Airline Passenger
Security Screening

New Technologies
and Implementation Issues

Committee on Commercial Aviation Security
Panel on Passenger Screening
National Materials Advisory Board
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council

Publication NMAB—482—1
National Academy Press
Washington, D.C. 1996



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
Airline Passenger Security Screening New Technologies and Implementation Issues Committee on Commercial Aviation Security Panel on Passenger Screening National Materials Advisory Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council Publication NMAB—482—1 National Academy Press Washington, D.C. 1996

OCR for page R1
Page ii 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 competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. 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. Harold Liebowitz 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 adviser 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. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. The study by the National Materials Advisory Board was conducted under Contract No. DTFA0394-C-00068 with the Federal Aviation Administration. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 96-69048 International Standard Book Number ISBN-0-309-05439-7 Copyright 1996 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

OCR for page R1
Page iii PANEL ON PASSENGER SCREENING GEORGE SWENSON, JR. (chair), University of Illinois, Champaign HOMER BOYNTON, consultant, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina BARRY D. CRANE, Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia DOUGLAS H. HARRIS, Anacapa Sciences, Inc., Charlottesville, Virginia WILFRED (BILL) JACKSON, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks JIRI (ART) JINATA, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington KENNETH R. LAUGHERY, Rice University, Houston, Texas HARRY E. MARTZ, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California KENNETH MOSSMAN, Arizona State University, Scottsdale PAUL ROTHSTEIN, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. National Materials Advisory Board Liaison Representative JAMES WAGNER, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland National Materials Advisory Board Staff SANDRA HYLAND, senior program manager JANICE M. PRISCO, project assistant

OCR for page R1
Page iv National Materials Advisory Board ROBERT A. LAUDISE (chair), Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, New Jersey G.J. ABBASCHIAN, University of Florida, Gainesville JAN D. ACHENBACH, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois MICHAEL I. BASKES, Sandia/Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California I. MELVIN BERNSTEIN, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts JOHN V. BUSCH, IBIS Associates, Inc., Wellesley, Massachusetts HARRY E. COOK, University of Illinois, Urbana EDWARD C. DOWLING, Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, Englewood, Colorado ROBERT EAGAN, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico ANTHONY G. EVANS, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts CAROLYN HANSSON, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada MICHAEL JAFFE, Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Summit, New Jersey LIONEL C. KIMERLING, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge RICHARD S. MULLER, University of California, Berkeley ELSA REICHMANIS, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, New Jersey EDGAR A. STARKE, University of Virginia, Charlottesville KATHLEEN C. TAYLOR, General Motors Corporation, Warren, Michigan JAMES WAGNER, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland JOSEPH WIRTH, Raychem Corporation, Menlo Park, California

OCR for page R1
Page v Acknowledgments The Panel on Passenger Screening would like to acknowledge the contributions of the many individuals who contributed to this study, including meeting speakers and the organizational representatives who attended the workshop held by the panel. The panel is particularly grateful to those who submitted statements to the panel after the workshop to ensure that the points they raised were included in this report. For his overview of technologies that might be considered for screening airline passengers, we also thank Lyle Malotky, Scientific Advisor to the FAA Associate Administrator for Civil Aviation Security. Extensive background research and writing on the legal aspects of passenger screening technologies and the introduction of other new surveillance technologies was performed by Thaddeus Pope. The panel thanks Mr. Pope for his efforts. The panel is grateful for the contributions of the two FAA  contracting office technical representatives, Ron Krauss and Jim Connelly, of the Aviation Research and Development Division at the FAA Technical Center. The panel also acknowledges the support from Program Director Paul Polski. The panel wishes to thank Janice Prisco, Jack Hughes, and Sandra Hyland of the National Materials Advisory Board for their help in editing and preparing this report.

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Page vii Preface The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requested the National Research Council (NRC) to prepare a report assessing issues concerning the implementation of new, automated passenger screening methods and barriers to their implementation. The Panel on Passenger Screening was established by the NRC for this purpose. These automated methods are used to detect concealed weapons and explosives being carried by people. The FAA supports the development of promising passenger screening technologies capable of detecting not only metal-based weapons (as current screening technologies are able to do), but also plastic explosives and other nonmetallic threat materials and objects. However, the FAA is concerned that these new technologies may not be appropriate for implementation, for reasons other than technical performance. Therefore, the FAA asked panel members to primarily focus on aspects of the new passenger screening technologies that could cause apprehension among passengers. The panel was formed by the National Materials Advisory Board of the NRC to (1) review all potential automated instrumental methods currently under consideration for passenger screening applications, (2) assess aspects of each method that could cause concerns over health risks (e.g., exposure to radiation), privacy, and traveler comfort, in light of current and anticipated health regulations, privacy laws, and public concerns, (3) consider ways in which the methods could be implemented to maintain high levels of effectiveness, while minimizing health risks and increasing public acceptance, (4) determine the key factors that could affect airport implementation and suggest mitigating strategies, (5) suggest alternate screening methods for passengers who wish to avoid the automated system, and (6) assess mechanisms for clearing alarms. The panel met five times between February and September 1995. Two of the meetings focused on obtaining information on current and prospective passenger screening technologies and on passenger screening procedures in other countries. During one of these two meetings, panel members visited a major airport for a detailed inspection of screening facilities and methods. The panel also hosted a workshop attended by representatives of a number of organizations concerned with air carrier operations, airport operations, and passenger privacy. The workshop participants shared their views about the new technologies and their potential concerns about implementing these technologies in airports. In addressing the formal task statement, the panel determined that the effectiveness of both current and future aviation security systems depends strongly on the human elements of the system. Therefore, the panel included and addressed two issues not specified in the formal task statement: (1) how existing systems can be made more effective without the addition of completely new technologies, and (2) whether greater attention should be given to "human factors," including the use of passenger profiling techniques. This report is the result of the panel deliberations. George W. Swenson, Jr., Chair

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Page ix Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 6   Development of Aviation Security, 6   Passenger Screening, 6   Key Issues, 9 2 METHODOLOGY 11   Panel Meetings, 11   Workshop on Passenger Screening, 11   Summary, 12 3 PASSENGER SCREENING TECHNOLOGIES 13   Passenger-Profiling System, 13   Imaging Technologies, 14   Trace-Detection technologies, 16   Nonimaging Electromagnetic Technologies, 19   Clearing an Alarm, 20   Summary, 21 4 OPERATIONAL AND COST ISSUES 22   Air Carrier Operations, 22   Airport Facilities Operations, 22   Delays Caused by Aviation Security Measures, 23   Summary, 23 5 OPERATOR ERGONOMICS, SELECTION, TRAINING, AND MOTIVATION 24   Relationship between Pay and Performance, 24   Ergonomics in System Design, 25   Operator Selection, Training, and Motivation, 26   Measuring Operator Performance, 26   Potential Operator Concerns with Specific Screening Technologies, 26   Summary, 27 6 HEALTH EFFECTS 28   Cancer, 28   Reproductive Health Effects, 30   Heart Disease and Pacemakers, 31   Some Possible Health Concerns Associated with Specific Screening Technologies, 31   Summary, 32

OCR for page R1
Page x 7 LEGAL ISSUES 34   Unconstitutional Search, 34   Tort Claims, 39   Role of the FAA, 41   Some Possible Legal Concerns Associated with Specific Screening Technologies, 41   Summary, 42 8 PUBLIC   ACCEPTANCE 44   Public Concerns about Health Effects, 44   Public Concerns about Privacy, 44   Public Concerns about Convenience, 45   Public Concerns about Comfort, 45   Assessing Public Acceptance, 46   Results of the Workshop on New Technologies for Passenger Screening, 46   Some Possible Public Acceptance Concerns Associated with Specific Screening Technologies, 49   Summary, 50 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 52   Assessment of System Enhancements, 52   Improvements to Current Screening Systems, 53   Technologies to Meet Future Passenger Screening Requirements, 53   Operator Performance, 54 REFERENCES 57 APPENDICES   A LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND TREATIES 63 B FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION FROM WORKSHOP ATTENDEES 65 C SELECTED LEGAL CASES RELEVANT TO AVIATION SECURITY 68 D BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF PANEL MEMBERS 73

OCR for page R1
Page xi Tables and Figures TABLES 1-1 Responsibilities of Air Carriers, Airport Operators, and the FAA for Passenger Screening, 8 2-1 Speakers and Topics Presented to the Panel on Passenger Screening, 11 2-2 Organizations at the Workshop on New Technologies for Passenger Screening, 12 3-1 Passenger Screening Technologies Based on Imaging, 14 3-2 Passenger Screening Technologies Based on Trace Detection, 19 8-1 Principal Concerns Associated with Health and Privacy, as Identified at the Workshop on New Technologies for Passenger Screening, 47 8-2 Principal Concerns Associated with Comfort and Convenience, as Identified at the Workshop on New Technologies for Passenger Screening, 48 FIGURES 1-1 Hijacking and bombing incidents aboard U.S.- and foreign-registered aircraft, 1968-1994, 7 3-1 El Al Airlines system for identifying people who could be threats, 13 3-2 The electromagnetic spectrum, 14 3-3a Visual image of a person being scanned by the Contraband Detection System produced by Millitech, 15 3-3b Millimeter-wave image of the same person showing two weapons hidden under the subject's sweater 15 3-4 Person being scanned (front image) using the SECURE 1000 active x-ray imaging system produced by Nicolet Imaging Systems, 16 3-5 Image created by the SECURE 1000, produced by Nicolet Imaging Systems, showing several threat objects, including a half-pound simulated explosive charge and a .38 caliber handgun, 17 3-6a Visual image of a person being scanned by the BodySearch 1 produced by AS&E, 18 3-6b X-ray image of the same person showing a variety of hidden threat objects, including a Plexiglas knife, a 9mm handgun, and simulated drugs, 18 5-1 Factors that influence job performance, 25 6-1 Comparison of levels of exposure from common ionizing radiation sources, 29

OCR for page R1