resolving rejects, especially from watch- list or selectee passengers and some of these should be considered for primary screening. It is unlikely that such a combination could be applied to every passenger; so screening passengers according to their potential threat, likely will – and should - replace today’s “one size fits all” approach. In summary, given that the vast
majority of terrorist attempts against civil aviation have occurred via the checkpoint, the procedures and technologies that are in place or being planned are critically important. Unfortunately, too often we’ve seen reactions to a specific event rather than a carefully thought- out plan that would provide a true defence against such incursions. Regulators appear to be pinning their short to medium term hopes on automatic detection algorithms for AT systems in spite of their proven limitations on the ’easier’ task of hold baggage screening. Regulators worldwide (possibly via ICAO) should develop a clear, realistic migratory
path and timeline for new systems in terms of performance requirements, development and deployment in a manner similar to Europe’s current HBS plan. This path should also have incentives that improve customer service for airports to adopt new technologies ahead of schedule, such as improved operations and relaxation of other security measures. All stakeholders would then have a clearer understanding of the long- range strategy and opportunities, allowing manufacturers to use a combination of private capital and government R&D funds to develop systems that meet the capabilities along that timeline.
In parallel,
airports can plan their revenue needs and infrastructure modifications to meet these requirements. At the very least, a substantially higher investment along with better technology combinations and processes is sorely needed to address the complex detection and operational challenges of cabin bag (and passenger) screening.
Steve Wolff has 25 years experience developing & marketing advanced aviation security detection systems. He was a co-founder of InVision Technologies and for the past 7 years consults, helping companies with product development, govern- ment introductions, marketing and sales strategies.
“
...from a pre-9/11 average of 275 passengers per hour per lane; after 9/11, lanes more typically processed 225 to 235 passengers per hour per lane...”
August 2010 Aviationsecurityinternational
www.asi-mag.com
17
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