The Chicago Center Fire Accident and Action Plan

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Scenario Summary
Action Plan
The Role of Leadership
Emergency Management Methodologies
Implications of the Action Plan
Conclusion
References

Introduction

In the contemporary world, emergency management is becoming continually more significant due to the increasing amount of human-made and natural disasters, and the expanding threat of terrorism. Furthermore, due to technological advancement and globalization, a single emergency might have long-term consequences on the interrelated systems and structures. Therefore, organizations need to introduce innovative methods and develop contemporary action plans to improve the quality of the emergency response and ensure the safety of people. The current paper attempts to review a real-life emergency scenario, identify the primary details of the crisis by analyzing the after-action reports, and develop an action plan that addresses emergency management and leadership.

Scenario Summary

Before proposing an action plan, it is essential to provide a summary of the emergency. The point of the discussion in this paper is the Chicago Center Fire that occurred early in the morning on September 26, 2014 (Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, 2015). The employee of the Harris Corporation, Brian Howard, deliberately destroyed the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) system and disabled the communication between the center and the aircraft. As a result, approximately forty airplanes could not receive any information concerning landing, and hundreds of lives were put in danger. Fortunately, the traffic was considerably low at that period which allowed the airplanes to have a safe landing without additional guidance from the center. Nevertheless, FAA managers had to implement an ‘ATC Zero’ strategy shutting down the power systems of the facility and evacuating the personnel.

Due to the ‘ATC Zero’ implementation and the damage to the communication systems, the organization incurred sufficient losses. According to FAA’s estimates, the expenses on the recovering operations amounted to more than five million dollars excluding the cost of the replaced communication system equipment (DOT OIG, 2015). Furthermore, FAA and the contracting organizations have completed a number of repair services including the manufacturing of new telecommunication equipment, replacement of ten miles of cable, rerouting communication lines to the nearby facilities, and an installation of a wireless network within the organization (DOT OIG, 2015). The consequences of the emergency lasting up to two weeks have raised a number of concerns about the contingency plan of the organization.

Failure of the Existing Contingency Plan

A contingency plan is a regulated list of directions that are to be strictly followed in case of an emergency or a disaster. FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) is the structure that should provide safe air navigation and develop contingency plans (DOT OIG, 2015). After the Chicago Center Fire emergency, FAA discarded the contingency plan of the named organization due to the identified flaws in the design (DOT OIG, 2015). According to DOT OIG, the primary defects of the plan include the lack of attention directed to redundancy and resiliency of the model (2015). Furthermore, the communication between the facilities concerning air traffic seems to be limited both by the equipment and the incompetent location of the communication systems (DOT OIG, 2015). Additionally, some of the existing technologies do not meet the requirements of the industry; namely, radar surveillance devices, and fire suppression systems (DOT OIG, 2015). The emergency has also raised concerns regarding automation frameworks and flight scheduling (DOT OIG, 2015). Overall, the contingency plan has proved to be ineffective in case of emergencies; therefore, it is essential to improve the design to meet the requirements of the industry.

Recommendations for the Development of the Action Plan

In addition to the thorough analysis of why the contingency plan had failed, DOT OIG provided several recommendations concerning the improvement of the design of the action plan. The primary suggestion is to redesign the existing contingency plan according to the following limitations (DOI OIG, 2015):

To identify the potential flaws of the contingency training and to implement more realistic emergency scenarios during simulations;
To evaluate the cost, utility, and effectiveness of the existing equipment and to properly assess the location of the communication systems to minimize potential risks concerning the spread of fire;
To install a safe and reliable wireless network that would provide access to local networks and establish secure communication with surrounding facilities;
To assess the state of fire suppression systems and other critical equipment and to implement changes if necessary.

Furthermore, it is essential to properly document each of the aforementioned adjustments in the implementation plan for transparency and future changes.

Action Plan

Having acknowledged the flaws of the existing contingency plan, it is essential to improve it to meet the contemporary requirements of the industry and develop necessary safety measures. Furthermore, for the sake of the current paper, it is crucial to elaborate on the emergency management methodologies with a focus on the role of leadership within the context. In general, leadership might have a profound impact on the response to critical situations (Van Wart & Kapucu, 2008). From these considerations, it is essential to continually develop emergency management methodologies and leadership frameworks that play a crucial role in mitigating the risks during crises. On the other hand, failures in these aspects might lead to severe consequences including unrepairable technology damage and human losses. Furthermore, flaws in the contingency plan and personal mistakes by the leader might act as a heavy burden and deteriorate the moral integrity of the leader which would further delay the response in emergency situations (Liu, 2010). Overall, these factors imply the necessity of a proper contingency plan with thorough attention to the leadership frameworks.

The Role of Leadership

Taking into account the recommendations from the DOT OIG, the current paper also intends to implement the leadership models in the development of the contingency plan. As mentioned in the DOT OIG report (2015), the primary flaw of the existing emergency response is the lack of resilience. This term generally refers to the capability of the organization to recover from crises and indicates the readiness of the team to assess damages and mitigate further risks (Alshayhan & Yusuf, 2021). Since reconstruction after emergency situations is a team effort, the responsibility for the success of the process falls upon leaders and supervisors. Therefore, it is essential to discuss the role of leadership in an exemplary setting and analyze the flaws of the methodology in the Chicago Center Fire accident.

Leadership Competencies

Emergencies and the consequent responses to them belong to the category of quickly evolving and hazardous situations; therefore, they require a considerable degree of flexibility and adaptability from the leader. According to Pranesh et al. (2017), the credibility of the leader is frequently measured by his or her ability to critically analyze the situation and act respectively; otherwise, the whole operation and the safety of the team are put to impending threat. Other researchers, including Huntsman et al. (2021), present additional evidence to emphasize the role of flexibility in emergency response and provide several recommendations on how it is possible to enhance adaptive performance. Consequently, Kapucu and Van Wart (2008), have also identified 12 competencies that are obligatory for effective leadership in emergencies and assigned flexibility the second most significant role after decisiveness. Nevertheless, in the broad context, decisiveness is a part of adaptability since the concept also includes effective and quick decision-making. Therefore, a wide array of research claims that flexibility and adaptability are the two most significant factors of effective leadership in emergency situations.

As mentioned briefly before, there is a high number of leadership competencies, and some experts identify more than twelve necessary characteristics. Due to the limitations of the work, it is not possible to thoroughly discuss each one of them; nevertheless, there is one skill that is equivalent to adaptability in its significance to emergency response – communication. In the broad sense, this term covers organizing, coordinating, maintaining a healthy atmosphere within the team, informing, and other potential activities that depend merely on the communication competencies of the leader. Some experts regard that such aspects as reflecting and engaging are primary to the development of communication skills (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2016). Consequently, Alshayhan and Yusuf (2021) claim that the aforementioned competencies might improve the relationships between the organizations and greatly enhance the collaboration outcomes. Overall, flexibility, adaptability, and communication are necessary qualities of the leader and might advance the effectiveness of the emergency response.

Lastly, it is essential to discuss how the aforementioned qualities might have changed the implementation of the contingency plan. DOT OIG emphasized that the current design was not sufficient for effective restoring operations. Therefore, the management had to adapt to the situation without a proper plan and needed to demonstrate a considerable degree of flexibility. Furthermore, various organizations and contract workers participated in the recovery operations (DOT OIG, 2015). Therefore, the leaders needed to organize and coordinate the responsible teams to minimize the consequences of the ineffective contingency plan. It is complicated to say whether the leaders of the restoring operations were competent in the aforementioned aspects; nevertheless, the outcomes of the emergency response could have been potentially improved if the supervisory management was better qualified.

Emergency Management Methodologies

Emergency management is a complex process involving the collaborative efforts of several stakeholders including the leaders of the party responsible for emergency response. Crisis control is also defined by a high number of potential risks and a highly stressful environment. Several leadership models fit the context of emergency response, and they generally allocate the control over the situation to the leader. The research has provided evidence that power asymmetry might be a useful tool within the context of emergency management methodologies (Tomkins, Hartley & Bristow, 2020). Nevertheless, in Critical Leadership Studies, the asymmetry refers not only to control over the actions of the team but also to the responsibility concerning the outcomes of the operation (Tomkins et al. 2020). Therefore, in authoritative models of leadership, leaders might get particularly stressed if the operation does not succeed (Tomkins et al. 2020). Overall, while authoritative leadership models with power asymmetry align specifically well with the emergency management methodologies, it is essential to maintain a healthy atmosphere within the team and assess potential risks.

In general, emergency management methodologies differ vastly depending on the type of crisis: natural or technological disaster, terrorism, and crimes. Aviation is an infrastructure that is highly vulnerable to technological malfunctions and cyberattacks (Nobles, 2019). In the case of the Chicago Center Fire, the consequences were impactful due to the assumed security of the communication systems; nevertheless, it was breached by a single employee who had access to the service room (DOT OIG, 2015). Bartulović and Steiner (2020) propose the utilization of predictive analytics to ensure the safety of management systems in organizations concerning aviation. Meng et al. (2020) state that the foundation of the contingency plan in emergency management should be the risk management system followed by prevention and control of the potential hazards. Lastly, the safety of the facility might be improved with the digitalization of the existing frameworks and the implementation of digital security systems (Kuusisto & Kuusisto, 2019). Overall, emergency management might greatly benefit from the aforementioned recommendations.

Implications of the Action Plan

After the discussion of effective leadership models and emergency management methodologies, it is possible to propose the primary guidelines in order to adjust the current contingency plan. First of all, the DOT OIG (2015) has emphasized the lack of resilience in the design. To improve the contingency plan in this aspect, it is essential to shift the focus from specific directions to the leadership frameworks. Alshayhan and Yusuf (2021) propose that the qualities of the leader and collaborative effort are the most significant aspect in increasing the resilience of the project. Therefore, the emergency response should revolve around the figure of the leader implying the implementation of the authoritative models of leadership. At the same time, it does not mean that the contingency plan should not emphasize specific details concerning the emergency response. Preferably, the design should be accompanied by the explanation of effective leadership models and the implementation of primary emergency management principles.

Concerning the specific details, the DOT OIG has designated several flaws of the current situation in the Chicago Center primarily concerning equipment and its location. While it is not a part of the contingency plan itself, proper preparation is necessary for the functioning process of the organization; therefore, it is essential to address these problems. First, the communication systems have to be recovered and assigned to the new location to mitigate the risks of fire spreading and technology malfunctioning. Secondly, the digital transformation of the organization might potentially improve the safety of the equipment and cybersecurity due to the capabilities of big data methods and predictive analytics. Overall, utilizing the effective leadership models, primary principles of emergency management, and digitalization of the current equipment, it is possible to develop a coherent contingency plan and minimize the risks of emergencies in the future.

Conclusion

The current paper has introduced an action plan as a response to the Chicago Center Fire accident based on the primary principles of emergency management and effective leadership frameworks. The findings demonstrate that the organization needs a contingency plan revolving around the authoritative models of leadership with a focus on the personal qualities of the leader to improve the resilience of emergency response. Additionally, several adjustments concerning the current equipment and communication systems have to be made to further advance the safety and cybersecurity of the organization. As a result, it is possible to develop a coherent contingency plan that would mitigate the potential risks and emergencies.

References

Alshayhan, N., & Yusuf, W. (2021). Leadership in collaborative emergency management and resilience. In Leading change conference 2021 (pp. 1-24). Harrisonburg, United States: James Madison University.

Bartulović, D., & Steiner, S. (2020). Liaison between proactive and predictive methodology of aviation safety management system. In 19^th International conference on transport science (ICTS). Slovenia: Portoroz.

Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General. (2015). Office of Inspector General Audit Report: FAA’s contingency plans and security protocols were insufficient at Chicago air traffic control facilities.

Huntsman, D., Greer, A., Murphy, H., & Haynes, S. (2021). Enhancing adaptive performance in emergency response: Empowerment practices and the moderating role of tempo balance. Safety Science, 134.

Kapucu, N., & Van Wart, M. (2008). Making matters worse: An anatomy of leadership failures in managing catastrophic events. Administration & Society, 40(7), 711-740.

Kuusisto, T., & Kuusisto, R. (2019). The balanced digitalization and digital security: Case of regional authorities. In proceedings of the 18^th European conference on cyber warfare and security (pp. 267-274). Academic Conferences International.

Liu, H. (2010). When leaders fail: A typology of failures and framing strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(2), 232-259.

Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2016). Leadership communication: Reflecting, engaging, and innovating. International Journal of Business Communication, 1-9.

Meng, B., Lu, N., Guo, X., Si, Q., & Bai, O. (2020). Scenario analysis of emergency in civil aviation airports based on the pressure-state-response model and Bayesian network. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review, 13(5), 143-149.

Nobles, C. (2019). Cyber threats in civil aviation. In Emergency and Disaster Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 119-141). IGI Global.

Pranesh, V., Palanichamy, K., Saidat, O., & Peter, N. (2017). Lack of dynamic leadership skills and human failure contribution analysis to manage risk in deep water horizon oil platform. Safety Science, 92, 85-93.

Tomkins, L., Hartley, J., & Bristow, A. (2020). Asymmetries of leadership: Agency, response and reason. Leadership, 16(1), 87-106.

Click Here To Order Now!