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.
6 1.1 Continuum of Disruptions What Is the Continuum of Disruptions? The daily life of an airport is never like a long, quiet river. The path of regular operations is always full of events of various types and amplitudes that will cause disruptions. Moreover, one disruption can lead to another, and another disruption can happen while an ongoing disruption is still in the process of being addressed. To be resilient, airport managers and their stakeholders should think of operations as a complex continuum of disruptions rather than as a peaceful continuum of operations (Figure 1). While some adverse events cannot be predicted before they occur (e.g., runway overrun), many of them are preceded by precursors that, if detected, can help the community of airport opera- tions to take proactive steps that will either expedite the response or minimize the impact of the event (Figure 2). For instance, snowstorms can usually be predicted by weather forecasters. Pre-positioning equipment and mobilizing drivers in anticipation of the snowfall makes these means available for pre-treatment and immediately when the snow starts falling. Characterizing the Criticality However, each disruption of regular operations is different in the way it affects the airport. Also, the disruptions do not all call for the same type of response and mobilization of resources. Despite these dissimilarities, the disruptions can be categorized based on their criticality, and in particular, by (1) their impact on operations and (2) the resources needed to address them (Table 1). The following four levels of disruptions are used in the toolbox and its materials: ⢠A Continuity Event is a planned or unplanned loss of a system that impedes operations but does not significantly affect most flights (e.g., partial loss of airfield lighting, limited IT system outage, and limited staffing shortage). Continuity events can be addressed by the airport staff as part of their daily missions and typically require some coordination with a small number of stakeholders who follow standard operating procedures. ⢠Irregular Operations (IROPS) are exceptional events that require actions and/or capabilities beyond those considered usual by aviation service providers but that are still manageable by airport-based resources. Generally speaking, the impact of an IROPS event is manifested when passengers experience delays, often in unexpected locations, for an undetermined amount of time. IROPS include ground-delay programs and ground stops, massive diversions, tarmac delays, snowstorms, and taxiway excursions. IROPS are typically covered by airport IROPS contingency plans, which establish the coordinated response of the airport and its stakeholders. C H A P T E R 1 Understanding Airport Collaborative Decision Making
Understanding Airport Collaborative Decision Making 7 Irregular Operations Continuity Event Emergency Incident/Crisis Timeline of Operations Figure 1. Depiction of the continuum of disruptions. Normal Conditions Precursors Beginning & Escalation Escalation & Propagation De-escalation Continuous Monitoring Detection & Anticipation Deciding Together, Initiating Response Acting Together, Executing Plans Adjustment of Response Post-Ops Analysis Normal Conditions Figure 2. Timeline of adverse conditions and the typical response. Criticality Typical Impact Resources Involved Examples Continuity Event Limited impact on some airport functions and/or flights Airport-based resources are enough Individual flight delay Flight Information Display System screen out of service Bathroom unavailable Irregular Operations Flight delays/missed flights Massive diversion Ground delay program/ground stop Emergency Dispatch of first responders Conflict situation Medical emergency Intrusion in a security-restricted area Suspicious bag Incident/Crisis Systemic disruption significantly impacting most of the operations Additional non- airport-based resources required Aircraft accident Hazardous material spill Terrorist attack Wildland or urban fire Flooding Earthquake Hurricane Tornado Tropical storm Pandemic Power outage Table 1. Criticality of disruptions.
8 Airport Collaborative Decision Making (ACDM) to Manage Adverse Conditions Other plans and procedures, such as a Snow and Ice Control Plan, provide additional planning and procedures on specific matters. ⢠An Emergency, in this context, is any occasion that warrants action to save lives and to protect property and public health with the dispatch of first responders (e.g., paramedics, emergency medical technicians, and airport police officers) as long as they can be managed by the pre- determined (organic) response assets without exceeding airport capabilities. This includes but is not limited to conflict situations, medical emergencies, intrusions in a security restricted area, and suspicious bags. ⢠An Incident or Crisis is an occurrence or event (natural or human-caused) that requires an additional, non-airport coordinated emergency response to protect life, property, environment, or business operation. For example, incidents can include aircraft accidents, major disasters, large-scale emergencies, terrorist attacks, terrorist threats, floods, hazardous materials spills, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tropical storms, public health emergencies, and other occurrences that require an emergency response or an enhanced response by supporting subject matter experts beyond the airportâs resources. The main airport emergency planning document for incidents and crises is the Airport Emergency Plan, which addresses essential emergency- related and deliberate actions planned to ensure the safety of and emergency services for the airport populace and the community in which the airport is located. Categorization of Adverse Conditions Whatever the level of disruption, it is essential for the airport community to anticipate any event and to plan accordingly as much as possible. While not all events can be predicted or require a comprehensive response plan, all of them can be categorized. Criticality regarding the impact on operations and the resources needed to provide an adequate response has already been discussed. Another way to characterize events is to refer to their area of impact (e.g., airside/ airspace, terminal, landside, and off-airport) and their domain (a type of event or main function affected). The toolbox adopts the following categorizations (Figure 3). Other categorizations might be possible, and some events might fall under more than one area of impact/domain pair. However, the proposed system aims to provide a logical and intuitive way of facilitating information searches. Planning and Deciding Together To mitigate the consequences of adverse events, the airport should deliver an adequate response in order to return to the path of regular operations as soon as possible. This process requires Construction Business ContinuityCapacity & Delay Areas of Impact Airside/Airspace Terminal Landside Off-Airport Domains Aviation Safety Natural Disaster Information Systems Infrastructure & FacilitiesExtreme Weather Security & Unlawful Activities Public Safety Figure 3. Events and items categorization adopted in the toolbox.
Understanding Airport Collaborative Decision Making 9 correctly identifying potential disruptions in order to plan the response and establish procedures with the concerned internal and external stakeholders, to arm the response measures, and to oversee them. Collaboration between the stakeholders who have different profiles and cultures is the key to establishing successful plans and procedures that make sense operationally and can effectively contain and address adverse conditions. Airport Collaborative Decision Making (ACDM) is a process of excellence that aims to enhance airport operations to manage non-nominal situations (Figure 4). Each stakeholder optimizes decisions based on shared, reliable, and continuously updated information, especially in cases of predicted or unpredicted events. With this process, the airport can prevent any degraded situation and mitigate efficiently by continuously monitoring performance indicators or disrup- tion premises. It is important to alert the respective concerned persons to avoid the accumulation of small events that can cause an emergency or even a crisis. The time from the end of the disruption to the return to normal conditions is a fragile and degraded period that can lead to incidents. Analyzing feedback after the event needs to be done properly to enhance management procedures or even to create them to face a future crisis. It has to be done internally, as well as with all the stakeholders in workgroups, as part of the CDM process to present the results and decide on the major updates to existing procedures. 1.2 Introduction to ACDM Definition CDM is âa process applied to support activities such as demand/capacity balancing. CDM can be applied across the timeline of activities, from strategic planning to real-time operations. CDM is not an objective but a way to reach the performance objectives of the processes it supportsâ (ICAO Doc 9971, 2018). Figure 4. Life cycle of the management of adverse conditions under ACDM.
10 Airport Collaborative Decision Making (ACDM) to Manage Adverse Conditions Behind these high-level objectives, CDM typically consists of two key ideas: ⢠Air traffic management (ATM) should be based on the same flight data updated in real time and shared between the different stakeholders. However, sharing information by itself is not sufficient to realize CDM and its objectives. ⢠Decision making should be coordinated and collaborative, especially during adverse condi- tions, including crisis. Collaborative operating procedures should be defined to facilitate the decision-making process and crisis management. The present toolbox specifically focuses on the second key idea and CDM per se for enhancing the management of adverse conditions. More information on the benefits of CDM for real time ATM is available in ACRP Report 137: Guidebook for Advancing Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) at Airports (Vail et al. 2015). A Brief History of CDM in the United States In the mid-1990s, as delays in the National Airspace System (NAS) grew, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and flight operators came to realize that internal real-time operational decisions had a great deal of external impact on one another. As this understanding deepened, they realized that decisions were being made without full and complete information and collabo- ration. To bridge this gap, the FAA/Industry CDM Stakeholders Group was established to collaborate and share real-time operational information to improve situational awareness and decision making. This ATM collaboration has now evolved to include airport surface traffic management. This FAA/Industry CDM activity has realized that comprehensive industry collaboration must extend to the aircraft parking gate. Thus, airport operators are also a vital link in the effort to reduce delays and improve safety and efficiency (Figure 5). ACDM is coming: Several U.S. airports have effectively developed practices and tools for sharing real-time information and collaborative decision-making purposes. For instance, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport has implemented a collaborative approach to massive diversion with the stakeholders and the surrounding airports. JFK International Airport is consolidating its operations based on the 2018 LaHood report that recommends more integration and collaboration. FAA AIRPORT OPERATORS FAA AIRPORT OPERATORS WITHOUT CDM WITH CDM Figure 5. Airport functions with and without CDM. The Case for ACDM ACDM is the extension of the CDM philosophy of information sharing to problems affecting airports. In an ACDM context, there are generally three distinct leadership groups: the airport
Understanding Airport Collaborative Decision Making 11 operator, the FAA (Air Traffic Control), and the flight operatorsâa category that includes airlines, air taxis, and private pilots. Other stakeholders, such as the ground-handling service providers and law enforcement agencies, may also play a critical role in the ACDM process. Each of these groups represents different constituents as they strive for efficient, timely operation and work to solve issues related to aircraft surface operations at airports. Before the implementation of ACDM locally, these leadership groups at the airport worked in âsilos.â Exchange of real-time, day-of-operations information among the groups was limited. With ACDM, all stakeholders optimize their operations and decisions in a collaborative envi- ronment, with consideration of their preferences, known constraints, and forecast situations. The decision-making process is facilitated not only by sharing accurate and timely operational information through a common toolset, but also by applying agreed-upon process and proce- dures (Table 2). For the management of adverse conditions, ACDM relies on the following: ⢠Using shared, practice-ready procedures to guide the action of the stakeholders and make it more efficient. ⢠Addressing operational disruptions together, not in âsilos.â ⢠Anticipating, preventing, and preparing for adverse conditions as far as practicable. ⢠Mitigating adverse conditions early on, before they degenerate into a more impactful crisis. ⢠Returning to regular operations as soon as possible. Collaborative Approach Collaborative Result Strong coordination among the stakeholders during winter operations (e.g., joint training/briefings before each winter, integration of airport operations, airline representative at the Airport Operations Center, shared tools/data with the air traffic control tower, and runway closures for snow removal tightly coordinated/planned together). More efficient snow removal/pavement de-icing operations, Increased safety for both winter operations crew and the aircraft, Enhanced passenger experience, and Overall reduction of delays due to winter conditions. Collaborative procedure with the stakeholders on disabled aircraft removal including pre-identification of removal equipment and plan for mitigating impact of runway unavailability on operations. Higher awareness of stakeholders about roles and responsibilities, Shorter decision-making process and faster removal of aircraft, and Reduced delay/impact on operations. Collaborative approach to runway construction projects. Construction Safety and Phasing Plan and Safety Risk Assessment involve the stakeholders and the construction management leadership. Regular (weekly and daily) construction coordination meetings in place. âPlan Bâ prepared for the beginning and end of the most impactful construction projects. Less delay due to modified ground routing or runway capacity, Increased awareness of the pilot community and air traffic controllers, Safer conditions on the operative airside/airspace, and Increased operational robustness. Collaborative procedure with neighboring airports on the diversion of international flights. International flights are not diverted to airports without Customs and Border Protection unless agents can be positioned there on short notice, Reduced waiting time of passengers inside the aircraft, Enhanced passenger experience, and Easier transfer of passengers to their final destination. Table 2. Collaborative approach and results examples.
12 Airport Collaborative Decision Making (ACDM) to Manage Adverse Conditions Toward the ACDM Process While many airports have some kind of collaborative practices and procedures in place with their stakeholders, few of them have a comprehensive approach that can be considered an estab- lished ACDM process. The opportunity with ACDM is to bring all the aspects of airport opera- tions under an integrated process of decision making that gathers both the internal and external stakeholders of operations. This integrated vision of operations can help in creating synergies, identifying issues that are not adequately addressed, and performing operations planning with all the concerned parties for making the airport more proactive and resilient. It also implies the establishment among the stakeholders of a common definition of airport performance, joint efficiency and resilience objectives, and a framework for continuous improvement. The ACDM process is intended to encompass the management of all regular and irregular operations with a specific focus on capacity and efficiency. Consequently, ACDM does not super- sede other processes with collaborative features, such as the airport safety management system or the airport framework for emergency management, but provides a different focus. However, it might become an umbrella term that embraces and coordinates existing processes with a similar focus, such as the IROPs Contingency Plan. ACDM in a Nutshell ACDM is a process, not a project. To recap, it requires the following elements: ⢠First and foremost, everyone needs to realize that a better airport operation benefits everyone. Many issues should be addressed by the whole community of operations together rather than individual entities side by side in silos. ⢠The ACDM process at a specific airport should first address local needs and serve the vision of the local community of operations, and then help the airport to enhance its performance within the NAS. ⢠Success will require the commitment of airport resources from the operating staff to the upper management. ACDM is not a quick fix. It is a process that requires time and commitment. However, it can significantly enhance operations and make the whole airport more resilient during adverse conditions. ⢠All affected internal and external stakeholders need to be included, even those who have little technical knowledge of the issues being addressed. Their inclusion is essential to ensure the ACDM process is comprehensive and efficient in addressing a broad range of operational issues. ⢠Team building and trust must be established and strengthened. Once it becomes a reality, it is crucial to maintain this âACDM spiritâ through recurrent training, seasonal workshops, and regular meetings. Joint procedures, data sharing, and group goals are for the benefit of the entire airport, not single entities. ⢠Data availability must be safeguarded and protected from use for competitive reasons between participating entities. Useful data are available in every airport operation, and transitioning the data to usable information is a group effort. ⢠Sharing of knowledge and experience is critical. Airport and stakeholder staff have valuable experience and knowledge, and different perspectives can ensure a valuable end product that benefits everyone. This includes sharing of ACDM experience and lessons learned between airport staff as well as among stakeholders at industry events. ⢠Consensual metrics should be defined and utilized to measure success. Even though a formal cost-benefit analysis will not usually be required, success and benefits need to be measured to improve the next application and pave the way for the future development of the local ACDM process.
Understanding Airport Collaborative Decision Making 13 ⢠Decisions made and data gathered during adverse conditions should be recorded; the toolbox proposes different recording tools. Regular meetings should be held for debriefing these events, identifying lessons learned, and enhancing the ACDM processâespecially individual procedures used during such events. Lessons learned should be tabulated for future efforts and shared within the community of operations. 1.3 Benefits of ACDM Advantages and Efficiencies for Managing Adverse Conditions Many potential advantages and efficiencies can be realized through ACDM-enabled projects. A few of these are listed below: ⢠Early warning and anticipation. Under ACDM, the stakeholders agree on monitoring specific key performance indicators and share information on potential disruptions as soon as possible. They inform each other through daily operations calls. They proactively manage adverse conditions and coordinate the response when applicable. ⢠Operations resilience. Under ACDM, the stakeholders have predefined procedures cover- ing a broad range of potential operational issues and mutual knowledge of their respective organization and constraints, and they coordinate their response and find synergies as far as practicable. ⢠Predictability and resource management. At commercial service airports, sharing real- time flight operations data facilitates the predictability of the passenger and aircraft flows and consequent decisions on resource allocation and capacity adjustments. Indirect benefits include the following: ⢠Brand enhancement. A more efficient airport may generate more passengers and additional flights, both of which generate airport revenue. Brand enhancement was identified as important in several airport interviews conducted under ACRP Project 10-19 [ACRP Report 137 (Vail et al. 2015)]. ⢠Real-time diversion notification. If airports are afforded access to FAA/Industry CDM infor- mation, real-time notice of airline diversions can be gained through the Aggregate Demand List or Diversion Recovery CDM pages. Thus, airports have immediate notification of actual flight diversions and more time to plan for these operations. ⢠Improved operational data. Data are available from several sources to completely analyze the entire surface movement history of a flight for post-event analysis, thus identifying possible changes to increase efficiency and safety. ⢠Scheduling and service improvements. With real-time estimated arrival times, airports could forecast well in advance the demand for passenger services, Customs and Border Protection, baggage, food services, and other services and activities. The status and number of late flights could be relayed to airport concessionaires. ⢠Construction mitigation planning. History has shown that the planned mitigation for a number of construction projects has been altered and improved by collaborative inclusion of the operator preferences. At relatively uncongested airports, one of the prime considerations is departure readiness prediction to enable more efficient operations to merge into major traffic flows or streams. For example, smaller airports generated many short-range flights into congested airports. The congested airport arrival traffic is time-based metered by FAA. Time-based metering results in each flight being assigned a metered time to provide a smooth, constant flow of arrival traffic. Short-range flights are the last to call for metering times, and thus metering time availability is limited, which results in the departure being held on the origin taxiway for its metering time.
14 Airport Collaborative Decision Making (ACDM) to Manage Adverse Conditions If accurate flight departure readiness predictions could be made 30â60 minutes in advance, metering time requests could be made earlier, which could result in delay absorption at the gate before passengers board the aircraft, and in some cases, could reduce the amount of delay required. What are the benefits of ACDM for addressing adverse conditions? ⢠Uses shared procedures to guide the actions of the stakeholders, making actions more efficient. ⢠Addresses operational disruptions together, not in silos. ⢠Anticipates, prevents, and prepares for adverse conditions as far as practicable. ⢠Mitigates adverse conditions early, before they degenerate into a more impactful crisis. ⢠Returns the airport to regular operations as soon as possible. Better Management of Airport Resources Coordination and information exchange can provide airports with more accurate informa- tion on resource use. Better information on short-term gate needs can help with tactically allo- cating gates to meet demand, while historical data on gate and taxiway usage can help both to plan long term and to monitor conformance with airport use agreements. Sharing information on airport construction helps to mitigate its impact on capacity and operations. In adverse conditions, data sharing may alert airport operators and their stakeholders to events that put a strain on their resources, such as multiple diversions heading to the airport in a short period. With more advanced awareness of the situation, airport operators can more effectively plan their response and utilize their resources in a way that minimizes the disruption to regular operations and to the passengers. With greater coordination among stakeholders, airports can recover more quickly from events that disrupt normal operations (such as snow or fog). This reduces the delays experienced by passengers and increases the throughput of the airport. Further ACDM Benefits The specific benefits will greatly vary from one airport to another, depending on the ambitions of the community of operations and the objectives of the local ACDM process. Several of these benefits would require participation by the air traffic control (ATC). At larger airports, this may preclude some of the benefits from being realized, or at least fully realized, through commercial ACDM applications intended primarily for use by the airport staff. In general, the greater and more ardent the formal participation of the airportsâ stakeholders, including ATC, the broader the range of potential benefits. Other ACDM applications may also help to enhance future airport planning and develop- ment efforts, which usually result in construction activity. For instance, ACDM-type activities have helped mitigate construction impacts in New York City, Atlanta, Memphis, and other locations. In New York City, departures were metered to control runway queues; and in Atlanta and Memphis, construction vehicle traffic across active taxiways or ramps was controlled and metered to ensure safety around taxiing aircraft. Any ACDM effort will inevitably involve data sharing. If the appropriate data are shared in such a way as to allow straightforward means of access in specific locations (e.g., an airport-operated ramp
Understanding Airport Collaborative Decision Making 15 tower), operational performance should improve. Using the San Francisco International Airport major runway construction in 2014 as an example, FAA, in collaboration with many stakeholders, provided an ACDM-type data-sharing feed via the System Wide Information Management system to aid in situational awareness and to control departure queues. As with the FAA/Industry CDM program, FAA did not provide the software to display the data; it only provided the data. Additionally, ACDM data sharing results in post-operational analysis. Having a better under- standing and record of both typical and unusual operational trends will enable better planning. Better planning will result in improved operational predictability. Finally, several airports and airlines operate or contract out ramp control towers. These facilities were originally established to better control the vehicle and aircraft movement activities in the non-movement area. But their scope and responsibility have expanded to include, in some cases, major portions of the airport surface, including staging departures in a more efficient sequence (i.e., United Airlines Ramp Tower at Newark Liberty Airport). The gate-to-gate concept long advocated by EUROCONTROL and the similar concept envisioned by the FAA Terminal Flight Data Manager (TFDM) program will certainly utilize both ramp towers and operational control centers. Role of the Stakeholders of Airport Operations ACDM is a process to identify problems and build solutions through consensus planning, information sharing, and application of any needed information technology tools. The airport operator plays a critical role in developing and implementing the local ACDM implementation roadmap. The airport operator may be the ACDM initiator and lead the effort, may have a lead partnership role with a major user of the airport, or may be the facilitator or collaborator as part of the effort. For instance, at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Memphis International Airport, and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, the airport operator has partnered with the major air carrier and/or research activity for CDM-like operations. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey assumed the lead role in the departure metering project at New York Cityâs John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK). San Francisco International Airport (SFO) requested and received the Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (ASSC) viewer data from the FAA to help mitigate the impact of a runway closure. Each stakeholderâs role may also be determined by the density and complexity of operations at the airport. While many of the operational issues, such as safety and mitigating environmental impacts, are the same, there are some distinct differences. For example, at commercial service airports with several airlines, the local Airlines Operations Committee or a designated commit- tee member airline might represent a coalition of minor air carriers in the ACDM process. The main air carrier(s) might be directly participating in the process. Who supports ACDM? ACDM is supported by virtually all the stakeholders of the airport industry worldwide: Airports Council International, Civil Air Navigation Services Organization, International Air Transport Association, International Federation of Air Line Pilotsâ Associations, and International Civil Aviation Organization. They have recognized the benefits of ACDM to aviation, and they have published recommendations for and positions in favor of implementing CDM.
16 Airport Collaborative Decision Making (ACDM) to Manage Adverse Conditions 1.4 The âCâ of CDM Collaboration as a Core Value The most significant and powerful aspect of CDM is the in-depth collaboration it implies and promotes. Implementing ACDM is, first and foremost, a cultural change. It is about agreeing on and embracing the CDM approach, building mutual trust between the stakeholders, sharing operational information transparently, and making decisions together for enhancing operational efficiency and robustness. Airport stakeholders have always worked to maintain a good relationship and coordinate on major issues. However, this coordination is not necessarily based on permanent communication channels and set procedures, making it harder for the stakeholders to identify, anticipate, and mitigate together the impact of adverse conditions. ACDM offers a formal framework to share information transparently in real time, to agree on a strategy, to make decisions together on operational issues, and to continue improvement through a lessons-learned process. Airports want more collaboration: Of the airports surveyed as part of the ACRP 10-27 project, 67% do not hold regular meetings with the flight operators. Interviews with individual airports show a lack of real- time coordination among the stakeholders. However, nearly all the participants to the survey responded affirmatively that they would consider holding such meetings to improve collaboration. There is a common understanding that more cooperation can help address local issues and improve the overall efficiency. The âSilo Effectâ The stakeholders of airport operations understand that operational challenges are highly demanding. Under increasing traffic, heightened security standards, and emerging technologies, simply maintaining day-to-day activities is becoming increasingly difficult. Resilience is at risk, and any adverse conditions might cause unacceptable disruptions in the operations. To prevent and mitigate such operational disruptions, it is essential that airport stakeholders collaborate to share information, raise common awareness, and determine together the best approach to prevent or mitigate disruptions by sharing resources if necessary. However, they often operate independent processes and isolated systems, focusing on their own outcomes and without a shared situational awareness across the wider airport community. In other words, they work side by side (the silo effect) instead of together. This limited perspective on the operation as a whole can result in widespread inefficiencies and even conflicting and opposite effort. Phil S. Ensor, a former director of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, explained in The Functional Silo Syndrome the organizational difficulties of employees working without cross-communication: â[P]eople across the organization do not share common goals. Their goals are primarily functional. Communication is heavily top-downâon the vertical axis. Little is shared on the horizontal axis, partly because each function develops its own special language and set of buzzwordsâ (Ensor 1988).
Understanding Airport Collaborative Decision Making 17 The roots of the silo effect at airports are typically: ⢠Working in isolation. Each stakeholder runs processes that serve the stakeholder-specific priorities and objectives. Parties concerned with the same issue do not necessarily discuss their concerns together, and they try to address it with different strategies that can be conflicting and overlapping. ⢠Lack of common vocabulary and definitions. Each stakeholder uses terminology that is not fully understood by others, preventing transparency and impeding the definition of common objectives. For instance, one airlineâs definition of âdeparture on timeâ might be different from that of other air carriers, the air traffic control tower, and the airport operator. ⢠Lack of information exchange and communication. Stakeholders do not exchange informa- tion on flight operations, airport and external conditions, and airport resources. For instance, the airport operator is not adequately informed about flight diversions and is not aware of them before they land at the airport. ⢠Lack of joint strategic vision. No common understanding and joint ambitions exist among the stakeholders of airport operations. The CDM Philosophy In an ACDM environment, internal and external stakeholders of airport operations share information on flight operations, airport and external conditions, and airport resource availability in real time. They hold daily meetings or calls to discuss the coming hours of operations and tactical coordination. They decide together about any matters that affect capacity, resiliency, and safety, which are considered common, jointly managed resources. They organize regular (e.g., quarterly) ACDM meetings for analyzing performance, sharing lessons learned, and deciding about further improvements. The CDM philosophy demands the following from every stakeholder: ⢠Commitment to the ACDM process. The stakeholders should agree on the local benefits of ACDM, define together the objectives of the local ACDM initiative, and embrace this project. ⢠Information sharing and transparency. The local ACDM project should involve all the stake- holders at the same level of decisionâsymbolized by the Borromean rings of the CDM@USA visual identity in the toolbox. Policies and procedures should be available to all the stakeholders. Information should be shared in real time among all the stakeholders. ⢠Deciding together. Decisions affecting more than one stakeholder should be made together based on collaborative procedures and communication channels. The overall airport capacity, resilience, and safety should be considered common resources. ⢠Lessons learned and continuing improvement. The ACDM process should build on pre- vious adverse events and common experience. Decisions and actions should be debriefed. Lessons learned should be shared, and improvements to operations management should be discussed as needed. 1.5 CDM for Everyone Scalability and Applicability of ACDM Because the ACDM process should address local needs first and serve the vision of the local community of operations, ACDM efforts will be different at different airports. The ACDM pro- cess can be scaled to large, medium, or small hubs, joint-use airports, and general facilities in the U.S. European efforts have proven this scalability of ACDM with successful applications at airports of various size from large hubs (e.g., Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport, Frankfurt Airport,
18 Airport Collaborative Decision Making (ACDM) to Manage Adverse Conditions Heathrow Airport, Madrid-Barajas Adolfo Suárez Airport, and Zurich Airport) to mid-sized airports (e.g., Lyon-Saint Exupéry Airport, Milan Linate Airport, Napoli Airport, Palma de Mallorca Airport, and Venice Airport Marco Polo), and a regional CDM is now under develop- ment for integrating smaller airports. They also show that ACDM can become a system-wide standard and improve operations efficiency and resilience at the scale of a large aviation system similar to the U.S. NAS. While there is a common path to ACDM, there is no single answer to what the ACDM process and organization are supposed to be intrinsically, because they have to serve the specific needs and vision of an airport and its community of operations. As the proverbial saying goes, in this context: âwhen youâve seen one airport, youâve seen one airport.â This is true for ACDM as well. However, it is possible to build a standard approach to the core objectives of ACDM, the current framework for airport operations and emergency management, and the lessons learned from the existing ACDM process or ACDM-like practices. Chapter 3, Implementing ACDM, details this standard approach. From Curbside to Airspace Several hub airports have or are in the process of procuring advanced IT solutions for airport operations management that include the exchange and treatment of real-time flight data with the stakeholders. It is likely that deploying ACDM at such airports will have an ATM component, as outlined in ACRP Report 137 (Vail et al. 2015). However, ACDM is not synonymous with airside and airspace only. The ACDM approach and its benefits can apply to all airport components, from the curbside to the terminal control area and beyond with the FAA/Industry CDM. This integrated vision of collaboration is called Total Airport Management. A powerful vehicle of the Total Airport Management approach at larger commercial service airports is the integration of the real-time operations management functions into an integrated Airport Operations Center with a âone-roofâ vision. Such centers are sometimes called Airport Operations Centers, Integrated Airport Command Centers, Integrated Airport Operations Centers, Integrated Airport Management Centers, or Integrated Operations Centers. CDM at Hub Airports CDM initiatives at hub airports typically involve a large number of stakeholders, including the different airport departments, the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), the ramp control tower(s), the air carriers and any local hub control centers, and the ground handlers. Depending on the ambitions of the local community of operations and the defined objectives for the ACDM implementation roadmap, it can bring together several individual projects for enhancing airport operations. For instance, over 100 projects were included in the CDM@CDG 2020+ Roadmap at Paris-CDG, France. The implementation of ACDM at hub airports might require creating a specific project management structure in charge of running this implementation as a project and then transferring it to the operations when complete. When the first elements of ACDM are implemented and the process starts to be operated, it is important to keep the âACDM spiritâ alive and have a process of continuous improvement based on lessons learned and new needs. ACDM is also the perfect platform to hold perfor- mance and efficiency meetings with the stakeholders for reviewing key performance indicators and address any hindrances. For this purpose, CDM Champions should be designated within each stakeholder organization for championing ACDM internally (e.g., disseminating impor- tant information and reporting to the ACDM Manager). Different workgroups and committees might be needed as well. They include at least an ACDM Steering Committee to determine the
Understanding Airport Collaborative Decision Making 19 operational objectives of the ACDM process and the means allocated to its operation and an ACDM Operations Committee to work on streamlining the process. These groups are detailed in Chapter 3, Implementing ACDM. Small is beautiful. âSmart airportâ is not a designation limited to large-hub air- ports. âLiteâ IT solutions for airport operations management exist, and they can provide tremendous help with coordinating the internal and external stakeholders. Very simple solutions can bring collaboration alive. For instance, McGhee Tyson Airport in Knoxville, TN, has a subscription to an instant messaging online application for internal communication. It is possible to create âdiscussion roomsâ with different users, depending on the issues and the stakeholders. External stakeholders can participate as well, and documents can be shared. The same platformâand accountâis used by the airport-to-airport mutual aid program, Southeast Airports Disaster Operations Group. CDM for Smaller Airports Can smaller airports with limited resources implement ACDM? The answer is yes. It is possible to tailor an ACDM process to fit and specifically address the needs of individual small airports with simple tools and software solutions adapted to their specificities. All aviation facilities can benefit from a more organized collaboration in operations planning and real-time operations, from general aviation to non-hub airports. The case studies of Lake Tahoe Airport, South Lake Tahoe, CA, and North Carolina DOTâDivision of Aviation on emergency manage- ment detailed in Chapter 2, Operating with ACDM, provide insightful examples of how collabo- ration at or with smaller airports can benefit these facilities and a broader statewide community of stakeholders. CDM for Airport Systems The ACDM approach can apply to multi-airport systems at larger metropolitan areas and state aviation systems. Also, in certain locales, it is going to be needed because different airports of the same region can be interdependent. For example: ⢠Dallas/Fort Worth International and the surrounding airports share their available capacities through a digital platform for airport operations in order to smooth massive flight diversions from the larger airport to the smaller facilities. This includes the availability of gates for larger aircraft and Federal Inspection Services for international flights. ⢠Similarly, in the New York area, all departures from all the airports (Newark Liberty Inter- national, LaGuardia, John F. Kennedy International, Teterboro, Westchester County, and others) utilize the same departure fixes. To properly allocate the departure resource, departure demand at these airports is needed by ATC, not just that of the major airline passenger airports. The further in advance this demand is known, the better the allocations can be distributed. ⢠Southeast Airports Disaster Operations Group, an airport-airport mutual aid program, has ACDM features. Member airports, stakeholders, and professional organizations exchange information on coming adverse events and coordinate their response through an instant messaging platform.
20 Airport Collaborative Decision Making (ACDM) to Manage Adverse Conditions ACDM and the NAS The present project focuses on the enhancement of the management of adverse conditions with ACDM. ACRP Report 137 (Vail et al. 2015) discusses the ATM implication of ACDM and how it relates to the NAS and the current FAA/Industry CDM process. At some point, these dif- ferent aspects of ACDM and the FAA/Industry CDM meet. The features presented in the toolbox are designed to accommodate advanced flight operations data-sharing initiatives as part of the local ACDM process, as explored in ACRP Report 137 (Vail et al. 2015). Emerging ACDM Applications The impact of other airspace users, such as spacecraft and air mobility network companies, on airport capacity and delay might call in the near future for real-time coordination or at least an exchange of information with airport stakeholders. For instance, in the near future, some ACDM features might be necessary to facilitate the operations of Urban and Rural Air Mobility systems near aviation facilities.
