Continuity of Operations Planning for Small 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.

10 CHAPTER THREE SURVEY RESPONSES The research team, with advice from the study panel, developed a survey questionnaire to gather information on business continuity planning and continuity of operations planning at airports of various sizes and types throughout the United States. The team sought to identify airports that engage in continuity planning, the reasons why, and the barriers to and benefits of planning. Team members also wanted to determine which airports would make good case studies and provide interview sub- jects. Appendix B includes the entire survey questionnaire, as well as the responses detailed in figures and tables. Seventy airports were contacted and 54 completed the survey; five declined to participate and the rest did not respond before the deadline. The result was an 84% response rate. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Ownership varied among the respondent airports (Figure 3). The majority of the airports were owned by a city department (40%), airport authority (37%), or county department (17%). Others were owned by a joint board, an institute of higher edu- cation, or a management contract. Airports included in the study were selected from various FAA Regions and represent all NPIAS airport categories. General aviation and reliever airports were much more likely than other airports to be owned by a city or county. (See Table B2, Appendix B for a breakdown of airport ownership by NPIAS category.) FIGURE 3 Airport ownership (Source: Survey results). STATE OF CONTINUITY PLANNING The state of continuity planning varied broadly in the survey (Figure 4). About 29% of respondent airports had no plans, had just begun the planning process, or were uncertain about the state of planning. At the same time, 46% had an adequately devel- oped or mature BCP/COOP. The remaining 25% were identifying critical resources and recovery priorities or had developed a plan that was considered not adequate or complete. Table B3 in Appendix B provides insights into the state of planning at smaller airports. The majority of smaller airports do not have such plans, but a few have well-developed plans. The interviews and related case examples of airports with developed plans are covered in chapter four and Appendix D. MOTIVATION FOR BUSINESS AND OPERATIONS CONTINUITY PLANNING The motivation for having or developing a BCP/COOP also varied (Figure 5). About 40% of respondent airports indicated that they did not have a BCP/COOP, and about 31% of the respondent airports reported that the plans were required by the

11 airport owner. Development of a BCP/COOP was also motivated by the need to enhance risk management (23%), as part of an airport strategic initiative (15%), in response to a regulatory requirement (12%), by the need to address potential key staff departures (10%), and by financial concerns (8%). Table B4 in Appendix B provides insights into the motivations at smaller airports; most of those with a BCP/COOP initiated the process in response to owner requirement, an airport strategic plan initiative, or the need to enhance risk management. FIGURE 4 State of BCP/COOP (Source: Survey results). FIGURE 5 Motivation for BCP/COOP (Source: Survey results). PLAN COORDINATOR(S) The key coordinators or people responsible for developing a BCP/COOP are shown in Tables B5 and B6 in Appendix B. As expected—especially at small airports—airport managers, executive directors, and directors of operations typically play an important role; however, many others are likely to participate because of the diverse tasks and outside resources involved in

12 the planning process. Some of these participants are airport department heads, airport tenants, emergency response agencies, suppliers, utility companies, and insurance agencies. TYPES AND FREQUENCIES OF DISRUPTIVE EVENTS The responding airports have encountered various disruptive events, with different frequencies, over the past 5 years (Tables B7 through B26, Appendix B). One airport experienced a 3-month closure due to the funding and construction of a capital improvement project. Operations at another airport were interrupted by an air show, and a third had a construction-related system failure. One airport experienced a stakeholder IT system failure that affected the airline ticketing system. Major dis- ruptions at respondent airports included utility outages (60%), construction disruptions (60%), temporary flight restrictions (52%), airfield system or navigational aid failures (51%), critical equipment outages or breakdowns (36%), and personnel issues (22%). Many respondent airports have encountered several events more than once in the past 5 years, including special events (80%), aircraft accidents (72%), major snow or ice events (70%), events causing activation of the airport emergency plan (55%), security threats (50%), and capital improvement project funding disruptions (40%). STATE OF PRACTICE FOR AIRPORT CONTINUITY PLANNING Approximately half of the respondents had a formal BCP/COOP, while the other half did not (Table B27, Appendix B). Some reasons for not having a written BCP/COOP are listed in Table B28, Appendix B; the primary reasons cited were “handled by others” or “other plans,” “no resources,” “no mandates,” “no guidance,” “seems redundant,” and “no clear perceived benefits.” Among smaller airports, many believe that their AEP adequately covers continuity issues and that additional plans would be redundant. Lack of mandates, resources, and guidance also deter the development of BCPs/COOPs at smaller airports. Among airports that have a BCP/COOP, 63% reported some dissatisfaction with how well the plan serves the airport (Table B30, Appendix B). Among the reasons given for not being satisfied were “needs to be updated to conform to ISO 22301” and “the plan was written several years ago and not updated.” A reliever airport with a BCP/COOP cited the need to rewrite the current plan to address functionality improvements (Table B31, Appendix B). A number of airports with developed BCPs/ COOPs mentioned the need for timely updates to enable the plans to function as living documents. BENEFITS Many respondents indicated that their airports benefited from having a written BCP/COOP. Table B32, Appendix B lists those benefits. Only 4% of respondents saw no real or perceived benefits to having a written BCP/COOP. The majority of airport respondents (over 50%) consider the following to be benefits of a written BCP/COOP: • Increased preparedness • Improved recovery and response • Reduced liability • Decreased downtime • Better relationship with tenants • Improved coordination with emergency response organizations • Improved public perception of facility management. TENANTS WITH BCPs AND COOPs Some airports indicated that their tenants have BCPs/COOPs and that the airport coordinates its plan with the tenant plans. Other airports reported that their plans are not coordinated (Table B33, Appendix B). The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) system has implemented a phasing plan with tenants to require them to reference continuity planning as their leases renew and may ultimately require tenants to develop a BCP/COOP (chapter four, Case Example 2). Tenants that already have a BCP/COOP include air carriers, terminal tenants, FBOs, and maintenance facilities/departments (Table B34, Appendix B).

13 RESOURCES FOR OPERATIONAL RECOVERY Some airports use a combination of entities and resources to aid operational recovery after disruptions, which illustrates the various components and diverse nature of continuity planning. Many rely on, AEPs (80%), governing body plans (50%), backup generators (63%), mutual aid agreements (48%), and irregular operations recovery plans (48%). Table B35 in Appen- dix B provides additional insights into resources used by airports in various NPIAS categories. A number of airports surveyed have never considered developing a BCP (28%). Others have been mandated to do so through their governance structure, such as a city or county. Numerous airports have developed a BCP as part of an airport initiative. BUSINESS AND OPERATIONS CONTINUITY PLANNING TOOLS Several tools are used for continuity planning and operations; among them are checklists, templates, standard operating pro- cedures (SOPs), standard practice memorandums (SPMs), SaaS (software as a service) platforms, and others. Table B36 in Appendix B provides details on tools used by airports in various NPIAS categories. COSTS TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN CONTINUITY PLANNING Twenty-four of the 30 airport respondents with BCPs/COOPs indicated that they spent less than $10,000 per year for continu- ity planning. Table B37 in Appendix B shows that the majority of smaller airports with BCPs/COOPs spend less than $10,000 annually, with costs including only staff time and coordination among departments and agencies. Four airports indicated that they spend more than $30,000 annually; these are typically large hub airports such as Denver International, Minneapolis–St. Paul International, and Dallas/Fort Worth International. UPDATING BCPs AND COOPs Most airport respondents indicated that their BCP/COOP is updated on an as-needed basis (33%); 17% review their plans annu- ally, and only one airport has never updated its BCP or COOP since initial development. Table B38, Appendix B shows the fre- quency of updates, and Table B39 lists the individuals responsible for updating the procedures and tools for continuity planning. The case examples included in this report support the need to review and update the BCP as part of regular plan maintenance. Fort Lauderdale Execu- tive Airport, for example, reviews its BCP annually, including verification of resources such as alternative locations to be used in the event of disruption, human resources, technology, and other processes (chapter four, Case Example 5). CONTROL OVER CONTINUITY PLANNING Most airports said they have control over their core functions, but they do not control certain other aspects, such as tenant plans and outside resources. Table B40 in Appendix B shows what airports in various NPIAS categories control, and Table B41 illus- trates what they consider to be outside their control. INTERFACING WITH OTHER PLANS As the BCP/COOP development and maintenance process continues, airports expect to interact more extensively with tenants and outside agencies, both for coordination and to acquire resources. Many case examples in chapter four discuss interacting with these partners. Table B42, Appendix B lists the vari- ous plans and programs with which airports may interface for continuity plan- ning purposes. The case examples included in this report support the need to review and update the BCP as part of regular plan maintenance. As the BCP/COOP development and maintenance process continues, airports expect to interact more extensively with tenants and outside agencies, both for coordination and to acquire resources.

14 A number of airports (22% of those surveyed) believe that business continuity is handled by other plans. Three reasons for this belief are most often cited. First, the airport may not be aware of or fully understand continuity planning and may consider it part of emergency management and the AEP. Second, the airport may think business continuity is handled offsite through another support department, such as risk management. Finally, the airport may have intentionally addressed business continuity planning in other airport functional plans. (This approach is described in chapter four, Case Example 6.) The airports surveyed use a combination of tools and resources to address operational recovery after disruptions (Table B43, Appendix B). They use AEPs (80%), backup generators (63%), governing body plans (50%), mutual aid agreements (48%), and IROPS plans (48%). A number of airports (22%) responded that no formal BCP has been developed because busi- ness continuity issues are handled by other plans (Table B28, Appendix B). ADVICE FOR AN AIRPORT JUST STARTING CONTINUITY PLANNING The following are some key suggestions from the survey responses and case example interviews to help an airport get started with business continuity or continuity of operations planning. Planning considerations: • “Take free FEMA classes.” • “Work with large businesses in the community and learn about their plans.” • “Plan based on your operational needs—not just the airport’s normal operational needs but the potential operational needs of supporting response and recovery for a regional disaster.” Preliminary steps: • “Plan ahead.” • “Just start the process and simplify planning efforts. Ask simple questions about your operation. For example, ‘If I can’t use my admin office, what do I need to operate? Can I do it with a tablet and a mobile phone?’ Take this type of approach with all aspects of your operation.” Plan development: • “Start with a basic plan and make it available to all your staff for review and input.” • “Develop succession planning (personnel changes), designate an alternative location (physically moving personnel to operate from a different location), and develop alternative payroll provisions.” • “Based on economic concerns, use the airport emergency plan as a document in support of the COOP.” Resources: • “List your critical resources and prioritize.” • “Familiarize key airport leadership team members with the Southeast Airports Disaster Operations Group (SEADOG) and the Western Airports Disaster Operations Group (WESTDOG) programs and other partnerships/contract services that could provide needed personnel or infrastructure support.” • “Evaluate all your primary equipment and departments to understand your existing resources. Know community resources available; airports of any size can benefit from relationships with local school districts, voluntary organiza- tions active in disasters, and other groups.” Stakeholder involvement: • “Collaborate and coordinate with all parties.” • “Identify key stakeholders; update this list periodically; and conduct tabletop exercises with all stakeholders.” • “Work with local, regional, and state planning, emergency management, business continuity, and first responder organizations.” • “Develop solid and open relationships with all critical external and internal stakeholders. Many times each entity has its own pool of money to help with recovery actions/plans. Having a relationship with the stakeholders and being able

15 to pool money together may help in recovery operations. Little cost involved to have meetings with stakeholders and to openly discuss available resources.” • “Ensure you have all of your stakeholders involved in the planning process, including airlines, private plane owners and pilots, FBOs, fire, police, finance, risk management, communications department, etc.” Plan testing and maintenance: • “Develop your decision-making team, train and exercise annually.” The complete survey responses to this question are listed in Table B44, Appendix B. Much of this advice has been included in Appendix U, Small Airport BCP/COOP Planning Checklist. Additional information concerning BCP/COOP benefits is in chapter five.