Contemporary Issues in Aviation Security Assessment 2

Name: Lim Jiann Bing

Student Id: 21012261

Course Name: 190340 Contemporary Issues in Aviation Security

 Screening in Aviation

Introduction

Aviation is one of the most important industries globally due to its contribution to the

economy of any country and the fact that it connects many different parts of the globe. Most

people use air transport to move from one country or region to another, making this industry

most vulnerable to transferring illegal items from one region to another. In addition, there

have been instances where terrorist groups have used the aviation industry to carry out

attacks, killing many civilians. As such, the security of this industry has been taken seriously

to prevent such incidences of moving illegal items and terrorism. Some security measures

involve screening passengers and their carry-on luggage for prohibited items. The list of

illegal items is a crucial component of the security system in air transport as it specifies the

things that travelers should refrain from bringing to the airport and aircraft and must be

checked at the security checking point. According to research (Understanding Prohibited

Items in Aviation | ACI World Blog, Ratledge, 2019), the most common illegal items include:

firearms, explosives, piercing objects like knives, blunt instruments like baseball bats, and

drugs such as heroin and cocaine. As it stands, the ICAO has given certain illegal items, but

this list can be updated as it sometimes entails some items that address outdated risks. The

specified list of items is very important for achieving a certain level of harmonization

worldwide. The screening process is carried out by physical searches and using technology

methods. Although this process has proven successful over the years, there have also been

cases where security screening has failed, leading to tragic consequences. This essay

critically evaluates the screening of the person and their carry-on luggage for prohibited items

as implemented in aviation, discussing the reasons for its implementation, its efficacy, and

the criticisms against it.

Brief History of Aviation Security

 Previously, the US government had not been strict on the screening procedure in the

aviation industry. However, things suddenly changed after two major occurrences that

increased public outcry on the government to implement airport safety measures. The first

case was the upsurge of hijackings in the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s. This

prompted the government to form the “Anti-hijacking program of the Federal Aviation

Administration. (FAA).” The other event involved the attack and demolition of “Pan

American Airlines Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988”. The

following year, “The President's Commission on Airline Security and Terrorism” was

formed, and there was also the enactment of the recommendations of that commission into

the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990 (National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine. 1996). On September 11, 1910, then-United States president

Richard Nixon declared a plan to prevent the hijacking of planes. The anti-hijacking program

applied in the United States today has some similarities with the one proposed in 1972. The

aim of this screening program is to prevent passengers from introducing any weapons or

explosives into airplanes. The issuance program has since then continued to improve with the

introduction of new technology and advanced criminal tactics.

Reasons for the Implementation of Security Screening in Aviation

In the United States alone, more than 1.5 million passengers are screened every day

before boarding an airplane. The main aim of security screening in aviation is to prevent the

introduction of prohibited items such as explosives and weapons which could be used to carry

out terrorism and hijacking. Screening enables security personnel to identify potential threats

early and take necessary measures to remedy the situation. In addition, it ensures that other

illegal activities, such as smuggling of illegal drugs and weapons are prevented, and this

helps uphold the rule of law. Screening ensures that aviation companies comply with the

international and national regulations specified to ensure the safety of the crew and
passengers. Lastly, proper screening and security control boosts the industry's reputation and

customer confidence. This factor attracts more customers to use the airline and maintains

customer loyalty.

The Implementation of Security Screening in Aviation

Airports have various screening points that are located in different areas of the

facility. These checkpoints are used to screen items and people to protect the passage of

prohibited items. Different types of security screening checkpoints in the airports include

Hold Baggage Screening, Passenger pre-board screening and Cabin-Baggage Screening,

Cargo screening, and non-passenger screening. The screening process in aviation industry

uses both physical changes and technology-based screening methods. Physical security

screening methods, such as metal detectors, x-ray machines, and body scanners, typically

involve physical barriers. These physical barriers detect items and substances that may be

suspicious or dangerous, such as weapons, explosives, and drugs. Physical security screening

also involves the use of pat-downs and bag searches, which are used to detect items that may

be concealed on a person or in their luggage. Carry-on bags are scanned using X-ray

equipment to check for forbidden things including explosives and weapons. Metal objects on

passengers, including knives, firearms, and other metallic things, are detected using metal

detectors. Systems for explosive detection are employed to find explosives in minute

quantities on travelers' person and their luggage. Passengers are scanned using body scanners

equipped with image equipment to look for explosives and weapons that may be concealed.

Technologies like facial recognition and advanced analytics are used in security

screening to identify potentially dangerous people and items. Technology-based detection

approaches are frequently used to enhance physical forms of security screening, such as by

providing extra details on a potential threats by people or items. Biometrics and real-time
threat assessment are examples of the technologies used to identify and track potential

dangers.

Failures in Screening

There have been occasions where security screening has fallen short, despite the

enormous efforts made to inspect passengers and their carry-on luggage. The following

incidents best describe them: hijackings, skyjackings for ransom, bombings of aircraft, and

assaults on airport facilities. The 9/11 attacks were the biggest failure of the screening

procedure as terrorists were able to get weapons like box cutters through security checks and

hijack four commercial airplanes, killing close to 3,000 people. This failure was brought

about by a lack of thoroughness in the screening procedure, flaws in the system, and

communication failures among several security-related entities. Other incidences that showed

failures in the screening process included are described below:

A passenger in 2018 was able to board an aircraft with a loaded rifle in their carry-on

luggage, and it wasn't discovered until another passenger alerted the crew. They checked in

for a flight on Delta Airlines out of Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport bound

for Tokyo, Japan, and went through a TSA checkpoint (Siddiquin, 2014). The TSA found that

not all criteria were followed during the screening process. While no injuries or incidents of

violence were reported, this episode does emphasize the need for enhanced screening

procedures and better security personnel education and training.

In 2009, a passenger was able to board a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam

to Detroit with a bomb concealed in his underwear (Biles, 2023). The suspect by the name

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab managed to enter the plane with a potentially destructive device

despite claims by the security team that they had screened him for such items. The incident

showed failure on the part of security personnel of the aviation industry and called for
enhanced screening procedures for passengers traveling from certain countries and more

thorough screening of passengers' clothing.

TWA Flight 847 was seized by terrorists on July 14, 1985. After terrorists boarded the

aircraft, the pilot was compelled to fly back and forth across the Mediterranean three times

before being permitted to land in Beirut with all the passengers and crew on board. The

terrorists tied up and assaulted the passengers while threatening them with death (Hijacking

of TWA Flight 847 | Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2016). They pressured Israel to free the

hundreds of Lebanese prisoners it was holding. Armed terrorists were able to board the plane,

and the ensuing hostage situation and captivity continued for days resulting in the death of a

Navy diver. This incident led to new security regulations that will improve security screening

practices.

On December 21, 1988, all the 259 occupants of Pan Am Flight 103, traveling from

London to New York City at the time of the explosion over Lockerbie, Scotland, died

(Klenka, 2019). A bomb had been hidden inside a suitcase that had been brought onto the

aircraft as unaccompanied baggage, according to the inquiry into the incident. Airport

security procedures have been dramatically enhanced all over the world since the Lockerbie

attack. Stronger regulations were placed for the shipping of dangerous items, and baggage

screening processes were created. The tragedy also prompted the creation of the International

Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) security program, which entails creating security

norms and disseminating security-related data among member governments.

The 1994 FedEx Flight 705 Hijacking was another security breach incident where a

disgruntled employee attempted to hijack a FedEx cargo plane to crash it into his former

employer's building. The hijacker was able to smuggle several hammers and a spear gun

aboard the plane (Garland, 2019). The incident raised concerns about cargo screening

procedures and led to increased scrutiny of cargo shipments on commercial flights.

 The screening process normally entails human operations, which are prone to errors

and missing some details. The technology applied in the detection of these items has its

limitations, as some prohibited items may go unlimited by the current technology (Sterchi et

al., 2019). In addition, security might also be breached by insider threats as some employees

in the aviation industry might conspire with passengers to pass prohibited items onto

airplanes, bypassing the screening procedures. In addition, Different airports and airlines may

have different screening procedures, leading to inconsistencies in the screening process.

Terrorist groups and other threat actors are constantly adapting their tactics to evade

screening procedures, making it difficult to stay ahead of evolving threats (Cordova, 2022).

Terrorist groups and other threat actors are constantly adapting their tactics to evade

screening procedures, making it difficult to stay ahead of evolving threats (Cordova, 2022).

For instance, some criminals have tried to smuggle illegal things by using drones to evade

conventional security measures like metal detectors and X-ray scanners. Furthermore, some

people have sought to hide illegal objects on their bodies or clothing so that security

personnel could not easily find them.

These occurrences highlight the continuous difficulties in aviation security and the

requirement for continuous vigilance and enhancements to screening practices in order to

avoid errors that could have disastrous results. Aviation security organizations and agencies

must continuously assess and enhance their screening procedures, equipment, and training

programs to ensure that all travelers and their belongings are properly and effectively

inspected. This will help to reduce these failures.

Criticism of the Screening Process

Criticism against the Screening Process

The effectiveness of the screening procedure in aviation is one of the biggest

criticisms. Although screening technology has undergone great advancements, it is not error-
free. Dangerous goods have occasionally passed the screening process, casting doubt on its

effectiveness. According to research (Review of the Literature, 1994), mistakes made by

humans, technology problems, and sloppy security procedures can all reduce the

effectiveness of the screening procedure in the aviation industry.

The sheer number of people using airports as transit points is one factor that might

make screening ineffective. By 2037, the International Air Transport Association (IATA)

projects that there will be 8.2 billion travelers using airplanes worldwide (Bruce et al., 2020).

Given the increase in passenger traffic, it can be difficult for security personnel to thoroughly

screen each person. Additionally, there have been instances where security or airport staff

members have smuggled outlawed items. The effectiveness of the screening procedure is

severely hampered in such circumstances, and security breaches are probably to happen.

The evolving nature of security threats and criminal activities poses a challenge in

implementing an effective screening process. Security threats improve concurrently with the

improvement of security measures. For instance, the use of liquids as explosive devices

prompted the introduction of restrictions on carrying liquids through security checkpoints.

This restriction was made after an attempt to destroy some aircrafts at London-Heathrow

Airport in 2006 (Liquids, Aerosols, and Gels, n.d.). However, attackers have now turned to

the use of powders and gels to evade detection (Mojica, 2022). In this constantly evolving

landscape, ensuring that screening processes are always up-to-date and effective in detecting

new threats can be challenging.

The screening process can also be time-consuming and cause delays for passengers.

Long lines and wait times at security checkpoints can frustrate passengers, particularly those

in a rush or who have connecting flights (Fung, 2022). Moreover, the additional screening

measures introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as temperature checks and

health questionnaires, have added further delays and inconvenience for passengers.
 Another critique of the screening process is its potential to result in racial profiling

and discrimination. Critics argue that some security measures, such as random bag checks or

additional screening for certain individuals, can unfairly target individuals based on race or

ethnicity (Fagan, 2021). Targeted persons may feel prejudiced and alienated, which would be

a bad experience. In addition, some contend that the screening procedure can be viewed as

security theater and might give people a false sense of security. This is a reference to security

measures that serve more to create an impression of security than to increase security. Even

though there is little evidence to support it, several airports have introduced security

procedures, including seizing liquids larger than a specific size. Passengers are frustrated

because they believe the security procedures are pointless and obtrusive.

Lastly, another concern is the cost of the screening process. The screening procedure

uses costly machinery that requires a lot of manpower to run. Opponents contend that the

expense of screening could not be justified by the advantages derived from it (Michalski et

al., 2020). For instance, metal detectors are expensive, yet they fail to detect some prohibited

items.

Arguments for the Screening Process

Despite these obstacles, there is proof that the screening procedure can be successful

in locating prohibited items. The Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) screening

procedures were successful in finding the majority of prohibited items in their tests,

according to a study by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) (Gill et al., 2021).

The TSA has put in place a number of initiatives to increase the efficacy of the screening

procedure, including the use of improved imaging equipment and enhanced training for

security personnel.
 Even though the screening procedure may not be 100% effective, its proponents

contend it deters potential attackers. Attackers might be discouraged from trying to smuggle

prohibited items through security checkpoints simply because of the screening process,

knowing that the likelihood of being caught is high. Additionally, security personnel's

behavior detection techniques can help identify individuals who may pose a security threat,

allowing for further scrutiny and investigation (Stotz et al., 2020). As a result, this procedure

boosts the public's trust in flying. Passengers may feel more at ease and secure when

traveling if they are aware that there is an adequate security measure. Moreover, International

standards and laws mandate the screening procedure. In order to ensure aviation security, the

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has established guidelines that include the

screening procedure (Agustini et al., 2021). Adopting these standards guarantees constant

security throughout the aviation sector, which is crucial for cross-border travel.

The screening process for passengers and their carry-on luggage is vital to aviation

security. Although it is not perfect, it has to some extent, helped in deterring potential

attackers. However, there are still challenges to be addressed, such as the sheer volume of

passengers passing through airports and the evolving nature of security threats. As such, it is

essential to continue to invest in research and development to improve the screening process's

effectiveness and ensure the safety and security of air travel for all passengers.

In conclusion, aviation security is essential for the safety of passengers and crew, and

the screening process is an important element of this security system. It has been successful

in detecting prohibited items and deterring potential attackers. However, there are still

challenges to be addressed, such as the sheer volume of passengers passing through airports

and the evolving nature of security threats. While the implementation of security screening in

aviation has been beneficial, there is still room for improvement to ensure all passengers'

safety.
 References

Agustini, E., Kareng, Y., & Victoria, O. A. (2021). The role of ICAO (international civil

aviation organization) in implementing international flight safety standards. Kne

Social Sciences, 100-114.

https://knepublishing.com/index.php/KnE-Social/article/view/8273

Biles, C. W. (2023). How to Stop a Hijacking: Critical Thinking in Civil Aviation Security.

CRC Press. https://books.google.com/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=2eCoEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT10&dq=In+2009,+a+passenger+w

as+able+to+board+a+Northwest+Airlines+flight+from+Amsterdam+to+Detroit+with

+a+bomb+concealed+in+his+underwear.&ots=ZQJuNwgJR2&sig=tgRSn36pzktk6y

wMVgiuV12hgv4

Bruce, S., Temminghoff, M., Hayward, J., Palfreyman, D., Munnings, C., Burke, N., &

Creasey, S. (2020). Opportunities for hydrogen in aviation. Csiro.

https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Do-Business/Files/Futures/Boeing-Opportunities-for-

hydrogen-in-commercial-aviation.pdf

Cordova, A. (2022). Technologies for primary screening in aviation security. Journal of

Transportation Security, 15(3-4), 141-159.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12198-022-00248-8

Fagan, J. (2021). No Runs, Few Hits, and Many Errors: Street Stops, Bias, and Proactive

Policing. UCLA L. Rev., 68, 1584.

https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/

uclalr68&section=39

FUNG, L. J. (2022). SIMULATION OF PASSENGER FLOW FOR INTERNATIONAL

DEPARTURE USING WITNESS HORIZON (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Sains

Malaysia). http://eprints.usm.my/55463/1/Simulation%20Of%20Passenger%20Flow
 %20For%20International%20Departure%20Using%20Witness%20Horizon_Liew

%20Jin%20Fung.pdf

Garland, M. (2019, April 5). 25 years ago, Federal Express Flight 705 was business as usual

— until a hijacking attempt. The Commercial Appeal.

https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/money/industries/logistics/2019/04/05/

fedex-plane-hijacking-flight-705/3286453002/

Gill, C., Hibdon, J., Lum, C., Johnson, D., Merola, L., Weisburd, D., ... & Chahal, J. (2021).

“Translational Criminology” in action: a national survey of TSA’s Playbook

implementation at US Airports. Security Journal, 34, 319-339.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41284-019-00225-2

Hijacking of TWA Flight 847 | Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2016). Federal Bureau of

Investigation.

https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/hijacking-of-twa-flight-847

Juvan, J., Prezelj, I., & Kopač, E. (2021). Public dilemmas about security measures in the

field of civil aviation. Security Journal, 34, 410-428.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41284-020-00240-8

Klenka, M. (2019). Major incidents that shaped aviation security. Journal of transportation

security, 12(1-2), 39-56.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12198-019-00201-2

Liquids, aerosols and gels. (n.d.). Transport.ec.europa.eu.

https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/air/aviation-security/aviation-security-

policy/liquids-aerosols-and-gels_en

Michalski, K., Jurgilewicz, M., Kubiak, M., & Grądzka, A. (2020). THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF SELECTIVE PASSENGER SCREENING SYSTEMS

BASED ON DATA ANALYSIS AND BEHAVIORAL PROFILING IN THE

 SMART AVIATION SECURITY MANAGEMENT–CONDITIONS,

CONSEQUENCES AND CONTROVERSIES. Journal of Security & Sustainability

Issues, 9(4). https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=20297017&AN=144

433228&h=mhdas9wY4DxAsnol

%2FjFkIbFatC2P30CnlLlCXgiUbQCBouPlam3HqhSVFOay62tzdMWHurpHv1n0n

DcCFNsc5w%3D%3D&crl=c

Mojica, E. R., & Zhaohua, D. (2022). New Raman Spectroscopic Methods’ Application in

Forensic Science. Talanta Open, 100124.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266683192200042X

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 1996. Airline Passenger

Security Screening: New Technologies and Implementation Issues. Washington, DC:

The National Academies Press.

https://doi.org/10.17226/5116.

Ratledge, N. (2019, November 4). Understanding prohibited items in aviation | ACI World

Blog. ACI Insights.

https://blog.aci.aero/understanding-prohibited-items-in-aviation/

Read “Airline Passenger Security Screening: New Technologies and Implementation Issues”

at NAP.edu. (n.d.). In nap.nationalacademies.org.

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/5116/chapter/3

Review of the Literature. (1994).

https://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/CT94-108.pdf

Siddiquin, F. (2014, January 14). Passenger with gun made it through TSA checkpoint in

Atlanta and onto Delta flight. The Florida Times-Union.

 https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/2019/01/14/passenger-with-gun-made-it-

through-tsa-checkpoint-in-atlanta-and-onto-delta-flight/6304153007/

Sterchi, Y., Hättenschwiler, N., & Schwaninger, A. (2019). Detection measures for visual

inspection of X-ray images of passenger baggage. Attention, Perception, &

Psychophysics, 81(5), 1297-1311.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-018-01654-8

Stotz, T., Bearth, A., Ghelfi, S. M., & Siegrist, M. (2020). Evaluating the perceived efficacy

of randomized security measures at airports. Risk Analysis, 40(7), 1469-1480.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/risa.13474

Tran, V. (2016, April 21). Types of Security Screening Checkpoints at the Airport. Blog.safe-

Passage.com.

https://blog.safe-passage.com/types-of-security-screening-checkpoints-at-the-airport

Zeballos, M., Fumagalli, C. S., Ghelfi, S. M., & Schwaninger, A. (2023). Why and how

unpredictability is implemented in aviation security – A first qualitative study.

Heliyon, 9(3), e13822.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13822