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.

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.

---

Security-adjacent airport process innovation

Point FWD has been active in the aviation security industry for over 10 years. During these years our colleagues have helped to create a smart, optimized and future-proof Aviation Security screening. However, recently we decided to expand our view to adjacent processes as well. We firmly believe that with our solutions and data-based thinking, we can assist airports in other aspects than solely the security process.

Stay Ahead of the Curve

Our key in our relation with clients is to help them to stay ahead of the curve. During interactive “Ahead of the Curve” sessions we leave our comfort zones and challenge ourselves to get a look at new angles – to think outside of the box. We are always striving to learn new things and stay curious, enriching our knowledge. With focus on understanding connections and relations, comparing processes and imagining the future of airport security, we select ideas that aim at a great vision.

---

Example of cross-process development

Figure 1: Example of Checkpoint Modelling tool re-imagined for the check-in process

Point FWD thrives on data-analysis, as data provides insights in your process and opportunities for improvement. Our Checkpoint Modelling Tool was developed by Point FWD to model the required capacity and flow of one or more security lane configurations. Using the modelling tool as a basis we re-imagined what the tool would look like when using it for measuring the capacity and flow of the adjacent processes. This really sparked our interest in further research on this topic.

---

Ahead of the curve outcomes

During our last innovation session we started expanding our vision and walked in the passenger’s footsteps to consider all the touch points during the passenger journey. And how can we use our experience and knowledge of the security process to optimize the adjacent processes.

Starting by considering the needs of the different stakeholders involved, we try to find the point of view with a 360 degrees perspective, identifying the challenges from all angles. The passenger must experience ownership of its journey. Our aim is to create a common understanding and clarity in the complexity of the journey and based on the passengers’ pace and desires; always striving for enhanced passenger experience – and loyalty, and more fluent passenger flows.

Three processes we took a look at: check in, boarding and reclaim processes.

Check-in

At check in the passenger journey starts: the passenger receives his boarding card, and the baggage is checked in. Online check-in is already a reality for many years, which eliminates much hassle for the passenger and the airline. Remote drop-off points, combined with baggage delivery service of the baggage is the next step. “Victory loves preparation” we say at Point FWD. By completing the full check-in procedure, including the baggage handling before even stepping foot in the terminal, the passenger has his hands free when going to the airport. This creates opportunities to spend time on more relaxing parts of the passenger journey.

Boarding

Guiding passengers to the departure gates is a challenge for many airports and airlines. Passenger could get real-time information on an app: about where they are, where their gate is, the distance to the gate and how much time they have available prior to gate-closing. Providing this information reduces stress on passengers. Furthermore, from an airport’s perspective it maximizes the time passengers can spend in the concession zones as people know exactly when they have to start to move towards their gate. This app can also be combined with information about the adjacent processes for a more holistic approach to the full passenger journey.

Reclaim

Way-finding is they key challenge of the reclaim process. On arrival, passengers’ first priority is to reclaim their baggage.  Where to go and how to proceed to the reclaim belt? This final process in the passenger journey raises feelings of uncertainty and stress. Besides, being tired after travelling and eager to arrive at the destination are factors that contribute to the challenging process.

People crave location-based and -tracking information – we see that in many industries: from food delivery to taxi services to online shopping. What if passengers are able to track baggage from drop off to reclaim? Sounds good right? A baggage reclaim service app can provide for information in relation to way-finding, live-location of baggage, time estimation on baggage arrival and merchandise offers to ease the waiting time. Or use the baggage-delivery service if that suits you better.

---

The passenger journey knows many airport processes, from check-in to security to baggage reclaim and everything in between. And they all impact the passenger experience. Having insight on these different processes enable the opportunity to see the processes in perspective of each other and to strive for an enhanced passenger experience. Considering every step in the way defines the optimal passenger journey.

Let’s work on industry innovations together!

We would like to make you part of our new journey. Therefore, we invite you to be Ahead of the Curve together with our team. Please send in any idea that we could pick up together to innovate our industry from the angle of your expertise!

Insight #1: Data-savvy organizations

Latest insights #1: Data-savvy organizations hold the future

Experience is important and helpful throughout the process of technology implementation, but it will not ensure the story of success on its own. What is still observed at quite some airport companies is that experience of reference airports is used for determining the ideal implementation solution, often in order to meet the same performance levels of those used as reference. The operational performance of a CT scanner and integrated lane solution is however strongly dependent on the deployment environment such as procedures, passenger profiles and other integrated technical components within the coherent security checkpoint.  

Security managers often struggle when not achieving the performance levels they had in mind. From the start not assessing their own process closely enough could be one of the main causes. What Point FWD sees is that when airports indeed critically assess the airport specific situation and processes, they gain more control over (the impact of) solution design decisions when completing the puzzle towards integrated process balance. This has a direct impact on the actual performance of a security checkpoint ecosystem.   

Point FWD does see a lot of airports becoming more data savvy lately with regards to security operations. Of course, primarily this is the result of advanced technologies being implemented, being capable of registering every activity such as start and end times, alarm (+ resolution) registrations and eventually various rates. As more data is available, there is a lot more to be analysed, and eventually to be optimized. For the airport the next step is to take an active approach towards data-driven optimization and to really start using available data.