Angle Up

APIDS

,

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.

,

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.

Follow