GIANTS IN SCREENING


“…checkpoints are moving away from stand-alone devices to ones that have threat and operational data linked together…”


Countering “Swiss Cheese” Flooring While the height of screening checkpoints can readily be understood by designers, a much more difficult puzzle lies below passengers’ and screeners’ feet. The design below the floor is one of the most challenging aspects of retrofitting legacy facilities. “Swiss Cheese” flooring is an expression used by designers when equipment has been moved and deployed so many times that the load bearing floor has too many holes to withstand additional drilling. The cost to rebuild structural elements of airports is extremely expensive, but sometimes necessary to accommodate 800 lb. machines. Additionally, all machines are becoming


increasingly data intensive and a new approach towards cabling and supporting the weight of equipment is needed. From networked walk-through metal detectors, to automated threat detection for full-body scanners, checkpoints are moving away from stand-alone devices to ones that have threat and operational data linked together.


While wireless


networking technologies are possible, the bandwidth requirements for real- time imaging are still more effectively delivered through wired infrastructure. Floors and sub floors in legacy spaces were not designed to accommodate cabling, equipment and loads related to new data collection requirements. New checkpoint design at Las Vegas -McCarran International Airport


is


heralding a new age in which a raised access floor comprises load bearing floor panels laid in a grid pattern, allowing for easier maintenance of core power and data systems on an as needed basis. This innovative and forward thinking design also allows for a range of future possibilities and needs in equipment weight and cabling requirements.


Tackling the Fourth Dimension: Time While assumptions for airport planners are based on set measurements on sizing, throughput and queuing, these characteristics do not hold over time. While most international airport security screening throughput rates are within


30


100-300 passengers per lane per hour, there is a trend since 9/11 for a steady reduction in throughput. New divestiture requirements (e.g. liquids) and more complex processes are partly the cause of these changes.


As well, the aviation industry’s valuation for time has grown in recent years. A case in point is the focus on reducing minimum connection times, such as changes made at Narita Airport to allow a 45-minute connection time for Star Alliance. Reducing the amount of time needed for security screening is one part of the process that can allow carriers to meet new connecting routings.


Removing re-screening is


also an ultimate design feature that can greatly reduce connection times. Flexibility is key to weathering the uncertainty of future requirements. example, designers at


For Edmonton


International Airport delivered a five-lane checkpoint in 2003, but anticipated future growth requirements with adjacent retail space that could easily be converted to additional lanes.


designers is to provide checkpoints that could provide for an increasingly diverse set of screening processes.


Separating Different Kinds of Passengers Recently, the streaming of passengers by risk has been included in the thought process.


Known, low-risk passengers


would enjoy the fastest process possible; others would need a normal or more intensive process. This


risk-based process has created


different programmes around the world. Amsterdam Schiphol’s Privium frequent flyers programme added biometric authentication in the 1990s. Canada’s NEXUS Lane similarly offers a “queue jumping” capability for pre- vetted passengers. United States TSA’s PreCheck pilot further moderates its screening requirement by exempting certain processes such as shoe removal and laptop divestiture. While these programmes largely provide a facilitation benefit, the differentiation of risk has a design implication: the need to partially or fully segregate flows of passengers. The absence of this separation could itself create an inadvertent hole in the system – particularly for individuals who aim to circumvent a specific process.


“…Copenhagen launched CPH Express, a guarantee that passengers would be processed through security in less than five minutes, 99% of the time…”


Designing for Future Passengers Airline passengers are frequently differentiated between “business” and “leisure” customers.


Traditionally,


“business” would represent the high-value frequent travellers who tend to be more familiar with security screening processes. In contrast, “leisure” customers are characterised as infrequent travellers who, because of their unfamiliarity with the screening process, would take longer to move through the checkpoint. However, from a security screening perspective, there was no differentiation between these types of traveller. Each passenger who presented him/herself for screening represented a singular risk that needed to be managed. The current challenge for airport


Download your FREE ASI "iPad/iPhone APP" NOW


The separation of passengers is always challenging for airport designers. However, the challenge can be mitigated when aligned with conventional carrier differentiation of first/business/leisure class passengers.


For


example, Lufthansa’s First Class product at Frankfurt and Air New Zealand’s Premium Check-in product in Auckland are two examples of providing differentiated access to security screening.


Dedicated elevators


and corridors are however not always within the business model of air carriers or within available space within an airport terminal.


Managing Uncertainty Ultimately, different processes may not be as important as specific performance targets. In late 2011, Copenhagen launched CPH Express, a guarantee that passengers


February 2012 Aviationsecurityinternational


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