Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel

SUMMARY

Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security

Second Report: Progress Toward Objectives

Committee on Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security

National Materials Advisory Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

National Research Council

Publication NMAB-503

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: Second Report, Progress Toward Objectives SUMMARY Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security Second Report: Progress Toward Objectives Committee on Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security National Materials Advisory Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences National Research Council Publication NMAB-503 NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: Second Report, Progress Toward Objectives NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study by the National Materials Advisory Board was conducted under Contract no. DTF-A03-99-C00006 from the Federal Aviation Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. Copyright 2002 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: Second Report, Progress Toward Objectives THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine National Research Council The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an advisor to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

OCR for page R1
Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: Second Report, Progress Toward Objectives COMMITTEE ON ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES DEPLOYED TO IMPROVE AVIATION SECURITY THOMAS S. HARTWICK, Consultant, Seattle, Washington, Chair SANDRA L. HYLAND, Tokyo Electron Massachusetts, Manassas, Virginia, Vice Chair ROBERT BERKEBILE, Consultant, Leesburg, Florida CHERYL A. BITNER, AAI Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland BARRY D. CRANE, Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia COLIN DRURY, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York PATRICK GRIFFIN,* Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico JIRI (ART) JANATA,* Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta LEN LIMMER, Consultant, Oak Point, Texas HARRY E. MARTZ, JR., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California JAMES F. O’BRYON, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. (retired) ERIC R. SCHWARTZ, The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington ELIZABETH H. SLATE, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston MICHAEL STORY, Los Gatos, California National Materials Advisory Board Liaison SHEILA F. KIA, General Motors, Warren, Michigan Staff ARUL MOZHI, Study Director (from July 2001) PAT WILLIAMS, Project Assistant (from July 2001) JANICE M. PRISCO, Project Assistant (until July 2001) TONI MARECHAUX, Director *   Committee member since September 7, 2001.

OCR for page R1
Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: Second Report, Progress Toward Objectives NATIONAL MATERIALS ADVISORY BOARD EDGAR A. STARKE, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Chair EDWARD C. DOWLING, Cleveland Cliffs, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio THOMAS EAGAR, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge HAMISH FRASER, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio ALASTAIR M. GLASS, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, New Jersey MARTIN E. GLICKSMAN, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York JOHN A.S. GREEN, The Aluminum Association, Washington, D.C. THOMAS HARTWICK, TRW (retired), Snohomish, Washington ALLAN J. JACOBSON, University of Houston, Houston, Texas MICHAEL JAFFE, New Jersey Center for Biomaterials and Medical Devices, Piscataway, New Jersey SYLVIA M. JOHNSON, NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California FRANK E. KARASZ, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts SHEILA F. KIA, General Motors Research and Development, Warren, Michigan HARRY A. LIPSITT, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio ALAN G. MILLER, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, Washington ROBERT C. PFAHL, Motorola, Schaumberg, Illinois JULIA PHILLIPS, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico HENRY RACK, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina KENNETH L. REIFSNIDER, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg T.S. SUDARSHAN, Modification, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia JULIA WEERTMAN, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois Staff TONI MARECHAUX, Director ARUL MOZHI, Associate Director

OCR for page R1
Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: Second Report, Progress Toward Objectives This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: Second Report, Progress Toward Objectives Preface The risks to aviation safety from mechanical failures, weather, or human error are generally known. These risks, as for any form of transportation, can be assessed and quantified. Millions of passengers accept them and fly on a regular basis. The risks associated with deliberate and premeditated actions from terrorists, however, are far more difficult to quantify and to predict, and are therefore far more frightening. An array of strategies must be devised to address this type of risk, ranging from intelligence gathering through threat detection and deterrence to hardening aircraft against takeover, explosions, and fire. A critical element of this overall strategy is the deployment of technologies (i.e., equipment and procedures) to warn, detect, deter, and mitigate the threat. Congressional funding for airport security and deployment of security technologies by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have been primarily incident driven; for example, metal detectors were installed in the 1970s in response to a series of hijackings, and access control and a limited number of bomb detection systems were deployed at selected airports as a result of the downing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988. Until September 11, 2001, the FAA’s research and development programs focused on the detection of explosives, because terrorists historically used that method to attack civil aviation. Accordingly, the original focus of the congressionally directed scope of work for the Committee on Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security was technologies deployed to detect explosives. The committee’s overall task was to assess the following: (1) the deployment of explosive-detection technologies, (2) the effectiveness of the system configuration for deployment, (3) the use of hardened cargo and baggage containers, and (4) the possible future role of emerging technologies (see Appendix A for a complete statement of task). The committee started in 1997 to help the FAA determine the effectiveness of laboratory-developed explosives-detection technologies deployed in airports and the effectiveness of hardened containers. The committee’s first report,1 issued in 1999, recommends objectives for the deployment of such technologies. The current report, the committee’s second, evaluates progress made toward implementation of the recommendations made in the first report on deployment of technologies to detect explosives. This second report also describes anticipated future committee work on assessment of technologies to improve aviation security. The primary role of the committee prior to September 11, 2001, was to report on the progress of the congressionally mandated deployment of detection equipment and procedures at selected airports. The September 11 events suggest a much broader scope 1   National Research Council. 1999. Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: First Report. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

OCR for page R1
Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: Second Report, Progress Toward Objectives of consideration for the breadth of the problem and recommendations meant to ensure success of the security program. Two new organizations, the Office of Homeland Defense and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), have been created and tasked with playing a role in securing the safety of our citizenry. The scope of the TSA includes all forms of transportation, including aviation.2 The extraordinary events of September 11, 2001, have shown past security efforts to be inadequate and shortsighted. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Jon Amy, Consultant; Michael Ellenbogen, Perkin Elmer Detection Systems; Arthur Fries, Institute for Defense Analyses; Valerie Gawron, Calspan; James K. Gran, Poulter Laboratory; Sidney J. Green, TerraTek, Inc.; Melvin F. Kanninen, MFK Consulting Services; Douglas R. Laird, BGI International Consulting Services; John L. McLucas, Aerospace Consultant; Daniel Morgan, Congressional Research Service; Robert Schafrik, GE Aircraft Engines; Eugene Sevin, Consultant; and Edward M. Weinstein, Galaxy Scientific Corporation. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Hyla Napadensky, Napadensky Energetics, Inc. (retired). Appointed by the National Research Council, she was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. The committee would like to acknowledge all the speakers from the Federal Aviation Administration and other organizations who provided presentations at the committee meetings. The committee is appreciative of the insights provided by Lyle Malotky, Federal Aviation Administration, and John Daly, U.S. Department of Transportation. It is also grateful for the contributions and support of the FAA contracting office technical representatives, Paul Jankowski and Wagih Makky. 2   The aviation security functions of the FAA are being transferred to the TSA. Since the committee assessed the work of the FAA before the TSA was created, this report refers to the committee’s work on aviation security for the FAA.

OCR for page R1
Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: Second Report, Progress Toward Objectives Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 The contents of the full report, from which this summary is extracted, are listed below. The full report contains sensitive security information that is controlled under 14 CFR Part 191. 1   INTRODUCTION   9 2   STATUS OF SECURITY SYSTEM DEPLOYMENT   11     Bulk Explosives Detection,   11     Trace Explosives Detection,   14     Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening and Positive Passenger Bag Match,   15     Deployment,   16     Operators,   17     Total Architecture for Aviation Security,   19     Security Enhancement Factor,   20     Five-Year Plan,   20     Hardened Unit Load Devices,   21     Additional Remarks,   21 3   QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS   23     Systematic Assessment of Facilities Risk,   25     Security Enhancement Factor,   26     Deterrence,   28 4   HUMAN FACTORS   33     The Case for the Human in Aviation Security,   35     Human Factors Issues and Status,   36     Certification of Screening Companies,   37     Threat Image Projection System,   37     Job Design,   39     Equipment Design,   40     Human Factors Program Management,   40     Conclusions,   42

OCR for page R1
Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: Second Report, Progress Toward Objectives 5   HARDENED UNIT LOAD DEVICES   43     Certified HULDs Available to Airlines,   44     HULD Operational Evaluations,   44     HULD Blast Tests After Operational Exposure,   45     Future R&D on HULDs,   46     HULD Implementation Plan,   47     Additional Remarks,   47 6   CONCLUSIONS   49     Post-September 11 Directions for the Committee,   50     APPENDICES         A STATEMENT OF TASK   53     B BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS   55     C ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS   59