Security’s next wave

Ron Louwerse tells Marie Shields about the futuristic technology that is helping to Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport fight terrorism.

“You could say a lot of this is theatre. Which in a way is true, because 99.9999 percent of our passengers are not the ones we are looking for. But you still have to check and control them. It looks like theatre, but in the end, there's a reason you're doing it. It's not really theatre at all”
-Ron Louwerse

In these times of heightened terror threats, one of the toughest jobs has got to be that of an airport's director of security. How to thwart a potential attack while ensuring customers are not unduly inconvenienced?

Once answer is to invest in up-to-the-minute technology, something that is in evidence at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, where advanced body scanning machinery called the 'Security Scan' was introduced in 2007. The machines produce an image of the body contours using millimetre wave reflection technology, which alerts security staff to the presence of unauthorized items on the body.

Schiphol's Director of Security Ron Louwerse explains the advantages of this technology: "The main benefit is that the machine scans all objects that people have on their body. A metal detector only scans metal, and then we have to do a random search to look for explosives. This machine looks for metal, explosives and non-ferrous items. The big advantage is that, with the scan, you deal with all possible threats people can carry with them."

He points out that it is also very fast. "The actual screening only takes three seconds. In the current system, the agent needs about nine to ten seconds to look at an image if there's something he has to go investigate further. This is a different agent from the one standing next to the machine. They communicate through a wireless system, and when something is not okay with the ankle or whatever, he only has to say, 'It's not okay with the ankle.' The actual body frisking can be minimised to a specific location, in this case the ankle, which makes it much more passenger-friendly because it doesn't involve a search of the whole body."

Some passengers were understandably a little apprehensive about the machines when they were first introduced: Louwerse says they were viewed like "some new science fiction thing, like something from Star Trek." Now, however, they have become used to it and airport staff have found the system to be very passenger-friendly, with a normal throughput of about four passengers per minute, a speed Louwerse calls "acceptable".

Airline passengers have been taking the machines in their stride, but that hasn't stopped privacy-related questions being asked about them in the European Parliament. "They were worried about the image being seen by other agents," Louwerse explains. "That's why, with the company who manufactures the machine, we have tested new software in which there is no image for an agent to see. It's a fully automated detection device: on a kind of outline next to the machine it bleeps up on the ankle or on the knee or on the shoulder or whatever. There's no communication with the two agents and there's no agent who looks at it."

Human error

When airport security breaches do happen, they are often blamed on human error, which may be why Schiphol's motto, as quoted by Louwerse, is "technology where possible and people where necessary". "That's the way we try to fulfill all security obligations," he says. He cites 100 percent control of staff when they enter security-restricted areas, and the use of a central location to minimise the number of agents required to look at X-rays, as being vital to maintaining high levels of security.

One of the big issues facing airport staff is how to keep passengers happy during increasingly lengthy security procedures. What are the challenges in maintaining security but also keeping a good customer experience? Louwerse says that the most important element is passenger-friendliness: "When we train our people, we always emphasise the need for being friendly and polite and showing respect," he emphasizes.

No matter how advanced the technology gets, there will always be a human factor in making sure the customer experience is a good one. "It can be a difficult task, because you have to screen a lot of passengers on a daily basis. Not all passengers act friendly towards you, and it can be difficult sometimes to maintain your composure. The main challenge is to keep the whole process passenger friendly, but still it has to be a security process."

Although our awareness of terror threats remains relatively high, Louwerse admits that there is always a danger that complacency can creep in. In order to combat this, Schiphol uses 'mystery' passengers and other programmes to ensure staff remain alert to possible breaches. "I think it's a normal human reaction. When the threat is not immediate, it could slip in. If we see this happening, we act immediately," he says. "We're on a good level."

In addition to preventing threats introduced by passengers, there are other crucial areas where security needs to be maintained, including the airport's perimeter. Schiphol has about 55 km of fencing, which Louwerse says is a large area to maintain. The airport uses modern radar and camera technology to prevent intrusion, and also works closely with the local police authority, which carries out surveillance around the whole area.

Acting out

Airport security is often accused of being reactive in nature, and this does appear to be true. After 9/11, more control was introduced around cockpit doors and sharp objects were banned from cabins. Following the 'shoe bomber' incident, many airports started requiring certain types of shoes to be scanned. A threat from liquid explosives materializes and suddenly rules relating to liquids are tightened up.

It's easy to point fingers and say these measures have come too late, but how can we protect against things we haven't even thought of yet? "You have to think the unthinkable," Louwerse says. "That's a paradox I can't solve. It's very difficult. You should be alert; you should look not only for compliance with regulations, but as a security agent or a security department, you should look for the actual threat. That's just being aware at the spot, at the time, at the moment of what's happening. Then we'll be okay.

"You could say a lot of this is theatre. Which in a way is true, because 99.9999 percent of our passengers are not the ones we are looking for. But you still have to check and control them. It looks like theatre, but in the end, there's a reason you're doing it. It's not really theatre at all."

Louwerse agrees that part of the function of security checks is to make passengers feel as though something is being done. He says this works both ways: it makes some passengers feel secure, but then others complain because they feel they're being treated like criminals. He notes the difficulty of finding a balance between those two feelings.

Despite these challenges, in 2007, the British Business Traveller magazine voted Amsterdam Airport Schiphol 'Best Airport in Europe', based on passenger experience. Schiphol also earned fourth place for 'Best Airport in the World' on the same list. And in June of this year, it was designated best airport in Europe by the European airport association, ACI Europe. When asked what part he thinks security has played in this recognition, Louwerse says, "One of the advantages we have is that we are responsible for the actual carrying out of the measures and the legislation, so we are able to integrate them in our other processes.

"It's the government that's checking on the compliance and the level and the quality, but it's up to us to determine how and where we put in the security. I think that's an advantage over other airports that have a lot more government involvement.

"We have very good cooperation with government institutions. We are both aware of the need to deal with security in a proper way - efficient, not too costly, and passenger friendly. That's also the government's concern."

difficulty with European legislation, Louwerse says, is that it's an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time. It applies to all European airports and all European countries, attempting to apply one standard to a very diverse industry.

"National governments are allowed to put in more stringent measures than the EU states," he points out. "This can make it difficult for some passengers to travel between certain countries. For example, in some countries, it's always necessary to take your shoes off; in others it's not. That's the disadvantage of having one European legislation on one hand and still the freedom for local governments to put in their own measures on the other."

Louwerse pins his hopes on new developments in technology to ease the stress that can often exist during current airport security procedures, moving toward a time when passengers won't even notice they're being screened. "We're not there yet," he says. But with its forward-looking approach, there's no reason why Schiphol shouldn't continue to lead the field of airport security into the future.

Ron Louwerse is Director of Security for Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.

All the world's a stage

Security theatre consists of measures aimed at giving the feeling of heightened security while doing little or nothing to actually improve it. The term was coined by Bruce Schneier for in book Beyond Fear, but has come to be used particularly for describing airport security measures. It is also used by some experts such to describe the security measures imposed after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Mutual cooperation

IATA's Steve Lott explains the association's role in international airport security.

EUINFRA. One of the International Air Transport Association's main objectives is to ensure that international security requirements are mutually accepted between European member states. How does you go about doing this?
Steve Lott. IATA proposes that states carry out a detailed comparison of their security measures, to assess whether their security levels are equivalent or not. This can be accompanied by audits at each other's airports. Should they prove to be at equivalent levels, they should conclude Security Recognition Agreements that can then lead to one-stop security.

One-stop security has been in place in Europe for a decade now, but the system has not moved outside of this area. What benefits would one-stop security bring and how could the concept be expanded outside of Europe?
Europe is indeed a specific case, because the security rules here are set jointly by the EU member states, and kept under supervision by the European Commission. However, IATA is convinced that one-stop security can expand beyond the EU's borders, between like-minded countries and based on equivalence of measures. The EU is currently negotiating one-stop security agreements with the US and Canada, for example. We believe the main airports in Asia should also be a test-bed for one-stop security.

Where does the responsibility lie for aviation security and funding? Are there any actors you believe should be playing an enhanced role regarding security?
As a principle, IATA believes that security measures that are set by lawmakers to protect people against terrorism should be paid for by the state - anti-terrorism is a key government function. In practice, this is not done. Too often, the aviation industry and passengers are asked to bear the cost of security measures. The aviation industry fully understands the role it needs to play in implementing strict security standards - but the responsibility for funding should be more justly shared with governments.

Will it be possible to achieve a harmonised implementation of globally recognised security standards?
Harmonisation is a fundamental objective in aviation security, but we recognise that states can be under different threat levels and may have to implement additional measures to cope with higher risk. Since global security is as strong as its weakest link, all states should at least adhere to the baseline security standard set by ICAO Annex 17. Beyond this, we encourage states that have different security regimes to at least recognise each other's systems and cooperate closely. The response of a number of key states to the liquids and gels threats in August 2006 is an example of international cooperation and mutual recognition.

Look me in the eye

Privium, Schiphol's service programme for frequent fliers, offers members the opportunity to travel by plane without the need to show their passports, thanks to its futuristic iris-scanning equipment.

On joining the programme, both of the passenger's eyes are scanned. Their iris details are saved on a chip on the Privium membership card, and at border passage the data on the chip are compared to the eye of the person travelling. If the information matches, the passenger is allowed to proceed.

According to Schiphol authorities, scanning the iris does not pose any risk to eyes or health. The iris scan can read information if the person is wearing glasses, contact lenses or coloured contact lenses, although it does not work through sunglasses.

The iris scan was developed by Schiphol according to the airport's specifications. The required software was developed in close cooperation with the Department of Immigration and Naturalisation, and the Dutch Military Police.