Emergency Communications Planning for Airports (2016)

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.

8 chapter two COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION AT AIRPORTS When an airport emergency occurs, airport staff must communicate both internally and externally, usually beginning well before a senior manager or designated public information office (PIO) can arrive on scene. When an incident occurs at one airport, it can often affect the entire air transport system as well as other organizations. All airports with commercial air service are required to have an emergency communications plan as part of their AEP that addresses response capabilities and interoperability. However, many communication sections of AEPs do not address the intense demand for real-time information from media, passengers, employees, surrounding communities, and other stakeholders impacted by emergencies on or within the immediate vicinity of the airport. ACRP Synthesis 60: Airport Emergency Post-Event Recovery Practices, found that many airports desire improved CCP, in particular, comprehensive CCP, particularly for issues pertaining to non-aircraft incidents. The specific finding was, “Airports that have and use comprehensive crisis communica- tions plans find them indispensable during both response and recovery, and incorporate real-world experience into their plans. This planning on the part of communications really indicates an airport’s commitment to being resilient and to customer service. Airports without such plans may want to develop them” (Smith et al. 2015, p. 50). Comprehensive emergency communication plans and comprehensive crisis communication plans are often considered to be synonymous. However, there is a distinction: An emergency communica- tion plan deals strictly with “life safety” type of communications, when police and fire are responding with airport resources providing support. A crisis communication plan covers both life safety and business continuity events, such as an airport train failure, unprecedented weather events, system fail- ures, terminal evacuations, and other “mission critical” system failures and massive customer service disruptions. In terms of communications, airports respond to life safety and mission critical events in the same way. With the evolution of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the Inci- dent Command System (ICS) at airports, the communications procedures and management systems for both emergency and crisis communication and response are often the same. This is why in some cases ECPs have evolved into CCPs. Managing communications that connect to all stakeholders is essential at any airport experienc- ing an emergency. The framework of the communications-dependent cascade that leads to action appears as Figure 2. This synthesis addresses how some airports’ current practices promote the efficient, accurate, and deliberate use of communications within an airport and to its internal and external stakeholders during an emergency. COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION In their 2008 book, Behavior in Organizations, Greenberg and Baron define communication as “the process by which a person, group, or organization (the sender) transmits some type of information to another person, group or organization (the receiver)” (p. 334). The basic process requires the information, which is processed data, to be encoded into a form recognizable by the receiver, then transmitted through a channel (e.g., telephone or internet) to the receiver who decodes it. Typically, the communication process continues with a feedback loop that verifies receipt of the information or requests further information. The largest source of error in communication is “noise” in any part of the process. Noise may enter during encoding, decoding, or transmission through the channel, according to the transmission theory first stated by Shannon and Weaver (1948).

9 Managing noise is essential in emergency communications. One example of efforts to manage noise is the NIMS requirements to use plain language, to avoid speculation, and to use a single trained spokesperson; another is the algorithms used by data-mining programs to filter out extrane- ous or erroneous data in social media. The problem is that modern technology and cultural practices have changed the linearity of com- munications that was the basic assumption underlying the transmission theory. Instead of linearity, communications is now dominated by multi-pathway and simultaneous formats of communication (Chandler, n.d.; J. Greenberg, personal communication, Nov. 17, 2015). Chandler refers to the new model of communication as “constructivist” to emphasize that meaning is no longer created at one end and transmitted to the recipient; rather, “meanings are actively constructed by both initiators and interpreters rather than simply ‘transmitted’.” Noise is still an important factor, but the tech- nologies that allow simultaneous, multi-pathway communications are important. This matters to emergency and crisis communications planning for airports because simple procedures and policies based on linear transmission of mostly unambiguous data do not adequately deal with information flow today. ACCIDENTS, EMERGENCIES, DISASTERS, AND CRISES It is important that airports be prepared to deal with accidents, emergencies, disasters, and crises. An accident is an unplanned event that results in personal injury or property damage. An emer- gency is any occasion or instance that warrants action to save lives and protect property, public health, and safety. A disaster is an occurrence of a natural catastrophe, technological accident, or human-caused event that has resulted in severe property damage, multiple injuries, and/or deaths (Blanchard 2006). A crisis is “an event and/or a situation which endangers the established system, the health, life, and property of its members. . . . The term ‘crisis’ is treated as being separated from . . . other concepts based on the intensity and scope of influence. The terms disaster, hazard, accident, etc., refer to only one event and/or situation, while crisis includes the concepts of natural disasters, man-made/technological disasters, and social disasters” (Kim and Lee 2011, p. 502, as quoted in Blanchard). Accidents and emergencies are topics explicitly addressed in the requirements of FAR Part 139 and Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-31C. However, the regulations focus on “on the airport” and “near the airport” incidents. Other disasters, particularly regional disasters that indirectly affect an airport, and crises such as technological system failures at an airport lie outside those requirements. NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) AND THE INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM (ICS) NIMS is the national standard for planning and implementing emergency management including emergency communications. Compliance with NIMS is mandatory for all federally funded facili- ties, which includes any airport that receives funding from federal appropriations such as the Airport Improvement Program. This means that essentially every public use airport in the United States must use NIMS. Accordingly, this report is premised on all communications plans being NIMS-based. Data + analysis = information Information + experience = knowledge Knowledge + authority = decision Decision + resources = action FIGURE 2 Communications-dependent cascade that leads from data to action.

10 ICS is the predominant model for organizing for emergency response and recovery activities. Unless otherwise noted, ICS is presumed to be used by all airports for emergency management and emergency communications. IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATIONS IN AIRPORT EMERGENCIES Airports use many different means of communications in the course of normal daily activities. FAA AC 150/5200-31C defines the FAA’s requirements for airport emergency plans. Chapter six of the AC addresses three separate sections of emergency communications: emergency communi- cations, alert notifications and warnings, and emergency public information. These three sections cover all the areas required within a comprehensive emergency communication plan. Each section covers situations and assumptions, operations, organization and assignment of responsibilities, administration and logistics, plan development and maintenance, and authorities and references. Section 2, “Communications,” describes requirements for providing information on establishing, using, maintaining, augmenting, and providing redundancy for all types of communication devices needed during emergency response operations. Section 3, “Alert Notifications and Warnings,” addresses the processes to be used to notify and warn emergency response agencies, airport employees and tenants, and the general public of poten- tial or actual emergencies. The alert and warning process is described as “essential” to ensure timely notification to emergency organizations and the response of emergency forces as well as ensuring that the public has adequate time to take appropriate protective actions to avoid death, injury, and/or damage to property. Section 4, “Emergency Public Information,” defines the FAA’s requirements for describing the means, organization, and processes by which the airport will provide timely, accurate, and useful information and instruction to the public throughout the emergency. Although approximately 500 airports in the United States are subject to the requirements in FAR Part 139 and AC 150/5200-31C, more than 2,900 public-use reliever and general aviation (GA) air- ports are not required to have AEPs or emergency communications plans. However, many reliever and GA airports voluntarily develop emergency communications plans, either as stand-alones or part of a voluntary AEP, or even a comprehensive CCP. Some reliever and GA airports are parts of multi-airport systems that contain a Part 139 airport, and thereby benefit from the network’s ECP. Regardless of its regulatory status, an airport is required to be prepared for an onslaught of information requests when an emergency happens, and establishing a solid emergency or crisis communications plan can help the airport deal with such a surge. AIRPORT EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE The past half-century has seen quick and unsettling changes in communica- tions technology, and the trend is accelerating (Tsang et al. 2011). The pace of technological change is a major challenge for transportation planning and management (Beimborn and Sponholz 1998). Airports are under pressure to keep up or catch up. As a result, airport emergency communications plan- ning and training need to be nimble, adaptive, and flexible (J. Greenberg, personal communications, Nov. 17 and Dec. 17, 2015). TYPES OF AIRPORT EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLANS Three basic types of airport emergency communications plans exist: • An ECP written directly into the airport’s AEP, which requires FAA approval for a FAR Part 139 airport. AEPs are not required for GA or reliever airports, but many of them have voluntary AEPs. Thirteen airports of all types and sizes in the study have ECPs. Media PR call volume related to LAX T3 November 2013 active shooter incident: 11/1/13 – 631 calls 11/2/13 – 175 calls Average August–October 2013 – 5.4 calls/day (LAWA data)

11 • A stand-alone ECP that is incorporated into the AEP by reference, allowing continual updat- ing without the FAA approval process. For example, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which operates Ronald Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport, have stand-alone ECPs that are referenced in each airport’s AEP. • Stand-alone comprehensive CCPs from which the required emergency items are incorporated into the AEP by reference. Examples of airports with standalone comprehensive CCPs include Denver International Airport (DEN), Dallas/Ft.Worth International Airport (DFW), Boise (Idaho) International Airport (BOI), and Watsonville (California) Municipal Airport (WVI). When an airport is required to have an AEP, any change to the AEP requires approval by the FAA Compliance and Safety Inspector. Because communications plans (e.g., contact lists) change fre- quently, incorporating them by reference avoids the need for frequent resubmissions of the AEP to the inspector for approval. When an airport chooses to create and use a comprehensive CCP, that plan still must address the FAR Part 139 and AC 150/5200-31C requirements and be referenced in the airport’s AEP. When a reliever or GA airport voluntarily chooses to have an emergency communications plan or a comprehensive CCP, it is important that the plan’s nature be appropriate to the operations, hazards, risks, and other crisis-type situations affecting that airport. DETERMINING WHAT IS NEEDED IN THE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLAN An airport can determine what to include in its ECP or CCP by using several sources of information. The most obvious guidance is in FAR Part 139 and AC 150/5200-31C. Other essential sources of information are the airport’s hazard and risk analyses, continuity of operations plans, continuity of business plans, and after-action review (AAR) and improvement plans subsequent to exercises or actual events. An airport’s emergency communications process does not occur in a vacuum but in the context of its other contin- gency planning processes. The single most important factor is that an airport’s crisis or emergency communications planning attempt to gain synergistic benefits from all the tools available to the airport and its partners. USING AIRPORT EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLANS FOR NON-EMERGENCIES A good ECP—and even more so, a good comprehensive CCP—helps to execute any large event and to recover from it. If NIMS and ICS are written into the plan, they not only can guide the airport’s management of large events but also turn such events into opportunities to practice for emergencies and disasters. An example where an airport’s use of its comprehensive CCP to manage a major event was Los Angeles International Airport’s use of its plan to carry out and recover from the opening of its expanded Tom Bradley International Terminal (M. Grady, personal communication, Nov. 17, 2015). Communication tools—social media, website, contact list, etc.—all are to be coordinated; redundancy is important and needs to be emphasized in the plan.