Counter Terror Gazette

Aviation Security: time for a re-think?

15 Feb 2011

9/11 was something of a watershed in the lifecycle of aviation security.  Much has happened since then to improve our understanding of the threat and our ability to counter it, but aviation security has also, perversely, become the object of criticism – mostly contradictory.  It is too expensive, too intrusive, too knee-jerk (or too slow to respond).  There is too much of it (or too little).  It is all too predictable (or too inconsistent.)  So almost ten years on, it is time to ask ourselves – if aviation security is not where we would like it to be, what needs to be done? Niki Tompkinson, following an eight year stint heading up Britain’s transport security regulatory agency, expresses her opinion.

On the positive side, we should remind ourselves just how much progress has been made in a relatively short space of time.  Unlike safety, which has evolved steadily over a long period, security has been forced to respond rapidly to the sharp rise in the threat. Hardly a month goes by without some sort of event, most recently the landside attack at Moscow airport, demonstrating the degree of determination and capability of those for whom aviation is a prime target.  Pre-9/11, some countries (like the UK), had a good record of security, with measures mandated by Government.  But many others had few or no measures in place.  International standards, where they existed, set the bar low; compliance was not compulsory and implementation patchy. 

Fast forward ten years, and the difference is startling. Many states have well developed programmes; European regulation is in place, with an increasingly effective compliance regime; wider international standards have been strengthened and ICAO’s audit programme developed to identify and address weaknesses.  Aviation operators across the globe generally accept the need to have security – it is rare to go through an international airport where the basics are not at least present, even if not well implemented – and the number of technology providers producing ever more sophisticated equipment to detect threat items has risen exponentially.  Each time a new incident happens – and each one is different from the last – states and operators understand the need to respond, even if the degree of response is open to debate and challenge.  Passenger surveys (at least in the UK) show a high level of public support for security measures, with criticisms mostly about delivery rather than principle.

But we would be deluding ourselves if we thought that the progress made was sufficient and the direction of travel perfect. The sheer pace of growth has inevitably resulted in a model driven by events and dictated by regulation rather than one which has evolved naturally.  Compared to safety, which is designed in, security is still an “add-on”, not part of the fabric of the operation, seen as a necessary and expensive evil, rather than a necessary good.  Standards around the world vary widely:  despite a general acceptance that aviation security is a global issue and is only as good as the weakest link, many weak links remain. MORE ONLINE