The Final Word
A Personal View
expressed by Dominique R. Antonini
“none of the key players are engaged in re-discussing/modifying
these rules which should be the case given the fact that they were
developed too quickly due to political pressure and therefore
without benefiting from a sound technical development process”
The issue of Security Tamper-Evident Bags Europe, but the reality is slightly different. therefore took quite a while before being
(STEBs) is still very confusing. One might Lucky are the European passengers who accepted as baseline security measures by
have assumed that lessons would have can purchase LAGs as long as they stay stakeholders. Let’s take as examples the
been learned from the past when it comes within Europe and come back home within infrastructures’ modifications to ensure
to the introduction of new regulations, but 24 hours, and lucky too are the non- proper separation of passengers within
it seems to be a “must” for aviation European departing passengers who can terminal buildings or the protection and
security legislators to create a painful and purchase LAGs when transferring at surveillance of passenger boarding passes
costly environment rather than a logical, European airports, as long as they do not and baggage tags at check-in desks in the
user-friendly one. transfer a second time outside Europe 90’s. Not forgetting the implementation of
The new requirements imposed by the during the same journey as they might the 100% hold baggage screening at the
European Commission (EC), then have their LAGs confiscated at the second beginning of the current decade, or the
confirmed by the International Civil Aviation point of transfer. Unfortunate however are reinforced cockpit doors after the tragic
Organisation (ICAO), on Liquids and Gels the other passengers who have to refrain events of 11 September 2001. All these
(LAGs) and STEBs back in 2006 and 2007 purchasing LAGs at all during travel to additional requirements were initially seen
are due to remain in place for the avoid potential frustration due to the as impossible, or extremely difficult to fulfil,
foreseeable future. Research on liquid confusion while implementing these new before becoming an integral part of the
explosive detection equipment is still far security measures. daily operational security system.
from providing us with satisfactory ICAO specifications and EC regulations Let’s save energy, time and funds in
operational solutions; the cost of those are imposing a framework which is not adopting good STEBs which are indeed
systems with potential is simply prohibitive properly implemented. At the same time essential for the protection of our industry
to most of the world’s airports and, even if none of the key players are engaged in re- against the potential use of liquid
they were not, the manufacturers would discussing/modifying these rules which explosives hidden in LAGs and carried by
not be capable of feeding all our needs should be the case given the fact that they passengers. STEBs are also a facilitation
overnight – it would take months, if not were (rightly or not) developed too quickly tool during transfer as well as commercial
years. Accordingly, it will be some time due to political pressure and therefore and financial assets for duty free retailers
before we think about removing the without benefiting from a sound technical and airports. They are complementary to
requirement for our 1-litre Ziploc bags development process. other security measures or systems such
containing tubes of toothpaste, perfumes Why are we confronted with a situation as the use of effective new liquid explosive
and personal cosmetics, and the STEBs where STEB’s of diverse quality are all over detection systems, when available, for
distributed by airport retailers and airlines the place when it is easy to test and certify LAGs and the implementation of the known
when purchasing LAGs. them with the objective of verifying their supplier concept for supplies of LAGs and
The situation remains rather confusing security features against attempts of STEBs by appropriate authorities and
for “international multi-leg” passengers as tampering? Is it really too difficult to make airport operators. Let’s use that saved
most European airports are using bags sure that all security bags used worldwide energy, time and funds to cover other
which are not, technically speaking, are identical or at least equivalent in security loopholes and counter new
entirely compliant with the requirements quality but also alike in design for easy threats.
imposed on STEBs per se, and most of the security inspection? Are their technical
LAGs coming from outside Europe are still specifications and design so rigid that no
confiscated during transfer in Europe and improvement is possible to make them
this even if proper STEBs are used (with the more secure but also cheaper to produce, Dominique R. Antonini is the former Chief
unique exemption of travellers coming from thus more cost-effective? of Aviation Security at ICAO. He is now
Singapore for the time being). STEBs were We can recall other security changes, or Director, Business Development, for
presented as “the” key for removing improvements, which were initially seen as AVS&C, an aviation security consultancy
confiscation during transfer through additional painful constraints and company based at Geneva, Switzerland
40 April 2008 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