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.
ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning 1 Summary The main objective of the ACRP 10-22 project was to research and create guidance for airports in identifying and engaging aircraft accident response stakeholders and develop educational and guidance materials that airports can use to engage accident response stakeholders to help each understand their responsibilities within the larger context of a response to an aircraft accident. The focus of the research effort was on identifying stakeholders beyond the boundaries of the airport and outside of those typically engaged for mutual aid agreements in support of the airport. To support the development of project guidance Tool, sources of information and references from the airport, aviation and emergency management industries were reviewed to identify the components of accident response required to build a framework to meet the objectives of ACRP 10-22. The Futron Aviation team (also referred to as the research team) found that engaging with the first responder communities associated with airports was the most productive way to gain project support and guidance recommendations. Further, the research team attempted to develop the project deliverables, and the final guidance Tool in particular, in a way that benefits airports of various sizes that serve communities of different populations and locations. In order to accomplish this, the final guidance Tool includes a degree of customizability. The Aircraft Accident Management and Guidance (AAMG) Tool can be downloaded from the TRB website by searching on ACRP Web-Only Document 31 (http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/175818.aspx.). Background Airports have the responsibility and are required by FAA regulation to be prepared to respond to emergency situations, to include aircraft accidents, which threaten the safety and welfare of the airport, users of the airport, and the surrounding community. The requirements are published in the Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-31C entitled Airport Emergency Plan (AEP). The AC states the following: Virtually no airport has sufficient resources to respond to every emergency situation independently. Each airport must depend to some degree on the resources from its surrounding communities. For this reason, each airport operator is encouraged to involve local communities in the development of the AEP and use the collective expertise and resources for the mutual benefit of all parties. With this as a prelude, absent a mature, proactive community emergency management system that includes the airport as a key stakeholder, little direction exists for communities near but separate from an airport that prepares those that will respond for the unique aspects of an aircraft crash. While guidance does exist, those outside of the aviation industry are not likely to search out the information due in part to the relatively small number of aircraft accidents that occur in the United States. During the course of the research, a member of the project panel revealed that one of the problem statement submitters was a law enforcement officer in a city
ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning 2 very close to a large hub airport. The community the law enforcement officer served had never engaged with the airport in any planning events or discussions on what would be necessary to properly respond should a large passenger aircraft crash within the city limits. The research revealed that this is not an isolated issue. Thus there is a need for the output of this project not only to serve the airport industry but the emergency management community as well. Project research confirmed that in order to satisfy project objectives, the study needed to go beyond the AEP and the guidance Tool developed needed to address how the airport can support communities away from the airport that might find themselves responding to an aircraft accident in their town. Phased Approach The project was planned and conducted in three phases: Phase 1 â White Paper Development (Tasks 1 through 7) Phase 2 â Follow-On Research and Guidance Tool Development (Tasks 8 through 14) Phase 3 â Pilot Studies and Final Deliverables (Tasks 15 through 17) During Phase 1, the research team reviewed information publically available relating to aircraft accident planning and response, and conducted workshops at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), Norfolk International Airport (ORF), and Buffalo Niagara International Airport (BUF) to gain a better understanding about airport emergency planning and response from practitioners in the field. During Phase 2, after the initial developmental efforts on the projectâs computer based guidance Tool, additional input regarding accident planning and response along with initial feedback on the proposed structure of the guidance Tool was sought from two airports, Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) and Boston Logan International Airport (BOS). The research team discovered during project workshops in Phases 1 and 2 that the best source of information and project assistance came from those airports and communities with mature, well organized emergency response processes, such as PIT and BOS. It was originally envisioned that the best source would be airports and areas with recent experience in responding to accidents. These airports were discovered to be reluctant or unwilling to support the project; the exception being the Emergency Manager for the township near Buffalo, NY where Colgan Air Flight 3407 crashed in 2009. The search and recruitment of airports willing to support the workshops during the first two phases of the project created challenges and delays. The research team worked through these challenges with the support of the project panel which led to successful and productive research workshops. During Phase 3, the research team piloted the developed Aircraft Accident Management and Guidance Tool (AAMG Tool) at three additional airports, each of varying size and function. The first airport was the Chennault International Airport (CWF) in Lake Charles, LA. CWF is a large,
ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning 3 general aviation airport certificated under CFR Part 139; the second was La Crosse Regional Airport (LSE) in western Wisconsin, a non-hub airport with scheduled air carrier service; and the final airport workshop was held at the Richmond Executive Airport (FCI) in Chesterfield, VA, a general aviation airport that serves as a reliever for Richmond International Airport (RIC). During the workshops at CWF and LSE, participants were able to load the AAMG Tool onto their personal computers and explore the content and functionality. At the end of these workshops, comments on the AAMG Tool were collected and the version of the Tool was updated for the next workshop. A final AAMG Tool (Version 10) was used at the FCI workshop as a final test prior to the project panelâs review. Challenges This was a very dynamic project with the information and suggestions contributing to the final product coming in with every workshop conducted. Three main challenges impacted the progress and the output of the project: the availability of publicly available lessons learned on aircraft accident response, the ability to fully analyze accident location data, and the ability to locate small airports willing to host a project workshop. Lessons Learned There is a vast amount of information on the initial response requirements to disasters. These, for the most part, come in the form of training available from FEMA and information on fire fighting and rescue the firefighting community shares with great vigor. Harder to find were lessons regarding the full, long term response to aircraft accidents away from an airport. The research team learned during the Phase 1 workshop in Buffalo, NY that the community most recently impacted by a mass casualty accident (Colgan Air Flight 3407) had not recorded any publicly available lessons and had not met to discuss the progress of proposed changes in the 6 ½ years since the accident. What is available are some articles written for professional publications on exercise results and the investigation of accident cause factors. As a result, the research team included a section designated for lessons learned in the AAMG Tool in hopes that the user of the Tool will archive local lessons from which others can learn. Accident Location Data Analysis The NTSB database presented two challenges in analyzing how far from airports accidents occur. First, the location data for the accidents is inconsistent and in some cases, unavailable. If the NTSB investigates a crash, a very accurate latitude and longitude is recorded. However, for many general aviation accidents where the primary responsibility for the investigation falls to local law enforcement, the location data can vary greatly in the degree of accuracy. In the future, with the use of GPS location information readily available to all, this may not be the case. But this was a factor in the analysis of the accident data for the past two decades.
ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning 4 Additionally, searching the NTSB database for aircraft crashes was a challenge. In the database, the entries are all considered incidents. Many of the incidents, including several where a fatality was reported, resulted in the safe landing of the aircraft. There is not a field in the database that indicates an aircraft impacted the ground away from the airport. It requires the analyst to deduce which are crashes based upon the severity of the reported aircraft damage and injuries. Small Airport Participation During Phase 1 and the first two workshops of Phase 2 of the project, the research team received solid support from larger airports. DFW, ORF, PIT, and BOS all were very responsive to requests for support. However, small airports and airports near which accidents had occurred where much more challenging to gain cooperation. Initially, the team felt that airports and communities which had experienced an accident would be very willing to share their experiences. This turned out not to be the case as requests to four different specifically selected airports went unanswered. Even in the case of BUF, the airport was not the organization interested in supporting the workshop; the interest in supporting the project came from the Emergency Manager from Clarence Center, the site of the crash. During Phase 3, the research team aimed to pilot the AAMG Tool at small airports rather than additional large airports with extensive response resources. Identifying airports willing to support a workshop was a challenge due primarily to the small size and competing priorities of the airport staff. The second Phase 3 workshop was in the planning for Central Wisconsin Airport in Mosinee, WI when the airport had to back out two weeks prior due to a change in their FAA inspection schedule. This led to the last minute scheduling of the workshop in La Crosse, WI based on a recommendation from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, which actually provided a better opportunity given the airport property is on or borders two states. Conclusions and Follow-On Research The research in Phases 1 and 2 led to the conclusion that a âone-size-fits-allâ guidance Tool solution or the recommendation of a hard and fast engagement distance from the solution was not possible or practical. Too many variations of airport sizes and available resources as well as surrounding community structures and governance exist for such a project deliverable. The research team elected to develop the AAMG Tool as a customizable tool that provided the user with a level of information on the phases and potential stakeholders for aircraft accident response that could generate a locale specific conversation with those the experts would want to recruit as members of the emergency planning team. As was stated during the project workshops, a goal was to identify who should be involved and what they should know in a way that an airport user could determine how best to use the Tool in their community.
