Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning (2017)

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 5 Feedback from the Field The feedback received on the versions of the AAMG Tool demonstrated in the Phase 2 and Phase 3 workshops was very well received. Depending upon the size of the airport and surrounding community, the potential uses for the Tool varied. Larger airports felt the Tool could be used to support their emergency planning evolutions and educate their response partners. Smaller certificated airports generally felt that the Tool would assist during emergency drill preparation, in determining where to conduct their drills and in the briefing and education of response stakeholders. Small general aviation airports viewed the Tool as a resource they could pass on to their city or county emergency management agency to enhance the awareness of community responders. Follow-On Research and Development During each of the Phase 3 workshops, the participants not only commented on the content, structure and usability of the AAMG Tool, but also suggested enhancements and expansion for the AAMG Tool. The suggestions included the following:  Transform the AAMG Tool into an execution Tool for accident response management. Participants felt the Tool could be used during incident response if a mobile application were developed that included checklists, local points of contact, standard operating procedures, and information on specific situations.  Create an interactive map within the AAMG Tool that maps accident locations and is updated on a periodic basis. The analysis of how far accidents occur from airports allowed the research team to make a recommendation for a general starting point for stakeholder engagement. Having a map where the accidents and airport locations are plotted and updated would allow individual airports with the ability to customize their engagement activities. Including such a map within the AAMG Tool was beyond the budget and capability of the Tool developed.  Host the AAMG Tool on a website. Having a central repository for accident response information that is kept current would be of great benefit to the airport industry. Each of these suggestions could be developed into problem statements for follow-on research through the ACRP. Research Approach In the sections that follow, an overview of the project research task workflow is presented.

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning 6 Phase 1 – White Paper Development Task 1 – Literature Review The literature review and bibliography report was submitted to ACRP in July 2014. The review drew information from many sources; from the FAA, ICAO and other international aviation regulatory agencies, along with airport emergency plans developed from the project partner airports. The review focused upon the following sources of information: o FAA Guidance o Airport Emergency Plans o ICAO Guidance o Current Airport Emergency Plans o Industry Training Publications o Cross-Industry Training and Publications o NTSB Accident Data Sources o NTSB and Military Safety Center Lessons Learned o Academic Publications The report submitted identified the publications and information available in the above categories. The conclusions and findings of the review indicated that standards and regulations stop short of specifically requiring emergency response planning to go beyond those agencies and communities which are physically located in close proximity to the airport. However, the requirements and standards which are available provided what is believed to be valuable information for forming outreach programs that do go beyond the physical area around an airport. Perhaps the most important piece taken from this review was that communication is critical in all emergency response. Consistent and complete communication is vital in all cases and should be a major part of all emergency planning and outreach. It is not only vital while the emergency is occurring, but equally important in the investigations that follow. The federal standards associated with the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as promulgated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provide some level of communication consistency. However, it does not provide the specific forms (radio, phone, etc. numbers and frequencies) of communication and information exchange that need to be used during and after an emergency event. That sort of information is specific to the airport and the community that is responding. Therefore, guidance on how to identify those communication Tools and verbiage

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning 7 would be very valuable to the industry. The research team believes this project will address some of these issues but not in total. This is an area where further research might be beneficial. A list of references collected and reviewed during the literature review was submitted in the Task 1 Report (Literature Review and Bibliography). A summary of those references is presented in Appendix A. Task 2 – Foundational Research In Task 2, the research team reviewed the resources identified during the literature review to discover the foundational information needed to meet the project goals. The primary categories of foundational project information included: • Aircraft Accident Data – Available information on location, airline and aircraft type of aircraft accidents • Airport Reference Materials – Available information, guidance and requirements for airports on responses to aircraft accidents • Airport Outreach Practices – Available information on practices of airports in planning for and responding to aircraft accidents A key question the research looked to answer is how far from the airport should management engage potential stakeholders who could be impacted by a response to an aircraft accident and should therefore be involved in response planning? The research team anticipated that the answer to this question will not only depend on the actual physical distance from an airport but also the area’s population density. As an example, mutual aid and emergency responders in remote parts of North Dakota may travel several miles before reaching an accident site as opposed to an accident along the heavily populated east coast. The results of the research into the distances away from airports compared the geographic location information on aircraft accidents found in the NTSB database for a ten year period from 2005 through 2014 with the airport location information available from the FAA’s Office of Airports (ARP). The software Tool ArcGIS developed by Esri was used to do the analysis. The research revealed that 95% of aircraft accidents occurred within 15 miles of an airport, and nearly 55% of accidents occurred within 25 miles of a 14 CFR Part 139 certificated airport. Based upon these results and the recommendation of the project panel, the research team will focus a final recommendation for an outreach distance to one based upon Part 139 certificated airports. Appendix B presents the research results that were presented during the Phase 1 and Phase 2 workshops. Another key question upon which the research was aimed was what should stakeholders in aircraft accident response know? Key sources of information on this question were found to be in the prepared AEP of the Project Partner Airports and in the guidance available in AEP

developm informati field enga Task 3a During th plans inc informati panel for With pan • ent and em on formed th ged during – Worksh is task, the luded detail on gained fr review and el approval, Dallas – F Perce ACRP 10-2 ergency res e basis for the project ops 1 Thro research tea ed agenda a om Tasks 1 comment p the first thre ort Worth In F ntage of Acc 2 Improving St ponse from the topics to workshops. ugh 3 Pla m develope nd the plan and 2. The rior to the w e workshop ternational igure 1: Ho idents Occur akeholder Eng 9 the FAA, N be discuss n Develop d plans for ned worksh plans and a orkshops be s were plan Airport (DFW w Far Do I E ring at Distan agement in Ai TSB, FEMA ed with subj ment the first thre op discussio genda were ing conduct ned for the ) ngage? ces from Par rcraft Accident , and the Re ect matter e e project wo ns were ba provided to ed. following air t 139 Airports Response Pla d Cross. Th xperts in th rkshops. T sed on the the project ports: nning is e he

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning 10 • Norfolk International Airport (ORF) • Buffalo – Niagara International Airport (BUF) These airports were selected to give the workshops of this phase a look at different sizes of airports with specific and desirable features. The first workshop at DFW provided the input from a large hub, complex airport and from a project partner airport. The ORF workshop involved a medium hub airport in the local region of the research team allowing the team’s software developer (LCE) to attend. The third workshop at BUF was conducted at a medium hub airport and took advantage of an area with recent aircraft accident response. The participants were surveyed during the workshops get additional information regarding their thoughts on the project and their needs in the field that could be satisfied by the guidance Tool development. In the planning for each of the workshops, the host airport was offered the opportunity to present information on their local processes, practices and lessons learned. This made the workshops valuable for the participating airports and helped attract participants from other area airports and response stakeholders. A representative workshop agenda and participant survey from a Phase 1 workshop are both included in Appendix C. Task 3b – Gap Analysis and Conduct of Workshops 1 Through 3 Team Futron performed a gap analysis based upon the results of Task 2 to determine what additional information was required to fully support the project goals and development of airport guidance materials. The analysis relied in large part on information gained in three workshops involving airport industry experts in different locations nationwide and from interviews of those most experienced in investigating aircraft accidents. The three workshops conducted were as follows: • Workshop 1: Dallas, TX; Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) o Date: November 17, 2014 o Location: DFW Fire Training Research Center o 23 Participants • Workshop 2: Norfolk, VA; Norfolk International Airport (ORF) o Date: December 9, 2014 o Location: Norfolk International Airport Terminal Conference Room o 42 Participants • Workshop 3: Buffalo, NY; Buffalo Niagara International Airport (BUF)

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning 11 o Date: February 5, 2015 o Location: Mercy Flight Western New York Training Room o 35 Participants Invitations for the workshops went out to airports located within a two hour drive time and any agencies that are located in the area who conduct aircraft accident investigations and are involved in emergency response. The gap analysis also included interviews with investigators from the following organizations: • NTSB • Naval Safety Center • Air Force Air Combat Command Safety Division • Virginia State Police The workshops highlighted some key challenges facing the airport industry in improving the planning process for aircraft accidents through a greater involvement of potential stakeholders; challenges that undoubtedly led to the development of the problem statement for this project. Workshop participants rely upon the guidance issued by the FAA and other governmental agencies to guide their planning, and the guidance directs them to plan for an accident on or very close to the airport. The workshop attendees also found it challenging to come up with other organizations outside of those highlighted in the FAA AEP Advisory Circular who would add value to the planning process. The workshop discussions made it very apparent that while the airport community can play an important role in improving stakeholder engagement, and perhaps should take the lead in this effort, there are a number of organizations that will be key partners in this effort; partners that have vast experience in emergency response, but perhaps limited assets to support increased engagement efforts. The findings from the first three workshops include: • Airports rely upon Airport Emergency Plan (AEP) for identifying the stakeholders in aircraft accident planning. • The primary aircraft accident stakeholders are considered to be those that serve in firefighting and rescue roles. • Typically, airports interact with stakeholders only during required annual tabletop training sessions and triannual response exercises. • When planning and training for aircraft accidents, AEPs focus on accidents occurring on the airport. • The airport guidance in AC 150/5200-31C is “inward looking”. • Aircraft Accidents are only one type of emergency addressed in the AEP. • Airports defer to the NTSB and the airlines for the planning of actions post-initial response.

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning 12 • Airports are not fully aware of the required roles and resources available through the Red Cross. • State and County governments have various organizations that play roles in accident response. • The responsibility for airport community outreach depends upon the type of organization that governs the airport. • Airports in general, do not have any widely held opinions or recommendations on how far away from the airport potential stakeholders in aircraft accident response should be engaged. • Information and guidance available from trusted aviation sources may contribute to the lack of opinions on an engagement. • The workshop airports engage with the communities directly adjacent to airport property. • Airports and stakeholders attending the workshops indicated that computer based learning Tools were the best method of training. • Small aircraft crashes away from airport property are handled by local authorities usually in the same manner as an automobile accident. • There is a large gap in aircraft specific emergency handling training for composites, cartridge activated devices, etc. outside of ARFF responders. From these findings, five primary gaps were identified: • There is a lack of understanding regarding the location of aircraft accidents in relation to the geographic position of airports. Additional analysis will benefit airports. • A deeper and more detailed understanding of the resources that relate directly to aircraft accident response is needed in the airport industry. • Methods of capturing, archiving and communicating the lessons learned by airports and airport stakeholders having experienced aircraft accidents is lacking. • Smaller surrounding communities not adjacent to an airport and their local emergency response organizations either do not incorporate aircraft crashes into their planning and exercise programs or they rely almost solely on the local airport’s AEP to guide their education and emergency response drills. • Aircraft emergency response training is needed by surrounding airport communities in the event of an off-airport accident. The findings and lessons learned were incorporated into the project White Paper and development of strategies for the follow-on tasks. Task 4 – Develop Research Plan for the Remaining Tasks

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning 13 During this task, the research team developed a follow-on research plan based on the findings and analysis of Tasks 2 and 3. The plan focused on filling the gaps identified in the previous tasks and the plan was included in the development the White Paper submitted in Task 5. Task 5 – Deliver Draft White Paper The research team delivered the Phase 1 White Paper that included the revised research plan for Phase 2 in March of 2015. Task 6 – Edit and Finalize White Paper This task was not performed as the panel did not require the research team to make any changes to the White Paper. The panel used the White Paper as a reference that documented results of Phase 1. The White Paper is included as Appendix D. Task 7 – Interim Meeting #1 The first interim meeting with the project panel was conducted as a teleconference on April 30, 2015. During the meeting the research team received the inputs from the panel on all deliverables to include the Task 5 White Paper, and received clearance to proceed with Phase 2 of the project. Phase 2 – Follow-On Research and Guidance Development Task 8 – Research Gaps Discovered in Phase 1 The gaps identified in Phase 1 and outlined in the Task 3 description continued to be explored in this task. As the project matured, the research team felt that information made available during each of the subsequent workshops in Phases 2 and 3 added to the development of the airport guidance Tool and thus, work to fill the discovered gaps. Additional information on the research of the gaps is discussed in the follow-on tasks. Task 9/10 – Conduct Follow-On Workshops and Consolidate Findings The research team planned to conduct three workshops during Phase 2 in the following locations: • Pittsburgh, PA • Montgomery County, MD • Southeastern Wisconsin and Northeastern Illinois

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning 14 These locations were selected based on aircraft accidents that occurred in these areas with the intent of learning from the experience of the responders. Pittsburgh was the site of a large commercial aircraft accident within ten miles of the airport and based on having regional responders involved in the investigation and recovery of the United 93 crash on September 11, 2001. Montgomery County experienced the crash of a multi-passenger jet into a house short of the runway in December 2014. There were two crashes in the past 10 years in the Northern Illinois and Southern Wisconsin region both involving medical response aircraft flying under Part 135, one crashing into Lake Michigan after takeoff from Milwaukee, and the other crashing into a neighborhood while on final approach to an executive airport northwest of Chicago. Plans were made and the first Phase 2 Workshop was conducted at the Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) on July 15, 2015. The other two locations were not interested in supporting the research after a long process of communicating with different points of contact. The challenges encountered by the research team in the planning for Phase 2 workshops were discussed with the project partners at PIT. Based on the experience at PIT, the research team determined that a better approach for the remaining Phase 2 workshops was to contact other airports with mature emergency planning processes. The PIT Fire Chief, Rick Wilson, suggested approaching Boston Logan International Airport (BOS) and Orlando International Airport (MCO). Each of these airports was very interested in supporting the project, but only BOS could support a workshop in time to keep the project proceeding without additional significant delays. MCO indicated they would be interested in participating in Phase 3. The BOS workshop was conducted on January 6, 2016. It was another valuable workshop and the knowledge gained guided the research team in additional modifications to the guidance Tool development approach. The following Phase 2 workshops were conducted: • Workshop 1: Pittsburgh, PA; Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) o Date: July 15, 2015 o Location: PIT ARFF Training Facility o 26 Participants • Workshop 2: Boston, MA; Boston Logan International Airport (BOS) o Date: January 6, 2016 o Location: Massport Fire-Rescue Headquarters o 52 Participants The PIT workshop was very successful and revealed a mature, regional emergency management organization and planning process that could be used as a model for other

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning 15 municipalities. Workshop participants with response experience from passenger aircraft crashes near PIT and in Shanksville, PA were in attendance and added greatly to the proceedings. The BOS workshop was very successful as well with its mature, regional emergency management organization and planning process similar to that at PIT. There was added value in BOS since emergency managers need to consider additional hazards given the airport is surrounded by water and wetlands, and a large city located adjacent to the airport and under several arrival and departure corridors. A representative agenda and participant survey from a Phase 2 Workshop are included in Appendix E. The research team recommended that a third Phase 2 Workshop would require an unacceptable delay in the project and the project panel agreed with the recommendation. Some of the high-level findings from the two Phase 2 workshops included the following: • In the opinion of subject matter experts in the field, the goal of the guidance Tool should be to support airport representatives as they visit communities, business and organizations away from the airport and assist in educating these potential stakeholders on the role they might play in accident response. The opening statement from the airport representatives would be along the lines of the following: “I represent the local airport and I am involved in our planning process for dealing with aircraft crashes. Based on past history, there is a chance that an airplane could crash near you and your organization may be called upon to be part of the response team. I would like to discuss information that would help you in your response role and hope you will become a member of our planning team.” • The organization of the guidance information should be more in line with that of an emergency response organization. • The opening page of the guidance Tool should lead the user to information on the three phases of an accident response: First Response; Investigation; Recovery. • The Tool should have the capability to upload or input local documents and information. • There should be a discussion between the airport, emergency responders, and local communities on the opportunities and limitations of mutual aid agreements that include use of ARFF assets during crashes off airport. • Attendees felt the guidance Tool will be as valuable to local and regional emergency management personnel as it will be to airports. The suggestion was made to consider the non-airport user in the development.

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning 16 Task 11 – Develop Draft Airport Guidance Materials The development of the project guidance Tool is ongoing. The Tool developed is in an XML format and therefore web based; however, there is no plan to host the Tool on the web at this time. The development incorporates the information, recommendations from workshop participants, and results of the research in the previous tasks into the guidance Tool. Each workshop led the research team to make changes in the design and information the Tool contains. The Tool in its initial stage of development was demonstrated to the project panel during Interim Meeting #2. Select screen shots of representative pages of the computer Tool are included in Appendix F. Task 12 – Develop Pilot Study Plan The research team planned to conduct pilot studies at the following locations and proposed airports during Phase 3: • Orlando, FL and Orlando International Airport (MCO) – MCO volunteered to participate in a Phase 3 Pilot Study Workshop. The airport and region has a mature emergency response organization and would be able to evaluate the direction of Tool development and its applicability to a large hub airport. • Lake Charles, LA and Chennault International Airport (CWF) – CWF is large general aviation airport and a project partner airport. They bring the GA perspective to the pilot study, along with that of an airport in a medium size community. • Mosinee, WI and Central Wisconsin Airport (CWA) – CWA is proposed as a third pilot study airport. The non-hub airport is in a small community in central Wisconsin, has scheduled air carrier service, and has had two fatal aircraft accidents near the airport since 2008. The pilot studies included the following elements: • Presentation on the project findings in Phase 1 and 2. • A demonstration of the guidance Tool to airport personnel. • Seminars with airport personnel to allow them to use the current version of the AAMG Tool on their personal computers. • Participants completed a survey and comment sheet giving information on their areas of expertise and comments on the AAMG Tool. The plan for each pilot study was to build upon the previous phases and workshops, incorporating the lessons learned from the previous airports and integrating those lessons into

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning 17 the processes at the succeeding airports. Following each pilot study, revisions to the guidance Tool were to be made until the Tool is finalized after all studies are completed. Task 13 – Deliver Interim Report The Interim Report presenting the project approach, findings and proposed plan for the Phase 3 Pilot Studies was delivered to the project panel in January 2016. The report was positively received and permission was granted to proceed with Phase 3 of the project. The project panel required one additional meeting to be conducted as an online meeting and have the version of the AAMG Tool demonstrated and questions regarding the Interim Report answered. Task 14 – Interim Meeting #2 An online meeting was conducted on April 25, 2016 to demonstrate the version of the AAMG Tool to be shown at the Phase 3 airport workshops to the project panel. The panel viewed the structure, function, and some key content of the AAMG Tool and how the changes recommended by the panel during the interim meeting were incorporated. Following the demonstration, the panel gave approval to proceed with the Phase 3 workshops. Phase 3 – Pilot Studies Task 15 – Execute Pilot Study During this task, the research team visited three additional airports for the purpose of demonstrating the AAMG Tool, have participants use the Tool on their personal computers and provide feedback on the primary deliverable for the project on its content and usability. Due to challenges in gaining the participation of the airports in the Phase 3 plan, workshops were held at the following airports: • Workshop 1: Lake Charles, LA; Chennault International Airport (CWF) o Date: June, 2016 o Location: Chennault International Airport Operations Conference Room o 16 Participants • Workshop 2: La Crosse, WI; La Crosse Regional Airport (LSE) o Date: August 25, 2016 o Location: La Crosse Regional Airport Conference Room o 11 Participants