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.
11 This chapter presents the data gathered from the 32 survey responses from the airports, examining written mutual aid agreements and verbal and non-written agreements. The final two sections of this chapter deal with multi-party agreements and discuss the prevalence of preparatory exercises and drills resulting from mutual aid partnerships and plans. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR RESPONDENTS Figure 1 (in chapter one) shows the size distribution of the respondents in terms of NPIAS categories. As shown in Table 1, 63% of the respondents are Part 139 airports with commercial service, 22% are reliever airports, and 16% are GA airports. The respondent airports are from 18 states and represent eight of the nine FAA Regions. A review of the governance data from the respondents in Appendix B shows that 14 airports (44%) belong to an authority or an authority/corporation, 10 airports (32%) belong to a city, four airports (12%) belong to a county, three airports (10%) belong to a state, and one airport (3%) belongs jointly to a city and a county. WRITTEN MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS When the 32 airports were asked if they had any written mutual aid agreements of any type, 24 (75%) answered yes (see Figure 2). The question was generic in nature and asked only if the agreements were in written form; it did not ask which specific type of agreements were in place. The two Alaskan airports and the two MAC airports in Minnesota account for four of the eight reporting no written aid agree- ments. The remaining four airports without written agree- ments were smaller GA or reliever airports. Written Mutual Aid Agreements with FAA Tower or Contract Tower Of the airports surveyed that had FAA or contract towers, 80% said they had mutual aid agreements with that tower. All of the GA and reliever airports that have towers have written mutual aid agreements with the towers. These data indicate that many of the commercial airports do not have written mutual aid agreements with their towers despite the implica- tions of AC 150/5200-31C. Other Types of Written Mutual Aid Agreements The most common written mutual aid agreements are between airports and local firefighting agencies, local law enforcement, and emergency medical services. These agreements are com- mon as a result of the regulatory nature of FAR Part 139 and Advisory Circular 150/5200-31C regarding an airportâs emer- gency plan. Several joint-use airports have agreements with their on-field air National Guard or Air Force base, which may be the airportâs provider of ARFF and first responder services (as shown in comments in survey results). Figure 3 indicates the frequency of each type of written mutual aid agreement. Over the last 10 years, with actions from FEMA and the initiation of NIMS, airports have been encouraged to develop agreements with their local government emergency manage- ment agencies. Examining data from the âOtherâ category can provide useful information and direction regarding non- routine areas airport management deems important enough to establish a relationship in writing. The âOthersâ category in Figure 3 comprises 16 additional types of partners, which are included in Table 3. Some unique arrangements exist, such as an agreement with the U.S. Coast Guard, which are likely the result of the proxim- ity of these entities to the airport; for example, only airports located near a waterway would have access to a local Coast Guard unit. The majority of written agreements are established with entities that would be utilized during a response to a major incident/accident at an airport. In the past, these agreements have dealt nearly exclusively with an airplane crash; however, in recent years, the increased incidence of natural disasters has predicated the need for agreements outside an aviation event. Some airports such as Chennault have mutual aid agree- ments with private corporations or for-profit organizations (see Appendix D). VERBAL OR UNWRITTEN MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS Verbal mutual aid agreements were reported by 19 airports (60%). Furthermore, âverbalâ agreements may be hidden inside contracts, authority agreements, joint use agreements, or leases and were reported by 59% of the responding airports (see Figure 4). Table 4 identifies the nature of the partners in verbal mutual aid agreements with airports. chapter three SURVEY RESPONSES
12 Some fire, law enforcement, and emergency medical ser- vices (EMS) agreements may be unreported, as data regarding these agreements are probably reported under the âneighbor- ing or surrounding citiesâ item. The jurisdiction that owns the airport may also own the EMS capabilities, thus rendering the need for a written agreement null. Examination of Table 5 indicates an apparent positive cor- relation between an airportâs size category and the number of written mutual aid agreements. As shown in this table no relationship is evident between airport size and the number of verbal agreements. INCORPORATION OF MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS INTO AIRPORT EMERGENCY PLANS As shown in Figure 5, of the 20 responding airports that are required to have an airport emergency plan, the majority has incorporated their mutual aid agreements either in the complete or referenced form. Only two of the airports with AEPs do not have mutual aid agreements in the AEP, illustrat- ing how important mutual aid agreements are to airport opera- tors, and how seriously they take them. Whether the mutual aid agreement is in a complete form as part of the AEP may indicate the flexible nature that exists in both the AEP and the mutual aid agreement. Incorporating a mutual aid agreement in complete form in an AEP would trigger a full FAA review and approval as an AEP change, whereas referencing a mutual aid agreement would not. Twelve of the airports in this study are reliever or GA airports and are therefore not subject to FAR Part 139âs AEP requirement. Nevertheless, one reliever airport has its mutual aid agreements incorporated in complete form in its AEP, and three reliever airports have theirs incorporated by reference. MULTILATERAL MUTUAL AID ARRANGEMENTS Regional (Countywide, Interlocal, or Multi-County) Emergency Response or Mutual Aid Plans or Programs The majority of airports also uses or belongs to a regional mutual aid response group (Figure 6), illustrating the prev- alence and importance of airport collaboration with local jurisdictions and multi-county or state relationships. The de - velopment of cooperative working arrangements with county, state, and federal agencies during disasters is primarily the result of the increasing number of natural disasters over the past decade (Munich RE 2012). Some reworking of the federal or state mandates may have assisted these airports in becom- ing members of an emergency management consortium in their region. Multilateral mutual aid agreements are addressed in detail in the Case Examples 3 (Chicago), 4 (Salt Lake City), and 5 (Hammond Northshore) in chapter four. FIGURE 2 Do you have any written mutual aid agreements? (Source: Survey results). FIGURE 3 Most frequent mutual aid partners. (Source: Survey results).
13 Types of Partners No. of Respondents Percent Fire 21 87.5 Law enforcement 13 54.2 Emergency medical services 11 45.8 Local government emergency management agency 8 33.3 American Red Cross 5 20.8 Air National Guard 4 16.7 Local health department 4 16.7 State department of transportation 4 16.7 Municipal utilities or public works 3 12.5 TSA 3 12.5 CBP 2 8.3 Hospital 2 8.3 Airline 1 4.2 Countywide mutual aid system 1 4.2 Electric utility company 1 4.2 Military base (not National Guard) 1 4.2 School district 1 4.2 State forestry department 1 4.2 State police 1 4.2 Town emergency operations plan 1 4.2 Western Airports Disaster Operations Group (WESTDOG)* 1 4.2 CDC 0 0 Local government Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 0 0 U.S. Coast Guard 0 0 Source: Survey results. n = 24 airports with written agreements. CBP = Customs and Border Patrol; CDC = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. TABLE 3 DO YOU HAVE WRITTEN AID AGREEMENTS WITH ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? FIGURE 4 Do you have any verbal or unwritten mutual aid agreements? (Source: Survey results).
14 No. of Respondents Percent No verbal or unwritten mutual aid agreements 13 40.6 FAA Air Traffic Control 7 21.9 Law enforcement/police/sheriff 7 21.9 Fire/rescue 6 18.8 County department of emergency management 5 15.6 Neighboring cities 3 9.4 American Red Cross 2 6.2 CBP 2 6.2 Health department 2 6.2 Public transportation agencies 2 6.2 Airlines 1 3.1 Cargo companies (for shelter spaces) 1 3.1 Coronerâs office 1 3.1 County dispatch/9-1-1 1 3.1 EMS 1 3.1 FBI 1 3.1 Hospital 1 3.1 National Guard 1 3.1 Oil refinery (private fire and security forces) 1 3.1 Secret Service 1 3.1 State police/Highway patrol 1 3.1 TSA 1 3.1 USCG 1 3.1 Source: Survey results. n = 32. CBC = Customs and Border Patrol. TABLE 4 MUTUAL AID PARTNERS WITH VERBAL OR UNWRITTEN AGREEMENTS TABLE 5 NUMBER OF WRITTEN MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS BY SIZE CATEGORIES OF AIRPORTS
15 Statewide Mutual Aid Plan, Program, or Compact As shown in Figure 7, 18 (56%) of the airports are in states that have a statewide mutual aid plan, program, or compact. Four (13%) of the airports reported that their state had no such compact. The remaining 10 (31%) that reported âDonât knowâ most likely are in states with no statewide compact, as only approximately half of the states had such compacts as of 2012. Statewide mutual aid plans, programs, and compacts typi- cally tie local governments (cities and counties) to each other and to state agencies. Airports are rarely direct participants in these compacts, but they can often connect through the jurisdiction that owns the airport. MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS With any program, it is prudent to measure the effective- ness of the agreement or response to an incident. When asked about measuring the efficacy of their mutual aid agreements, five airports (16%) indicated that they had a written evaluation plan or metrics for assessment. How- ever, follow-up disclosed that they apply general exercise criteria, specifically FAR Part 139 recertification exercise criteria, to judge their agreements; none of the five air- ports has an evaluation program specifically for its mutual aid agreements. Thirteen (41%) use unwritten evaluation standards, and 12 (38%) do not consider the effectiveness FIGURE 5 Are mutual aid agreements incorporated in airport emergency plan (AEP)? (Source: Survey results). FIGURE 6 Does your airport belong to a regional (countywide or multi-county) emergency response or mutual aid plan or program? (Source: Survey results).
16 of their mutual aid agreements. Figure 8 summarizes the results of this question. Assessment of programs is a difficult task, and measuring an agreement that may or may not be used on a regular basis and may be implemented by an outside agency would likely be even more difficult. EXERCISING MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS Table 6 indicates that public safety agreements, that is, fire and law enforcement, are the most likely to be exercised. This may be because of the airportâs requirement under FAR Part 139 for a table-top or full-scale exercise yearly and a full-scale recertification exercise triennially. A total of 13 (42%) of respondents have not exercised their mutual aid agreements, 10 (34%) of which do not have the FAR Part 139 requirement because they are reliever or GA airports. Table 7 shows how the data compare across the six NPIAS size categories. The four categories of FAR Part 139 airports all show the overwhelming majority of their airports having exercised all or some of their mutual aid agreements in the past 12 months. Examination of the individual survey responses indicates that the three FAR Part 139 airports reporting no drills or exercises in the past 12 months do not have mutual aid agreements. BENEFITS OF MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS As shown in Figure 9, the overwhelming consensus, 94% (30 of 32) of airport operators indicates that mutual aid agree- ments between the airport and community are beneficial to both parties. Each entity brings a different perspective and unique capabilities in responding to a disaster; in a crisis situ- ation, having âall hands on deckâ can benefit the airport and its surrounding community in many ways. SUMMARY OF COMMON THEMES FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS The majority of airports sees the necessity and value of mutual aid agreements, regardless of whether the airport is required to comply with FAR Part 139 and have an FAA-approved AEP. A critical point for airports has been determining whether their mutual aid agreements will be written or verbal. The case examples discussed later further explain the reasoning behind both written and unwritten agreements. Most of the airports that fall under FAR Part 139 have some type of agreement with their FAA and contract air traffic control tower as suggested by AC 150/5200-31C. Most air- ports also have some type of agreement with their local fire/ police/EMS provider; this, too, is a fairly regular operation, FIGURE 7 Is your airport in a state that has a statewide mutual aid plan, program, or compact? (Source: Survey results). FIGURE 8 How do you measure the effectiveness of your mutual aid agreements? (Source: Survey results).
17 No. of Respondents Percent Fire or fire/rescue 16 51.6 Law enforcement/police 13 41.9 All of airportâs mutual aid agreements 12 38.7 EMS 6 19.4 American Red Cross 4 12.9 Hospitals 4 12.9 Local emergency management agency 3 9.7 Airlines 2 6.5 Full-scale exercise 2 6.5 Medical examiner 2 6.5 TSA 2 6.5 Active shooter 1 3.2 Aircraft accident 1 3.2 Airport emergency services LOA 1 3.2 Ambulances 1 3.2 CBP 1 3.2 Coronerâs office 1 3.2 Family assistance 1 3.2 Funeral directors 1 3.2 HAZMAT 1 3.2 Helicopter companies 1 3.2 National Park Service 1 3.2 Public health department 1 3.2 Salvation Army 1 3.2 SAR organizations 1 3.2 State HS department 1 3.2 U.S. Coast Guard 1 3.2 NoneâPart 139 Airports 3 9.7 NoneâReliever and GA Airports 10 32.2 Source: Survey results. n = 31. LOA = Letter of Agreement; CBP = Customs and Border Patrol; HAZMAT = hazardous materials. TABLE 6 MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS EXERCISED IN PAST 12 MONTHS TABLE 7 AGREEMENTS EXERCISED IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY SIZE CATEGORIES OF AIRPORTS
18 as most airports must prepare for aircraft accident, response, and recovery. Newer types of agreements are with particular specialized tenants or entities that may deal specifically with a longer term recovery from a natural disaster, as in the long- term response to and recovery from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The addition of NIMS compliance per FAR Part 139 (FAA 2009a; Smith 2010b) has made the general flow of agree- ments easier to negotiate and provides a workable emergency response and recovery structure. Numerous multilateral mutual aid agreements in local areas were reported. FIGURE 9 Do you believe your mutual aid agree- ments are beneficial to both the airport and community? (Source: Survey results).
