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.
28 One of the crossover areas between this study and ACRP Synthesis S04-17, Tabletop and Full-Scale Emergency Exercises for General Aviation, Non-hub and Small Hub Airports, concerns emergency con- tact lists. The survey obtained data on how the airports keep their contact lists updated (Question 30), whether the airports were satisfied with their method of updating contact lists (Question 31), and whether the airportsâ contact lists were consistent across all plans and documents that contain contact lists such as AEPs (Question 32). A crucial yet often overlooked part of the emergency planning process is emergency contact list preparation. Even with todayâs technology, telephones (both land lines and cell phones) are still most often utilized as the primary method to reach people in times of emergency, as they are reliable and recordable. Nearly 86% of the airports surveyed rely on manual updating of their emergency contact lists. Only 8% use any type of electronic or technologically-enhanced system of updating their lists. It might be possible to determine whether a more systematic, exact nature of creating electronic databases exists, one that is tied to a fixed schedule of modification or âupdatingâ much like cellular phones on a nightly basis. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of the airports surveyed say they are on a fixed schedule, but that may be semiannual at best. Forty-two percent (42%) were not sure if their lists were current and consistent at the time of the survey and would likely welcome a solution to ensure their lists are accurate and up-to-date at all times. It appears a natural extension of this study would be a recommendation that airports utilize technology to keep their lists as current as possible. Whether using a manual or automated process, it is essential that call lists be kept up to date so that the call reaches the appropriate party in time of peril. Half the airports said that they were satisfied with the method they use to maintain their contact lists, while 32% said they were dissatisfied (Question 31). Exercises can be a successful way for air- ports to test the accuracy and usefulness of their emergency contact lists, but may not be performed frequently enough to ensure that contact lists are adequate if an actual incident occurs. Some airports may simulate using the actual emergency call list and not actually place a call to know if a number is active or out of service. Functional exercises (e.g., call-downs) are the most common test used. In addition, problems with contact lists may emerge during the response to actual emergencies (Smith et al. 2015). On the issue of whether airportsâ contact lists are consistent across AEPs and other plans and documents (Question 32), 54% of the airports reported consistency, 24% said the lists were not consistent, and 18% did not know. The similarity of the response pattern for whether an airport is satisfied with its contact list main- tenance method to that for whether the contact lists at the airport are consistent across plans suggests that inconsistency in lists may have created issues during exercises and real emergency responses, but the survey data are insufficient to test this hypothesis. chapter seven ISSUES WITH CONTACT LISTS
