Checkpoint Doctrine
“…thought has to be
knee bend to get to the lower extremities. get them onto the X-ray belt. Surely there
After just a few such searches, the is a better way!
given to having tray
potential for screener fatigue and even Also, over time we would hope that the
joint/back injury is quite high. During the new technologies, such as the “shoe
systems that do not first days of the liquid and gel threat in detectors” will not only work, but be faster
Europe I happened to be in a European and potentially integrated into the
allow people “in the
airport, and I will never forget watching an imaging or “puffer” portals to allow for
know” and with bad
older female screener hanging on to a more throughput and end the need to be
table so she could get down on her knees taking off shoes and coats, a process that
intent to place their
to do a proper pat down. This is a recipe for can result in injury when appropriate
both a worker injury from repetitive stress seating facilities are not available and the
bags in the X-ray
and a poor pat-down. passenger feels rushed to dress or
Checkpoint ergonomics need to be disrobe within a fast-moving line.
machine in a way that
considered and the new technologies
should go a long way to helping relieve Speed
prevents good analysis
some of these issues. This is also true for Fast; speed is of the essence. No one
and may deliberately
the passengers themselves. This can likes standing in lines, so any operational
range from improvement in tray design for doctrine must not compromise the speed
conceal an item
hand carry X-ray systems. Many readers at which passengers flow through the
will have had the experience of loading up checkpoint.
contained therein from
a tray or two with heavy articles and then The metal detector is of course fast in
of having to balance, carry or slide them its analysis, but the problem starts when
detection…”
through poorly designed “table tops” to it alarms. Subsequent manual trianglert
strength in an active system is very low
at around 10,000 times less that a
mobile phone signal.
Safe, however, also means that there is a
safe response to threat detection. And
surely this should be the essence of
checkpoint operational doctrine? And, if
so, why is it the area so often overlooked?
It is of fundamental importance that the
screeners themselves feel protected,
especially given that they are normally
unarmed and an armed response may be
minutes away. Also, the screeners need to
know what to do should they detect a
potentially dangerous item at the check-
point or, worse still, a suicide bomber.
Many of the newer systems have the
possibility of remote operation, distancing
the screener from the passenger, an ideal
which safeguards them and provides less
information to the passenger as to any
potential response. This also allows
screeners to work in a less stressful
operations centre environment where they
can sit at consoles and not be distracted by
both the physical stresses of passengers
being on top of them and the effects of
standing for lengthy periods of time.
In the United States, the issue of
injuries to TSA personnel is well
documented and is a major issue. While
we normally consider this as being related
to excessive bag lifting, it is also due to
other checkpoint search requirements.
This includes the concern of having
screeners doing hand searches. A good
physical pat-down search requires the
screener to bend, stoop, and do a full deep
Aviationsecurityinternational February 2007 www.asi-mag.com 25
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