Air apparent?

However, the human mind is always more concerned with the present rather than the past and, as the months ticked by into 2002 with no further terrorist outrages, the determination to act seemingly began to dwindle.

Other more humdrum considerations – including who would foot the bill for a massive global security upgrade of the world's aviation industry, and tighten protection procedures in related sectors – inevitably came to the fore. Planned security initiatives began to suffer from unexplained delays.

Speaking exclusively to Security Management Today (SMT), Mike Cahalane – principal consultant at Mica Associates, and founder member of the Association of Security Consultants – said: "Companies suddenly began to relax. It's a direct reflection of the way in which many businesses are run."

"Quite reasonably," added Cahalane, "they have to keep their eye on the main commercial ball, which for them is their major customers. After a tragedy like the Twin Towers disaster, the initial urgency to do something ebbs away as the possibility of being blamed for inaction disappears over the horizon". That said, some positive changes have been made in respect of new legislation and tightening up security in the public services arena in general, while many security budgets and policies within private companies have undergone thorough revision.

With this in mind – and the first anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Centre just behind us – SMT thought it would be an opportune time to conduct a stocktaking exercise of what has been achieved, and how different (in real terms) security measures in the civil aviation sector have become post-September 11 2001.

Benchmarking in the US
The obvious place to start any such review of aviation security is in the United States.

Washington Government officials tasked with improving airport security Stateside now find themselves in the midst of hiring 33,000 new baggage screeners, setting up 1,100 explosive detection systems and ordering and installing 6,000 explosive trace detection machines to serve 400 airports (all of which are frantically trying to adapt their facilities to suit the upgraded security measures).

And all of this is on top of having carved out a new Federal Agency dedicated to overseeing aviation security, installing air marshals on a number of flights, beginning the new process of conducting night-time security sweeps on selected aircraft and building up an intelligence infrastructure to combat the terrorist threat.

In a recent update of the gargantuan operations now in place, the US Government's transportation auditor estimated that the amount of bomb detection equipment the US will eventually end up with is three times that currently being employed around the world. If the Government reaches such a target for its aviation industry then flying within, to and from the US should be a good deal safer.

However, the so-called 'heavy lifting' in setting up this desired degree of security seems to be tiring out the planners. The deadline for hiring screeners approaches this month but, come the end of September, less than 15% of officers had been 'put in post'.

Bomb detection equipment is meant to be installed and fully operational by year's end, but some manufacturers cannot match the level of demand. Not all good news, then.

Meeting the security target dates
The directors of 133 US airports recently urged American senators to delay a requirement that all passenger luggage be screened for explosives come 31 December. The airport managers signed a letter last August stating that the Federal Agency responsible for the mammoth security overhaul would not be able to meet that cut-off date without creating major traffic problems.

SMT obtained a copy of the letter, which states: "The 2002 deadline is an arbitrary deadline that cannot be met at many US airports without serious implications for security, customer service, airport facilities, passengers' willingness to travel and, ultimately, the national economy."

For its part, Washington's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has stated that it plans to meet the year-end deadline by buying the aforementioned explosive detection systems and trace machines. However, James Loy, the newly-appointed head of the TSA, has suggested he may well support efforts to push back the deadline. A Senate Committee has been considering the idea this Autumn.

While US transportation secretary Norman Minetta has yet to budge, another key player – homeland security director Tom Ridge – has said that he favours giving airports more time to implement the chosen measures.

Neil Livingstone – author of 'The War on Terrorism' and chief executive officer of international risk management and business intelligence concern Global Options – feels that the Government is placing too much of a priority on general screening, and not enough on lessening the threat of on-board terrorism.

Livingstone envisages that a split will emerge between the Government – working on meeting its screening and detection deadlines – and the pilots, whom he believes have a far less costly and more immediate solution to the problems at hand. "The Government can solve the problem of securing cockpits by arming the pilots. What does that cost? About $400 and a strong door."

Outspoken Livingstone is also critical of the US Government's vague warnings of terrorist threats. A recent article published in The Washington Post claimed that pilots were feeling "left out of the loop" by intelligence agencies that offer few specific details on perceived threats to security. "All the pilots need to hear is something like 'There is a threat against your flight tomorrow', and that would be sufficient," stressed Livingstone.

However, he does applaud the US Government for requiring more stringent background checks on airport employees, and offering them better salaries and benefits.

At the same time, Mike Cronin (executive director of the Coalition of Airline Pilots' Associations) is satisfied that the Government is tackling bomb detection, an area that pilots (armed or not) have no control over. Cronin understands the enormous effort needed to secure the US' aviation sector. A sector that, prior to September 11, exhibited safety and security standards well below those needed.

"Sadly, it has taken a tragedy the like of which we've never seen before to focus peoples' minds on the security issue. In many ways that's inexcusable. We certainly can't afford any more inertia on this issue."

Safety first in the European Union
As you'd expect, there's been a good deal of action taken in the European Union (EU), although the pace has been somewhat slower. Nothing if not predictable, given that aviation security is an international affair and the fact that there are many nation states across Europe which need to raise their game in concert by way of EU and other continental institutions.

Not surprisingly, there have also been ongoing battles about who should foot the bill for security reforms, particularly in the suddenly cash-strapped air transport business. Attempts have been made to create an 'EU line' on this, with the costs being shared between national Governments and the air transport industry. Ultimately, it's likely that the EU will decide what needs to be done and leave the question of who pays for it in a given country to the relevant national Government.

There will almost certainly be change, though. The European Parliament and the Council of Ministers are close to finalising an agreement on the reform of air industry security. An agreement which, by and large, incorporates into European law Document 30 of the European Civil Aviation Conference (Europe's aviation policy development body) that concentrates on "increased control of both international and domestic flights". Since this set of compulsory guidelines is extremely detailed, there's little room for manoeuvre for those Governments who might wish to shelve change because of thorny funding problems.

Also on the practical side, a central group of nuclear, biological and chemical experts has been set up by the European Commission to assist any EU member states requesting their help in the event of a terrorist attack involving agents of mass destruction.

Brussels has reinforced an existing network of 24-hour contact points to handle requests for assistance, making sure they are "as far as is practicably possible" connected by dedicated telephone lines. A self-tuition programme is also being established to help train operational managers in dealing with terrorist threats (most notably those of a nuclear, biological or chemical nature).

In addition, the Commission and the 15 EU member states have committed themselves to collating information on serums, vaccines, antibiotics, the availability of hospital beds and exchanging data on their respective early warning systems. They have also agreed to establish a systematic exchange of information, focusing on the threat of terrorist attacks. Brussels' Civil Protection Unit is to be assisted by a new task force of national experts in undertaking and co-ordinating these tasks.

Talking to SMT, European Commission president Romano Prodi said: "The Commission has swiftly extended its existing civil protection system such that it can deal effectively and in a co-ordinated way with the consequences of these threats, be they biological, chemical or nuclear."

Overseeing the private sector
The European Commission has made a formal recommendation to national Governments urging them to encourage co-operation between public bodies tasked with overseeing the operations of the private security sector in their countries. The idea is that they exchange information – most notably on good practice – and hold a Europe-wide conference within the next two years.

However, for a longer term guide to EU policy on post-September 11 security policy in the aviation and other transport sectors it's probably best to listen to EU transport minister Loyola de Palacio.

Speaking at a symposium on air traffic security in Brussels this summer, de Palacio said that she hoped there is now "consensus within all sectors of the European aviation industry for binding rules laying down harmonised basic aviation security standards".

Many European countries – including Spain, de Palacio's home nation – already have substantial experience in dealing with terrorism, thus the aim of any European legislation is "not to tell the best EU countries how to deal with terrorism, but rather to ensure that all can enjoy aviation security standards that compare favourably with the best".

Crucially, de Palacio has outlined four key principles that she wants EU institutions and member states to follow in the future. She believes there is a need to tailor aviation security policies to face the "new elements of terrorism", as horrifically perpetrated by the Al Qaeda network. For de Palacio, the most shocking aspect of the Twin Towers attack was the fact that members of the terrorist group could be persuaded to commit suicide for their cause. "Obviously, that makes civil aircraft a particularly attractive target," added de Palacio.

"With that in mind," she continued, "no stone should be left unturned in seeking ways to reduce the vulnerability of aircraft to such attack. All options for identifying potential terrorists and strengthening in-flight security must be looked at very carefully indeed."

These options include state-of-the-art biometric identification systems and the more sophisticated handling of passenger screening processes – whereby known and trusted passengers are waived through while more suspicious travellers take up the majority of security officers' time. Indeed, de Palacio is also investigating the sky marshals idea pioneered in the States.

Second, the transport minister added that any new aviation security measures imposed should actually create tangible safety improvements as any symbolic action would merely serve to further erode the confidence of airline passengers – itself one of Al Qaeda's stated aims. As Ms de Palacio stated: "All new and proposed actions should be accompanied by the question: 'What does this do to improve actual security'?"

Third, the minister has stressed the need for security measures to be based on "a spirit of international co-operation" such that the cross-border threat of international terrorism is fought head-on and in unison. According to de Palacio, that co-operation "must involve sharing information, services and good practice. There mustn't be an atomised collection of national forces. We'd be stronger if a collective approach were to be adopted."

Strongly supporting the work on terrorism carried out by international aviation organisations including the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), de Palacio told SMT that she is "confident the current US administration appreciates the benefits to be had from working in partnership with the European Union to defeat terrorism by having common high standards and common approaches towards aviation security."

In addition, de Palacio has urged that airlines, security system manufacturers, passengers and Governments must share the burden of improving security. This includes the tricky issue of funding, which has thus far delayed the passage into law of some much-needed legislation.

Make no mistake about it. The money needed will be a vast sum. Witness the American experience, and also the fact that EU member states must introduce 100% hold baggage screening capabilities as soon as possible. To date, Britain is the only EU country that is equipped for such a task.

Widening our security cordons
In recent editions, SMT has already outlined the practical improvements being made to global aviation security standards by the ICAO, and the global fund that it's creating to pay for reforms in developing countries. Now, the International Maritime Organisation is due to hold a key meeting in December when it will pass a range of new security standards for shipping and ports.

In the business world, corporate clients of security consultants and service providers have apparently needed very little persuasion to spend more resources on their security provision in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on America. Stuart Lowden, director of security solutions provider Wilson James, told SMT that the attacks prompted "serious and often productive reviews" of security policies among companies in the private sector. "At the very least, the attacks speeded up work already in hand," said Lowden.

Wilson James serves a client base that includes British Airways' hq, credit card group Capital One, BBC Television Centre, the Tate Modern, Sainsbury's and the City of London's Japanese-owned Nomura Bank. All have been faced with the problem of feeling the need to 'beef up' security without making their staff and clients feel that they are constantly in the firing line.

Lowden's company has been advising its end users on how they might obtain "added value" from their respective security programmes. In real terms, this has included training receptionists in security skills, instructing security officers to handle customers and placing all front desk staff under the supervision of a dedicated manager.

"Our aim is to spend as much time talking to clients about softening the front of house image of a security service that still provides basic protection, but doesn't do so in an overtly hostile way," suggested Lowden.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks Stateside, there was also a great desire to calm clients and staff alike by imposing highly visible security measures. "A number of clients wanted to increase the level of their external deterrent, so we would have officers patrolling building perimeter zones on a much increased basis," added Lowden.

"There has also been an additional and welcome emphasis on controlling traffic in and around company properties, not to mention a heightened state of vigilance."

Contingency planning takes shape
According to Ian Johnson – principal consultant at Ian Johnson Associates – other sensible steps have included companies spending much more time and money on contingency planning for dealing with an attack, rather than preventing it from happening in the first place.

"Companies have been seeking alternative sites from which to maintain their businesses," exclaimed Johnson. "They're putting in place 'cloned' operations that would be ready to roll in other locations should the main business be subject to attack."

Apparently, a good deal of thought is going into building design, too. Large atriums and wide windows, for so long a trademark of the corporate world, are now far less popular than they once were.

Not all of these activities have been carried out on a widescale basis. Some of the early measures were "knee jerk" reactions, said Ian Johnson. "This manifested itself in end user organisations spending money on equipment that perhaps wasn't best suited to their needs. Some of the screening equipment bought by airlines wasn't the best available. Now that this equipment is in place, they haven't the necessary funding in place to buy the really good security kit that's beginning to penetrate the marketplace."

Johnson is adamant that there's been much lip service paid to security at airports, rounding on the confiscation of sharp items at airport security desks as a good case in point. "This is all well and good, but if a passenger can then visit the retail areas post check-in and buy a Swiss army knife that rather defeats the objective," sighed Johnson.

Security investment must continue
Governments (on the macro scale) and companies (at the micro level) must continue to invest in the more high-tech security solutions as and when they become available.

Among those currently on the market are 3-D scanners, special sensors that can detect plastic explosives, screening equipment that simulates weapon shapes to keep human scanning staff on their toes and biometric devices that actually x-ray people as they walk through a metal detector (pieces of kit that will no doubt generate many complaints from Human Rights activists in the near future... see box panel 'Orlando scanner reveals naked truth about security').

Ultimately, it will always be the case that only so much can be done.

Mike Cahalane sums up the present situation quite neatly. "If we turn our thoughts towards plugging all the holes in the dyke, the money just simply isn't there to do so. As we're all aware, security budgets are anything but a bottomless pit. Improving aviation security, or indeed any type of security, is all about prioritisation. Let's identity where our big problems lie, prioritise and tackle them".