Establishing a Coordinated Local Family Assistance Program for Airports (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.

133 A p p e n d i x 6 Scope of Project Research To support this project, the principal investigator and the project team discussed the best ways to conduct the interviews with the airports, air carriers, families, friends, and survivors. The team decided interviews with the airports and air carriers could be conducted via telephone or in person, but the interviews with the families, friends, and survivors should be conducted online to allow for increased privacy. The project team developed interview tools that could be used for airports and air carriers. The airport interview tool focused on the airport’s planning for emergencies and family assis- tance support, the airport’s support of an FRC and PGA, airport logistical support of family assistance services, and the transition to an FAC. The air carrier tool focused on the transition from an FRC to an FAC, best practices, and lessons learned for communicating with families and the media, coordination with outside agencies such as NGOs, and logistical needs for sup- porting an FRC and an FAC. Study Methodology The project team worked to determine the best strategies to reach out to airports, air carriers, families, friends, and survivors. The sections that follow discuss how the project team selected the airports and air carriers and how it reached out to the affected survivors and families. Selection of Airports The project team sought to interview representatives from a mix of commercial and general aviation airports of varying sizes and in different geographic locations across the United States. Airports were also selected based on the following criteria: • Previous crash response experience, • Known industry leaders/developers of best practices, • Recommendations from the ACRP Project 06-03 Panel and NTSB, and • Volunteers recruited at the 2015 American Association of Airport Executives International Airport Emergency Preparedness Conference. Once the list of airports was finalized, project team members volunteered to conduct the interviews largely based on proximity to the airports and previous experience with the airports. The project team conducted interviews from September 11, 2015, through October 28, 2015. In all, representatives from 26 airports were interviewed. Research Results

134 establishing a Coordinated Local Family Assistance program for Airports Selection of Air Carriers The project team included persons who had previously worked for or who currently work for air carriers operating in the United States and abroad. To facilitate the air carrier interviews, these project team members reached out to personal contacts who had experience with family assis- tance services, crash response, or administrative oversight. The project team sought out air carrier employees who could provide the greatest insight regarding how airports and air carriers can coop- erate in the immediate aftermath of an air carrier crash. Interviews began on October 29, 2015. Literature Review The following documents were reviewed as a part of the research supporting this project. • Airport Council International, Emergency Preparedness and Contingency Planning Handbook, First Edition, 2014; • 49 USC § 41113: Plans to Address Needs of Families of Passengers Involved in Aircraft Accidents; • 49 USC § 41313: Plans to Address Needs of Families of Passengers Involved in Foreign Air Car- rier Accidents; • 49 USC § 1136: Assistance to Families of Passengers Involved in Aircraft Accidents; • Salt Lake City International Airport Family and Friends Assistance Support Plan; • ACRP Synthesis of Airport Practice 60: Airport Emergency Post-Event Recovery Practices; • FAA AC 150/5200-31C, FAA AEP; • NTSB Federal Family Assistance Plan for Aviation Disasters; and • ACRP Report 22: Helping Airport and Air Carrier Employees Cope with Traumatic Events. Airport Interviews The following airports participated in the interview process for the project. Airport Interview Mode Date of Interview Arlington Municipal (KGKY) Phone October 2, 2015 Blue Grass (LEX) In person September 28, 2015 Boeing Field King County International (BFI) Phone October 22, 2015 Buffalo Niagara International (BUF) Phone October 9, 2015 Dallas/Fort Worth International (DFW) In person September 16, 2015 Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW) Phone October 7, 2015 Dulles International (IAD) Phone September 25, 2015 Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International (FLL) Phone September 21, 2015 Greensburg Municipal (K143) In person October 12, 2015 Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International (ATL) Phone September 29, 2015 Houston Hobby International (HOU) Phone October 7, 2015 Ketchikan International (KTN) Phone October 9, 2015 Los Angeles International (LAX) Phone October 15, 2015 Louisville International–Standiford Field (SDF)/ Phone September 23, 2015 Bowman Field (LOU) Minneapolis–St. Paul International (MSP) Phone October 28, 2015 Owatonna Degner Regional (OWA) Phone March 4, 2016 Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) Phone October 19, 2015 Port Columbus International (CMH) Phone September 9, 2015 San Antonio International (SAT) Phone September 21, 2015 San Francisco International (SFO) Phone October 15, 2015

Research Results 135 Airport Interview Mode Date of Interview Savannah/Hilton Head International (SAV) Phone September 30, 2015 Seattle–Tacoma International (SEA) In person September 24, 2015 Southwest Florida International (RSW) Phone September 22, 2015 Tampa International (TPA) In person September 28, 2015 Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC) Phone September 21, 2015 Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National (ICT) Phone September 11, 2015 Air Carrier Interviews The following air carriers participated in the interview process for the project. Air Carrier Interview Mode Cathay Pacific Airlines In person ConocoPhillips Shared Services Aviation Phone Hawaiian Airlines Phone JetBlue Airline Phone Republic Airlines Phone Southwest Airlines Phone Spirit Airlines Phone Virgin American Airlines Phone Airport and Air Carrier Findings The project team reviewed the information collected in the interviews and separated find- ings into three categories: best practices, lessons learned, and noted concerns. The findings are discussed in the following. Best Practices • Develop a family assistance team of noncritical airport personnel, air carrier personnel, and others who can support families as they arrive at the airport. (Four airports discussed this point.) • One airport stated that all of the airport’s operations personnel have been through ICS training. • Two airports have standing contracts in place with their airport Marriott to hold the hotel as an FAC if so requested by the affected air carrier. Both have the ability to provide bus trans- portation from the FRC to the FAC.11 • One airport does an annual set up of its FRC and PGA and invites carriers to visit the rooms so that they are aware of the locations should an aviation disaster occur. • One airport has developed informational flyers for families and friends in the FRC along with registration forms if none are available through the affected carrier. • One airport has also identified a location for “spontaneous community memorials” (flowers, candles, and other remembrances) in the event of a fatal accident; the location will not inter- fere with airport operations, is protected from the elements, and a guestbook will be provided by the airport. • One airport also noted that area PIOs, including fire, police, and health departments and the airport, meet quarterly to develop relationships that could be called upon to create a joint information system should an aviation disaster occur. • One airport has a reserved Twitter account that can be used to serve as the voice of the airport after an aviation disaster. Another airport has a website that is dark but can be turned on to provide press releases immediately after an aviation disaster.

136 establishing a Coordinated Local Family Assistance program for Airports • One airport developed an oral agreement with air carriers where each unaffected air carrier will send one employee to assist with the FRC and response until the go-team/SAT can arrive from the affected air carrier. • One airport noted that a finance representative is located in the EOC for all incidents and begins to track costs once the EOC is operational. The representatives track all financial costs and then directly bill the affected air carrier once the incident is closed. • Two airports noted they have multiple FRC locations available based on proximity to carriers and to the site. The desire is to keep the FRC easily accessible to the carrier while also shielding families and friends from seeing the actual site. • One airport told of an EOC bridge call center it has that affected carriers can call in if they are unable to have personnel travel to the airport or if they are overwhelmed and do not have additional personnel that could operate in the EOC. • One GA airport has developed laminated emergency response documents for responders. These include maps of the airport and documents showing the responsibility of each respond- ing entity and various scenarios that they may encounter. They are kept in all response vehi- cles for easy access. • One airport has identified reunification rooms and can provide ramp transfers for families and uninjured survivors to the reunification locations as well as to the airport hotel designated as the potential FAC. • Multiple airports use a language line to provide translation services via telephone or delayed video messaging. • Several airports have a protocol for moving vehicles left by family members on the airport drive. Cars are relocated to a designated lot where they can later be reclaimed by families at no charge. Additionally, several airports bring parking validation machines into the FRC to ensure that families will not have to pay for parking when exiting the airport. • An airport manager at one of the interviewed airports has developed a relationship with a national canine response agency for sending comfort/therapy dogs to the FRC. • One airport embeds an airport representative at the FAC, pending approval by the affected air carrier, in order to coordinate ongoing airport-related issues such as ramp transfers. • Two airports assist families in locating loved ones’ cars left in the airport parking garage. One airport has an airport representative drive family members through the garage to locate and reclaim vehicles. Another airport obtains a list of those on the flight and compares it against the cars that are in the parking lot and unclaimed, using a law enforcement database to match registrations and names, then assisting families in reclaiming. Lessons Learned • Buffalo Niagara International Airport reported that it had to take on all responsibilities in the immediate aftermath of the Continental Connection Flight 3407 crash because it took 3 hours for the air carrier to have a representative available at the airport and the go-team did not arrive until the next morning. • Buffalo Niagara International Airport reported that, at the time of the Continental Connec- tion Flight 3407 crash, only five airport personnel had any previous training for working and communicating with family members after an aviation disaster. This proved to be an issue because the crash was after-hours and personnel had to be called into the airport. The employees who initially encountered family members had no training or idea of what their responsibilities were. • Buffalo Niagara International Airport stated that airports should have multi-faith clergy avail- able to assist with the FRC. The airport clergy at the time of the Continental Connection Flight 3407 crash was a Catholic priest and was not able to address the concerns of members of non-Christian faiths presented at the FRC.

Research Results 137 • One airport noted that first responders struggled with only being able to rescue one person from Comair Flight 5191. Their training is focused around the preservation of life and property and being unable to save multiple people proved stressful. Since the event, they have incorpo- rated scenarios into exercises that address loss of multiple lives to help first responders prepare. • One airport stated that it developed talking points after the Comair Flight 5191 crash to assist customer care representatives who were addressing the increased level of calls to the airport for information. • One airport representative expressed concerns about the location of the granite memorial for Northwest Airlines Flight 255. The interviewee stated that the memorial is near the airport in a busy intersection, and this poses concerns about the safety of visitors. The interviewee stated that the airport should take a more proactive approach to working with families on memori- als so they can be near the site if desired but also in a place that is safe for those who visit the location. • One airport noted that the media are a concern. It had a reporter pose as a priest at the FRC in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks; the airport chaplain vetted the individual and identified the person as a member of the media. • A former management employee of an airport described providing assistance to the spouse and child of a missing GA pilot for approximately 3 days. Because there was no air carrier or operator, the family members came directly to the airport office for information and assis- tance. The individual being interviewed took on the responsibility of notification of involve- ment, briefings, and other assistance. In a separate incident involving an on-airport fatal GA aviation disaster, this individual made arrangements for a site visit and for the family’s access to the site at the 1-year anniversary. Noted Concerns Many airports do not have a family assistance program. Some of the interviewees noted that a portion of their emergency response plans addresses family assistance services, but the majority of the interviewees noted that family assistance is the responsibility of the air carriers, and they do not have a plan to address actions they may need to take. Some airports noted that they were unsure how to call back employees to assist with an FRC if the event occurred after regular business hours at the destination airport. Few airports noted having plans for dealing with household pets or service animals that may be accompanying passengers on a flight, particularly those animals that may have been injured. None of the interviewees mentioned how they would handle household pets or service animals brought to the FRC or FAC. A majority of the airport representatives interviewed noted that they were unsure if it was the airport’s responsibility to vet the persons entering the FRC or if this was the affected air carrier’s responsibility. There was also conflicting information regarding what identification should be requested of persons coming to the FRC and what credentials they should be provided once vetted to enter the facility. Airport interviewees noted concerns over what information the airport should be prepared to provide to the families, friends, survivors, and media and what information the air carrier should provide. All of the airports noted hesitation on providing any information to families and friends and felt that this should be the full responsibility of air carrier personnel or the NTSB. A few noted that local authorities (e.g., law enforcement or medical examiner personnel) could provide information if neither the air carrier nor the NTSB had personnel on-site. A representa- tive from Los Angeles International Airport stated that it would be difficult to find a hotel with the capability to hold an FAC because most area hotels are at full capacity on a daily basis.

138 establishing a Coordinated Local Family Assistance program for Airports All of the airports, particularly those having recently experienced aviation disasters, noted a concern over keeping family members separate from the media during their arrival at the FRC. Many airports noted that media representatives have attempted to get access to the FRC by pre- senting themselves as family members, while others have represented themselves as members of the clergy. One airport stated that if the FRC is in the secure area of the airport, members of the media could still purchase an air carrier ticket and obtain access to areas past the TSA security checkpoint, allowing them access to family members entering the FRC despite the airport’s best efforts to keep family members protected. There was no consensus provided by the interviewees regarding whether it is a better practice to have the FRC outside (landside) or inside (airside) the TSA security checkpoint; however, if the FRC is airside, coordination with TSA is required, especially for friends and family members who may have come to the airport without photo identification. Additionally, names of friends and family need to be compared against security watch lists and no-fly lists. Concerns regarding social media were raised by the airport representatives interviewed. First, families may receive information via social media that the airport may not have been able to vet; additionally, airports noted that they were unsure whether they should use their social media accounts to announce the location of the FRC or if this should be handled by the affected air carrier. Airports did not have consistent practices regarding flight information display screen mes- saging or FRC signage. Some undertake these as airport responsibilities, while others consider these air carrier tasks, and capability to change screens can rest with either airports or air carriers. Two airports noted that the airport plan may be used for non-aviation disasters. If an aviation disaster occurs at the airport facility (e.g., bombing, active shooter, natural disaster), any injured persons or fatalities are the responsibility of the airport rather than the air carrier. The air carriers do not see themselves as responsible for the passengers until after they are on the aircraft and away from the airport terminal. Interviewees noted that airports should have plans for how they will provide all family assistance services if an air carrier is not directly affected. Most airports reported that contract ground handlers (such as Menzies or Swissport) and FBOs have not been actively engaged in emergency planning efforts at the airports, yet in many instances they could play a pivotal role in responding to families in the initial hours after an aviation disaster. Survey of Survivors, Family Members, and Friends Affected by an Aviation Disaster Background The project team recognized that conducting a qualitative online survey with families, friends, and survivors of aviation disasters would be essential to understanding the effectiveness of a fam- ily assistance program. Drawing upon past aviation disaster outcomes as well as the experiences of families and survivors can improve procedures for the future. The team understood that the survey would need to be approached in a respectful, compas- sionate, and confidential manner. Ultimately, the team knew that circumstances surrounding grief and mourning, traumatic stress (which can affect memory recall and memory loss), the psychological and emotional status surrounding an aviation disaster anniversary, and open liti- gation could all influence an individual’s desire and ability to participate. The project team also acknowledged the complexity of reaching its target audience. Knowing that the United States does not maintain a central repository of aviation disaster victims and their families, the team relied on personal and professional contacts to reach the widest audience. The

Research Results 139 team sent over 300 emails; developed a press release on the project; posted to the Connections blog site; posted on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn; and made phone calls to family members, the NTSB, law offices, and the Associated Press. An article was also included in the Curt Lewis and Associates e-newsletter, which reaches approximately 38,000 individuals with an interest in and connections to aviation. Emails were sent to at least one family member, friend, survivor, or law office representative with a connection to a U.S. commercial or general aviation disaster or aviation disaster family assistance entity. As interest in this project grew, an international aviation disaster family asso- ciation volunteered to participate, and its responses are included since humanitarian and family assistance responses and needs are universal. United States–Based Survey The survey was available from August 13, 2015, until February 8, 2016. A consent form overview was included in the outreach email with the consent to participate included in the online survey. Forty-six individuals started the survey, 18 of whom completed it in its entirety. Both open-ended questions and multiple choice questions were used to gather the data. Individuals completing the survey were not compensated for their participation. The participants shared their experiences in the hope that they would make a positive difference in how airports treat aviation crash survivors, family members, and others in the future. Respondents included survivors of a commercial avia- tion crash and parents, grandchildren, sisters, children, wives, a brother-in-law, a fiancé, and friends of victims of aviation disasters. The project team reviewed the information from the surveys and grouped findings into three categories: best practices, noted concerns, and recommendations to airports and air carriers. The findings are discussed in the following sections. Best Practices • In one case, family members who needed to fly to the destination airport received assistance from the airlines on which they traveled. The airlines notified the flight crews of where the families would be seated on the plane and made sure they were met by an airline employee when getting off of flights and were escorted to the FRC on arrival. • Family members noted that upon entering the FRC, they were provided faith support and counselors. Many others mentioned the helpfulness and support provided by the ARC vol- unteers at the FRC and FAC. • ARC representatives at the PGA worked quickly to provide warm clothing and beverages to help make the experience less stressful for survivors. • One airline sent personnel to the hospitals to assist survivors. The airline representatives coor- dinated survivor outreach to family members to let them know the survivors were safe. • One airline worked to get survivors on a later flight home and even worked with the TSA to assist them through security because their identification had been destroyed in the crash. • One airline worked with survivors to fly in family members to help take the survivors home because they did not want to fly to their final destinations. Noted Concerns • The overwhelming concern noted by all family members responding to the survey was the lack of information provided by both the airport and airlines in the initial hours after the incidents. • Family members that received 1-800 numbers to call for information noted that the lines were busy due to the high volume of phone calls, which compounded their stress. • Family members voiced concern about the long wait time for someone from the airline to arrive at the FRC.

140 establishing a Coordinated Local Family Assistance program for Airports • Family members noted that, during one of the incidents, the airport employees they encoun- tered acted secretive, unemotional, and as though “they did not want to assist or were hiding information.” • Family members expressed concerns about the media having information relating to the crash before families did. One respondent noted that the media reported that everyone on the plane had perished, but neither the airline nor airport had reported this to family members in the FRC. • One of the survivors noted that many of the passengers on their plane did not speak English and had difficulties communicating with first responders arriving at the site. The chaos of the situation compounded the language barrier and further complicated the survivors’ situation. • One survivor noted that it took 4 to 5 hours for airline personnel to arrive at the hospital, and the person that arrived was rather inexperienced, acted uncomfortable when seeing the survivor’s injuries, and was not sure what support was allowed to be provided. • One of the survivors noted that the destination airport of the flight was a small general avia- tion airport that did not have the capacity to hold all of the family members who went seeking information. In addition, the airport only had one employee working at the time, and that employee was not trained on what to do in such situations. Recommendations to Airports and Airlines • Family members asked that airports and air carriers understand that families are under an extreme amount of stress and to avoid any unintentional actions or interactions that could be interpreted by family members as disrespectful (e.g., whispering, extended looks, acting stand-offish). • Family members asked that airports make all possible efforts to protect families from the media when they arrive at the airport. • Family members recommended that airports anticipate the number of people that may come to the airport seeking information and ensure that they have adequate space available. • Family members recommended that if the airport personnel in the FRC are unable to provide information on the incident, they brief families on potential next steps and what support they can expect to receive from the airline go-team/special assistance team when it arrives. • Survivors recommended that airlines provide information as quickly as possible to the sur- vivors and their families. One recommended that airlines “over-communicate” if possible. • Airlines should track survivors when they are taken to the hospitals and make all attempts to have a representative with them as soon as possible because survivors may have many ques- tions and concerns. Overall Analysis from the United States–Based Survivor, Friends, and Family Survey Responses • Respondents stated that they heard about the crash from somewhere other than an official source. • Respondents stated overwhelmingly that their first action following the unofficial notification of the accident was to reach out and contact others who needed to be informed. The second most common actions involved logistics, calling the toll-free number, and planning travel. • Nearly two-thirds of the affected families or friends transited through an airport after learning about the crash. • Friends and family stated that they felt alone and under suspicion. Smaller airports were empty because of the time of night. • Representatives from airports/air carriers met the families at the airport and led them to a friends and relative center in most cases. Smaller airports were quiet. While families were trav- eling to the site, not all staff in all connecting airports were as compassionate as the employees at the crash site airport.

Research Results 141 • Most responders went to an airline clubroom when they arrived at the airport; the second most common destination was the airline ticket counter. • There was no signage at the airport to guide families. • Over 80% of the responders said someone met them at the airport. • Over half of the responders stated that the airport opened a friends and relatives center. Some of the comments about the center were that less than half were offered food and bev- erages, only 3% registered their contact information when they entered or exited the room, and none of the survey participants were badged. • Airport personnel provided the informational briefings to the families and friends just as often as the airline did. The NTSB took over giving briefings once it arrived. • 50% of the families learned about the FAC from the airport responders. • In all of the responses where the issue was mentioned, the media was kept away from all of the family gathering areas. • According to the survey, the most immediate need for families and survivors was information. Briefings are a top priority, seconded by a comfortable, private area to gather. Plans should address the size of the rooms that will be needed for family and survivor assistance. Others stated the need for behavioral health counselors. • It was mentioned that no one explained the response process to the families and friends. • Responders commented on difficulty traveling to the site because there was no information sharing from airport to airport. • Of the five survivors who participated, three were not able to walk away from the accident. Most survivors were taken to the hospital. • Survivors indicated that: – A local responder must have authority to make local family assistance decisions, and – Experience and training are important when the event happens. Italy-Based Survey Responses Nineteen victims’ family members from Italy whose loved ones were killed in a commercial aviation crash completed the survey. The Italian families’ representative translated the project team’s survey from English to Italian for some of the participants. In turn, some of the responses were translated from Italian to English before the project team received them. The data from this survey were used to determine if the needs and wants of survivors, family members, and friends of those involved in an aircraft accident are universal. Some best practices may also be identified that may be of value in the United States. The people taking the survey included parents, siblings, children, wives, a brother-in-law, and a fiancé of crash victims. The airports referenced by the survey participants were: • Milano Linate Airport, • Milano Military Airport, • Tunis, and • Bergamo. Noted Concerns • All the survey responders stated that they heard of the accident from somewhere other than an official source. In this survey, it was most common to hear of the accident from family members, the media, friends, and coworkers. • Survey responders stated overwhelmingly that their first action following the unofficial noti- fication of the accident was to go to the airport or travel to the accident site. • 85% of the families and friends transited through an airport. • There was confusion at the airport.

142 establishing a Coordinated Local Family Assistance program for Airports • Representatives of airports/airlines met the families at the airport and led them to a friends and family reception area in most cases. • Most responders went to a family reception area room when they arrived at the airport; the second most common destination was the airport Information counter. • There was no signage at the airport to guide the families in any case. • 64% of the responders said someone met them at the airport. • 80% of the responders stated that the airport opened a friends and relatives center. Only 6% registered their contact information when they entered or exited the room. None of the survey participants were badged. • Airline personnel provided the informational briefings to the friends and families the most often, followed by the airport responders, then a doctor. • 62% mentioned that the media was kept away from friends and family. • According to the survey, the most immediate need for families and survivors was information. Briefings were a top priority, seconded by trained staff. Comparing the Results Between the United States–Based Survey and the Italy-Based Survey Differences Between the United States–Based and Italy-Based Survey Responses • In the United States, it is more likely that the airport personnel will give briefings than in Italy. • The media are more effectively kept away from survivors, families, and friends in the United States than they are in Italy. • The first action for the Italian families was to go to the airport; in the United States study, families continued to contact other family members. Similarities Between the United States–Based and Italy-Based Survey Responses • No one in either study was initially informed of the accident through official channels (the air carrier, police, etc.) They learned of the accident through the media, friends, and family. • The number one need for survivors, families, and friends following an airline accident is information. The lack of briefings and the appearance of hiding or withholding information are the top complaints voiced in each of the surveys. • The need for trained individuals who can explain the family assistance process, provide infor- mation, and offer support was expressed in the recommendation section of both surveys.