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.

16 This synthesis study consisted of a literature review, a survey for smaller U.S. airports, one- on-one interviews, and case examples. Literature Review Literature researched for this synthesis focused on four main topics associated with how smaller airports collaboratively plan for, manage, and learn from diverted flights involving technical stops, incidents, and emergencies. These include • Background information on diversions, • Planning and training before a diversion event, • Considerations during a diversion event, and • What happens after a diversion event. Searches were performed on both the open web using search engines like Google.com and the deep web using the Transport Research International Documentation (TRID), the Trans- portation Research Board (TRB) database, and ProQuest. Most peer-reviewed literature about diverted flights was limited to understanding processes for selecting diversion airports and the operating costs associated with medical diversions; however, a few pertinent documents were discovered related to the impacts of diversions on airport operations. Literature, other than ACRP guidance, specifically related to small, non-hub, and general aviation airports was also limited. Previous ACRP research and synthesis reports did provide essential operational and management background information for these types of airports, while several FAA, United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and NTSB documents provided more emergency management-related information. The result of the literature review is presented in more detail in Chapter 4. Survey An online survey was created for SH, NH, and GA airports, including nonprimary CS and R airports. The questionnaire asked questions about preparing for and managing flight diver- sions involving incidents and emergencies. As Table 2 indicates, a survey was sent to approxi- mately 300 small hub, non-hub, and general aviation airports in the United States (71 survey responses and 24% response rate). Interviews Interviews were conducted with airport directors, operations, and emergency managers at a mix of small, non-hub, and general aviation airports with a variety of diversion-related planning C H A P T E R 3 Methodology

Methodology 17   and management experiences over the past few years. Interviews were conducted to gain a broad understanding of the planning they do to prepare for diversions, how and who they coordinate with in terms of their mutual aid and network partner resources, what plans they have devel- oped and how practical they are, and what current practices and lessons learned they can oer from their experiences. e choice of airports to interview was determined in part by industry knowledge of recent diversion events or through the literature review process where other related ACRP research revealed which smaller airports recently managed diversion aircra. e litera- ture review process also included web research (e.g., Google) that revealed applicable diversion events at smaller airports. A list of airports interviewed for this synthesis can be found in Figure 2, and Figure 3 identies a map that highlights where these airports can be found geographically. 1. Dane County Regional-Truax Field, Madison, WI 2. The Eastern Iowa Airport, Cedar Rapids, IA 3. Des Moines International Airport, Des Moines, IA 4. Portland International Jetport, Portland, ME 5. Halifax Stanfield International Airport, Goffs, Nova Scotia, Canada 6. Sioux Falls Regional Airport, Sioux Falls, ND 7. Punta Gorda Airport, Punta Gorda, FL 8. Palm Springs International Airport, Palm Springs, CA SMALL HUB AIRPORTS 1. Lincoln Airport, Lincoln, NE 2. Duluth International Airport, Duluth, MN 3. Rochester International Airport, Rochester, MN 4. Grand Forks International Airport, Grand Forks, ND 5. Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND 6. Central Wisconsin Airport, Mosinee, WI 7. Sioux Gateway/Brig Gen Bud Day Field, Sioux City, IA 8. Rick Husband Amarillo International Airport, Amarillo, TX NON- HUB AIRPORTS 1. Iqaluit International Airport, Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada 2. Ocala International Airport, Ocala, FL 3. Flying Cloud Airport, Eden Prairie, MN (R) 4. Airlake Airport, Lakeville, MN (R) 5. Anoka County-Blaine Airport, Blaine, MN (R) 6. Crystal Airport, Crystal, MN (R) 7. Lake Elmo Airport, Lake Elmo, MN (R) 8. St. Paul Downtown Airport, St. Paul, MN (R) GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS 9. St. John’s International Airport, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada Figure 2. Airports interviewed for this synthesis. Airport Size (NPIAS Designation) (U.S.) Total Airports in Designation Percent of Designation Surveyed Small hub airport (SH) 19 69 28% Non-hub primary (NH) 24 335 7% Nonprimary commercial service (CS) 5 451 1% Reliever (R) 7 611 1% General aviation (GA) 16 3242 <1% Source: FAA 2020b. Number Surveyed Table 2. U.S. survey participants by NPIAS designation.

18 Managing a Flight Diversion with an Emergency Response at Small, Non-Hub, or General Aviation Airports In addition to interviewing smaller airports, research also included discussions with large hub (LH) and medium hub (MH) airports that are part of a regional network, including Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport (MSP), Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), Denver International Airport (DEN), and Eppley Field (OMA). To get a broader understanding of others involved with managing diversion, specifically a few of the major mutual aid partners called upon to provide additional resources to airports, interviews were conducted with the following: • Pilots at an airline as well as Airlines for America (A4A) to gain an understanding of how they make diversion-related decisions and how they notify and communicate intentions to airports • One FBO to understand the support and staffing they provide during all types of diversions • Four technology partners to see what they provide airports to use to get synchronous infor- mation is on the horizon • The FAA to understand the ATC perspective in diversion decision-making efforts Interview questions are included in Appendix A, and Appendix B summarizes the survey responses. Figure 3. Map of small, non-hub, and general aviation airports interviewed for this synthesis.

Methodology 19   Case Examples The following airports are highlighted as case examples in this synthesis and bring knowledge gained from managing and mitigating flight diversions associated with incident and emergency response in collaboration with their respective mutual aid and network partners: • Dane County Regional-Truax Field, Madison, WI SH • Punta Gorda Airport, Punta Gorda, FL SH • St. John’s International Airport, Newfoundland, Canada NH • Lincoln Airport, Lincoln, NE NH • Rick Husband Amarillo International Airport, Amarillo, TX NH • Iqaluit International Airport, Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada GA • Flying Cloud Airport, Eden Prairie, MN GA/R Case example write-ups can be found in Chapter 6.