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.
12 chapter three SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The objective of this study is to report on experiences and effective practices in communications planning in preparing for, working through, and learning from actual airport emergencies. The audi- ences for this synthesis are airport leadership teams, emergency responders, and those responsible for public information. SELECTION OF AIRPORTS Sixty-four (64) U.S. airports were invited to participate in the survey. Airports in the sample were selected because they were known to either the consultants or topic panel members as having exemplary emergency exercise programs or ECPs; and represented the full range of types and sizes of airports, a wide variety of geographic regions, and a broad representation of FAA regional offices. Nearly half the airports are city departments, about two-fifths (42%) are authorities, 8% are county departments, one has a joint board, and one is privatized. The lack of randomization and relatively small sample sizes preclude the generalizability of the statistical results beyond descrip- tive statistics. LITERATURE REVIEW Available literature on topics associated with airport emergency communications was reviewed using searches in both the open web (using Google.com) and the deep web (using the TRB database, ProQuest, EBSCO, LexisNexis, and LLIS). Peer-reviewed literature in the field of emergency communications specifically related to airports is limited, but the literature review also sought information on resources in organizational communications in general. Special attention was given to previous TRB reports con- cerning mass transit, highway transportation, and aviation to seek practices and techniques that can be applied to emergency communications at airports. SURVEY AND RESPONSE DATA Software provided by TRB was used to set up a web-based survey, detailed in Appendix A. The survey was unusual in that it used the same set of airports and a combined questionnaire designed to serve both this survey and ACRP Synthesis S04-17, Tabletop and Full-Scale Exercises for General Aviation, Non-Hub and Small Hub Airports, as it was believed that these two topics are closely linked. Using a single survey reduced the number of questionnaires sent to any one airport and allowed the inclusion of more airports in the study. It also allowed the exploration of possible interrelation- ships of airport emergency communications and emergency response and recovery exercises. Fifty-one (51) airports submitted complete responses, four airports responded via an emailed memo, four airports submitted partial responses, and two airports declined to participate. The overall response rate to the survey was 94%. The 59 airports that submitted complete or partial responses, plus Rochester International, later identified as an important case example, are listed in Appendix B. Appendix B also gives the major characteristics of each airportâs location, structure, and opera- tional profile. Table 1 shows the distribution among the seven National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) categories of the 61 airports in the study; it also shows the proportion of all U.S. public use airports that are represented in the study. The responding airports are widely distributed geo- graphically (Figure 3). Twenty-eight (28) states and all nine FAA regions are represented in the sample.
13 Airports in two multi-airport systems (i.e., Miami and Phoenix) were included to explore possible interactions among airports within a single system. In data displays except Table 1, only one airport from the MiamiâDade system is included (Miami International Airport, or MIA); the other four MiamiâDade airports (Miami Executive Airport, Miami Opa Locka, DadeâCollier Training and Transition Airport, and Miami Homestead General Aviation Airport) have the same data profiles and were excluded from the survey data. All three Phoenix airportsâPhoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX), Phoenix Deer Valley Airport, and Phoenix Goodyear Airportâare included, as each of the three had distinctly different responses to the survey. CASE EXAMPLES Case examples were created to attempt to answer four primary questions: 1. What is the planning process for emergency communications? 2. What is the resulting plan like? 3. How satisfied is the airport with the results? 4. What future directions or trends does the airport anticipate in its emergency communications plans and planning process? NPIAS Category Airports in Study Airports in U.S. Percentage in Study Large Hub Airports 14 301 46.7% Medium Hub Airports 6 331 18.2% Small Hub Airports 8 711 11.3% Non-Hub Primary Airports 7 2501 2.8% Commercial Service Airports (non-primary) 3 1171 2.6% Total of Service Airports 38 5011 7.6% Reliever Airports 11 2682 4.1% General Aviation Airports (public use airports only) 10 2,5632 0.4% Source: Smith, Kenville, Sawyer and Garcia data. 1FAA, CY13 enplanements (2014). 2FAA, National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (2014). TABLE 1 TYPES AND SIZES OF AIRPORTS RESPONDING TO SURVEY FIGURE 3 Location of airports in the study.
14 To identify case examples that illustrate approaches to these four subjects that may be useful to airports of any type or size, the following criteria were applied: ⢠The airportâs reported use of various communications methods in emergencies ⢠Whether there was a single comprehensive plan or many separate plans ⢠Innovative measures used ⢠The nature of administrative management of an airportâs emergency communications ⢠The extent to which NIMS and ICS were used by an airport in emergency communications ⢠The completeness of the airportâs documentation of its emergency communications plans and planning process ⢠The scalability or generalizability of the airportâs emergency communications planning process ⢠The airportâs willingness to serve as a case example ⢠The airportâs willingness to share its emergency communications planning materials and resources. The survey results aligned strongly with the data and conclusions in ACRP Synthesis 60 (Smith et al. 2015), leading to the selection of airports with single comprehensive crisis communications plans or single comprehensive emergency communications plans. This biased the selection of case examples against airports with multiple ECPs or with traditional plans written in their AEPs. Appen- dix C of this study presents four case examples of actual airport emergency communications plan- ning practices and outcomes: ⢠Case Example 1: Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) ⢠Case Example 2: Denver International Airport (DEN) ⢠Case Example 3: Boise Airport (BOI) ⢠Case Example 4: Watsonville Airport (WVI). Follow-up interviews and document reviews allowed an in-depth examination of how the case example airports developed their emergency communications plans and how effective the resulting plans have been in practice. In addition, interviews were conducted with five airports that did not have single comprehensive plans but reported having them under development at the time of the survey (JuneâAugust 2015). As noted in chapter one, after data collection for this study had been completed, an exemplary exercise featuring a comprehensive CCP and the use of social media was described in a magazine article, giving a de facto fifth case example, Rochester International Airport. In addition to the full write-ups of the case examples in chapter one and Appendix C, key points from the case examples appear in textboxes throughout this report. DATA ANALYSIS The survey results, interviews with case example airports, and analysis of reports, plans, and other documents supplied by airports were used in the study to identify effective approaches to emergency communications planning, to evaluate the suitability of various types of plans, to identify gaps, and extract lessons learned. Pertinent findings from the interviews, case examples, literature review, and data analysis are presented in four formats: 1. Overview of survey data (Appendix A) 2. Five case examples with expanded information on highly effective exercise programs (chap- ter one and Appendix C) 3. Sample tools for implementing comprehensive emergency/crisis communications plans (Appen- dices D through L) 4. Checklist of effective planning practices for creating and sustaining effective emergency communications plans for airports (Appendix M).
