The daily portal for the latest airport passenger terminal news and views Keywords Search Sort

rt by: relevance most recent

FEATURES AND EXCLUSIVE ARTICLES >>
back to listing
Changing the rules
Interview with Uta Kohse, managing partner at Airport Research Center
How are you woring with air!orts to rea"y the# $or the li$ting o$ LA%s restri&tions'
In the last two years Airport Research Center (ARC has gained e!tended insight in this topic by
means of several pro"ects with airports seeking answers on the conse#$ences of lifting the %A&s
restrictions' (ased on this we have developed a standardised approach to best s$pport airports
in their decision making process'
)any parameters are still $nknown* we $se scenarios and sensitivity analysis to investigate the
potential impact and conse#$ences' +e can analyse if and how m$ch the thro$ghp$t capacity is
red$ced and recommend meas$res to compensate by optimising the lane layo$t and the process
design (balancing se#$ence and r$les of s$b,processes- s$ch as preparing- loading- collecting
trays- organisation of secondary screening process- tasks and n$mber of involved staff'
The investigation process is s$pported by a highly calibrated sim$lation model of the screening
process- which allows the detailed analysis of interdependent factors of a specific lane layo$t-
the process design which is the definition of all s$b,processes of screening (passenger and
baggage incl$ding primary and secondary screening- as well as the activities and the n$mber of
involved staff members per lane'
Left: Model Set-p with
important process parameters
.irst of all we cond$ct a stat$s
#$o analysis of the e!isting
screening lane layo$t- c$rrent
scanning e#$ipment and the
process design in place as well
as of the c$rrent passenger
characteristics driven by the
traffic str$ct$re handled at a
central or at different screening
areas of an airport' The stat$s
#$o analysis incl$des the s$rvey
of important system parameters
per screening area- s$ch as the n$mber of items and trays- process times and shares of each
s$b,processes- incl$ding loading trays- n$mber of passengers loading trays at the same time-
the share of s$spicio$s persons or items that need a secondary screening- the process time of
primary and secondary screening- and overall the se#$ence and r$les of all s$b,processes' /nce
all parameters have been obtained- $s$ally a sim$lation model is set $p of the stat$s #$o
sit$ation- which is $sed to validate and calibrate the model and make s$re it represents the
c$rrent screening process in an appropriate way'
The model will give a thro$ghp$t capacity (passengers per ho$r per lane that can be compared
to what act$ally is meas$red and observed in the real,life sit$ation' S$ch a model $s$ally has an
acc$racy of at least 012' (ased on the model the new process with primary and secondary
li#$id screening is then modelled and it can be eval$ated if and how m$ch the new processes
have a negative impact on thro$ghp$t capacity'
In an iterative process- changing details of the layo$t- the process and the staffing can optimise
the thro$ghp$t capacity' /ften small changes in the process design or layo$t can res$lt in an
increase of thro$ghp$t capacity 3 in this way potentials are detected for compensating a
declined capacity thro$ghp$t'
As stated in the beginning- beca$se important parameters are still $nknown- s$ch as the share
of li#$ids that are s$b"ect for a secondary screening in combination with a false alarm rate-
scenarios are investigated considering a likely bandwidth for the capacity per lane' (ased on
this- the airport can eval$ate the n$mber of lanes needed to handle a partic$lar peak demand'
As a range is given by the scenario analysis the airport can eval$ate if the space and the n$mber
of lanes can still handle a specific peak demand or if there is a risk that either longer waiting
times have to be accepted or if there is a need to b$ild more space for additional screening
lanes'
Th$s- the e!amination and optimisation of the process design and lane layo$t will p$t the airport
in the position to r$n 4what,if5 scenarios to better test ca$se and effect and be actively prepared
to the new sit$ation' The approach enables a foresighted planning and helps to identify a trade,
off that fits the act$al and individ$al sit$ation of each airport (can a decline in thro$ghp$t be
compensated with optimised layo$t- processes- more staff6 7o we need more lanes6 Can we still
place more lanes in the available space6 7o we need to invest in a complete re,design of areas
and is there a need for a larger investment in constr$ction of new areas6' The sensitivity
analysis cond$cted with sim$lation enables the airport to $nderstand the range of e!pected
thro$ghp$t red$ction to eval$ate if it is on the safe side with the offered capacity or if it has to
invest in e!tra lanes and space'
7ownload the NE(
)*th Anni+ersary
,assenger Ter#inal
(orl" )*-. )edia
8ack'
NE(S ,T( /A%A0INE RT( /A%A0INE SU,,LIER S,1TLI%HT RECRUIT/ENT 1,INI1N EVENTS TV FEATURES Contact $s 9 :ome
Pgina 1 de 4 Passenger Terminal Today
24/06/2014 http://www.passengerterminaltoday.com/features.php!log"#$%4&
(ill large in+est#ents ha+e to 2e #a"e or "o #ost air!orts alrea"y use e3ui!#ent
that &an s&reen li3ui"s'
Several airports have started already to redesign their processes and get prepared for the need
of li#$id scans' Scanners need to be replaced on a reg$lar basis and if new scan e#$ipment
needs to be p$rchased- the latest generation with the capability to screen li#$ids have been
p$rchased already' Th$s- there are several airports that are prepared- b$t there are also several
airports that have not reorganised their infrastr$ct$re and processes yet and are "$st starting or
are still in the process of $pgrading their screening facilities'
:owever- it is not s$fficient to "$st e!change screening e#$ipment- it also needs to be
considered that the thro$ghp$t capacity per lane will be red$ced as the process becomes more
comple! and also passengers need to be trained what to do' Therefore- each airport sho$ld also
look into the process design and the ca$se and effect of the change on thro$ghp$t capacity'
;ach airport sho$ld be prepared to have mitigation meas$res in place to compensate'
The investments may be made not only in e#$ipment b$t also in:
< Technology 3 a main scanner that can analyse li#$ids in general- and second a special li#$id
scanner for secondary sec$rity checks
< Another lane layo$t and=or more lanes 3 as overall screening process will get more comple!-
the overall thro$ghp$t will be red$ced and this needs to be compensated either thro$gh an
optimised lane layo$t or by introd$cing more lanes' If more lanes cannot be placed in the
e!isting layo$t- re,design of areas may res$lt in even more costs'
< Staff 3 o$r analysis showed that it is recommended to add more staff- especially for the
secondary li#$id control process' Also in the starting phase additional floorwalkers are re#$ired
to g$ide and train passengers
< Costs 3 to cover set,$p- implementing- testing and training of e#$ipment- and optimising
processes
(hat are the #ain &hallenges $a&e" $or air!orts when the LA%s restri&tions are
re#o+e"'
There are a n$mber of challenges- incl$ding:
< 7ifferent interpretation of r$les' There is no standardised process design of screening process
3 the ;$ropean Commission "$st sets bo$ndaries b$t the act$al detailing and implementation is
done by each co$ntry' The res$lt is a kind of patchwork process design which often differs from
airport to airport even in the same co$ntry' There might also be co$ntries which will not follow
the r$les and stick to the old li#$id restriction as they do not s$fficiently tr$st the available
technology and delay investments- waiting instead $ntil a more reliable and faster technology is
available'
< Comm$nication with passengers' Airports have to ens$re passengers $nderstand what to do-
what is allowed and what is not* they sho$ld introd$ce changes in a phased approach to red$ce
conf$sion'
< There will be longer #$e$es- waiting times or more lanes 3 airports need to optimise lane
layo$t and process design if possible'
< >ncertainty 3 airports are still #$estioning e#$ipment reliability- which s$pplier to choose- how
soon another $pgrade of e#$ipment will be needed and whether other threats will res$lt in the
need for more=other e#$ipment'
Left: !etailed secrit" process
model to test what-if scenarios
and condct sensitivit" anal"sis
and optimisation
How rea"y "o you 2elie+e
the in"ustry is $or the li$ting
o$ the LA%s restri&tions'
There is the ;> reg$lation set,
$p and there is a date where
implementation shall be
finalised' ;> airports are bo$nd
to these reg$lations' In case
they are not ready- they have
to stick to the old li#$id
reg$lation- b$t might be
confronted with angry
passengers and claims for
compensation' The disc$ssion
abo$t lifting of %A& restrictions has been going on for #$ite a while and- as first date for initial
implementation in April ?@AB was postponed- many airports have done eval$ation st$dies
already and have initiated the plan for implementation to be ready at least for phase A (transfer
passengers and also following phases of the changed reg$lation'
8revio$sly- with the introd$ction of %A& restrictions- the screening process became more
complicated and the thro$ghp$t was red$ced' This was the moment when airports e!perienced
massive capacity problems and started to $pgrade' Th$s- many airports have already done
$pgrades and modernisations of the sec$rity screening layo$t to increase the overall thro$ghp$t
capabilities per screening lane (more space per lane in width and length- longer lanes for
preparation and secondary screening- etc' ($t there are also several airports that do still
operate the simple- shorter traditional screening lanes which have a red$ced thro$ghp$t
capacity and cannot accommodate the more comple! processes incl$ding li#$id screening'
Th$s- to answer the #$estion- it is dependent on the individ$al sit$ation of each airport' If it has
$pgraded and modernised the screening area already- the airport potentially needs to integrate
new scanners and redesign the processes to incl$de the li#$id screening (primary and
secondary'
.or airports that still have traditional short and small screening lanes- they probably need to do
re,design of areas which might incl$de creating additional space for more advanced e#$ipment
and more comple! screening processes'
:owever- even if the airports $pgrade their lanes and set,$p the e#$ipment- the biggest
$ncertainty is that airports do not know the e!pected thro$ghp$t capacity per lane as this is not
only driven by the technology b$t also by passenger behavio$r and the act$al items that need to
be screened' Also the share of s$spect items that are s$b"ect to a secondary screening is not
really known and does not only depend on the acc$racy of the scanner b$t also on the kind of
li#$ids and the kind of containers passengers bring'
As the ;> plans a phased lifting of %A& restrictions- it is e!pected that the first phase- which
mainly concerns transfer passengers- will not be as problematic $nless at p$re transfer sec$rity
controls at transfer h$bs' Airports with a high share of transfer passengers have to foc$s on
s$ch control processes' :owever- when a complete lifting of %A& reg$lations happens- airports
might e!perience more iss$es if scanner technology is not s$itably a$tomated- reliable and fast
with a low false re"ection rate'
/$r analyses showed that the screening process of complete lifting of li#$id restriction wo$ld
lead- at least in a modern layo$t of screening lanes- to a thro$ghp$t red$ction of at least A@,
?@2' The act$al red$ction will be highly dependent on the share of passengers having li#$ids to
screen as well as on the share of li#$ids s$b"ect to a secondary screening process'
Pgina 2 de 4 Passenger Terminal Today
24/06/2014 http://www.passengerterminaltoday.com/features.php!log"#$%4&
So- the #$estion is also whether airports have s$fficiently looked and analysed the potential
red$ction in thro$ghp$t- in partic$lar in the starting phase- as well as they possible mitigation
meas$res needed to compensate a red$ced thro$ghp$t 3 only then they are well and pro,
actively prepared'
Is the right te&hnology out there now'
The ;$ropean Civil Aviation Conference (;CAC has p$blished a list of certified %A& e!plosive
detection systems'
Th$s- c$rrently there are several man$fact$rers of li#$id screening e#$ipment- and each prod$ct
has advantages and disadvantages' The lack of a s$itable false alarm rate seems to be the
ma"or iss$e'
In order to implement a li#$id screening process the technology is available- however- it is not
comfortable for passengers and investment costs for the airport is high'
To red$ce the false alarm rate with the available scanners- $s$ally the process design re#$ires
separating the li#$ids from the hand l$ggage and even $sing e!tra dedicated trays for li#$ids
larger than A@@ml' This is a n$isance and makes the screening process more comple! and
e!pensive'
It can be arg$ed that the 4perfect5 technology is not there yet for a complete removal of %A&s
restrictions' The target is a scanner that a$tomatically- very reliably and #$ickly screens the
whole hand l$ggage at once witho$t the need to separate li#$ids and provides a low false alarm
rate' Th$s- the aviation ind$stry still shows do$bts whether the screening technology of scanners
of generation 7 can detect reliably s$spect li#$ids inside bags and the #$estion is also if the
technology will be available at the beginning of ?@AC when the plan is to lift all li#$id
restrictions'
(hat ty!e o$ e3ui!#ent is 2eing use" in air!orts $or s&reening li3ui"s 4Ty!e A5 65 or
C7' An" whi&h is the #ost e$$e&ti+e'
>s$ally a combination of screening e#$ipment is $sed' The combination is dependent on details
of the process design driven by local reg$lations and legal re#$irements as well as on the local
conditions of a partic$lar screening area'
Dot each combination of technology is applicable for each screening location at an airport 3 local
factors need to be considered- in partic$lar available space' In the end it is a trade,off between
infrastr$ct$re investments vers$s operational process investment'
Th$s- the optim$m combination of $sed technology- lane layo$t and process design is to be
specified according to individ$al local conditions'
Therefore it is not the #$estion of the most effective technology- as this also is dependent on the
act$al individ$al sit$ation at an airport relating to e!isting available facilities- space availability
(length and width per lane- and other operational constraints'
The most effective sol$tion is dependent on space availability and thro$ghp$t capacity
re#$irements that drive the act$al n$mber of re#$ired lanes' It is also dependent also on the
desired level of service (%/S in terms of waiting times'
Small airports with a limited n$mber of screening lanes for a small peak demand will not
necessarily invest in a h$ge lane layo$t- which delivers a very large thro$ghp$t capacity that is
not needed'
Another #$estion is what is the act$al share of li#$ids that needs to be screened per passengers6
+hat is the act$al share of secondary screening and inspection of not,identified and potentially
s$spicio$s li#$ids6 These are parameters that will have an impact on potentially red$ced
thro$ghp$t capacity' )ost effective wo$ld be reliable screening of complete handbags- which
shall be realised by category 7 scanners' ($t it is in do$bt that the todayEs available scanners
can detect reliably s$spect li#$ids inside bags'
(hat other &hanges "oes an air!ort ha+e to &onsi"er'
This has to be decided for each individ$al case' .irst of all the main change is related to the new
screening e#$ipment which enables the re#$ired process of li#$id screening'
(ased on the selected combination of e#$ipment for primary and secondary screening of li#$ids-
the process design needs to be specified' There are two basic concepts to be considered: (a
where the secondary screening is integrated in the overall process and at the location at each
screening lane or (b where passengers with s$spicio$s li#$ids are separated from the screening
lane and are g$ided to a dedicated screening area and will not dist$rb and slow down the
general flow of passengers'
(ased on the specified process each lane will have specific layo$t' The layo$t drives the space
re#$irement and=or the given- limited space has an impact on the possible layo$t (length and
width of lanes' %ayo$t and process design in combination with passenger traffic characteristics
res$lt in an attainable capacity thro$ghp$t per lane' The demand d$ring peak ho$r and the
desired %/S in terms of waiting time provides the n$mber of lanes to be accommodated per
screening area'
In the end the prod$ctivity per lane in terms of thro$ghp$t capacity is a decisive key
performance indicator' >s$ally- the ob"ective is to optimise and balance factors s$ch as layo$t-
process design- and n$mber of s$pporting sec$rity staff to obtain an optim$m thro$ghp$t with
each of the limited and balanced $tilised reso$rces' It is highly dependent on local conditions of
passenger characteristics'
As all these factors interact with each other- the optim$m sol$tion cannot be calc$lated based on
a simple analytical form$la and sim$lation is $sed to $nderstand and optimise the
interdependent factors to attain an optimised sol$tion' In the end the optim$m sol$tion is
different from case to case'
Left: Sensitivit" anal"sis for
impact on throghpt
depending on preparation time
and rate for secondar"
screening of LA#s
How &an air!orts o!ti#ise
the !ro&ess an" the layout
to a+oi" negati+e i#!a&t on
&a!a&ity'
.irst of all it is important to
$nderstand the interaction and
interdependencies of layo$t-
process- technology- staffing
and passenger characteristics
and behavio$r which will drive
the need for li#$id screening
(amo$nt and kind of li#$ids to
be screened'
This can be assessed with
several real,life tests- where certain parameters are varied' This is then like a real,life trial and
error method as it is almost impossible to do an optimisation with analytical calc$lation methods
as so many different interdependent factors are involved'
SU,,LIER S,1TLI%HT
Click here for listings and
information on leading
s$ppliers covering all aspects
of the passenger terminal
ind$stry' +ant to see yo$r
company incl$ded6 ;mail
7amien de Roche'
Fiew all s$ppliers GG
,assenger Ter#inal (orl" >>
NE( DI%ITAL EDITI1N8
8assenger Terminal +orld H$ne
?@AI is now online'
Read now'
)ore InformationGG
Railway Ter#inal (orl" >>
NE( DI%ITAL EDITI1N8
.rom the p$blishers of
8assenger Terminal +orld- the
only magaJine dedicated to
railway terminal and station
design and technologies'
Read the free digital edition GG
TV >>
,ulo+o Air!ort
/ain Ter#inal
,ro9e&t
&rimshaw
Architects look at
the progress being
made at 8$lkovo AirportKs )ain Terminal
+atch Dow GG
Annual Show&ase )*-. >>
NE( DI%ITAL EDITI1N8
8assenger Terminal +orld
Showcase ?@AI is now online'
Read now'
)ore Information GG
/EDIA ,AC:S >>
7ownload the NE( )*-.
,assenger Ter#inal
(orl" )edia 8ack'
7ownload the )*-.
Railway Ter#inal
(orl" )edia 8ack'
Pgina 3 de 4 Passenger Terminal Today
24/06/2014 http://www.passengerterminaltoday.com/featres.php!"log#$%&4'
A more cost,efficient option is to $se a well calibrated sim$lation model and $se this one for
4what,if5 scenarios- sensitivity testing- learn from ca$se,and,effect and $se the gained insight
for optimisation' This incl$des an iterative process where the airport can research the critical
path- identify the processes that are limiting factor on thro$ghp$t capacity- look into possibilities
to mitigate 3 changing layo$t of lanes- the se#$ence and r$les in the process- or the n$mber of
staff'
+e are $sing sim$lation as a key tool for this comple! task and obtained #$ite interesting
res$lts' .or instance- small changes in the process definition on how passengers in the
secondary screening process are treated can easily help to increase the thro$ghp$t by A@,?@2'
+e recommend the following approach for the compensation of thro$ghp$t red$ction:
< /btain airport specific process parameters of sec$rity process and passenger characteristics
(s$rvey
< Test interdependencies and effects and do sensitivity tests (calibrated sim$lator
< >nderstand bottlenecks and sensitivities
< /ptimise=e!pand layo$t
< (alance and optimise layo$t=process=staffing
< Calc$late re#$ired peak capacity according to a desired level of service and check if available
lanes are still s$fficient' If not- additional lanes might be added
< Add more staff for control and also floorwalkers for passenger information
< Reserve space and keep options open for change
/nce a model is available- it can always be $sed for f$rther optimisation in case certain
parameters change'
(hat is a suita2le a!!roa&h $or !ra&ti&al i#!le#entation un"er o!erational
&on"itions'
If new scanning e#$ipment has to be integrated and the general lane layo$t has to be changed
while the sec$rity checkpoints are still $nder operations- a step,by,step and well,planned
implementation process in stages is re#$ired'
.irst of all- the implementation sho$ld not be d$ring the peak season- when all lanes wo$ld be
needed' Then in a phased plan a set of $p to fo$r lanes can be implemented while the others are
still $nder operations' /ne has to keep in mind that the new screening e#$ipment has to be
tested and be approved and this re#$ires time' ($ffer times between implementation stages
sho$ld be considered' The overall time window depends also on the comple!ity of re,designing
screening areas' Ass$me a compact implementation witho$t the need to keep part of the area
operational wo$ld re#$ire one month- with a phased approach with the need to keep part of the
area always operational can increase the implementation phase by $p to si! months' The
phasing depends on a good capacity planning in which period of the season which is re#$ired
driven by the flight sched$le and e!pected demand in sec$rity screening capacity'
(hat "o you 2elie+e the air!orts shoul" 2e "oing now to !re!are the#sel+es'
8hase A is concerned mainly with transfer passengers with d$ty free %A&s in sec$rity tamper,
evident bags (ST;(s' The #$estion here is how m$ch the %A& screening will impact the
thro$ghp$t and this s$rely is dependent on the amo$nt of ST;(s and the reliability and speed of
the %A& control process'
;$ropean airports with a lot of transfers passengers and those in co$ntries that will follow the
new r$les sho$ld already be prepared and have p$rchased and installed the necessary
e#$ipment or are in the process of doing so to be ready by the beginning of ?@AI' There is #$ite
a lot of $ncertainty abo$t the amo$nt of li#$ids and also on passenger behavio$r' In order to be
better prepared- 4what,if5 scenarios with sim$lation might help to identify a range for the
capacity decrease in order to eval$ate if more capacity in terms of screening lanes or a change
in the process design can help to mitigate delays'
+hen s$rveying c$rrent passenger characteristics- s$ch as n$mber of passenger with %A&s in
small plastic bags and share of passengers that do not separate li#$ids from their bags and need
a secondary inspection- important system parameters can be $sed to model the c$rrent process
and to obtain information for li#$id relevant ass$mptions' In this conte!t it is recommended that
the airports do capacity assessments with a scenario bandwidth approach and check if they can
handle also the worst case and what the conse#$ence is in terms of increased waiting times and
lower %/S and passenger comfort'
Airports still have more than two years to get f$rther prepared and to wait if improved
technology will be available in ?@AC' They can learn from the e!periences of the other airports
and take decisions based on the e!perience and do their own st$dies and investigations to
optimise their processes and layo$ts'
A big challenge is the information of and comm$nication with passengers- and airports as well as
airlines handling transfer passengers in phase A will have to do a take some effort to e!plain and
teach passengers on the new reg$lations via information campaigns- signs- floorwalkers that
observe respective passengers and inform and g$ide them'
To rea" #ore a2out LA%s5 see The Big Screen5 ,assenger Ter#inal (orl" Se!te#2er
)*-;5 !;)<;=>
L ?@AI >MI8 )edia N ;vents %td
Ter#s ? Con"itions 9 ,ri+a&y ,oli&y 9 Cooie ,oli&y 9 Site FA@s 9 Conta&t Details
Pgina 4 de 4 Passenger Terminal Today
24/06/2014 http://www.passengerterminaltoday.com/featres.php!"log#$%&4'