Back to Regional e-Newsletter NEU Q1 2010
Guest columnist - Mike Ambrose
Are we doing security the right way?
Mike Ambrose, Director General
European Regions Airline Association
Anti-terrorist security is an expensive business. Huge sums of money are invested in equipment designed to detect the methods and materials used by terrorists who pose a threat to the safety of air travellers. However, this approach is not addressing the root problem, since the primary purpose of anti-terrorist security is (or should be) to detect intent.
Terrorist attacks on the airline industry are used as a means of applying pressure on governments to change state policies. In effect, air travellers are being required by governments to fund measures to protect not just themselves but the entire state from acts that would change policies agreed by all citizens.
As a society, we can no longer afford to ignore the pressing need for widespread use of profiling passengers and, indeed, anyone who has access to airside areas. Frequent travellers will be able to testify how often you can pass through airport security without even making eye contact with security agents. These are basic passenger profiling techniques that cost nothing and can tell you much about the intent of that passenger and whether they are likely to pose a threat. State policies that prohibit the use of profiling on the grounds that it might be discriminatory are social luxuries that air travellers cannot afford.
Furthermore, the task of profiling should not be restricted to security agents, but should include all agencies involved in passenger handling. Suspicious activity can be easily observed and investigated, without specialist training. New technology aimed at detecting explosive materials is not only expensive, but it is merely applying another layer of dressing to a bleeding wound rather than addressing the root cause and preventing the bleed from occurring in the first place. There is also an essential ingredient in this whole process, which is currently lacking, and that is the need for a far greater level of cooperation between international intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
ERA has long advocated common 'one-stop' security procedures across Europe. However, different levels of threat and risk exist between states and this naturally works against a wholly harmonised process. It is vital that the procedure must be proportionate to the risk, in order to avoid unnecessary costs and a negative impact on the facilitation of passengers through airport security. It is arguable, for example, that the airport security process for a flight from Europe to the USA is undertaken against a far higher threat level than an inter-island operation using a 30-seat turboprop in the Nordic region.
Airport security has a thoroughly bad reputation with passengers for the simplest of reasons. Far more thought needs to be applied to the actual practicalities of moving passengers through security at airports and the passenger experience aspects of this process. All agencies share some responsibility in easing the passenger process and in sharing information on best practices. Too often Regulators respond to terrorist threats with knee-jerk reactions without considering the impact of such measures, or the negative perceptions that the industry may suffer from as a result.
The anti-terrorist threat is here to stay. It is only through a wholly effective airport security process that we can maintain passenger confidence without negatively impacting on passenger convenience. This requires a complete re-think in the way security measures are approached and a much higher level of cooperation and communication between all stakeholders.
*The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of SITA.
Share or bookmark with:
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Delicious
Technorati
