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.

84 Conclusion and Summary Interviews with smaller airports, regional groups, airline pilots, the FAA, and technology com- panies combined with recent literature and survey findings reveal that smaller airports receive and manage numerous gas and go diversions regularly using on-airport resources including FBOs and ground handlers. They may also receive several technical stop diversions at once, creating incident-level situations that they also regularly manage without exceeding their capacity and capabilities—some using formalized plans and/or checklists, and others not. However, research indicates that smaller airports do not receive many emergency-level diver- sions annually. Smaller airports can typically expect to encounter one or two of these types of events on an annual basis. And, whether they can manage emergency diversions without mutual aid or network partner assistance primarily depends on how the authority over first responders is struc- tured. And the success of managing these diversion events overall depends mainly on collaborative relationships—both internally at the airport and externally with mutual aid and network partners. Questions asked in the survey and interviews focused on incident- and emergency-related diversion experience specifically from the past couple of years to ensure that staff involved with the event would still be working at the airports and would be familiar with diversion details. However, this short timeframe may have prohibited some airports surveyed from providing some additional relevant experience that may have been beneficial to this study. Additional airport interviews did uncover more diversion experiences from the past 3 to 6 years. Also, focusing some survey questions on diversion events that “exceeded airport capacity” may have limited survey responses because of the various ways airports are governed, and the many ways they operate, often contracting out a variety of services to third parties. The timeframe requested for diversion examples was also impacted by pandemic conditions which experienced an overall reduction in enplanements and diversions, which may have skewed survey results as well. A positive outcome of the survey is that some interviewed said that the survey questions gave them the idea to create a diversion checklist at their airports. Other survey respondents asked for copies of the questions so that they could evaluate some diversion response areas on the various criteria presented in the questions. Gaps in Knowledge The following are items that were unknown so no conclusions could be drawn. • No peer-reviewed or airport industry research exists on how effective airports, especially smaller ones, are at communicating with internal staff as well as with on-airport partners and mutual aid and network partners during aircraft diversions. C H A P T E R 9 Conclusion and Summary of Findings

Conclusion and Summary of Findings 85   • It was not clear whether many smaller airports have implemented newer communication technology, such as web-based mass notification and management software. • Very little research is available specifically related to flight diversion events that assess how small airports can recover quickly and successfully from situations like these. • The true cost of incident and emergency flight diversions for smaller airports is not understood. • It was not clear why smaller airports are not sharing and coordinating diversion-related plans with mutual aid and network partners. • Diverted cargo flights were not considered for this synthesis. It is unknown if cargo operators divert to smaller airports. Further Areas of Study The following are identified as potential future areas of study. • Impacts of Extended Delays – The effects of flight diversions on smaller airports during prolonged weather events. Long-term weather events can wreak havoc on FBO and ground handler machinery and equipment needed for aircraft maintenance and deplaning, which can escalate a diversion situation. • How to Remain Ready and Resilient – Ways for small airports, mutual aid, and network partners to remain prepared during long periods of “steady state” with no incident-level or emergency-level diversion events. Most smaller airports reported that they only receive diversions that cause them to call on assis- tance from partners about once per year. – How smaller airports maintain continuity of operations and resiliency during multiple or emergency-related diversion events. A look at how Business Continuity Plans can be used to maintain airport resiliency during diversion events might refine good practices needed by smaller staff sizes to be resilient. – Means for managing emergency diversions and related events with the number of senior airport leaders retiring and the upskilling of new hires needed on a small airport budget. What are the ways smaller airports can future-proof their organizations to build resiliency into their operations without seasoned leadership present? • Keeping Information Current – Methods for collecting, maintaining, and updating contact lists and making them consis- tent across all airport plans and standard operating procedures. Many smaller airports do not have the staffing needed to regularly maintain a variety of plans and ensure all contacts are current. This is particularly a problem with the high turnover experienced in the aviation field. – Means for providing airport capability updates to various web-based sources for use in diversion-related decisions. There is no singular nationwide database of information that contains a clearinghouse of airport capabilities across the country. • Leveraging Existing Plans, Training, and Leadership – Raising awareness of how DOT emergency contingency plans can be leveraged to include more diversion-related planning elements. These plans typically include basic provisions for deplaning and designating sterile areas, but they could be expanded upon and kept current since it is a requirement that they are regularly updated and submitted to the DOT and posted online. – Development of templates for emergency-level diversion exercises for small airports. A tabletop exercise is provided in Appendix C of this document, but more focused exercises can be developed.

86 Managing a Flight Diversion with an Emergency Response at Small, Non-Hub, or General Aviation Airports – Determine the need for and responsibilities of a diversion champion at smaller airports. This type of position may be an appropriate member of an IROPS Committee, an IROPS regional group, or an Emergency Working Group. • New Ways to Collaborate – Focus on the benefits of regional groups (e.g., regional IROPS networks) and their successes with sharing resources and managing passenger care during diversion events. There are a few regions that discuss their challenges and successes regularly, and they may have good practice insights to share. • Using Social Media – How smaller airports can utilize social media in emergency management situations. Build from ACRP guidance that advocates how smaller airports can use cost-effective industry solutions with even one part-time employee to manage social media during emergencies. • Financial Impacts of Diversions Airports – Determine the return on investment from diverted flights. According to many smaller airports, they enjoy receiving diversions because of the financial benefits they bring from landing fees and other services.