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.

21 chapter five ROLES OF THE PRIMARY AUDIENCES FOR THIS STUDY Almost certainly, the greatest challenge faced by airports in connection with emergency and crisis communications is how to manage the facility in the face of a flood of information. Especially in the early stages of an emergency, some reports generated will be valid and many may be misleading or wrong. It is essential that senior airport management, the airport public information officer, airport emergency managers, and first responders work cooperatively to winnow the flood and act on the right facts. The airport’s emergency or CCP can be the primary guidance for this collaboration (K. Gibbs, personal communication, Nov. 17, 2015). SENIOR AIRPORT MANAGEMENT Senior airport managers—airport directors, chief executive officers, chief operating officers, aviation directors, airport managers—all bear responsibility for the safe and sustained operation of their air- ports. However, the operational and organizational complexity of airports, regardless of type or size, means that senior management need to delegate and trust other airport staff members during emergency response and recovery operations. One of the main responsibilities of senior management is to ensure that the right people are assigned the right duties at the right time. Ensuring that the most capable people available are tasked with the appropriate duties and that they have all the necessary resources and sup- port to succeed in those duties is a primary responsibility of airport senior management. This is true in day-to-day management but is especially critical when managing an emergency situation. Within an emergency command and control environment, the IC is the final word on all direction and communication surrounding the event. It is essential that all others, including senior managers, support the IC in carrying out his or her directions and decisions. The Incident Commander is account- able to the executive/senior official, but has complete authority in directing the operation. The IC is to take policy direction from senior officials, provide overall leadership over the event, delegate authority to others, ensure incident safety, provide communications to internal and external stakeholders, liaison with other agencies, establish incident objectives, and develop an incident action plan. All internal communication regarding the event is to be consistent with and support the incident action plan (IAP) developed by the IC, and all external communication be approved by him/her. Fulfilling this mission requires accurate, timely, reliable communications up and down the chain of command. One of the guiding principles of NIMS and ICS is the fact that day-to-day organizational rank is “checked at the door” of an EOC or command post. ICS uses unique position titles and organizational structures. There is no correlation with the administrative structure of any other agency or jurisdiction. ICS command assignments are to be given to the most capable, qualified available person to handle the specific tasks required. The IC is usually the senior most qualified person at the scene. This may not be the airport manager or director. Indeed, it may be a front line supervisor who is the most quali- fied for the role. In addition to being highly qualified to manage the incident scene, the IC is tasked with keeping senior management informed and up to date on all important matters pertaining to the incident. Ultimately, senior management should have complete confidence and trust in this person’s abilities and supports this person implicitly. Accurate, precise, and timely communications are essen- tial to the maintenance of this confidence and trust. The IC, as well as any other core ICS positions, may change as needed as the event evolves, but the support provided by the senior airport manage- ment would remain consistent. An executive/senior official’s task is to ensure that the command team is informed and that the IC is functioning in a responsible manner. Senior management sets policy, establishes the mission to be

22 accomplished, shapes the overall direction, and gives the trained responders the authority to accom- plish the incident objectives (ICS-420). The IC may establish vertical communication via a member of senior management, who then acts as a single point of contact between the IC and management team, protecting the IC from being overwhelmed by the needs of senior management. These communications relationships can effectively be incorporated into an airports emergency/crisis communications plan. Other senior airport management personnel will respond to the EOC and support the incident command efforts. ICs with strong EOC support may delegate significant levels of responsibility to the EOC, making “span of control” more manageable. Vertical communications with elected offi- cials and the media are just some of the tasks generally delegated to an EOC and senior management. The PIO plays a key role and should to be closely tied to both the IC and the senior management group. An airport’s EOC can either serve as a primary command post or, in cases where a field com- mand post is established, can provide logistical and administrative support to a field command. In both cases the EOC supports the IC and his/her approved incident action plan. There are communication information systems that can provide a common operating picture to all command and coordination sites. NIMS describes the requirements necessary for a standardized framework for communications and emphasizes the need for a common operating picture. NIMS is based on the concepts of interoperability, reliability, scalability, portability, and the resiliency and redundancy of communications and information systems (ICS-420). As described in this section, effective emergency management using NIMS and ICS requires the IC (or UC) and the senior management group to respect each other’s roles and the boundaries between them. Effective communications between the two entities will involve boundary spanning; that is, ensuring that information flows without violating the boundaries or being disrupted by them (Ackney and Curtin 2002; Lowrey et al. 2007). Emergency communications require timeliness and clarity to be useful to senior managers. Although the primary role of senior managers in emergency response and recovery is resource mobilization and allocation, good two-way communications with first responders and emergency managers is essential. The airport PIO, when the airport has one, is typically the most qualified staff member to implement boundary spanning; but that cannot happen without strong leadership and support from senior management. MODERN AIRPORT PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS (PIOs) At an airport, the handling of emergency communications involves the intersection of the airport’s senior management team’s efforts and those of the emergency management specialists. The airport’s senior PIO, while part of the management team, can also be a key player and an asset to emergency managers. As part of the management team, the PIO is a strategist and advisor. The PIO is typically the main person who can accomplish the boundary spanning necessary during disaster response and recov- ery. The role of PIOs is changing very rapidly, especially in the aspects of mediating inter actions and diplomacy among stakeholders (J. Greenberg, personal communication, Nov. 17, 2015). A PIO operat- ing a JIS/JIC can be the public face of an IC, UC, or airport EOC that is managing the emergency. In addition, the PIO can manage incoming and outgoing communications, including use of social media; monitor social media feeds for situational awareness; and create and maintain an airport’s comprehensive emergency or crisis communications plan. At most airports, the professional expertise in communicating with stakeholders, the media, and the public resides with the PIO. The team managing an emergency or disaster can benefit by building the PIO’s capabilities fully into the emergency response and recovery as well as in planning and training for emergency or crisis communications. PIOs can generate tools to implement comprehensive emergency/crisis communications plans, both directly for the public information staff and in cooperation with first responders and emergency DEN’s plan is flexible, providing for a small-scale Joint Information Center for small events and a large-scale JIC for large incidents, making the airport’s commu- nications posture highly nimble. The airport’s com- munications structure with its clearly defined roles and responsibilities allows PIOs from other agencies to step in when needed. (DEN case example)

23 managers for all persons with internal or external communications duties. The standard ICS tool for implementation is the field operations guide (FOG), which is a concise notebook or card that lists the tasks in sequence necessary to carry out duties. Sample FOGs for the PIO-controlled emergency communications duties at a large airport are reproduced as Appendices D through L. The number of FOGs and the range of tasks included on them reflect the complexity of communications during an emergency at an airport. A smaller airport will have most of the same tasks but fewer, often far fewer, staff members, so some functions may be contracted to other agencies or companies. PIO is no longer a case of one-size-fits-all, at least in the case of most FAR Part 139 airports that are small hubs or larger and in the case of very active reliever and general aviation airports. PIO functions are now distributed throughout organizations. PIOs may “wear many faces and need training in many facets of information” (M. Grady, personal communication, Nov. 17, 2015). FIRST RESPONDERS AND EMERGENCY MANAGERS In an emergency, overall communications affects first responders and emergency managers. Emer- gency communications can be an issue between incident command posts and the EOC, and how the issue is resolved through planning, training, exercising, and policy will either help or hinder response and recovery. Most importantly, communications directly involving first responders and emergency managers are most effectively managed in a comprehensive plan that also addresses communications among and between senior managers, PIOs, stakeholders, mutual aid partners, the media, and the pub- lic. The communications issues for each type of interaction overlap and require coordinated planning (M. Grady, personal communication, Nov. 17, 2015). ROLE OF THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER In general, EOCs are the most common type of operations/coordination center across the nation. An EOC is a pre-designated facility established by a jurisdiction or organization to provide centralized and coordinated support to tactical incident management. An EOC is used primarily for consolidating and exchanging information, supporting decision-making, and coordinating resource management. The EOC supports those personnel and other incident management organizations that are tactically engaged in managing the incident (i.e., closer to the incident). Examples of organizations that may receive support from an EOC include the Incident Command Post (ICP), Unified Command Post, or another EOC such as another department’s EOC or a city, county, or state EOC (J.G. Featherstone, personal communication, Oct. 13, 2015; ACRP Synthesis 60—Smith et al. 2015). Among the functions of EOCs is the coordination of crisis communications. EOCs are typically organized around one of four systems (FEMA/EMI 2012): • Incident Command System (ICS), where a PIO on the command staff serves as the conduit for public crisis information to and from internal and external stakeholders. Under ICS, three gen- eral staff sections are involved in communications: operations, planning, and logistics. NIMS does not require an EOC to be organized using ICS. • Emergency Support Functions (ESF), where ESF #2 is the communications group and ESF #15 is the external affairs group. The external affairs group supports the PIO and JIC (if any). ESF #2— Communications include – Coordination with telecommunications and information technology industries; – Restoration and repair of telecommunications infrastructure; – Protection, restoration, and sustainment of cyber and information technology responses; and – Oversight of communications within the incident management and response structures (DHS 2008). ESF #15—External affairs include – Emergency public information and protective action guidance, – Media and community relations, – Congressional and international affairs, and – Tribal and insular affairs (DHS 2008).

24 • Organizing by Major Management Activities (FEMA/EMI 2012). • Hybrid, which is a combination of ICS and ESF to fit the local situation (J.G. Featherstone, personal communication, Oct. 13, 2015). ICS is not necessarily the most efficient way to organize an EOC to coordinate emergency com- munications: “Incident response is a complex issue that defies easy blanket solutions; and, important policy and programme decisions related to ICS ought not to be made within closed management systems or in the absence of empirical research to inform those decisions” (Jensen and Waugh 2014, p. 14). In other words, an airport and its partners can decide which management structure best fits their situation. Increasingly, airports of all types and sizes are establishing EOCs that follow NIMS practices and procedures. However, with or without an EOC, an airport will typically use a unified command- like organization to coordinate the response to an accident, emergency, or crisis. This coordination includes all aspects of communication during various phases of the event. Each organization that has an employee representative in the EOC should be fully trained on NIMS/ICS; this would include airlines, FBOs, air traffic control, and outside agencies as well. Examples of airport EOCs where organization is based on ICS include Southwest Florida Inter- national Airport (RSW), Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC), and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX). Organizing by major management activities might be useful for small airports, with smaller numbers of employees to wear the many hats required to populate an ICS structure. DFW uses a hybrid organization for its EOC. No examples were found of airport EOCs organized on the ESF principle. This organizational structure is not commonly used in EOCs today, with notable exceptions being at the federal level, some states, and within larger communities that can experience complex events impacting large populations (FEMA/EMI 2012). TRANSPARENCY DILEMMA IN A COMMAND AND CONTROL ENVIRONMENT Emergency response and recovery are activities that require clear command and control, and this includes all aspects of communications associated with emergency management activities. Con- sistent application of NIMS and ICS doctrine and practices promote this clarity. However, social media, especially in the era of so-called citizen journalism, cannot be controlled, only managed. A major issue in the management of social media for senior managers, PIOs, and first responders and emergency managers is how to deal with the transparency dilemma (Adler 1999); this refers to the potential interference in emergency management activities that require precise communications from interference—public or political pressure—generated by the airport’s or civilian’s postings on social media. The airport’s benefits from situational awareness and even intelligence through social media needs to be balanced against the need to evaluate information from social media for validity, accuracy, and timeliness and to protect the precision of internal communications from disruption by outside noise. The advantages to airports of practicing transparency after the response to and recovery from an emergency were well established by ACRP Synthesis 60 (Smith et al. 2015). The general case for the value of transparency in emergencies was made by O’Malley et al. (2009), who urge organizations “to put in place practical mechanisms to encourage open . . . communication for emergencies.” The implication is that transparency has benefits that make it worth an airport’s effort to overcome any problems it may create.