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.
5 Methodology and Data Sources The TIRP tool was developed through a comprehensive risk analysis that identified the full range of incidents that might affect airport terminals and determined the types of incidents that carried the highest risk. Senior managers at seven commercial airports of differing types and sizes examined the results of the risk analysis to ensure its validity. The results of the risk analysis informed a review of scholarly and popular literature regarding incidents that dis- rupted terminals, particularly in the last 10 years. Figure 1 shows the literature map that guided the search. Following the risk analysis and literature review, the research team requested and obtained emergency and terminal management documents and plans from selected airports and ana- lyzed the documents and plans for recurring patterns of response and best practices. The results were used to map the processes, and then those process maps were used to program the tool. Details and results of each of the methodology steps are presented in the following sections. Risk Analysis Risk (R) is defined as probability (P) multiplied by consequences (C); that is, R = P Ã C. The incident types identified in Tables 1 and 2 have been characterized by probability of occurrence, magnitude of consequences, and risk. Probability was rated on a 0 to 3 scale, and consequences were rated on a 0 to 4 scale. Since risk is the product of probability and conse- quences, the potential range of risk values runs from 0 to 12. Tables 1 and 2 list the full range of possible terminal incidents in descending order of risk, and within equal levels of risk, by descending magnitude of consequences. The risk analysis was refined through correlating the results of the literature review (Task 2) and data collection (Task 4). Results Risk Analysis Total Results Tables 1 and 2 present the results of the risk analysis, with Table 2 focusing on geo-specific incidents only. The data incorporate the results of the literature review and expert validity review. The results of the risk analysis make intuitive sense. Some incident types may appear to yield lower than expected computed risk values because the probability of the incident occurring is very low, the consequences are low, or both. One incident of particular interest to airports that falls into this category is an aircraft accident or crash. How aircraft accidents and crashes affect terminal operations is addressed later in this chapter. C H A P T E R 2
6 Airport Terminal Incident Response Planning Literature Review to Refine Risk Analysis The incident types in Tables 1 and 2 originated as a list generated by the research team. Each incident type was then subjected to a thorough literature review to determine where an example occurred during the period of 2002 to 2012, the number of occurrences, and the magnitude of con- sequences. The literature review both narrowed and broadened the list, making it more oriented to real-world practice. Expert Validity After refining the incident list by cross-referencing it with the literature, a risk assessment table with probability, consequences, and risk was drafted. This risk assessment table was submitted for informal review by managers at commercial airports of different sizes: Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport (BTR), Range Regional Airport (HIB), JacksonâEvers Inter- national Airport (JAN), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Owatonna Airport (OWA), and Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC). The experts reached a high level of consensus and suggested several adjustments that were applied to the risk analysis. The adjusted values, resulting from a synthesis of the risk analysis, literature review, and expert evaluation, are displayed in Tables 1 and 2. Highest-Priority Incident Types Highest-risk items were extracted from the overall risk analysis results and identified as highest-priority risks (Table 3). A preliminary analysis of responses to the 17 incidents revealed that a subset of 10 incidents incorporate patterns that can be modified to develop responses to the remaining highest-priority risks as well as all lesser-priority risks. The research team, after consulting with the panel, removed irregular operations (IROPS) from the list of targeted highest-priority incident types since IROPS is a secondary condition Figure 1. Literature map.
Methodology and Data Sources 7 Incident Probability 3 = High 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = None Consequences 4 = Very High 3 = High 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = None Risk = Probability Ã Consequences Structural fire 2 4 8 Active shooter 2 3 6 Bomb threat 2 3 6 FAA navigation system failures 2 3 6 Irregular operations (IROPS) 2 3 6 Security breach 2 3 6 Security equipment malfunction 2 3 6 Traffic blockage (access roads) 2 3 6 Transit system failure (trams, people movers, access and functional needs transport, etc.) 2 3 6 Electrical outage/power failure 3 2 6 Suspicious package or bag 3 2 6 Biological agent 1 4 4 Bomb explosion 1 4 4 Hostage/barricade 1 4 4 Pandemic/quarantine 1 4 4 Structural failure of building 1 4 4 Aircraft diversion (non-signatory carrier) 2 2 4 Flight cancellations (local or distant) 2 2 4 Other criminal act requiring investigation, crime scene protection, and crowd control 2 2 4 Suspicious odor 2 2 4 Aircraft accident/crash 1 3 3 Aircraft hijacking 1 3 3 Chemical agent 1 3 3 Civil unrest/riot 1 3 3 Cyber-attack/disruption 1 3 3 Hazardous materials (HAZMAT) spill 1 3 3 Nonspecific threat of damage to people or terminal 1 3 3 Radioactive agent 1 3 3 Usurpation/preemption of terminal facilities for regional disaster 11 3 3 Baggage system failure 3 1 3 False fire alarm 3 1 3 Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) failure 1 2 2 Flood/sprinkler use in building 2 1 2 Picketing/protests/labor actions 1 1 1 1The probability of usurpation or preemption of terminal facilities for a regional disaster should be zero if the airport has worked out a regional disaster plan with the local, regional, and state response team (Bonnie Wilson, pers. comm., August 13, 2012). Table 1. Incidents that can affect any airport, sorted by risk of disrupting normal terminal operations.
8 Airport Terminal Incident Response Planning Incident Probability 3 = High 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = None Consequences 4 = Very High 3 = High 2 = Medium 1 = Low 0 = None Risk = Probability Ã Consequences Hurricane 3 3 9 Snowstorm 3 3 9 Earthquake 2 4 8 Tornado 2 4 8 Wildfire/smoke 2 3 6 Storm 3 21 6 Dust storms/sandstorms 1 3 3 Tidal wave/tsunami 1 3 3 Wind-driven water 1 3 3 High water/flood 3 1 3 Volcanic eruption 1 2 2 Drought 0 0 0 Landslide/mudslide (may operate through blocking access roads) 0 0 0 1Consequences will be higher for storms (and most other geo-specific disasters) at airports that primarily serve regional jets and smaller airlines. Table 2. Geo-specific incidents that can affect an airport, sorted by risk of disrupting normal terminal operations. Incident General or Geo-specific Hazard Risk = Probability Ã Con- sequences Used in Initial Process Mapping to Develop Tool Aircraft accident/crash Any airport 3* No Hurricane Geo-specific 9 Yes Snowstorm Geo-specific 9 Yes Earthquake Geo-specific 8 Yes Structural fire Any airport 8 Yes Tornado Geo-specific 8 Yes Active shooter Any airport 6 Yes Bomb threat Any airport 6 Yes Electrical outage/power failure Any airport 6 Yes FAA navigation system failures Any airport 6 No Security breach Any airport 6 Yes Security equipment malfunction Any airport 6 No Storm Geo-specific 6 No Suspicious package or bag Any airport 6 No Traffic blockage (access roads) Any airport 6 No Transit system failure (trams, people movers, access and functional needs transport, etc.) Any airport 6 No Wildfire/smoke Geo-specific 6 No *Aircraft accidents and crashes are included on the highest-priority incident list due to the strength of airportsâ interest and preparation activities as well as FAA statutory, regulatory, and advisory circular requirements. Table 3. Highest-priority risks.
Methodology and Data Sources 9 that results from one of the primary incident types and usually affects the entire airport, not just the terminal. Aircraft accidents/crashes were moved to the top of the highest-priority list in Table 3. An aircraft accident or crash at the terminal has very different consequences for terminal operations from an aircraft crash away from the terminal: in most cases, the two different scenarios will have very different command and control structures during the response. As specified in the AEP, any accident or crash involving a terminal structure would have the same command response as a structural fire. In most cases, an airport management representative is the incident commander under these plans, with police and fire as support. However, if an aircraft crash occurs away from the terminal, either on the airport or away from the airport, it will have a significant impact on terminal operations. These types of acci- dents often create challenging crowd-control issues within the terminals. They often trigger the evacuation and sheltering of a select group of customers through the post-disaster family assistance plans of airports and airlines: these plans are generally designed to swiftly segregate and remove people related to the accident. When an aircraft accident or crash affects a terminal, it is normally well addressed by the AEP and the family assistance plan. For this reason, airports do not need to use the TIRP tool to gen- erate terminal incident response plans for aircraft accidents and crashes; most AEPs adequately address aircraft incidents and crashes. Airports and Documents Representative primary commercial airports of all types and sizes were asked to provide documents and plans that guide their responses to incidents in their passenger terminals, particularly for the nine highest-priority incidents (aircraft accident/crash through electrical outage/power failure in Table 3). Although non-primary commercial services airports and large reliever and general aviation airports that have passenger terminals were not surveyed for this study, the TIRP tool and accompanying userâs guide are applicable to their terminal operations as well. Airports in Study Airports were selected on the basis of their reputation for preparedness, history of high- priority incidents (as revealed by the literature review), and their degree of willingness to share sensitive plans and documents. As shown in Figure 2, the airports in the study were evenly Source: Air Carrier Activity Information System (ACAIS) calendar year 2011 data, http://www.faa.gov/airports/ planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/? year=all. Figure 2. Airports in study by NPIAS category.
10 Airport Terminal Incident Response Planning distributed among the four National Plan for Integrated Airports System (NPIAS) categories of primary airports. Fifty airports were approached, and 39 (78%) responded. Of those, 32 airports provided doc- uments and plans for review. Seven airports declined to submit materials for various reasons, and 11 airports did not respond. In addition, four airports not on the original list volunteered plans upon hearing of this research initiative, leading to a total of 36 airports that submitted documents (see Table 4). NPIAS Airport Code Airport City State FAA Region Responded Large hub BOS Boston Logan International Boston MA NE Yes Large hub DEN Denver International Denver CO NM Yes Large hub DTW Detroit Wayne County Metropolitan Detroit MI GL Yes Large hub EWR Newark Liberty International Newark NJ EA Yes Large hub IAD Washington Dulles International Dulles VA EA Yes Large hub JFK John F. Kennedy International New York NY EA Yes Large hub LAX Los Angeles International Los Angeles CA WP Volunteer Large hub LGA La Guardia New York NY EA Yes Large hub MIA Miami International Miami FL SO Volunteer Large hub ORD Chicago OâHare International Chicago IL GL Yes Large hub PHL Philadelphia International Philadelphia PA EA Yes Large hub PHX Phoenix Sky Harbor International Phoenix AZ WP Yes Large hub SAN San Diego International San Diego CA WP Yes Large hub SEA Seattle Tacoma International Seattle WA NM Yes Large hub SLC Salt Lake City International Salt Lake City UT NM Yes Medium hub ABQ Albuquerque International Albuquerque NM SW Yes Medium hub MCI Kansas City Midcontinental International Kansas City MO CE Yes Medium hub MHT Manchester Boston Regional Manchester NH NE Yes Medium hub PDX Portland International Portland OR NM Yes Medium hub SNA John Wayne International Santa Ana CA WP Yes Medium hub STL Lambert St. Louis International St. Louis MO CE Yes Small hub BOI Boise Boise ID NM Yes Small hub COS Colorado Springs Colorado Springs CO NM Yes Small hub ECP Northwestern Florida Beaches International Panama City Beach FL SO Yes Small hub FAI Fairbanks International Fairbanks AK AL Volunteer Small hub GPT Gulfport Biloxi International Gulfport MS SO Yes Small hub JAN Jackson-Evers International Jackson MS SO Yes Small hub LGB Long Beach Long Beach CA WP Yes Small hub OKC Will Rogers World Oklahoma City OK SW Yes Small hub SAV Savannah/Hilton Head International Savannah GA SO Yes Small hub SDF Louisville International Standiford Field Louisville KY SO Yes Small hub XNA Northwest Arkansas Regional Fayetteville AR SW Yes Non-hub primary EGE Eagle County Eagle CO NM Yes Non-hub primary HIB Range Regional Hibbing MN GL Yes Non-hub primary RAP Rapid City Regional Rapid City SD GL Yes Reliever DVT Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix AZ WP Volunteer Note: AL = Alaskan, NM = Northwest Mountain, WP = Western-Pacific, GL = Great Lakes, CE = Central, SW = Southwest, NE = New England, EA = Eastern, SO = Southern. Table 4. Airports that submitted documents.
Methodology and Data Sources 11 Documents The research team requested documents and plans such as AEPs, terminal management plans, and plans and checklists for the specific types of incidents. In addition, respondents were asked if any other documents or plans were pertinent to the purpose of the study, and several airport managers volunteered additional highly informative items. Documents and plans of every type sought, as well as several other types of applicable docu- ments, were provided to the research team. The plan types and the numbers of each are listed in Table 5. Process Mapping Theory and Procedure The technique of process mapping documents not only the sequential flow of emergency response but also the sequential activities that must be performed by different airports (or other departments). Process mapping enables the planner to understand the integration of activity and information flow necessary for a smooth and efficient response (Iowa State University, Facilities Planning and Management, 2013). Working from the airport plans, checklists, and documents for nine highest-priority incident types (aircraft accident/crash through electrical outage/power failure in Table 3), the research teamâs analysts and modelers mapped the processes. The resulting maps tie together the inputs describing the incident, terminal, personnel, information, and other resources available to for- mulate the elements into a complete plan. Some processes and elements are shared by the plans for two or more incident types, and some are unique to just one incident type. The process mapping took these similarities and differences into account. The process mapping procedure resulted in a logical engine that turned the inputs into the appropriate plan elements for devel- oping the TIRP tool. Figure 3 shows the process map for a structural fire. It is similar to the eight other process maps. Types of Plans Number of Plans Gathered Complete or partial AEPs 110 Evacuation pans 13 Severe weather plans 6 Fire response plans 5 Customer service plans 4 Checklists/outlines 4 IROPS plans 5 Active shooter plans 3 Power failure response plans 2 Disease plans 2 Continuity of operations plans 2 Radiation response plan 1 Shelter-in-place plan 1 Extended tarmac delay plan 1 Table 5. Documents obtained for analysis.
12 Airport Terminal Incident Response Planning Note: ICS = Incident Command System, SOP = standard operating procedure, MCP = mobile command post, EOC = emergency operations center. Figure 3. Process map for a structural fire.