Guidebook for IROPS Stakeholder Communication & Coordination (2016)

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.

A I R P O R T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M ACRP REPORT 153 TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2016 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration Subscriber Categories Aviation • Operations and Traffic Management • Safety and Human Factors Guidebook for IROPS Stakeholder Communication & Coordination Barbara Cogliandro Rafal Kicinger Ed Masterson Giles O’Keeffe Metron AviAtion, inc. Washington, DC Rose Agnew J. Michael Nash Christina Coverdell AviAtion innovAtion, LLc St. Paul, MN Tim Anderson Anderson consuLting, LLc Eden Prairie, MN Richard Marchi rFMArchi AviAtion consuLting, inc. Washington, DC Justin Phy BArich, inc. Richmond, TX Tim Callister MeAd & hunt, inc. Minneapolis, MN

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans- portation of people and goods and in regional, national, and interna- tional commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects with other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research is necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the airport industry. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon- sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). ACRP carries out applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agen- cies and not being adequately addressed by existing federal research programs. ACRP is modeled after the successful National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). ACRP undertakes research and other technical activi- ties in various airport subject areas, including design, construction, legal, maintenance, operations, safety, policy, planning, human resources, and administration. ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can cooperatively address common operational problems. ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100— Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary participants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations such as the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA), the American Associa- tion of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) TRB as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract with the National Academy of Sciences formally initiating the program. ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials, equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research organi- zations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibili- ties, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort. Research problem statements for ACRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel appointed by TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing coop- erative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the intended users of the research: airport operating agencies, service pro- viders, and academic institutions. ACRP produces a series of research reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other interested parties; industry associations may arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, webinars, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by airport industry practitioners. ACRP REPORT 153 Project 10-23 ISSN 1935-9802 ISBN 978-0-309-37534-4 Library of Congress Control Number 2016936107 © 2016 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. Published reports of the AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to express appreciation to the various airport staff who were interviewed as part of this study. Airport staff provided information concerning the best practices and lessons learned from manag- ing complex irregular operations events in the recent past. Those interviewed included representatives from the following airports: • Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Georgia • Denver International Airport, Colorado • Duluth International Airport, Minnesota • Heathrow Airport, London, England • General Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin • Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, Minnesota • Toronto Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Canada • Portland International Airport, Oregon CRP STAFF FOR ACRP REPORT 153 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Michael R. Salamone, ACRP Manager Theresia H. Schatz, Senior Program Officer Terri Baker, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Sharon Lamberton, Editor ACRP PROJECT 10-23 PANEL Field of Operations Brad Martin, Massport Authority, East Boston, MA (Chair) Kenneth Brammer, Delta Airport Consultants, Inc., Richmond, VA Joanne M. Landry, Landry Consultants LLC, Seattle, WA Lisa J. LeBlanc-Hutchings, Lee County Port Authority, Fort Myers, FL Panagiota P. “Penny” Neferis Giarretto, JetBlue Airways, Long Island City, NY Dianne L. Walker, Wayne County Airport Authority, Romulus, MI (Retired) Lillian Miller, FAA Liaison Paul James Eubanks, Airports Council International—North America Liaison

ACRP Report 153: Guidebook for IROPS Stakeholder Communication & Coordination pro- vides details on strategies and tools for reducing IROPs impacts on passengers. This guide- book will assist communication and coordination as airports and airlines implement IROPS contingency plans. Included are communication checklists and a strategy for obtaining and maintaining stakeholder contacts; a list of federal flight data resources and other technolo- gies, which allow for expedited communication regarding diversions on a national, regional, and local scale; flow diagrams to illustrate the integration of communication and collabora- tion processes; case studies of a variety of scenarios depicting IROPS responses; scenarios and instructions for conducting tabletop exercises; and a tool to assist in predicting the risks associated with national, regional, and local IROPS events to improve planning and response. This CD-based tool includes a response plan for stakeholders’ involvement in assessing the likelihood and severity of reoccurrence of IROPS impacts, data sources to help alert an airport when an IROPS event is likely to occur, and the ability to create reports on IROPS risk levels for the stakeholders. The case studies and tabletop exercises also serve as training materials and can be customized for any airport. Process recommendations for airports to coordinate their IROPS contingency plans with airlines were developed as part of the recent ACRP Report 65: Guidebook for Airport Irregu- lar Operations (IROPS) Contingency Planning. Follow-up regional discussions hosted by the U.S.DOT, FAA, and ACRP have helped many airports in coordinating contingency plans with other stakeholders. While certificated airports and airlines have filed their Tarmac Delay Con- tingency Plans with the U.S.DOT, many of these plans could be better coordinated between the stakeholders and the airports. Better communication and collaboration is necessary to prevent, or to respond to, events that lead to delays and unwanted impacts to the traveling public. This guidance has been developed to help provide more timely communication and coordinated planning among stakeholders for cooperative responses to IROPS events. Under ACRP Project 10-23, research was conducted by Metron Aviation in association with Aviation Innovation, LLC; Anderson Consulting, LLC; RFMarchi Aviation Consulting, Inc.; Barich, Inc.; and Mead & Hunt, Inc. A series of interviews were conducted with airport stakeholders from numerous airports to gather information about airport and airline expe- riences responding to IROPS. Electronic files, available on CRP-CD-180, include the IROPS Risk Assessment Tool and User’s Guide, Tabletop Exercises, Tools for IROPS Stakeholder Communication & Coordination, as well as IROPS resources from ACRP Report 65 bound into this report and also available at www.trb.org. F O R E W O R D By Theresia S. Schatz Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

C O N T E N T S P A R T 1 Guidebook 3 Section 1 Why Is This Guidebook Needed? 3 1.1 Introduction 6 1.2 Expected Results from this Guidebook 6 1.3 Who Can Use the Guidebook 7 1.4 How to Get Started 10 Section 2 Building and Expanding on the IROPS Roadmap and Principles 10 2.1 Original Six-Step IROPS Planning Process 10 2.2 Expanded IROPS Planning Process 12 Section 3 Quick Guide for Enhancing the IROPS Planning Process 13 3.1 Include Stakeholders 16 3.2 Use Data Sources 18 3.3 Improve Stakeholder Cooperation 20 3.4 Evaluate Plans and Training 23 3.5 Guidance During an Event 25 3.6 Improve Plans and Training 27 Section 4 Summary 27 4.1 Before an IROPS Event 28 4.2 During an IROPS Event 28 4.3 After an IROPS Event 30 Bibliography 32 Abbreviations 34 Glossary A-1 Appendix A Before an IROPS Event A-2 A.1 Fundamentals of IROPS Planning (from ACRP Report 65: Guidebook for Airport Irregular Operations [IROPS] Contingency Planning) A-25 A.2 Extract of U.S.DOT Regulations Related to Airports and Air Carriers (Domestic and Foreign) A-27 A.3 Expanded List of Stakeholders and Stakeholder Group Communication Matrix A-51 A.4 Checklist for Maintaining a Stakeholder Contact List A-52 A.5 Expanded Template for Stakeholder Contact Details A-54 A.6 Data Resources A-59 A.7 Annual IROPS Checklist A-62 A.8 Case Studies and U.S.DOT Aviation Enforcement Order Summaries A-102 A.9 Sample Tabletop Exercise Scenarios, Considerations, and Planning Guide

B-1 Appendix B During an IROPS Event B-2 B.1 IROPS Readiness Checklist B-3 B.2 Social Media Checklist C-1 Appendix C After an IROPS Event C-2 C.1 Recovery Checklist C-3 C.2 Debriefing Assessment Checklist C-4 C.3 Continuous Improvement Accountability Checklist P A R T 2 IROPS Risk Assessment Tool User’s Guide 1 Section 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose of the Irregular Operations (IROPS) Risk Assessment Tool 1 1.2 Why Use The Tool 2 1.3 How The Tool Works 3 Section 2 Explanation of Terms 4 Section 3 Guidance for Tool Users 4 3.1 Before Starting – Pre-plan 9 Section 4 Determining Severity and Likelihood 10 4.1 Severity Levels 11 4.2 Likelihood Levels 12 Section 5 Organizational Planning 12 5.1 Organizational Planning Priority 13 Section 6 Using The Tool 14 Section 7 IROPS Risk Coordinator’s Inputs 14 7.1 Overview 15 7.2 Risk Coordinator’s Steps 24 Section 8 Stakeholders’ Inputs 24 8.1 Overview 24 8.2 Stakeholders’ Steps 31 Section 9 Reports 31 9.1 IROPS Report Risk Assessment 32 9.2 Current Risks 32 9.3 Post-Mitigation Risks 33 Section 10 Follow-up Actions: Meet/Reassess/Update 33 10.1 Risk Coordinator’s Actions 33 10.2 Stakeholders’ Actions 33 10.3 After IROPS Event 34 10.4 Using The Tool for Training A-1 Appendix A Data Sources A-1 A.1 Federal Data Sources A-3 A.2 Non-federal Flight Data Resources

B-1 Appendix B Types of IROPS Events and Impacts B-2 B.1 Events B-3 B.2 Impacts C-1 Appendix C IROPS Risk Assessment Tool Quick Reference Guide D-1 Appendix D Minimum System Requirements and File Management D-2 D.1 Minimum System Requirements D-2 D.2 File Management E-1 Appendix E Special Instructions for Microsoft Excel 2013 Users Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

P a r t 1 Guidebook

3 1.1 Introduction In 2006, a passengers’ rights movement drew attention to the need for improved aviation indus- try communication and planning to meet passenger needs during irregular operations (IROPS). In response, the U.S.DOT began issuing rules and regulations that, among other things, required airlines to coordinate IROPS plans with airports to improve the passenger experience (Figure 1). Simultaneously, collaborative-focused guidance materials, including ACRP Report 65: Guidebook for Airport Irregular Operations (IROPS) Contingency Planning, were published to provide tools and best practices for airports to use to improve cooperation with airlines and government agencies during irregular conditions. Follow-up discussions related to the desire for coordinated airport and airline response to flight diversion IROPS events occurred at six forums: one DOT/FAA Diversion Forum held in late 2011 and five FAA Diversion Forums held in early 2012. Additional discussions took place in 2012 at eight ACRP Report 65 dissemination workshops. These workshops, held around the nation, drew 480 attendees that included representatives from 95 airports (90% of all major hub airports) and 21 airlines. The forums and workshops revealed that, although airlines and airports have techni- cally complied with U.S.DOT’s 2011 “Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections” ruling and the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 by filing their tarmac delay contingency plans, many of these plans fall short of meeting the intent of the ruling, which is to open communication lines and establish cooperative actions between aviation stakeholders during IROPS events. Feedback from the ACRP Report 65 dissemination workshops identified the need for aviation stakeholders to: • Establish and maintain up-to-date 24/7 contact information for all organizations involved in IROPS response, including alternates; • Improve IROPS notification procedures to enable stakeholders to anticipate needs; • Develop methods for communicating real-time shared situational awareness, especially between airports and airlines; • Achieve more coordination and communication among stakeholders during after-hour diversions; • Develop procedures, such as training sessions, to communicate ideas from debriefing sessions to all stakeholders; • Use social media as a communication tool among stakeholders; • Hold regular region-wide communication briefings for stakeholders; • Develop procedures to share resources and equipment among stakeholders; and • Share federal and aviation information resources to assist with IROPS communication among stakeholders. S e c t i o n 1 Why Is this Guidebook Needed?

Figure 1. Timeline of IROPS events and actions.

Why is this Guidebook needed? 5 Today, many airports have begun to address some of these recommendations by establishing IROPS plans in addition to their filed tarmac delay contingency plans. These plans range from formal, complex plans to informal, ad hoc plans that combine everything from operating pro- cedures from various other plans to verbal “handshake” agreements. However, most of these airports’ plans—no matter how formal or informal—have been developed as self-contained contingency plans designed to be implemented independently of other aviation stakeholders during IROPS events. This reflects a larger industry-wide problem of many aviation organiza- tions operating in silos, revealing a lack of coordinated efforts, especially during diversion and extended-delay situations. During diversion events, many reliever airports report that they still have limited coordina- tion with airlines that only irregularly use them for diverted flights. Other airport authorities report that they receive minimal notice, if any, of diversion aircraft headed to their respective airports, and therefore they often do not have adequate staffing available at the time of the diversions to accommodate the aircraft or its passengers. This situation is particularly chal- lenging when diversions occur beyond an airport’s regular hours of operation. This lack of coordination has been further identified by the issuance of several U.S.DOT aviation enforce- ment orders during the past few years that demonstrate how air carrier contingency plans have not been fully coordinated with all scheduled and diversion airports or with other agencies, like U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and organizations such as Fixed-Base Opera- tors (FBOs). During extended disruptive events, airports that primarily use ad hoc or loosely formed IROPS agreements have discovered that their plans, which tend to be adequate for managing recurring IROPS events like seasonal weather situations, are inadequate when new situations occur or when events turn into extended-delay situations. New or extenuating circumstances often can reveal: • Gaps in stakeholder participation that result from omitting a needed stakeholder or an inabil- ity to reach a certain stakeholder because contact information is inaccurate and/or because alternate contacts have not been identified; • Lack of contingency plans for equipment malfunctions that can occur during long-term events involving extreme temperatures; • Inadequate manual processes in place to maintain business continuity after loss of a technology- dependent service; • No clear guidance on which stakeholder is responsible for IROPS-related expenditures; • Lack of understanding related to each airport’s terminal and/or gate capacity constraints in a region; • Lack of a fully coordinated public/passenger communication plan using various technologies, including social media; and/or • No clear directions on how stakeholders should manage an escalating situation. Compounding all of these challenges is, at the core, a trust issue between and among stake- holders in the aviation industry. Trust needs to be built among various stakeholders in order for different organizations to work effectively with one another. This guidebook is designed to provide strategies and tools to assist airports as they develop trust with their aviation stake- holders and discover ways to improve coordination and work collaboratively to mitigate IROPS events. Better communication, collaboration, and cooperation in the aviation industry are necessary to prevent and to respond to events that lead to delays and unwanted impacts to the traveling public. Guidance is needed for more timely communication and coordinated planning among stakeholders for cooperative responses to IROPS events.

6 Guidebook for iRoPS Stakeholder communication & coordination – Part 1 1.2 Expected Results from this Guidebook Airports of various sizes can use this guidebook to help: • Refine their IROPS response planning to specifically meet U.S.DOT and FAA regulations by linking guidance to specific U.S.DOT Airport Tarmac Delay Contingency Plan requirements that involve the coordination of stakeholders; • Protect their public image by being better prepared to respond to IROPS events in a collabora- tive manner with other stakeholders in the industry; and • Establish or improve cooperation, communication, and coordination with airlines and other organizations involved in IROPS response planning by using the IROPS Risk Assessment Tool collectively to prioritize investments of time, responsibility, and capital needed for effective response. Specifically, the guidance presented can help airports comply with the following DOT requirements: • Provide local IROPS contingency plans (required since May 14, 2012) and update them regu- larly according to U.S.DOT’s 5-year cycle; • Provide for deplanement of passengers following excessive tarmac delays; • Provide for sharing of gates and other facilities; and • Provide a sterile area, in the event of excessive tarmac delays, for passengers who have not yet cleared U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) screening. This guidebook also provides strategies and tools for airports to use to engage with other stakeholders to meet the intent of U.S.DOT rules that require stakeholders to coordinate with one another. Although the U.S.DOT requirements are for domestic and international airline carriers, airports are involved as follows: • Airlines must provide assurance that plans have been coordinated with airport authorities and with each airport that the carrier serves, including: – Diversion airports, – Large hub airports, – Medium hub airports, – Small hub airports, and – Non-hub primary airports. • Part 1—Appendix A.2 provides more details. 1.3 Who Can Use the Guidebook This guidebook is applicable to airports of all sizes, including small, medium, large hub, and non-hub airports. FAA’s Categories of Airport Activities defines airport size as follows: • Non-hub primary: airports handling over 10,000 but less than 0.05% of the country’s annual passenger boardings; • Small hub: airports with 0.05% to 0.25% of the country’s annual passenger boardings; • Medium hub: airports handling 0.25% to 1% of the country’s annual passenger boardings; and • Large hub: airports handling over 1% of the country’s annual passenger boardings. This guidebook is intended for airports to use with stakeholders within an airport’s geo- graphic region in order to achieve optimal stakeholder coordination. Such coordination is par- ticularly important when IROPS events cause aircraft diversions that can affect multiple airports in a particular region.