Introduction: In the event of a disaster, an airport serves two essential roles, as the central hub for incoming supplies such as food and medication and provide a lifeline to the affected communities, and as a coordination and information center to register, brief, and task for the incoming humanitarian organizations and rescue teams. What happens if the disaster itself impacts the airport? This paper describes the conditions at Palu airport during an earthquake and the state one year after. Method: This is a qualitative study, utilizing information gathered from interviews, articles in newspapers, and reports from official websites. Findings from the official websites were confirmed with findings from newspapers or other printed media and were also confirmed with the results of the observations and interviews. The interviews were conducted with several key informants at the airport. Data were then analyzed verbatim and written in a narrative description. Result and Discussion: Many factors contributed to the chaos at Palu Airport. The earthquake's impact was significant enough for a small airport such as Palu Airport. There was no clear incident command system and coordination between institutions within the airport and the city. There was a lack of disaster readiness planning and regular training before the earthquake. The first initial training in 2009 was not followed up. Conclusion The 2018-earthquake in Palu was a big disaster that impacted the airport. Lack of capacity was related to the discontinuity of the 2009 training into a continuous disaster management program. The unclear management system inside the airport and the local authority worsened the impact of the disaster on both the airport and the community.
Natural Disasters

OBJECTIVE: Tenants providing daily food in a big campus of approximately 50 thousand population are prone to an outbreak. This study aimed to observe the practice and compliance of food safety among the food providers. METHODS: In a food safety training done for tenants in a university canteen, participants were asked to fill an online questionnaire, then randomly selected for food examination in the laboratory to look for E. coli and coliform bacteria. RESULTS: Of the 500 tenants, 220 participated in the study but only 168 questionnaires were ready to be analysed. Male and female participants were approximately in similar composition, the same with food handlers and not food handler participants. Half of them finished high school; Higher education were observed among participants that were not food handlers. About ¾ of the participants were the owners who also worked as food handlers. The best food safety practice was washing hands compared to storing raw food, processing food, and storing processed food. Tenants who served uncooked food were significantly found to have higher E. coli, but no coliform containment found in the served food. CONCLUSION We found the best food safety practice was hand washing. The uncooked food menu contained more pathogens than the cooked ones, and were not associated with the knowledge and practice of food safety.