FAA investigating Sonoma County airport for alleged understaffing of security workers

After landing on Aug. 6, Wonnacott went to the air traffic control tower, where she handed staff a scenario and initiated a timed exercise to assess employees’ abilities to respond to runway accidents. The FAA requires designated emergency responders to reach the site of a runway emergency within 3 minutes.

The airport crew failed the exercise by 1 minute and 26 seconds, according to an FAA inspection report included in documents shared by SEIU. Emergency service workers passed the test on a second attempt.

This is not the first time the airport has needed a renovation. During an annual FAA inspection in January, airport operations specialists needed two tries to pass a timed emergency drill. They had also failed the first test the year before.

SEIU 1021 insists that operations specialists repeatedly failed the exercise because their responsibilities took them too far from the airport fire station. The solution proposed by the union is to station an employee at the fire station.

But Airport Director Jon Stout said the airport meets FAA requirements by stationing an operations specialist near the fire station 15 minutes before and after commercial flights land or take off. He said the airport expects to soon reduce other assignments that now take those employees further afield.

Stout said several factors contributed to the failure of the Aug. 6 drill: an employee did not have his equipment set up near the fire truck; there was a radio confusion which delayed the truck’s entry onto the track; and the emergency team drove past the designated emergency site.

“It highlighted some areas that we needed to strengthen on the training side that we have addressed since that special inspection,” Stout said.

Hoevertsz and Stout said they are looking for ways to meet the need for emergency response personnel. They said the proposal before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday to add two operations specialists did not stem from the federal investigation.

Airport officials have been reluctant to expand internal firefighting services, preferring instead to contract with the Sonoma County Fire District. Their ideal would be for the district to operate a fully staffed fire station at the airport, an option that was accepted this spring.

But this transfer will take time and cost money. Current estimates estimate it will take four years and exceed $4 million for a fully staffed fire station. The most immediate proposal under consideration would be for a district firefighter to work out of the current station, but even that is cost-prohibitive with the current budget, Hoevertsz and Stout said.

That’s why, they say, they’re now asking for two additional airport operations specialists.

In his report, Wonnacott also asked the airport to update its outdated emergency plan and examine whether to add emergency equipment carried on airport fire trucks, including tools hydraulic rescue tools, a pneumatic chisel and prying tools.

Airport officials discuss equipment issue and

the airport is “complying” with the FAA investigation, Stout said.

“Some records requests have been a little difficult to put together because they cover several different areas,” Stout said. “But we have a good working relationship with them and we look forward to their findings.”

Prepare for impact

Airport and county officials appear to have been preparing for the investigation and inspection to be made public since at least mid-August.

In an Aug. 22 email, Daniel Virkstis, a county communications specialist, informed Stout that the county had “received no media inquiries” regarding the investigation. The next day, he sent another email with four talking points to Stout, Hoevertsz and communications manager Paul Gullixson, Virkstis’ boss.

The talking points were prepared “without knowing the details,” Virkstis wrote.

The first point emphasized that the FAA was conducting “routine safety inspections.”

“There is an airport employee who believes the airfield should operate outside of FAA requirements, deadlines and regulations,” the second bullet point reads.

A third pointed out that the county has its own system for addressing employee concerns.

“The airport takes all employee concerns seriously and the county has an internal reporting structure for safety and other issues,” it reads. “There is also an independent county office charged with investigating allegations of employee wrongdoing.”

Gullixson said Friday that he asked Virkstis to prepare “preliminary” talking points and that Virkstis did not have “complete information” about the complaints when he did so.

“This was not an official statement from the county. This was not the county’s position on this matter. It was a mess,” Gullixson said.

He said he didn’t know where the idea of ​​calling an employee “loud” came from.

Meanwhile, the Oversight Board is expected to consider the seven-member Aviation Advisory Commission on Tuesday.

Stout and Hoevertsz said they were not proposing any changes to the commission and framed the discussion as an exploration of whether to expand its membership to boost participation.

Hopkins suggested the discussion should go further and explore the commission’s capabilities. She said the county needs to “get more directly involved” in addressing safety issues.

“No one is going to want to come to an airport if the message is that the runway is down and the tests are failing in terms of emergency response,” Hopkins said. “We definitely need to cover the basics of safety. »

You can reach staff writer Emma Murphy at 707-521-5228 or [email protected]. On Twitter @MurphReports.

You can reach staff writer Martin Espinoza at 707-521-5213 or [email protected]. On Twitter @pressreno.