Airport-to-Airport Mutual Aid Programs (2012)

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.

8Airport-to-airport mutual aid can serve important functions when an airport is affected by a nat- ural or manmade disaster. The exact type of assistance required depends on the nature of the inci- dent, its effects on the airport, and the phase of the disaster. A disaster can strike an airport directly and create the need to assist the local staff in reopening the airport—doing whatever is needed to make the airport operational again. A disaster can strike an airport indirectly by increasing the traffic or changing the nature of the traffic so that more skilled airport workers are needed. An airport may be affected indirectly by a disaster that requires the airport’s employees to take care of their families and homes or prevents or delays employees from being able to report to work. Specialized help may be needed during the immediate response to a disaster or for a longer term during recovery. Airports Know Airports Many factors make airport-to-airport mutual aid an attractive solution for a range of situa- tions that may confront airports in emergencies and disasters. These factors have been imple- mented and proven effective in actual mutual aid applications, but future developments could enhance the attractiveness of airport-to-airport mutual aid programs as a solution. Features That Make Airport-to-Airport Mutual Aid Attractive The most important feature of any airport-to-airport mutual aid program will be its delivery of expert, experienced assistance to address specific situations. An airport, no matter what size and type, is a complex operation with many interconnected parts and functions. Some func- tions can be performed, supplemented, backfilled, or even replaced by people with non-aviation experience. Two examples are fence repair and structural firefighting. However, airports have many operational, management, security, safety, maintenance, and financial functions that require unique airport-specific qualifications and experience. This dictates the requirement that any outside entity providing aid must have the right kinds of specific knowledge and qualifica- tions. Individuals from other airports can bring current knowledge of the specialized regulatory requirements and how to work with federal agencies and airlines. The best source for assistance with these airport specialties in a disaster is volunteers from another airport. In addition to professional knowledge and experience, volunteers from other airports will have appropriate security clearances for access to secure areas of a damaged airport; use of non- airport personnel could involve waiting for security clearances to be granted to them. The use of properly cleared people for assistance can simplify the sanitizing of the secure areas of an airport in order to reopen it. C h a p t e r 1 Airport-to-Airport Mutual Aid—Needs and Benefits

airport-to-airport Mutual aid—Needs and Benefits 9 Similarly, airports use highly specialized equipment and parts that may be more quickly obtained from another airport than from a dealer or manufacturer. Timeliness A second important factor of airport-to-airport mutual aid is timeliness. Although the national standard for the delivery of outside assistance is within 72 hours of a disaster, assistance through airport-to-airport mutual aid can be delivered much more quickly, as was demonstrated in the cases of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Quick assistance to a damaged airport is particularly important because the airport is likely to become the focal point for incoming aid and outgoing evacuees from a disaster zone. Cost-Effectiveness A third important factor of airport-to-airport mutual aid is cost. Airport-to-airport mutual aid should normally be the most cost-effective way to provide specialized aid to a damaged airport. Airport managers are highly aware of all business aspects of airport operations and are respectful of the need to control costs, even in a disaster. Professional Growth Opportunities A fourth reason for participating in airport-to-airport mutual aid is the opportunities it gives younger airport personnel to gain real-world experience in types of incidents that they have never encountered before. A mutual aid mission will broaden the knowledge base and skill set of anyone who participates. These individuals can apply that knowledge to future incidents and contribute to an entity’s response and recovery. Flexibility in Program Design Another benefit to using airport-to-airport mutual aid is the flexibility in program design. Mutual aid programs can be organized in different ways, with different criteria for membership, and to serve the specific purposes and needs of the airports involved. Airport managers are the likeliest people to design effective programs. Needs for Airport-to-Airport Mutual Aid Rare Needs Airports, especially U.S. commercial airports, rarely need outside assistance. Traditionally, they have sought to be self-sufficient. By law and regulation, airports are required to be staffed and equipped to deal with all likely aircraft, structural fire, law enforcement, and security incidents. Modern airport certification manuals, airport emergency plans (AEPs), and airport security pro- grams (ASPs) include detailed policies and procedures for complying with such requirements. In general, the larger the airport, the more self-sufficient it is. Smaller airports may need aid more often, but they are expected to face smaller or fewer incidents. Smaller airports also, in general, have closer working relationships with their communities, which helps aid flow between the airport and community more easily.

10 airport-to-airport Mutual aid programs Urgent Needs Despite the requirements and tradition of airports being self-sufficient, situations can arise when an airport needs aid. These situations fall into several categories, which are described in the following six need categories: • Category 1. A situation within the airport can grow too large for the airport to handle with its internal resources. Traditional local aid partnerships will usually be activated to fill this need. • Category 2. A situation within the airport can extend beyond the airport’s footprint into the surrounding community. An example is a power outage that requires the evacuation of a terminal. Another example is an instance of stranded passengers needing shelter. In both of these examples, traditional local aid partnerships, perhaps with ad hoc supplements, would serve. • Category 3. A natural or manmade disaster could damage or obstruct the airport or access to its employees to the extent that outside expert aid is required to return the airport to service. This is the arena in which an airport-to-airport mutual aid program can be most useful. • Category 4. A regional disaster that does not damage the airport can put extraordinary oper- ational demands or unusual types of service demands on an airport, and this exceeds the capabilities of the local staff, at least on a prolonged basis. This, too, is an arena in which airport-to-airport mutual aid can be useful. • Category 5. An aviation disaster at an airport or in its vicinity can have serious effects in terms of recovery after the response phase is over. Certain specialized services, such as grief counsel- ing and public affairs, which are not generally present at an airport or in local government, may be needed. An example of this is the recovery period after a crash at a small airport, a period that might extend for years with anniversary remembrances. This is an arena in which specialized airport-to-airport mutual aid can be useful. • Category 6. An essential piece of equipment may go down, putting an airport below index for aircraft rescue and fire fighting (ARFF) capabilities or otherwise restricting operational capa- bilities. Other examples of this are airport environment lighting outages or aircraft refueling vehicles that may be down for major maintenance. This is an arena in which airport-to-airport mutual aid could facilitate the rapid loan of needed equipment or parts. Historical Examples In 2001, a charter flight crashed at Aspen-Pitkin County Airport, resulting in multiple fatal- ities. The response phase was straightforward and was over within 48 hours. However, the recovery efforts relating to and involving victims’ families, responders, the community, and the airport took much longer, continuing into 2011—10 years later. A lack of expertise in dealing with the long-term consequences of aviation accidents and recovery from them was revealed and led to the formation of CARST. CARST consists of airport managers who have experi- enced a crash and are able to provide planning, liaison, and operational assistance as a NIMS/ Incident Command System (ICS) structure moves from response to recovery. This falls under Need Category 5. During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, the airports in SEADOG, with assistance from airports across the United States, rendered direct staffing and equipment aid for Need Categories 3 and 6. During Hurricane Ike in 2008, SEADOG supported Jack Brooks Regional Airport in Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas, when that airport served as the coordination site and main base for search and rescue. The extreme operational demands on that airport were partially met by skilled airport professionals coordinated by SEADOG. This is an example of Need Category 4.

airport-to-airport Mutual aid—Needs and Benefits 11 In New England, the commercial airports have an informal ARFF equipment interchange to help each other maintain index despite occasional equipment outages. This is an example of Need Category 6. Need Categories 1 and 2 have little reason to involve airport-to-airport mutual aid programs. Barriers to Assessing Needs Airports are very efficient at planning for normal operations. They are also very efficient at planning and preparing for aviation accidents and most types of security incidents. However, most airports have difficulty in conducting realistic risk assessments, not only for low-frequency, high-consequence types of incidents, but also for regional disasters that would put unusual demands on an airport. The inland airports of the Gulf Coast never imagined the operational stresses that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita would impose on them. Assistance with Rare and High-Consequence Events As has already been implied in this chapter, volunteers provided through airport-to-airport mutual aid programs can assist an airport that suddenly faces the reality of a rare, high-consequence disaster or operational situation for which it did not have adequate plans or staffing. Airport-to- airport mutual aid volunteers can share lessons learned. This is the premise behind CARST, but it could apply to any type of rare, extreme situation. Long-Term Sharing of Experience Airport-to-airport mutual aid programs can be the vehicle for gathering, analyzing, and dis- seminating (or assisting in the dissemination of) lessons learned and best management practices for airports experiencing disasters and extreme operational situations. Although the historical emphasis in SEADOG, WESTDOG, and CARST has been on current expertise, an airport-to- airport mutual aid program would, by its nature, consist of airport experts who could examine and refine after-action reports, lessons learned, and best management practices. Benefits of Airport-to-Airport Mutual Aid Basic Benefits Airport-to-airport mutual aid programs serve primarily to sustain airport operations in unusual situations such as disasters. As such, airport-to-airport mutual aid should be viewed as a powerful continuity of business (COB) and continuity of operations (COOP) tool. Airport COOP is essential in disasters for the following reasons: • Without adequate airport operational capacity, incoming aid cannot reach an affected area. • Without adequate airport operational capacity, evacuations and medical evacuations cannot occur effectively and expeditiously. • Without adequate airport operational capacity, search and rescue (SAR) and urban search and rescue (USAR) cannot occur effectively and expeditiously. Since airport COOP is very sensitive to staffing availability and fatigue, it must take into account human factors as well as physical facilities. Airport-to-airport mutual aid programs can assist with reconstituting the physical capabilities of an airport, bolstering the operational capabilities of the airport’s staff, and providing specialized skills or expert knowledge that the airport may never have experienced or developed. An effective airport-to-airport mutual aid

12 airport-to-airport Mutual aid programs program can maintain staffing through supplementing local staff or backfilling during height- ened operational tempo, and this will contribute to the safe functioning of the airport. The mutual aid can also enhance the protection of life and property at a damaged airport. Airport COB is an extension of COOP in that COOP is essential to the response phase of emergency management, while airport COB is essential to the well-being and economic recovery of the region. Although the business model underlying COB may be temporarily changed by the needs of disaster response, an airport and its region will want to restore normal commercial operations at the earliest possible time. Therefore, whatever an airport-to-airport mutual aid program can do to allow an airport to quickly resume normal operations will benefit airlines, passengers, and business in general. Other Benefits Participation in an airport-to-airport mutual aid program has other benefits, some of which are gained by the receiving airport, some of which are gained by the sending airport, and some of which are gained by all airports involved in the airport-to-airport mutual aid program. Being an active part of an airport-to-airport mutual aid program can be viewed as a trust and goodwill insurance policy. Giving mutual aid goes beyond the hospitality and cooperation that most airports exhibit and is a likely source of encouragement for other airports to provide help in a time of need. SEADOG and WESTDOG were born from this philosophy, but willingness to send aid goes beyond this. Airports that do not foresee having an airport-to-airport mutual aid program in their own region sent aid during the hurricanes in 2005, even though they do not anticipate that they will face similar disasters for which they would require aid from other airports. A second benefit to implementing an airport-to-airport mutual aid program is that it enhances the preparedness of all participating airports at a lower cost than if every airport tried to build in an independent level of self-sufficient redundancy. Being able to call for specialized help in disasters can lower the size of staff and the inventories of specialized equipment at airports—at least at airports sharing the same perceived hazard(s). A third benefit is one that is inclusive of the national aviation system. A hub airport that commits to an airport-to-airport mutual aid program can help its feeder airports by protecting or helping to restore their COOP and COB, thereby mitigating disruptions at the hub. Thus, the entire national aviation system benefits from the actions of an airport-to-airport mutual aid program at the most seriously affected nodes of the system. In this way, airport-to-airport mutual aid is a means of enhancing the protection and resilience of the national aviation critical infrastructure. A fourth benefit is that an airport-to-airport mutual aid program can be a powerful filter, evaluator, and disseminator of lessons learned and best management practices. If skilled airport personnel from a number of different airports share the same disaster response or recovery experience at one or several airports affected by a disaster, it is likely to result in a holistic set of lessons learned with highly credible observers and analysts behind them. Such lessons learned can be produced in near real-time if the airport-to-airport mutual aid program’s communications system is set up to record events, actions, outcomes, and consequences. A fifth benefit to implementing airport-to-airport mutual aid programs involves the contri- butions that the members of mutual aid teams can make after returning to their home airports. Everyone who has responded to a disaster at another airport has reported returning home to his or her own airport with greater experience and knowledge, and senior managers at these airports

airport-to-airport Mutual aid—Needs and Benefits 13 report significant operational and emergency preparedness benefits attributable to such mutual aid team members. Who Benefits Exactly who benefits from an airport-to-airport mutual aid program depends on the func- tional purposes of the program. For the widespread regional airport-to-airport mutual aid programs (e.g., SEADOG and WESTDOG), the beneficiaries include the following (see also Figure 1): • The affected airport; • The staff of the affected airport; • The families of the staff at the affected airport; • Evacuees who use the airport after the disaster or even before the disaster under some arrangements; • Incoming responders and relief agencies after the disaster; • The volunteers from other airports; • The citizens of the affected community who receive assistance through the airport; • SAR and USAR units; • Airlines; • Passengers; • Freight and cargo shippers and recipients; • Employees of airport-dependent businesses and institutions; • Citizens and taxpayers of the affected community and region; • Other airports, especially hubs connected to the affected airport; and • The National Airspace System (NAS) and aviation critical infrastructure. A specialized airport-to-airport mutual aid program that is focused on recovery (e.g., CARST) would have a somewhat different list of beneficiaries. Its primary beneficiaries would be crash survivors, victims’ families, witnesses, and the affected community (first responders and local gov- ernment leaders). Most of the beneficiaries listed in Figure 1 would benefit during the response Figure 1. Regional airport-to-airport mutual aid program beneficiaries.

14 airport-to-airport Mutual aid programs phase from local responders—not from skilled personnel from an airport-to-airport mutual aid program. However, a specialized airport-to-airport mutual aid program (e.g., the New England ARFF equipment interchange) would protect the benefits of the same list of beneficiaries as the widespread regional airport-to-airport mutual aid programs, just on a shorter timeframe. For all types of airport-to-airport mutual aid programs, the volunteers from other airports benefit from being exposed to an incident that is perhaps novel in type or severity. The Match of Needs and Benefits All of the factors discussed above combine to make airport-to-airport mutual aid highly attractive as a voluntary activity. Airports are integral parts of many different communities, but airport-to-airport mutual aid is fostered by the hospitality and cooperation that is characteris- tic of regional and national airport communities. Nonetheless, airport-to-airport mutual aid is not a cure-all. Its usefulness and success will depend on careful definition of the mission of the mutual aid program and on properly matching its organization and tools to the carefully defined mission. Expectations of airport-to-airport mutual aid programs must be kept in mind and managed carefully. Dealing with these issues from the earliest stages of interest in forming an airport-to-airport mutual aid program is essential. This does not preclude subsequent expan- sion into other missions, but it will help protect a newly formed airport-to-airport mutual aid program from overreaching and failing. The next three chapters of this Guidebook illustrate various existing models for matching needs and benefits and examine the theoretical relative strengths of various types of airport- to-airport mutual aid programs for specific functions. Chapter 2 examines existing airport-to- airport mutual aid programs. Chapter 3 describes and analyzes comparable mutual aid programs from electrical utilities and public works. Chapter 4 analyzes the usefulness of various types of airport-to-airport mutual aid programs for specific functions and attempts to make the case for the importance of a strongly defined mission restricted to disasters.