Are we about to enter a new era for the security screening of passengers at airports? Joe Bates investigates.

Investment in airport security is expected to soar this year as gateways across the world ramp up their explosive detection efforts in the wake of the alleged Christmas Day bomb plot.

Billions of dollars were spent on upgrading airport security in 2009 and the figure is expected to jump significantly this year with the introduction of full-body scanners following the alleged attempt by Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, to detonate a bomb onboard Northwest Airlines flight 253 to Detroit.

Vancouver International Airport was one of the first Asia-Pacific gateways to install full-body scanners when it introduced a machine earlier this year.

Elsewhere, India’s government has pledged to install full-body scanners at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport by May and then roll them out across the country’s international gateways if they prove a success.

Other Asia-Pacific countries announcing plans to introduce full-body scanners in the coming months include the Philippines and South Korea.

Bangkok Suvarnabhumi has already removed its single full-body scanner after an ‘unsuccessful’ trial but Airports of Thailand (AoT) president, Serirat Prasutanond, insists that the operator will shortly launch trials of new equipment.

Australia’s airports are also set to get full body scanners as part of the government’s A$200 million plan to upgrade security at the nation’s gateways.

The controversial scanners will start appearing in airports next year alongside an increased number of police and sniffer dogs amid a wider security presence.

“No nation can afford to be complacent when it comes to security,” declares Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.

“The government’s highest priority is the safety and security of Australians.

” A Sydney Airport spokesman adds: “In relation to scanners, Sydney Airport will meet the implementation schedules determined by the Australian government.

The process of implementation is currently being worked through with passenger flow rates, costs and the management of departure performance being studied at present.

“As with any significant change to security requirements, we will implement this carefully to ensure we have consistency of application (the process of screening) and we fully understand how the best security outcome can be achieved.

We also need to provide appropriate standards of facilitation to passengers and make sure we sensibly address issues such as privacy matters and how passengers who are concerned about being screened by this technology are handled.”

The surge in orders has led one manufacturer, L-3 Security & Detection Systems, to reveal that it has upped production to 50 machines a month in order to keep up with demand.

The big question, of course, is would full-body scanners have detected the explosives allegedly hidden in the underpants of Abdulmutallab? Manufacturers L3 Security & Detection Systems, Smiths Detection and Rapiscan Systems insist that body scanners provide aviation with the best technological solution to the threat of concealed weapons and explosives on passengers.

However, the many variables involved in airport security ranging from operator training and performance to the physical layout of the checkpoint mean that none could categorically state that the machines are infallible.

Rapiscan’s vice president global marketing, Andrew Goldsmith, explains: “It is difficult to answer that question because detection depends on a number of non-technical factors.

What I can say with 100% certainty is that when used by trained operators, our full-body scanners significantly increase the likelihood of detecting small, well concealed non-metallic threats compared to metal detectors, physical pat-down searches or other people screening technologies.”

This assessment is supported by Smiths Detection’s director strategy and communication, Bernhard Semling, who notes: “Body scanners are capable of detecting the explosive substances allegedly used on flight 253, but while it is possible to detect such objects, providing an absolute guarantee that they would have done is not possible because of the other variables involved in the screening process.”

L3 Security & Detection System’s senior vice president, Bill Frain, simply says: “Our systems are specifically designed to find this type of threat – including a wide range of plastic, liquid and other metallic and non-metallic threats hidden on the body.”

So what kind of technology are we talking about and how safe is it? There are currently two main passenger scanning technologies available that can scan the human body for potential threats – backscatter and millimetre wave (MMW).

MMW beams millimetre wave energy over a person to create a 3D image of the human body while backscatter technology bounces very low energy x-rays off of a person to generate an image.

Both processes are estimated to take an average of 10 seconds including the time it takes security staff to assess the image.

“The timing varies depending on the system and the technology employed,” says Semling.

“Image capture can be instantaneous for real-time systems or at most take a few seconds.

Including time for assessment of the image, the process is comparable in time to the existing screening procedures based on metal detection and hand search, but has the potential to be more time-efficient and for sure is more passenger-friendly.”

One of the advantages of backscatter technology is that it has been well studied, understood and regulated for decades and, as a result, received a clean bill of health from a number of medical bodies.

They include the American College of Radiology, which recently noted “an airline passenger flying cross-country is exposed to more radiation from the flight than from screening by one of these devices.”

While the US’s National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) reports that a passenger would need to experience 100 backscatter scans per year to reach what they classify as a “negligible individual dose”.

MMW security scans pose no health risks whatsoever as unlike certain types of medical scanner, they do not use X-rays.

L3 Security & Detection System’s Frain, enthuses: “Millimetre waves are non-ionizing and do not penetrate the skin like X-rays.

The energy levels generated by our machines are a fraction of what is generated by commonly used household devices.”

Without a doubt, the most controversial aspect of full-body scanners is their intrusive nature, and public fears about their introduction have not been helped by newspaper headlines warning that passengers face virtual strip searches at airports.

Indeed, feelings about the issue are running so high that one US lawmaker recently declared “we don’t need to look at naked eight year-olds and grandmothers to secure airplanes.”

Amsterdam Schiphol, for one, is adamant that its MMW ‘Security Scan’ devices pose no privacy threat as the image shown is a stylised human figure and not their actual body.

Passengers simply walk into the device and raise their hands above their head for three seconds, and walk out again.

The machine automatically highlights any ‘foreign objects’ on the stylised human image and, if it cannot be identified, the passenger will be subjected to a hand search.

The Transport Security Administration (TSA) in the US claims that blurring faces and other body parts together with deleting images immediately after they have been viewed safeguards passenger modesty.

Undergoing a full-body scan in the US is also 100% optional, although those refusing to be screened will be subjected to a ‘full-body pat down’.

In the US, the screener that observes the images is located in a ‘remote location’ away from the checkpoint so avoiding any potential embarrassment for the passenger.

Not surprisingly, the equipment manufacturers believe that there is little foundation to the privacy concerns surrounding full-body scanners.

L3’s Frain says: “Our machines offer multiple levels of privacy protection that can be customised to reinforce privacy processes and procedures.

They include remote monitoring, silhouetted and blurred images and deletion after use.

In terms of the silhouettes, the 3D black and white image the remote analyst sees makes it virtually impossible to identify anyone.”

Semling assures: “Smiths Detection’s full-body scanning equipment is designed to fully address basic rights issues such as privacy, data security and health protection.”

Says Rapiscan’s Goldsmith: “Do I believe that they contravene a person’s basic human rights? Absolutely not! We believe that when used as part of a well-designed and well-regulated aviation security programme, full-body scanners can help protect the rights of passengers to travel safely.

In fact, many passengers find them less intrusive than physical pat downs.”

What is clear, however, is that full-body scanners should be just one of the security technologies and procedures adopted by an airport to ensure safety on the ground and in the sky.

Smiths Detection’s Semling certainly has no qualms about admitting that full-body scanners are far from the only answer when it comes to detecting explosives/weapons hidden internally or under a passengers’ clothing.

“There is no single solution to a threat situation as complex as that presented at an aviation checkpoint.

Body scanners are a major improvement over the current process that relies on metal detection and random physical search on a subset of passengers,” he says.

“Other highly reliable technologies such as trace detection provide complimentary and orthogonal capability.

Combinations of these technologies in a layered approach provide a more comprehensive detection capability and help close as many security gaps as possible.”

Although not opposed to the installation of full-body scanners at airports, the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA) has voiced concern at the global reaction to the alleged Christmas Day bomb plot.

“Flying is widely recognised as the safest form of travel, reinforced by a robust regime of established security procedures.

Unfortunately, it is human nature that each new security incident prompts a desire to introduce yet more security measures,” AAPA says in a statement.

“There is always political pressure to react, but this often smacks of the need to be seen to be doing something rather than thinking through the appropriate action to take.

“The public understand that no society can credibly claim to provide perfect security.

It takes real political maturity to remain calm, and not fall into the trap of knee jerk reactions, such as the imposition of new security measures of unproven effectiveness.

Additional security measures are only justified when it can be demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the additional burdens they impose on society.

“Treating each of the six million passengers who fly every day as potential terrorists and subjecting them to virtual strip searches and patdowns already borders on the absurd, particularly when compared to our approach to public security in other aspects of our daily lives.

Doing so comes at a cost, already measured in tens of billions of dollars annually.

“Whilst new screening technologies are constantly under evaluation, including full-body scanners and automatic explosive detection systems, there is insufficient evidence regarding their effectiveness to justify their immediate deployment, not to mention unresolved health and privacy issues.”

The huge anticipated spend on full-body scanners this year will ensure that over $40 billion has been invested on improving aviation’s security infrastructure since 9/11, according to reports carried out by Washington-based industry tracker, Homeland Security Research Corporation.

In the US alone, recent events have resulted in an additional $1 billion being earmarked for aviation security, with a sizeable chunk of the total being set aside for the nationwide roll out of full-body scanners at airports. Elsewhere, Europe’s airports are believed to be facing a possible €1 billion bill for the new body scanners on top of the €1 billion investment they will be required to ensure that they comply with the new Liquids, Aerosols and Gels (LAGS) regulations.

Indeed, ACI Europe calculates that security expenses at the continent’s gateways have risen from an average of between 5% and 8% of an airport’s operating costs pre-9/11 to about 35% today.

It also notes that 41% of airport staff now work in security related jobs.

While Frost & Sullivan expect spending on airport security in the Asia-Pacific region to exceed $6.1 billion this year in response to the terrorist threat and rising traffic demand.

Recent events have proved that terrorism still remains a very real threat to aviation nearly a decade on from 9/11, and with that threat constantly evolving, clearly the big spend on new security equipment is set to go on for the foreseeable future.

Asia-Pacific Airports 2010 Issue 1