Managing a Flight Diversion with an Emergency Response at Small, Non-Hub, or General Aviation Airports (2023)

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.

2023 Managing a Flight Diversion with an Emergency Response at Small, Non-Hub, or General Aviation Airports A Synthesis of Airport Practice Rose Agnew Christina Coverdell Aviation Innovation, LLC St. Paul, MN Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration Subscriber Categories Aviation • Security and Emergencies 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 SYNTHESIS 121

ACRP SYNTHESIS 121 Project 11-03, Topic S04-26 ISSN 1935-9187 ISBN 978-0-309-68773-7 Library of Congress Control Number 2023930056 © 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trade- marks of the 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, APTA, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA 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. Cover art credit: Cover art designed by Aviation Innovation, LLC. 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 Transporta- tion Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or speci- fications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications. 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 or logos 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 https://www.mytrb.org/MyTRB/Store/default.aspx Printed in the United States of America AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in transpor- tation of people and goods and in regional, national, and international commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects with other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for man- aging 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 pro- grams. ACRP is modeled after the successful National Cooperative High- way 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 Asso- ciation 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.

e 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. Marcia McNutt is president. e 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. John L. Anderson is president. e 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. e 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. e National 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.nationalacademies.org. e Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. e mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. e Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 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. e 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.

CRP STAFF FOR ACRP SYNTHESIS 121 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Marci A. Greenberger, Manager, Airport Cooperative Research Program Jordan Christensen, Senior Program Officer Demisha Williams, Senior Program Assistant Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications ACRP PROJECT 11-03 PANEL Joshua D. Abramson, Barge Design Solutions, Inc., Nashville, TN (Chair) Gloria G. Bender, TransSolutions, LLC, Fort Worth, TX David A. Byers, Quadrex Aviation LLC, Melbourne, FL Traci Clark, Allegheny County (PA) Airport Authority, West Mifflin, PA Brenda L. Enos, TRC, Boston, MA Cameron Thompson, Birmingham Airport Authority, Birmingham, AL Keila Walker-Denis, Orlando International Airport, Orlando, FL Scott Wintner, San Jose Norman Y. Mineta International Airport, San Jose, CA Patrick Magnotta, FAA Liaison Liying Gu, Airports Council International–North America Liaison Christine L. Gerencher, TRB Liaison TOPIC S04-26 PANEL Kathleen Henderson, Airports Council International–North America, Ottawa, ON Max Zhaoyu Li, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI David M. McCurdy, Tarrant County (TX) Administrator’s Office, Fort Worth, TX Michael Tobin, Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Charlotte, NC Kellyann Valentine, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York, NY Kelli White, Emergency Response Partners LLC, Burlingame, CA Kent Duffy, FAA Liaison Paul James Eubanks, Airports Council International–North America Liaison 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 16418-00b_FM-3rdPgs.indd 4 1/27/23 8:32 AM

ABOUT THE ACRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM Airport administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This infor- mation may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the airport industry. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information and to make it available to the entire airport community, the Airport Cooperative Research Program authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing project. This project, ACRP Project 11-03, “Synthesis of Information Related to Airport Practices,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowl- edge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an ACRP report series, Synthesis of Airport Practice. This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. FOREWORD By Jordan Christensen Staff Officer Transportation Research Board Unexpected flight diversions may impact airport operations from routine to emergency incidents. This synthesis compiles practices that small, non-hub, and general aviation airports use when planning for and responding to flight diversions that involve a routine gas and go, an incident, or an emergency. The objectives of this synthesis are (1) to discover and describe current practices for handling diverted flights that involve an emergency response and (2) to provide information on practices to small hub, non-hub, and general aviation airport that may receive a diverted passenger flight and not have appropriate staff, resources, or equipment available. Information used in this study was attained through a literature review, surveys, and interviews with 25 diverse airports, which produced seven case examples found in Chapter 6. For immediate use, Appendix C contains example diversion checklists. Rose Agnew, Aviation Innovation, LLC, St. Paul, Minnesota, synthesized the information and wrote the report, assisted by Christina Coverdell. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on page iv. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many interviews took place to collect the data found in this synthesis. Thank you to the following people who are listed and who assisted in this endeavor: Alex Martichuski, FlightAware Alvin Lorenzo, Sioux Gateway/Brig Gen Bud Day Field Amber Christenson, Delta Air Lines Blaine Peterson, Flying Cloud Airport and Airlake Airport Bob McNally, Lincoln Airport Chris Waugh, Halifax Stanfield International Airport Darren Anderson, Hector International Airport Garnett Schafer, Rick Husband Amarillo International Airport Ian Turner, La Crosse Regional Airport Joe Harris, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport John Hawkins, Iqaluit International Airport Jonathon Perout, Sioux Falls Regional Airport Joseph Hennessy, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Kelly Gerads, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Kirk White, St. John’s International Airport Kurt Claussen, Rochester International Airport Mark Cihlar, Central Wisconsin Airport Mark Libby, Passur Aerospace Inc. Matt Aubry, Eppley Field (Omaha, NE) Michael Baker, Ocala International Airport Michael Lawrence, Premier Jet Center Michal P. Junik, Dane County Regional-Truax Field Mike Wilson, St. Paul Downtown Airport and Crystal Airport Paul Borgstrom, Delta Air Lines Paul Wipf, Sioux Falls Regional Airport Philip Tiedeman, Lake Elmo Airport and Anoka County-Blaine Airport Ramon Sanchez, Palm Springs International Airport Ray Laroche, Punta Gorda Airport Richard King, Sioux Falls Regional Airport Rick Audette, Grand Forks International Airport Robert Dockry, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Ryan Welch, Duluth International Airport Scott Andre Remillard, Saab Timothy Reid, Portland International Jetport Todd Gibbs, The Eastern Iowa Airport Tom Smith, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport

1 Summary 6 Chapter 1 Introduction 6 Flight Diversions 7 How Flight Diversions Impact Smaller Airports 9 Scope of Work 9 Synthesis Overview 11 Chapter 2 Defining the Stakeholders 11 Internal Airport Stakeholders 13 External Airport Stakeholders 13 Roles of Mutual Aid and Network Partners During Diversions 16 Chapter 3 Methodology 16 Literature Review 16 Survey 16 Interviews 19 Case Examples 20 Chapter 4 Literature Review 20 Introduction to Flight Diversions 23 Before a Diversion: Planning, Training, and Coordinating 30 During a Diversion: Managing and Mitigating 34 After a Diversion: Restoring Operations 35 Lessons Learned and Good Practices 37 Chapter 5 Survey and Interview Responses 37 Survey Responses 53 Interview Responses 60 Challenges 63 Chapter 6 Case Examples 63 Small Hub Airports 69 Non-Hub Airports 74 General Aviation Airports 79 Chapter 7 Benefits of Collaborative Planning 80 Chapter 8 Diverted Flight Challenges 80 Uncertainty Related to Increased Diversions Versus Smarter Planning 82 Small Staffing Size of Smaller Airports 82 Planning- and Training- and Exercise-Related Challenges 83 Diversion Costs 83 Coordination Issues 83 Compounding Issues C O N T E N T S

84 Chapter 9 Conclusion and Summary of Findings 84 Conclusion and Summary 84 Gaps in Knowledge 85 Further Areas of Study 87 Glossary 91 Acronyms 93 References 95 Bibliography 97 Appendix A Survey Questionnaire and Interview Guide 113 Appendix B Survey Responses 127 Appendix C Sample Diversion Plans, Checklists, and Training Exercises 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 nap.nationalacademies.org) retains the color versions.