AIRPORT DISASTER PREPAREDNESS IN A COMMUNITY CONTEXT

Executive Summary

In our current economic, climatic, and political environment, airports and their surrounding communities are seeking effective ways to address disaster planning with foresight, common sense, and economy. Airports are traditionally reliable, essential assets in nearly every aspect of disaster preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery, and they currently engage in cooperative planning, training, drilling, and exercising with a wide array of local, state, and federal emergency management agencies (EMAs). Building on these existing cooperative connections, forging new relationships, sharing expertise and resources, and ensuring that these links stay strong over time can efficiently and economically move airport and community preparedness to a measurably higher level.

This study uses survey results from 37 U.S. airports and 12 emergency management agencies to examine the current state of cooperation among airports and their partners and suggests ways to strengthen and develop existing bonds to ensure community preparedness along with the protection and promotion of both airport operations and business continuity.

Two very strong conclusions emerge. First, U.S. airports have generally been aggressively planning for disasters beyond the traditional boundaries of Part 139, either in advance of Advisory Circular 150/5200-31B or in anticipation of it. Second, based primarily on in-person conversations with airport managers and the South Florida workshop, airport managers have a deep understanding and appreciation that good working relationships with surrounding emergency management agencies are essential to airport preparedness. Airports' needs for surge capacity during disaster response can be met through wise mutual aid agreements made effective through joint training, drilling, and exercising.

In the special case of South Florida, a number of very strong conclusions arose. South Florida's airports and EMAs have a tradition of working well together born out experience with past disasters, good statutes and local ordinances, and a spirit of operational cooperation and good-neighborliness. Multiple strong, quick communications networks have grown out of routine operations such as weather diversions, and have proved to work effectively in more extreme scenarios. They could profitably be rationalized.

SEADOG is a powerful alliance that the Florida airports can count on. The key federal agencies involved in aviation in South Florida-FAA, TSA, CDC, and CBP-show responsiveness and flexibility in working with airports in unusual operational situations. Access control to airports to facilitate EMA participation in incidents may merit examination, at least at some airports. Intensive joint training, drilling, and exercising enhance local and regional partnership and preparedness. Personal relationships are essential in cooperation and coordination, and relationship continuity should be the goal of succession planning.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Airport Preparedness in a Community Context

a. Cooperative planning with EMA and other mutual aid partners

b. Joint training with mutual aid partners and other EMAs

c. Frequent drills

d. Realistic drills

e. Using real incidents for training and drills

f. Airport involvement as asset in non-aviation community drills

g. Aggressive after-action reviews (AARs) for real incidents, drills, and exercises

h. Formal NIMS and ICS training at all levels within the organization, including refresher training

i. Succession planning

j. Drills and exercise that test succession by removing key employees

k. "Wickering in" senior management during training, drills, and exercises

l. Pre-siting as many disaster response facilities outside the airport as possible

Innovative preparedness measures

a. Establish remote EOC during disaster evacuation

b. Bring surveillance CCTV into airport EOC to allow NIMS unified command to coordinate activities and support on-scene commanders

c. Utilize training CDs compiled from surveillance tapes during real incidents

d. Establish frequent, regular meetings of operations and emergency managers

e. Integrate GIS into EM and EM communications

f. Institute cooperative pandemic planning with CDC, state health department, local health department, and airport

Characteristics of Successful Airports in Terms of Emergency Preparedness & COOP

Based on all information gathered in this study and the 2007 studies, airports that are notably successful at emergency preparedness in a community context develop and cultivate the following practices:

a. Sense of community

b. Stability of staff

c. Top-down support and leadership

d. Ongoing cooperation with surrounding EMAs

e. Frequent realistic drills and exercises

f. Use of real events as training and drilling opportunities

g. Aggressive use of AARs and innovative use of documentation of incidents

h. Presence of EM position (not tested in this study)

i. Active in Index E Chiefs association (where applicable)

j. Active in SEADOG or WESTDOG

k. Presence of CDC and interactive planning with health agencies

l. Cooperative relationship with TSA (not tested in this study)

m. Greater proportion of international passengers

n. Large operating budget

Suggestions for further study

Regional cooperation and coordination among airports, both in general and specifically in emergency preparedness, are promising research areas. ACRP has made cooperation and communication among airports a research topic for 2009 and beyond. Sharing current plans between airports is worth investigating further, and ways to facilitate sharing of specialized plans should be explored.

Airports where emergency preparedness has been dominated by managers with a fire background have more aggressively adopted NIMS and have instituted a wider variety of non-aviation emergency planning than airports dominated by managers with a law enforcement perspective. Further studies regarding effective management and leadership styles would be worthwhile.

SEADOG and WESTDOG have made magnificent contributions which could be documented and analyzed; future research could also investigate enhancements such as credentialing of specialized airport employees, establishing equipment pools, and utilizing publicity methods to make airports aware of the groups' capabilities. The Midwest, Middle Atlantic, and New England could be investigated for the feasibility of developing similar groups. Coordination of communications among different networks could improve situational awareness, enhance management tools, and reduce confusion.

Application of geographic information systems (GIS) to airport operations and to coordination with mutual aid agencies is another fruitful area for future research. The advantages of off-airport pre-siting of disaster activities such as mobile hospitals for airport COOP and COB during disaster-related operations would also be productive areas for further study. Lastly, further study of Safety Management Systems (SMS) could yield promising results.