Tabletop and Full-Scale Emergency Exercises for General Aviation, Non-Hub, and Small Hub Airports (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.

3 The objective of this study was to compile existing resources, experiences, and effective practices from U.S. airports that conduct tabletop and full-scale emergency exercises in order to make them more accessible and efficient by general aviation (GA), including reliever, non-hub, and small hub airports that may lack the resources (staff or financial) to develop a large-scale exercise or comprehen- sive exercise program on their own. This project provides airports, tenants, and other various internal and external stakeholders the airport emergency planning information required by the FAA. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 139 requires an airport serving certain air carrier opera- tions to have emergency preparedness training on a regular basis as a part of the airport’s emergency plan (AEP). Airport emergency planning and training usually deals with the response to an accident or incidents on the airport or nearby. Typical training exercises that most airports utilize and are required by FAR Part 139 are tabletop exercises (TTX) and full-scale emergency exercises. The materials presented in this study are equally useful for general aviation and reliever airports that are not subject to FAR Part 139 requirements but wish to enhance their preparedness through an effective exercise program. Exercises required by the TSA as part of Parts 1540, 1542, and 1544 (Aviation Security/AVSEC) lie outside the scope of this study; however, several of the questions in the survey for this study addressed the extent to which TSA and other security partners are involved in airports’ emergency exercise planning, execution, and evaluation. State aviation security exercise requirements also lie outside the scope of this study, but will be noted in passing when a respondent mentioned them. This chapter describes these exercises, the methodology of this synthesis, and identifies how case example airports were chosen to illustrate some creative and effective practices in the industry. DEFINITIONS OF TYPES OF EXERCISES The DHS Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) defines seven types of exercises and divides the exercises into two classes: Discussion-Based Exercises and Operations- Based Exercises (DHS 2013, pp. 2.4–2.6). The DHS describes them as follows: Discussion-Based Exercises Discussion-based exercises include seminars, workshops, TTXs, and games. These types of exercises can be used to familiarize players with, or develop new, plans, policies, agreements, and procedures. Discussion-based exercises often focus on strategic, policy-related issues. Facilitators and/or presenters usually lead the discussion, keeping participants on track towards meeting exercise objectives. Seminars Seminars generally orient participants to, or provide an overview of, authorities, strategies, plans, policies, proce- dures, protocols, resources, concepts, and ideas. As a discussion-based exercise, seminars can be valuable for enti- ties that are developing or making major changes to existing plans or procedures. Seminars can be similarly helpful when attempting to assess or gain awareness of the capabilities of interagency or inter-jurisdictional operations. Workshops Although similar to seminars, workshops differ in two important aspects: Participant interaction is increased, and the focus is placed on achieving or building a product. Effective workshops entail the broadest attendance by relevant stakeholders. Products produced from a workshop can include new standard operating procedures (SOPs), emergency operations plans, continuity of operations plans, or mutual aid agreements. To be effective, workshops should have clearly defined objectives, products, or goals, and should focus on a specific issue. chapter one INTRODUCTION

4 Table Top Exercises (TTX) A TTX is intended to generate discussion of various issues regarding a hypothetical, simulated emergency. Table top exercises can be used to enhance general awareness, validate plans and procedures, rehearse concepts, and/or assess the types of systems needed to guide the prevention of, protection from, mitigation of, response to, and recovery from a defined incident. Generally, table top exercises are aimed at facilitating conceptual understanding, identifying strengths and areas for improvement, and/or achieving changes in perceptions. During a TTX, players are encouraged to discuss issues in depth, collaboratively examining areas of concern and solving problems. The effectiveness of a TTX is derived from the energetic involvement of participants and their assessment of recommended revisions to current policies, procedures, and plans. Table top exercises can range from basic to complex. In a basic TTX (such as a Facilitated Discussion), the scenario is presented and remains constant—it describes an emergency and brings discussion participants up to the simulated present time. Players apply their knowledge and skills to a list of problems presented by the facilitator, problems are discussed as a group, and resolution is reached and documented for later analysis. In a more advanced TTX, play advances as players receive pre-scripted messages that alter the original scenario. A facilitator usually introduces problems one at a time in the form of a written message, simulated telephone call, videotape, or other means. Players discuss the issues raised by each problem, referencing established authorities, plans, and procedures for guidance. Player decisions are incorporated as the scenario continues to unfold. During a TTX, all participants should be encouraged to contribute to the discussion and be reminded that they are making decisions in a no-fault environment. Effective TTX facilitation is critical to keeping participants focused on exercise objectives and associated capability targets. Games A game is a simulation of operations that often involves two or more teams, usually in a competitive environ- ment, using rules, data, and procedures designed to depict an actual or hypothetical situation. Games explore the consequences of player decisions and actions. They are useful tools for validating plans and procedures or evaluating resource requirements. During game play, decision-making may be either slow and deliberate or rapid and more stressful, depend- ing on the exercise design and objectives. The open, decision-based format of a game can incorporate “what if” questions that expand exercise benefits. Depending on the game’s design, the consequences of player actions can be either pre-scripted or decided dynamically. Identifying critical decision-making points is a major factor in the success of evaluating a game. Operations-Based Exercises Operations-based exercises include drills, functional exercises (FEs), and full-scale exercises (FSEs). These exercises can be used to validate plans, policies, agreements, and procedures; clarify roles and responsibili- ties; and identify resource gaps. Operations-based exercises are characterized by actual reaction to an exercise scenario, such as initiating communications or mobilizing personnel and resources. Drills A drill is a coordinated, supervised activity usually employed to validate a specific function or capability in a single agency or organization. Drills are commonly used to provide training on new equipment, validate proce- dures, or practice and maintain current skills. For example, drills may be appropriate for establishing a community- designated disaster receiving center or shelter. Drills can also be used to determine if plans can be executed as designed, to assess whether more training is required, or to reinforce best practices. A drill is useful as a stand-alone tool, but a series of drills can be used to prepare several organizations to collaborate in an FSE. For every drill, clearly defined plans, procedures, and protocols need to be in place. Personnel need to be familiar with those plans and trained in the processes and procedures to be drilled. Functional Exercises FEs are designed to validate and evaluate capabilities, multiple functions and/or sub-functions, or interdependent groups of functions. FEs are typically focused on exercising plans, policies, procedures, and staff members involved in management, direction, command, and control functions. In FEs, events are projected through an exercise sce- nario with event updates that drive activity typically at the management level. An FE is conducted in a realistic, real-time environment; however, movement of personnel and equipment is usually simulated. FE controllers typically use a Master Scenario Events List (MSEL) to ensure participant activity remains within predefined boundaries and ensure exercise objectives are accomplished. Simulators in a Simulation Cell (SimCell) can inject scenario elements to simulate real events. Full-Scale Exercises FSEs are typically the most complex and resource-intensive type of exercise. They involve multiple agencies, organizations, and jurisdictions and validate many facets of preparedness. FSEs often include many players operating under cooperative systems such as the Incident Command System (ICS) or Unified Command. In an FSE, events are projected through an exercise scenario with event updates that drive activity at the operational level. FSEs are usually conducted in a real-time, stressful environment that is intended to mirror a real incident. Personnel and resources may be mobilized and deployed to the scene, where actions are performed as if a real incident had occurred. The FSE simu- lates reality by presenting complex and realistic problems that require critical thinking, rapid problem solving, and effective responses by trained personnel. The level of support needed to conduct an FSE is greater than that needed for other types of exercises. The exercise site for an FSE is usually large, and site logistics require close monitoring. Safety issues, particularly regarding the use of props and special effects, must be monitored. Throughout the duration of the exercise, many activities occur. If exercises are labeled “training,” it may make it easier to get involvement and support from local fire, law enforcement, and emergency management agencies (R. Williams, personal communication, Nov. 17, 2015).

5 EXERCISES THAT AIRPORTS USE The primary emergency exercise types that airports use are tabletop and full-scale exercises (FSEs). Tabletop exercises are designed to help an organization test airport emergency situations, such as air- craft accidents, personnel emergencies, fires, hazmat incidents, natural disasters, or security threats. Exercises evaluate groups’ abilities to prepare, respond, recover, communicate, and work together. Full-scale exercises further test preparedness of all responders and cooperating organizations (mutual aid partners) and individuals in their ability to perform all roles necessary for successful emergency management. Many airports are innovative in their development of exercise scenarios, exercise methods, and exercise evaluation programs. Airports subject to FAR Part 139, that is, airports served by commercial passenger aircraft over a certain size, are required to perform a full-scale exercise every 3 years and an annual TTX in the other 2 years. This is an absolute requirement for certification. It is one of two reasons that full-scale and tabletop exercises are the predominant types of exercises used by airports. The second reason is that they serve the practical needs of the airports, including non-Part 139 airports. Airports also use the other five types of exercises, as documented in chapter three. STUDY METHODOLOGY Selection of Airports Sixty-four (64) U.S. airports were invited to participate in the survey, of which 60 responded (two declined). Airports in the sample were selected for convenience or because they were known as having exemplary emergency exercise programs or communications plans. The airports were selected to represent a range of all types and sizes of airports, while providing a wide variety of geo- graphic regions. The lack of randomization and relatively small sample sizes preclude the generaliz- ability of the statistical results beyond descriptive statistics. In addition to the 58 airports that agreed to be surveyed, a representative of one other, Rochester (Minnesota) International Airport (RST), was interviewed after the survey had been completed. Literature Review Available literature on topics associated with airport emergency exercises was reviewed using searches in both the open web (using Google.com) and the deep web (using the TRB database, Pro- Quest, EBSCO, LexisNexis, and LLIS). Peer-reviewed literature in the field of emergency exercises specifically related to airports is limited, but the literature review sought information on resources in general and particularly focused on exercise design, execution, and evaluation. Special attention was given to previous TRB reports referring to mass transit, highway transportation, and aviation practices that can be applied to exercises at airports. Survey and Response Data The online survey is reproduced in Appendix A. It was believed that the topics of airport emergency communications training and broader emergency exercise were closely linked. Using a single survey reduced the number of questionnaires sent to any one airport and allowed the inclusion of more airports in the study. It also allowed the exploration of possible interrelationships between airport emergency communications and emergency response and recovery exercises. Fifty (50) airports submitted complete responses, four airports responded via an e-mailed memo, four airports submitted partial responses, and two airports declined to participate. With the two decli- nations included, the overall response rate to the survey was 94%. The 58 airports submitting surveys or responding by memo are listed in Appendix B. Irrespective of airport size or capability, there are mul- tiple resources available to leverage the development of realistic tabletop and full-scale exercises.

6 Appendix B provides each respondent’s location, structure, and operational profile. Table 1 shows the distribution among the seven National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) categories of the 58 airports in the study; it also shows the proportion of all U.S. public-use airports that is represented in the study. The responding airports are widely distributed geographically (Figure 2). Twenty-eight (28) states and all nine FAA regions are represented in the sample. Case Examples The following criteria were applied to determine case examples that illustrate tabletop and full-scale exercise policies, procedures, and tools that will be useful for GA, non-hub, and small hub airports: • The airport’s reported use of TTX, FSE, and other exercises; • The range of exercise types, scenarios, and participants involved; • Innovative measures used; • The completeness of the airport’s documentation of its exercises and its exercise programs; and • The airport’s willingness to serve as a case example and share its exercise materials and resources. From the 30 airports that met these criteria, five case examples of actual airport exercise prac- tices were selected and a sixth, Rochester International, was added based on information gathered through an interview for a case study for ACRP S15-04-16, Emergency Communications Planning for Airports. The six case examples are: • Large hub—Denver International Airport (DEN) • Small hub—Boise Airport (BOI) • Non-hub primary—Rochester (MN) International Airport (RST) • Reliever—Lakeland Linder Regional Airport (LAL) • Reliever—Miami–Opa Locka Airport (OPF) • General Aviation—Owatonna Degner Regional Airport (OWA). Follow-up interviews and document reviews allowed an in-depth examination of how these airports make their exercise programs effective. Collection of Sample Exercise Materials Airports that indicated a willingness to share sample emergency exercise materials were asked to provide copies. The materials were analyzed for potential usefulness to GA, non-hub, and small hub airports; a selection is reproduced in Appendix C. NPIAS Category Airports in Study Airports in U.S. Percentage in Study Large Hub Airports 13 301 43.3 Medium Hub Airports 6 331 18.2 Small Hub Airports 8 711 11.3 Non-Hub Primary Airports 7 2501 2.8 Commercial Service Airports (non-primary) 3 1171 2.6 Total of Service Airports 37 5011 7.4 Reliever Airports 11 2682 4.1 General Aviation Airports (public use airports only) 10 2,5632 0.4 Source: Smith, Kenville, Sawyer, and Garcia data. 1FAA (2014), CY13 enplanements. 2FAA (2014), National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. TABLE 1 TYPES AND SIZES OF AIRPORTS RESPONDING TO SURVEY

FIGURE 2 Location of airports in the study.

8 Data Analysis The survey results, interviews with case example airports, and analysis of reports, plans, and other documents supplied by airports were used to identify effective approaches to exercises, evaluate suit- ability of methods for smaller airports, identify gaps, and extract lessons learned. These procedures were analyzed for common themes and alternative approaches to a given exercise objective, and the data arranged in spreadsheets that allowed isolation of procedures from any airport pertinent to a case example or to the synthesis of effective practices and major lessons learned. Cross-tabs were used extensively to examine relationships between variables. RESULTS Pertinent findings from the interviews, case examples, literature review, and data analysis are pre- sented in five formats: a summary of survey data (chapter three); the case examples (chapter four); sample exercise materials (Appendices A–Y); a checklist for emergency exercises at GA, non-hub and small hub airports (Appendix Z); and a road map for planning emergency exercises at GA, non- hub and small hub airports (Appendix AA).