airport security research paper topics

93 Airport Essay Topics

🏆 best essay topics on airport, 🌶️ hot airport essay topics, 👍 good airport research topics & essay examples, 🎓 most interesting airport research titles, 💡 simple airport essay ideas.

• Heathrow Airport’s Service Operations Management
• Issues with Modern Technology in Airport Security
• Airport: Definition and Functions
• Building an Airport Project
• Denver International Airport’s Project Management
• The Airport Security Importance
• Airport Security: Motivation System
• International Airport: Management, Ownership, and Economic Regulation The airport authorities’ structure includes units with specific responsibilities, such as financial management, administration, legal affairs, and airport operations.
• Refurbishing Heathrow Airport Terminal 1 The project “Refurbishing Heathrow Airport Terminal 1” was one of the largest renovation campaigns in the UK’s industrial history. Terminal had to continue working during the reconstruction process.
• Incident Command System in Airports The paper states that airports require a strategic response and well-trained employees in place in case of an accident event to mitigate the risks.
• Solar Power Benefits for Airports Renewable energy is becoming increasingly popular in major airports around the world. Solar power is one of the most popular renewable energy sources.
• Noise Control Strategies Around Airports In spite of airplanes endeavoring to become quieter, Birmingham Airport Limited recognizes that noise commotion remains a problem for many residents.
• Memphis International Airport as Air Cargo Hub The FedEx air cargo operators contain the majority of hubs at Memphis International Airport. It is located in the north of the US and serves the cities of Memphis, Tennessee.
• Denver International Airport: Benefits and Strategic Location Denver International Airport (DIA) is believed to be the biggest international airport in the United States and second largest airport in the world.
• Cause-and-Effect Diagram for Airport Security The cause-and-effect diagram (CAED) is typically used to identify the connection between the factors that contributed to a particular phenomenon and the occurrence thereof.
• Airport Voluntary Reporting System and Its Purpose The Airport Voluntary Reporting System (AVRS) is a tool for managing the relationships and interactions between staff and visitors to improve the quality of security services.
• Application of Augmented Reality Technologies at Airports The airport as a transport hub looks the most attractive to terrorists. An act of terrorism at an airport or on an airplane has the most profound effect on people’s minds.
• Airport Security and New Technologies The author’s thesis aims to identify the benefits of using these biometrics, such as ensuring the safety of passengers and the functioning of airport structures.
• Racial Profiling in the Airports The American airlines flight 11 and the united airlines flight 175 has been hijacked and crashed into the twin towers of the World trade centre in New York.
• London Heathrow Airport Price Control The price cap instituted to the Heathrow airport operator may be justified in several ways, but the price control can harm the economic performance of individual firms.
• Discussion: Airport Rapid Development This work will concentrate on the lifecycle of airports and their development during the last years, which are significant.
• Touchless Technologies in Birmingham Airport Touchless technologies in the airport include biometric scanners, facial recognition, artificial intelligence, and automation.
• Abu Dhadi Airports Innovation in Aviation Both globalization and regional integration have a specific influence on business development. In the case of an industry as big as aviation one, this impact is even more evident.
• The Denver Airport Baggage System Failure It is vital to eliminate airport management’s operational challenges by planning earlier, and sharing information, and infrastructure to reduce overcrowding and inefficiencies.
• Macro-Environmental Trends and Their Impacts on Airports The paper indicates that the macro-environmental concerns and trends will revolutionize the airline sector over the next two decades.
• Denver Airport Baggage System Project’s Failure Because the designers of the physical building of the airport and the designers of the baggage system did not work together, the latter team faced significant space constraints.
• TAM Airlines Accident in Sao Paulo-Congonhas Airport This report analyzes the Congonhas Airport conditions at the time of the TAM Airlines fatal accident in Sao Paulo, Brazil, involving an Airbus A320.
• Newer Larger Aircraft Effects on Airport Management Larger planes could generate more revenue than the medium and light ones, but the operational, maintenance and servicing costs outweigh the benefits.
• Lean Philosophy: Remote Check-In in Airports The principle of lean philosophy prescribes that companies should create flow while eliminating waste by progressively achieving tasks set to enhance the customer experience.
• ISix Sigma Tools for Airport Security The process of checking in at an airport includes five essential stages that must be accomplished for the passenger to get on board.
• Moving Passengers Through Airports Up until January 2020, the expansion of air travel seemed inevitable. The number of people who travel by air has significantly increased over the past ten years.
• British Airport Risk Assessment Diary The case explores the risks in managing the British Heathrow Airport which includes the identification of hazards, their assessment, and the preparation of a response.
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport’s History Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is the international hub that hosts thousands of passengers annually. It started functioning after the end of World War II.
• Why Is Airport Ownership by the Local Municipality Advantageous? The paper states that arguments for keeping airports by local municipalities’ ownership are similar to any kind of enterprise or service.
• Airport Ownership and Regulation Most modern airports are giant constructions with complex infrastructure and numerous employees necessary to guarantee their stable functioning.
• Improving Runway Usage Efficiency at Airports My focus on more efficient usage of the runway revolves around big data and analytics. Big data analytics gather vast amounts of data around the airport.
• Chicago Executive Airport’s Master Plan The master plan was developed to identify the future planning needs of the airport. The CEA Board created four guiding principles.
• Safety Improvement in Cockpit and Airport Operations There have been several improvements that have been made in cockpit and airport operations to ensure aircraft safety in the past 50 years.
• Analysis of Denver International Airport Denver International Airport is the largest airport in the US that was visited by almost 70 million passengers per year in the pre-pandemic times.
• McCarran International Airport McCarran International Airport is Las Vegas’ main commercial civilian airport, located in the non-industrial area of Paradise, 8 km from the business center.
• Airport Transportation Security After 9/11 Attacks The threat of cargo tampering, terrorist or other illegal use, or criminal attack on the supply chain makes transportation safety a significant concern.
• St. Louis Lambert International Airport St. Louis Lambert International Airport is a big international airport characterized by about 259 daily departures to 78 locations in the USA and abroad.
• Safety Considerations of a Commercial Airport The realization of improved safety in our airports therefore warrants a renewed focus on how we perceive airport security threats.
• Orlando International Airport: Fire Rescue Service This essay will discuss Orlando International Airport, its Fire Rescue Services, and how well it is equipped for various incidents and accidents.
• Incident Management in the Indianapolis Airport The paper states that the exercise that Indianapolis Airport Authority performed in 2016 followed the National Incident Management System standards.
• Airport Emergency Plan Overview of Analysis Airport emergencies are unexpected situations that imply adverse and even tragic consequences. That is why airport officials should develop specific plans to know how to manage a crisis
• Airport Planning and Management in the US The success of an airport is defined by its capacity to accommodate cargos and passenger services within its airstrips.
• Gerald R. Ford International Airport and Its Service Gerald R. Ford International Airport (GRR) is one of the largest airports in Michigan, it is used by six airlines that conduct more than 100 flights a day.
• Sao Paulo Airport Safety Evaluation This report aims to determine the safety conditions at the time of the crash, what has changed since, and what improvement opportunities remain.
• International Airports in the USA and Malaysia This paper discusses two international airports: Charlotte Douglas international airport in the USA and Kuala Lumpur international airport (KLIA) in Malaysia.
• Orlando International Airport Fire Rescue Despite the prolonged absence of significant incidents, the OIAFR is exemplary, with a wide range of equipment and highly trained personnel.
• Safety Management: Paris-Le Bourget Airport The paper states that Paris-Le Bourget needs more safety communication. The airport’s decades of experience may serve as a starting point for training.
• Robust Security System vs Terrorists in Airport America has stepped up its security system by appointing TSA – a government organization to protect the nation’s transport system.
• Congonhas Airport Aeronautical Accident Report The provided report focuses on the analysis of TAM Airlines Flight 3054 to outline the central issues preconditioning the collapse and avoid them in the future.
• Airport Autonomous Control (ACUGOTA) Program Implementation This essay aims to analyze the airport’s autonomous control and communication system, otherwise known as ACUGOTA.
• Aviation: Airport Security Control Evaluation The following paper reviews the business of securing a commercial airport as a shared responsibility between the airport operator and the Transportation Security Administration.
• Airport Security and the Reduction of Skills in Security Staff The development of security measures in airports has been largely a response to various terrorists’ efforts targeting planes and passengers in the past 70 years.
• Lean Philosophy of Remote Airport Check-In Service The focus of this case was on a remote check-in service for airports, which was focused on applying the concept of lean philosophy to the customer experience.
• Airport Security Environment and Passenger Stress Most of the measures taken by airport operators to maintain transport security are appropriate and reasonable. Visible signs of safety concerns can cause anxiety to the passenger.
• Moving Passengers Large Groups Though Airport Terminals Quickly and Efficiently The purpose of this paper is to provide possible solutions to the problem of the massive group movement in the airport terminals.
• Changes in Management of Coventry Airport The main problem was redirection and waiting times for aircraft in the air. Two scenarios for solving this obstacle have been proposed.
• Terrorism as a Threat to American Airport Security An airport operator has to control access by passengers and staff to restricted areas. Nuclear weapons terrorism is the greatest security threat for the US aviation industry.
• Next Global Airport Security Program Safety procedures and measures are best on approved standards, national laws and regulations, and best practices in the aviation industry.
• The Ethical Issues Surrounding the Chicago Airport Fiasco
• Airport Charges and Capacity Expansion: Effects of Concessions and Privatization
• The State and Future of Airport Funding
• Airport Benchmarking and Spatial Competition
• Price vs. Quantity-based Approaches to Airport Congestion Management
• Sustainable Airport Construction Practices
• Airport Baggage Handling Systems Industry
• Operational Readiness and Airport Transfer Program
• Airport Charges, Economic Growth, and Cost Recovery
• The Southwest Orange Airport Authority
• Airport Incident Management System
• Quantifying and Validating Measures of Airport Terminal Wayfinding
• Terrorism and Airport Security
• The Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport
• Regulation Under Stress: Developments in Australian Airport Policy
• Project Management Plan For Laguardia Airport Renovation
• Seoul Incheon International Airport Overview
• Airport and Airline Competition for Passengers Departing from a Large Metropolitan Area
• San Diego International Airport Architectural Peculiarities
• Regional Development and Airport Productivity in China
• Airport Pavement Management Systems: An Appraisal of Existing Methodologies
• The Rules and Norms of Airport and Airplane Behavior
• Airport Interval Games and Their Shapley Value
• Spatial Heterogeneity and the Geographic Distribution of Airport Noise
• The Controversy Over New Airport Security Measures
• Airport Body Scanners and Personal Privacy
• Congestion Pricing vs. Slot Constraints to Airport Networks
• Airport Environmental Impact and Legislation
• Pure Versus Hybrid Competitive Strategies in the Airport Industry
• Airport Congestion Management Under Uncertainty

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, May 10). 93 Airport Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/airport-essay-topics/

"93 Airport Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 10 May 2022, studycorgi.com/ideas/airport-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) '93 Airport Essay Topics'. 10 May.

1. StudyCorgi . "93 Airport Essay Topics." May 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/airport-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "93 Airport Essay Topics." May 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/airport-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "93 Airport Essay Topics." May 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/airport-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Airport were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on January 5, 2024 .

Articles on Airport security

Displaying all articles.

Air travel is in a rut – is there any hope of recapturing the romance of flying?

Christopher Schaberg , Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis

Why do I have to take my laptop out of the bag at airport security?

Doug Drury , CQUniversity Australia

Why can’t I use my phone or take photos on the airport tarmac? Is it against the law?

D.B. Cooper, the changing nature of hijackings and the foundation for today’s airport security

Janet Bednarek , University of Dayton

Why we need to seriously reconsider COVID-19 vaccination passports

Tommy Cooke , Queen's University, Ontario and Benjamin Muller , Western University

COVID-19 has fuelled automation — but human involvement is still essential

Francesco Biondi , University of Windsor

In ‘airports of the future’, everything new is old again

Airport security threats: combating the enemy within

David BaMaung , Glasgow Caledonian University

Travelling overseas? What to do if a border agent demands access to your digital device

Katina Michael , Arizona State University

Alcohol: why we should call time on airport drinking

Simon C Moore , Cardiff University

Why random identification checks at airports are a bad idea

Rick Sarre , University of South Australia

Why banning laptops from airplane cabins doesn’t make sense

Cassandra Burke Robertson , Case Western Reserve University and Irina D. Manta , Hofstra University

Banning laptops at secure airports won’t keep aircraft safe from terror attacks

Michaela Preddy , University of Central Lancashire

Just how safe are Australia’s airports?

Terry Goldsworthy , Bond University

Telling people apart: new test reveals wide variation in how well we recognise faces

Gunter Loffler , Glasgow Caledonian University ; Andrew J Logan , University of Bradford , and Gael Gordon , Glasgow Caledonian University

Brussels airport attacks are not just a matter of airport security

Ivano Bongiovanni , Queensland University of Technology

Sinai crash offers lessons on weaknesses in Australian airport security

Related topics.

• Airline Industry
• Terrorism risk

Top contributors

Professor of History, University of Dayton

Professor/Head of Aviation, CQUniversity Australia

Lecturer in Information Security, Governance and Leadership / Design Thinking, The University of Queensland

Professor of Optometry, Glasgow Caledonian University

Senior Lecturer, Vision Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University

Lecturer in Optometry, University of Bradford

Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University

Lecturer in Airport Security Management and Policing, School of Forensic and Applied Sciences, University of Central Lancashire

Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law, Hofstra University

Professor of Public Health Research, Co-Director of Crime and Security Research Institute and Director of the Violence Research Group, Cardiff University

Honorary Professor Human Resource Development, Glasgow Caledonian University

Associate Professor, Human Systems Labs, University of Windsor

Visiting Professor, Department of Geography & Environmental Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Associate Professor in Migration and Border Studies, King’s University College, Western University

Professor, School for the Future of Innovation in Society & School of Computing, Informatics and Decision Systems Engineering, Arizona State University

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

Airport security

Trace this topic

Papers published on a yearly basis

Citation Count

394  citations

332  citations

309  citations

224  citations

218  citations

Trending Questions (10)

Network information, related topics (5), performance.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.9(3); 2023 Mar

Why and how unpredictability is implemented in aviation security – A first qualitative study

Melina zeballos.

a School of Applied Psychology, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland (FHNW), Riggenbachstrasse 16, 4600 Olten, Switzerland

b Center for Adaptive Security Research and Applications (CASRA), Thurgauerstrasse 39, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland

Carla Sophie Fumagalli

c Zurich State Police, Airport Division, Research and Development, Prime Center 1, 8058 Zurich Airport, Switzerland

Signe Maria Ghelfi

Adrian schwaninger, associated data.

The data that has been used is confidential.

In the past, aviation security regulations have mostly been reactive, responding to terrorist attacks by adding more stringent measures. In combination with the standardization of security control processes, this has resulted in a more predictable system that makes it easier to plan and execute acts of unlawful interference. The implementation of unpredictability, that is, variation of security controls, as a proactive approach could be beneficial for addressing risks coming from outside (terrorist attacks) and inside the system (insider threats). By conducting semi-structured interviews with security experts, this study explored why and how unpredictability is applied at airports. Results show that European airport stakeholders apply unpredictability measures for many reasons: To complement the security system, defeat the opponent, and improve human factor aspects of the security system. Unpredictability is applied at various locations, by different controlling authorities, to different target groups and application forms; nevertheless, the deployment is not evaluated systematically. Results also show how the variation of security controls can contribute to mitigating insider threats, for example, by reducing insider knowledge. Future research should focus on the evaluation of the deterrent effect of unpredictability to further give suggestions on how unpredictable measures should be realized to proactively address upcoming risks.

1. Introduction

Civil aviation has been in the focus of terrorism for more than 50 years (e.g., Refs. [ 1 , 2 ]). In response to terrorist attacks, aviation security measures have been continuously refined and improved (e.g., Ref. [ 3 ]). This was mainly based on minimizing the risk of known threats. Whenever a security-related incident occurred, weaknesses of the security system were identified, resulting in the adaptation of existing measures or the addition of new ones to improve aviation security (e.g., Ref. [ 4 ]). Indeed, up until today, most national and international standards and regulations have been reactive responses to past incidents. The problem with a uniquely reactive approach is that security is always one step behind as perpetrators may already evolve new threats to attack the system by exploiting another vulnerability (e.g., Ref. [ 5 ]). Unpredictability, that is, varying security measures to increase their deterrent effect and efficiency, allows a more proactive approach. First, it creates uncertainty regarding when, where, why, and how somebody is going to be controlled. This should make it more difficult for a perpetrator to plan and deploy an attack. Second, unpredictability has the potential to enhance security by distributing and making use of the available resources in a more effective and efficient way [ 6 , 7 ]. Third, it can be used to address insider threats, which has become more relevant since recent events such as the bomb explosion on Daallo Airlines Flight 159 [ 8 ]. Our study explored why and how unpredictability is applied at airports and whether insider threats are addressed with it. In the remaining introduction, we first briefly review the history of aviation security measures. We then discuss the concept of unpredictability and its relevance in addressing insider threats.

1.1. Brief history of aviation security measures

Civil aviation has been a target for terrorists since the early 1960s [ 2 ]. Before the 1960s, the aviation industry was confronted with technical challenges to safety in the skies [ 9 ]. The situation changed dramatically between 1968 and 1972 when a total of 326 cases of hijacking occurred [ 10 ], which at that time were mostly politically motivated. The Tokyo Convention (1963), the Hague Convention (1970), and the Montreal Convention (1970) resulted in standards and recommended practices for international civil aviation to prevent acts of unlawful interference against civil aviation [ 3 ]. They were first adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organziation (ICAO) Council in March 1974 and designated as Annex 17 to the Chicago Convention [ 11 ]. Moreover, the ICAO Aviation Security Manual (Doc 8973) was developed to assist member states in implementing Annex 17 by providing guidance on how to apply its standards and recommended practices [ 12 ]. Since then, Annex 17 and Doc 8973 are constantly being reviewed and amended considering new threats and technological developments [ 11 , 12 ]. The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) introduced an anti-hijacking program in 1973 based on comprehensive screening of 100% of passengers and their luggage at airports [ 13 ]. It was the beginning of electronic security screening and the implementation of the magnetometer (today, the walk-through metal detector; WTMD) as standard practice for passenger screening [ 14 , 15 ]. In combination with this search, a given percentage of passengers (i.e., quota) were controlled more extensively by applying a full body pat down [ 14 ], which can be regarded as an early deployment of unpredictability.

As a result of the electronic security screening, the number of cases of hijacking reduced markedly [ 15 ]. During the 1980s, a shift from bargaining toward deliberate crashing was observed [ 16 ], which escalated in December 1988 with the tragedy of Lockerbie, in which an improvised explosive device (IED) was detonated in the hold of the aircraft of Pan Am Flight 103 [ 17 ]. The tragedy, which caused the death of all 259 passengers and crew on board and 11 people on the ground [ 17 ], gained substantial media presence [ 1 , 18 ]. As a result, standards were established for hold baggage screening (HBS), including the worldwide deployment of explosive detection systems for hold baggage [ 1 ]. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attack had an even higher impact, causing deaths of thousands of people (e.g., Ref. [ 3 ]). The terrorists used knives, which in those times could be brought on an aircraft, to take over the cockpit (cockpit doors were not protected) and to hijack multiple aircrafts, which were then used as weapons of mass destruction [ 18 ]. The post-9/11 era involved the immediate adaption of both law and security systems [ 19 ]; for example, knives were declared as prohibited articles, and protected cockpit doors were introduced. In addition, large investments were made in screening technology and training of personnel. These adaptions in security protocols and regulations were a direct consequence of the terrorist attack and resulted in stricter aviation security for all passengers (not risk-based; reactive regulation). In 2006, the liquid bomb plot of eight terrorists who planned to bomb seven airplanes with destinations to the U.S.A. and Canada was uncovered by British authorities before the terrorists could use the improvised liquid explosive devices [ 2 , 20 ]. This resulted in restrictions on liquids in hand luggage, and the development and deployment of new detection technology.

On one hand, the implementation and standardization of security measures and new processes led to a higher level of security; on the other hand, it resulted in an increased predictability of the security system [ 7 ]. Aviation security systems were tailored to react to past incidents and threats by the implementation and refinement of measures that were standardized (in order to reach security goals effectively; [ 21 ]). Two consequences of a reactive security approach were defined by Ref. ([ 5 ], p. 312): “(1) the reduction in the number of attacks from a current type of threat and (2) the creation of new threats” that are probably unknown by the system. In other words, as long as new standards and processes are created upon known incidents, the aviation security systems will remain one foot behind. Therefore, a more proactive paradigm that is based on unpredictability has become important [ 7 ].

1.2. Unpredictability in aviation security

The ICAO ([ 11 ], p. 3) defines unpredictability as: “The implementation of security measures in order to increase their deterrent effect and their efficiency, by applying them at irregular frequencies, different locations and/or with varying means, in accordance with a defined framework”. Ref. [ 7 ] points out that the implementation of unpredictability does not necessarily require additional resources, but instead, aims for a more effective and efficient application of security controls by varying them. This variation makes it difficult for an individual to predict whether he or she will be checked, and in what way. A situation of increased uncertainty is created intentionally, which generates the expectation that everybody can be controlled at any time; this, presumably, has a deterrent effect [ 22 ].

Unforeseeable security controls, that is, random searches, have been part of security systems for a longtime (e.g., full body pat down on a random basis since introduction of magnetometer/walk through metal detector; see Ref. [ 14 ]), but have recently received greater attention in form of explicitly formulated unpredictability concepts (e.g., the TSA's Playbook; [ 23 ]). A traditional security system follows a multi-layered approach ([ 24 ]; for an example see Ref. [ 25 ]) in which every layer represents a security measure working as a barrier to prevent acts of unlawful interference. However, every layer also involves (according to the swiss cheese model; [ 26 ]) loopholes representing vulnerabilities of the system. Such security gaps could result, for example, from predictability of the system or are simply not covered by security controls. Unpredictability could address these loopholes by varying the security controls.

As in theory, this proposition seems reasoned; several suggestions and regulations have already been made by international authorities: Some with mandatory character, for example, the random passenger control with explosive trace detection (ETD; [ 27 ]), and others with voluntary character, such as further deployment of unpredictability [ 11 ].

From an operational viewpoint, the intensification of “unpredictability” could have a positive impact on some key performance indicators. Supposing that fewer resources are spent on checking all passengers at the security checkpoint, and instead additional unpredictable checks take place elsewhere, a positive impact on efficiency (throughput), effectiveness (security), and passenger satisfaction is possible. However, first studies on perceived passenger experience have also shown that traditional security checks (everyone is screened equally) are perceived as fairer and safer than security checks based on random schedules (probability of being screened; [ 28 ]), but are also less convenient [ 29 ]. In a study by Ref. [ 30 ], it was shown that people perceive traditional security checks to be safer than randomized checks, irrespective of the percentage of people that are screened. Randomized security checks could consequently lead to a decreased perception of security.

The mechanisms of unpredictability need to be well understood in order to use its potential in the best way and to prevent undesired effects (i.e., reduced feeling of security). The deployment of unpredictability has to be cautiously planned and evaluated. Moreover, an unpredictable security system could also be beneficial for the mitigation of different threats—it is capable of not only addressing attacks “from outside,” as quoted above, but also threats that come from within the airport security system [ 31 ].

1.3. Insider threats

In the recent past, it was suspected that “insiders” played an increasingly important role in executing terrorist attacks [ 18 , 32 ]. The term “insider” refers to presently or previously authorized system users “who have legitimate access to sensitive/confidential material, and they may know the vulnerabilities of the deployed systems and business processes” (Ref. [ 33 ], p. 2). Thus, an “insider threat” is one or more individuals that have access to relevant infrastructure and/or insider knowledge which allows them to exploit vulnerabilities of the system and to cause harm to the organization [ 25 , 33 ].

Specifically, in the field of information security (IS), the insider threat has been widely investigated (e.g., Refs. [ 33 , 34 ]) since surveys showed that 27% of all cybercrime incidents are suspected to be committed by insiders [ 33 , 35 ]. The scientific discourse distinguishes between the malicious and the unintentional non-malicious insider threat. Both cause harm to the organization, but only the malicious insider acts intentionally [ 34 ]. The operation of an airport requires resources of thousands of employees, whereby some of them have access to sensitive security areas or work around and in the aircraft. In consequence, all airport employees with access to sensitive security areas and/or knowledge about relevant security processes can theoretically become an insider threat (e.g., Ref. [ 36 ]). Taking a closer look, different forms of malicious insider involvement are conceivable: An employee becomes radical after employment or is being instrumentalized by somebody outside the airport system. Furthermore, it is also reasonable to consider that an airport worker could accept bribes in order to pass a bag (containing restricted items) through security check without knowing that they are facilitating the placing of a bomb onboard the aircraft [ 18 ]. Therefore, typical activities of a malicious insider include “spying, release of information, sabotage, corruption, impersonation, theft, smuggling, and terrorist attacks” (Ref. [ 25 ], p. 2). In February 2016, a bomb exploded onboard Daallo Airlines Flight 159 from Mogadishu to Djibouti (e.g., Ref. [ 8 ]), almost killing passengers and crew. After passing the security check, the suicide bomber was passed a laptop-like device by at least one airport employee [ 8 ]. Further, the bomb explosion of the Metrojet Flight KGL9268 above Sinai is suspected to be facilitated by an insider working at the Sharm el-Sheikh International Airport (e.g., Ref. [ 18 ]).

The unintentional non-malicious insider is also critical since the individual “has no malicious intent associated with his/her action (or inaction),” “which caused harm or substantially increased the probability of future serious harm to the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the organization's information […]” (Ref. [ 37 ], p. 3) or security. Potential incidents may include accidental disclosures of sensitive information or data as well as social engineering [ 37 ] which involves an outsider that tries to acquire information or data through an insider, for example, to gain access to restrictive areas or to plan an attack.

To the aviation industry, insider threats are seen as a growing problem that need the establishment of countermeasures [ 31 , 35 , 38 ]. In the context of a highly regulated security system acting mainly in a reactive way upon past incidents, insider threats seem crucial—precisely because the insider knows about potential security gaps due to the proximity in daily operations and could use this information either in a malicious or non-malicious way. Specifically, the predictability resulting from standardized application of security measures [ 7 ] makes the system more vulnerable, which is why insider threats need to be addressed proactively with new security concepts such as unpredictability.

In theory, the implementation of unpredictability within measures of a security system seems logical and straightforward. However, as there is often a gap between theory and application, and so far most studies on unpredictability have been conducted in a lab setting [ 22 , [28] , [29] , [30] ], it is still unclear why and how unpredictability is applied at airports and whether it is used to address insider threats. This leads to the present study and the corresponding research questions.

1.4. Present study

The present study addresses three research questions: 1. Why are unpredictable measures implemented at airports? 2. How are unpredictability measures actually applied at airports? 3. Can unpredictability contribute to mitigate insider threats according to practitioners? To consider different perspectives of stakeholders, we choose a qualitative research method with a semi-structured interview study design [ 39 ].

We conducted interviews with experts and executed on-site visits at airports to address the research questions. We defined an expert as a person that has expertise and/or privileged knowledge in the field of airport security's practice and is willing to disclose it following the definition of Ref. ([ 40 ], p. 98ff). To achieve a purposeful sampling [ 41 ], we aimed at getting experts from at least one appropriate national authority that regulates aviation security measures, at least one police organization operating at a large airport, at least one expert from an airline, and several airport security managers including large and small airports. Based on the network contacts of the 3rd and the last author and their organizations, we contacted 22 experts from different European countries by email through which we briefly presented the research project and asked for a confidential personal exchange. Eighteen experts responded by email and requested more information. We then spoke to them by telephone to provide them more detailed information about the study. Finally, after internal consultations, eight experts agreed to participate in the semi-structed interviews and on-site visits at the airport. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants. Table 1 lists the type of experts who participated in our study.

Note. “Large” and “small” refer to the airport size categories of the Airports Council International (ACI), where large size airport means more than 25 million passengers per year, and small means less than 5 million passengers per year.

We developed an interview guideline for semi-structured interviews based on recommendations by Refs. [ 39 , 42 ]. The final interview guideline, including the interview questions, is provided in Appendix A. The interviews were conducted on-site at the airport and lasted between 60 and 90 min. One interviewer led the interview, and the second interviewer made an interview protocol. After a short introduction, including information about the project, the procedure of the interview was explained, and anonymity was guaranteed. After participants provided written informed consent, the interview started with general questions about the concept of unpredictability. In the second part, the experts were asked to brainstorm about the application of unpredictability in general. The third part was dedicated to collecting data of applied unpredictability measures at the airport without specific implementation details . In the fourth part, we asked how the stated measures were concretely implemented by using a question list that included questions about what happens where, when, how, why, who is responsible, and what the lessons are. In the fifth part, we asked how unpredictability measures are used to address insider threats . In the last part, the experts were asked about further remarks and future prospects of unpredictability (see Table 2 ).

Covered topics of the interview guideline.

Note. Interview topics defined the focus of the study and were covered in all interviews. However, the sequence of the topics was not strictly followed as is usual for semi-structured interviews [ 43 ].

To verify and complement the information obtained in the interviews, the two interviewers then conducted on-site observations with the interviewed experts for 15–90 min (at all except one airport). The questions and notes of the interview that was conducted before served as a guideline, and notes were taken by both interviewers. After the on-site observations, the interview protocol was finalized by the second interviewer and complemented by observational information before being reviewed by the lead interviewer. The on-site observations and interviews provided consistent results. In the few cases where we thought to have found discrepancies, we clarified them with the interviewed experts. The protocols were then sent to the experts who could request adjustments when they did not agree with certain statements, and they could request deletions when statements were too security sensitive.

To analyze data of the final protocols, we employed an inductive approach using content analysis [ 44 ] and MAXQDA Version 20.0.2 to develop the coding scheme. The two interviewers coded one interview separately and discussed discrepancies to further develop the coding scheme. Subsequently, all interviews were coded by both interviewers separately. We calculated the intercoder reliability (ICR) as suggested by Ref. [ 45 ]. We obtained a Cohen's Kappa of .80, which is regarded as good [ 46 ].

The findings of the study are presented in this section following the recommendations of Ref. [ 47 ]. We will first look at why unpredictability is being applied [finding 1] before presenting the list of applied security measures [finding 2]. We further look at the varying elements of the identified security measures in more detail [finding 3] before addressing the potential of unpredictability to counter insider threats [finding 4]. At the end of this results section, we present three perspectives on how the mentioned measures are and could be integrated into a security system [finding 5].

3.1. Finding 1: Reasons for applying unpredictability

While analyzing the data, we first extracted all the reasons for applying unpredictability by using an inductive approach. Second, we summarized them into senseful units to reduce the data and refined the categories. In a subsequent step, we built four main categories, which allowed us to cluster the subcategories. Table 3 lists the different reasons ordered by how often they were mentioned.

Main and subcategories of reasons for applying unpredictability measures.

Note. The absolute number of statements was n = 48. Statements were included when they were related to a reason for application of unpredictability (either in combination to a specific measure or in general). Whenever a specific reason was mentioned twice within a measure or within an interview, only one statement was counted. This occurred once. The percentages in brackets refer to the number of statements of the main category relative to all statements.

3.2. Findings 2 and 3: Unpredictability measures and their varying elements

The analysis of the interview protocols resulted in ten unpredictability measures. They are listed in Table 4 ordered by the locations where they are applied. All were mentioned explicitly as unpredictability measures and described in detail. Other security measures, for example, air marshals and explosive detection dogs, were also mentioned but not explained in detail and therefore not included in Table 4 . Subsequently, we looked at the varying elements of the identified security measures ( Table 4 ). As we addressed specific questions within a specific unpredictable security measure in the interview (when, where, what, who), a more deductive approach was applied in the analysis. We chose to categorize the varying elements according to the interview guideline which resulted in four categories: Time of control, location of control, type of control, and controlling authority.

Unpredictability measures ordered by locations where they are applied.

In our data collection, we also examined whether unpredictability measures are evaluated. According to our data, measures were usually not systematically evaluated, which is why we do not report them in Table 4 . However, one measure (assignment to security lanes) was evaluated in terms of its operational efficiency, and another measure (patrol activity) in terms of the variation of the measure carried out by employees.

3.3. Finding 4: Unpredictability's contribution to mitigate insider threats

As shown in Table 4 , several unpredictability measures target groups that have insider knowledge (airport staff, crew members, and suppliers). To examine this aspect in more detail, we analyzed our data specifically regarding insider threats based on our coding scheme. This resulted in the following potentials:

Reduced insider knowledge. Compared to outsiders, the experts mentioned in the interviews that insiders have the advantage of being part of the security system and therefore have important knowledge on how the security system operates. This is a risk, in particular, if security processes and procedures are standardized and predictable. By varying security procedures and processes using unpredictability, a non-transparency of the system is intended in which the value of insider knowledge is reduced. Moreover, unpredictable and varying security procedures and processes make it difficult to plan and execute an attack.

Reduced insider impact. The experts pointed out that unpredictability has the power to reduce individual impact on the security control process due to randomization. For example, algorithms that control the random allocation of passengers and bags to a screening operator (e.g., multiplexing in combination with remote screening; [ 48 , 49 ]), serve as a preventive structure of the system because it neither allows influence on the controlled passenger and bag nor takes advantage of it.

Increased deterrence. According to the experts, randomization has the additional benefit of deterring insiders. When security procedures and processes are randomized, the probability of success of an act of unlawful interference is reduced and could therefore discourage insider actions.

Increased flexibility. The interviews have shown that unpredictability has the potential to require greater adaptability and flexibility from airport staff in performance of their duties which might reduce monotony and boredom at work. When procedures, processes, and team constellations vary, employees potentially experience variety and are challenged.

Increased security awareness. The interviewed experts stated that unpredictability helps to raise and maintain security awareness among employees and enables them to remain observant. Conducting unpredictability measures, as described in Table 4 , could increase and maintain awareness of the existence of insider threats among employees, and therefore, security controls targeting employees are necessary and are being conducted. Due to increased awareness regarding insider threats, employees would also observe each other more closely and possibly discover unusual actions.

3.4. Finding 5: Perspectives on the application of unpredictability

Overall, three perspectives of how unpredictability can be integrated into an existing security system were identified inductively from the interview data.

Unpredictability as a variant of regular security measures (1) . In this perspective, unpredictability measures are not seen as self-contained or autonomous. Unpredictability, respectively the application of randomness, is only a method of applying and varying an existing security measure. For example, control areas are provided and randomness is integrated in the process of checks (sequence, time, and frequency). This application of unpredictability is reasonable where no seamless control is possible (e.g., patrol activity; see Table 4 ).

Unpredictability in addition to regular security measures (2) . Unpredictability is most often described as an additional measure to the regular security measures. In this perspective, unpredictability primarily serves to close security gaps by simply running on top of conventional measures. Unpredictability is seen as an ideal complement to a “predictable” security control process. Wherever regulatory provisions are not enough, unpredictability can close security gaps by simply adding an additional measure (e.g., security controls airside, see Table 4 ).

Unpredictability as a substitute of regular security measures (3) . A third perspective on unpredictability is currently not being applied but could be promising in the future (after proof of concept). In the interests of economic efficiency, unpredictability should also replace previous conventional measures by occasional, targeted unpredictability measures (e.g., quota-based checks on goods; see Table 4 ). Furthermore, from this perspective, the application of unpredictability could be risk-based.

4. Discussion

In the past, aviation security regulations and measures have mostly been reactive responses to terrorist attacks. In the last decade, a more proactive approach based on unpredictability has gained attention [ 6 , 7 , 22 ]. It involves varying security measures to increase their deterrent effect and their efficiency. In our study, we investigated why and how unpredictability is implemented at airports. In the following sections, we first discuss our findings. We then address limitations and further research before we finish with the conclusion.

4.1. Discussion of findings

Finding 1: The identified reasons for practicing unpredictable measures can be broken down to three main foci: Security system focused, opponent focused, and human factors focused reasons. The security system focus was most often mentioned. From this perspective, unpredictability is applied because it is mandated by (inter)national regulations and/or is seen as a proactive approach that is an extremely useful complement to baseline security measures. International [ 11 ], European (e.g., Refs. [ 27 , 50 ]), and several national regulations already mandate some measures (e.g., the random application of ETDs; [ 27 ]) or recommend to further apply unpredictability (e.g., Ref. [ 11 ]). Security experts consider unpredictability as a reasonable way to address specific vulnerabilities of the security system (i.e., close security gaps) by varying them. From the second perspective, unpredictability is applied to defeat opponents of the security system by increasing deterrence, creating confusion, and impairing planning and collaboration of persons with malicious intents. This perspective matches well with previous publications on the benefits of unpredictability [ 7 , 22 ]. Interestingly, we also found that unpredictability is applied to improve human factor aspects of the security system. Unpredictable variation of security controls is seen as a possibility to train the staff in executing security controls (or rarely applied security measures). Moreover, applying unpredictability is also regarded as being useful for increasing and maintaining security awareness in practice. As security awareness is learned through practical experience [ 51 ], an unexpected rigorous application of measures could transmit that something could happen any time.

Considering the multi-layered approach to security [ 24 ] in which every security measure works as a barrier to prevent acts of unlawful interference, the security aware human operator, who applies security measures in a less predictable way while at the same time being mindful toward unusual behavior of passengers and employees, could function as an additional human barrier (i.e., a security layer; [ 52 ]) and further strengthen security (by enhancing security decisions; [ 21 ]). From our perspective (and following Ref. [ 7 ]), the security culture at airports seems crucial when applying unpredictability. Airport staff should be trained and encouraged to report relevant security observations (e.g., Refs. [ 7 , 25 ]; for example, within an anonymous staff reporting system; [ 8 ]) and to apply unpredictability on their own within their restrictions.

Finding 2: Unpredictability is applied through different security measures, which vary in terms of form of implementation and location. Measures are applied land- and airside, focusing on the security checkpoint. The landside area is seen as vulnerable [ 53 ], especially since the attacks at Brussels Airport in 2016, where suicide bombers detonated their bombs in the departure hall area. Immediate reactions followed, and landside security measures were intensified; however, the bigger and more expensive area to protect is airport security [ 54 ]. In that case, unpredictability could be useful because limited resources could be distributed in a more effective way by varying security presence. For example, patrolling explosive detection dogs in combination with camera surveillance can be used to identify a person that reacts in an unusual manner to the unexpected presence of such patrols (compared to other people).

Looking at the overall application of unpredictability, it is notable that mostly defined algorithms are used to achieve a randomization for security controls of a target group (e.g., ETD-checks). This is regarded reasonable since humans are rather weak at generating randomness manually [ 55 ] and fall easily into predictable patterns [ 56 ]. In some cases, the execution of measures is, however, not structured nor planned but rather a side effect of operations (e.g., switch of workplaces). Which is why it is not surprising that unpredictability measures were not evaluated in terms of their effectiveness. It is therefore quite difficult to build up practical knowledge on how a measure should be applied (i.e., varied) to achieve the best effect under prevailing conditions without systematic evaluation. However, it must be considered that there is still limited knowledge about the concept of unpredictability, which makes it difficult to assess.

Finding 3: An unpredictable security measure typically includes a variable that is varied and/or randomized. Among the collected unpredictability measures, this variable was most often the time of control. The variation of the time when a control takes place is probably the easiest form of implementing unpredictability within a security system. It allows the entity to take into consideration the regular operational processes at the airport such as flight schedules, staff resources, and other daily business. Therefore, an entity can identify several possible time slots during business hours and (randomly) deploy the unpredictable measures, for example, quality checks. As long as the planning cycle for the deployment is changed from time to time and does not follow an easy-to-observe logic, this remains an adequate way to sustain an amount of unpredictability. Results showed that also the location and type of security control can be varied. Depending on the characteristics of the airport (e.g., layout and infrastructure; [ 57 ]) different types of implementations are possible. Specifically, smaller airports tend to be restricted in terms of adequate locations. For example, the assignment of passengers to different security lanes is not extremely effective if there is only a small number of lanes. Nevertheless, some measures can also be varied regarding location at smaller airports, for example, badge checking. The variation of the type of security controls also depends on infrastructure as well as on available resources (e.g., availability of explosive detection dogs). A remarkably interesting approach in implementing unpredictability is the variation of the controlling authorities (as it is done in quality checks; see Table 4 ), for example, by involving the local police or the appropriate national authority as an additional control entity. In our view, it is a promising approach as it contains not only the (observable) change in the authority but also more sublime aspects of unpredictability. In other words, two authorities will conduct the same measure to some extent in a different way due to organizational culture, training [ 58 ], and so forth. On the other hand, as pointed out by one of the reviewers, mixing multiple authorities in the same duties could create confusion and conflict that would burden the security efficiency and effectiveness.

Furthermore, the implementation should also consider an optimal balance between overt and covert applications as well as a good frequency of deployment. Extremely frequent deployment could lead to a habituation effect that could have a negative impact on deterrence and again make it more predictable, whereas an extremely infrequent use could lead to the measure not being present enough to be effective. Further, the implementation of overt and covert applications seems crucial, as many covert measures could decrease their deterrent effect (i.e., security seems not to be present), whereas many overt measures could also have an impact on perceived security of passengers (i.e., passengers do not feel safe when visible security guards are everywhere at the airport), and therefore affect the passenger experience negatively. Further, it must be noted that covert application of measures (e.g., switching of workplaces; see Table 4 ) lacks the possibility to evaluate them in terms of their deterrent effect because the measures are simply not visible to the target group. There are, however, mitigating factors for insider threats as discussed in the subsequent section.

Finding 4: Unpredictable measures with focus on airport and security employees can contribute to mitigating a potential insider threat. Results showed that different security measures already relate to unpredictability by variation and unpredictable changes, for example, of their workplace station. Specifically, for small size airports, where work schedules are more predictable than at larger airports, a switch of workplace appears to be an interesting approach. When looking at both types of insider threats, it seems that most unpredictability measures affect both the malicious and non-malicious insider. The implementation of unpredictability measures also supports a system of non-transparency [ 7 ], consequently, making it more difficult to build up knowledge because patterns of operations and processes are missing due to variation. Furthermore, unpredictability could cause lack of predictive capabilities (e.g., when planning to conduct an attack) when the opponent is aware of the variation and thereby deterred.

However, findings suggest that unpredictability also contributes to increasing and maintaining security awareness among airport employees and potentially creates a positive impact on the security culture: A security culture in which everyone is attentive and vigilant concerning possible threats is more sensitive toward blind spots. Hence, the concept of unpredictability could be considered in relation to programs for preventing insider threats [ 31 ].

Finding 5: We found three different perspectives on how unpredictability measures could be implemented into existing security concepts: regular security measures could be varied (1), added with unpredictability measures (2), or replaced by such measures (3). While a simple variation of a regular measure does not require any additional human resources, these are required for additional security measures. Both perspectives, however, promise a potential increase in security when applied in a targeted manner. From an economic point of view, the third perspective is promising as human resources would be reduced, throughput increased, and the passenger experience could be impacted positively when a substantial number of passengers can be categorized as low risk. However, this could also result in reduced security perception of passengers [ 30 ] when not communicating appropriately. Furthermore, security could be compromised by a reduced density of controls, which is why this option has not yet been applied. Our findings show that, currently, most unpredictability measures are regarded as variant or as an addition to existing security measures. Unpredictability is presently not replacing regular security measures; however, this approach could become relevant in the future. If it is possible that high-risk groups can be identified and differentiated more validly from low-risk groups (for more information about risk-based screening see, e.g., Ref. [ 4 ]), unpredictability could become interesting when randomly checking passengers of the low-risk group to ensure a level of deterrence (see also the TSA's PreCheck program; [ 59 ]). However, it becomes apparent that an evaluation is necessary to draw further suggestions for practice.

4.2. Limitations and further research

A limitation of the present study is the rather small number of included experts. Although efforts have been made to involve as many experts as possible, it was difficult to reach the confidential exchange that we aimed for. One explanation is the topic itself, which is still regarded as security sensitive. As we used the network of our institutions to overcome this issue, we must consider that this approach could have also influenced our sample in terms of perspectives on the topic. Another explanation for the low number of experts willing to participate in the study might be that unpredictability measures are not (yet) the focus for most airports, and therefore the contribution of experts is aimed primarily at minimal compliance. Further, in regard to the topic of insider threats, the interviews showed that most experts are aware of it but perceive the topic as inconvenient because of the trust relationship between employer and employees.

With our sample of airports (one large and four small airports) we could not systematically investigate whether the importance of unpredictability depends on airport size. For example, one could argue that the security pattern in small airports is more predictable at some time and therefore, efforts to increase unpredictability could be more important at small airports. On the other hand, one could argue that the risk of insider threats is lower at small airports due to fewer security officers who know each other better than at large airports and therefore unpredictability measures targeting insider threats are less important for small airports. It would be interesting and valuable to continue and extend our research by systematically investigating which unpredictability measures are how important for small versus large airports.

As stated, our goal was to understand why and how unpredictability measures are applied. We did not aim for a comprehensive list of all applied applications. Instead, we tried to get detailed, rich information per respective measure for as many measures as possible. In other words, we prioritized quality before quantity which in consequence evokes the need for reflection in terms of resulted unpredictability measures. As we had limited time for the interviews with our experts, we chose to collect all applied measures in a first step before discussing some of them in more detail. In this phase, the role of the researcher was to navigate through the collected measures which of course influenced the final list in one way or another. During the data collection phase, the whole research team met regularly to reflect on collected material and to refine our approach. We agreed to manage a balance between gaining as much novel information (regarding measures) as possible and considering the experts’ view on the topic. For future research in this area, we recommend scheduling enough time to find, contact, and explain the study to potential interviewees. Researchers should also take into account that building trust between interviewer and expert on site takes time, especially when it comes to sensitive security information, which is why we would suggest, whenever possible, to start rather informally than begin immediately with the interview.

Furthermore, this study has shown that unpredictability measures are often not systematically evaluated regarding security effectiveness, operational efficiency, passenger experience, and deterrence. Further research could focus on the investigation of the deterrent effect of unpredictability measures, which in turn could help to improve a systematic evaluation of key performance indicators such as security effectiveness.

4.3. Conclusion

Unpredictability is an interesting approach in the field of airport security due to its potential for increasing effectiveness and efficiency of security controls. Although regulatory and practical efforts have been made to implement unpredictability in security systems at airports, no previous study has examined why and how unpredictability is implemented at airports. Our study addressed this research gap, and we have found that there are various reasons for applying unpredictability: Reasons which concentrate on complementing the security system, defeating the opponent, or on improving human factor aspects of the security system. When looking at the realization of unpredictability measures, various locations (where), controlling authorities (who) and forms of application (how) are already varied at airports, which opens a wide range of possibilities for future applications. Depending on several factors such as layout, infrastructure, or available (human) resources at a specific airport, different forms of application are conceivable. Results also show that unpredictability measures are used to address insider threats. The variation of a measure helps, for example, to reduce insider knowledge by increasing the non-transparency of the system and potentially increases their deterrent effect on insiders as well as outsiders. The implementation of unpredictability into existing security concepts is conceivable in a variety of ways: regular security measures could simply be varied (1), unpredictability measures could be added (2), or regular security measures could be replaced by unpredictability ones (3). From our perspective, an extended application, as suggested when replacing regular security measures, should include risk-based factors to differentiate high-risk from low-risk groups and maintain a high level of security. Future research should also focus on the evaluation of the deterrent effect of unpredictability to further give suggestions on how unpredictable measures should be realized to proactively defeat upcoming risks.

Author contribution statement

Melina Zeballos: Conceived and designed the study; Performed the study; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.

Carla Sophie Fumagalli: Performed the study; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.

Signe Maria Ghelfi: Conceived and designed the study; Performed the study; Contributed materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Adrian Schwaninger: Conceived and designed the study; Contributed materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement

This work was supported by Federal Office of Civil Aviation [BAZL/2016-138].

Data availability statement

Declaration of interest’s statement.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix. Guideline for semi-structured interviews with experts

A systematic review of passenger profiling in airport security system: Taking a potential case study of CAPPS II

• Published: 05 July 2023
• Volume 16 , article number  8 , ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Ajay Sudharshan Satish 1 ,
• Akul Mangal 1 &
• Prathamesh Churi 1  

468 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Despite having a lengthy screening process, the efficacy of airport security is a moot point, primarily due to the fact that there is a massive workload on the screeners. Passenger profiling will reduce the load on the screeners, hence improving security, while also reducing wait times for passengers. In order to summarize the overall process involved in the passenger profiling system, a systematic literature review of 85 sources has been conducted. The paper primarily focuses upon four research objectives, namely: Describing the models that can be utilized to develop a passenger's risk profile in airport security; Examining the strategies using which profiling can be utilized effectively; Pointing out potential challenges while also highlighting potential privacy concerns that may arise while using passenger profiling systems. In the end, the paper has a detailed case study of CAPPS II (Computer-Assisted Passenger Pre-screening Technology II), a real-life model, and an analysis of the factors that lead to its termination.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Design of airport security screening using queueing theory augmented with particle swarm optimisation

Mohamad Naji, Ali Braytee, … Paul J. Kennedy

IT Framework and User Requirement Analysis for Smart Airports

Tracking police responses to “hot” vehicle alerts: automatic number plate recognition and the cambridge crime harm index.

Baljeet Sidhu, Geoffrey C. Barnes & Lawrence W. Sherman

Data availability

Not applicable.

About FLYSEC - FLYSEC (2018) https://www.fly-sec.eu/about.html . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Act on the Protection of Personal Information, Japan (2020) https://www.ppc.go.jp/files/pdf/APPI_english.pdf . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Air Traffic Expansion is the biggest challenge facing airports (2017) ADB SAFEGATE Blog. https://blog.adbsafegate.com/air-traffic-expansion-is-biggest-challenge-facing-airports/ . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Airport | History, Design, Layout, & Facts (1998, October 9). Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/technology/airport/Airport-security . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Airports must do more to increase operating capacity - De Juniac | Airlines (2018) IATA. https://airlines.iata.org/news/airports-must-do-more-to-increase-operating-capacity-de-juniac . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

American Civil Liberties Union (2003a) The Five Problems with CAPPS II. https://www.aclu.org/other/five-problems-capps-ii . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

American Civil Liberties Union (2003b) ACLU, Conservatives, Civil Rights Groups Agree: CAPPS II Raises. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-conservatives-civil-rights-groups-agree-capps-ii-raises-serious-privacy-and . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Barnett A (2004) CAPPS II: The Foundation of Aviation Security? Risk Anal 24(4):909–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00489.x

Article   Google Scholar  

BBC News (2010). Would-be suicide bombers jailed for life. https://www.bbc.com/news/10600084 . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Blast Mitigation Strategies for Non-Secure Areas at Airports (2018) PARAS Program for Applied Research in Airport Security, Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration. https://www.sskies.org/images/uploads/subpage/PARAS_0014.BlastMitigationStrategies.FinalGuidebook.pdf . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Bradley K, Rafter R, Smyth B (2000) Case-Based User Profiling for Content Personalization. Lecture Notes Comput Sci 62–72 https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44595-1_7

California Consumer Privacy Act, 1.81.5 CA § 1798 (2018) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=3.&part=4.&lawCode=CIV&title=1.81.5

Caulkins JP (2004) CAPPS II: A Risky Choice Concerning an Untested Risk Detection Technology. Risk Anal 24(4):921–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00491.x

Cavusoglu H, Kwark Y, Mai B, Raghunathan S (2013) Passenger profiling and screening for aviation security in the presence of strategic attackers. Decis Anal 10(1):63–81. https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.1120.0258

Chakrabarti S, Strauss A (2002) Carnival booth: an algorithm for defeating the computer-assisted passenger screening system. First Monday 7(10) https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i10.992

Charu A (2003) Flying while brown: federal civil rights remedies to post-9/11 airline racial profiling of South Asians. Asian Am Law J 10(2):215 https://doi.org/10.15779/z381z9q

Chen W, Huang Y, Yang H, Li J, Lu X (2021) A passenger risk assessment method based on 5G-IoT. EURASIP J Wireless Commun Network 2021(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13638-020-01886-z

Cole M (2014) Towards proactive airport security management: Supporting decision making through systematic threat scenario assessment. J Air Transp Manag 35:12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2013.11.002

Colorado Privacy Act, CO, SB190 (2021) https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2021a_190_signed.pdf . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Connecticut Data Privacy Act, CT, § 22–15 (2022) https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/ACT/PA/PDF/2022PA-00015-R00SB-00006-PA.PDF . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Consumer Data Privacy Act, PA, HB2202 (2021a) https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billInfo/billInfo.cfm?sYear=2021a&sInd=0&body=h&type=b&bn=2202 . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Consumer Data Protection Act, PA, HB2257 (2022) https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2021s&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=2257 . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Consumer Data protection Act, VA § 59.1–575 (2021) https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title59.1/chapter53/ . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Consumer Privacy Act, UT, SB227 (2022) https://le.utah.gov/~2022/bills/static/SB0227.html . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Consumer Privacy Protection Act, Canada (2022) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-27 . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Cooper S (2012) Aviation security: biometric technology and risk based security aviation passenger screening program. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California

Data Protection Act, United Kingdom (2018) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/contents . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

DeGrave M J (2004) Airline passenger profiling and the fourth amendment: will CAPPS II be cleared for takeoff. BUJ Sci & Tech L 10:125

Department of Homeland Security (2008) Privacy impact assessment for the screening of passengers by observation Techniques (SPOT) Program. In dhs.gov. Link:  https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_tsa_spot.pdf . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

DHS (2016) Budget-in-brief fiscal year 2016. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC

Google Scholar  

Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, Republic of India (2022) https://www.meity.gov.in/content/digital-personal-data-protection-bill-2022 . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Ergün N, Açıkel BY, Turhan U (2017) The appropriateness of today’s airport security measures in safeguarding airline passengers. Secur J 30(1):89–105. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2014.41

Fiala IJ (2003) Anything new? The racial profiling of terrorists. Crim Justice Stud 16(1):53–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/08884310309610

Fishel JPT (2015) EXCLUSIVE: Undercover DHS Tests Find Security Failures at US Airports. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881 . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Fletcher C (2011) Aviation security: a case for risk-based passenger screening. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California

Ford J, Faghri A, Yuan D, Gayen S (2020) An Economic Study of the US Post-9/11 Aviation Security. Open J Bus Manag 08(05):1923–1945. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2020.85118

General Data Protection Regulation, Official Journal of the European Union (2018) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679  Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Hasisi B, Margalioth Y, Orgad L (2012) Ethnic profiling in airport screening: lessons from Israel, 1968–2010. Am Law Econ Rev 14(2):517–560. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahs009

How 9/11 changed air travel: more security, less privacy (2021) AP NEWS. https://apnews.com/article/how-sept-11-changed-flying-1ce4dc4282fb47a34c0b61ae09a024f4 . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

IATA (2018) 20-year passenger forecast | Airlines. https://www.airlines.iata.org/data/20-year-passenger-forecast . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

IATA (2021) Optimism for travel restart as borders reopen | Airlines. https://www.airlines.iata.org/news/optimism-for-travel-restart-as-borders-reopen . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

IATA (2022) Air passenger numbers to recover in 2024 [Press release]. https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2022-releases/2022-03-01-01/

International Civil Aviation Orgainzation (2014) Cabin crew safety training manual. Link: http://www.aviationchief.com/uploads/9/2/0/9/92098238/icao_doc_10002_-_cabin_crew_safety_training_manual_1.pdf . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Janssen S, Sharpanskykh A, Curran R (2019) AbSRiM: an agent-based security risk management approach for airport operations. Risk Anal 39(7):1582–1596. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13278

Jones (2003). Travel industry and privacy groups object to a U.S. Screening Plan for Airline Passengers. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/06/business/travel-industry-privacy-groups-object-us-screening-plan-for-airline-passengers.html . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Knol A, Sharpanskykh A, Janssen S (2019) Analyzing airport security checkpoint performance using cognitive agent models. J Air Transp Manag 75:39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.11.003

Kyriazanos DM, Segou OE, Zalonis A, Thomopoulos SCA (2016) FlySec: a risk-based airport security management system based on security as a service concept. Signal Processing, Sensor/Information Fusion, and Target Recognition XXV.  https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2224031

Lazar Babu VL, Batta R, Lin L (2006) Passenger grouping under constant threat probability in an airport security system. Eur J Oper Res 168(2):633–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.06.007

Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais, Federative Republic of Brazil (2018) [Translation taken from https://iapp.org/resources/article/brazilian-data-protection-law-lgpd-english-translation/ ]. Accessed 18 Nov 2022

McLay LA, Jacobson SH, Kobza JE (2006) A multilevel passenger screening problem for aviation security. Nav Res Logist 53(3):183–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.20131

McLay LA, Jacobson SH, Nikolaev AG (2009) A sequential stochastic passenger screening problem for aviation security. IIE Trans 41(6):575–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170802510416

Michalski Marcin Jurgilewicz, Kubiak Mariusz, Grądzka Anna (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. J Secur Sustain Issues 9(4) https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2020.9.4(2)

Milestones in International Civil Aviation (2014) https://www.icao.int/about-icao/History/Pages/Milestones-in-International-Civil-Aviation.aspx . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Ministry of Civil Aviation, India (2018) Digi Yatra. Reimagining Air Travel in India,. https://www.civilaviation.gov.in/sites/default/files/Digi%20Yatra%20Policy%2009%20Aug%2018.pdf . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

New Federal Act on Data Protection, the Swiss Confederation (2022) fedlex.admin.ch/eli/oc/2022/491/de [Translated using Google Translate]

New Jersey Disclosure and Accountability Transparency Act, NJ, A505 (2022) https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bill-search/2022/A505 . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Nicas J (2015) Homeland Security Chief Orders Changes at TSA After Failed Tests. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/homeland-security-chief-orders-changes-at-tsa-after-failed-tests-1433217024?mod=article_inline . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Nie X, Batta R, Drury CG, Lin L (2009) Passenger grouping with risk levels in an airport security system. Eur J Oper Res 194(2):574–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.12.027

Nikolaev AG, Lee AJ, Jacobson SH (2012) Optimal Aviation Security Screening Strategies With Dynamic Passenger Risk Updates. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 13(1):203–212. https://doi.org/10.1109/tits.2011.2167230

Ohio Personal Privacy Act, OH, HB376 (2021b) https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-documents?id=GA134-HB-376 . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Personal Data Privacy Act, MI, SB1182 (2022) https://legiscan.com/MI/bill/SB1182/2021 . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Personal Data Protection Act, Republic of Singapore (2012) https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PDPA2012?Timeline=Off

Personal Information Privacy Law, People’s Republic of China (2021) [Translation taken from https://digichina.stanford.edu/work/translation-personal-information-protection-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-effective-nov-1-2021/ ]. Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Polls on war on terrorism (2003) Pollingreport. https://web.archive.org/web/20030208051602/https://www.pollingreport.com/terror2.htm . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Poole W (2007) Airport Security: Time for a New Model. In The Economic Costs and Consequences of Terrorism. Edward Elgar Publishing

Poole RW, Passantino G (2003) A risk-based airport security policy (No. Policy Study 308). Reason Public Policy Institute, Los Angeles, CA. https://web.archive.org/web/20180514080116id_/https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/359408528b992e7d0804df1b590dd424.pdf . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Privacy Act, Commonwealth of Australia (1988) https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2022C00321 . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Privacy Act, New Zealand (2020) https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0031/latest/LMS23223.html

Ravich TM (2005) Airline passenger profiling systems after 9/11: personal privacy versus national security. J Transp Res Forum. https://doi.org/10.5399/osu/jtrf.44.2.856

Rochow-Leuschner (2004) CAPPS II and the Fourth Amendment: Does It Fly. J Air Law Commerce 69(1):139

Schiaffino S, Amandi A (2009) Intelligent User Profiling. Artif Intell Int Perspect 193–216 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03226-4_11

Secure Flight: Additional Actions Needed to Determine Program Effectiveness and Strengthen Privacy Oversight Mechanisms (2015) United States Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-796t.pdf

Solove DJ (2002) Digital dossiers and the dissipation of fourth amendment privacy. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.313301

Stewart MG, Mueller J (2011) Cost-benefit analysis of advanced imaging technology full body scanners for airline passenger security screening. J Homeland Secur Emerg Manag 8(1) https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1837

Stewart MG, Mueller J (2015) Responsible policy analysis in aviation security with an evaluation of PreCheck. J Air Transp Manag 48:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2015.06.007

Taipale KK (2003–2004) Data mining and domestic security: connecting the dots to make sense of data. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 5:1–83

Transportation Security Administration (2003a) TSA Selects Lockheed Martin Management and Data Systems to Build TSA Passenger Pre-Screening System [Press release]. https://web.archive.org/web/2003a1023132934/www.tsa.gov/public/display?content=248 . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Transportation Security Administration (2003b) New Notice Outlines Changes to CAPPS II System [Press release]. https://web.archive.org/web/20050520082925/ ; http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?content=634 . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

TSA: TSA Weekly (2009) https://web.archive.org/web/20090923203333/http://www.tsa.gov/weekly/051809.shtm . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

USATODAY.com - Travel - News - Lawmakers question progress in airline security since Sept. 11. (2002) https://web.archive.org/web/20030625161631/http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-07-23-security-hearing.htm . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Wald ML (2001) Long Before Verdict, Lockerbie Changed Airport Security. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/31/world/long-before-verdict-lockerbie-changed-airport-security.html

Wald ML, Schwartz J (2004 19). Expansion Sank Terror Screening Program, Officials Say. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/politics/expansion-sank-terror-screening-program-officials-say.html . Accessed 18 Nov 2022

Zhao S, Li S, Ramos J, Luo Z, Jiang Z, Dey AK, Pan G (2019) User profiling from their use of smartphone applications: A survey. Pervasive Mobile Comput 59:101052 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2019.101052

Zhao Z, Zhao Y, Li X, Li Z (2020) Agent-based modeling and analysis of airport passenger differentiated security strategy. Proceedings of the 12th international conference on computer modeling and simulation. https://doi.org/10.1145/3408066.3408091

Zheng YJ, Sheng WG, Sun XM, Chen SY (2017) Airline Passenger Profiling Based on Fuzzy Deep Machine Learning. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 28(12):2911–2923. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnnls.2016.2609437

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Computer Engineering, Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management & Engineering, NMIMS University, Mumbai, India

Ajay Sudharshan Satish, Akul Mangal & Prathamesh Churi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: Ajay Sudharshan Satish, Akul Mangal, Prathamesh Churi; Methodology: [Ajay Sudharshan Satish, Akul Mangal, Prathamesh Churi; Formal analysis and investigation: Ajay Sudharshan Satish, Akul Mangal; Writing—original draft preparation: Ajay Sudharshan Satish, Akul Mangal; Writing—review and editing: Ajay Sudharshan Satish, Akul Mangal, Prathamesh Churi; Supervision: Prathamesh Churi.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akul Mangal .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Competing interest

The authors of this research study declare that there is NO competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Satish, A.S., Mangal, A. & Churi, P. A systematic review of passenger profiling in airport security system: Taking a potential case study of CAPPS II. J Transp Secur 16 , 8 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12198-023-00260-6

Download citation

Received : 13 January 2023

Accepted : 05 April 2023

Published : 05 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12198-023-00260-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Airport security
• Passenger profiling
• Civil aviation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Research Paper

Airport Security

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the response to those attacks have made aviation and airport security a focal issue for the past several years. On that day, teams of hijackers tied to al Qaeda, a radical Islamic terrorist group, commandeered four domestic flights in the United States, crashing two airplanes into the World Trade Center towers in New York City and one into the Pentagon near Washington, DC. The fourth crashed in a farm field in western Pennsylvania, presumably after passengers had learned of the terrorists’ intentions and attempted to regain control of the aircraft. Nearly 2,000 people lost their lives in the attacks. Immediately following the attacks, the United States government moved swiftly to pass the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (Public Law 107–171). ATSA established the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), giving it direct responsibility for conducting passenger and baggage screening using a workforce of federal security screeners.

I. Responsibility for Airport and Aviation Security

II. Passenger and Baggage Screening

III. Passenger Prescreening and Behavioral Observation

IV. Airport Security

V. In-Flight Security Measures

VI. Options for Protecting Aircraft from Shoulder-Fired Missiles

VII. Air Cargo Security

VIII. General Aviation Security

IX. Conclusion

Responsibility for Airport and Aviation Security

Before 9/11, aviation security policies and practices in the United States had evolved out of an emerging need to address increasingly violent hijacking incidents in the early 1970s. Airlines were given the responsibility for mandatory passenger screening, which they, in turn, delegated to contract security firms. Physical security of the airport property, including perimeter security and access control systems for airport workers, however, was placed in the hands of airport operators. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was responsible for regulating airport and airline security, although it had not issued regulations governing the contract security firms that conducted passenger screening. Such regulations had been proposed a year prior to the 9/11 attacks in response to a statutory mandate issued in 1996 (FAA 2000).

Following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. Congress immediately began examining alternative models for aviation security. Lawmakers expressed considerable concern over low wages and high turnover rates among contract airport screeners. In 1999, the average hourly wage for airport screeners was $5.75, and many screeners did not receive additional benefits. Consequently, at several airports, annual screener attrition exceeded 100 percent (FAA 1999). Policymakers concluded that low pay and inexperience among screeners and lax oversight compromised aviation security. Congress learned that in Canada and in several European countries, both passenger screening and physical security of the airport property were instead the responsibility of airport operators, or in some cases government security forces, and not the airlines. Under these systems, screeners received more training and better pay than contract screeners in the United States, and limited data indicated that they performed better as well (United States General Accounting Office 2001). Under ATSA, the United States established a system under which passenger and baggage screening became the responsibility of the newly formed federal TSA, while airport physical security remained in the hands of the airport authorities. The TSA took over responsibility for regulating all aspects of airport and airline security from the FAA and was given broad authority to implement security measures to detect, prevent, and mitigate threats to aviation.

Passenger and Baggage Screening

Beginning in the early 1970s, the United States and other countries began deploying walk-through metal detectors (WTMDs) and carry-on baggage X-ray systems for preboarding screening. These technologies have served as the primary means for screening passengers for more than 30 years. By the mid-1980s, X-ray screening was also being used on a limited basis to screen checked baggage, usually on international flights, as a means to supplement procedures, known as positive passenger bag matching (PPBM), designed to ensure that passengers boarded with their baggage. By the late 1990s, the FAA had deployed about 100 explosives detection system (EDS) machines to screen high-risk baggage on a small number of international flights, but most checked bags were not physically screened (National Research Council 1999).

Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States mandated that all checked baggage undergo explosives detection screening using either EDS machines, which rely on the same principles at computed tomography (CT) scanners widely used in the medical field; explosives trace detection (ETD) systems, which utilize chemical analysis techniques to detect trace amounts of explosives residue or vapors; or other approved methods (see 49 U.S. Code, Sec. 44901). Efforts remain underway to integrate bulky EDS machines into airport baggage handling systems to improve the efficiency of screening the large amount of checked baggage processed at U.S. airports.

While these actions are addressing the threat of explosives placed in checked baggage, there has been growing concern over explosives carried into the aircraft cabin by passengers or in carry-on items. The 9/11 Commission (2004) formally recommended that the TSA give priority attention to implementing technology and procedures for screening passengers for explosives, and provisions to improve checkpoint technologies to detect explosives were included in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–458). In response, the TSA initially pilot tested walkthrough trace detection portals, or puffer machines, and implemented procedures for conducting pat-down searches of passengers for explosives. Full deployment of the trace detection portals, for use in secondary screening of selected passengers, had been part of the TSA’s original strategy for screening passengers for explosives. The machines, however, suffered from reliability issues blamed largely on dirt and humidity in the airport environment (Fiorino, Compart, and Wall 2010).

The TSA has since changed its strategy, focusing instead on whole-body imaging (WBI) technologies, also referred to as advanced imaging technology or AIT, that utilize either X-ray backscatter or millimeter wave imaging techniques to screen passengers and detect threat items concealed underneath clothing. The TSA has implemented procedures, including remote monitoring and privacy filters, to protect passenger identity and dignity and to prevent the storage of passenger images. Privacy advocates have nonetheless raised objections about the use of these screening devices, particularly as a primary screening method (Sparapani 2006).

The TSA is also investing in advanced technology (AT) X-ray equipment, capable of providing multiple view angles and automated threat detection capabilities to improve the screening of carry-on items, and handheld bottled liquids scanners to screen for liquid explosives. The need for bottled liquid screening capabilities emerged following a foiled plot to bomb airliners departing the United Kingdom for North American airports using homemade liquid explosives concealed in soft drink bottles that was uncovered in August 2006. Artful concealment of explosives and other threats carried by passengers remains a key concern. The December 25, 2009, attempted bombing of an international airline flight on approach to Detroit, using an explosive device concealed in the suspect’s underwear, reinvigorated debate over policies and strategies for detecting explosives on passengers and in carry-on items. In response, the TSA has pushed for accelerated deployment of WBI systems and other checkpoint screening technologies (Karp 2010).

The cost of passenger and baggage screening and screening technologies, which totaled about $4.5 billion in fiscal year 2010, is paid in part by security fees charged to airlines and airline passengers and in part by general tax dollars collected by the federal government.

Passenger Prescreening and Behavioral Observation

Aviation security measures also rely on intelligence information to prevent suspected terrorists from boarding aircraft or to subject persons that may pose a security threat to additional screening. Prior to the 9/11 attacks, the FAA maintained a small “no-fl y” list of known terrorists. Airlines were to deny boarding to any individuals on this list, however none of the 9/11 hijackers were on the list which, at the time, contained only 12 names (9/11 Commission 2004). After 9/11, the list was greatly expanded, and as of 2008 was reported to consist of about 2,500 names (TSA 2008a). The no-fl y list is a subset of a larger terrorist screening database (TSDB), a list of about 400,000 individuals maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), a unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The TSDB is comprised of names of suspected and known terrorist compiled from domestic law enforcement databases and information on international terrorists compiled within the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE). The TIDE is a repository of foreign intelligence information on suspected terrorist operatives maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).

The TSA’s Office of Intelligence continually updates the no-fl y list by reviewing derogatory information contained in the TSDB to pinpoint those individuals believed to pose a specific threat to aviation. It also maintains a second larger list, known as the automatic selectee list, of individuals with possible ties to terrorism who are required to undergo additional checkpoint screening. In the past, the no-fl y and automatic selectee lists were provided to the airlines, which were responsible for checking passenger names against these lists. However, the TSA has now implemented a system called Secure Flight, under which airlines provide passenger data, including items such as address and date of birth, to the TSA, which checks this information against the lists and notifies the airlines electronically of a match.

Additionally, airlines continue to utilize the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening (CAPPS) system, developed by the FAA in the 1990s, to evaluate passenger records for potentially suspicious characteristics, such as buying a one-way ticket using cash. Passengers determined to be of elevated risk based on the analysis performed by CAPPS may also be selected for secondary screening measures.

The TSA also deploys Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs) to observe passengers for possible indicators of hostile intent as part of a program known as Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT). While the TSA has implemented SPOT at most major airports, government auditors found that the program has not been validated (United States Government Accountability Office 2010), and behavioral scientists have raised questions over the merits of the program (Weinberger 2010).

Whereas the TSA is responsible for prescreening and screening airline passengers, airport operators, with the assistance of state and local law enforcement, are responsible for the physical security of airport property including perimeter security and surveillance measures, access controls, and law enforcement support. Although the TSA (2006a) has published guidelines for integrating security elements in the design of airport terminals and facilities, no formal standards exist and solutions are tailored to the needs of specific airports. Since 9/11 many airports have invested in security technologies to enhance surveillance capabilities and improve perimeter protection. Airport security systems may include closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras, infrared sensors and thermal imaging cameras, computer vision systems to detect and alert security personnel regarding possible threats, ground surveillance radar, ground vehicle tracking, and integrated security solutions to tie together assorted sensors and surveillance technologies.

Airport operators also have the responsibility for coordinating law enforcement presence and support to intervene in security incidents as necessary and typically do so through formal arrangements with local or state law enforcement agencies. The TSA has entered into agreements at many airports to partially reimburse these law enforcement agencies for providing federally mandated coverage and law enforcement assistance to checkpoint screeners.

Airport operators are also responsible for implementing access control measures and issuing access credentials to airport workers. Airport workers must pass TSA criminal history records checks (CHRCs) and terrorist threat assessments before gaining unescorted access to secured areas. There has been considerable interest in implementing biometric credentials for airport access controls. While various biometric credentialing systems are being considered and evaluated for authenticating the identities of armed law enforcement officers, airline crews, and airport workers, uniform standards for biometric aviation security credentials have not been established and the use of biometrics in airport security is still relatively limited.

In-Flight Security Measures

ATSA included language requiring the installation and use of reinforced cockpit doors on passenger airliners. Other in-flight security measures used in some cases or under consideration include secondary flight deck barriers, video monitoring of the airline cabin from the cockpit, wireless devices for communication between pilots and flight attendants, and uninterruptable transponders that continuously report aircraft position and cannot be disabled by hijackers. Basic self defense training is provided by the airlines and the TSA offers voluntary advanced self defense training programs for pilots and flight attendants.

Since 9/11, the United States has deployed thousands of armed federal air marshals. Although the total number in the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) is classified, air marshals typically work undercover in teams and, by law, are required to be on every flight considered high risk (49 U.S. Code, Sec. 44917). Prior to the 9/11 attacks, the number of air marshals had been reduced to 33 and deployments were limited to a small number of international flights (9/11 Commission, 2004). While FAMS expanded significantly following 9/11 and had an annual budget of almost $900 million in 2010, some media reports have raised concerns that FAMS cover only a very small percentage of daily flights (Griffin, Johnston, and Schwarzchild 2008).

In addition to deploying FAMS, considerable policy debate following the 9/11 attacks centered on whether allowing pilots to receive special training and authorization to carry firearms in the cockpit could serve to deter and prevent aircraft hijackings. Despite concerns raised by some aviation safety experts over the introduction of firearms in the cockpit, in 2002 the United States enacted legislation creating the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program. Under the program, volunteer airline pilots that pass background checks receive firearms training and are issued a handgun to be used only on flights to protect the cockpit from hijackings and other threats. While the program has trained about 10,000 pilots through 2009 at an annual cost of about $25 million, pilot groups have complained that the remote location of the training site and other procedural requirements of the program have discouraged additional pilots from participating.

Options for Protecting Aircraft from Shoulder-Fired Missiles

On November 28, 2002, terrorists launched two shoulder-fired missiles at an Israeli charter jet departing Mombasa, Kenya. Following the incident, the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated a program examining the feasibility of adapting missile protection systems deployed on some military aircraft for use on passenger jets. While the program resulted in the certification of two aircraft-based systems that can redirect a heat-seeking missile by focusing a laser on the missile’s tracking system, these countermeasures have not been mandated and airlines have not voluntarily installed them on fleet aircraft. Other concepts for protecting airliners, including ground-based missile countermeasures and anti-missile systems installed on unmanned patrol aircraft deployed in airspace around an airport, have also been studied on a limited basis. The future utilization of these technologies remains uncertain, although there is still some particular interest in equipping airliners contracted to carry military troops into hostile areas with certified anti-missile systems. At present, however, the main deterrents against shoulder-fired missile attacks targeting civilian aircraft are law enforcement patrols and surveillance of likely launch sites around airports.

Shoulder-fired missiles remain a considerable security concern because they are widely proliferated on the black market and have the capability to down airliners flying below about 15,000 feet, making them a potential threat at considerable distances from an airport, sometimes as far away as 30 to 40 miles. With increased security to prevent aircraft bombings and hijackings, some experts fear that terrorists may resort to shoulder-fired missile attacks.

Air Cargo Security

Amid heightened security to screen passengers and baggage, concerns have also been raised over the possibility that terrorists may instead attempt to place explosives in air cargo. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act, Public Law 110–153) requires the physical screening of all cargo placed on passenger aircraft by August 2010. The TSA has addressed this requirement by developing the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP), an approach that relies heavily on shippers, cargo consolidators, and freight forwarders to carry out much of the operational aspects of screening cargo, often at off -airport sites in conjunction with enhanced supply-chain security measures to prevent tampering with cargo after screening has been conducted. While the TSA maintains that this approach meets the requirements of the legislation, some have argued that the TSA should instead play a more direct role in conducting or overseeing screening operations, and that the screening should take place in closer proximity to locations where cargo is loaded on to passenger airplanes. Owing to the size of bulk and palletized cargo shipments, EDS has a more limited role in cargo screening, particularly at airport locations, and solutions are focusing on extensive use of ETD and canine explosives detection teams to efficiently screen air cargo for explosives.

The 9/11 Commission (2004) also recommended deploying at least one hardened, blast-resistant, cargo container on every passenger airliner. The 9/11 Act required the DHS to complete an evaluation of its hardened cargo container pilot program and, based on this evaluation, carry out a risk-based deployment of hardened cargo containers for use on commercial flights. Under this provision, the cost of acquiring, maintaining, and replacing hardened containers would be provided for by the DHS. While the pilot program has been completed, the future direction for operational deployment of hardened cargo containers remains uncertain.

In addition to improving the screening of cargo placed on passenger aircraft, regulations have been issued to improve security for all-cargo operations and protect against unauthorized access to large all-cargo aircraft. Under existing cargo security rules, secured areas of airports have been expanded to include cargo operations areas. Background checks and security threat assessments are required for all workers with access to air cargo, including an estimated 51,000 off -airport employees of freight forwarding companies. Also, under these regulations, an industry-wide database of known shippers was established and is maintained by TSA to allow freight forwarders and airlines to vet cargo shipments, allowing only cargo received from established known shippers to travel on passenger airplanes (TSA 2006b).

General Aviation Security

Although aviation security measures have focused primarily on protecting passenger airliners, some experts have raised concerns that terrorists may try to avoid detection by using nonairline general aviation aircraft to carry out a 9/11 style attack, deliver a nuclear or radiological weapon to its target, or to dispense a chemical or biological agent over a populated area or major outdoor event. Securing general aviation operations continues to be a significant challenge because of the diversity of operations, aircraft, and airports. Measures put in place thus far, such as the Airport Watch program and the TSA’s general aviation security guidelines (TSA 2004), rely heavily on the vigilance of the pilot community to detect and report suspicious activity.

Flight training providers must verify citizenship and confirm that background checks have been properly completed by the TSA before providing training to foreign nationals (see Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1552). Charter pilots operating aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds must pass background checks, and charter operators must implement security programs to protect aircraft from unauthorized access. Passengers flying on very large charter jets must be screened, and charter and private aircraft operators must adhere to special security procedures when operating at commercial passenger airports. All inbound and outbound international flights must send advance passenger and crew manifest information to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) which carries out terrorist watchlist checks and targeted screening of these names.

Security-related airspace restrictions affecting general aviation operators are most prevalent in the Washington, DC, area, where the city is encircled by a 15-mile-radius flight-restricted zone (FRZ) in which general aviation operations are significantly limited, and a larger special flight rules area (SFRA) where pilots must strictly adhere to special air traffic control procedures (Title 49 CFR Part 1562). In August 2005, the TSA implemented a security plan permitting a small number of general aviation flights— mostly large charter and corporate operations—to resume at Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA) which is located at the center of the FRZ. Operations at smaller GA airports located within the FRZ are highly restricted, requiring pilots to undergo background checks and adhere to special airspace security protocols. Since 9/11, flight restrictions have also been put in place at various times over New York City, Chicago, and elsewhere. General aviation pilots have been restricted from flying below 18,000 feet over Disney theme parks and over stadiums during major sporting events, and within 10 miles of a site during a presidential visit.

The TSA remains particularly concerned over the security of large general aviation aircraft. In October 2008, the TSA (2008b) proposed a variety of security measures for operators of all large general aviation aircraft, weighing more than 12,500 pounds, including privately owned, fractionally owned, and corporate aircraft. The measures proposed included CHRCs for all flight crew members, terrorist watch-list checks of all passengers, security inspections of aircraft, and biannual security compliance audits. In addition, operators of all aircraft weighing more than 45,500 kg (roughly 100,000 pounds) would be required to screen passengers and their accessible property. Similar security measures are already required for charter operators. General aviation operators and advocacy groups expressed considerable concern over the burden that would be imposed by these proposals. The TSA has since decided to revise its proposal based on additional input from general aviation interests. This, like many other aspects of aviation and airport security, continues to evolve at a rapid pace in response to changes in threats and vulnerabilities and shifting federal policies and strategies.

Although U.S. policies and strategies regarding aviation security continue to evolve, they have been predicated on a risk-based framework. This risk-based approach relies on expert judgment to evaluate the three core components of security risk: perceived threats, system vulnerabilities, and the potential consequences of various attack scenarios. Based on analyses of these risk factors, policies and strategies continue to evolve to allocate limited resources (including funding, personnel, and technology) in a manner that seeks to minimize security risk across the various sectors of the aviation system. As discussed, these sectors include air cargo operations and general aviation activity in addition to commercial passenger airports and airlines, which remain the primary focus of aviation security policy.

Aviation security relies on a multilayered strategy to protect high-risk components of the air transportation system. For example, commercial airline flights are protected by several layers of security that include passenger prescreening; passenger and baggage screening; and in-flight security measures such as hardened cockpit doors, air marshals, and armed pilots. A multilayered approach is more resilient to potential threats by including complementary security measures which, in combination, significantly reduce the probability that an individual or group could successfully carry out an attack.

Within this risk-based, multilayered framework, aviation security policies and strategies seek to strike a balance between effectively reducing security risk to acceptable levels while minimizing disruptions to air travel and commerce that may arise when various security measures are implemented and while taking appropriate steps to protect the privacy and dignity of the traveling public. Striking an appropriate balance between adequate levels of security and the efficient transportation of passengers and goods through the aviation system remains an ongoing challenge.

Also check the list of 100 most popular argumentative research paper topics .

Bibliography:

• Elias, Bartholomew, Airport and Aviation Security: U.S. Policy and Strategy in the Age of Global Terrorism. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2010.
• FAA, Draft Regulatory Evaluation, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Determination: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Certification of Screening Companies. Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, Operations Regulatory Analysis Branch (APO-310), Rulemaking Docket FAA-1999–6673, April 1999.
• FAA, Certification of Screening Companies (Proposed Rule). Federal Register 65, no. 3 (2000): 560–611.
• Fiorino, Frances, A. Compart, and R. Wall, “Technology vs. Terrorism.” Aviation Week and Space Technology ( January 4, 2010): 24–27.
• Griffi n, Drew, K. Johnston, and T. Schwarzchild, “Sources: Air Marshals Missing From Almost All Flights.” CNN (March 28, 2010).
• Karp, Aaron, “Security in a Post 12/25 World. Air Transport World (April 2010): 32–36.
• National Research Council, Assessment of Technologies Deployed to Improve Aviation Security: First Report. Publication NMAB-482–5. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.
• 9/11 Commission [The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States], The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (authorized edition). New York: Norton, 2004.
• Price, Jeffrey, and J. Forrest, Practical Aviation Security: Predicting and Preventing Future Threats. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2009.
• Sparapani, Timothy D., Statement of Timothy D. Sparapani, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Regarding U.S. Transportation Security Administration’s Physical Screening of Airline Passengers and Related Cargo Screening. Washington, DC, April 4, 2006.
• Sweet, Kathleen, Aviation and Airport Security: Terrorism and Safety Concerns, 2d ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2008.
• TSA, Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports. Information Publication A-001, May 2004.
• TSA, Recommended Security Guidelines for Airport Planning, Design, and Construction. Revised June 15, 2006a.
• TSA, Air Cargo Security Requirements (Final Rule). Federal Register, 71 (2006b): 30477–30517.
• TSA, Myth Buster: TSA’s Watchlist Is More Than One Million People Strong. Washington, DC: Author, 2008a.
• TSA, Large Aircraft Security Program, Other Aircraft Operator Security Program, and Airport Operator Security Program (Proposed Rule). Federal Register 73 (2008b): 64790–64855.
• United States General Accounting Office, Aviation Security: Terrorist Acts Illustrate Severe Weaknesses in Aviation Security. Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Before the Subcommittees on Transportation, Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, September 20, 2001. GAO-01–1166T. Washington, DC: Author, 2001.
• United States Government Accountability Office, Aviation Security: Efforts to Validate TSA’s Passenger Screening Behavior Detection Program Underway, but Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Validation and Address Operational Challenges. GAO-10–763. Washington, DC: Author, 2010. Weinberger, Sharon, “Intent to Deceive?” Nature 465 (2010): 412–415.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Related Posts

Modern Techniques for Enhancing the Safety and Security in Airports

A comprehensive study is conducted to explore the safety and security systems implemented in airports and their advancements in terms of technology. In addition to these observations, a critical approach is followed to recognize the extent of success reached and how much more efficiency and functional perfection achieved in today's world. An insight is given into the existing precaution measures followed in the airports to avoid hazard any time. Many budding technologies are capable of preventing illegal activities, which can forecast natural hazards that can help reducing pollutions caused by airport premises.

RELATED PAPERS

Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology

Mustafa BOĞA

Nuno Brandão

Carles RAMIÓ MATAS

Helena Sacerdote

Zaini Rahman

Johan Kroon

Joachim Krueger

elsa rahmira

Journal of Organometallic Chemistry

JUAN MANUEL VALDES FLORES

Julia Coelho Da Costa

International Journal of Oceanography & Aquaculture

Bezeng Bezeng

Jz-Yuan Juo

Lung Cancer

Salvatore Parisi

Marine Environmental Research

Julian Blasco

Companion of the 17th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications

Sabine Winkler

Omset Grosir Sembako

utii tusongtuju

Indian Journal of Microbiology

Roshan Kumar

Inorganica Chimica Acta

Francesco Nicolò

Verfassung in Recht und Übersee

Abdullah Ahsan

Fitoterapia

International Journal of Infection Control

Yvonne Aldecoa

Western Journal of Emergency Medicine: Integrating Emergency Care with Population Health

Tania Strout

Deana Weibel

GLAUCIA NASCIMENTO QUEIROGA

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

160 Airport Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best airport topic ideas & essay examples, 👍 good essay topics on airport, 📌 interesting topics to write about airport, 📑 good research topics about airport.

• Advantages and Disadvantages of Privatizing Airports In developed countries, the government tries to sell partial or sometimes all interests in existing airports but in developing countries the government tries to have long-term franchises for major expansion and modernization. Airport privatization is […]
• Birmingham International Airport’s Operations The activity’s main output is customer tickets, and the main customers are the passenger who will board the plane. Passport control and document-checking involve traveling passengers as the main customers, and the output of these […] We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• Reasons for Airport Privatisation With that said, it is also necessary to consider the drawbacks of privatisation, such as the potential formation of private monopolies.
• The Berlin Brandenburg International Airport Construction Project During the expansion, the process to form Berlin Brandenburg International Airport involved the German federal government, the airlines, the city mayor, the Brandenburg state, the workers, Berlin citizens, and the passengers.
• Birmingham International Airport’s Operations Management Some of the key functions of operations managers at the airport include coordinating and controlling terminal operations, controlling arrivals and departure of flights, and managing the day-to-day running of the airport as well as the […]
• Airport Planning and Expansion: An Analysis of Factors Affecting Changi Airport Capacity With the Master Plan in place, the objectives of this analysis are: Study the background and development of Changi Airport, Singapore Review the existing facilities offered by the airport Analyze the current runaway utilization and […]
• Project Management: Constructing a New Airport in the UAE The implementation of the project will take place in several stages, including the construction of the airport building and runways, the organization of internal and external management, and the creation of specialized teams in narrow […]
• Literal Analysis of “Frustration at the Airport” In this case, the use of ethos and logos typically aims to promote the understanding of the scenario that the traveler is experiencing.
• Prescriptive Airport Security, Its Pros and Cons It is also important to point out the fact that the current security procedures and protocols are based on a set of assumptions, one of which is that compliance with rules and regulations will allow […]
• Emerging Operational Challenges in Airport Management Using the existing literature in airport management, the paper assesses the challenges and changes that have occurred in the air transport industry. The immediate environment and the population close to the airports are affected by […]
• Architecture: Kansai International Airport Because the residents of Kobe rejected the idea of having an airport built within their city, the investors of the project opted to build Kansai Airport on an artificial or manmade island that was located […]
• Airport Security and Air Travel Safety The study was based on an evaluation of the evolution of airport security with respect to the general safety of this mode of transport.
• Importance of Airport Runway and Taxiway Markings and Landing Aids These markings are positioned on the right side of the centerline and are used to confirm to the pilot the description of the taxiway on which the aircraft is located.
• Airport Security System and Airport Layout The requirement to develop a safety company for items sent by commercial airplane to the airfield is a necessity, and it necessitates a company structure to plan and implement internal risk assessment processes, as well […]
• Airport Security in United Arab Emirates The process of ensuring airport security is made possible by the determination of the items accepted during the journey and the items prohibited during the journey.
• Al Maktoum International Airport Project Management The airport plays a critical role in ensuring that there is the ease of movement of passengers and cargo from Dubai to the rest of the world and vice versa.
• Changi Airport Singapore Development Strategies The management should ensure that the terminal has impeccable terminal arrival areas with directional signs likely to offer quality guideline to the passage.
• Changi Airport Singapore Analysis Critical to quality are the priorities of customers that attribute a product being provided by the supplier. Customers therefore regard security as a critical factor to assessing the quality of the services offered at the […]
• Airports Electronic Gate (E-Gate) The invention and innovation of computer applications has resulted in the development of electronic gate used in airports; the innovative electronic passport control system is used to boost security and facilitate the flow of people […]
• Airport Planning and Management This paper discusses the issues of airport capacity and delay and the related causes. Lack of capacity is a term commonly used to refer to the cause of the airport delay.
• Wildlife Control in and Around Airports The main purpose of the paper is to describe possible ways to protect and control the airport area from wild animals and birds that are potentially dangerous to the safety of passengers and can disrupt […]
• Frankfurt Airport Nightly Closure: Economic Impact The paper is a case study of the Frankfurt airport and the effect of the nightly closure order passed by the courts in Germany that was effect from 21 October 2011.
• Airport Management First, the security of flights should be the greatest value of any airport as it conditions the level of trust, the companys image, and a number of other important factors.
• The Security Systems at the UAE Airports Therefore, airport security in the UAE must manage the latest challenges and threats to passengers, airport infrastructure and assets, and cargo.
• Dubai Airports’ Operational Costs Reduction Therefore, the introduction of a sustainable strategy for managing the current HRM issues is critical to maintaining the firm’s position in the global ranking and creating premises for its successful development. Carrying out financial analysis […]
• Airport Facility Layout: Advantages and Disadvantages The Layout of the Transit Level The major aim of the transit level of the airport is to comfort passengers waiting for their next fly.
• Airports Security Systems’ and Passengers’ Satisfaction All these were aimed at ensuring passenger safety and restoration of confidence in the United States aviation system, and the overall effect of the new regulations was to ensure passenger satisfaction in services provided by […]
• The Internship Experience at an Airport Fire Station The safety of the airport is therefore of great importance. I was familiarized with the operations of the fire station and the equipment used to deal with a fire.
• Queuing Theory at Heathrow Airport The arrival time, service and departure processes, the waiting regulation, the lineup size, and the customers being serviced are the six components that make up a line as it is studied employing queuing theory.
• Strategic Management in the Airport Sector This clearly demonstrates the efficiency of using the space and infrastructure of the airport as a business center. A cluster analysis of commercial airports and a total of eight indicators expressing elements and queries about […]
• Safety Management Methods in Aviation: The Tenerife Airport Disaster For the academic goals of systematic review of literature, the emphasis will be put on preventative solutions to minimize the impact of human factors.
• Non-Acoustic Measures to Handle Community Response to the Noise Around Airports Some of the factors that contribute to ambient noise pollution and its adverse impacts on health are development, economic expansion, and motorized transportation.
• The Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Construction of the airport was funded in part by a $1 million grant from the Civil Aeronautics Administration and a $100,000 grant from the City of Tacoma.
• Safety Procedures Issues at Seattle Tacoma International Airport However, the airport’s systems, particularly in managing airport ways, have not adapted to the growth in traffic. The incidences of the use of airfield ways point to the failure of regulations about the access of […]
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport’s Financial Situation The financial propositions fairly present the net positions of the Organization Investments and the Warehousemen’s Retirement Charitable Trust of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport as of December 31, 2021, and 2020, as well as the adjustments in […]
• Western Sydney Airport and Navi Mumbai International Airport At the same time, airport construction is a complex project requiring effective PM and strategies to ensure the necessary infrastructure elements are created and integrated to align the stable work of various units and facilities.
• Heathrow and Los Angeles Airports’ Improvement The strategic goal of the airport in the medium term is the development of a multimodal transport hub for transfer passenger and cargo transportation on the basis of the airport, integrating air traffic.
• The Living Wage at Auckland Airport The need to curb and reduce the impact of poverty and growing inequality in New Zealand, the government introduced the living wage to enable the citizens to have a supplemental income to cater to their […]
• Airport Security: Technological Requirements There are numerous methods and procedures for ensuring the safety of passengers and airport property when it comes to airport security. The cyber security model is used to determine the security level of an airport, […]
• Government Funding of Airports Therefore, this paper discusses the federal and local funding of airports and the AIP and its applications in the aviation sector.
• The Perception of an Airport and Airport Experience With the high flow of people at an airport, enhancing the cleanliness of the restrooms may be a tedious task. Also, the biophilic and humanizing design of an airport contributes to a calm environment.
• Larger Aircraft’s Impact on Airport Management The latter is “the capacity to handle aircraft operations,” the efficiency of movement between terminals, and “the number of automobiles that can unload passengers at an airport’s curb”.
• The Causality Analysis of Airports and Regional Economy This work aims to study the article “The causality analysis of Airports and regional economy” and how effectively and clearly the authors conveyed the main idea of the work.
• The Unseen Dangers Posed by Badged Airport Employees The objectives of the article are to bring to attention the various security issues caused by the liberty of movement of workers within a given airport. The other objective is to enlighten the reader about […]
• Ethical Considerations of Airport Secondary Screening Secondary screening is a standard procedure at the airport through which the TSA gets information for background checks of travelers and crew members. The outbreak of the SAR-CoV2 increased security pressure for both the passengers […]
• Safety Management System: Airport Ramps in the UAE Civil aviation is one of the strategic means of transport vital for the stable functioning of the modern globalized world. The existing body of literature proves the critical importance of effective SMSs regarding the work […]
• The Miami International Airport Airline Ramp Workers Strike American and Delta Airlines were also in support of the striking workers to ensure that the employer improved the working conditions of the ramp workers.
• Beijing Daxing International Airport The Airport is built in the South of the Daxing district next to the Yongding River and is situated about 50 km from the center of Beijing.
• Daytona Beach International Airport’s Strategy At the same time, the threat of new entrants is not severe for the airport. In particular, differentiation is the main Air Canada’s approach due to a large number of carriers and the need to […]
• Reliever Airports in the Air Transport System The current environment in the global airline industry requires an increase in both the number of flights and airfields able to provide access to air travel to the public.
• Safety Assessment of Congonhas Airport The resulting collision ended in the deaths of all the plane passengers and crew as well as 12 individuals in the warehouse, bringing the total casualty number to 199 fatalities and 13 injuries.
• Aspects of Airport Advertisement The sponsor’s principal role is to provide funding and resources for the airport’s operations and decision-making on the quality of its services.
• Researching of Airport Emergency Planning Moreover, the airport operational budget and the availability of appropriate airport equipment are necessary for meeting the minimum required standards for various state regulations.
• Airport Safety and Security Report Suggest improvement measures based on the obtained information and identify During the accident, the airport had major security issues concerning the maneuvering area, the lighting, and the layout.
• Airport Operations and Cargo Transportation Considering the significant number of employees in an airport, and the importance of areas restricted for security reasons, staff identification is a crucial part of an airport’s landside security.
• Privatization of Major Airports as Separate Entities in Chicago At the moment it is hard to estimate the welfare effect of privatization on the airline. Generally, the overall aim of privatization is to improve the financial position of the airlines.
• Jomo Kenyatta International Airport: Effects of Adverse Weather Daily and globally, there are many aviation operations affected by weather including incidents and accidents Kenya has its own share of aviation accidents.
• Airport and Aviation Security Thus, the principal purpose of the given paper is to comment on the current status of airport and aviation security and consider an example to see whether the existing measures are effective.
• Malé International Airport: The Landside The Male International Airport is the main international airport of the Republic of Maldives. This island can be found in the North Male Atoll, not far from the isle of Male, the city on which […]
• Melbourne Airport Infrastructure Plans for the Airbus A380 Aircraft Having commenced in the year 1970, the airport has evolved to become the only exclusive international airport that serves the metropolitan area.
• Commercial Airport Security Plan for the US The intent of this security plan is to help the airport commission, tenants, and local law enforcement enhance security of the airport grounds, facilities, buildings and procedures.
• Sydney Airport Infrastructure Plans for the Airbus A380 The government in coordination with the Airport’s management is planning to launch major commercial flights at the airport and therefore there is need to expand the facility in order to accommodate commercial flights such as […]
• Airport Security Improvement The challenge of 9/11 shaped the system of the airport security in the USA. It is crucial to make sure that airport security is ensured through compliance with the requirements assigned as well as the […]
• Researching the Airport Management The size and quality of an airport start with the size of the land. The number of landings and take-offs is not only determined by the size of the airport but also by the technology […]
• Mesa-Falcon Field Airport in Arizona The airport is the trade and industry engine for the society and indirectly supports hundred of businesses and directly employs more than one thousand people in the region thereby generating excess of $2 billion for […]
• Contracted Airports and Their Safety Assessment The city management and the private company sign a contractual agreement which gives the company the permit to operate the airport facilities and services for a specific period of time.
• Sao Paulo Airport Operations Some of the important factors according to Kazda and Robert that should be put into consideration include economic factors, requirements of the airport capacity, statistics of the air traffic and the forecasted demand of the […]
• Chek Lap Kok Airport: The Place That Bridges the Earth and the Sky The airport is situated on an island, of Chek Lap Kok, which gave the airport its name and suggested a big area of a peculiar shape to build it on.
• The John F. Kennedy International Airport The airport links the United States with the rest of the world being the main entry and exit point from the U.S.the JKF airport got its name from the 35th U.
• Airports and Ground Handling Put simply de-icing is the removal of the ice and frost that already adheres to the framework of the aircraft and anti-icing is the taking of preventive measures to see that ice does not form […]
• Transport Security Administration: Implication of Airport Screening Manual To have a full understanding why the US congress is outraged with the continued reposting of the TSA Airport Screening manual, it’s important to have a closer look at the document, specifically at some of […]
• Low-Cost Carriers and Secondary Airports LCC’s seek to maximize the use of their planes as much as possible by restricting the number of wasted hours that the plane may incur on the ground or in the air.
• Integrated Express Cargo Airline and All-Cargo Airport to Airport Airlines Providing the delivery and logistic services in the modern world is rather profitable affair, as the development of the economical and business relations all over the world support the international business contract, where the cargo […]
• Securing Airports in the Aftermath of 9-11 This will enable the Federal government to link and associate different information and this system can easily find the connection between suspected terrorists and suspicious activities. This type of technology must be installed in every […]
• The Community Impact of the Schiphol Airport The Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, which is one of the busiest in the world, is an excellent example of how to benefit the community while minimising the damage.
• A Project WBS Airport Link Project Due to the BOOT basis for the project, BrisConnections has an opportunity to operate and maintain the Airport Link for a period of 45 years.
• Brisbane Airport Company Analysis However, preparation for the modern Brisbane Airport commenced in 1971 and was intended to meet the future travel needs of the city.
• What Are Non-Aeronautical Revenue Sources for Airports? As a result of the various measures taken by airports to increase non-aeronautical revenues, their proportion in the overall income grew accordingly.
• Why and How Do Airports Manage and Improve Their Quality of Service? As such, it is essential to either lower the prices, which can make the airport less profitable, or increase the quality of the product offered so that it meets the demands of airlines and passengers.
• Quality in News: Charles de Gaulle Airport Collapse Review the standards guiding both design and construction of the wall and identify possible non-compliance. Undertake investigations to find the possible causes of the defects recorded in the collected physical evidence and also take into […]
• Quality in the News on Charles de Gaulle Airport The first paragraph of the writer explores a brief construction history of the airport and paragraph two quickly switches to the consequences of the terminal collapse.
• Heartland International Airport’s Public Safety It would be advisable to make discretionary decisions that do not adversely affect the public despite the decision affecting the superiors or the organization.
• Bahrain Airport Company’s Global Aviation Hub Initiative Objective is “to unify the goals of the Bahrain International Airport entities for the benefit of travelers, stakeholders and staff, in a future-ready facility, which in turn, contributes towards the shared vision of the kingdom […]
• Privatization, Regulation and Airport Pricing in the US The customary responsibility of the state of the United States’ aviation industry has been to support the sector through subsidization of the creation and running of the airports’ facilities, as well as applying economic and […]
• The UK Airport Industry Competition is envisaged to lead to a fall in mean prices below average costs showing a planned approach to the development of the industry as opposed to a market-led approach.
• Heathrow Airport and Air Transport Business The airport formally opened on the 31st of May and by that time, there were terminals and the passengers checked in on a fleeting tent of the airfield.
• Denver International Airport’s Problems and Opportunities But, as can be seen in the case of the ABS – design needs to constantly assess and changed if the analysis indicates change is needed.
• Athens and Istanbul Airports Comparison In the modern world, it is generally thought to be the fountain of modern civilization and democracy as a result of its systemic and societal influence on the Roman Empire and Europe as a whole.
• Passenger Irritability Observation in an Asian Airport A sponsor will introduce the researcher to the group and also explain the purpose of the study. Overt observation will solve the question of ethics that might crop up, because the group is aware of […]
• Corporate Reputation in the Digital Age: The Case of Dubai International Airport The incident took place due drones spotted next to the airport and resulted in a half-an-hour delay that bothered many travelers.
• Fourth Industrial Revolution Impact on Airports Therefore, it is critical to strengthen the safety of these facilities via the utilization of advanced technologies and the corresponding practices.
• Los Angeles International Airport’s Environmental Impacts Hudda and Fruin note that the concentration of the particle number in the vicinity of the Los Angeles International Airport is about twice the standard rate during normal weather.
• Wildlife Controls Around Commercial Airports Managing the safety of the airports is one of the most important responsibilities of civil aviation authorities around the world. Security in the aviation sector is the factors often given priority because of the magnitude […]
• Security Control Areas in Airports The closed-circuit television cameras should be positioned at the entry and exit points labeled A in the airport plan to allow the monitoring of people.
• Airport Parking Lots and Their Redistribution In this context, the question of parking lot spaces for short-term and long-term parking arises since the two distinct categories of airport visitors perceive parking and its price differently.
• Denver International Airport and Safety Concerns The County and City of Denver own the airport, and the county’s department of aviation is in charge of its operations.
• Abu Dhabi Airport Manager’s Ethics & Leadership The manager will have to apply the core values and virtues of the department to ensure that the leadership style follows the principles of the corporation to the letter.
• Residential Proximity to Airports and Health Impacts The combined effect of wind-flow pattern and proximity to the airports was also determined. The authors also noted that there was no positive relationship between hospital admissions from respiratory conditions and wind-flow patterns.
• Airport Competition and Marketing The full-cost traditional service is appropriate for large international airports, where customers are interested in the quality and types of the provided services. A low-cost service is appropriate for domestic airports in order to guarantee […]
• Dubai Airport Free Zone Authority’s Excellence Program The key drivers for the adoption of the excellence program for DAFZA have been the three steps formulated in the strategic planning that they have used to achieve their objectives and goals.
• Airport Cities Quality in European Excellence Model The section aims to present the EFQM model, discuss the research dedicated to it, compare the discussions of different authors about EFQM and airport cities, and demonstrate the suitability of the EFQM model to the […]
• Dubai 2021 Vision and Smart Technology in Airport It is a plan to deliver the aspirations of the city, society in order to set and achieve necessary goals for the growth of the urban environment. One of Dubai 2021 key themes is “The […]
• Heartland International Airport’s Decision-Making During maintenance checks and audits, Maxwell’s team begins to uncover slipshod maintenance on a few of the smaller planes, making him fear that others may have gone unnoticed.
• Heathrow Airport Terminal Five Project Management The main cause of the initial hiccups resulted from the fact that the airport was originally a base for the British Army and the government wanted to create some space between the running and involvement […]
• Birmingham International Airport’s Management Key functions of an operations manager involve ensuring the steady movement of people in the airport through the setting of effective processes.
• New Orleans International Airport: Enviornmental Study Both the Regional Study Area and the Airport Study Area are currently in attainment despite the fact that the former was previously reported to have violations for O3.
• Dynamic Strategic Planning in the Louis Armstrong Airport Specifically, the stages involving the baggage check and the further delivery or the luggage to the passengers will have to be improved.
• The Dubai Airport Free Zone Operation As for the rest of the TQM determinant, the findings of the research suggest that DAFZA is successful in implementing total quality policies, as it is certified with ISO 9001 and integrity is one of […]
• King Khalid International Airport: Cost-Effective Methods The airport is currently experiencing the problem of delays in departures and the time taken to process arrival of goods and passengers.
• Dubai Airports Company’s Innovation Strategies The details of the initiative were presented to the public in 2014 as Dubai Airports Company revealed the plan of investing $32 billion in introducing the innovations and expanding the structure of Dubai World Central […]
• British Airports Authority’s T5 Project: BSC Principles This case displayed the flexibility and dynamics of BSC, as BAA not only used its basics but also paid substantial attention to the quality, productivity, efficiency of the business processes, and building trusting relationships with […]
• Fifth Runway of Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta Airport The expansion of the Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport and the construction of the fifth runway were as a result of several reasons.
• LogicaCMG vs. Denver International Airport Projects The LogicaCMG also acknowledged that the energy industry is complex, and hence saw the need for the project to address the needs of clients and industries. The LogicaCMG project team ensured that the organization and […]
• Waiting Time in the Airport: Quality Management The complexity of the operations in the aviation industry highlights the need for quality management to ensure that all operations, processes, and activities promote the quality of services according to the requirements and expectations of […]
• Airports Security Systems and Passenger Satisfaction Specifically, the time that the process of checking in and handing in the luggage typically takes has been extended for security reasons, which was bound to affect the satisfaction rates of the target audience.
• Passenger Waiting Time Quality in Airports Airport managers have to measure the level of performance in airport terminals in relation to the expectations of customers and the possible quality of services offered.
• Airport Security and Human Factors Management The complexity of the modern world and problems and misunderstandings in international relations resulted in the rise of terrorism, which is considered one of the most topical issues of the modern world.
• Dubai Airports’ Total Quality Management The company provides core services for the operation and maintenance of airport terminals, including the resolution of customer complaints, integration of operational services, and the provision of management services.
• Sharjah International Airport: Cultural Case The study revealed that the lack of information on their cultural differences was the major cause of the conflict. The Indian lady was concerned that the gentleman had not yet married at the age of […]
• Buenos Aires Airports Strategies Alternatively, an airport’s physical design comprises different aspects such as the number of runways, locality and length of the landing strips, taxiways, junctions, and the distance between the landing strips.
• Denver and Abu Dhabi Airports: Baggage-Handling System Another dilemma that contributed to the problems in the implementation of this project was the overall design of the airport according to Gene Di Fonso who was the president of BAE.
• Hong Kong International Airport’s Nonaerial Income While the areas of income based on traditional aerial activities are fixed for all of the airports around the world, the employment of non-aeronautical sources of revenue allows the authorities of the airports to demonstrate […]
• Ireland West Airport’s Marketing for Tourism The campaign is meant to promote tourism in the region. The paper has outlined the major target market and the impact of this initiative to the social economic development in the region.
• Agencies’ Cooperation in Airport Security The airport personnel is the first agency that has the responsibility to ensure security in the airport. The first thing that the airport personnel have to do is to confirm the identity of the passengers.
• Globalisation Effects: the Kelowna International Airport Swoveland focused on the cost-benefit analysis of the effects of the runway extension and the development of a system of the additional flights.
• Al Maktoum International Airport Analysis The author of this paper holds that the airport is crucial to the region’s participation in international trade. Chief among the strengths of this company is the strategic location of the airport.
• The Future for Orlando International Airport This means that they need to maintain a constant update in technology advancements in order to improve human congestion within airport and air traffic control capabilities to decrease possible aircraft tragedy.
• Miami International Airport North Terminal Development Program The construction of the northern terminal began in 1998 and was scheduled to be completed by the end of 2005. The sections of the terminal opened in phases due the disruptions that occurred in the […]
• Airport Commercialisation Security Implications It is within the airport that passengers, their luggage and other types of cargo pass, in addition to allowing aircraft to take off and land to and from any part of the world.
• Dubai Airport Free Zone: Business Models The aim of the paper is to analyze the business models applied by the organization. The business models applied by the organization are the differentiation of products, positioning, and Total Quality Management.
• Bristol Airport Operations Management This paper discusses the operations processes at the airport in an effort to evaluate the appropriateness in terms of their contributions to productivity, quality, and overall effectiveness. The transport operations department also uses air-marshals to […]
• Airport West Redevelopment These are the main details that can be identified because they are important for understanding the nature of this conflict and the arguments of different sides.
• World Duty-Free at Birmingham Airport In this paper, the author will appraise the marketing activities of the World Duty-Free at Birmingham Airport. After keen market studies, the organisation was able to identify the behaviour of most of the passengers at […]
• The Chicago O’Hare International Airport Master Plan The master plan explained in detail the issues to do with the airport budget needed to execute the plan, the capacity that was to be achieved from this new plan, provisions for packing, and job […]
• Air Transportation: Airport Commercialization and Threats Consequently, in this context of increased demand for commercial flights and the expected growth in the aviation industry, the industry has continued to focus on safety measures to improve outcomes and potential threats in the […]
• London’s Airports Strategy The examination will consider the organization of each of the six airports to uncover the general strategy in use to manage air transport in the city.
• Zadar Airport Limited Quality Management System The superiority of service and universal business of Zadar Airport Limited are the chief objective of the corporation, which depends on the evaluation of customers of the company’s services.
• Orlando International Airport The external environment of MCO offers excellent opportunities that could be utilised to guide the performance of the organisation. In order for the management of MCO decide on the best approaches to adopt so that […]
• Airport Screening Federalization In response to the terrorist attacks, the US Congress moved with speed to pass the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which in turn established the Transportation Security Administration to ensure the security of the travelling […]
• Implementation of ERP Systems in Sharjah Airport Systems of ERP helping in the maintenance and property management of the airport’s investments and properties will be installed in the third phase of the project.
• Dallas International Airport (DFW) The aim of this study is to develop and estimate a model of Dallas international airport size and changes in size so as to get the overview of how this airport has grown over time.
• Airport Security Program (Airports Management) In consideration to the analysis of the security project of Los Angeles Airport, it is notable that the airport will be able to counter all security threats.
• Planning and Design of Airports The construction and materials for the runways are very expensive and so, the manufacturers of the aircraft must keep in mind the amount of wear that the airplane will have on the concrete.
• The Advancements of Airport Security Since September 11, 2001 The 19 hijackers who terrorized the US in the twin attacks were able to go through the normal security checks and even shut the alarms of the metal detectors.
• Management Information Technology: Abu Dhabi Airport Through data mining, workers at the Abu Dhabi airport have access to all pertinent data derived from support operations of the airport, which ensures safety and accessibility.
• Database Structures of Abu Dhabi Airport First, the supportive services department has all the critical information required in the monitoring and running of the airport. In addition, the database structures in this department help in the identification of potential risks to […]
• Abu Dhabi Airport Information Technology Another department present at the airport is the Strategic and International Affairs department. This department is responsible for the internationalization of the airport’s services.
• Knowledge Management at Abu Dhabi Airport The Travel Information Manual can be viewed for clients to know which information is necessary for receiving access to the flight.
• Contingency Plan for Generation Next Airport In the event that all lavatories become inoperable during a tarmac delay, the airline will return to the gate as soon as practical or make other arrangements to immediately service the aircraft to return the […]
• How BAA Can Be Affected by Competition Commission Decision to Sell Two Airports The effects of regulation most certainly interfere with business activities, and this interference has the potential to benefit some segments of the population and harm others including the whole industry, individual players, and the market.
• Safety Management Systems in Airports The policy also entails that the executives in the organization structure to monitor the safety performance in the airport. Safety manager in the organization is the focal point for the implementation of safety management system.
• UK Airports in Bad Weather Thus, the importance of the clean airports and the guarantee of the ability of the UK government to impose this responsibility of the airports should be referred to.
• Safeguarding Civil Aviation: Airport Security In order to improve the quality of security in the airports, improvement of the security forces was a major requirement and this nudging need led to the formation of the Transport Security Administration on 25 […]
• Stakeholders Views on the Expansion of the Lydd Airport Other than this, the expansion of the Lydd Airport is seen as the perfect way to rid the Southeast of airspace and runway congestion which has for the longest time plagued the industry.
• Profiling at US Airports Due to Security Screening The attacks of 9/11 have increased pressure on the aviation authorities of almost all the countries in the world including the US to manage and monitor the flow of passengers using air travel.
• Heathrow Airport: Culture Shocks and Language Barriers When a customer is in the airport, there are some guiding posts and signs that are aimed at guiding the customer to the destination; this happens at the time of departure and when arriving.
• Dubai Airport Free Zone First, the paper seeks to establish when the Dubai Airport Free Zones was established, and the main objective behind the establishment of the Free Zones.
• Vodochody Airport: Air Transport Market in Czech Republic The airports development plan, first publicly communicated in the summer of 2007, is to enlarge the infrastructure of the existing airport so that it becomes a modern public civil international airport, second of its kind […]
• History of Air Transport and Airport This can be attributed to the capability of the air transport to reduce time and space which attracted more goods and people to this mode.
• TSA and the Implementations of the Body Scanners in Airports The issue of privacy on passengers has become a major problem against the full body scanners. Airports have even reported a decrease of passengers in airports as they opt to travel and avoid the full […]
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 2). 160 Airport Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/airport-essay-topics/

"160 Airport Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 2 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/airport-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '160 Airport Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 2 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "160 Airport Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/airport-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "160 Airport Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/airport-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "160 Airport Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/airport-essay-topics/.

• Airlines Topics
• British Airways Topics
• Aviation Paper Topics
• Delta Airlines Topics
• Emirates Airlines Topics
• Qantas Airways Topics
• Singapore Airlines Topics
• Ryanair Research Topics
• Southwest Airlines Topics
• JetBlue Paper Topics
• Noise Pollution Essay Titles
• Risk Assessment Questions
• Aviation Safety Research Ideas
• Security Management Essay Ideas
• Aerospace Research Topics

Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions -- Special Report 272 (2003)

Chapter: 1 study overview and background, 1 study overview and background.

T he concept of a cooperative research program for airports is not new. The complexity of the issues that confront airports and the decentralized nature of the airport industry and its research activities have led to repeated calls for greater cooperation in the funding, programming, and conduct of airport-related research. In 1982, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Airports Council International, whose membership includes the nation’s largest airports, jointly sponsored a task force to develop a long-range plan for airport system research (ACI and FAA 1985). The task force concluded that “airport management has been given little or no opportunity to contribute to the development or defense of airport research programs.” It therefore urged FAA to support “a strong, comprehensive, and continuing airport research program” and to develop “a mechanism which will ensure the continuing effective input of the industry in the development of an airport research program.”

A decade later, the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), which represents state aviation departments, assessed the state of airport research for FAA (NASAO 1992). It observed that “aviation has no standardized process or mechanism to conduct significant research” and that “the failure of the industry as a whole to sponsor and participate in research has let many airport management and operational needs go unattended.” It pointed to two research programs in the highway and transit industries as possible models for an airport cooperative research program. Both programs, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), are directed by governing boards that are exclusively or predominantly composed of highway or transit operators. NASAO urged the creation of a research program guided similarly by airport managers and operators. On the basis of a survey of state aviation departments and airport organizations, NASAO identified dozens of problem areas (as discussed in more detail in the next chapter) that would benefit from cooperative research—from better airport pavement specifications to more responsive and efficient means of addressing the Clean Air Act.

In light of these long-standing calls for an airport cooperative research program, Congress charged FAA, in consultation with airport operators and the National Academies, with studying the applicability of the techniques used to fund and administer research under NCHRP and TCRP to meeting the research needs of airports. 1 FAA, in turn, tasked the National Academies with convening a special committee, made up in part of airport operators, to conduct the study and make recommendations.

STUDY APPROACH AND REPORT ORGANIZATION

Airports are commonly viewed as serving the social good in much the same manner as highways, mass transit, and other public transportation infrastructure and services. Airports, which serve both as foundations for economic development and as key elements of the national aviation system, confer many public benefits. Most airports open to the public for civilian use are in fact owned by the public, usually by municipalities or county governments. For the most part, however, airport operations are expected to be self-financed, with revenues derived from concessionaires, passengers, aircraft operators, and other airport users and tenants. Exactly how airport operators go about raising revenues and structuring their operations is heavily influenced by their role in providing a social good and is thus subject to many federal, state, and local controls.

This mix of roles and responsibilities places airport operators in an unusual and often delicate position. On the one hand, they are expected to act nimbly and efficiently, like a private business serving its customers. On the other, they are required to pursue the broader social good, which is evidenced by the many—and sometimes divergent—local, regional, and national demands placed on them. Airport operators are therefore in a challenging environment. The obligations and constraints they face are in many ways unique, derived from their position at both the intersection of the public and private sectors and the nexus of federal, state, and local governments’ jurisdictions.

The committee’s report is organized into five chapters that mirror the study approach. In the remainder of this chapter the complex operating, financial, and regulatory landscape in which airports exist is described. An understanding of these complexities can be helpful in understanding why a

cooperative research program has much appeal but faces many challenges. Consideration is given to the various types of airports and their uses, financing, regulation, and administration. The chapter concludes with a review of the respective roles of federal agencies, state and local governments, universities, and the private sector in sponsoring and undertaking airport-related research.

In Chapter 2 several important research needs that airport operators have in common are identified. These needs have tended to be neglected or addressed only tangentially or with insufficient urgency by existing research activities. The committee approached the study with an open mind about the need for an airport cooperative research program. Therefore, its initial emphasis was on gaining a better understanding of airport issues and problem areas and how existing research programs are structured to address them. The origins and structure of the existing cooperative research programs in the highway and transit modes are reviewed in Chapter 3 . In Chapter 4 , the insights gained from these and other program reviews are referred to in examining options for organizing an airport cooperative research program and in proposing a specific means of program funding, governance, and management. The key findings and conclusions of the study are summarized in Chapter 5 , and the next steps toward the creation of an airport cooperative research program are recommended.

AIRPORT TYPES AND USES

The United States has some 5,000 airports open to the public, of which about 3,300 are designated by FAA as part of the national airport system and thus eligible for federal aid for planning and infrastructure development ( Table 1-1 ). Most of these public-use airports are owned by local governments. 2

About 15 percent (525) of the 3,300 airports in the national system [the National Plan of Integrated Airports (NPIAS)] handle airline passenger and cargo traffic (sometimes seasonally) and are thus classified as “commercial-service” airports. The remainder serve general aviation (GA) operations only. About 250 airports are classified as “metropolitan relievers”; they are the busiest and best-equipped GA airports and are often located in the country’s largest urban areas. Relievers are often operated in conjunction with a larger

Table 1-1 Based Aircraft and Annual Enplanements at Public-Use Airports in National Integrated System, 2000

commercial-service airport in an area, typically under the auspices of a regional airport authority. Commercial-service airports are first in federal funding priority. They are followed by relievers and then other GA airports in the national system.

Commercial-Service Airports

The 525 commercial-service airports handle nearly all of the airline passenger traffic in the United States, including passengers on both the major and regional (commuter) airlines. In fact, about two-thirds of the approximately 600 million airline passenger enplanements (boardings) per year are handled by the 30 busiest airports. The top 150 commercial-service airports— ranging from Hartsfield in Atlanta to Asheville Regional Airport in North Carolina—account for 97 percent of airline passenger traffic, and the top 60 of these airports account for nearly all of the traffic carried in large jets (having 60 seats or more).

FAA defines as “large hubs” all airports that account for 1 percent or more of total airline passenger enplanements (see Table 1-2 ). About 30 airports meet this threshold each year. Roughly 35 airports are categorized by FAA as “medium hubs” because they each account for between 0.25 and 0.99 percent of total airline enplanements. The next-busiest airports, described as “small hubs,” account for 0.05 to 0.249 percent of enplanements; they total about 150. The remaining 300 or so commercial-service airports are referred to as “nonhubs,” including about 100 (often only partly certificated) that are used by airlines on an irregular or seasonal basis.

Nearly all commercial-service airports accommodate a large amount of GA traffic in addition to airlines. The GA industry encompasses everything from operators of jets and turboprops used for private and on-demand for-hire passenger and cargo transportation to single-engine propeller aircraft used

Table 1-2 Types of Airports According to FAA Definitions

for recreation and aerial services such as right-of-way surveillance, highway traffic reporting, law enforcement, and flight instruction. In fact, most commercial-service airports handle far more GA operations (landings and takeoffs) than airline operations. Even at the largest airports, GA can account for 15 to 50 percent of total aircraft operations.

As a practical matter, an airport cannot attain “commercial-service” status unless it meets FAA criteria for facility equipage, design, and operational capabilities that are required for the medium- to large-capacity turbine aircraft commonly used in air carrier service. FAA prescribes minimums for such features as runway marking, lighting, and navigation systems, as well as capabilities such as runway and aircraft deicing, fire fighting, and emergency rescue. The agency has a series of advisory circulars that describe the procedures, designs, and equipment that meet these minimums.

The demands placed on the busiest commercial-service airports in major metropolitan areas of the country differ significantly from those placed on much smaller commercial-service airports serving smaller cities and rural regions. Nevertheless, the smaller commercial airports are under pressure to meet FAA’s requirements for scheduled air carrier service, since many provide the regions’ only links to the national and international airline systems.

Metropolitan Relievers

All major metropolitan areas are served by one or more GA reliever airports. FAA designates certain GA airports as relievers because these airports can divert GA traffic away from the heavily used commercial-service airports. Relievers tend to be the most intensely used, and hence the best equipped, of the country’s GA airports. To be designated as a reliever and thus have priority among GA airports for federal aid, the airport must have at least 25,000 itinerant (point-to-point) operations per year, house 100 or more based aircraft, and be located in a metropolitan area with 250,000 people or more.

Reliever airports are often conveniently located and sufficiently equipped to handle the kind of aircraft used by regional and commuter airlines. Many reliever airports have instrument landing systems, control towers, passenger waiting areas, rescue and fire-fighting services, and other infrastructure that enhance their reliability and support intense use. Some large relievers, such as Teterboro near New York City and Centennial near Denver, average more than 1,000 operations per day. Dekalb–Peachtree Airport near Atlanta is second only to Atlanta–Hartsfield in daily operations

in the entire state of Georgia. Its level of activity surpasses that of the state’s eight other commercial-service airports.

Other GA Airports

GA airports must meet certain minimum criteria to be included in the 3,300-airport NPIAS and thus to be eligible for federal aid. For instance, an airport must have at least 10 based aircraft and be available for public use. For the most part, the roughly 2,500 GA nonreliever airports in the national system have paved runways and runway lighting systems, and they are the best equipped and maintained of the nonreliever small airports. Thousands of other publicly and privately owned small airports are not in the national system. Conditions at these airports vary greatly; many do not even have lighted or paved runways ( Table 1-3 ). It is noteworthy that about 2,000 airports not in the national system are nevertheless open to public use, including about 1,000 privately owned airports.

Table 1-3 Runway Characteristics of U.S. Civilian Airports

AIRPORT FINANCE

Most of the public-use airports in the United States are owned by county and municipal governments or by special regional authorities created by one or more government jurisdictions. Many regional authorities operate more than one airport. In some cases, they operate multiple commercial-service airports (for example, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey); more commonly, they operate a single large airport and one or more GA reliever airports. Some states, such as Alaska and Maryland, own both GA and commercial-service airports, but these are the exceptions. Even rarer is the federal government’s ownership of civilian airports. Maritime law set the early precedent for a limited federal role in airport construction and operations. Whereas the marking and maintenance of shipping channels and provision of lighthouses and other navigation aids were deemed to be federal responsibilities, the provision of docks and terminal facilities was treated as a state, local, and private-sector function (Horonjeff and McKelvey 1983, 17). Early air commerce acts went so far as to prohibit the use of federal funds for the construction of airports (a prohibition that was disregarded during the public works programs of the Great Depression).

During World War II, the federal government constructed hundreds of military landing areas and hangars across the country. Soon after the war’s end, many of these aviation facilities were designated “surplus” and turned over to state and local governments for civilian use. Coincidentally, Congress passed the Federal Airport Act of 1946, which authorized federal aid for use by state and local governments in airport construction and improvements.

In the two decades after World War II, the aviation sector was transformed. Airlines introduced jet aircraft on many routes beginning in the late 1950s, which made it practical for many more Americans to fly on business and for leisure travel. Meanwhile, private pilots, thousands of them trained in the military, were crowding GA airports throughout the country. These developments created many new demands on airports—including the need for more spacious terminals and new runways to handle the larger jet airliners and the establishment of more modern, high-capacity GA reliever airports in large urban areas. However, federal aid for airports and air traffic management was appropriated by Congress each year as part of FAA’s budget, often resulting in a mismatch between the demands placed on the airport system and the resources available to meet them.

Recognizing the need to better match the supply of aviation infrastructure with user demands, Congress created the Airport and Airway Trust Fund in

1970, along with a financing program for airport development now known as the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). 3 The trust fund was to be financed through a series of user-based fees, including—at the time—an 8 percent tax on domestic airline passenger tickets, a $3 levy per passenger on international departures, a 7-cent charge per gallon of fuel used in GA, and a 5 percent tax on all air-cargo waybills.

Grants in Aid from the Federal Trust Fund

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund, often referred to as the Aviation Trust Fund, has now been in existence for more than 30 years. During this time, more than $130 billion in revenue has been collected, and $30 billion has been distributed to state and local governments for airport planning and development. The bulk of the remaining $100 billion has been used to help pay for FAA air traffic management operations, facilities, and equipment.

In FY 2002, the trust fund took in about $10 billion, nearly three-quarters of which was derived from taxes on airline passengers (ticket tax, international arrival/departure fee, and passenger flight segment tax). Grants in aid to airports totaled some $3.2 billion in FY 2002. About 1,000 airports received AIP grants, including more than 500 GA airports. In addition, other GA airports receive federal aid through block grant programs administered by individual states.

These direct and state block grants are apportioned through funding formulas and awarded through competitive applications (in the case of discretionary grants). They are used for a variety of purposes, including the installation of runway lighting, the acquisition of land for longer approaches, the rehabilitation of taxiways, the purchase of noise abatement technologies, and the conduct of environmental impact assessments.

As noted, to be eligible for federal aid, the airport must be in the NPIAS. Commercial-service airports automatically receive AIP funds on the basis of the total number of passengers and the amount of cargo flowing through them. Along with GA airports, they must compete for funds awarded through discretionary grants.

Federal Passenger Facility Charges

In 1990, Congress enacted legislation allowing commercial-service airport operators to levy a $1, $2, or $3 facility charge to be paid by each enplaned passenger (as part of the ticket taxes charged with the air fare). Congress

stipulated in the law that the proceeds be used to finance FAA-approved projects that reduce noise or enhance safety, security, and capacity. Congress raised the maximum passenger facility charge (PFC) to $4.50 in 2001 (capped at $18.00 per round-trip) and stipulated further that the proceeds be used to furnish opportunities for increased competition among air carriers (e.g., by construction of more gates available to new entrants). Airport operators must apply for permission to levy a PFC, but in doing so they must relinquish a portion of their entitlement AIP funds.

A major advantage of the PFC to airport operators is that the revenues collected can be used for a greater variety of expenditures than can those received through the AIP. For instance, PFCs can be used to construct an access road or buy land for a parking garage. Although such “landside” projects often do not qualify for AIP funding, they can be essential components of plans to expand the overall capacity of an airport. Today, PFCs are in effect at about 300 airports, and operators of most large airports receive more revenues from the PFC than they do from AIP grants.

Other Airport Revenue Sources

Despite the large amount of federal aid to airports each year, most airports derive only a minority of their total operating and capital revenues from federal sources. For most airports, most revenues are locally derived. The commercial-service airports alone generate more than $10 billion in operating revenues each year. Aviation-related revenues—that is, revenues from aviation users of airports—account for about half this figure, with landing and terminal fees being the main sources among the top 150 commercial-service airports (the primary airline markets). By comparison, smaller commercial-service airports rely more on GA services for their revenues, such as rents from fixed-base operators and profits from aviation fuel sales.

Nonaviation sources account for about half of airport operating revenues. At large airports, car parking and rental car concessions are major, and often the largest, sources of revenue. The commercial-service airports took in another $8 billion in nonoperating revenues in 1999. These funds are typically used for capital improvements. For large airports, revenue-bond proceeds are the primary source of these funds. The principal and interest on the bonds are paid through rents and fees obtained from concessionaires, airline tenants, and other airport users.

AIRPORT REGULATION

Although most of the nation’s public-use airports are owned and operated by local governments, they have critical roles in interstate transportation and commerce and in the safe and efficient performance of the national aviation system. As a result, airports large and small are subject to numerous rules and requirements of the federal government. Several federal agencies have regulatory and permitting responsibilities affecting airports, including FAA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, airports are subject to many state and local laws and rules. As a practical matter, nearly all major decisions by airports are influenced or must be approved by many governmental agencies at several jurisdictional levels.

FAA’s Role and Requirements

As key elements of the national aviation system, airports are subject to various federal requirements governing operations, safety, and environmental compatibility. For the most part, FAA administers these requirements, because it has primary responsibility for the safety, security, and efficient operations of the civil aviation system. Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, many aviation security responsibilities have been shifted to the newly created Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration (TSA). TSA requirements, which have major implications for airports, are described later. For other purposes, FAA’s authority prevails, since it implements and enforces

Rules governing aircraft operations and traffic control in the airways, in terminal airspace, and on the ground at airports;

Certification standards for airport operations and safety-related capabilities and services; and

Contractual requirements for airports receiving federal grants for development.

FAA Air Traffic Control Requirements

Congress has given FAA exclusive and broad authority to control civil aviation and the use of navigable airspace in the United States. The rationale for this centralized authority is that the aviation sector must have uniformity in

operations and traffic management to function in a safe and orderly manner. Congress views the country’s airspace as a public good of national importance whose use must not be hindered by fragmented state and local controls. FAA’s authority, therefore, preempts state and local authority over the use of airspace and thus establishes numerous requirements that state, local, and private airports must comply with.

A direct effect of FAA’s control of air traffic is numerous federal requirements concerning the design, maintenance, and operation of airside facilities, such as the configuration and use of runways and taxiways and the format and placement of airfield signs, markings, and other visual aids. These requirements stem from the need to ensure safe aircraft operations through consistency and from the recognition that operations at one airport can affect operational performance and safety elsewhere in the national system.

While these are the most obvious effects of FAA’s regulation of air traffic on airports, they are by no means the only ones. Perhaps the most controversial effects are those derived from FAA’s exclusive control over aircraft operations. In particular, the regulation of aircraft noise—often a major concern of communities—is largely a federal responsibility. FAA has maintained, and Congress and courts have affirmed, that state and local governments cannot create laws and ordinances that restrict operations of aircraft into or out of airports. The concern is that such local powers would impinge on FAA’s ability to set consistent operational standards and manage air traffic as a national system.

Only in their capacity as owners of airports do state and local governments have a limited ability to regulate noise through restrictions on aircraft operations. Airport owners can, for instance, prohibit the operation of all aircraft emitting noise above a certain threshold during nighttime hours; however, they cannot ban particular kinds of aircraft, such as jets, or particular kinds of operators, such as airlines. Concerned that such local restrictions would impair its ability to manage air traffic, FAA has been vigilant in protecting its air traffic management prerogatives.

FAA Certification of Airports for Safety

In its capacity as chief regulator of aviation safety, FAA has authority to issue operating certificates to airports handling aircraft used by commercial operators. Airports that seek airline service must first meet a series of FAA safety requirements, such as weather reporting and notification capabilities,

approved instrument approach procedures, runway maintenance programs, and preparedness plans for aircraft accidents and other emergencies. The prescribed standards and procedures, which are more stringent for airports seeking authority to serve passenger airlines using large aircraft, are typically contained in FAA advisory circulars. Approximately 525 airports hold full or limited certificates to handle air carrier operations.

Of course, an airport that is certified to serve air carriers may not have all the qualifications to accommodate all of the many kinds of aircraft used by air carriers. Individual aircraft types are certified by FAA as airworthy and subject to specific operational and maintenance requirements; these requirements can vary depending on how the aircraft is used (e.g., in private or for air transport). A Boeing 737 airliner, for instance, cannot operate from a runway that is shorter than the aircraft’s FAA-certified minimum distances for safe landing and takeoff. As a margin of safety, FAA prescribes even longer runway distances for aircraft used in air carrier service. Although they are not required to accommodate all of the many kinds of aircraft used by airlines, commercial-service airports compete for airline services with other airports. They are seldom in a position to ignore these requirements lest they lose their airline tenants. Consequently, FAA’s aircraft certification requirements can compel airport operators to make significant investments to change runway and taxiway dimensions, maintenance and fueling facilities, and other services and infrastructure to accommodate as many different kinds of aircraft as possible.

FAA Grant Requirements

FAA, which administers both the AIP and PFC programs, has a stewardship role in ensuring that the funds are used wisely and fairly. Accordingly, airports must obtain FAA approval for intended uses of AIP and PFC funds. To gain this approval, airports must typically follow FAA specifications for designs, materials, methods, and procedures.

FAA maintains a series of advisory circulars that contain many of these standards. They cover all kinds of projects eligible for federal aid. For example, a comprehensive (300-page) circular covers all major aspects of airport design, and specific guidelines cover the design, construction, and testing of aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicles procured with federal aid. Airports that do not comply risk losing federal aid; hence, FAA retains a high degree of control over airport projects and procurements through these grant requirements.

Moreover, in accepting federal aid, airports must adhere to a series of contractual “assurances” laid out by the federal government. These assurances compel grant recipients to comply, for instance, with the provisions of relevant federal statutes and executive orders and to use specific project recording, accounting, and procurement procedures. The assurances can obligate the airport to follow procedures that go well beyond the specific project. As an example, an airport that accepts federal aid must make the airport available for public use on reasonable terms and must avoid unjust discrimination among all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities.

Many other grant assurances apply. Together they circumscribe the operator’s ability to set user fees, enter into leases and contracts, spend revenues, and restrict the kinds of aviation activities at the airport. As grant administrator, FAA is responsible for ensuring compliance with most of these federal assurances.

Federal Environmental Regulations

Airports have long been a focus of environmental concern. Because of their size, functional requirements, and use in transporting passengers and high-value cargo, airports tend to be located on large, flat sites near populated areas. Suitable sites are often found on the shores of rivers, lakes, and oceans, or in wetlands or other types of landscape thought to have little economic value when originally selected for airport development. However, these sites often support important ecological systems whose disturbance can affect plant and animal communities, as well as humans.

With passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969, airport planning and development projects became subject to much greater scrutiny by the federal government, including EPA. NEPA mandates an environmental impact assessment when a federal action is proposed. Most airports receive federal aid or require some federal decision in connection with airport development programs (e.g., FAA approval of a new instrument approach procedure or runway layout). Therefore, airport operators are often required to initiate such assessments. FAA is responsible for reviewing them, or, if more detailed analyses of impacts are required, for conducting the assessments and preparing environmental impact statements. About 40 federal laws, executive orders, and regulations protect particular elements of the environment, such as the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and Order on Protection of Wetlands (see Box 1-1 for a listing)

(DOT 2001). Each must be considered by airport operators and FAA during the conduct of environmental impact assessments. EPA and all other federal agencies responsible for administering these laws, orders, and regulations must be given the opportunity to review the impact statements and consulted on means of addressing potential adverse effects of proposed development actions. The NEPA analysis and documentation process cannot be completed and the planned project or action cannot go forward until all the environmental effects identified are resolved to the satisfaction of each responsible agency.

As an example, CAA requires EPA to identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect public health and welfare. EPA has set ambient air quality standards for various pollutants, which are called “criteria” pollutants. Where the standards are not attained, individual states must develop plans prescribing attainment strategies. Many large airports are located in metropolitan areas that are not in attainment for one or more criteria pollutants. Consequently, an airport project that requires federal action or funding will first require FAA to determine whether pollutant thresholds may be exceeded and, if so, to devise mitigations that comport with the state attainment plan. It may be necessary, for instance, to offset projected increases in emissions through reductions in other airport emissions sources or the purchase of emissions “credits” from nonairports (e.g., local stationary sources).

Because aircraft noise has long been a special environmental concern of aviation, it has been the subject of much legislative and regulatory action. Congress passed the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act in 1979 to address mounting concern over airport noise. The act requires FAA to adopt regulations establishing a single system of measuring aircraft noise and determining the exposure of people to airport noise. While airport operators are not required by the act to conduct noise studies or develop abatement plans, federal funds are available for doing so. FAA offers guidance to operators on how to measure noise and develop abatement plans, and operators seeking federal noise abatement funds must follow this guidance.

Airport operators that propose restrictions on aircraft operations must first examine all other reasonable mitigations, including changes in local land use planning and zoning. FAA is authorized to fund noise abatement projects with AIP funds. Such projects also may be funded with PFC revenues on FAA’s approval. FAA has sole authority to impose operational restrictions on aircraft and thus to affect noise boundaries.

Federal Security Requirements

FAA has long set rules directing airports serving airlines to ensure security— for instance, by taking steps to control access to runways, parked aircraft, and other airside facilities and to secure baggage-handling areas. FAA rules also required airports, in concert with airlines, to establish “sterile” areas where passengers board aircraft. Airports were given leeway to customize their security plans, which FAA reviewed and approved. In November 2001, President Bush signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which transferred a number of these regulatory responsibilities and some of the security functions themselves to TSA. The act also created new requirements, such as the installation of explosive detection systems at all commercial-service airports. Now TSA must not only approve individual airport security programs, it must also assist in their development and implementation through a federal airport security manager stationed at all major commercial-service airports. Congress authorized a $2.50 tax per passenger enplanement (not to exceed $10 per round-trip) to defray the cost of TSA security operations and investments in explosive detection systems and other screening devices and technologies. The revenues generated from this surcharge are expected to generate about $1.7 billion in FY 2004. 4

The federal government’s heightened security role is having and will continue to have far-reaching implications for airports as they try to integrate security with infrastructure and operations. As TSA deploys explosive detection systems and other screening and scanning technologies, airports will be required to accommodate them by providing floor space and supporting infrastructure (e.g., upgrades in electric power, blast-resistant areas where suspect bags can be examined). The Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that about $3 billion will be needed just to integrate existing explosive detection technologies with baggage-handling systems and suggests that investments in more effective equipment and associated infrastructure will continue for many years. In FY 2002, airports used more than $560 million of AIP funds (17 percent of the total) for security-related projects, compared with $56 million in FY 2001. 5 Airports are facing many design challenges presented by changes in passenger flows in and

around TSA-manned security checkpoints; the need for “meeter/greeter” halls outside the sterile gate areas (no longer accessible to nonticketed individuals); and uncertainties about future security requirements that may affect the configuration and location of ticket counters, parking garages, and access roads. These changes have yet to play out fully, but they will undoubtedly create many new airport challenges and problems in need of research.

On November 25, 2002, the President signed the Homeland Security Act, which transferred TSA to the new Department of Homeland Security, effective March 1, 2003. The shift of TSA to a federal department separate from FAA presents a major challenge to airport operators as they try to coordinate the various federal demands and requirements.

State and Local Roles

As discussed above, FAA has sole authority to control and restrict aircraft operations, and only in their role as airport owners can state and local governments exercise some control over aviation operations at airports. However, state and local governments exercise other controls that affect airport use and capacity. Many states have established their own environmental review processes for airport development projects. While these processes and their substantial requirements are often similar to those of NEPA, some states mandate review of additional topics and establish different standards for determining impact significance. For instance, some states have adopted ambient air quality standards that are more stringent in many respects than those of the federal government. In California, for example, environmental reviews may be required to include analyses of air toxic emissions and related human health risks that are not required in federal NEPA documentation.

With regard to local requirements, local land use planning and zoning are relied on to help control noise impacts and other environmental effects at airports. In most places, such zoning is handled at the county, municipal, or even submunicipal level. Thus, airport operators must often deal with a multiplicity of jurisdictions with authority to control land use within airport noise impact areas. The more jurisdictions involved, the greater the chance that some localities will not adopt planned land use controls, which can eventually result in noise complaints, noise nuisance lawsuits, and public opposition to airport proposals to expand. In turn, local political pressure can hinder an airport’s ability to obtain state and local support for access roads and other needed infrastructure. Airport operators must therefore work

closely with local governments to limit adverse effects on neighboring communities while providing the levels of service desired by the larger region and fulfilling their integral roles in the national aviation system.

AIRPORT-RELATED RESEARCH

Because airports face so many operational, economic, social, and environmental issues, their owners, users, and regulators require much data, analysis, and technical knowledge. Research is therefore crucial to supporting sound airport planning and investing, ensuring safe and environmentally acceptable airport operations, and solving day-to-day airport problems. The federal government has a central role in financing and conducting research, and the operators of individual airports themselves sponsor specific studies and provide test beds for evaluating and demonstrating research results in the field.

Of course, defining what is encompassed by “airport-related” research is complicated by the fact that so much R&D activity can have results that are pertinent to airports. The broadest definition of airport-related research could include such topics as the effect of low-frequency noise on people living near airports, transferable highway and chemical industry R&D on paving technologies, and basic operations and human factors research, all of which are essential for designing and operating airports efficiently, safely, securely, and in an environmentally responsible manner. This broad view of airport-related research, though reasonable, has no practical bounds. The more manageable emphasis here, therefore, is on describing research activities—public and private—that are aimed specifically at meeting the identifiable needs of airports and the nation’s airport system.

Federal Airport Research

In the civilian aviation sector, the two main federal sponsors of airport-related research are FAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As the federal agency most responsible for regulation, stewardship, and day-to-day operation of the nation’s airspace system, FAA sponsors the largest and most varied set of supporting research activities. They range from individual studies to address the needs of a particular airport rulemaking to multiyear, multiproject programs aimed at furthering the state of major airport investment areas, such as runway pavements and visual aids. NASA’s role is to promote research and development activities with

a longer-term potential for improving the national airspace system, including the airport component.

FAA Research

FAA research activities are spread out among a number of divisions, branches, and staff offices. Most of the agency’s research is conducted in the Office of Aviation Research, which is funded primarily from the Research, Engineering, and Development appropriation. The office’s budget in FY 2003 was approximately $124 million, which was used for research in support of FAA’s varied functions and responsibilities, including managing air traffic, setting flight standards, increasing airport capacity, and certifying aircraft. FAA is budgeted to spend another $85 million on research funded through various offices and appropriations, including the Facilities and Equipment and AIP appropriations.

By and large, this dispersion in research activities reflects FAA’s diverse policy-making, programmatic, and operational responsibilities, such as administering grants in aid, providing air traffic services, acquiring air traffic control technologies, establishing rules and standards for aviation safety, and mitigating the environmental effects of aviation. Each of these responsibilities requires supporting research. As an example, FAA’s Office for Aviation Policy and Plans may undertake a study of airport noise measurement methods in support of a particular policy or legislative initiative. At the same time, the Office of Aviation Research may fund research on noise measurement and abatement methods through its program to reduce the environmental impacts of aviation. Consequently, there is no one place within FAA responsible for all “airport-related” research, nor is such a concentration of effort likely to be practical given the differing mission needs of individual FAA units.

The largest FAA research program centered on airports is carried out by the Airport Technology Research and Development Branch, which is a unit of the Airport and Aircraft Research Division of the Office of Aviation Research. The Airport Technology Research and Development Branch, located in the William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey, focuses on the development and evaluation of technologies and materials for airport pavements, airport lighting and marking, rescue and fire-fighting equipment and procedures, and wildlife management techniques. Its budget in FY 2003 was approximately $10.5 million, including $3 million for research on pavements mandated in legislation.

Much of the research carried out by the Airport Technology Research and Development Branch is intended to support revisions to FAA advisory circulars, as well as other FAA facility design, construction, and operations guidelines used by airport operators, consultants, and equipment makers. Among its accomplishments during the past 5 years, the Airport Technology Research and Development Branch has produced a manual on wildlife control methods, tested arresting systems to stop aircraft that have overrun runways, evaluated technologies to improve airfield lighting, and developed testing protocols for fire-extinguishing agents. Another major area of research is airport pavements. In cooperation with the Boeing Company, FAA operates the National Airport Pavement Test Facility at the Hughes Technical Center, which is used to conduct research to support standards for durable pavements. The federal emphasis on pavement research is justified on the grounds that runway and taxiway pavements are a major cost item for airports and are paid for largely with federal funds, and because the downtime for pavement repairs and maintenance can contribute to aviation system delays.

Various other divisions within the Office of Aviation Research support or perform research relevant to airports in areas such as weather prediction, system planning, and environment and energy. The Office of Aviation Research administers and distributes funds to the Air Transportation Centers of Excellence program, which consists of four university centers that specialize in particular research areas—pavement technology, aviation operations, GA, and airworthiness assurance. FAA may use the centers to perform research in their specialty areas as funds are available.

To better coordinate FAA’s research and provide an avenue for users of the research results to have input on programming, Congress established the Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) in 1989. REDAC, which consists of approximately 30 members representing trade associations, industry (including airport operators), academia, and government agencies, meets twice each year to review FAA’s planned and ongoing research programs. It reports to the FAA Administrator on its findings and makes recommendations concerning aviation R&D needs, funding levels, and priorities. REDAC periodically holds joint meetings with NASA’s Aerospace Technology Advisory Committee, which offer a means for FAA and NASA to better coordinate their aviation research programs. REDAC has also traditionally reviewed FAA’s security-related research through its subcommittee

on aviation security. Although security responsibilities have been transferred to TSA, REDAC continues to provide the same review function.

NASA Research

NASA spends about $500 million per year on aeronautics research. It has set a goal to “revolutionize aviation” by pursuing a number of 10- and 25-year objectives to increase aviation safety, mobility, and capacity and reduce emissions and noise. To a large extent, NASA has a medium- to long-term time horizon for aeronautics research, compared with FAA’s nearer-term focus on more applied research and technology development in support of its guidelines, standards, and current operational needs. NASA researchers working to reduce aircraft noise, for instance, are exploring new designs for jet engine inlets and nozzles and new ways to model airport community noise impacts. To increase aviation capacity and efficiency, researchers are examining decision-support tools for air traffic controllers and airlines to find shorter, time-saving routes. To increase personal mobility, NASA is examining new designs and technologies to make smaller aircraft more affordable and practical to use for transportation.

Precisely where this research will lead and how the results will be implemented in the field are difficult to assess. Nevertheless, any developments in these areas are likely to have a mix of direct and indirect effects on airports and how they are used.

Security Research

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act specifically called on TSA to “identify and undertake research and development activities necessary to enhance transportation security” and authorized $50 million for such activity. FAA’s research responsibilities for security were therefore transferred to TSA, including the security-related work performed at the Hughes Technical Center. While the research, engineering, and development function at TSA is still being established, it will certainly include research and testing capabilities to support extensive technology programs in the areas of explosives detection, screening operations, container and vehicle hardening, and passenger and personnel identification.

The President’s budget request for FY 2004 calls for an increase in TSA’s budget for research and development to $75 million. In addition, the President requested $800 million in funds for the Department of Homeland

Security’s Science and Technology Directorate, expected to be the department’s main research and technology development arm. The Science and Technology Directorate will assist in the funding of research related to aviation and transportation security.

Other Federal Research Related to Airports

The Department of Defense owns and uses thousands of aircraft landing sites, and civil aviation airports are used by reserve and National Guard units. Accordingly, it has an interest in furthering research to improve the performance of these installations. Of course, many of the performance needs of the military, such as rapid repair of bombed runways, differ in kind from those of the civilian sector. Nevertheless, much of the research has application in both the military and the civilian domains.

USACE has lead responsibility for the construction and maintenance of military airfields, and it conducts pertinent research through its various laboratories. The Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, for instance, studies the effects of low temperatures on materials and equipment, which is helpful in developing runway pavements that are more resistant to freeze–thaw cycles and in improving airport snow- and ice-control operations. USACE’s Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory has an airfield and pavements branch that serves as the Department of Defense’s lead pavements research facility for roadways and airfields.

Research relevant to airports is conducted elsewhere in the Department of Defense and the federal government as a whole. As an example, numerous federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, NASA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the National Park Service, are represented on the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) because each conducts research on aviation-related noise. Working through FICAN, these agencies often coordinate and sometimes jointly sponsor research on aviation noise effects, measurement, and abatement methods and technologies.

Research by Airport Operators and State Aviation Departments

The amount of research conducted by airport operators is difficult to quantify, although it can generally be characterized as highly applied and task-specific in nature. Much of the research is performed by consultants and conducted as particular needs arise. Nevertheless, aspects of these specific

studies may have broader application. For example, a consultant may be hired to collect and analyze data on traveler demographics, behavior, and destination selection to gauge the economic impact and financial feasibility of a proposed construction project or a new airport service. Whereas the specifics of such a study will need to be tailored to the individual airport and its market, determinations about data requirements and the most appropriate statistical, modeling, and analytical approaches may have general validity. Because the individual consultants are often hired on a case-by-case basis as needs arise, there is a tendency to “reinvent the wheel” in such research.

A major function of state aviation departments is airport system planning, some of which is conducted with AIP funds. Statewide planning normally entails preparation of aviation demand forecasts and studies of the interconnections between airports and surface transportation infrastructure, many of which are provided by state and local governments. A certain amount of research and technical support can be required for planning activities. For example, in developing its aviation system plan, California has sponsored a study of forecasting methodology by the University of California that proposes a framework for localities to develop aviation forecasts on a consistent basis (Caves and Gosling 1999, 232). California provides an example of how states typically sponsor aviation research—that is, by funding particular studies at state universities or providing a modest annual contribution to state university aeronautics and transportation research programs.

Private-Sector Research

As in all industries, the suppliers of products and services used at airports undertake proprietary research and development activities. These suppliers, in turn, buy products and services from other suppliers, some of which support their own R&D activities. The private sector is extremely large and contributes to the continual flow of new and improved technologies into the airport sector. And even though the makers of aircraft and aircraft components do not supply products directly to airports, their research has important implications for airports—for instance, by influencing the design of runways, taxiways, appurtenances, and other airport facilities. Private suppliers to airports number in the thousands, and their diversity makes it difficult to estimate the overall scale of private-sector R&D activity. However, it encompasses all aspects of airport planning, design, construction, and operations.

One source of research ideas and results is the many airlines, aircraft operators, and other users and tenants of airports. They all have a strong interest in ensuring that the design and operation of the terminal environment, airside facilities, and even access to and from the airport meet their needs. Thus, industry associations such as the Air Transport Association, the Regional Airline Association, the National Business Aircraft Association, and the Airports Council International maintain committees that help set industry standards. In doing so they identify key research needs. Professional associations such as the American Association of Airport Executives, the Aircraft Operators and Pilots Association, and the American Society of Civil Engineers also provide an informal forum for identifying research needs and disseminating results of research.

Together, the private suppliers and consultants, airport users, and various trade and professional associations play a critical role in identifying and meeting the research needs of airports. This highly dispersed process, however, can at times produce slow and uneven results and dissemination.

More than 5,000 airports are open for public use in the United States. They range in size from small GA airports handling a few airplanes per day to large commercial-service airports handling hundreds of aircraft and thousands of passengers per hour. Together they form the national airport system, which is a key element of the nation’s air transportation system. Nevertheless, they are very much a collection of autonomous entities—mostly owned and operated by local governments.

Recognizing the importance of airports in the national airspace system, the federal government regulates many aspects of their operations and provides them with funds for capital improvements. Airports are thus subject to many national requirements and standards governing their design, operations, safety performance, security, and finances. Airports are also subject to national environmental regulations. Hence, airport operators have much in common with one another and face many of the same problems and research needs. However, they lack a way to address these shared problems and needs that balances the many separate—and sometimes conflicting—requirements that they face.

Through FAA, NASA, and other agencies, the federal government sponsors and performs research related to airports. With the advent of TSA,

additional research related to airport security—and thus to facility design and planning—can be expected. Each agency funds research to fulfill its own mission and support its own policies and requirements. For the most part, the research does not provide airports with information and guidance sufficient to implement solutions to problems that stem from the requirements and demands of multiple federal, state, and local entities. Airport operators themselves do not have the capacity to undertake such research. Yet, it is in their interest and the interest of regulatory agencies and airport users to acquire this capacity.

Abbreviations

ACI Airports Council International

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials

TRB Transportation Research Board

ACI and FAA. 1985. Airport System Long-Range Research and Development Plan. Prepared by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

Caves, R. E., and G. D. Gosling. 1999. Strategic Airport Planning. Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

DOT. 2001. Report to the U.S. Congress on Environmental Review of Airport Improvement Projects. Office of the Secretary, May.

Horonjeff, R., and F. X. McKelvey. 1983. Planning and Design of Airports, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.

NASAO. 1992. Assessment of Airport and Air Transportation Research Needs. FAA and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.

TRB. 2002. Special Report 263: Future Flight: A Review of the Small Aircraft Transportation System Concept. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

TRB Special Report 272 - Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions urges the U.S. Congress to establish a national airport cooperative research program. The committee that produced the report called such a program essential to ensuring airport security, efficiency, safety, and environmental compatibility.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

how to do a research summary