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.

37 Airport-to-airport mutual aid is a proven concept. Furthermore, it has proven its applicabil- ity, scalability, and adaptability to both general and specialized disaster functions. SEADOG and WESTDOG have shown the ability to serve broad regions of the country and to coordinate incoming aid from airports in other regions of the country in the response phase of a disas- ter. CARST has shown that an airport-to-airport mutual aid program can serve well during the recovery phase of a disaster and can reach beyond an affected airport to a community. The New England ARFF equipment exchange has shown that a highly specialized airport-to- airport mutual aid program can function in the mitigation phase of emergency management. The bottom line is that airport-to-airport mutual aid programs can be created to fill existing or future needs of an airport on many different scales and with differing types of organizations to match the programs’ intended functions. Most likely, a new mutual aid program will begin with one airport having an idea and championing it. This chapter focuses on how to start a new airport-to-airport mutual aid program. The methods described herein would work for any type of airport-to-airport mutual aid program, although adjustments would need to be made to fit geographical/state boundaries, functional specialization, or both. If an airport or group of airports wishes to start a DOG or a more special- ized airport-to-airport mutual aid program, it could follow the steps suggested in this chapter or adapt these steps to reflect regional circumstances. Creation of New Mutual Aid Programs At present, there are regional airport-to-airport mutual aid programs in two regions of the country: the Southeast from Virginia to Texas (SEADOG) and the West from Colorado and New Mexico to the Pacific (WESTDOG). There are not yet comparable organizations in the Midwest, New England, or Mid-Atlantic regions of the contiguous United States or in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Pacific territories. Alaska and Hawaii are very special cases as all or most of their airports are state-owned. For these states, the state department of transportation could create an airport-to-airport mutual aid program administratively without having to recruit or organize the airports, and while this would be an effective solution to the goal of helping affected airports, it would violate the volunteer basis of airport-to-airport mutual aid programs. Also, large airports in these states (e.g., Anchorage, Honolulu, and other Hawaiian and Alaskan airports) might need mutual aid from partners more like each other than like any other in-state airport. This could be resolved by the larger airports joining WESTDOG. Figure 4 illustrates the basic sequence of steps to create a mutual aid program. C h a p t e r 6 Establishing a Program

38 airport-to-airport Mutual aid programs Who Can Start the Process? Anyone from any airport can initiate the process to create an airport-to-airport mutual aid program. Ideally, it will be someone who has seen such a program in action, either by working at an airport in an existing program or going as a volunteer to help at an affected airport. The initiator can be from almost any level in an airport, but before reaching outside of the home airport, he or she should acquire the support of senior management. As noted throughout this Guidebook, the support of senior management is essential. AAAE’s regional chapters played a strong role in the formation of SEADOG and WESTDOG, and AAAE and ACI-NA can serve as incubators for new airport-to-airport mutual aid programs in other regions of the country or even internationally. Furthermore, the ARFF groups and ALEAN can work to promote either generalized or specialized airport-to-airport mutual aid programs. Once an individual and his or her airport want to start the process to create a new airport-to- airport mutual aid program, they need to reach out to other airports that might be interested in joining. SEADOG grew out of discussions between two airport managers after the severe hurricane season of 2004, and WESTDOG was founded by a five-member committee that was self-appointed. Such a founding group could be called the organizing committee. A timeline for the formation of a mutual aid program is provided in Figure 5. Figure 4. Creating a mutual aid program.

establishing a program 39 Scoping Process As has been emphasized throughout this Guidebook, a strong alignment of needs, mission, and organization is essential to creating a workable and durable airport-to-airport mutual aid program. To achieve this, the organizing committee should convene for the purposes of scoping. Scoping is the exploration of a topic with an eye toward a general course of action. The scoping process could be a meeting (e.g., a work session at an AAAE or ACI-NA meeting), teleconference, series of e-mail exchanges, blog, or dedicated website. All of these options are relatively low-cost means to accomplish scoping. The scoping process will be most productive if the participants are first oriented to what can be done by a speaker from one of the existing airport-to-airport mutual aid programs or a non- aviation mutual aid organization. There is a large pool of airport personnel who can speak from personal experience about airport-to-airport mutual aid (see Appendix A). Scoping should address the following: • Hazards analysis at airports in the region, • Mission, • Goals and objectives, and • Desired functions for the program. The scoping phase is generally too early to discuss the details of the organizational structure. This discussion should follow that of the mission and desired functions. Organizational Development Once the regional risk analysis, mission, goals, objectives, and desired functions for a new airport-to-airport mutual aid program have tentatively been identified, it is time to design and activate the program’s structure. Structure Structure should be clearly defined and agreed upon among the members of the program. There are many equally valid organizational templates, and the details should be worked out among the program’s participants. Chapter 2 outlines some basic organizational options. A deci- sion should be made very early in the process on how coordinating airports will be chosen and what, if any, size qualifications or term durations will be set. Figure 5. Mutual aid program formation timeline.

40 airport-to-airport Mutual aid programs Recruitment An airport-to-airport mutual aid program will probably either be limited to commercial air- ports or open to all airports, including GA airports. Since GA airports may become essential resources in regional disasters, they should be made welcome to participate in airport-to-airport mutual aid programs. GA membership can increase the resilience of the national aviation infra- structure and its ability to support disaster response and recovery efforts regionally or anywhere in the country. However, many GA airports would look for non-aviation assistance from local partners to free up their airport professionals to focus on operational roles in a disaster. Recruitment advertising would be channeled through the same media alternatives as the scop- ing process: a work session at an AAAE or ACI-NA meeting, teleconference, e-mail exchanges, blogs, or a dedicated website. It is important to be patient during the recruitment process, especially if the airport-to-air- port mutual aid program is structured to require a local government or airport commission resolution to authorize an airport’s participation. The organizing committee should expect to make repeated outreach efforts and to follow up on non-respondents, at least until the program reaches critical mass. Critical mass occurs when the program seems likely to be able to generate enough volunteers to fulfill its mission. Local Government Involvement All commercial airports and most public-use GA airports in the United States are owned by governments—usually municipalities or counties. The leadership and governing boards of these counties are major stakeholders in the formation of an airport-to-airport mutual aid program. Other major stakeholders include local mutual aid partners and the local emergency manage- ment agency in particular. The local emergency management agency is the link to the state emer- gency management agency, which is the essential link for reimbursement and liability coverage for interstate aid in declared disasters. All of these local government stakeholders should be made aware of the effort to form an airport-to-airport mutual aid program involving the local airport or airports. Other Stakeholders Federal agencies, state agencies, and airlines constitute the remaining group of major stake- holders. None of them play direct roles in the formation and functioning of an airport-to-airport mutual aid program, but they can all be either valuable partners or impediments. It is better to involve them early in the establishment process in order to avoid future misunderstandings. Federal Agencies The primary federal agencies that need to be involved in or at least aware of efforts to establish a new airport-to-airport mutual aid program are those that are present at airports during nor- mal operations (e.g., FAA, TSA, CBP, various law enforcement agencies, and sometimes CDC) and those that arrive after a disaster (e.g., FEMA, U.S. Department of Defense [DoD], and the National Guard). Many of these agencies have pre-planned responses that include teams and their equipment to assist a damaged or “stressed” airport. Although their missions and functions are independent of the airport-to-airport mutual aid program’s aid teams, the teams are highly

establishing a program 41 likely to interact, a possibility that should be accounted for from the beginning of the structuring of the airport-to-airport mutual aid program. Federal Aviation Administration The FAA is the regulator for U.S. airports and, as such, is frequently a part of airport-to- airport mutual aid initiatives—especially from the receiving airport standpoint. The scope of the FAA role varies depending on the nature of the incident that has provoked airport-to- airport mutual aid. Generally, the FAA is primarily responsible for certifying and enforcing the safe practices and procedures of the aviation industry. A corollary FAA role is to ensure that airport fiduciary practice is aligned with the legal requirements associated with the investment of FAA funds. FAA Normal Presence at Airport Two very relevant documents that govern activities related to government agencies located at airports during a potential airport-to-airport mutual aid event are the ASP and the AEP. The ASP is developed in cooperation with the airport and TSA, with the airport’s FSD having the ultimate approval authority for the ASP. Similarly, the AEP is developed by the airport, following the specifications of AC 150/5200-31C, with ultimate approval by the FAA. The AC envisions FAA’s local Air Traffic Control (ATC) group having ultimate approval of many activities during a potential airport-to-airport mutual aid event, while working in close collaboration with airport operations. Airport to FAA Relations/Responsibilities during an Airport-to-Airport Event The immediate concern in response to an airport-to-airport mutual aid situation is the safety of operations at the airport, as well as the safety, security, and integrity (for purposes of inves- tigation if necessary) of the incident site. Although the airport operator has primary authority to decide whether the airfield needs to be closed in response to an incident, ATC may share this authority during certain circumstances as defined by a letter of agreement. Regardless of which entity has the authority at any given time, it is always best if this decision is made in collaboration if possible. The FAA is responsible for certifying that all facilities and systems have been properly shut down, and the FAA will be the organization responsible for certifying that the airport (and its systems and facilities) are safe for reopening. Other areas of concern or areas that FAA can support (many of which overlap with airport operations) include the following: • Ensuring that ARFF vehicles have the best on-site information regarding the incident site; • Controlling airspace in the vicinity of the incident/accident to ensure that other aircraft do not interfere with response activities; • Controlling aircraft and ground vehicle operations if the airport remains open and coordi- nating the movement of non-support aircraft away from affected areas or the entire airport, depending on the scope of the incident; • Providing for continuity of airfield/airspace operations; • Protecting records, facilities, and FAA-owned equipment that are essential for sustaining oper- ational capabilities and conducting emergency operations; • Identifying the need for and ensuring that appropriate personnel/organizations are notified of alternative operational procedures, including the issuance of Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs); • Identifying potential sources for emergency replacement equipment or systems; and • During recovery, conducting inspection of the Air Operations Area to ensure that repairs or alternate operations meet FAA certification requirements.

42 airport-to-airport Mutual aid programs State Agencies State Emergency Management Agencies Although state emergency management agencies vary widely in their involvement in planning for airport COOP and COB during disasters, the state emergency management agency in every state is always the essential link to EMAC and FEMA. State Aviation Offices As of 2011, state aviation offices and aeronautical bureaus have expressed differing opin- ions on their level of interest in airport-to-airport mutual aid and in planning for air opera- tions and airport use in disasters. Nevertheless, state aviation offices and aeronautical bureaus should be included in efforts to establish airport-to-airport mutual aid programs, especially intrastate ones. Airlines Airlines are interested in safe operations and COB, both of which are primary goals of airport- to-airport mutual aid programs, and these shared values should be made clear from the begin- ning. Airlines will probably exert less pressure on the use of airport resources at a distant airport if they understand the mission and functions of mutual aid. Airlines may be able to give the airport-to-airport mutual aid program logistical or communications support. Surveys of the air carriers found that they are all very willing to support certain emergencies in certain ways. They leave the ways and means that they will commit to helping unofficial, with decisions to support the effort being made locally at the airport, on a one-off basis. Airlines can be tremendous partners in airport-to-airport mutual aid. They can provide important logistics support and airlift to transport needed material, specialized ground-service equipment, and specially trained staff to airports in need of aid for extended periods of time. Typically, what is needed is the support of the local general/station manager. This flat decision structure can be very helpful in the early hours of an airport-to-airport mutual aid event. Liability and Reimbursement Liability and reimbursement are the two issues most likely to interfere with an entity’s desire to form or join a new airport-to-airport mutual aid program, and these issues must be addressed thoroughly during the establishment process. Liability Concerns and Solutions The primary principle governing liability coverage for people who join a mutual aid team going to another airport is that they go as employees of their home airport. This is why strong support and proper authorization from senior management are essential. This approach to lia- bility coverage also presumes that members of the aid team will function in their professional specialties at the receiving airport, but this is a concept that is inherent in the airport-to-airport mutual aid program concept. This liability coverage does not cover acts of criminality, misconduct, and willful negligence. Specific categories of airport-to-airport mutual aid programs that have specific liability coverage mechanisms are described in the following. Interstate with a Presidential Declaration This category is the most clearly defined situation with respect to liability coverage. If the sending airport has an EMAC or FEMA mission number obtained through its local and state

establishing a program 43 emergency management agency, the sending airport and all members of its aid team are covered for liability with the same exceptions as previously described. Interstate without a Presidential Declaration or Request for EMAC The sending airport’s liability and workers’ compensation coverage should normally extend to members of the aid team, but each participating airport should get a clear determination from its counsel and risk managers at the time of joining the airport-to-airport mutual aid program. Intrastate The most straightforward solution to the liability issue is to incorporate it into a state all- encompassing, mutual aid compact that includes all local governments—including the airports that may be owned by such stakeholders. Not all states have such compacts, and those that have them have not yet used them for mutual aid between airports. A sample state mutual aid agree- ment from AWWA is included in Appendix F. Typically, intrastate utilities and public works mutual aid programs rely on state legislative measures that require written municipal government agreements to solve liability issues. It is up to the individual municipal governments to decide to allow their utility or public works entity to participate in a mutual aid program. Another approach to liability coverage is a state Good Samaritan law, but this seems to be a less robust solution for the case where people are sent on purpose to a risky scene. Single-Owner, Multi-Airport This category is a special case as all employees are already covered by the owner’s liability insurance and workers’ compensation policies. Reimbursement Concerns and Solutions Usually, an airport will not send mutual aid unless it expects to be reimbursed sooner or later, preferably sooner. Reimbursement is more complex than liability in terms of the interac- tion between type of airport-to-airport mutual aid program and the existence of a Presidential disaster declaration, but the solutions are actually simpler than for liability. Some reimbursement solutions will require prior legislative action at the state or national level to ensure that airports are included, so this is probably the longest lead-time aspect of forming an airport-to-airport mutual aid program. Table 4 presents the possible solutions. Publicizing Existence and Services of Mutual Aid Programs The most challenging single issue that the research team encountered in this study was how to fund the capability to connect any airport in the country that needs aid with an existing DOG, a future DOG, or a specialized mutual aid program. A single POC is needed. In interviews for the development of this Guidebook, several airports suggested what they called a national 9-1-1 access point for airport-to-airport mutual aid. This could be a telephone contact, e-mail con- tact, dedicated website, or all three. Presently, knowledge of SEADOG and WESTDOG is mostly word-of-mouth. SEADOG has had the same coordinating airport and sub-coordinators since 2004, so many airports around the country know whom to call. WESTDOG, however, rotates its coordinator annually. The coordinator is identified in the public access page of the WESTDOG-dedicated website, but not all airports elsewhere in the county would know to go to that site.

44 airport-to-airport Mutual aid programs Funding Considerations The technological and training-, awareness-, or publicity-based issues can easily be managed if a dependable funding stream can be identified and by coordinating activities and the storage of lessons learned. At all other levels of airport-to-airport mutual aid programs, experience has shown that participating airports, especially the coordinating airports, are willing to pay the annual operating costs for communications and websites. In addition, the FAA has provided free teleconferencing capabilities. Further development of this issue lies outside of the scope of this project, but is integral to what can be written in this Guidebook and what can be implemented. The annual cost of the connectivity tool, the national 9-1-1 access point, will depend on the scope of services included. A barebones service would require a full-time staff of approximately three people to keep contacts updated and do awareness outreach to the nation’s airports. In addition, administering a library of lessons learned and best management practices or an inven- tory of specialized skills or equipment would expand the cost significantly. A very rough estimate Categories No Presidential Declaration Presidential Disaster Declaration One-on-one partnership Contract MOA a MOU b Stafford Act reimbursement if there is an EMAC/FEMA mission number Single-owner, multi-airport Internal arrangement Nearby multiple airports Contract MOA MOU Intrastate Statewide mutual aid compact for all local governments Statewide mutual aid compact for publicly owned airports Contracts MOA MOU Interstate—concentrated regional Contract MOA MOU EMAC Interstate—widespread regional Contract MOA MOU EMAC National Contract MOA MOU EMAC International Treaty Regional compact (actually a treaty) Contract MOA MOU Not applicable a Memorandum of Agreement b Memorandum of Understanding Table 4. Reimbursement solutions.

establishing a program 45 of the cost for a barebones, basic national 9-1-1 access point is $300,000 to $400,000 per year. This includes three people and telecommunications costs, but assumes that an airport or other entity will provide space. There are no easy, obvious sources of funding for a standing support system for airport-to-air- port mutual aid, but there are a number of possibilities worth investigating. (Such investigation lies outside of the scope of this project.) Funding sources that were identified in the course of the interviews, case studies, and literature review for this project include the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), FAA, FEMA, FAA-FEMA jointly, ACI-NA, AAAE, AAAE and ACI-NA jointly, voluntary contributions from airlines and air cargo companies, voluntary contributions from airports (essentially, the sole funding source for SEADOG and WESTDOG), subscriptions from airports, state grants (part of the funding for CARST), and perhaps insurance companies based on a tie to the airports’ and airlines’ busi- ness continuity. It is recommended that future research evaluate the feasibility and desirability of these sources and possibly discover additional sources.