The current aviation security structure and its policies,
requirements, and practices have evolved since the early
1960s and were heavily influenced by a series of high-profile
aviation security incidents. Historically, governments
have maintained that providing security is the responsibility
of air carriers and airports as part of their cost of
doing business. Beginning in 1972, air carriers were
required to provide screening/ security personnel, and
airport operators were required to provide law enforcement
support.
However, with the rise in air piracy and terrorist activities
that threatened not only commercial aviation but also
national security, discussions began to emerge as to
who should have the responsibility for providing security
at airports and on board aircraft. With recent publicised
events, concerns have arisen again as to who should
be responsible for security and screening passengers
at airports. This issue has evoked many discussions
through the years and just as many options concerning
who should provide security at airports and indeed how
security should be handled.
To identify options for assigning security responsibilities,
Prime Defence surveyed aviation stakeholders, security
officials at the major air carriers and the largest
airports, large screening companies, and industry associations
and aviation and terrorism experts. We asked our respondents
to provide their opinions about the current screening
program, criteria they believe are important in considering
options, the advantages and disadvantages of each option,
and their comments on implementing a different screening
approach. It is important to understand that we gathered
this information prior to September 11, 2001, and some
respondents’ views may have changed.
Many aviation stakeholders agreed that a stable, highly
trained, and professional workforce is critical to improving
security performance. They identified compensation and
improved training as the highest priorities in improving
performance. Respondents also believed that the implementation
of performance standards, team and image building, awards
for exemplary work, better supervision, and certification
of individual security personnel would improve performance.
Prime Defence identified four principal alternative
approaches to screening. Each alternative could be structured
and implemented in many different ways; for instance,
an entity might use its own employees to screen passengers,
or it might use an outside contractor to perform the
job. For each alternative, we assumed that FAA/CAA would
continue to be responsible for regulating security,
overseeing performance, and imposing penalties for poor
performance.
Four principal alternative approaches
Air carriers could continue to be responsible for conducting
screening. However, this alternative assumes that FAA/CAA
will impose new requirements on screening companies
to ensure that screeners are better trained and demonstrate
proficiency in using screening equipment.
Each airport management authority could be responsible
for its own screening.
Given the number and diversity of a nation’s airports,
screening operations might vary considerably throughout
the country.
In the UK the new SIA agency (with headquarters and
field structure) could be tasked to conduct the national
screening program.
A government corporation created solely to conduct passenger
and baggage screening. Like other government corporations
it would be publicly accountable but would have more
autonomy than other agencies.
Throughout the world Prime Defence train Airline crews
and security teams in the most up to date methods available
today for carriers and airports. We also carry out installation
testing to ascertain current security methods within
the industry.
In view of the tragic events of September 11, it is
extremely clear that we need to thoroughly assess and
improve all aspects of aviation security, including
screening. Reassigning the screening functions may be
one of the key improvements needed; however, we all
recognize that implementing an alternative to the current
approach will take time. Many of the stakeholders we
consulted expected that changes would be difficult and
may require much time and labour to avoid disruption
of screening operations.
As always Prime Defence International will be at the
forefront of the industry to advise clients of the issues
that will affect their business in years to come.
