Threat Mitigation
are high – and they are – then the screening could be accomplished through
“…if aircraft hijacking
assessment process has done its job. The relocation and reallocation of screening
issue then becomes one of managing the risk. personnel and equipment no longer needed has been made more
Given more or less static vulnerabilities within the terminal. In the cargo areas,
and a continually shifting threat, the recent TSA screening initiatives could, and
difficult, detonating an
traditional assessment model may not be are, being expanded to include 100%
explosive device in the
the best way to address the question of screening of all cargo.
risk. It may be time to adopt an approach Technologically, access control systems
midst of a crowd of
that involves going beyond the immediate have undergone improvement over the
passengers waiting to
airport environment. A newer model, more years with the advent of biometrics and
holistic and far-reaching, may be in order. “smart” camera systems. Overlaying this
be screened has never
I shall consider two of the many potential technology on the airport infrastructure
elements of such a model: could enhance the sterile airport concept.
been easier…”
Many parts of the passenger-to-aircraft
The remote terminal and the process, from airline check-in to obtaining to be identified and disrupted;
virtual airport a boarding pass, are now virtual. organisations infiltrated and turned to our
Remote check-in of baggage is a reality.
10
The Expanding this technology into other advantage. Hearts and minds need to be
efficacy of this system, where it exists, has aspects of air travel take the target away won. None of this can take place at an
proven itself. Baggage is kept out of the airport from the terrorist while facilitating the airport. By the time the explosive-laden
until screening is complete. This results in less travel process, another “win-win” situation. terrorist enters the facility, we’ve lost.
congestion within the airport as well as a fewer
number of unscreened bags lying about in Fight the battle away from the SUMMATION
terminal areas. Taking this concept a step or target Terrorist threats have escalated. Measured
two further, there is nothing to preclude a Today’s threats are variable. Differing against the commonality of airport
model that facilitates remote screening of groups, methodologies and agendas, vulnerabilities today, these threats have raised
passengers and their carry-on baggage. existing singly or together, create changes risk to unacceptable levels. Absent a unique
Several remote passenger screening locations along a spectrum of possibilities. It is threat-source, (and without discussing red
would diffuse the concentration of people in therefore the threat that will most affect teaming), it is argued that continued
any one location and lessen the opportunities risk as applied to the civil aviation vulnerability assessments of civil aviation
for terrorists within the terminal building. environment. Mitigating this level of risk is assets are unproductive. Vulnerabilities should
If we take this train of thought a little further problematic for airports and air carriers. If be addressed through regular upgrades,
down the track, it is not inconceivable to aircraft hijacking has been made more technology-based and otherwise, rather than
imagine the sterile terminal, wherein all difficult, detonating an explosive device in become subject to assessment each time an
passengers and their baggage, carry- on as the midst of a crowd of passengers waiting incident occurs. Screening of passengers,
well as check-in, has been screened prior to to be screened has never been easier. baggage and cargo should take place
arrival in the building. This not only opens the Airports and the civil aviation system were remotely. Threats need to be addressed at
entire area up for movement of people and built for facility and convenience, not levels beyond the facility and countermeasures
concessions (a boon to most airports), but control. No current models, for example, constructed against the threat-source, not the
significantly scales down targets of require off-site screening. There is no target. A continued reliance on airport security
opportunity for acts of terrorism. This creates sterile airport today. assessments as a viable means to counter
the rare situation wherein both security Short of extending surveillance, access modern threats is misplaced. Current risk
functions and airport commercial endeavours control and screening systems to airport levels have given us the warning; new and
benefit simultaneously. exteriors, the modern threat is probably innovative models and techniques are required
Airport vulnerability assessments have best addressed at levels well beyond the to keep the travelling public secure.
long identified common issues; however, specific target area. Whether an airport,
due to differing priorities and not a little rail station or other area is subject to The author has been an active aviation
inertia, many of them remain to be vulnerability and attack, it is the plan and security professional for over twenty-seven
addressed. Screening of employees (the so- the organisation behind it that needs to be years. He has served in various domestic and
called “insider threat”) has been largely interdicted, not the individual. In this international positions in the FAA, over a 15-
ignored, despite calls from Congress for regard, surveillance needs to take place at year period, before becoming the Senior
improvements.
11
Our sterile airport should be our borders, not at airport doorways or Director of Public Safety for the Greater
serviced by screened employees. Employee curb areas. Terrorist infrastructures need Orlando Aviation Authority."
7
A good example is the new U.S. Capital Visitors Center
method that may accidentally trigger a vulnerability.” 11
U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Ranking Democrat on
(CVC). About the same size as a medium-sized airport
9
Ibid, NIST Pub 800-30
the House Aviation Subcommittee, has long been a
terminal, the CVV, with the latest technologies and
10
Driven more by private-sector initiatives and capacity
critic of the lack of airport employee screening. In
security-related construction, is three years behind
issues than security concerns, several airports have
response to his complaints, the Transportation Security
schedule and over $250 million dollars over budget.
adopted off-airport baggage check-in procedures. In
Administration (TSA) issued a rule requiring all airport
8
Ibid, NIST Publication SP 800-30. Specifically, SP 800-
these models, baggage is collected off site (usually at
vendor employees to pass through screening en route to
30 defines threat as “The potential for a threat-source to
participating hotels) by airline representatives,
airport sterile areas. This does not, however, address
exercise (accidentally trigger or intentionally exploit) a
secured and transported to remote screening
the issue of other airport employees being able to
specific vulnerability.” Threat-Source is defined as
locations, and taken to a baggage sortation system at
access secure areas without having to be screened.
“Either (1) intent and method targeted at the intentional
the airport. Bags are then sorted and loaded onto
exploitation of a vulnerability or 2) a situation and
aircraft for the trip home.
Aviationsecurityinternational February 2007 www.asi-mag.com 21
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