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.

15 chapter four EMERGENCY AND CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING AND PLANS As noted in chapter three, this study has sought information on current practices regarding emergency communications planning from airports of all types and sizes. Furthermore, the study also analyzed these practices to identify effective concepts, tools, and procedures that airports can use in the development of communications plans. This chapter presents the information gained through the survey. MANAGEMENT OF AIRPORT EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS Six different organizational levels were reported by the surveyed airports as being in charge of emer- gency communications, where “in charge” explicitly meant having decision-making authority over the airport’s emergency communications plans. Nearly half (46%) of the airports said that a division or department head played this role. Smaller airports appear more likely to include this in duties of the airport director or assistant airport director. The largest airports tended to have a manager within a depart- ment carry out this role. The two categories where the management of emergency communications is split with another agency or lies outside the airport entirely reflect the importance of the ties between airports and their city or county sponsors. The two Phoenix GA airports, Phoenix Deer Valley (DVT) and Phoenix Goodyear (GYR) reflect how the largest airport in a multi-airport system (in this case, Phoenix Sky Harbor International) assists with communications during emergencies. STAFFING AND TRAINING FOR NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM The survey for this study did not directly ask if the airports found NIMS or ICS to be important for the creation and maintenance of effective emergency communications plans. However, ACRP Synthesis 60 (Smith et al. 2015) examined post-event recovery practices at 37 air- ports, showing that the airports overwhelmingly found that application of NIMS and ICS aided their emergency management efforts. The data for Question 9 in Appendix A show a major commitment by more than 80% of the airports in this study to the NIMS and ICS doctrine. FEMA (2007) has provided basic guidance of PIOs operating in the NIMS environment. Examin- ing the nature of specialized training for NIMS and ICS for PIOs at the surveyed airports provided the results shown in Table 2, which is an extract of the general table in Appendix A for Question 9. Comparison of Table 2 with the results for all positions involved in emergency response and recovery at airports indicates that only a slightly lower percentage of PIOs have had NIMS and/or ICS training than such positions as emergency managers, firefighters, risk managers, and operational evaluators. NATURE OF AIRPORT EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLANS The survey asked four questions (Questions 17–20) designed to gain a better understanding of the general nature of airport emergency communications plans and the airports’ current efforts or inten- tions toward amending and housing those plans. DEN’s advice to an airport just creating its emer- gency communications plan or considering a CCP is to start by building on NIMS and ICS. (DEN case example)

16 Seventy-four percent (74%) of the surveyed airports have a single written comprehensive emer- gency communications plan (Question 17). Of these, 42% are totally within the airport and its depart- ments, and 32% are joint or shared with non-airport departments or agencies. Eighteen percent (18%) of the airports responded that they do not have a single written comprehensive emergency communications plan but are in the process of developing one. The final 8% of the surveyed airports do not have a single written comprehensive emergency communications plan and are not in the pro- cess of developing one. All airports surveyed in the final group, and some in the 18%, are GA or reliever airports that are not required to have an emergency communications plan. It is possible that an airport might have multiple emergency or crisis communications plans and so answer “No” to this question because it asked if the airport has a single written comprehensive plan. Even allowing for this slight uncertainty, it is clear that 92% of the surveyed airports have active emergency communications planning or cri- sis communications planning processes underway, which illustrates the dedication to response and recovery by the airports surveyed. Surveyed airports were asked to differentiate more specifically between single CCPs and multiple plans. Forty-four percent (44%) have a single written emergency communications plan; 16% have multiple plans with a single “owner,” for example, multiple airport SOPs; and 20% have multiple plans each with a different owner; for example, the owners being operations, fire, police, etc. The 20% with multiple plans with different owners comes from across the whole size spectrum of FAR Part 139 airports; 2% responded “Don’t know.” All of the airports that reported not having a written emergency communications plan, but having one under development are GA or reliever airports. Traditionally, airport emergency communications plans were written directly into AEPs. In recent years, many airports have begun having the emergency communications plans separate from the AEP but incorporated by reference. Question 19 asked the airports to state how their ECP related to the airport’s AEP. Two-thirds (66%) of the surveyed airports have their emergency communications plans written directly into their AEPs. Twenty percent (20%) have the emergency communications plans separate from the AEP but incorporated therein by reference. The 14% answering “No” were all GA or reliever airports that are not required to have an AEP. However, many such airports in this study voluntarily have developed AEPs and ECPs, as will be seen in the case example of Boise Air- port. This shows a laudatory dedication to safety, and usually translates to better airport preparedness through an intensive training and exercise program. Unfortunately, many of these airports and their management have learned the hard way—after aircraft accidents. Eighty percent (80%) of the airports have ECPs that are part of their sponsor’s plans, and 14% are entirely separate. The 80% figure is not surprising since nearly all airports in the United States are oper ated either by their sponsor (authorities) or as a department of their sponsor (city, county, or state). The 80% figure could also be explained by the airport’s being able to afford the resources in manpower and specialized training such as NIMS and ICS through city fire or law enforcement departments. The final question (Question 21) about the general nature of the ECP explored how it related to that of the airport’s sponsor. The 80% whose ECP is part of the sponsor’s overall plan indicated that their ECP might be incorporated in the sponsor’s plan by reference or actually be written into the sponsor’s plan. The 16% answering “No” were all large hub airports. Both NIMS and ICS Training NIMS Training Only ICS Training Only Neither NIMS nor ICS Training Don’t Know Total Public Information Officer (PIO) 31 66.0% 2 4.3% 2 4.3% 9 19.1% 3 6.4% 47 100% Source: Smith, Kenville, Sawyer and Garcia data. TABLE 2 NIMS AND ICS TRAINING OF AIRPORT PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS

17 MODELS OF AIRPORT EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING Among the surveyed airports, two basic models with three variations each were found: • Airport-only plan (24 reported) – A single plan: 15 found, with two (BOI, DEN) incorporated into AEP by reference and 13 written directly into AEP – Multiple plans with single owner: Seven found, with three (DFW, Raleigh–Durham Interna- tional, and Salt Lake City International) being incorporated into AEP by reference and three written directly into AEP. – Multiple plans with separate owners: Two found, with one (DCA) being incorporated into AEP by reference and one (New River Valley, Virginia) written directly into AEP. • Joint plan with airport sponsor or other outside agency (15 reported) – Single plan: 10 found, with one (Minneapolis–St. Paul International) being incorporated into AEP by reference and nine written directly into AEP. – Multiple plans with single owner: One found (Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International) that is incorporated into AEP by reference. – Multiple plans with separate owners: Four found, three (JAX, LEX, and MIA) being incor- porated into AEP by reference and one (JLN) written directly into AEP. In addition, nine airports with ECPs of various types reported that they were in the process (as of June–August 2015) of developing comprehensive emergency communications plans for instance, Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) or comprehensive CCP, including San Fran- cisco International Airport (SRO) and PHX. Some of these transitioning airports are discussed in the following section. No matter which type of emergency communications plan is chosen, the airport stands to gain the same benefits as described by Krock (2011) for the telecommunications industry: AIRPORTS DEVELOPING AND CREATING COMMUNICATIONS PLANS Airports that reported a comprehensive emergency communications plan CCP to be under develop- ment at the time of the survey (June–August 2015) offer important insights into the advantages, bar- riers, costs, and benefits of such plans. Follow-up interviews were conducted with five airports now developing comprehensive crisis communications plans. Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport (FLL) FLL currently has an array of specialized plans in addition to its AEP, and many of them contain com- munications plans. FLL is currently combining that “array of plans . . . into one shortened version that is more useable and understandable for our field personnel. Components of the airport emer- gency plan will be included.” Recovery from emergencies and mission-critical systems failures will be a focus in the new plan. No specific emergency triggered the change by FLL: “We just strongly believe we have to be prepared for any eventuality and include plans that go beyond compliance with FAA, TSA, and DOT requirements” (M. Nonnemacher, personal communication, Nov. 18, 2015). In addition, FLL’s recent and ongoing changes in operations to become a much busier connecting hub has reinforced the need to evolve: “Therefore, we need to be forward thinking in how we respond to any loss of service. The industry has a low tolerance for downtime or reduced capacity and the cost can escalate quickly” (M. Nonnemacher, personal communication, Oct. 16, 2015). A documented, tested emergency plan, combined with one or more mutual aid agreements, offers the communications provider the best chance of withstanding the inevitable disaster, and providing its customers and community with the reliable communications that are so imperative in times of crisis (p. 50).

18 Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) ATL has its emergency communications plan written into its AEP, as well as a number of separate plans and SOPs for crisis communications. ATL is in the early stages of creating a single written com- prehensive CCP, a process that represents a major commitment of effort and funding. ATL expects major advantages from greater consistency of communications, especially with passengers and the public (R. McCranie, personal communication, Oct. 15, 2015). Jacksonville International Airport (JAX) JAX has its communications plan written into its AEP but also has joint plans with several other depart- ments and agencies. JAX is developing a standalone comprehensive CCP that will be incorporated into its AEP by reference (M. Smalley, personal communication, Oct. 20, 2015). Lambert–St. Louis International Airport (STL) STL is in the process formulating a consolidated ECP. Several factors led to this decision: the desire to combine siloed policies into a larger plan; the need to increase the quality of information dis- seminated to executive/internal staff; and the need to better ensure consistent messaging to internal staff and external customers. The trend toward comprehensive plans appears to be driven in part by changes in technology, the rise of social media as an information platform, and the 24-hour news cycle (E. Smart, personal communication, Oct. 22, 2015). San Francisco International Airport (SFO) SFO began developing a comprehensive crisis communications plan in February 2013, several months prior to the Asiana accident in which three Chinese girls were killed and 187 passengers injured. The use of social media and updates to the plan have been further incorporated, following the crash of flight #214 on July 6, 2013, as part of SFO’s business continuity (D. Yakel, personal communication, Oct. 2015; ICF 2013; Smith et al. 2015). ASPECTS ADDRESSED BY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLANS When asked what aspects of internal communications during emergencies are addressed in plans (Question 21), emergency notification is the most frequently reported (in 86% of plans) but the sec- ond highest-reported item is the role of the PIO (76%), which most likely reflects the use of ICS by the airports. The reference to social media use (50%) reflects the emerging nature of those technolo- gies, but is particularly interesting in that this question specifically asked about internal use of social media. The importance of public address (PA) systems was considered important by 58%, but was perhaps rated lower than might be appropriate considering issues with using the PA system during the 2013 active shooter incident at LAX)(LAWA 2014). The one item that was rated surprisingly low is common operating picture (COP) at 22%, but this is an expensive emerging technology that is gradually being adopted by the largest airports first (Smith et al. 2015). Smaller airports may simply be unaware of the growing trend toward using COPs and/or may not have had large multi-agency responses as in the LAX active shooter incident. Detailed data on internal communications aspects are given in Appendix A. When asked what aspects of external communications during emergencies are addressed in plans (Question 22), the most frequently reported reflect the contents of traditional airport emer- gency communications plans in AEPs: communications to federal agencies, communications to mutual aid partner, communications to the public, and media relations. Some items such as JIC and JIS reflect the growing use of NIMS in airports and especially in airport EOCs. Many of the low frequency aspects are new technologies. Detailed data on external communications aspects are given in Appendix A.

19 PLANNING PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES Value of Pre-planning for Emergency Communications Medford–Davis and Kapur (2014), looking at ways to make communications more effective in health emergencies, concluded: Recommendations to build communications capacity prior to a disaster include pre-writing public service announcements in multiple languages on questions that frequently arise during disasters; maintaining a data- base of statistics for different regions and types of disaster; maintaining lists of the locally trusted sources of information for frequently affected countries and regions; maintaining e-mail listservs of employees, interna- tional media outlet contacts, and government and non-governmental organization contacts that can be used to rapidly disseminate information; developing a global network with 24-h cross-coverage by participants from each time zone; and creating a central electronic sharepoint where all of these materials can be accessed by communications officers around the globe. Many techniques that Medford–Davis and Kapur describe for health emergencies are directly appli- cable to airport emergencies. Another excellent example of a pre-planning is Tool 13—Communications Plan in ACRP Report 65: Guidebook for Airport Irregular Operations (IROPS) Contingency Planning (Nash et al. 2012, p. 177). IROPS is an example of a massive customer service crisis that sometimes requires special communications efforts by airports. Roles of Partners and Stakeholders Ninety percent (90%) of the surveyed airports reported involving stakeholders in the development of emergency or crisis communications plans, with 58% saying they always involved stakeholders and 32% saying they sometimes involved stakeholders. The survey question (Question 23) did not distinguish between all stakeholders sometimes, some stakeholders all the time, and some stakehold- ers some of the time. The surveyed airports have predictable stakeholders involved in their emergency communications planning efforts (Question 24). In today’s world, where one agency or organization may not have the depth of personnel and capabilities to respond to an emergency or crisis on the airport, the natural path to leverage resources would be to involve the airport’s stakeholders more fully. The likeliest first partners in this response would be ARFF and law enforcement officers (LEO). As previously stated, airports utilize the NIMS platform along with police and fire, so the col- laboration is the strongest between these groups; the LEO/ARFF are very often an employee group of the airport. As part of NIMS training, it is paramount to determine what other agencies are needed and to bring them into the process very early—in the planning and exercise phase, this is often referred to as mutual aid. This also applies to air traffic control (ATC), although the survey did not explicitly address it. Another very important aspect of communications is customer service. Therefore, it is important to involve all of the airport tenants in the communications process—to manage the message—in times of crisis. In the end, the passenger, itinerant GA pilot, or citizen is the airport’s customer. One airport responded that stakeholders would be involved if the airport had a stand-alone emergency communications plan but that they had not been involved to date because the communications plan is written into the AEP. The surveyed airports were asked to describe how they involved stakeholders in the development of their emergency communications plans and notification plans (Question 25). This was an open- ended question, so most of the 41 airports that answered it listed only one most favored method or at most two methods. This may have depressed the frequencies shown for Question 25 in Appendix A. Of particular interest is the importance of exercise and exercise-related methods to the stakeholder involvement in airport emergency communications planning: TTX, full-scale exercises, workshops, seminars, and after-action reports. Because Boise is a small hub, it has the ability to talk individually with all stakeholders about any changes in their comprehensive communications plan. (BOI Case Example)

20 EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLANS FAR Part 139.326 Section G requires that each airport with commercial air service and have an AEP review the plan, which would include an emergency communications plan, a notification plan, and a public notification plan, at least once every 12 months. The 37 FAR Part 139 airports in this study are required to review the emergency communications plan contained in their AEPs annually. The sur- vey results (Question 26) show this, but the data also reflect that many airports—both FAR Part 139 and general aviation—choose to review their AEPs and communications plans more often than annu- ally. None of the 50 airports that answered this question said that they never reviewed their plans. Most airports review their plans in conjunction with communications tests or exercises, or both, because it is both efficient and economical to plan reviews, communications tests, and exercises at a time when the airport staff’s attention is focused on emergency and crisis communications and overall response. FAA AC 150/5200-31C requires the AEPs and exercises to address 10 functions, one of which is communications. Not counting the mandatory daily test of FAR Part 139 airports’ crash (Alert III) phone, the most common frequency for testing an airport’s emergency communications plan is annu- ally (56%), which seems low. However, the 56% represents 100% of the FAR Part 139 airports in the study. Furthermore, some airports that review and test their emergency communications plans more frequently than once a year may not have marked the “annually” option, just the higher frequency choice, although the question asked the airport to mark all frequencies and occasions that applied. The “Other” category included biannually; when incidents happen; and as part of annual TTX. When all the more frequent than annual responses are combined, they outnumber “annually.” Airports are typi- cally exceeding the minimum requirements for testing their emergency communications plans. When the surveyed airports were asked (Questions 41 and 42) what functions they tested in exer- cises, communications was the most frequently tested in TTX (90%) and the third most frequently tested function in full-scale exercises (76%) behind command and control (80%) and fire and rescue (80%). The data in Appendix A for Question 46 show who participated in full-scale exercises; the profile of participation was similar for TTX. TRAINING The surveyed airports, when queried whom they train on the airport emergency communications plan (Question 28), reported that airport employees were the main group trained. However, nearly half the airports train airline, FBO, agency, tenant, and concession employees. The distribution of frequencies, especially of airlines and FBOs, reflects that nearly 40 of the respondents were GA or reliever airports. Other groups receiving emergency communications training from airports included all first responders; community emergency management agencies; mutual aid partners; EMS; local governments; local cham- bers of commerce; airport meeters and greeters; and volunteers. Only 4% of the airports reported training no personnel in emergency communications. BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES TO EFFECTIVE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING None of the survey questions directly sought information on barriers and challenges faced by air- ports in developing effective emergency communications plans and procedures. However, the case examples in chapter one and Appendix C reflect barriers and challenges those airports overcame. The two primary challenges are funding and staff time. Based on results in prior ACRP syntheses (e.g., ACRP Synthesis 50—Smith 2014), commitment by senior management may be an issue at some airports. However, nothing in the case examples or survey data suggested that this is a factor for emergency communications planning. Moreover, the responses to Question 11, where 52% of the airports reported that either the senior manager or a manager who reports directly to the senior manager is in charge of emergency communications, indicate broad awareness of the issues of emer- gency communications and commitment to their resolution. “Fight how you train and train as you fight.” (Mary Jo Polidore, DFW Case Example)