Lf: ( rdt
Badtte mH & C. K G emn. PAMBL i eitrd tae ak o eba Badtte mH o
et Cei: Wt rnsätr G b
id pr iso o
, Gr ay LY OI
s a rgsee rdmr f Gor rnsätr G b & C. K Go hc lo te dslyd PAMBL ty fgrs ae poetd)
, fr wih as h ipae LY OI o iue r rtce.
that spent on hold baggage screening. Even the 2009 American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) targeted only $311 million at the checkpoint (for both bag and passenger screening) versus $689 million for checked baggage. According to TSA sources, the bulk of this funding will go to deploy liquids scanners and Advanced Imaging Technologies (AIT) for passenger screening. This disparity is in spite of the checkpoint being terrorists’ preferred entry point and presenting substantially more complex challenges. The checkpoint has to contend with disassembled bomb components and smaller threat masses as well as conventional weapons, none of which necessarily have to be on - or in - the same individual or bag. This compares to hold baggage, where Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), the primary threat, must be pre-assembled and terrorists cannot select their placement to inflict maximum damage. To pass through the checkpoint,
I
terrorists have a wide menu of explosives and fuel/oxidizer mixtures to choose from, which they combine with cleverly-configured (but fortunately so far ineffective) initiators, fuses, triggers and detonators. They’ve even shown a willingness to conduct chemistry on-board an aircraft – as in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on Christmas Day 2009.
Regulatory Issues Unlike hold baggage screening (HBS), there are no certification standards for cabin baggage screening aside from the limited issue of liquids. In the 1990s, Europe and the U.S. adopted different hold baggage screening stan- dards and hence deployed different technologies, creating much friction. However, with cabin baggage screen- ing there is a concerted effort underway to be consistent for liquids detection as
August 2010 Aviationsecurityinternational
n the United States, the investment in both cabin bag and passenger screening has been less than 10% of
ih kn
emsin o
f Goreba
well as the deployment of Advanced Technology (AT) X-ray systems, though there are signs that this drive towards “harmonisation” has its limits. In 2009, the TSA met its self-
imposed deadline for replacing the aging single view X-ray systems with AT devices from Smiths Detection and Rapiscan and Europe has adopted the same approach. This focus on pragmatism rather than setting and enforcing detection standards represents a philosophical departure for the TSA relative to HBS where only technologies that achieved certification were deployed. TSA is exploring the use of computer simulations to predict the effects of explosions on various aircraft and plans to use this tool to develop new baggage screening standards rather than relying on costly live explosive tests, which cannot come close to looking at the wide variety of explosives and scenarios. TSA will likely wait until such work is completed before formalising standards for new technologies. TSA’s long-term goal is to harmonise standards between hold and cabin baggage screening requirements. In the meantime, the qualification process for AT systems is based primarily on image quality. Aside from
limited trials in the US and the UK, CT technology – the mainstay of HBS – is not being pursued for the checkpoint primarily for cost, speed, reliability and space reasons. It is likely that CT will play some role at the checkpoint (possibly combining hold and cabin baggage screening at smaller airports or to screen watch- list passengers) in the future, but there are no current plans to do so. In the meantime, with no driving force from the US
“
...the 2009 American Recovery & Reinvestment Act targeted only $311 million at the checkpoint versus $689 million for checked baggage...”
Congress, the Obama Administration or the European Commission, ATs will remain the cornerstone of primary cabin baggage screening strategy for the foreseeable future, with the possible exception of liquids. Both the TSA and European
authorities are keen to deploy scanners that will allow them to lift the unpopular “3-1-1” (3 fluid ounces – 100 ml - maximum per bottle, in 1 quart size clear plastic bag and only 1 bag per person) rule for liquids in carry-on bags. The European Commission has mandated that the “3-1-1” rule be
Rtcs ES50K teml nurn aayi ad bgae iseto ytm
ae' D-11 hr a eto nlss hn agg npcin sse
www.asi-mag.com
13
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75