Gergen 1 Grant Gergen Mrs. Brower ‘Adv. Comprehension 4th hour Nov. 17 2020 Analysis of Airport Security For along time, aviation security has been one of the main concerns for governments and passengers alike. Recently, aerial transportation has been the most efficient way to travel long distances, so it may not be a surprise that Chicago's O’hare international Airport provided transportation for over 76 million passengers in 2006 (Topinka 67). One airport defines aviation security as the process of “keeping our passengers, crew, visitors and employees safe, whether in the air or in our buildingsf. It] is the foundation upon which we have flourished as an industry to date ...” (Eng and Sullivan 231). This shows that safety precautions such as security checkpoints and checked luggage are critical factors in providing passengers with a sense of security that they need to fee! comfortable while traveling. Even then, only “about 75% to 80% of ‘Americans support the use of [Advanced Imaging Technology] at airport checkpoints” and “about 20% [of passengers] expressed concerns over delays in getting through security” (Elias 4). Not every passenger agrees with the current policies in place, but everyone must obey them. Every airport strives to make aviation safer for passengers, but it may be only a matter of time when the public's worst nightmares become reality. The question | seek to address is whether the increase in airport security has made passengers safer?Gergen 2 In order to understand the security measures in place, first we need to analyze the events that triggered a response to security. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is the agency that the United States tasked to keep passengers and airports safe from all threats. Whenever there is an attempt to breach airport security itis the TSA's duty to evaluate the danger, implement safety measures, and make the necessary adjustments as needed. Branker helps to explain that “The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is responsible for screening passengers and baggage, as well as vetting passengers and employees against terrorist watch lists” (Branker et al. 181). The article entitled “Airport Attacks: The Critical Role Airports Can Play in Combatting Terrorism” reports that there have been over 2,071 instances of illegal actions, of which 635 have been defined as terrorist attacks, and that only 28% of those attacks have resulted in the death of passengers (Duchesneau and Langlois 344), Even though the chances of becoming a casualty in a terrorist attack are extremely low, it's not impossible. Airports have been the main targets for many attacks; however, it was the events that took place on September 11, 2001, that served as a wakeup call to governments and airports all over the world. Since then, airports have shifted their focus to securing the safety of passengers, but all newly implemented protocols and procedures may have their faults. Most of the policies in place have been in response to various security breaches and attacks. Bart Elias describes at least two more attacks that have shaped checkpoint screening: a “shoe bombing incident’ in December 2001 resulted in the policy that requires passengers to take off their shoes at the security checkpoint, and a “liquid explosives plot” resulted in the policy that forbids liquids exceeding 10-12 fl oz (Elias 1).Gergen 3 Airports may not be immune to external attacks, but they were once even less protected against internal threats. Disgruntled employees or even terrorists posing as credible workers could exploit security clearances to smuggle or even set up attacks in airports. Jonathan Branker and the other authors of the journal entitled “Access Control, Identity Management and the Insider Threat” depict some previous attempts to exploit employee clearance. One of these exploits was “the gun-smuggling operation in Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport by an employee who used his official credential to smuggle the guns to a courier; this was made possible by a TSA practice of not screening airport employees (this practice has since changed)" (Branker et al 182). Because of this incident, and others like it, airport employees now undergo their own screening process and are restricted to their job zones, Another incident involving the exploitation of lax security protocols is the story of Pan Am Flight 103 (Branker et al. 182-183). In 1988, at least one terrorist used his knowledge of airport security and protocols to plant a bomb in the luggage compartment of the plane (Branker et al. 182-183). This resulted in an explosion over Lockerbie, Scotland, destroying the plane and its passengers (Branker et al. 182-183). It was because of this incident that airports now thoroughly check the luggage placed on flights (Branker et al. 182-183). The threats presented by airport employees are worse than incidents caused by outside individuals because the employees know and understand the security measures better than anyone else. These threats can be prevented by restricting employees to certain areas and using “Identity and access management (IdAM) systems” and “system dynamics (SD) models" (Branker et al. 181-182). Branker and his colleagues suggest using IdAM and SD because “airport security offices could obtain early indications ofGergen 4 insider threats by examining trends for possible clues of suspicious activities such as repeated attempts to gain access to unauthorised areas” (Branker et al. 194). Terrorist attacks and employee exploits are not the only issues that pose a threat to airports. Highly infectious diseases and viruses, such as COVID-19 today, pose a threat to not only airports, but also the public worldwide. The article "Yaw, Pitch, and Roll” reports that the World Health Organization claimed in 2006 how “an outbreak or epidemic in any one part of the world is only a few hours away from becoming an imminent threat somewhere else” (Topinka 80). This quote is quite ironic nowadays because COVID-19 in Asia has spread throughout the entire world in a matter of weeks, and we have our own efficiency to thank for it. Due to the differing incubation periods of viruses and other infectious diseases, oftentimes airports don't realize that a passenger has been infected quick enough to quarantine the passengers before they get off the plane and expose hundreds of other people. However there have been some instances where the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and other health organizations have activated quarantine policies in order to isolate a plane's passengers. Such cases are reported in the article “Yaw Pitch and Roll”, one of which being a case in 2007: “the CDC quarantined an airplane flight from Australia to Hawaii after 10 passengers became ill. Passengers were later released after it was determined their sickness was food poisoning” (Topinka 52). This case shows that if passengers report unusual symptoms, health organizations have the authority to quarantine and isolate the passengers, even if the illness turns out to be something as simple as food poisoning. However, there is almost no way to prevent a new disease from entering an airport unless the CDC knows that the plane came from an area suffering from such a disease.Gergen 5 Infectious diseases are just part of the concems the public has. There have also been health concems generated regarding the use of x-ray backscatter systems at security checkpoints, Elias claims that at least "27% [of passengers are] worried about potential known or unknown health risks” (Elias 4). However, Elias reports that the vendors, the Department of Health and Human Services, and various third-party tests have concluded “TSA-certified X-ray backscatter units meet national health and safety standards" (Elias 6-7). Based on this, the public generally does not have to worry about these systems causing illnesses such as cancer. However, passengers with medical implants and pumps may need to avoid using X-ray backscatter and millimeter wave systems because, as stated in the article “Airport Body Scanners: The Role of Advanced Imaging Technology in Airline Passenger Screening,” “[x-ray backscatter systems] may affect the functioning or calibration of a wearable or implanted medical device[s]’ (Elias 8). If these screening systems unintentionally cause medical devices to malfunction or get miscalibrated, the effects could be devastating for the passenger. This is why the TSA requests that passengers ask for a physical pat down instead of passing through automated screening systems if the passengers rely on one of these devices (Elias 8). There may be ways to prevent terrorist attacks, insider threats, and even infectious diseases, but there may be no protection from sudden system malfunctions. The article “Integrated Safety Management System in Air Traffic Services” claims that “human activities or human-built systems cannot be guaranteed to be absolutely free from operational errors and their consequences” (Kharchenko and Chynchenko 6).Gergen 6 Although airplanes are tested rigorously before being deemed fit for transportation, it doesn't mean that one matfunction can’t tun a leisurely flight into a tragic accident. In their article, Duchesneau and Langlois stated “while aircraft have been hardened as targets over recent decades with the gradual addition of enhanced security measures, airports by nature have had to remain public areas, at least partly accessible to anyone, hence making them preferred targets” (Duchesneau and Langlois 342). Aerial transportation continues to be the target of choice for terrorist attacks and violence, but for every attempt to breach security, the TSA strengthens its protocols. Aviation Security can be described as a trial and error system, with each error resulting in improvements. Airports may not be immune to tragedies, but compared to how airport security was just a few decades ago, passengers are now safer from most controllable & avoidable threats. With the advancements in policies and procedures over the years, flying today is safer than it has ever been. If this is the case nowadays, imagine how much safer airports will be twenty or thirty years from now.Gergen 7 Works Cited Branker, Jonathan, et al. “Access Control, Identity Management and the Insider Threat.” Journal of Airport Management, vol. 10, no. 2, Spring 2016, pp. 180-199. EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=114128 1108site=ehost-live&scope=site. DUCHESNEAU, JACQUES, and MAXIME LANGLOIS. “Airport Attacks: The Critical Role Airports Can Play in Combatting Terrorism.” Journal of Airport Management, vol. 11, no. 4, Autumn/Fall2017 2017, pp. 342-354. EBSCOhost, search ebscohost.comv/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=125398652&site=eh ostlive&scope=site. Elias, Bart, Airport Body Scanners: The Role of Advanced Imaging Technology in Airline Passenger Screening. Congressional Research Service (CRS), 2012, crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/R/R42750/3. Eng, Howard, and Jennifer Sullivan. "Reimagining Airport Security: Organisational Culture Trumps Cultivating a ‘Security Culture.” Journal of Airport Management, vol. 12, no. 3, Summer 2018, pp. 230-235. EBSCOhost, search ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=131227182&site=eh ostlive&scope=site.Gergen 8 Works Cited Cont. Kharchenko, Volodymyr, and Yuriy Chynchenko, “Integrated Safety Management System in Air Traffic Services.” Proceedings of National Aviation University, vol. 1, no. 58, Mar. 2014, pp. 6-10. EBSCOhost, search ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=970029498site=eho stlive&scope=site Topinka, Joseph B. "Yaw, Pitch, and Roll.” Journal of Legal Medicine, vol. 30, no. 1, Jan. 2009, pp. 51-81. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/01947640802694551