Practices in Airport Emergency Plans (2021)

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.

90 SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses A P P E N D I X C The researchers conducted an online survey that was sent to airports and FAA inspectors through FAA representatives. The 81 contacts represented 62 airports (26 large-hub, eight medium-hub, 13 small-hub, three nonhub primary, six nonhub general aviation, and six nonhub reliever). A total of 45 airports, or 72.58%, completed the survey. The survey length averaged approximately 30 minutes, with 39 required questions, 28 nonrequired additional questions for a total of 67 questions. Once the required section of the survey was complete, respondents were provided the option to answer further, in-depth questions or to complete the survey. Respondents completed the entire survey, including follow-on questions, in approximately 40 minutes. The survey/interview questions and responses are below. The information included is as provided by respondents with edits indicated for spelling or clarity of comment. No other changes to respondents’ data have been made. For this synthesis, the research team attempted to gather information from FAA inspectors. An FAA representative used an official memo and specific survey link to provide to FAA inspectors. The memo was provided to the FAA Union for the FAA inspectors and distributed accordingly. FAA inspectors were informed the survey was anonymous with 10 questions to answer. Unfortunately, during the 2 months the survey was open and available, no FAA inspectors participated. No FAA inspectors participated in the survey, and no data was collected from this group. The following questions were included on the FAA inspector survey: • Type of Organization? • Which Department/Division/Office are you representing? • What are the most common additional annexes seen from airports? (Please separate answersby commas) • What omissions have been seen that cause trouble? • What types of successful practices that have been identified for development, integration, stakeholder inclusion, and approval by the FAA have been seen at airports?

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 91 Table 6 lists the invited airports and their categories. Table 6. Survey-Invited Airports and Associated Category Listing. Airport Code Airport Category 21D Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission—Lake Elmo Airport NP-R - Nonprimary-Reliever Alaska Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT) and Public Facilities Southcoast Region All - Nonhub, Primary, and Hub/Nonprimary Airport ANE Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission-Anoka County–Blaine Airport NP-R - Nonprimary—Reliever APA Centennial Airport NP-GA - Nonprimary— General Aviation APF Naples Airport NP-GA - Nonprimary— General Aviation ASE Aspen/Pitkin County Airport NH-P - Nonhub Primary ATL Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport LH - Large Hub AUS Austin-Bergstrom International Airport MH - Medium Hub AVL Asheville Regional Airport SM - Small Hub BOI Boise Airport SM - Small Hub BUR Hollywood Burbank Airport MH - Medium Hub BVU Boulder City Municipal Airport NP-GA - Nonprimary— General Aviation BWI Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport LH - Large Hub CLE Cleveland Hopkins International Airport MH - Medium Hub CLT Charlotte Douglas International Airport LH - Large Hub CVG Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport LH - Large Hub DCA Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority— Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport LH - Large Hub DEN Denver International Airport LH - Large Hub DFW Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport LH - Large Hub • What are the key reasons you do not approve an AEP? Are there common discrepancies?Are there interpretive issues involved in evaluating an AEP? If so, what are these? • How can these pitfalls be avoided? • Is there anything else you'd like to add? • Please provide further information if you said "yes" to the previous question. • If you have any documents you'd like to share, please upload here. If the upload link does not work, please email to smurphy@tidalbasin.rphc.com or brand@tidalbasin.rphc.com. (continued on next page)

92 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans HNL Daniel K. Inouye International Airport LH - Large Hub IAD Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority— Washington Dulles International Airport LH - Large Hub IAH George Bush Intercontinental Airport LH - Large Hub IND Indianapolis International Airport MH - Medium Hub JAX Jacksonville Aviation Authority—Jacksonville International Airport MH - Medium Hub LAS McCarran International Airport LH - Large Hub LAX Los Angeles World Airports LH - Large Hub LVN Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission—Airlake Airport NP-R - Nonprimary—Reliever MCO Orlando International Airport LH - Large Hub MDW Chicago Midway International Airport LH - Large Hub MEM Memphis International Airport MH - Medium Hub MIC Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission—Crystal Airport NP-R - Nonprimary—Reliever MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport LH - Large Hub OAK Oakland International Airport LH - Large Hub ORD Chicago O'Hare International Airport LH - Large Hub PDX Portland International Airport SM - Small Hub PHL Philadelphia International Airport LH - Large Hub PHX Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport LH - Large Hub PIT Pittsburgh International Airport LH - Large Hub RDU Raleigh-Durham International Airport SM - Small Hub RNO Reno-Tahoe International Airport SM - Small Hub SAN San Diego International Airport LH - Large Hub DTW Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport LH - Large Hub DUT Dutch Harbor/Unalaska SM - Small Hub FAI Fairbanks International Airport SM - Small Hub FCM Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission—Flying Cloud Airport NP-R - Nonprimary—Reliever FLL Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport LH - Large Hub FWA Fort Wayne International Airport NH-P - Nonhub Primary GEG Spokane International Airport SM - Small Hub HEG Herlong Recreational Airport NP-GA - Nonprimary— General Aviation Airport Code Airport Category Table 6. (Continued).

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 93 VQQ Jacksonville Aviation Authority—Cecil Airport and Spaceport NP-GA - Nonprimary— General Aviation Other invited entities: Federal Aviation Administration SFO San Francisco International Airport LH - Large Hub SIT Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport NH-P - Nonhub Primary SNA John Wayne Airport–Orange County MH - Medium Hub STP Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission—St. Paul Downtown Airport NP-R - Nonprimary—Reliever TPA Hillsborough County Aviation Authority—Tampa International Airport LH - Large Hub TUL Tulsa International Airport-R.L. Jones, Jr. Riverside Airport SM - Small Hub TYS McGhee Tyson Airport SM - Small Hub SAT San Antonio International Airport SM - Small Hub SAV Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport SM - Small Hub SBH Gustaf III Airport SM - Small Hub SDF Louisville International Airport MH - Medium Hub SEA Seattle-Tacoma International Airport LH - Large Hub Airport Code Airport Category Table 6. (Continued).

94 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans The following are questions posed to the participants of the survey and the respective summaries of responses. Question 1. Type of Organization Answer Choices Responses Airport 95.56% FAA Inspector 0.00% Other 4.44% Question 2. Which Department/Division/Office are you representing? Other (please specify) • Consultant • Police & Fire • ARFF • Airport Safety, Security & Emergency Management 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Emergency Airport Risk Management Operations Management Corporate Federal Other (please Aviation specify) Administration Responses

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 95 **Questions 3 through 10 are for Federal Aviation Administration representatives. The questions can be found at the beginning of this appendix. Question 11. Rate the following statements from strongly disagree to strongly agree (0 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree). Questions Average The airport's AEP is actionable and sufficient enough to be a response document for the airport. 3.13 I, my airport, and airport community use the AEP regularly. 2.85 The AEP provides adequate and actionable information to respond to and recover from an incident. 3.03 I find the AEP to be generic and does not provide me or those who need to respond [with] adequate information to do so. 3.41 I have to create and develop other hazard-specific plans that are complements to the AEP to ensure airport personnel understands their roles. 4.11 The AEP contains all hazards that my airport could be threatened by. 2.46 I review lessons learned from other airport incidents and events and incorporate lessons learned into my own AEP or preparedness plans. 4.08 There is one person solely dedicated to the AEP, its update, and ensuring all airport preparedness plans are cross-walked with it. 3.13 I get active participation from all of the relevant stakeholders during the annual AEP review and update process. 3.15 Updating the AEP is a challenge and does not provide any value added to our response or recovery efforts. 2.92 The AEP checks a box and nothing more. 2.81 I incorporate the AEP into training and exercises beyond the required annual training and triennial exercise. 3.67 The AEP can be improved. 4.66

96 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans Question 12. What success have you had when developing or revising/updating the AEP? • We have taken a cookie-cutter plan that made very little actual sense and custom-tailored to our ACTUAL operation. • One success was the airport contracted with an emergency management consultant with an aviation background to rewrite the AEP to meet the June 2011 FAA deadline. The AEP is very comprehensive and has the potential to be a useable document. • Assigning each unit, the task of updating their area of responsibility. • Implement change with growth at the airport. • The AEP has not been updated since 2015. Before my time here at the airport. (Joined airport 2016). • Creates a process to identify best practices. The 2011 rewrite also forced the airport to look more critically at checklists and procedures that were being added to the document. • Dedicated scribes. • Currently revising it now; using it as an opportunity to bring external stakeholders together to discuss the AEP. • The AEP is a limited document in that any material added above the AC-required elements is accountable in an investigation. • N/A. I/we are just beginning a major rewrite of the AEP and supplementary documents. • Great feedback from stakeholders. • The AEP revising and update cycle is cumbersome, esoteric, and bureaucratic, providing little opportunity to flexibility. • Police, Fire Rescue, and Airport Operations build a closer working relationship through the review and updating process. They become fully invested in the document. • Updating changes that were no longer viable. • The biggest success has been our engagement with stakeholders. There is always a willingness from our partners to assist with development and revisions. • Engagement from stakeholders improves when ownership is explained. • It now exists. • Stakeholder cats need herding, so we start in Aug. FAA review is Jan./Feb., so this gives enough time. It's always a balance between adding too much detail that becomes reviewable by FAA, and/or duplicating operational/tactical plans, and keeping the content relevant and actionable during an emergency. Suffice to say, all tactical/operational plans get reconciled to ensure consistency w/AEP as the backbone—updated religiously, annually.

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 97 • Very little; we try not to revise it since the approval process is so cumbersome. • Good cooperation from other departments to contribute. • Acquiring updated tenant contact information to disseminate the AEP via electronic means. • I have created a three-year cycle to include the AAR/IP from the Triennial exercise, the thorough review and update to the AEP, and an update to the COOP plan. • Since it is occasionally referenced for training/exercises by the EP manager, areas of editing and updating are quickly identified. • Collaborating with stakeholders. • Good participation. • Getting feedback from co-workers to make it more of a working document. • The major success when updating our AEP is the collaboration of all of our stakeholders. I ensure that each department/agency that has a role in the AEP is present for the discussion, and that we solicit honest feedback from each regarding what the AEP says they will do versus what they actually do. If the responses are not the same, we make changes to the document. • Not applicable. • Additional input from Airport Stakeholders and not just emergency response organizations. Question 13. What challenges have you faced when developing or revising/updating your AEP? • That we have to have an AEP and an EAP, one for state and one for FAA, and the two don't have the same layouts or requirements. • On the flip side of the answer to Question #4, the AEP is so comprehensive (basicplan, functional sections, hazard-specific sections, field response and EOC response checklists) that it is an overwhelming amount of information to absorb when responding and to maintain. There is a significant amount of duplicated information to meet the FAA regulatory requirement. • Getting the units to provide timely responses. • Trying to get our contracted tower onboard with current and changes to the plan. • (1) Stakeholder participation; (2) when revisions are added, the airport is typically ready to implement. It then takes an undetermined period of time for FAA to review andreturn. • Understaffing. • Coordination of stakeholders and expectations of the document from non-airport stakeholders; AEP vs. municipal EOP.

98 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans • The FAA Certifiers are spread so thin, the turnaround time is long, so making "stamped" published changes can lag behind mission requirements. • The existing AEP is not user-friendly, voluminous, and currently contains contradictory or outdated information. • Getting ALL to actually read and review it. • The template and process are archaic, thereby lacking the fluidity of our changing landscape. Most of the partners apoplectic to the process and review. • The transient nature of police and fire assignments causes a cycle of relationship building. When you get to a good point, a new person comes in. Airlines also have varying degrees of commitment to emergency preparedness. • Putting everything in it to be documented while still being an asset for a guide. • Most recently, we approached our Certification Inspector wanting to complete a full rewrite of the AEP to make it a more useful document. The response we got was, because we were compliant, we should just leave it alone. • It is hard to get included in the process as the manager responsible does not allow or accept input from coworkers/stakeholders. • Too many sections in function annex that require review. Makes it challenging to track. • Sufficient support from management to support full implementation of the plan beyond the “it's written on paper” phase. • Getting feedback timely from stakeholders—but they eventually comply with solid input. Initial review processes when I arrived (4 years ago) were to remove tactical plans that were out of date and also had no place in the AEP as an overarching all-hazards, multi-discipline document. • It's difficult to keep it up to date in a timely manner because the approval process takes so much time. We tend to therefore hold updates and revisions until the end of the year, ensuring it is NOT an actionable document. The format is also ridiculously stupid. It's primarily focused on the airfield, not the terminals, where the majority of emergency management issues arise. Why care about power failure in the movement area and not a power failure at the terminals? Why are natural disasters a single section when the response to a flood or earthquake is totally different? The required format is difficult to work with and nonsensical. • It is controlled by Airside Operations and a lot of it is not shared with other departments. • Getting consistent policy/procedural updates/feedback from all levels and users of our facility. • Information is not usually presented in an actionable format.

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 99 • There is only one full AEP review per year by most stakeholders, which is not sufficient. • Getting feedback from other stakeholders. • Duplication of response protocols in other plans and then having to update both. • Getting fringe departments to see its true need. • The major challenge we face is keeping it relevant and useful. It is hard to do that because you have to remain cognizant about what information you put in the document, since you want it to be effective, but you also do not want to be held to a standard you will not be able to attain, post-event. • Inclusion of additional hazards that impact airports. AEP is airside focus and most emergencies today are landside. • Keeping the document broad in scope yet specific to various groups and stakeholders. Question 14. How do airports integrate the AEP with emergency response and recovery activities? • We try to make our actionable plans that accurately reflect what we are trained, staffed, and equipped to do, not imaginary plans that say they have things covered but it’s all a papertiger. • As with any new or updated procedure, policy, plan, checklist, the key is to continuously train all stakeholders on the changes. • Training and exercises. • Tabletop exercises. • We developed the Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) to serve as a guiding document to assist in our emergency response and recovery of our operations. We use the Emergency Management process to address our major business disruptions. • Exercises and routine public safety meetings. • The AEP and response activities should be the same. • AEP is a higher-level document/information document; SOPs are the policies/procedures for first responders. • Currently, the AEP provides a loose framework (checklist) for response and recovery to various incidents, mostly focused on the airside of the operation, not the terminal or landside. This is the rub: A part 139 is only about airside and associated airside activities/equipment; therefore, 90 percent of the AEP focuses on airside as if the rest of the airport will never be involved in an incident. • Primarily as a training aid and reference document. It may be partially used as a confirmation checklist.

100 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans • During all emergencies, pull it out and reference it. • We really don’t. We rely on other support emergency plans, policies, and procedures, including hazards-specific plans, job aides, and emergency manuals. • The AEP is available in responding vehicles. It provides a structure for various response and recovery activities. • After the fact. • Honestly, the AEP remains on the shelf and we use other supporting documents to guide response and recovery. • Our plan is quite generic and mostly put together to check the box on the part 139 Inspection. It does not hold up past the initial response, and all follow-on actions are improvised by the Incident Commander. • I have not explicitly done this yet. • A reference document that states “you respond and do your job.” • If the AEP is reflective of individual dept.'s operational plans (which it is 98% that way, we hope), responses parallel what is identified at a somewhat higher level in the AEP, but we always use real-world responses to validate/update the AEP. • We use it as a very high-level planning document. • Very little is shared. The AEP and other emergency response plans are handled by two different departments. • The AEP is used as an overall guide to develop more detailed checklists and operating guidelines. • Looking for some best practices here. • By first testing it with training and exercises, which include the hazard-specific plans, then by identifying areas of concern and improving the response of those items. • Tabletop and live exercises. • Add it into the respective plan at the end of the document; this is always a step in our Airport Emergency Operations Center activations. • Having a strong AEP, which is used during emergencies. • Our airport integrates the AEP into our tabletop and full-scale exercises. Outside of planned events, our airport has not used the AEP for response and recovery events. • Daily, with the focus on basics like incident command and training. • Used a reference to make sure we are addressing the conditions appropriately.

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 101 What challenges have you experienced when using your AEP during response and recovery efforts? • That people aren't familiar with it and aren't keeping their specific annexes, which are their responsibilities, up to date. • I have worked at four medium/large hub airports. The typical challenge is administrative personnel updating the AEP do not consult with the field responders for content, checklists are too lengthy, and/or checklists are not set up in an order that flows with a typical incident. • Defining one another’s roles. • The AEP was inadequate in addressing all the response and recovery efforts of the airport. • The layout does not lend itself to easy and immediate reference. • Freelancing activities. • Recovery information is not detailed. • There is a fundamental difference between what the airport uses versus an airline during an incident. The airport's AEP supports operational actions during an incident through to airport recovery to normal operations. The airline's Emergency Ops Plan seems to begin largely from after the incident through the passenger care responses, then somewhere returning to normal operations. By this difference, efforts are not viewed with the same goals in mind. Somehow, both books need to contain each other's response outline so all portions of an Emergency Ops Plan can be tested together in collaboration. • It is currently unusable as a real-time reference in the field/at an ICP. • Big binder and flipping back and forth. • Too large and inflexible; not easy to train. • You have to know the document before you respond. Due to time limitations, the AEP becomes a reference document only. Recovery efforts generally provide more time and the opportunity for individuals that are not as familiar with the AEP to use the document. • Too many words [in the document]. • We don't use it. • After the initial response, all other responses and recovery are not as described in the AEP. After the US Airways 1702 and Southwest 1380, we discovered that numerous phone numbers and companies we had listed were no longer in service and/or do not exist anymore. • Organization of the document can be challenging. • Too general; just states for you to respond and do your job. Provides no details on what actions to take or risks/hazards to assess and mitigate. • We don't use it—each department uses their operational/tactical plans. During a response or recovery, if departmentsdon't know their plans already, we've got a problem. No one Question 15.

102 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans whips out the AEP to figure out how to respond or recover. It is there simply to affirm to FAA in a single-source document that we've got our stuff together. • We don't use it. We base execution checklists off of the vague plan and use those. That being said, we don't reference the checklists in the AEP so we can avoid them being regulated. Most airports do this in one way or another. • We really haven't tested the AEP during a response. • The sheer size of the document makes it impractical to use for any sort of field work--the AEP is better used in an EOC environment. • Items in the AEP don't accurately reflect the large municipality that an airport encompasses. There are no sections in recovery that deal with debris management or damage assessment, for example. • Making sure all responders are briefed on new edits/updates that have been made but may not have been pre-tested. • Too robust. • It is a huge document. Making it electronic and hyperlinked for easy access to the respective plan/emergency would save time and allow info to be shared with other stakeholders responding to the incident. • If following the FAA guidance, it does not always have sufficient information. • The only event that we have experienced since I have been at our airport is a terminal evacuation as a result of a bomb threat. We as an airport did not follow the AEP guidance, and we were challenged by our stakeholders, especially our airline partners, in the After- Action discussions. This is how our Terminal Evacuation Plan was born. • Plan is not really recognized. Other plans and procedures are used. • Quick access to the document; having a flipbook or other quick access guide would be a tremendous help—basically a mini-AEP. Question 16. If your AEP has additional annexes beyond what is required in the 150/5200-31C- Airport Emergency Plan Advisory Circular, what are they? • Mass Care • IROPS • Hazardous Materials • Pandemic • Mass Evacuation • Communicable Disease • Civil Disturbance • Administrative Facility • Evacuation Plans

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 103 • Spaceport Operations • Spaceport Rocket Testing • City of Austin–Interagency Aircraft Accident Plan • Airside incident detailed responses, including AEP Checklist • Disabled Aircraft • Terminal Building Evacuation • Minor Medical Incident • Mass Casualty • Emergency Response for Parking Structures • Water Rescue • EOC Activation Manual (EAM) • EOC Section Coordinating Procedures (SecCorp) • Hazard Specific Plans (HSPs) include Tropical Weather, Pandemic, and so forth • Crisis Communication Plan (CPlan) • Rapid Recovery Plan (RRP) • WebEOC: User’s Manual (WebMan) • Family Assistance Center Operating Guide • Airport Training and Exercise Plan • Communicable Disease Response • Irregular Operations • Surface Management • Special Events responder procedures • Power Outage • Severe Weather • Earthquake • Flooding • Winter Storms • Active Threat • Family Assistance Centers • Mass Care (sheltering, feeding, and so forth) • Threat Hazard Analysis • Active Shooter • Crowd Control • Evacuation Guide • Public Health Threat • Family Assistance Plan for nonaviation-related events • Active Threat • Aircraft Emergency Response LOA • AirportTerminal Emergency Plan • Emergency Notification Responsibilities • Airport Emergency Operations Center SOP • Terminal Emergency plan • Local Standard operating procedures • Incident Management

104 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans • Crash Phone Procedure • Air Pollution • Epidemic Disease • Gas Drilling • Hurricane Preparedness Plan • IT/Cyber Attack • Landside Emergencies • Terrorism • Power Outages (Terminal/Landside) • Critical Infrastructure • AirportGrid Map Book • Terminal Evacuation Plan • ARFF Tactical Operating Guidelines • Tarmac Delay Plan • Directory of Rental Car and Taxicab Companies • LOA on Emergency Response between Agencies • Air National (LOA) • Terminal Evacuation Plan • Active Shooter Plan Emergency • Response Checklist for Natural Disasters • ARFF Equipment & (COOP) WESTDOG • Mutual COOP Plan • Communicable Capabilities • IROPS Plan Aid Plan • Disease Plan: Communicable Disease • Community Emergency Response Team MOU Question 17. How is a decision made to add a functional annex that is not required by the FAA (e.g., risk analysis, business case analysis, threat hazard analysis, airport priorities)? Choices Responses A Risk Analysis (identifying the risks to the airport and developing plans to mitigate those risks) 48.39% B Business Case Analysis (the business wants or needs a plan to manage an issue, such as curbside traffic during an emergency) 25.81% C Threat Hazard Analysis (threats to the airport are identified and plans developed) 58.06%

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 105 D Airport/Executive Priorities (the airport leadership or executive leadership have asked for plans or prioritized specific issues) 35.48% E After-action reports from our airports’ exercises, incidents, or events 48.39% F After-action reports from other airports’ incidents 45.16% G Please list another method for determining development of an annex and/or plan not previously listed. 29.03% Please list another method for determining development of an annex and/or plan not previously listed. • As stated above; the airport has developed several standalone mitigation plans as well as a Continuity of Operations (COOP) and the Airport Care plans. However, these plans are not part of the airport’s AEP. This was to save us the time in the AEP review and update process. • The attached plan had elements that were not required of the AEP and were just easier to attach in their entirety. • I believe it has been mostly topics that may be touched on in the required sections but were complex enough to merit individual attention. • Publicoutcry. • No, but I would like to make it more comprehensive to include these. • We don't—we keep the AEP ”pure”—but individual dept. SOPs/SOGs are always under review and updating based on all the above—a continuous process. • We refer to the additional documents as Appendixes and treat them as separate documents. They are in the AEP as an additional source of information and reference. Question 18. What are the motivators when developing plans in addition to the FAA-required AEP? How is the decision made to complete the minimum requirements or go beyond? Why did the decision get made? • We will always go above and beyond the minimum requirement. • Again, this answer is based on my experience at four different airports. Some airports prefer to only put the 150/5200-31C current version requirements in the AEP and then have separate CONOPS, SOPs, annexes, and so forth, as the useable documents. These airports made this decision because if it is in the AEP, it must be stamped/approved by the FAA and there is no flexibility if there is an actual incident [or] if there is an incident prompting an investigation. Another airport I have worked at has everything related to emergency response included in the AEP. This decision was made because it made sense to maintain one, centralized document. Choices Responses

106 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans • To ensure the airport is capable of providing a timely and efficient response that will lead to a quick recovery and minimum impact to operations. • Cover Airport-specific requirements. • Trended issues with airport growth. • Stakeholder requirements. • Due to the nature of our operation we found it necessary to develop the plans such as the COOP plan. This development of this plan goes beyond the AEP requirements. • Threat, hazard, and risk analysis coupled with the need to work with non-airport agencies. Ability to have more digestible plans with the ability to implement changes without the FAA approval process. • Directive by the Executive Director. • Executive Director's choice. • To acknowledge the wide variety of threats to airports and [the] frequency they occur at other airports. • Motivator: Standard training of processes, minimizing bad habits. When confusion exists in exercises or training, the plan must be modified to reinforce the desired behavior. • Historically, I am not sure, but suspect they have evolved as needs were identified. Going forward, there will be a focus on comprehensive usability, though this will likely involve documents outside of the FAA-required AEP. • Typically, in response to another incident. • If there is a plan/policy/procedure/technology that can be developed or implemented to protect the health, safety, welfare, and continuity of the airport and the people we serve, we're going to work to get. • Significant hazard, not covered by an existing annex, requiring a collective response from the airport. We added a communicable disease response plan when H1N1 was a global threat. It is now used for Ebola and other communicable disease responses. • Staffing, resources, budgets. • The AEP is not a useable document in actual response and recovery efforts. We have developed Standard Operating Guidelines and supporting Operating Instructions to guide our response and recovery. This was [a] decision that was made many years ago because the AEP, even prior to the most recent revision to the Advisory Circular, was not a useable document. • In the wake of the FLL and LAX active shooter incidents, there was public outcry regarding the airport not having an active shooter plan that is separate from a general terminal evacuation plan. It is now in the planning phase.

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 107 • When the magnitude of hazard requires more detail than AEP provides. • To provide adequate guidance to first responders on what actions are needed to [affect] a response as put forward in the AEP. • As stated in #9, we use exercise and real-world AAR/IPs for every significant incident to inform/modify/create new plans, but they don't necessarily go into AEP unless they impact a specific existing component. • We identify the plans we need in order to provide the most efficient response to emergencies identified in threat and vulnerabilities analyses. • Additional plans are developed as a result of incidents happening and lessons learned. • To ensure that the airport community has reference material to respond adequately, and to train their employees on proper response procedures. • Looking at current events/incident trends, integration into THIRA process [and] integration into SMS process are factors that have prompted this airport to develop plans in addition to the AEP. The decision is made as a reaction to the changing threat landscape. • Having prepared staff and responders are motivators. As an example, although we conduct a variety of training exercises/drills, we went beyond the minimum exercise requirements by conducting monthly TTXs. Each TTX scenario focuses on various airport vulnerabilities that are identified in the AEP. • Generally related to response to an incident that occurred that caused operational impacts. • Typically, if another agency (federal, state, municipal) requires a plan outside of FAA requirements. • Need or recommendations. • We read case studies and after-action reports from other airports that have experienced events that we have not, and use their lessons learned to develop mitigation plans so that if that same scenario occurs at our airport, we are better prepared. • Risk; need buy-in from leadership. • Based upon previous incidents and lessons learned and to move the AEP Program forward. Question 19. Once the need was determined, how did the plan get developed? • Team effort, driven by a top-notch experienced plan writing phenom. • At my current airport, an emergency management expert with an aviation background was contracted to develop the AEP with significant input from airport stakeholders. • Emergency Management group was assigned the task to complete. • Discussion with first responders and Tower manager.

108 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans • We hired a contractor to develop the COOP plan, but the contractor worked very closely with the Emergency Management Team. The EM team took the COOP plan and developed other tools and process[es] from the COOP tool that allows us to recover and make critical decisions about the status of the airport operations. • Communication, coordination, and collaboration with stakeholders. • Single person development of the plan. • Currently developing it now. • 1. Initial writing; 2. Working group review and prioritization of details and development; 3. Edits and review; 4. Exercise the plan; 5. Conduct a drill; 6. Review and edit; 7. Publish the plan; 8. Annual review and testing. • Again, I am unsure, but likely through initial drafting, followed by stakeholder review and comment, and revision as needed. • Person was chosen. • Through collaborative interactions with partners and individual initiative. • The communicable disease response plan was developed by a committee composed of CDC, Fire Rescue EMS, Airport Operations, state & local Health Departments, and airlines. • Driven by executive priorities. • Plans were developed by our Airside Operations team with input from all stakeholders. Recently, we have added an Airport Emergency Management section at our airport thathas taken on this role. • The active shooter plan is being led by Russ & Baruzzini. We have monthly meetings where every stakeholder is invited to hear about progress and talk about larger issues. Otherwise, it is broken down into functional committees to address all of the subject matter in a timely manner. • Planning process to include SMEs and stakeholders. • Single person developed and implemented. • Collections of stakeholders and months of meetings to walk through SME review and creation (again, not of AEP, but of revised plans, e.g., Mass Evacuation). • We organized a planning team and the emergency management section wrote the plan. • The concept is developed and created by our Emergency Preparedness Group. • Through meetings, tabletops, and reviews of plans from other airports in some cases. • Working group in the airport and best practices from other airports. • Regular planning meetings were conducted by airport staff, stakeholders, and partners. • By a team of subject matter experts.

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 109 • Assign to staff, create a workgroup of impacted stakeholders, draft a document, run by legal, make corrections/updates, route for entire department division head review, incorporate feedback, run by legal again, incorporate additional feedback, and then obtain director signature. • Small staffing working group reviewing procedures and relevant documents, while attempting to make them fit into FAA guidance. • Very specific plans may reference very detailed site plans (i.e., gas drilling). • The plan is developed and maintained by my office. If another airport has a plan in place, I ask for a copy of that plan and try not to reinvent the wheel. Once our plan is written, I meet with the stakeholders to ensure that the plan will be effective during an event and start to train on the plan. • Through Airport Operations. • Majority of plan development is conducted by Airport Emergency Management and Airside Ops but with some involvement from stakeholders. Question 20. If planning teams were used to develop these additional plans, who was involved? Answer Choices Responses Airport Operations 87.10% Law Enforcement 87.10% Fire Department 90.32% Administration 45.16% Information Technology 45.16% Corporate/HQ 16.13% Executives 35.48% Finance 22.58% Airlines 64.52% Tenants 58.06% Airport Volunteer Groups 25.81%

110 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans Local Jurisdictions 38.71% CBP 48.39% TSA 54.84% FAA 41.94% ATCT 32.26% FBI 41.94% NTSB 19.35% Other (Federal) 22.58% Local Emergency Management Agency/Office 51.61% Engineering/Maintenance 41.94% Landside 67.74% Airside 70.97% Transportation/Shuttle/Bus Providers 35.48% Taxi Services 6.45% Transportation Network Companies (i.e., Uber, Lyft) 9.68% Other (please specify) 19.35% Other (please specify) • Safety—Risk Management. • It is plan-specific, but all relevant SMEs are brought to the table. Probably 90% of the above disciplines were engaged in the recent rewrite of the mass evacuation plan. • Depending on the plan—Health Department or Gas Driller. • Emergency Management. Answer Choices Responses

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 111 How long has it taken to regularly update your AEP? Other (please specify) • The EM team has not gone through the process of updating the plan. We review it as required by the FAA but from what I heard it took over 1 year to get it approved. • Are you asking how long the process takes, or how often is it done? • Minor changes have occurred as needed, varying between a few months to a fewyears between updates. • It has been 7 years since the last major update, and I expect it to take about a year to complete. • We send out initial update notice 1st week of August w/ Nov-1 deadline. We know only half will respond by then, so reminder sent for extended deadline to 15-Nov, and we start yelling by 1-Dec at delinquents so we finally have all info by 1-Jan to compile and present to FAA by Feb meeting/review. Question 21.

112 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans Question 23. What was the Executive Review process? • Executives have time to review and ask for edits and then those are incorporated if they make sense. • All stakeholder directors, chiefs, executives had to sign off/approve each section before it was sent to the FAA for approval—very lengthy process. • Review of the timeline for completion and review of changes after the update was completed. • Airport Director review[s], discuss[es], and collaborate[s] with operations manager, first responders and Tower management. • Reviewing and signing the plan. • Emailed section to appropriate parties. • Sent to Executive Director to approve document. • In progress. • Each executive leader is provided the update of changes with a staff summary of changes. • Periodic briefings and a final document review. • The revisions are reviewed by the Senior Vice President of Operations, who briefs the remainder of the Executive team prior to submitting the changes to the Certification Inspector. Yes 61% No 39% Yes No Question 22. Was there a process for Executive Review?

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 113 feedback. After taking their feedback, the AEP was edited and sent back out to the select individuals for more feedback. If there are no more large/major changes, the AEP is then sent to the FAA Eastern Region for approval. • Send final version for review and sign-off . • General manager of the airport has to sign off on the updates along with the COO of the aviation department. • Director of Operations review prior to submission to FAA. • Updates were shared via chain of command. • Present in a meeting of executives. • Review and input from Senior Vice President. Question 24. How does the airport share and socialize the new plan(s)? Note: N/A = not applicable. Other ways not listed • For the most part, the AEP is only shared with new airport operations, security, police at any time. The AEP is also available on the airport's website. • List on website. • Seminar w/airlines; TTX (annual regulatory); internal training sessions; full-scale triennial w/smaller drills in between. Distribution to all airlines, departments, and external mutual 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Workshop Tabletop Full-Scale Training Exercise Exercise Sessions Webinars Provide soft/hard copy to new employees with "Need to Know" N/A Other ways not listed • After the update was made, it was forwarded to the airport's Director of Operations and Security, COO, & several other executives and important stakeholders for review and aid agencies.

114 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans • Email. • Electronic distribution via Box.com. • We also have the plan located and available to applicable users via a secure document portal, which is password-protected. • Meetings and shared internally with staff, tenants and airlines. Question 25. What training tools are used when sharing and socializing the AEP and new annexes and how does the airport ensure all stakeholders understand the requirements, roles, and responsibilities in the AEP and/or annexes? • Cloud-Based Access to Plans. • Unified Incident Command Post (ICP) drills, Active Shooter/Force Protection Functional Exercises, hazard-specific TTX. Joint exercises with local cities. Tenant outreach training at shift briefings, safety meetings. • Exercises. • Tabletop exercise/Annual drills. • Tabletops and workshops. • Discussion at the tabletops. • Developing. • Meetings are conducted at the shop level of the organization to the senior leadership. • Presentations in training sessions, informal plan reviews, required annual and triennial reviews/drills. • At the annual review. • Working on new training standards through our Learning Management System. • Tabletop exercises and staff briefings. • We need a lot of improvement here. • The AEP is not well- ”shared” or ”socialized.” Hard and digital copies are available for training, but there are no additional training tools. • Revisions are typically briefed during exercises and copies are provided to those that affected by the changes. • Incorporate into various ongoing TTX and FSE, but no other efforts at this time. • Annual tabletop exercise.

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 115 • As stated in #15. • None. • Emails are sent to air carriers when updates to the AEP have been made. • PowerPoint Presentations and electronic copies of AEP. • Annual training session and TTX. • TTX's, secure document portal, and face-to-face discussions. • Online document-sharing portal. • Socialize in our monthly tabletop exercise meetings. • Workshops or group-specific training. • We meet with the airlines and stakeholders every other month and use that time to introduce new plans and/or annexes. • Yearly training and updates through meetings. • Plan walk-through 1x per year and a TTX ifapplicable. Question 26. Has the airport enlisted any unique tools to help with the plan, response, recovery, or general knowledge share of the document? • We always strive to bring in Subject Matter Expert (SME) speakers at TTX and workshops to conduct a 10- to 15-minute educational component on the topic. For example, the local CDC 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Apps Checklists Photo Sharing Online Other ways not Collaboration Tools listed and Public Health Officer spoke at our annual AEP TTX , which focused on the Communicable

116 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans Disease response section. We invited local law enforcement jurisdictions who have Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) programs implemented to talk about "drone" technology and the FAA FSDO discussed recreational and commercial drone regulations. 2. We host quarterly Unified Incident Command Post (ICP) drills that are 1.5 hrs. We invite law enforcement andfire departments from the surrounding five jurisdictions, intelligence agencies, federal agencies, airlines, and airport divisions to participate. It gives us an opportunity to run through the basics (i.e., ICP vehicle setup, establishing objectives, communication, and building relationships) in a no-fault environment. It's been HIGHLY valuable. • Working on developing tools during in-progress revision. • Only via email at this point; online collaboration tool would be welcome. Question 27. Are there specific enduring challenges that you have identified that are consistent across the AEP development, revision, and/or update process? What are these enduring challenges? • Individual Departments not keeping their components of the plan up-to-date. • Approval process is a challenge. • Timely receipt and the need to keep the AEP general to avoid FAA criticism. • Having personnel in the GA community understand the need for certain 139 standards. • Consistent stakeholder participation. • Dedicated time. • Coordination [of] stakeholder expectations. • The time span from submission to approval to book. • Getting 100% participation. • Process standards; making changes to the plan and getting approval. • Dedicated staff time to coordinate with all stakeholders; providing a series of drills and exercises to familiarize stakeholders with the plan. • Getting agreement with other department and mutual aid resources. • There is no collaboration when it comes to updating the AEP. While it is updated, it is not open for much outside input. The Ops Manager is the person that conducts the update process. • Stakeholder response and thorough review. • Lack of interest or participation.

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 117 • Getting timely input—everyone is swamped, shorthanded, etc. (we're [the] fastest-growing airport—now No. 8—constantly expanding and playing catch-up...). Dept.'s DO[s] make solid, substantive contributions...it just takes a little nagging. • The format and requirements are too restrictive and not realistic. If an airport is supposed to identify its most pressing concerns and then figure out how to address them, why are you telling us what the concerns are and how to develop the plan? • Getting responses from departments/tenants/emergency response groups. • The required sections in the AEP do not accurately reflect the current operation nor the current threat landscape. Hence the update process feels very cursory. • In earlier plans, we included the names of applicable staff/responders. We no longer do this, since once a person leaves their position, the AEP is no longer current. We now just include positiontitles. • Conflicting priorities, stakeholder participation. • The fact that the document is huge. • Making sure we comply with FAA compliance is [a] priority. Question 28. Have you created any workarounds to deal with these challenges? If so, what are they? • A tracking mechanism for when plans are updated, only designed to show who is/isn't updating their plans since we have no enforcement teeth. • Establish Field Operations Guides (FOGs), Airport Operating Procedures (AOPs), [and] Concept of Operations (CONOPS) instead of updating the AEP content. • Avoid adding information to the AEP that is not required. • When airfield projects are implemented, additional funding requested for 139 standards to be implemented. • Explained our expectations/purpose for the document. • Incentives to maximize participation. • Yup, just get it done. • Direct outreach explaining ownership. • Start early—see timeline identified in prior section. • Yes, we're developing a comprehensive emergency management plan, and the required portions of the AEP are a small part of it.

118 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans command if those fail. • No. Would welcome ideas. • Schedule multiple sessions for feedback. • Hold facilitated review meetings and point out areas that need attention. • N/A—not responsible for the development and update. Question 29. Have you had an opportunity to test and validate the new plan(s)? Choose all that apply. Question 30. Are after-action reviews conducted after exercises or significant events? Answer Choices Responses YES 100.00% NO 0.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Seminar Workshop Tabletop Game Drill Functional Full-Scale Exercise Exercise Other (please specify) • E-mail follow-up, airline station manager meetings, and then escalation up the chain of

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 119 Briefly describe the AAR process and how it relates to the AEP. • We conduct a full AAR for each exercise and event. We document discrepancies, assign themto ASFs (Business Units and a specific POC) and track their completion of lack thereof. • If there is a significant incident, TTX, functional exercise, or FSE, we will work on an AAR/IP. The challenge with this is following through with closing out all identified action items. • Use HSEEP guidelines. • All participants are brought together and given an overview of the processes applied and solicit changes to the current plan. • Meetings with involved parties, sometimes broken into functional areas, where strengths and weaknesses are discussed. A corrective action plan with individuals tasked with items is created as a result. • Roundtable discussion, notes taken, document updated, draft sent for review. • Depending on severity event, either informal hotwash or formal debrief. • Key participants are assembled with direct association to the event to discuss the good, the bad and the other items needing changes in the process not related to the event. Changes are then forwarded to the decision maker to approval. • Generally, it is an executive-led discussion of their observations, with input encouraged from other stakeholders. I'm not sure if this has ever resulted in actionable tasks related to the AEP. • Typical Hotwashes. • We follow HSEEP standards and conduct hotwashes and debriefings formally and informally to gather information, synthesize the data, [and] to produce and share a plan. • The sponsoring department conducts the AAR and produces a written report with lessons learned and recommendations for change. Follow-up continues until all accepted recommendations have been implemented. • Scheduled within one month of event to look for areas of problematic implementation and improvement. • After-incidents and emergency preparedness exercise events, we have conducted the AAR Process in line with the recommended FEMA AAR Guidelines. Past that, our Ops Manager takes the recommendations/feedback and buries it in his office. No major updates/added Annexes have occurred. • Immediately following an incident, a hotwash is conducted to capture immediate action items. For many incidents, a formal debrief is conducted to capture other lessons learned and action items beyond what were captured during the hotwash. The action items are tracked and assigned to appropriate individuals or groups. These action items are managed by the Emergency Management team, and any items that require a change to the AEP or Question 31.

120 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans review process that allows stakeholders the ability to make edits or suggestions prior to publication. • AEP draws from AAR/IP recommendations when process evolves. • AAR reports have been used to modify procedures and learning tools, but not to amend the AEP, because of the current general nature of the AEP. • We instituted a formal AAR/IP process via SOG that all departments are signatory to—it follows HSEEP structure and process and is a highly effective tool for capturing areas for improvement and laying out the IP. However, getting action on the IP items is the bugger... and we have no authority to enforce action...so IP progress is less than perfect. • We gather and then discuss changes to be made. We never change the AEP. • All departments involved in the exercise undergo a hotwash. • AARs are basically "hotwashes" where procedures and actions taken are compared; the AEP, checklists, and "tribal knowledge" is discussed to ascertain whether the airport responded appropriately. • The AAR process is a review of the incident and looking for things done well and things to be improved upon. I have never looked back at the AEP after an AAR is completed. Rather, we have created an IP to go with the AAR and assigned those responsible for items in the IP. • AAR items of concern are cross-referenced in the AEP. Based on the issue, the AEP may be updated if necessary. • AAR or formal debriefs are generally held after an impactful event. Items that need to be updated in the AEP will be identified. • Generally, the AAR is developed during and after the debrief meeting. If a protocol change is needed, then it is followed up on in the AEP. • General review of the exercise as well as part of the review that deals specifically [with] the relationship of how the event went in regard to the exercise. • We use the HSEEP process for all of our After-Action meetings and reports that are generated. We use the Improvement Plan to highlight deficiencies in the plan, if identified. From there, we incorporate changes to the AEP during our annual review. • Follows the basic planning process; does not really relate to the AEP. • Reviewing the AAR minutes and cross-referencing them to the AEP to see where changes and updates can be made. Question 32. Why aren’t after-action reviews conducted? • No responses submitted. supporting documents are made. Documents that are revised go through a document

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 121 Question 33. How have lessons learned been incorporated into the AEP? Question 34. How have lessons learned, best practices, and updates from incidents, events, and/or exercises been incorporated into the AEP or annexes/plan(s)? • We update and change the plan after major mitigation plans have been created and/or when new major initiatives have been put into place to close a gap. • Updated our Communicable Disease Plan, Evacuation Plan, and Fuel Farm Fire Plan. • Several; however, the approval process can be challenging. • Best practices identified can be used to alter work procedures and ultimately documented in the plan. • A few lessons learned have been added at this point. • Maybe; unknown. • They have not as of yet. It appears to be too much of a "lift" to make the wholesale changes to the AEP, so we incorporate them into other, more functional plans. • If a particular practice is modified, the new process is incorporated into the AEP. • The few updates that have occurred were token changes; none of the needed major updates have been made. 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Yes No Other (please specify)

122 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans • Moving responsibilities to better areas. • Process updated in AEP. • These LLs get captured by all AEP review stakeholders as the year progresses, including Emer/Prep as the coordinator of this process, and they get woven into the AEP as appropriate. Some do not as they are too tactical. But they are generally referenced in the AEP doc (just not duplicated; the AEP points to underlying Plans but does not repeat them). • Changes made to the plan along with updates. • Additions of new Hazard-Specific sections such as Active Shooter. • Based on the issue(s), some items are updated and/or incorporated immediately; others are noted and are updated/added during the next revision. • Changes needed will be submitted with the next annual update. • After the debrief, these are added into the AEP. • Included into updates as relevant. • It is through the AAR process that deficiencies are highlighted, and then changes are made. Question 35. What are ways airports can make the AEP actionable and relevant to the myriad of stakeholders? • Convert from a massive binder type of plan full of paragraphs and turn them into "actionable" project plans tied to Mission Essential Functions, Tiered, and assigned to a stakeholder. Then when you need to enact portions of the plan you can track what is being activated, who ownsit, and what steps they need to do. It makes the whole plan actionable instead of a manual. • Include your responders who work incidents daily (i.e., Airport Operations field personnel, LEO, fire captains, dispatchers, airport maintenance personnel). It works best to develop a template and then have these personnel throw darts at it and refine it into a useable document. • Difficult to do because of how the FAA ties anything added to the AEP as required. • Explaining their role during tabletop exercises. • Ensuring that what is written reflects actual practices and verifying that stakeholders are good with the plan. • Designing a document that is easy to use and navigate and not 400 pages long. • Purpose/expectation of the AEP must be communicated at the beginning. We view it as a high-level document and department SOPs are the actionable procedures.

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 123 The FAA should view the airport "holistically," not just airside—more specifically, only the airfield movement area and security perimeter fence line. • By creating current, detailed, and self-contained documents pertinent to each stakeholder group. • Utilize and reference it more often. • Change the process and requirements. • Have an appropriate level of details to make the document useful in a variety of scenarios; provide a bridge to their Local Emergency Response Action Plan. • More functional use and less "regulatory requirement." • Make it meaningful. • Tasking and information that extends beyond "show up and do your job." • Ensure it's well maintained, not overly general, and consistently reinforced that the AEP should point to foundational operational plans that **must** be current and accurate reflections of what those disciplines will do during all types of incidents. • Keep them vague and plan outside of them. • Constantly refer to it and use it. • Cut down on the size and extraneous information and focus on actual actions that we need our stakeholders to take; make the AEP about procedures, not bureaucratic prose. • Host drills or tabletop exercises that incorporate certain operational parts of the AEP onan annual basis and then complete an update based on lessons learned. • Include the stakeholders in the AEP processes (editing, etc.). • Incorporate the AEP into tabletops. • Make it easily accessible; reduce a 200+-page document to something topic-basedand hyperlinked for easier access. • By taking it past the basic requirements of the FAA. • Incorporate annexes; keep the AEP straightforward and expand on your response protocols through the annexes. • Develop a comprehensive emergency plan that is recommended and not required to meet the specific requirements of the FAA. • Holding the stakeholders accountable to the AEP. • The FAA should eliminate the stamping of each page. This does not add value to the AEP.

124 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans • Still working on it. • Including field personnel in the process. • Constant explaining with defining the importance of everyone’s role. • Continually trying to engage with stakeholders. • The AEP is reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that it is relevant. • Ongoing: stress importance of updating plans/policies/procedures, training on them, exercising them to validate, hold dept.'s accountable (#1 challenge as EM—responsible for everything...authority to enforce nothing), get buy-in from top leadership to enforce them, set expectations, and drill regularly to maintain KSAs. • Airportwide training sessions on Active Shooters, Severe Weather, and other hazards are used to drill down to the core of an issue so that the stakeholder understands what is expected ofthem. • We do include the stakeholders whenever possible. • Make sure exercises include all stakeholders. • We have it on a “secured documents portal.” • Yes, as much as possible without making it a regulation problem. • Yes, additional plans and policies. • Open dialogue and willingness to share information with partners throughout the airport. Question 37. Have there been successful practices that have been identified that are implemented today? If so, please briefly describe. • Too many to list... HAVEN (Helping All Victims of Emergency in Need) [is] designed to support all victims of any major incident at the airport. Terminal Evacuation Playbooks, ASFs (Airport Support Functions) based loosely of NIMS but tailored to an airport, etc. • Including field personnel in the process and seek out lessons learned from other airports. • Active shooter drawing printed and placed in tubes for handoff to Swat Teams at prescribed staging area. • AAR/IP formalization of process; rewriting of collateral plans that are referenced in AEP; instituting recurring smaller drills on key aspects that support overall AEP processes, e.g., bi-weekly Unified Command multidiscipline drills; quarterly emergency communications center (EOC) drills; refresher ICS training; updating of outdated (or nonexistent) plans w/attendant training; engagement of senior leadership to lead by example and enforce accountability (struggle). Question 36. Has anything been done at the airport to minimize these challenges?

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 125 weather-related hazard-specificsections in a detailed manner that actually contains diagrams, procedures, and pertinent details for the tenants/airlines to use and train their staff on. • Again, including the stakeholders. • Make efforts to have all stakeholders actually participate and provide feedback during tabletops or exercises. • Identify a need (AAR process) and work towards a policy solution. • Reminding stakeholders and partners of updated information for them to review at their own convenience; attending various Airport meetings and providing updates on the plan. Question 38. What can be done to improve the AEP today and for the future? What are the next steps in making this plan applicable and actionable for airport staff responding to emergencies and events? • Start chipping away at updating sections, checklists, annexes, etc. • An agreement between the Airport and FAA on what will be used in inspections and what can be excluded. • Expand toward a 139 standard; implement additional Spaceport requirements for rocket testing. • Allow for a more flexible template; create FAA-led planning workshops and trainings; the Advisory Circular is too detailed, resulting in an unnecessarily rigid planning framework. • Standardized templates from the FAA that [have] the standards that airports need to have. • The AEP needs to be redefined by the industry. • FAA to standardize terminology between Airlines, FBOs and Airports; develop an AC that discusses communication abilities, EOC setup/design, Passenger Reception Area, Friends & Family Reunifications Area, [and] address some terminal and landside incidents plans. True, we must be careful in what is asked for, but the AEP today is only marginally better than a paperweight. Finally, the checklists to honestly be useable must not reside in the AEP but a standalone binder. Otherwise, those pages will not see the light of day except during once- a-year review. • More user friendly; easier to reference apps, etc. • Simplify and streamline the process and the plan. • Exercises and tabletops. • Implementation of a detailed tenant-based Severe Weather plan that builds upon the

126 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans • Better procedures in the AEP describing hazards and tasks necessary to recover and operate the airport. • I don't have a good answer... Perhaps emphasize that it must be reflective of solid operational plans (SOPs/SOGs) that it relies on for stakeholder entities covered by its scope, and those SOPs must be current, accurate, trained on, etc. To have the AEP be the “leading” response/recovery document is a little bit tail-wagging-the-dog. If AEP is the “only” response/recovery document for smaller airports, then I suppose it IS the end-all/be-all... but for larger airports with morerobust departments it should supplement individual dept. plans, not supplant them. • Emergency managers need to rewrite the Advisory Circular. There is no other way around it. • I believe the AEP should be under the Emergency Management division and not Airside Operation management. • Simplification, across the board; focus on basic procedures. • I would recommend tying the update to the AEP to the three-year cycle of the triennial exercise. The updates to the AEP can be based on the AAR/IP from the triennial. • More stakeholder involvement. • Place more emphasis on the hazard-specific areas; include checklists; place less emphasis on functional sections. • Stay caught up with technology. • Working to make it easier to use and more workable. • A plan is only as good as the paper it is written on. The AEP needs to be more than just a check-in-the-box document. It needs to [be] written, trained on and incorporated into everyday life if it is to ever carry real weight during a response. • Requirement vs. recommendation. • An overall refresh of the program and what is contained within the AEP; many more threats and emergencies that should be addressed within the AEP. • So regulatory at this time. • Modify organization to make it more useful; additional content to make it more useful.

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 127 Question 40. Why did you rate your previous answer the way you did? Please briefly describe. • The whole program needs an overhaul; it will be uncomfortable for many organizations to actually have to really write a plan instead of copy [and] paste one, but it's the only way forward. • Emergency Management as a profession has grown, and several lessons learned have been incorporated, applied, and passed successfully since the FAA's last 150/5200-31 AEP update. • It’s good to have requirements, but there is [varied] consistency in how inspectors rate between airports. • Airport growth, tenant expansion and additional Spaceport requirements. • The AC provides useful and needed information and requirements but is so bogged down into the details in places it creates a very complicated and hard-to-use document in the end result. • The AC needs to be updated. • Currently, the policy is a labor action drain with a negative ROI. • Our current AEP was primarily modified after the 2009 revision, and it seems highly redundant and unusable. However, I am just starting the rewrite process. • Gives the basics; airports can always increase if they choose to. • I have not read the circulars and policy updates. • [The] hazard-specific sections need to be updated. • It’s a good tool, but often cloaked in red tape. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Respondents Question 39. On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being "Strongly Disagree" and 10 being "Strongly Agree," please rate the following statement: The current AEP circular and policies meet the needs of Airports to appropriately develop and update AEPs.

128 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans • Not used by all, but a few key departments [do] use it. • I don't believe the needs of the airport match the intent the circulars are designed to fulfill. • It's a necessary document for FAA oversight to objectively determine complianceby airports, and the circular and policies provide updates and modifications necessary, but the AEP itself should not be what causes creation of underlying response/recovery plans—they should develop organically, perhaps using AEP all-hazards categories as a skeleton, but any good EM manager will be doing that already. • It meets the requirement and that is it—doesn't go into anything extra. • There's an overabundance of extraneous information in the AEP Advisory Circular; the AEP, in printed form, typically sits on a shelf and is never used. • The circular and policies don't accurately represent the current threat/risk landscape at our airport. • The policies typically meet the needs of airports, but there's room for improvement. • No strong opinion on the matter. • Always room for improvement. • While it works, it could always be stronger and more useable. • The guidance is there; however, the way in which the AEP is written remains broad and not practical for real-world responses. • The AEP provides a base for a lot of airports. It has a purpose, but the process needs to be reviewed to ensure airports look at all-hazards. • It still provides the basis, but we can go further as an organization and as an industry. Question 41. If you could change one thing about the AEP, what would it be and how would you do it? • The style of plan is binder-esque. It isn't designed to be easily acted upon. It is designed to be read, not acted on. • The outlined requirements from the FAA circulars. • Define the purpose, explain the requirements for future need. • Consistent FAA oversight across the regions. • Make it a smaller-sized document and a living document so that when things need to be updated, it isn’t a chore to update. • Incorporate elements of the ESFs or a more-relatable EOP format to municipalities. • Eliminate the Certifier stamp requirement; rationale: The airfield daily logs are not stamped by the Certifier but inspected annually during the part 139.

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 129 • Make it user friendly—an easy-to-use reference and guide. • Change the sections. Enable the users to identify which sections they wanted. • Following current EM planning standards. • To be useful in the field, the document should be electronic, with hot-links to specific sections and all supporting SOPs, checklists, and related plans. • [Who does the approvals]. • Organization. • Its usefulness to line employees; it's wasted paper primarily in [its] current form. • Nothing—it is fine for its purpose relative to our structure. • I would change the list of required annexes to reflect current challenges in airport emergency management. • I want EM to manage the plan. • Remove the SSI labeling and make it a public document. • Make the update tied to the three-year cycle of the triennial exercise based on the AAR/IP from the exercise instead of the yearly update that is required with the annual FAA inspection. I would also create a plan template that closely mirrors the NFPA 1600 or the DHS/FEMA THIRA process. • Improved stakeholder participation with updates. • Incorporate more checklists. • I would make the document "beefier." I would write the document in a way that stakeholders would want to refer to it in an emergency. • Guidance vs. regulation. Question 42. What would this change help to do or improve in emergency response at airports? • It would allow airports to more readily understand their core mission-essential functions, prioritize recovery actions, and identify gaps and weaknesses easier. • Nothing to add. • Allow for a useable AEP. • Mitigate risk, prevent loss of life and further damage to stakeholders; interest. • Allow for a greater peer-to-peer review network and consistent plan writing. • Ease of use for training staff and first responders.

130 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans • Ease the understanding of external stakeholders. • It would provide a quicker update to changes in airport policy, equipment, fixtures, surfaces and general information. • Create consistent and confident responses to a variety of situations. • Possibly make it easier to reference. • All-hazards based in a way that the process is not threatening to the stakeholders and the plan is actionable. • The AEP [should] become a useable tool rather than a four-inch block of paper in the back of the vehicle. • Each airport is specific to the needs of the location and region. [Neither] the FAA nor TSA can realistically know what is needed to respond to an emergency in each airport. Airports are the experts atthe emergency response, not regulators in DC. • Make it meaningful. • Give employees and responders an actual guide on expected actions to be taken and hazards assessed in the event of an emergency. • It would allow for more flexibility in planning and be realistic to the problems we are facing today. • It will be managed by folks who know emergency response. • Allow for wider dissemination of information to all stakeholders, including the public, so that they understand how airport emergency responses truly work. • It would allow for the updates to the plan to be more actionable and relevant to the current operating environment. • Stakeholders would have a [clearer] understanding of their roles during various emergencies. • AEP would be more focused on incidents. • Help stakeholders easily find those protocols that interest them most. • It would actually be used as a response document. Currently, the document is SO broad that it will not be referenced during an event because the checkpoints are really broad and will of course be hit everytime. • Guidance-focused.

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 131 • 14 Yes • 14 No Question 44. What other topics/issues exist that could be solved by an ACRP Airport Emergency Plan Synthesis? What are gap issues that have not been inquired in this questionnaire? • Plans are to[o] one-dimensional and only give lip service to "All Hazards" methodology. • This research will provide credibility for the emergency management professional seated at the "table." Also, adding information and examples of AARs (as a possible standard). This would assist new emergency management professionals to discover how the aviation world speaks and responds to incidents. • Functional best-practice-based Airport Incident Managementstructures. • Safety Management System and its influence on the AEP. • The intent of the circulars does not seem clear enough to meet the needs of the airports and expectations of the public. • None come to mind (unless the AEP can force all departments in all airports to truly embody ICS and practice those key tenets that will result in more effective response, thereby leading to faster recovery and resumption of business, and get all departments and leadership to reinforce these practices). • How to develop an all-inclusive plan. • Closer alignment of the AEP with the more traditional FEMA-based emergency plan documents. • I think you could honestly do an entire synthesis just on AEP annexes. I would also liketo see more research on Active Assailant planning for non-LEO [law enforcement officer] responders. • Going more in-depth within the four phases of emergency management and having a broader scope of types of emergencies that can occur at an airport. Additional Questions—Not Required Question 43. Would you like to answer additional questions about further participation?

132 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans Question 46. If YES, when and how? If NO, why not? • It should be referenced everytime a major event occurs to see if the actions listed and taken match reality. If not, the plan should be updated to match what is REALLY done. • Overwhelming information; difficult to maintain. • Aspects of the plan are utilized for every incident, but the plan itself is not pulled out and used [as] a reference guide. • During training for new Airport Ops personnel, alerts and other information is referenced to in the AEP. • Daily. • Too big. • Usually in more complex and lengthy response scenarios. • It is too general to act as a guide to any response beyond “show up and do your job.” • As stated previously, the AEP is reflective of underlying individual department SOGs, so they use them but not because they're in the AEP. • Too basic and not based in day-to-day operations. • The AEP is a required document that sits on the shelf and only gets looked at after an incident has occurred. 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% YES NO Question 45. Is the AEP used operationally? • The AEP itself needs to be more actionable and used as a quick reference guide.

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 133 Question 47. What feedback have you received about your AEP from the FAA inspectors? • That it is innovative, extremely up-to-date, and thoroughly researched and collaboratively created. • That it is a great document and meets all of the requirements plus more. • The SW Region has been very supportive of the AEP as written and the airport's efforts in the development of the plan. • Positive feedback was [given], though 450 pages to stamp. • Was not here for last visit. • They allow us to distribute the AEP electronically to stakeholders. • It meets the requirements of the FAA. • Solid document—in four years, no recommended changes. • Basic comments on procedures. • Very little. • We have not received any feedback specifically about our AEP. We did have an inspector tell us that we should conduct more tabletop exercises; hence why we conduct one every other month. The remaining questions received no responses. Question 48. Do you want to be contacted by the research team to provide further, in-depth information and details? If yes, please add your contact information. Question 49. Please provide your contact information. Question 50. Best way to contact me is? Question 51. Best day/time to contact me is? Question 52. Do you have examples of products you’ve developed that you believe would be relevant and beneficial to include in the survey responses?

134 Practices in Airport Emergency Plans Question 53. Please provide examples or further information. Question 54. Please provide any documents or files you believe may be relevant. If the upload link does not work, please email smurphy@tidalbasin.rphc.com or brand@tidalbasin.rph.com. Question 55. Are there links that you would like to share that would support this synthesis? Question 56. Please provide relevant links. If you would prefer to email the links please send to the research team. Question 57. Are there other airports that are doing innovative things with their AEP, either updating them, building out functional sections, developing new standalone plans, or finding ways to make the plan actionable? If so, can you share which airport and an appropriate contact for this survey? Question 58. Do you have documents that can be shared to include in the synthesis and potentially be used as a case study? Do you have photographs or graphics/visuals that can be shared for use in the synthesis? Question 59. If yes, please give a web address below or email products to the research team. Question 60. Would the respondent like to attribute their responses? Questions 61–66. Name Title Organization name Contact information Phone Email Question 67. Are you answering for more than one airport? Question 68. Which airports are you answering for? [Any reponses received were redacted to protect privacy.]

SurveyMonkey (Online) Survey Questions and Responses 135 Questions 69–72. Name Title Phone Email Question 73. Please identify which size airport you are answering for. In order for the research to ensure relevance to as many stakeholders as possible, we ask that you identify which size airport you are answering for. If answering for more than one airport size, please list all that apply. Question 74. If identifying/demographic information is given, can comments be attributed to the individual or airport? Question 75. Is there anything further you would like to add that has not been asked previously? If no, please answer N/A. [Any reponses received were redacted to protect privacy.]