__=948.pdf

8/12/2019 __www.passengerterminaltoday.com_features.php_BlogID=948.pdf

1/4

The daily portal for the latest airport passenger terminal news and views Keywords Search Sort by: relevance most recent

FEATURES AND EXCLUSIVE ARTICLES >>

back to listing

Changing the rules

Interview with Uta Kohse, managing partner at Airport Research Center

How are you woring with air!orts to rea"y the# $or the li$ting o$ LA%s restri&tions'

In the last two years Airport Research Center (ARC has gained e!tended insight in this topic bymeans of several pro"ects with airports seeking answers on the conse#$ences of lifting the %A&srestrictions' ased on this we have developed a standardised approach to best s$pport airportsin their decision making process'

)any parameters are still $nknown* we $se scenarios and sensitivity analysis to investigate thepotential impact and conse#$ences' +e can analyse if and how m$ch the thro$ghp$t capacity is

red$ced and recommend meas$res to compensate by optimising the lane layo$t and the processdesign (balancing se#$ence and r$les of s$b,processes- s$ch as preparing- loading- collectingtrays- organisation of secondary screening process- tasks and n$mber of involved staff'

The investigation process is s$pported by a highly calibrated sim$lation model of the screening

process- which allows the detailed analysis of interdependent factors of a specific lane layo$t-the process design which is the definition of all s$b,processes of screening (passenger andbaggage incl$ding primary and secondary screening- as well as the activities and the n$mber of

involved staff members per lane'

Left: Model Set-p withimportant process parameters

.irst of all we cond$ct a stat$s

#$o analysis of the e!istingscreening lane layo$t- c$rrentscanning e#$ipment and theprocess design in place as wellas of the c$rrent passenger

characteristics driven by thetraffic str$ct$re handled at a

central or at different screeningareas of an airport' The stat$s#$o analysis incl$des the s$rveyof important system parameters

per screening area- s$ch as the n$mber of items and trays- process times and shares of eachs$b,processes- incl$ding loading trays- n$mber of passengers loading trays at the same time-the share of s$spicio$s persons or items that need a secondary screening- the process time ofprimary and secondary screening- and overall the se#$ence and r$les of all s$b,processes' /nce

all parameters have been obtained- $s$ally a sim$lation model is set $p of the stat$s #$osit$ation- which is $sed to validate and calibrate the model and make s$re it represents the

c$rrent screening process in an appropriate way'

The model will give a thro$ghp$t capacity (passengers per ho$r per lane that can be compared

to what act$ally is meas$red and observed in the real,life sit$ation' S$ch a model $s$ally has anacc$racy of at least 012' ased on the model the new process with primary and secondaryli#$id screening is then modelled and it can be eval$ated if and how m$ch the new processes

have a negative impact on thro$ghp$t capacity'In an iterative process- changing details of the layo$t- the process and the staffing can optimise

the thro$ghp$t capacity' /ften small changes in the process design or layo$t can res$lt in anincrease of thro$ghp$t capacity 3 in this way potentials are detected for compensating a

declined capacity thro$ghp$t'

As stated in the beginning- beca$se important parameters are still $nknown- s$ch as the share

of li#$ids that are s$b"ect for a secondary screening in combination with a false alarm rate-scenarios are investigated considering a likely bandwidth for the capacity per lane' ased onthis- the airport can eval$ate the n$mber of lanes needed to handle a partic$lar peak demand'As a range is given by the scenario analysis the airport can eval$ate if the space and the n$mberof lanes can still handle a specific peak demand or if there is a risk that either longer waiting

times have to be accepted or if there is a need to b$ild more space for additional screeninglanes'

Th$s- the e!amination and optimisation of the process design and lane layo$t will p$t the airportin the position to r$n 4what,if5 scenarios to better test ca$se and effect and be actively preparedto the new sit$ation' The approach enables a foresighted planning and helps to identify a trade,off that fits the act$al and individ$al sit$ation of each airport (can a decline in thro$ghp$t be

compensated with optimised layo$t- processes- more staff6 7o we need more lanes6 Can we still

place more lanes in the available space6 7o we need to invest in a complete re,design of areasand is there a need for a larger investment in constr$ction of new areas6' The sensitivityanalysis cond$cted with sim$lation enables the airport to $nderstand the range of e!pected

thro$ghp$t red$ction to eval$ate if it is on the safe side with the offered capacity or if it has toinvest in e!tra lanes and space'

7ownload the NE()*th Anni+ersary,assenger Ter#inal(orl" )*-. )edia8ack'

NE(S ,T( /A%A0INE RT( /A%A0INE SU,,LIER S,1TLI%HT RECRUIT/ENT 1,INI1N EVENTS TV FEATURES Contact $s 9 ome

Pgina 1 de 4Passenger Terminal Today

24/06/2014http://www.passengerterminaltoday.com/features.php!log"#$%4&


2/4

(ill large in+est#ents ha+e to 2e #a"e or "o #ost air!orts alrea"y use e3ui!#entthat &an s&reen li3ui"s'

Several airports have started already to redesign their processes and get prepared for the needof li#$id scans' Scanners need to be replaced on a reg$lar basis and if new scan e#$ipment

needs to be p$rchased- the latest generation with the capability to screen li#$ids have beenp$rchased already' Th$s- there are several airports that are prepared- b$t there are also severalairports that have not reorganised their infrastr$ct$re and processes yet and are "$st starting orare still in the process of $pgrading their screening facilities'

owever- it is not s$fficient to "$st e!change screening e#$ipment- it also needs to beconsidered that the thro$ghp$t capacity per lane will be red$ced as the process becomes morecomple! and also passengers need to be trained what to do' Therefore- each airport sho$ld also

look into the process design and the ca$se and effect of the change on thro$ghp$t capacity';ach airport sho$ld be prepared to have mitigation meas$res in place to compensate'

The investments may be made not only in e#$ipment b$t also in:< Technology 3 a main scanner that can analyse li#$ids in general- and second a special li#$id

scanner for secondary sec$rity checks< Another lane layo$t and=or more lanes 3 as overall screening process will get more comple!-the overall thro$ghp$t will be red$ced and this needs to be compensated either thro$gh anoptimised lane layo$t or by introd$cing more lanes' If more lanes cannot be placed in the

e!isting layo$t- re,design of areas may res$lt in even more costs'< Staff 3 o$r analysis showed that it is recommended to add more staff- especially for the

secondary li#$id control process' Also in the starting phase additional floorwalkers are re#$iredto g$ide and train passengers< Costs 3 to cover set,$p- implementing- testing and training of e#$ipment- and optimisingprocesses

(hat are the #ain &hallenges $a&e" $or air!orts when the LA%s restri&tions are

re#o+e"'There are a n$mber of challenges- incl$ding:

< 7ifferent interpretation of r$les' There is no standardised process design of screening process3 the ;$ropean Commission "$st sets bo$ndaries b$t the act$al detailing and implementation is

done by each co$ntry' The res$lt is a kind of patchwork process design which often differs fromairport to airport even in the same co$ntry' There might also be co$ntries which will not follow

the r$les and stick to the old li#$id restriction as they do not s$fficiently tr$st the available

technology and delay investments- waiting instead $ntil a more reliable and faster technology isavailable'< Comm$nication with passengers' Airports have to ens$re passengers $nderstand what to do-what is allowed and what is not* they sho$ld introd$ce changes in a phased approach to red$ce

conf$sion'< There will be longer #$e$es- waiting times or more lanes 3 airports need to optimise lane

layo$t and process design if possible'< >ncertainty 3 airports are still #$estioning e#$ipment reliability- which s$pplier to choose- howsoon another $pgrade of e#$ipment will be needed and whether other threats will res$lt in theneed for more=other e#$ipment'

Left: !etailed secrit" processmodel to test what-if scenarios

and condct sensitivit" anal"sisand optimisation

How rea"y "o you 2elie+e

the in"ustry is $or the li$ting

o$ the LA%s restri&tions'There is the ;> reg$lation set,$p and there is a date whereimplementation shall befinalised' ;> airports are bo$nd

to these reg$lations' In casethey are not ready- they haveto stick to the old li#$idreg$lation- b$t might be

confronted with angrypassengers and claims for

compensation' The disc$ssionabo$t lifting of %A& restrictions has been going on for #$ite a while and- as first date for initial

implementation in April ?@B was postponed- many airports have done eval$ation st$diesalready and have initiated the plan for implementation to be ready at least for phase (transferpassengers and also following phases of the changed reg$lation'

8revio$sly- with the introd$ction of %A& restrictions- the screening process became morecomplicated and the thro$ghp$t was red$ced' This was the moment when airports e!periencedmassive capacity problems and started to $pgrade' Th$s- many airports have already done$pgrades and modernisations of the sec$rity screening layo$t to increase the overall thro$ghp$t

capabilities per screening lane (more space per lane in width and length- longer lanes for

preparation and secondary screening- etc' $t there are also several airports that do stilloperate the simple- shorter traditional screening lanes which have a red$ced thro$ghp$tcapacity and cannot accommodate the more comple! processes incl$ding li#$id screening'

Th$s- to answer the #$estion- it is dependent on the individ$al sit$ation of each airport' If it has$pgraded and modernised the screening area already- the airport potentially needs to integratenew scanners and redesign the processes to incl$de the li#$id screening (primary and

secondary'

.or airports that still have traditional short and small screening lanes- they probably need to do

re,design of areas which might incl$de creating additional space for more advanced e#$ipmentand more comple! screening processes'

owever- even if the airports $pgrade their lanes and set,$p the e#$ipment- the biggest$ncertainty is that airports do not know the e!pected thro$ghp$t capacity per lane as this is notonly driven by the technology b$t also by passenger behavio$r and the act$al items that need to

be screened' Also the share of s$spect items that are s$b"ect to a secondary screening is notreally known and does not only depend on the acc$racy of the scanner b$t also on the kind of

li#$ids and the kind of containers passengers bring'

As the ;> plans a phased lifting of %A& restrictions- it is e!pected that the first phase- which

mainly concerns transfer passengers- will not be as problematic $nless at p$re transfer sec$ritycontrols at transfer h$bs' Airports with a high share of transfer passengers have to foc$s on

s$ch control processes' owever- when a complete lifting of %A& reg$lations happens- airports

might e!perience more iss$es if scanner technology is not s$itably a$tomated- reliable and fastwith a low false re"ection rate'

/$r analyses showed that the screening process of complete lifting of li#$id restriction wo$ldlead- at least in a modern layo$t of screening lanes- to a thro$ghp$t red$ction of at least @,

?@2' The act$al red$ction will be highly dependent on the share of passengers having li#$ids toscreen as well as on the share of li#$ids s$b"ect to a secondary screening process'


24/06/2014http://www.passengerterminaltoday.com/features.php!log"#$%4&


3/4

So- the #$estion is also whether airports have s$fficiently looked and analysed the potentialred$ction in thro$ghp$t- in partic$lar in the starting phase- as well as they possible mitigation

meas$res needed to compensate a red$ced thro$ghp$t 3 only then they are well and pro,actively prepared'

Is the right te&hnology out there now'The ;$ropean Civil Aviation Conference (;CAC has p$blished a list of certified %A& e!plosivedetection systems'Th$s- c$rrently there are several man$fact$rers of li#$id screening e#$ipment- and each prod$ct

has advantages and disadvantages' The lack of a s$itable false alarm rate seems to be thema"or iss$e'

In order to implement a li#$id screening process the technology is available- however- it is not

comfortable for passengers and investment costs for the airport is high'

To red$ce the false alarm rate with the available scanners- $s$ally the process design re#$iresseparating the li#$ids from the hand l$ggage and even $sing e!tra dedicated trays for li#$idslarger than @@ml' This is a n$isance and makes the screening process more comple! and

e!pensive'

It can be arg$ed that the 4perfect5 technology is not there yet for a complete removal of %A&srestrictions' The target is a scanner that a$tomatically- very reliably and #$ickly screens thewhole hand l$ggage at once witho$t the need to separate li#$ids and provides a low false alarmrate' Th$s- the aviation ind$stry still shows do$bts whether the screening technology of scannersof generation 7 can detect reliably s$spect li#$ids inside bags and the #$estion is also if thetechnology will be available at the beginning of ?@ when the plan is to lift all li#$id

restrictions'

(hat ty!e o$ e3ui!#ent is 2eing use" in air!orts $or s&reening li3ui"s 4Ty!e A5 65 orC7' An" whi&h is the #ost e$$e&ti+e'>s$ally a combination of screening e#$ipment is $sed' The combination is dependent on details

of the process design driven by local reg$lations and legal re#$irements as well as on the localconditions of a partic$lar screening area'

Dot each combination of technology is applicable for each screening location at an airport 3 localfactors need to be considered- in partic$lar available space' In the end it is a trade,off between

infrastr$ct$re investments vers$s operational process investment'

Th$s- the optim$m combination of $sed technology- lane layo$t and process design is to be

specified according to individ$al local conditions'Therefore it is not the #$estion of the most effective technology- as this also is dependent on theact$al individ$al sit$ation at an airport relating to e!isting available facilities- space availability

(length and width per lane- and other operational constraints'

The most effective sol$tion is dependent on space availability and thro$ghp$t capacityre#$irements that drive the act$al n$mber of re#$ired lanes' It is also dependent also on thedesired level of service (%/S in terms of waiting times'Small airports with a limited n$mber of screening lanes for a small peak demand will not

necessarily invest in a h$ge lane layo$t- which delivers a very large thro$ghp$t capacity that isnot needed'

Another #$estion is what is the act$al share of li#$ids that needs to be screened per passengers6+hat is the act$al share of secondary screening and inspection of not,identified and potentially

s$spicio$s li#$ids6 These are parameters that will have an impact on potentially red$cedthro$ghp$t capacity' )ost effective wo$ld be reliable screening of complete handbags- which

shall be realised by category 7 scanners' $t it is in do$bt that the todayEs available scannerscan detect reliably s$spect li#$ids inside bags'

(hat other &hanges "oes an air!ort ha+e to &onsi"er'This has to be decided for each individ$al case' .irst of all the main change is related to the newscreening e#$ipment which enables the re#$ired process of li#$id screening'

ased on the selected combination of e#$ipment for primary and secondary screening of li#$ids-the process design needs to be specified' There are two basic concepts to be considered: (a

where the secondary screening is integrated in the overall process and at the location at eachscreening lane or (b where passengers with s$spicio$s li#$ids are separated from the screeninglane and are g$ided to a dedicated screening area and will not dist$rb and slow down thegeneral flow of passengers'

ased on the specified process each lane will have specific layo$t' The layo$t drives the space

re#$irement and=or the given- limited space has an impact on the possible layo$t (length andwidth of lanes' %ayo$t and process design in combination with passenger traffic characteristics

res$lt in an attainable capacity thro$ghp$t per lane' The demand d$ring peak ho$r and thedesired %/S in terms of waiting time provides the n$mber of lanes to be accommodated per

screening area'

In the end the prod$ctivity per lane in terms of thro$ghp$t capacity is a decisive key

performance indicator' >s$ally- the ob"ective is to optimise and balance factors s$ch as layo$t-process design- and n$mber of s$pporting sec$rity staff to obtain an optim$m thro$ghp$t witheach of the limited and balanced $tilised reso$rces' It is highly dependent on local conditions of

passenger characteristics'

As all these factors interact with each other- the optim$m sol$tion cannot be calc$lated based on

a simple analytical form$la and sim$lation is $sed to $nderstand and optimise theinterdependent factors to attain an optimised sol$tion' In the end the optim$m sol$tion is

different from case to case'

Left: Sensitivit" anal"sis forimpact on throghptdepending on preparation time

and rate for secondar"screening of LA#s

How &an air!orts o!ti#isethe !ro&ess an" the layoutto a+oi" negati+e i#!a&t on

&a!a&ity'.irst of all it is important to

$nderstand the interaction andinterdependencies of layo$t-process- technology- staffingand passenger characteristics

and behavio$r which will drivethe need for li#$id screening

(amo$nt and kind of li#$ids tobe screened'

This can be assessed with

several real,life tests- where certain parameters are varied' This is then like a real,life trial anderror method as it is almost impossible to do an optimisation with analytical calc$lation methods

as so many different interdependent factors are involved'

SU,,LIER S,1TLI%HT

Click here for listings and

information on leadings$ppliers covering all aspectsof the passenger terminalind$stry' +ant to see yo$r

company incl$ded6 ;mail7amien de Roche'

Fiew all s$ppliers GG

,assenger Ter#inal (orl" >>

NE( DI%ITAL EDITI1N88assenger Terminal +orld H$ne?@ is now online'

Read now'

)ore InformationGG

Railway Ter#inal (orl" >>

NE( DI%ITAL EDITI1N8

.rom the p$blishers of8assenger Terminal +orld- theonly magaJine dedicated to

railway terminal and station

design and technologies'

Read the free digital edition GG

TV >>

,ulo+o Air!ort

/ain Ter#inal,ro9e&t

&rimshawArchitects look at

the progress beingmade at 8$lkovo AirportKs )ain Terminal

+atch Dow GG

Annual Show&ase )*-. >>

NE( DI%ITAL EDITI1N8

8assenger Terminal +orld

Showcase ?@ is now online'

Read now'

)ore Information GG

/EDIA ,AC:S >>

7ownload the NE( )*-.,assenger Ter#inal(orl" )edia 8ack'

7ownload the )*-.

Railway Ter#inal(orl" )edia 8ack'


24/06/2014http://www.passengerterminaltoday.com/featres.php!"log#$%&4'


4/4

Documents

__=948.pdf