T


he technologies that are used to screen passengers and their belongings continue to mature.


However, the design of the security screening checkpoint often remains an afterthought. The criticality of checkpoint design is based on a fundamental difference between the lifespan of assets used for security screening and the escalation of new threat sources. Equipment deployed immediately post-9/11, for example, is just now reaching the end of its lifecycle. In contrast, terminal buildings that were constructed over the past decade will need to last at least another two to three decades. The longevity of airport terminal buildings means that their design direction must be flexible in accommodating two or three generations of aviation security screening equipment and processes. Without a forward-thinking view on design, airports often face additional costs to retrofit so-called “legacy” facilities, or worst yet, suffer decay in level of service for its passengers.


The past year has seen a number of visions of the future of design, process and technologies.


From the early


initiatives in “risk-based screening” to the differentiation of known/normal/enhanced traveller processes from IATA’s Checkpoint of the Future concept, governments, airports and airlines are accelerating their thought process to map out what travellers will experience in 2020, 2030, 2040 and beyond. While no one can be certain of how the threat environment and future security needs will evolve, there are several important trends that are worth incorporating in the design of security screening checkpoints.


Designing in 3 or 4 Dimensions Airport terminal designers typically space out facilities in two dimensions: width and depth. The conventional methodology airport planners use is to examine peak hour requirements based on forecast activity. For purposes of illustration, some examples of factors used in a typical planning exercise for checkpoints include: ¡ Providing space for every two lanes of equipment including divestiture and repack tables (e.g., 7.6 metres by 15 metres)


¡ Determining number of lanes needed by comparing throughput per lane (e.g., 100-300 passengers per hour, depending on the jurisdiction)


February 2012 Aviationsecurityinternational


¡ Calculating number of passengers expected to queue for security screening, multiplied by 1 square metre per passenger (e.g. 400 passengers needing 400 square metres of space)


However, this conventional approach is challenged with constraints in the third (height) and fourth (time) dimensions.


Removing Height Issues Since


the 1970s, walk-through magnetometers have not changed in height. At 2.3 metres, the archway-like device can be affected by surrounding metallic objects. For example, any structure with a steel beam overhead a magnetometer could impact performance of the unit and associated calibration. Nonetheless, the walk-through metal detector often dictates the height of the screening area.


For a


number of terminal buildings constructed in the 1970s-1990s, limited ceiling height has proven to be a challenge to new equipment deployed today.


Many countries have accelerated the deployment of full-body scanners at checkpoints since the failed December 2009 plot against a Northwest Airlines flight bound for Detroit. These units can be as tall as 2.6 metres – a constraint on some lower- ceiling checkpoints. More importantly, the use of closed-circuit television cameras at checkpoints benefits from higher ceilings in order to have un-obscured views of individuals being screened.


“…the use of closed- circuit television


cameras at checkpoints benefits from higher


ceilings in order to have un-obscured views of individuals being screened…”


Newer airport terminals (e.g.,


Barcelona, Beijing Terminal 3, Toronto Terminal 1) have adopted ceiling heights well in excess of six metres. While these can accommodate new equipment, the effectiveness of screening can also be impacted by a “sky’s the limit” approach to ceiling heights. Munich, for example, has a checkpoint with a 40-metre ceiling height and introduced a seven metre canopy to prevent glare from sunlight. There are also additional benefits with a lower ceiling height from those offered by vast modern terminal buildings, such as reducing excess noise as well as improving the performance of closed circuit television cameras.


Checkpoint designers will need to


ensure they pay attention to vertical design of facilities to make sure that equipment and sensor technologies can be accommodated.


Column-free spaces such as new checkpoints at Washington Dulles provide greater fl exibility and improved sightlines (Credit: InterVISTAS)


www.asi-mag.com 29


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