Security equipment implementation: Speaking the same language

This blog is about the culture surrounding Airport Implementation projects and the challenges that come with working in highly diverse teams. My name is Jo-Anne de Vos and I will share some of the insights gained during projects, specifically on the languages used in communication within and across teams, and the effect unnoticed subtle differences can have on the progress of a project.

The implementation of new security equipment requires good cooperation between all relevant stakeholders and partners. The overarching goal in the end is to implement a successful running process, which is certainly dependent on the efforts of every partner.

Zooming in on the various parties active in the Aviation Security ecosystem, there is a noticeable and logical difference in personal interest from various points of view. Every party owns an expertise and interest, which also comes with a certain way of talking – e.g. a certain type of language. For example, an engineer working at an OEM focusing on the technicalities of a lane can speak a different language and can refer to certain components using different words than a security operator working in a dynamic airport operation. An illustration of this is the yellow button: agents in operation prefer to call a button by its colour, while system engineers refer to the same button as the "M316-D button"*. Subtleties in such language can easily lead to miscommunication, with neglecting or misinterpreting a certain point of feedback as a result, which then takes on a life of its own while the original issue remains unaddressed. Recognizing these subtleties allows parties to better understand each other and eases their collaboration in working towards their overarching goals.

During operator training, we explain the technicalities of a lane in the language of the operation to create an environment where operators can feel free to ask questions and provide feedback from their perspective. Feedback from the operation is very valuable in creating a strong bridge between the technical design of a lane and the operational adoption of the system. Gaining understanding and feedback from the operation at a specific location provides the handles required to successfully merge security equipment with the culture of a unique situation.

How do you bridge the gap between the technical and operational languages?

Simulations in security checkpoints: Three Use Cases

Every security checkpoint is under constant pressure of changing situations. These can be triggered by a change in spacing due to construction plans, as well as policy changes looking at new procedures for screening passengers, or potentially an upgrade in screening technologies. Point FWD sees the security checkpoint as a coherent system of technologies, processes and people in which balance is the key to success at every unique location. Our challenge in this puzzle is to transition from a rather uncertain situation – i.e. getting surprised by external changes that impact checkpoint operations – to a situation where airports, airport operators and suppliers are in good shape for any upcoming change.

In this blog we like to give a short introduction about 3D simulations in security checkpoints by which digital representations of security operations can act as a “Sand-Box” to experiment with planned, or even unplanned changes. We believe that for a majority of changes to the security checkpoint, costly trial projects and time efforts could be reduced by building a digital model of the operational situation, but only when there is a sufficient level of operational detail.

Specifically we take a look at three main application areas in where simulations show great benefits, being:

1. Checkpoint redesign and technology upgrades;

2. Checkpoint resilience testing; and

3. Security process optimisation.

---

1. Checkpoint redesign and technology upgrades

A first area of application in which simulations can provide great benefit - and certainly all aviation professionals are most familiar with – is in design and planning projects. For example terminal expansion programs or security checkpoint redesign projects, which are often combined with technology upgrades such as ATRS, CT scanners or Security Scanners. However, most design simulations delivered for projects like mentioned mainly focus on generic passenger flows, which are modelled based on rather generic dynamics about security checkpoints. This is done by looking at acceptable security input and output values providing a good sense of passenger flows and queue areas.

Point FWD’s view in these projects is that for gaining the most accurate representation of a future checkpoint situation, more detail such as process anomalies, operational variations and airport specifics are required to understand different design scenarios for security checkpoints. Discrete event simulations can provide a visual representation of the detailed process and can provide further insight on how and where passengers precisely accumulate in the process itself and how a design could be altered to potentially resolve this. It also provides a dynamic component to the process by showing how lane and checkpoint throughputs are constantly varying over time and during peak hours. Below a simulation example based on the transition from x-ray to CT scanners and the impact thereof on process performance is included.

Design use case: Moving from standard X-ray to CT scanners. This video shows an example of the level of detail by which CT implementations can be tested, validated and successfully prepared by means of accurate simulations.

---

2. Checkpoint resilience testing

As of recent years, more and more airports adopt digital strategies to manage challenges that relate to operational stability. These include platforms for accurately forecasting actual passenger demand, based on real-time flight schedules and passenger data, increasingly with use of AI engines to detect anomalies. For the purpose of flexibly, both up- and down-scaling resources and assets during operational hours - especially capacity intensive terminal processes such as check-in, baggage reclaim and security - can benefit.

In case of the security checkpoint situation, on a different level than these real-time monitoring and planning systems, resilience levels can be tested, validated and improved greatly by a simulated environment. By doing so, exploring what-if scenarios in terms of common and uncommon events that happen in the checkpoint environment is possible, such as security lane errors or high threat procedures. Virtual representations of security lanes can then help in testing stress levels of checkpoint environments with regards to the number of lanes available for operation at maximum, versus passenger demand and key performance metrics. Eventually, a simulation of potential disruptions help in preparing for future threats to operation, and help to implement robust operational plans.  

Resilience use case: Outage of a security lane during peak times. This video exemplifies an operational situation that focuses on testing and validating operational plans for checkpoint situations, really looking at the impact on capacity and passenger flow.

---

3. Security process optimisation

Ideally, security checkpoints should accommodate for an environment to securely and swiftly process significant numbers of actual passengers. Often, the operation is not running  optimally and it is key to determine what is causing problems in the checkpoint so that these problems can be understood and solved.

Optimisation issues that can be assessed and fixed with simulations include, among other things, large queues with high queue times, low throughput, or the occurrence of bottlenecks. To recreate this operational situation in a digital twin environment, it is essential to have accurate and reliable input. This specific process data, such as processing times, reject rates and X-ray analysis times, are obtained both by extracting machine data, as well as manually collected measurements. Using this as input for the simulation, the process can be imitated and issues like mentioned can be tracked down. In doing so, experiments can be run which are testing different solution possibilities, such as changes in CONOPS or resources, delivering a better understanding of how this would effect, and potentially optimize the process, before ultimately implementing these changes in real-life operation.

Optimisation use case. In this video an example focused on the impact of the tray per passenger rate is simulated. It may help to simulate the operational impact of policy adjustments and CONOP changes in optimisation projects.

---

The importance of accurate input parameters

Simulation can be an excellent tool to create a virtual model of a security checkpoint. This environment can be manipulated and changed to either visualize the impact of certain changes or to see where bottlenecks are likely to occur. However, to create a digital twin of a specific security checkpoint, it is essential that the input parameters of the checkpoint represent the actuals. If the input is not correct, the output including the solutions to the initial issue, may not have the desired effect.

Point FWD’s Checkpoint Insight Tool

Data that is often required for complete simulations include screening system outputs, arrival patterns of passenger flows, but also more specific passenger data that often differentiates across airports. The latter is much often hard to capture with machine efforts, and therefore needs manual capturing. Point FWD’s Checkpoint Insight Tool is a tooling platform to help airport operators and OEMs to do just that.

---

Checkpoint Simulations by Point FWD

Has this blog made you curious or are you already contemplating about running a simulation for your business? At Point FWD, we are happy to help and answer in case specific questions about simulations in security checkpoints arise. We are open for demo requests and like to think with you in the solutions that can be brought with our security checkpoint simulation capability.

Process implementation of APIDs into security checkpoints.

While most airports are currently on the verge of transitioning towards modern screening equipment such as Explosives Detection Systems for Cabin Baggage (EDS CB), Automated lanes and Security Scanners; Airport Managers will soon be presented with value adding components to further streamline security operations. As touched upon in previous blogs, APIDS acts as an important solution to orchestrate the security operation in terms of human resources, operating costs and eventually to influence waiting times for security in a positive manner. In fact, implementation of APIDS might even brighten up the business case for moving towards EDS CB equipped security operations in parallel.

As operational APIDS trials are currently being prepared and performed, legislative outlines start to become visible to the industry and the first ECAC approval standards are expected early 2023, APIDS now take place on the near-term roadmap for implementation. But how do you start planning for APIDS implementation? Point FWD assists airports and security companies in security change projects and in this blog share their thoughts on the most important steps to take for APIDS consideration.

1.       Understand the impact and formulate a strategy

When looking at APIDS – and any other type of technology change in the checkpoint environment basically – it is of utmost and primary importance to fully understand every characteristic and capability of the technology, most importantly to assess the impact on current security operations. For APIDS specifically, it is expected that full system capability in combination with EDS CB screening could go in direction of HBS-like automation levels. In that perspective, changing towards EDS systems for the checkpoint become even more beneficial for the airport, and studying what solution (C-1, C-2 or C-3) best fits the airport requirements is then essential. For those involved in security change projects, it goes without saying; checkpoint (re)design requires a great amount of efforts to achieve a balanced and successful new process.

The success of APIDS implementation goes hand in hand with the introduction of Open Architecture of systems in Aviation Security screening setups. APIDS solutions will also be developed by highly competent companies other than screening equipment OEMs and for this reason flexibility and interoperability between systems is key to enable new-entrant companies develop smart solutions that interoperate within the security landscape. Hence, when tendering for solutions as such, it is very important to look at it from the broader checkpoint operation with regards to data exchange, interoperability, CONOPs, checkpoint layouts and other operational implications.

2.       Create functional and operational designs of the new checkpoint process

A holistic view is key when upgrading or re-designing the security checkpoint with any technology or security measure. It is certainly not a matter of replacing a machine or adding an algorithm. Moreover, it is about rebalancing all processes to accommodate for the technology implementation(s) as initiated, and obviously this is no different for APIDS implementation. The expectation (and promise) of APIDS is that less screeners per lane are required to screen the same number of images, but with the requirement that centralized image analysis – or networked screening – is in place to be able to gain the potential.

The optimal security lane and checkpoint design is unique for every airport and can even vary across the airport for the different checkpoints. For this reason, using process characteristics from the local situation is essential when developing for a future lane concept. Together with assumptions for future operation of APIDS systems and CONOPs, functional lane designs can be modelled and simulated to assess the impact on output figures such as passenger and tray throughput, (decreased) staffing of personnel and expected workloads. Doing so, various functional design scenarios can act as input for operational business case assessments, resulting in confidence and accuracy in strategic decision-making.

3.       Validate APIDS setups and start optimization

Trialing a new combination of systems and CONOPs in a real airport environment will always be the best step towards solution validation. That is, we can model and calculate the best we can, however, the true value (and pitfalls) of APIDS systems should be concluded in a real-life operational environment with all uncertainties present. It should always be the step in between initial design and final roll-out of a solution. Furthermore, in the trial setup, end-users are confronted with APIDS and will get trained or become known how to adapt to the new way of working. The insights that were gained during an APIDS trial should of course serve as input for simulations of final checkpoint design, lane concept development or even tender specification.

One of the main focus points to trial APIDS solutions in the AvSec checkpoints is to closely monitor every part of the coherent security process. Data capture and analysis helps to critically assess whether, where in the process and to what extend changes have occurred. Monitoring of APIDS technology trials can best be done using omni-source data collection – including machine, manual or sensor data. The reason for doing this is to be able to tackle any differentiation in process performance that might be present, including bottleneck shifting, decreased alarm resolution times or increased IPP due to seasonal change.            

4.       Start implementation and continuous monitoring of APIDS solutions.

The start of deployment of APIDS systems should be seen as the start of various other projects. Fully dependent on the CONOPs in which APIDS will be implemented, it is expected that new waves of technology will get certified and that other process CONOPs become available to the early airports adopting the primary APIDS technology. Therefore, continuous monitoring the operation remains key to be able to optimize for the most beneficial process including staffing and work instructions.

Furthermore, benefits of algorithm-based systems such as APIDS are expected to continue to grow, even outside of the checkpoint space and across airports. Via the Open Architecture of systems, airports with algorithms deployed should be able to work together by autonomously adapting to emerging threats, and mitigating security risks even further in the future.

---

Point FWD owns a core capability in planning for security checkpoint change related to technology upgrades, process improvements and terminal redesign or expansion projects. Point FWD assists with expert operational knowledge, fully supported with a comprehensive security process analysis and design platform. Contact the team for more info.

Point FWD adds new client Brussels South Charleroi Airport and starts working on security checkpoint design study.

Bottleneck modelling; an essential step towards security process optimisation.

A security checkpoint may seem, by now, as a common process for those who fly every now and then. However, thinking about the setup; there aren’t that many line processes through which we as people move, including the amount of technical components.

As a society we have become known to the high-tech screening equipment, the added or lifted restrictions and also the changing actions to take as a passenger in the checkpoint. Yet, it is always a challenge from start to finish to (re)organise for the most optimal checkpoint solution, to be able to successfully screen passengers and their unique belongings within a limited footprint at the airport.

So how to optimise in such a complex ecosystem of people, technology, cultures and anomalies? Well, we’re happy to meet 🤝. But before having a coffee or call, go through some of our thoughts below first!

---

Optimal process organisation through bottleneck analysis

Following a bottleneck-analysis approach, we believe that true motivation for process optimisation should result in an ever-present chase to full process understanding. Knowing that the ‘bottleneck’ process in the security checkpoint is subject to changes constantly, and to be able to keep track on actual optimisation potential, we believe it is beneficial to adhere to a consistent optimisation approach. Our What-If module gives airport security stakeholders the opportunity to keep looking at process optimisation scenarios.

On the right-hand side the output capacities of our CIT ‘what-if’ module are depicted. What you see is a bottleneck that shifts by altering the input parameters of the process, usually coming from a baseline performance measurement at the airport.

The calculation runs on a complete model of the airport specific checkpoint situation and includes, amongst others, parameters like:

• Process performances such as occupancy rates, process cycle- and wait times and availability of operators and machines.

• Systems and staffing configuration and number of components and space.

Please note that the above representation is a snippet of our module. Beyond capacities, the complete module enables users to focus on system utilisation rates, staff efficiencies and workload KPIs, in order to organise for the changing requirements in security checkpoints nowadays.

---

Security Process Optimisation Cycle

Security change project cycle.

The so-called what-if scenario modelling is usually the second step in our optimisation approach for airports and security companies. Based on an airport specific data collection, scenario modelling is the basis for setting paths for serious optimisation potential. It provides for a tangible asset to set up the operational business case, and then take it further and test it against operational situations in a simulated environment. The last step is to experiment and operationalise in the real-life checkpoint environment and passenger behaviour in full effect.

---

We are here to support airports and the aviation security stakeholder.

Point FWD owns a core capability in the monitoring and optimisation of airport security processes and has developed a highly effective platform for its partners to collect process data, to analyse and identify bottlenecks and to quickly initiate and monitor effective change. Now is the time to start acting.

Quick fix solutions and long term developments to resolve current challenges in Airport processes.

Recent spring holiday peaks have acted as unsuccessful load tests for the current state of both the airport infrastructure, as well as staffing at the various key airport processes such as check-in, security and ground handling. The forced lay off of personnel (and knowledge) during crisis time has left most airport companies and service providers with urgent and critical challenges, dealing with a sudden increase in capacity demands without having the sufficient number of staff available.

For the mid- and long-term, reshaping and monitoring human employment as part of the airport service seems to be inevitable. However, getting sufficient staff levels back is a though challenge and is not going to be solved in the short-term. That is, attraction, recruitment and training of airport personnel currently takes too much time to be of immediate help, and as a result, with current equipment setups and CONOPs, capacity gaps remain present. This is where operational balance should be regained.

---

Solutions to regain balance in the screening process.

So what other approaches, tools and solutions exist to minimize the capacity gap we face at airports today? We like to group potential solutions on a scale of time and therewith share the industry opinion that in the end, passenger screening checkpoints should gain in resilience. We therewith firmly believe that technology will enable us to replace human tasks in the near future.

Here is a list of solutions on the short-, mid- and long-term that will help airport managers and security checkpoint stakeholders in their current jobs.

1.       Short term: Process Optimisation as a quick fix and efficiency enabler

For the very short term, we know that still a lot of potential is present in current processes and operations at a major part of airports and security companies. This includes CONOPs alterations, process improvements, gaining awareness and active training and coaching of newly hired security personnel. After all, it takes time and experience to perform at your best.

• Start getting an accurate and thorough overview on security checkpoint operations to spot improvement potential for overall process efficiency. Start an act of regaining balance in every situation of operation, during, but also outside of peak hours.

• Manual process data collection is an effective and accessible way towards the identification of passenger bottlenecks and determination of lost workloads in the checkpoint. Point FWD’s Checkpoint Insight Tool is a low-cost and easy tool focused at the collection of critical passenger flow data. Getting a frequent status quo of the process ensures to maintain control over critical KPIs that, on most airports, are not (yet) logged by machines or sensors. When combined with machine data, it really provides the actionable insight when to start steering.

• Get your basics right. Whereas the situation in checkpoints has changed globally, so have the people. This especially applies to newly hired staff. Implementation (and discovery) of best practices may be of great help in order to get personnel on a steep learning curve towards a smooth and sustainable operation.

Point FWD’s Checkpoint Efficiency Assessment pin points efficiency gains in the process. Contact the team for more information.

2.       Mid-term: Process alterations and robust monitoring and forecasting.

Looking beyond the upcoming summer and winter peaks, security managers and staff managers should equip themselves with tools to effectively manage passenger flows and real-time capacities, without the excessive staff numbers of today. In the end, automation plays a big role in gaining stability, forecasting and control, and the facilitation of real-time steering of operations in security checkpoints. Some specific directions for solutions include:

• Keep a maintained focus on sustainable workloads and performance goals for security staff. Obtain stable methodologies for process alterations and baseline performance measures for the security process in detail, but also looking at work-loads of specific tasks, such as screening, recheck and divest. Are there CONOPs changes possible in specific windows of operation? Collect data, draw the hypotheses and start testing process changes

• Solutions for real-time monitoring of passenger flows and asset utilisation become increasingly more important looking at the stability of processes and operational excellent, real-time, process organisation. Specific vendors, such as Point FWD partner GRASP Innovations, also help to increase predictability of future peaks. Airports should now more than ever bring in the power of technology and automation to replace repetitive tasks – such as access control.

• Commence trial projects towards Automatic Prohibited Item Detection systems, to start studying practical process designs that can provide huge efficiency gains together with EDS algorithms. This might just be a game changer in Avsec screening in terms of operational excellence, but might also require a redesign of the security process as a whole. Advice here is to effectively prepare, design, test and monitor during a trial with adequate methods and tooling.

3.       Long-term: Technology enablement and security checkpoint rethinking

We are on the verge of a technology revolution in aviation security screening. That is, discussions around the Open Architecture of systems gain in power and OEMs start to work more and more on strategies around the co-development of Avsec screening components. The introduction of Artificial Intelligence in detection capability and alarm resolution technology pave the way for a rethinking of the security checkpoints of today. Integrating more advanced technology in the checkpoint maybe a driving force to require other types of personnel as operator at the lane – primarily including technicians, hosts and secondary judgement.

---

We are here to support airport and security personnel.

Point FWD owns a core capability in the monitoring and optimisation of airport security processes and has developed a highly effective platform for its partners to collect process data, to analyse and identify bottlenecks and to quickly initiate and monitor effective change. Now is the time to start acting.

Contact us

Contact team

Checkpoint Improvement Review

Difficult times ask for a solution-centered approach.

Point FWD introduces a short-term consultancy agreement to enable quick identification of operational improvements in security checkpoints.

Read along to find out if this might be something for your airport security checkpoint.

Don’t forget to apply!

Request project

Review project submission

---

The offer

To retrieve a quick review of security checkpoint operations leading to a concrete set of outputs, such as process improvement and direct OPEX reductions. Point FWD is capable of delivering a tangible output against a lead time of approx. 1 month for a fixed price fee.

This offer is subjected to limited availability. Our advise: respond quickly.

What may it entail?

The services provided as part of our AvSec check-up may cover various topics of interest, including, but not limited to:

• Process / CONOP review and improvement review

• Checkpoint baseline performance and KPI assessment

• Checkpoint capacity modelling

• Business case for change implementation

• Operator training program review

*All output directions will be substantiated with a cost/benefit analysis, with a focus on potential OPEX reductions or process KPI improvement, such as efficiency level or process capacity.

What do we need?

A few components are needed as starting point for the short-term consultancy agreement, that may include, depending on the focus:

• Specific and output-driven operational challenge.

• Situational drawings of the checkpoint situation.

• Configuration of screening equipment.

• Work instructions and SOPs.

• Staff planning and operational schedules.

• Available checkpoint performance data*

*Point FWD’s in-house data handling tools such as the Checkpoint Insight Tool may be used to gain the relevant checkpoint process data.

What is the investment?

The intention for the short term consultancy agreement is to offer maximum value for a fairly small investment.  Investment can vary per assignment, but the idea is to never exceed EUR 5.000,-. This ceiling amount enables us to keep it straight forward and deliver quick identification of concrete operational improvement points with direct OPEX saving opportunities.

Practical setup

• A mutual non-disclosure will be initiated, including the common goals, before getting started for the short term assignment.

• This is a non-binding agreement that ends after delivery of the engagement.

• To keep it a short term project, we require one dedicated point of contact to be available for the time of the project.

---

Request your project

Ready to apply for you a quick identification of optimization opportunities for your checkpoint situation?

Request your review via below form and we’ll come back to you ASAP.

Request review project

Checkpoint Review

Stay ahead of the curve - Security as a Service

A personalized experience

In our blog Security-adjacent airport process innovation we introduced how we strive to stay ahead of the curve in the aviation industry – by having interactive ‘Ahead of the Curve’ sessions at Point FWD. Recently we have been focussing on the future landscape of airport security. In this blog we share a snippet of our recent development: Security as a Service – A personalised experience.

Figure 1: Mural at Copenhagen Airport (CPH) in Denmark

---

Guests of the future

Differentiation and relevance of experiences have become key in many industries. People desire more excellence and personalized experiences. The One-size-fits-nobody approach is the common shared thought on passenger experience nowadays.

To identify the optimal differentiated passenger experience in airport security, it is key to identify the elements that contribute to this experience. We took the approach of backward engineering on identifying the optimal passenger experience and formulated the following question:

What are the desires and needs of passengers today and guests of the future?

Figure 2: A passenger of today and an airport guest of the future looking at the horizon

The Internet of Things and Open Architecture are expected to become an important direction for the landscape of airport security in the near future, as we discussed in a previous blog. Other elements that define future landscaping are:

·        Shaping a sustainable future together;

·        Digital and open wayfinding;

·        Inclusive and transparent way of working;

·        Passenger differentiation and relevance; and

·        People empowerment by building a community.

These elements have sparked our imagination and creativity, which led to a brainstorm session about passenger differentiation based on individual desires and needs. The aim was to build a need-based foundation in (re-)designing a security checkpoint to be able to provide guests’ desires of the future.

---

Passenger characteristics & behaviour at security touchpoints

An overview of passenger characteristics and behavioural traits per touchpoint in the security process resulted in passenger differentiation. The characteristics are divided over the touchpoints: queue, divest, image analysis, passenger screening, recheck and reclaim. A sneak-peak is shown in the overview below.

Figure 3: Sneak-peak of our passenger characteristics & behaviour overview

The experienced flyer is alert on action and movement when queuing, and has common baggage content such as a laptop, small beverage, phone and wallet. Infrequent flyers need more overall guidance throughout the security process and re-divestment is needed more frequently. Families carry a high variety of baggage items and content, and they desire patience to minimize their stress-level. Transfer passengers can be tired, rushed and focussed on their next flight. The security process is the first touchpoint on arrival, and they are in need of information about their next stop. Also, their prior journey could have caused a cluttered baggage content which influences the security process. Persons with reduced mobility (PRM) often bring odd-size carry-on baggage which requires more frequent and alternative alarm resolution.

---

Security Parameters and Value Added Services

At Point FWD, we believe in a data driven approach. Therefore, we identified security parameters which can be used as input in our Modelling and Simulation Tools. Divest time, occupancy rate, image complexity, operator analysis time, alarm rate and acquisition, and resolution time are examples of parameters that are implemented.

The security parameters furthermore enable the development of services that can add value to specific passenger characteristics in their journey. Examples of these Value Added Services are self-divest, large tray size, cooperative alarm resolution and extended reclaim space and time.

Because passengers differ in their desires and needs, they require different approaches on pace. Passenger differentiation could therefore require security lane-set up differentiation. Whereas the experienced traveller is most comfortable in a self-service environment, the family passenger type might need a slower pace and more interaction with operators to assist them throughout the process. Different security-lane set ups could provide an optimal passenger experience for different guests. And when everybody can proceed through the security process at their own pace, this could benefit to a more seamless passenger flow. The image below (figure 4) depicts security checkpoint set-ups defined by a passenger differentiation approach.

Figure 4: Example of security checkpoint set-ups defined by passenger differentiation.

---

What type of passenger are you?

People can be different types of passengers depending on the purpose of the journey. When going on a business trip, the experienced flyer type might fit best in this situation. However, when this same person travels with his family to a holiday destination, their needs can be different, and another profile would be a better fit. Passengers should be provided sufficient autonomy to be able to provide their own input about the experience that will fit best for them at a specific moment.  A pre-flight information app (figure 5) could help to assemble sufficient information to define the optimal fit to realize Security as a Service – A personalized experience.

Figure 5: Point FWD Pre-flight security app concept

---

We are curious: What type of passenger you consider yourself?

 Feel free to leave a comment below!

Human-machine interaction in future AvSec screening

Continuous development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is part of the road towards future baggage screening in aviation security. Explosive Detection Systems for Cabin Baggage (EDSCB) aid operation in the detection of bare explosives and continue to improve performance in terms of detection rates. AI techniques, such as machine learning and deep learning, enable the development of smart and adaptable algorithms for automatic detection of threat objects - referred to as Automatic Prohibited Item Detection System (APIDS).  These algorithms enable support in security operations by detecting threat categories by shape, such as sharp items and firearms.

In this blog we take a look at the road towards future baggage screening in airport security, specifically at the human-machine interaction between operator and algorithm.

---

Continuous improvement of EDSCB algorithms

The continuous improvement of EDSCB already evolved to a single digit false alarm rate and an improved detection rate. Improvements of EDSCB detection can be related to the detection of minor threat quantities and threat concealments. One key element missing in current algorithms is the detection of complete Improvised Explosive Devices (IED).   

When EDSCB algorithms are able to detect IED’s, this will highly impact the security operation since operators hypothetically won’t have to search for IEDs anymore. As we described earlier in our blog about Operator performance on image analysis, the search for IEDs is the most complex detection category for operators. Because the threat category list is reduced by IEDs in operating procedures, the operator learning curve could increase. In addition, less operator training and coaching could be necessary.

Reducing the threat list with IEDs can result in an enhanced focus on other threat categories and this will most likely impact the operator satisfaction and confidence. The operational impact could be an increased clear baggage flow and fewer high threat occurrences; this expects to minimize the so-called Cry-wolf effect: ignoring warnings due to the past experience of false alarms.

Figure 1 – Operators must search for prohibited items in airport security

---

Automated Prohibited Item Detection and Image On Alarm

Automated Prohibited Item Detection Systems – APIDS – are the next step towards a more secure and automated security check. These advanced algorithms are able to detect and identify threat items such as firearms, sharps and blunt weapons, based on shape.

Both EDSCB and APIDS detect threats. Yet – their detection methodologies are significantly different. EDSCB detects bare explosives primarily by material composition, whereas APIDS detects threats mostly based on shape. On Screen Resolution (OSR) of EDSCB alarms is not allowed in many countries because the human eye is incapable of material distinguishment by observation. On the contrary, operators are able to perform shape detection, which is applicable on all threat categories, except explosives (see figure 2). Therefore, a so-called Image On Alarm (IOA) is an applicable CONOP scenario for APIDS: operators should only analyse images that contain a threat detected by APIDS.

Figure 2 – Material detection on explosives versus shape detection on firearms, sharps, blunts and miscellaneous

Successful implementation of APIDS requires consideration of different CONOPs scenarios. A CONOPs scenario with IOA allows for alarm resolution by the operator and could impact the operation on several aspects. Fewer images will be presented to the primary screener which results in an additional increased clear flow of baggage. Next to this, an alternative staffing model could be considered as fewer images requires analysis by an operator: remote screening with fewer operators or combining CBS and HBS operator activities.

When images are presented with alarm annotation operators can adjust their focus to a specific region of interest instead of analysing the complete image; operator focus will increase, and analysis time will decrease. Yet, it is important to consider additional operator GUI interaction due to image clutter of alarm annotations. Changes to the Operator GUI could help to increase intuitive GUI usability.

Fewer false alarms will be sent to recheck for secondary screening. Passenger experience could increase because this results in less queue time and less intrusive procedures. This also means an increased number of correct alarms that require secondary screening. Secondary screening on correct alarms requires more processing time than secondary screening on false alarms.

---

The challenges and opportunities of Auto-clear

Combining EDSCB with APIDS is the next step towards a more automated security checkpoint in the future. When the detection threshold enables the detection of all threat categories this will allow for implementation of auto-clear software; images can be cleared automatically if no threat is detected by EDSCB and APIDS. The implementation of auto-clear will impact the operational environment on various aspects.

Implementation of auto-clear software will result in fewer rejects of images. Therefore, operators will shift their focus towards alarm resolution procedures. The initial and recurrent training program for image analysis should then be adjusted accordingly.

The staffing model will be impacted by auto-clear implementation as well. Performing less alarm resolution also enables the opportunity to combine operator tasks. For example: combining passenger screening with alarm resolution for cabin baggage, or alarm resolution with first-line equipment support.

Rotating shifts within the security team on site will change with an auto-clear CONOP. There will be less start-stop behaviour of the lane and a passengers will experience a more continuous flow.

Auto-clear software will help in the improvement process of the security culture. Operator confidence and operator satisfaction levels might increase, different career opportunities arise, passengers will experience a less intrusive security procedures atmosphere and less need for ethnic profiling might exist.

Auto-clear will also impact the operational environment physically. Security lanes could require extended reclaim space for passengers when auto-clear software is implemented.  Divest positions could be extended as well due to a more continuous flow. Also, the position for the primary screener is no longer needed in the security lane. Therefore, this space becomes available. This could allow for narrow security lane setups, improvement in equipment sustainability and a more efficient equipment utilization. However, when changing the checkpoint footprint, the potential displacement effect of bottlenecks in the passenger journey – such as border control processes – must be considered as well. Relocating the bottleneck is never the objective in the passenger journey and must be considered in alignment to auto-clear implementation.

---

In this blog post we shared our thoughts on the future of AvSec Human-Machine interaction and how this can impact several factors in airport security. Dialogues are necessary among all European security stakeholders to define AI operational requirements, perform the research and guide the innovation process to strive for state-of-the-art AvSec solutions compliant with Europe’s regulations.

We guide security equipment deployment by keeping integration as our key focus. This covers technology, process and at heart: people. Every change results in a new situation.

---

Explore what Point FWD has to offer in guiding security stakeholders toward successful equipment implementation in airport security checkpoints.

Visit our EDSCB page for more info or send an information request via the button below.

Open Architecture in Aviation Security; three operational enablers

A central topic in the Aviation Security (AvSec) industry is the concept of Open Architecture (OA). It is expected to become an important direction for the landscape of equipment development in the near future. One of the bigger steps taken is the release of a position paper last year, on the challenges, opportunities and dynamics of OA initiated by Avinor and Heathrow Airport. The initiative gained support from different government bodies (US TSA, UK DFT), aviation authorities (ACI Europe) and various prestigious airport hubs around the world (e.g Schiphol Airport, Manchester Airport Group, Dubai Airports). But what is the concern of the current architecture and systems landscape, and what can the new standard bring?

“OA can be viewed as a plug-and-play approach to airport security systems”

— John Christian Paulshus, Avinor

In this blog, together with John Christian Paulshus (Enterprise Architect at Avinor and Chair of the ACI OA Technical Standardization work stream), we explore the operational challenges that Avinor as an airport group faces and the opportunities an OA systems standard could provide to address these challenges.

---

Open Architecture – an interoperable systems approach

Currently, most AvSec equipment and screening solutions are developed rather with a focus on integration to a selection of systems, in order to co-exist in a security operation. The efforts needed to integrate system components vary across different standards used for protocols and interfacing related to data-sharing, (cyber)security and data-formatting – also referred to as the Integrated Systems approach. With OA, the software or physical architecture of a system is developed using interfaces, communication and protocols that are publicly available, well documented and free to use – referred to as an Interoperable Systems approach. Following Avinor (TSI MAG, 2021) OA can be viewed as a plug-and-play approach to airport security systems.

The most important differences between Integrated Systems and Interoperable systems, ACI 2020.

A few important generic benefits of OA are: a next level in standardization and interoperability between systems and processes, an enhancement in the detection of evolving threats and enabling for innovative third party capabilities. For Avinor – responsible for 44 Norwegian state-owned airports – OA can bring significant opportunities in various directions. Together with John, we take a look at three of those, being:

1. More efficient staff deployment;

2. Increased (cyber)security levels;

3. Increased equipment interoperability.

---

1. More efficient staff deployment

Screening capacity demand, both carry-on and hold baggage, varies during operational hours and generally additional staff is required during peak times. John explains the situation for Avinor: “We have airports in many places in Norway and our hypothesis is that we have staff performing the same functions at different locations. These people may be scheduled a bit unproductive due to a varying number of passengers, as they are being staffed for peak traffic and peak workloads.” He continues: “If an operational centre could operate several airports, or if people located at one airport could help performing work for other airports, it could save significant labour efforts.”

The complete coverage of Airports in Norway, including 5 privately owned airports. Source: Wikipedia, 2021.

An operational centre mentioned by John could in fact address several focus areas, such as maintenance, monitoring of systems and processes, but also image analysis of both cabin and hold baggage. When we specifically look at centralised image processing (CIP), operators would be able to analyse images independently from the capacity demand at one specific terminal or checkpoint, or even a complete airport. Avinor, who started a project regarding CIP, experienced challenges in the efforts needed to successfully deploy such a concept. John explains: “So far, our experience is that with more standardization in place, this would have been an easier task.”

With CIP, although networked from different locations, the challenge that can evolve is that different system configurations exist across airports. Even within one single airport there is often a “mixed-fleet” of security equipment. In relation to procurement strategy, Point FWD often sees multi-terminal airports that tend to never upgrade the whole airport to one new system. Based on the current systems approach, in order to have CIP operational for those instances combining different system setups, lots of efforts are expected to be spent on integration. In this case, OA could offer an opportunity to combine the operation of various systems in a CIP concept more effortlessly and seamlessly. Hence, more efficient staff deployment and a better balanced workload deployment becomes accessible for operating the 44 Norwegian airports.

As for maintenance opportunities, system errors could be diverted to the operational centre directly as the systems communicate seamlessly. This eliminates the need for manual and human interaction as most operators are not trained to perform such tasks. OA could furthermore enhance the implementation of condition based monitoring for AvSec technology components, enabling for a preventive maintenance program and providing accurate insights into maintenance and service cycles.

---

2. Increased (cyber)security levels

The introduction of advanced technologies in the security checkpoint, such as 3D imaging and algorithm detection capabilities, increase security levels by adding value in threat detection. One of the direct effects of these advanced technological components that strike us is the size and complexity of the data that is being produced during operation. Dealing with the new situation, Avinor advocates for a common OA standard leading to a higher standard for risk mitigation. John explains: “The threat situation is increasingly getting more complicated and the available data sets are getting larger and larger. This means that both Avinor and the vendors in the AvSec system industry need to improve on this front and protect the separate systems, as well as using and sharing data with parties outside their own systems. Historically, these systems have been hidden far away from open networks, so using and sharing data has been a challenge.”  

Security screening at the busiest Norwegian airport Oslo Airport, source: Avinor.

 Specifically looking at an increase of security detection level, by implementing OA and providing a shared approach to data-transfer, innovation in direction of threat detection can be a focus of a combined systems approach. John explains that this includes the introduction of risk-based threat assessment and advanced automated detection based on multiple sources of screening. Looking at such an interoperable system, data from multiple security and additional systems (like government databases) can be combined to perform a complete risk assessment. For example; different parts of a threat item can be divided over cabin baggage and on a person’s body. Independently these items may not form a threat, but can do so when combined.

At the moment, there are restrictions on using and storing data from security equipment due to regulatory limitations. We definitely see an opportunity in an approved standard to store and use this data, which could allow for continuous algorithm learning, even over different airports. This data can be valuable to OEMs to train and enhance their detection algorithms. OA can also be beneficial, as explained by Avinor, by use of a shared digital threat library. John explains further: “OA would allow to certify new threat libraries much faster than certifying a security system hardware and software.” In case of updated regulation, airports can update their systems faster and be compliant. The digital library itself can also be updated faster with more seamless integration as it can be done by multiple parties.

---

3. Increased equipment interoperability

One of the primary objectives of OA is the increase in interoperability between systems. This means that standard interfacing should exist between all system components, providing for a modular systems landscape. This would enable airports and security operators to combine any security equipment components out there, resulting in a so called “best-of-breed” solution to obtain highest business value.

Avinor explains that OA will bring them added value in terms of scalability of solutions: “Because the principle of OA is that new systems shall communicate and work with existing systems”. He adds: “Up until now, these systems have not talked to each other. When buying the system, we may have bought the capacity we thought we would need on a future date. With OA we can buy what we need without fearing that expansion would be difficult. The scalability feature is important for Avinor.” The COVID-19 pandemic confirmed the importance of operational flexibility to the entire aviation industry.

Security service at Norwegian airport Oslo Airport, source: Avinor.

‘Plug-and-play’ equipment allows choosing the optimal checkpoint for airports and airport operators. It is easier to experiment and set up trails of new technology before committing to a certain technology. It may enable more a seamless and cost-effective implementation of equipment, and airports are encouraged to upgrade parts of their security checkpoint in a step-by-step approach. This enables the implementation of add-on security systems, like alarm resolution equipment for shoes, which may not have been implemented otherwise due to technical complications or implementation costs. The modular aspect of OA also reinforces Point FWD’s ability to optimize airport security checkpoints even further.

A last opportunity resulting from the increased interoperability by introducing open standards is an increased accessibility to the AvSec industry for third party innovators. The AvSec industry of today may be perceived as highly challenging to enter, looking at the high standards in terms of integration between components and the utmost importance of partnerships with OEMs and Airports. We think that taking OA as a new approach for developing interoperable solutions may bridge the gap for innovators cross-industry, adding value to the experience for passengers worldwide.  

---

Ready for the change?

Point FWD is a specialist consultant in designing, planning and implementing technology change in security processes throughout the airport. Do you want to explore how to deal with OA challenges, to explore the opportunity for your development agenda or identify trial locations and projects for your technology? Get in contact soon.

---