Post-Event Recovery Practices, 49 50 CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 51 GLOSSARY 56 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 57 REFERENCES 60 BIBLIOGRAPHY 64 APPENDIX A LIST OF AIRPORT EMERGENCY POST-EVENT RECOVERY PRACTICES Part I. ADVANCE PLANNING AND PREPARATION, 65 Part II. COMMAND AND CONTROL, 67 Part III. MUTUAL AID, 68 Part IV. COMPREHENSIVE CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS, 69 Part V. OPERATIONS AND LOGISTICS, 70 Part VI. EMPLOYEE CARE, 71 Part VII. CUSTOMER CARE, 72 Part VIII. EVALUATION, REVISION, AND VALIDATION, 72 73 APPENDIX B PARTICIPATING AIRPORTS 75 APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE USED TO GUIDE INTERVIEWS
List of Figures and Tables 4 FIGURE 1 Emergency management cycle. 7 FIGURE 2 Normal operations, IROPS, and recovery. 9 FIGURE 3 Position titles of interviewees. 12 FIGURE 4 San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Asiana 214 crash of July 6, 2013. 12 FIGURE 5 Satellite image of SFO. 13 FIGURE 6 SFO airport diagram. 14 FIGURE 7 Timeline for SFO recovery. 16 FIGURE 8 Typical common operating picture display during emergency operations. 19 FIGURE 9 Cobblestone ice in Dallas area. 20 FIGURE 10 DFW airport diagram. 21 FIGURE 11 Timeline for DFW recovery. 23 FIGURE 12 Terminal evacuees. 24 FIGURE 13 LAX Airport diagram. 25 FIGURE 14 Timeline for LAX recovery. 28 FIGURE 15 EWR at height of flooding. 29 FIGURE 16 Google Earth view of EWR. 30 FIGURE 17 EWR Airport diagram. 31 FIGURE 18 Timeline for EWR recovery. 37 FIGURE 19 Categories of effective practices. 64 FIGURE A1 Categories of effective practices. 7 TABLE 1 Types and Sizes of Airports in Study 9 TABLE 2 Typology of Incidents and Airports Identifying Each Type as Primary Topic for Interview