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 D-1 Appendix D – Phase 1 White Paper White Paper Introduction During Phase 1 of ACRP project 10-22, Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Planning, the research team was tasked with answering the following questions:  What organizations do airports consider as stakeholders in aircraft accident planning?  How far from the airport do managers feel the airport should engage with stakeholders?  What training is currently offered by airports to accident response stakeholders?  What areas of accident response are lacking information and/or understanding and thus are in need of further research? This White Paper presents the results of the initial phase of the research that help answer these questions. It also identifies those knowledge areas where additional information is needed, and presents a revised research plan for Phase 2 of the project that will fill the knowledge gaps, and develop the Tools the airport community can use to improve stakeholder engagement and levels of preparedness. Stakeholders in Aircraft Accident Planning The research during Phase 1 revealed that the airport industry has solid, usable guidance for the types of organizations airports should consider stakeholders when developing their Airport Emergency Plan (AEP). This guidance is found in FAA Advisory Circular 150/3200-31C (or the AEP AC). While aircraft accidents is not the only type of emergency addressed in the AEP AC, the list of AEP Planning Team Members presented is accepted as guidance for the selection of aircraft accident stakeholders. The research also revealed that those in the field are hard pressed to go beyond the current guidance and consider other organizations who might add value during future response efforts. Airports Tend to Follow the Advisory Circular During the conduct of the Phase 1 workshops, the participants were asked to identify the organizations they felt were stakeholders in responding to an aircraft accident. “Who should be involved?” was explained by the research team as one of the primary goals for the project. Discussions revealed that the organizations highlighted in the AEP Advisory Circular (see Figure 1) were the ones that airports interacted with during the development of their plans.

Facilitate potential  R  L  C  L a Engagin Airports a The reas emergen states tha adjacent b.) may p or c.) wh aid agree open and d brainstorm stakeholder egional are ocal ground ommunicat ocal school s well as sc Figure 1 g Stakeho re not com on for this a cies much b t airports s property tha resent a thr ere the airpo ments.” (AC engaging w ACRP 10-2 ing during t s outside of a councils w transportat ion compan boards (use hool busses : FAA Reco lders Bey pelled to loo ppears to be eyond what hould plan fo t: a.) is with eat to the a rt has respo 150/5200- ith those or 2 Improving St he worksho those desc hich focus o ion organiza ies (such as of auditoriu to augmen mmended ond the Fe k outside th threefold. might happ r emergenc in the autho irport becau nsibilities u 31C) Thus ganizations akeholder Eng D-2 ps generate ribed in the n emergen tions Verizon or ms and gym t transportat Emergency nce Line eir fence line First, there en on the a ies that “oc rity and res se of the pro nder local/re airports may that can as agement in Ai d a small nu AEP AC. T cy services ATT) nasiums a ion needs) Planning s when pla is no require irport. The g cur on or dir ponsibility o ximity of th gional eme focus plan sist them in Source: rcraft Accident mber of ad hese additio s holding or Team Mem nning for air ment for ai uidance fro ectly impac f the airport e emergenc rgency plan ning on kee doing so. FAA AC 150 Response Pla ditional, ns were: shelter cent bers craft accide rports to pla m the FAA t an airport o to respond; y to the airp s and by mu ping the airp /5200-31C nning ers, nts. n for r or ort; tual ort

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning D-3 Secondly, airport planning is often led by fire and rescue personnel and therefore tends to focus on the immediate response – putting out the fire and rescuing survivors. This was born out by the large numbers of workshop participants that came from fire and rescue organizations. These professionals were the go-to people for knowledge on emergency response. This was particularly evident in the initial workshop held at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) where sixty percent of the attendees came from the firefighting community. For follow-on workshops, the research team worked to attract additional stakeholders but the audiences were still heavily weighted to firefighting and rescue. The research team felt that it tended to focus planning efforts on the first twelve to twenty-four hours after an aircraft accident. Finally, airports tend to defer to the organizations they know will arrive in short order to assist with the response, namely the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and airline family assistance teams. Airports, like any organization, tend to plan for a worst-case scenario. In the case of aircraft accidents, the worst- case is an air carrier crash with multiple fatalities. Airports know that should such a disaster occur, the professionals from these organizations will arrive and lead the investigation and the remainder of the events. This may tend to keep the airport focused inward knowing there are other organizations with specialized knowledge and experience who will arrive to assist and guide the recovery efforts. Radius of Engagement When developing the original project research plan, determining a recommended distance away from an airport within which airports might concentrate engagement efforts appeared to be vital. The research team refers to this distance as the Radius of Engagement. The research team postulated that a single number or perhaps different numbers for congested areas and more rural areas would be readily revealed by analyzing the locations of aircraft accidents compared with the locations of airports. The analysis did reveal some interesting results, but it also raised additional questions the project may be able to answer. Analyzing the Data The research team was able to acquire geographic location data for airports in the United States from the FAA, and geographic location data for aircraft accidents from the NTSB. The location data for an airport is relatively straightforward. Although information is available for various airport landmarks (such as the ends of each runway), the latitude and longitude for the center point of each airport was the point used for the analysis. The location data for aircraft accidents is more problematic. The research team acquired the location data for accidents occurring in a ten year period between 2005 and 2014 for airplanes, and then filtered the data for those airplanes operating under 14CFR Part 91, Part 135, and Part 137. The location of a downed aircraft examined by the NTSB is very accurate since it is taken by experienced aircraft accident investigators. The location data for a large number of

accidents accurate investiga knowledg there we expected training s team tha in the sa having d location o The shee conclusio certificate map of th some so levels of , primarily t and in some ted by local e of the nee re nearly 13 to travel to ession on fa t law enforce me way they iffering requ f a downed r number of ns. In orde d under CF e United St rt. (See Fig capabilities Figu ACRP 10-2 hose involvi cases not or state law ds of the av ,000 aircraft each accide mily assista ment perso would an a irements for aircraft acc airports in t r to make be R Part 139 ates give a ures 2 and 3 may better d re 2: Plotte 2 Improving St ng small, ge available. T enforcemen iation comm accidents i nt site. In s nce after ai nnel are ins utomobile a such an ev urately. he United S tter sense o and those th sense of how .) The rese efine projec d Location akeholder Eng D-4 neral aviatio his is becau t officers w unity. The n the ten yea peaking with rcraft accide tructed to tr ccident. Va ent and, the tates makes f the data, at are not c much of th arch team f t goals and s of Part 13 agement in Ai n aircraft, is se a large p ith varying d NTSB is re r period ex a senior N nts in Norfo eat an aircr rious law en refore, may it challeng airports wer ertificated. T e country is elt that look results. 9 Certificat rcraft Accident in many ca ercentage egrees of e source limite amined, cou TSB investig lk, VA, he to aft accident forcement o or may not ing to come e divided int he location serviced b ing at airpor ed Airports Response Pla ses much l of accidents xperience a d and, give ld never be ator who le ld the rese they respon rganization record the to definitive o those s plotted on y an airport ts with differ nning ess are nd n d a arch d to s a of ent

Assess In order t stakehold Esri. The different project, b level of e experts g achieve t knowing The NTS not work complexi analytica a series o project to Results The initia Figu ing the Dis o try to dete er engagem software h ways. The ut was chal xperience is iven the con he desired r that they us B stated tha with the sof ty of the pro l questions f f accidents the first qu of the Ana l questions ACRP 10-2 re 3: Plotte tance of A rmine a rec ent, the res as the capa research tea lenged in fu greatly ben straints of t esults or lev e the ArcGIS t assisting t tware very o gram. Durin rom the res in recent m estions aske lysis asked for th 2 Improving St d Locations ccidents f ommended earch team bility to plot m utilized tr lly using the eficial. Som he trial subs el of analys software i he project te ften and un g Phase 1, earch team. onths, the N d. e initial ana akeholder Eng D-5 of Non-Cer rom Airpo distance aw used the A and analyze ial versions software as e assistanc cription, bu is. The rese n certain asp am would b derstand the the NTSB w The results TSB had to lysis were th agement in Ai tificated Pu rts ay from an rcGIS Platfo location inf of the softw its function e was mad t the researc arch team ects of thei e beneficia need to m as able to r raised add limit their in ese: rcraft Accident blic Airports airport for po rm software ormation in are in Phas s are not int e available b h team was then contac r data analy l to their ana aintain profi espond to a itional ques itial involve Response Pla tential developed a number o e 1 of the uitive and s y Esri tech not able to ted the NTS sis function lysts as the ciency given n initial set tions but du ment in the nning by f ome nical B s. y do the of e to

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning D-6  What percentage of aircraft accidents occurred within the following distances from an airport: o Inside 10 miles? o Inside 15 miles? o Inside 25 miles? o Outside of 25 miles?  Using the same distance subdivisions, what were the percentages from Part 139 certificated airports, and from non-certificated airports? The results of the analysis are presented in Figure 4. Part139 NonCert All Miles Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent <= 10.0 2,970 23.2 10,899 85.2 11,566 90.5 <= 15.0 4,308 33.7 11,824 92.5 12,147 95.0 <= 25.0 7,004 54.8 12,474 97.6 12,551 98.2 > 25.0 5,782 45.2 312 2.4 235 1.8 All Accidents 12,786 100.0 12786 100.0 12786 100.0 Figure 4: Aircraft Accident Occurrence Distances from Airports 2005 - 2014 Based on this analysis, it might be concluded that certificated airports may have reason to engage with stakeholders as far as 25 miles from the airport knowing that over half of the accidents occurred within that range; while non-certificated airports could focus inside 10 miles as this distance captures 85 percent of accidents. Another was to view the data, perhaps in a more holistic way, is that over 90 percent of accidents occur within 10 miles of some kind of airport; thus if the airport industry worked in a coordinated fashion, the nation would be well prepared to respond to aircraft crashes. This initial analysis led the research team to ask additional questions. Determining answers to the following could better refine the results and help achieve project objectives:  Do the distances and percentages change if the data subdivided by the FAR Part under which the aircraft is operating (Part 121 and 135 versus 91)?

 D of  S Analysis location o however Trainin In answe stakehold distribute training t training t them for knowledg o the results runways? hould the fo to answer th f aircraft ac this initial a g Offere ring the que ers?” the re d during the hey had rec hey had com aircraft acci e where ad ACRP 10-2 change if t cus be on e ese and oth cident datas nalysis did n Figure 5: d and Ac stion “What search team workshops eived on em pleted; and dent respon ditional guid 2 Improving St he distance ngaging sta er question et and delin ot include th Plotted Loc cident R training is c relied upo . In the surv ergency res training op se. The ans ance and re akeholder Eng D-7 is taken fro keholders b s is possible eate which e subdivisio ations of A esponse urrently offe n the respon eys, the pa ponse in su portunities o wers were sources are agement in Ai m the appro ased on a c . The NTS flight operat n. (See Fig ircraft Acc Informat red by airpo ses of work rticipants w pport of the ffered by th varied and h needed. rcraft Accident ach and/or d ertain numb B was able ed under w ure 5.) idents ion Need rts to accid shop attend ere asked a ir specific jo e airport tha ighlighted a Response Pla eparture en er of fatalitie to plot the hich certifica ed ent respons ees to surv bout the typ bs; the onlin t would pre reas of nning ds s? te; e eys es of e pare

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning D-8 Annual Exercises The most common method of training offered by the airports participating in the workshops was through annual exercises. Through both tabletop exercises and triannual full scale exercises, the participants reviewed the airport AEP and were briefed on the key aspects of the plan that relate to aircraft accidents. The exercises provide the most common mechanism and venue to interact with mutual aid partners and other stakeholders. They allow exercise participants to discuss or put into practice Tools and techniques critical to successful response; communication modes and methods being chief among these. Of particular note was a joint, full scale exercise in Virginia Beach simulating and aircraft accident held just weeks before an F/A-18 Hornet from Naval Air Station Oceana crashed into an apartment complex just after takeoff in 2012. Participants in the workshop at Norfolk International Airport indicated that that training exercise helped considerably in preparing the responders. NTSB Workshops Some workshop participants in Dallas and in Norfolk had attended workshops offered by the NTSB on various aspects of accident response. NTSB investigators can be scheduled to travel to airports and present portions of a multi-day training course offered at the NTSB Training Center on Managing Transportation Mass Fatality Incidents, and on Family Assistance. A one- day seminar on Family Assistance was conducted at Norfolk International Airport a month prior to the project workshop. A member of the research team attended the seminar along with a variety of stakeholders included in the Norfolk AEP. FEMA Training Courses A number of workshop participants indicated that they had taken courses offered online by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The most common training courses were associated with the National Incident Management System (NIMS). FEMA training was not specifically offered by the individual airports, but some workshop participants indicated that the online training was required for their particular emergency response positions. The research team did not conduct extensive research during Phase 1 into the FEMA courses available that relate directly to aircraft accident response. This is an area where additional knowledge and guidance could benefit both this project and the airport community. Firefighting and Rescue Training All airport and community fire departments attending the workshops conduct regular firefighting training. Attendees indicated that the training is conducted both in-house and in conjunction

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning D-9 with other fire departments from adjoining communities. The training opportunities allow airport personnel to interact with mutual aid partners, and to introduce fire departments from other cities to aviation specific challenges and equipment. DFW offers aircraft specific firefighting training to domestic and international fire departments through their Fire Training Research Center. The airport personnel attending the DFW workshop indicated they frequently take advantage of the Center given their proximity to Dallas. Additional Project Information Needed One of the key objectives of the project is to “develop educational materials, e.g., video, interactive software, etc., that airports can use to engage accident response stakeholders and help each stakeholder understand the impact of its responsibilities within the larger context of a response to an aircraft accident.” Given that an aircraft accident is one of nine different types of emergency situations highlighted in the AEP Advisory Circular, and given that the AC focuses on airport response to situations directly impacting the airport, the guidance in the AC alone is not sufficient to fully prepare stakeholders. The workshops revealed that airport personnel and response stakeholders rely on resources available through federal, state, and local emergency management and response organizations. Also revealed was the fact that extensive preparation for the stakeholder responsibilities once the fire is out and survivors are receiving care. Additionally, given that while most aircraft accidents happen relatively close to an airport, a large percentage do not occur on airport property. This means that the emergency responders of the communities near the airports, as was the case with the Colgan Air crash outside of Buffalo in 2009, will take the lead role in the command and management of the accident response. The training and processes in incident management should be studied further. The specific training resources available through FEMA and other response organizations; processes developed by government organizations with potentially model programs (like the state of New York); and non-government organizations with significant capabilities and resources (like the Red Cross) all warrant detailed looks during the remaining phases of the project. Research Plan for the Remaining Project Tasks The bulk of the remaining research during the project will take place in Phase 2. The research will focus on the accomplishment of two objectives: 1. Fill the research gaps discovered in Phase 1 to help guide the project toward the development of a useful educational Tool for the airport community and its stakeholders. 2. Determine the best method to integrate developed and available training and guidance into a single, usable product for the airport community.

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning D-10 The research team plans to incorporate three additional workshops in locations different from the Phase 1 workshops to both add to the knowledge base on the gaps and test research team ideas for project deliverables with airport practitioners in the field. Researching Phase 1 Gaps The gaps in the Phase 1 research fall into three categories:  Additional analysis on the location of aircraft accidents in relation to the geographic position of airports will benefit the project  A deeper and more detailed understanding of the resources that relate directly to aircraft accident response is needed in the airport industry  Researching the methods of capturing, archiving and communicating the lessons learned by airports and airport stakeholders having experienced aircraft accidents Continue Researching the Radius of Engagement As described previously, the research in Phase 1 revealed intriguing results when exploring the question of how far from an airport proactive stakeholder engagement activities should occur. Given the limitations realized during Phase 1, the research team believes that continuing the effort using the ArcGIS software could refine the results and provide the project with more usable results for the airport community. The research team would like to answer the following questions:  Should airports engage with stakeholders within a circular area around the airport, or should efforts concentrate on communities within more limited arcs along the approach and departure corridors for the runways?  Given the large percentage of accidents involving small, general aviation aircraft, will parsing the data by the type of flight show that a different radius for airports certificated under Part 139 versus non-certificated airports for stakeholder engagement? The research team will contact both the NTSB and the FAA Office of Airports to request additional support for this research. Both of the organizations use the ArcGIS software. With the data already in hand and the initial analysis providing a roadmap, the research team plans to request visits to the NTSB or the FAA in order to sit with the analysts to conduct interactive analysis of the data. Understanding Available Resources During the Phase 1 workshops, it was apparent that airports and response stakeholders had a limited knowledge of the resources available to enhance the planning for aircraft accidents.

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning D-11 Even in the communities in the Buffalo area that responded to the Colgan Air crash six years ago had a limited knowledge of the capabilities of the Red Cross; and the goals and components of the New York State Emergency Management Certification and Training Program. Additional project research is planned in the following areas:  Government Resources: State government programs and practices to include emergency management and law enforcement; federal resources available through FEMA to include a scrub of NIMS and its associated training  Non-Government Resources: Red Cross; healthcare; national and local charities; transportation organizations; volunteer fire departments  Local Government Resources: Village and township capabilities A cursory awareness and understanding of these resources was gained in Phase 1. A more detailed understanding of these resources, in particular the cataloging of the key resources that can be integrated into the education and guidance materials to be developed will be key to the success of this project phase. Lessons Learned from Airports and Communities Experiencing Aircraft Accidents During the workshop in Buffalo, it was very clear that those in attendance had numerous lessons learned from the Colgan Air accident. Of particular interest to this project was the fact that the lessons were learned mainly by the stakeholders in the communities close to Buffalo Niagara International Airport rather than by the airport itself. The incident commander for the response, David Bissonette from the Town of Clarence, NY, has given numerous briefings on the response lessons and has prepared a comprehensive briefing on the local response. The Flight Safety Foundation website has a page that summarizes lessons from the Colgan mishap as well. The next phase of research will include contacting additional communities, similar to Clarence, NY, that have experienced aircraft accidents and conducting interviews to capture additional lessons learned of value to the airport community. The team will use the accident data base provided by the NTSB to choose the communities. From the list, the research team will select cities in which to hold the Phase 2 workshops. Some potential sites include Milwaukee, Miami, Pittsburgh, and Gaithersburg, MD (site of a recent crash of a small plane on approach to the Montgomery County Airpark). There are two key objectives the research team hopes to achieve using this approach: 1. Determine if there are marked differences between managing an aircraft accident versus other emergency situations for stakeholders. The Phase 1 workshops revealed that

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning D-12 airports and communities exercise their emergency plans more times for other types of emergencies than they do for aircraft crashes. Further focused discussions with those having experience with aircraft accidents will help determine if the final project deliverables can focus on the differences or addendums to emergency planning for stakeholders rather than guidance and education materials geared specifically to aircraft accidents. 2. Determine if a checklist or a standardized response plan might be developed that can be used as a real-time guide when stakeholders are called upon to respond to an aircraft accident. While the development of such a checklist-formatted response plan is beyond the scope of this project, the additional research in this phase on emergency response resources coupled with the experience with accidents in communities around the country will help discover of such a response plan format is realistic. A precedent for such a format can be found in Naval Aviation where the F/A-18 community consolidated the best approaches from varied individual mishap response plans into a community-wide model plan that could easily be tailored to the needs of an individual organization. The end result of the interview and workshop process in this phase will be the fusion of the acquired information to be used in the development of the guidance and educational materials Integrating Developed and Available Guidance and Training The key project deliverables for the airport community are the educational materials airports can use to engage response stakeholders. The research in Phase 1 showed that the final product may end up being an electronic guide to the various resources available, augmented with the knowledge gained during the research activities on Phases 1 and 2. The additional research in Phase 2 may show that the target user for the deliverable may end up being the emergency management organizations of state and local governments with airports serving as the champions and guides for the use of the Tools. During this phase, the educational development member of the research team, Life Cycle Engineering (LCE), will be called upon to evaluate the accumulated research information, and determine the optimum method to integrate and present response material to those with little or no knowledge or experience with aircraft accidents. The developed Tools will be piloted in the field during Phase 3 of the project. Conclusion The research accomplished during Phase 1 of the project, in particular the workshops held in Dallas, Norfolk and Buffalo, confirmed the need for the final products planned from this project. Even in a community with the recent tragic experience of a mass fatality aircraft accident such as Buffalo, those called upon to respond to the emergency have not fully followed-up on the lessons they learned, and the communities around the airport are not fully integrated into the

ACRP 10-22 Improving Stakeholder Engagement in Aircraft Accident Response Planning D-13 airport emergency plan. By continuing the research using the plan proposed here, and developing guidance Tools that can better integrate the knowledge, skills and experiences of the airport and emergency management communities, the research team will assist the airport industry in preparing their stakeholders to save lives and better protect their communities.