would be processed through security in less than five minutes, 99% of the time. This service was described as an important feature to cater to business and first class customers. Service level standards have long shaped performance at airports, but are only starting to accelerate in prominence for security screening measurement due to the introduction of new sensor technologies. This growing trend for security screening also has an aspect related to improving passenger communications. Managing uncertainty about the time required for screening has planning implications for checkpoints, ranging from providing space/cabling for video monitors to display estimated wait times as well as the sensors for automated detection. Recent additions to this trend include the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority’s deployment of a system to disseminate wait time information.
In
2012, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration is expected to roll out is long awaited Automated Wait Time tests.
Aesthetics & Perceptions of Screening Irrespective of the type of passenger and process, security screening can be a stressful experience for passengers and screeners alike. For example, the worry of missing a flight, compounded by having to rely on other passengers and screening officers to act in a timely way, is one of the key issues leading to negative feedback on throughput and service. Typically, airport designers pay limited attention to the aesthetics of security screening areas, unless retail/concessions
are also in the area. Some designers have postulated a link between calm passengers and improved security.
From lighting to
design, the passenger environment could be improved. Airbus and Boeing are building aircraft with adjustable LED mood lighting from tip to tail. Mood lighting has been shown to create a more pleasant in-flight experience; Baltimore applied this concept to its security screening environment in 2007 and it could be expanded to further assist in stress reduction.
“…mood lighting has been shown to create a more pleasant in-flight experience; Baltimore applied this concept to its security screening environment…”
Design for the Screening Officer Checkpoints are often built without the benefit of screening officer input. Focus groups with screening officers and other staff often provide practical information that can improve the day-to- day operations.
Column-Free Spaces The presence of structural columns is one of the greatest difficulties for legacy facilities and improvements in building design have moved towards longer inter-columns spaces. Structural columns act as a limiter to effective staff management and supervision, as well as affecting the line-of-sight needed to spot issues with passengers. With the increased amount of emphasis on behavioural detection/observation, columns also limit direct review through automated or human observers. One of the most interesting modular designs for checkpoints is at Washington Dulles, part of the D2 expansion programme. Through a tensile structure roof used to support a wide space, the checkpoint features a significantly limited set of vertical elements. This design means that there is ultimate flexibility for current and future screening equipment.
Additionally, there
Current (above) and future (below) screening checkpoint: modular flooring to help support weight, data and power requirements. (Credit: InterVISTAS)
February 2012 Aviationsecurityinternational
will be the ability for screening officers to flow through different elements and improve supervision of opening/closing lines.
Location
The success of security screening to provide adequate detection of potential threats in a timely manner is increasingly dependent on the level of sophistication of the X-ray operator. While improvements are expected in technologies for automatic detection of potential threats, a well-trained operator can still provide an effective first line of defence to clear items without relying on time-intensive manual bag searches.
The next stage of evolution of the checkpoint is the physical location of this activity.
Screening equipment’s
multiplexing capabilities can lead to a future state where it is possible to use a centralised image review room. Multiple checkpoints in an airport or multiple airports could use remote image processing.
An upcoming
challenge will be to design checkpoints that enable screening officers to use these technologies effectively.
Conclusions
It is said that good planning is rarely noticed, but the absence of good planning is always felt. Nowhere is this truer than in the design of security screening checkpoints.
The
quality of security screening checkpoint design is maturing as a result of the acceleration of security needs and spending over the past decade. The checkpoint of the future will not be self-contained to a 15-metre long area, but will be expanded through new methods of screening and reviewing potential threats.
At the same time,
airport planners and architects who embrace flexible design will ensure that there is a path to accommodate all aspects of change, including new volumes of passengers, new equipment specifications, and in the long-term, a most cost effective and responsive screening process at airports.
Solomon Wong is a transportation consulting executive who focuses on border, security, safety and planning for facilities, specialising in passenger and cargo movements. Based in Vancouver, Canada, he is the Executive Vice President of InterVISTAS. He can be contacted on +1-604-717-1854 or at: solomon.wong@
intervistas.com
www.asi-mag.com 31
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