The Netherlands is looking to introduce reconfigurable aviation security checkpoints at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam by introducing dynamic screening at each lane rather than attempting to use different security lanes for different passengers based on risk levels, according to a Dutch security official.
The goal is to have technology that makes checkpoints reconfigurable in real-time, Hedzer Komduur, senior policy advisor, Ministry of Security and Justice in The Netherlands, says at the annual AVSEC World conference hosted by the International Air Transport Association in Washington, DC in late October.
“We envision making the checkpoints configurable through having technologies that deploy different detection standards for different passengers,” Komduur says. For example, he says, “a low risk passenger can pass through a security scanner set to a low false alarm rate whereas a high risk passenger can pass through the same security scanner set to an extremely high detection rate.”
Schiphol this year began introduced a new checkpoint area for transfer passengers designed by the airport and the systems solutions firm Scarabee that features parallel divesting options, automatic tray return, RFID tags in each tray for tracking screened parcels, a parallel belt to direct flagged parcels for a secondary X-Ray screen, single view X-Ray systems provided by Smiths Detection, L-3 Communications’ [LLL] ProVision 2 Automated Identification Technology body scanners, and central image processing of X-Ray images, Ron Louwerse, director of Safety, Security and Environment for Schiphol, says at the conference.
The new checkpoint will feature 15 lanes. Louwerse says no walk-through metal detectors will be used. He also says the X-Ray system for secondary screening, also a single-view system supplied by Smiths Detection, features OptoSecurity’s OptoScreener software for automatically detecting liquid explosives in carry-on bags.
Schiphol’s approach is “security as a service” and is designed to keep passengers “happy,” Louwerse says. The airport has also added noise-reduction measures to its new checkpoint area for transfer travelers, he says.
The eventual goal is to replace the X-Ray systems with computed-tomography Explosives Detection Systems (EDS), he says.
Komduur says that with EDS machines, security officials modify the detection algorithms so that for low risk passengers the screening systems look for only a “couple of liquid or solid explosives in relatively large amounts whereas for high risk passengers we could have the machine look for larger sets of explosives in small amounts.” He adds that the “Advantage of such checkpoints is they can look for threats that are relevant at a specific time. If we have credible intelligence that an attack with solid explosives is imminent in the next two weeks it will be nice if we can dial up the checkpoint instead of unpacking everyone’s bag.”
The Netherlands isn’t interested in creating separate security lanes for low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk travelers, in part because that reduces operational flexibility by making load-sharing between lanes an issue, Komduur says. It would also confuse some passengers and “if the bad buys figure out how to get into the low-risk lane, it opens up another potential hole” in security, he warns.
“Our aim is its not the passenger that adapts to the checkpoint layout but that the checkpoint adapts to each passenger in real-time,” Komduur says. “A passenger needn’t know whether we consider them to be low risk or high risk and I would rather the bad guy not know either.”
The Dutch path toward aviation security contrasts, at least in part, with the direction the U.S. Transportation Security Administration is headed with its PreCheck and other trusted traveler risk-based security program that allows U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident to potentially obtain expedited screening benefits at airport security checkpoints in return for voluntarily submitting some limited personal data. With PreCheck, checkpoints at 122 airports are being divided between regular lanes and lanes set aside for low risk, or trusted traveler programs.
Under both the TSA and Dutch plans, random and unpredictable measures are embedded into the security equation at aviation checkpoints.
Kelly Hoggan, assistant administrator at TSA for Security Operations, says that as the agency knows more about its trusted travelers and has a better understanding of who is coming through the checkpoint, the agency can introduce high-speed security lanes for travelers. John Sanders, who along with Hoggan appeared together as part of a panel discussion hosted by the American Association of Airport Executives at its Aviation Security Summit, says eventually having biometric-enabled smart gates at U.S. airports would mean even less screening of low risk passengers.
Hoggan says having high-speed lanes is dependent somewhat on traveler volume at airports but also by having a larger trusted traveler program. TSA hopes to get its PreCheck population above 50 percent of the traveling public next year, which will then allow it to better parse out risk within that group of travelers, he says.
Hogan tells HSR that he prefers a high-speed lane versus altering the sensitivities of checkpoint security equipment because this would slow passenger throughputs if alarms increase or if it means the technology requires more time to work.
Komduur says having a PreCheck-type program for Dutch citizens may not make sense at Schiphol because 60 percent of the travelers there are international. He says assigning risk levels to passengers is a difficult issue, noting that terrorist organizations are “intending to use clean skins for real attacks,” referring to the recruitment of would-be attackers who government authorities would have no reason to believe pose a threat.
Komduur says that in Europe, where obtaining personal data on passengers is difficult, doing things like looking at groups of passengers such as an 80-year old couple, or a full jumbo plane flight to the U.S. versus a half-filled regional jet flying to a holiday destination, present different risk levels that can be used to determine screening protocols. He also says behavior detection needs to be part of the security process.