Security concepts and applications

Security

Aviation Security Pre and Post 911

The security in most airports did not used to be much of a problem for anyone. For many years before the events of September 11, 2001, travelers did not think much about security at all, it was just something that was expected at the airport, and oftentimes it seemed as though it was not taken very seriously. People had to walk through a metal detector, and their bags had to go down the conveyor belt to be X-rayed, but it seemed more of a formality than it did something to do with their safety and security. It was just one more thing they had to do when they went to the airport.

After September 11th, all of that changed. There was a renewed sense of concern when someone's bags were searched because the x-ray machine showed an odd shape in their carry-on luggage. People who were required to travel on planes that had a lot of Arabic or Middle Eastern looking individuals on them became nervous, and some of them chose to take a later flight rather than subject themselves to terrorists. The fear of individuals who were not from America grew and loomed large in many of America's airports since many people blamed the airports, at least in part, for the lack of security that led to the terrorist attacks. It was a difficult time for air travel and for America as a whole.

People who traveled on airlines began to realize that there was a reason for the x-ray machine and the metal detectors. They were not there just so passengers standing in line to board a plane would have something to do after all. They were there to stop people from getting on planes with knives and guns and bombs. And sometimes they failed in their task.

While airport security is not totally to blame for the events of September 11th, it did play a role in allowing the hijackers to board the plane that crashed into the twin towers, as well as the other planes that hijackers attempted to use to destroy other landmarks and important American buildings that day. If airport security had been different, the hijackers might never have gotten on those planes that day and things as they are now, including the war with Iraq, might be drastically different.

Background

On September 11, 2001, at 8:46 A.M., an airliner traveling at hundreds of miles per hour and carrying hundreds of passengers and thousands of gallons of jet fuel plowed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan. At 9:03 A.M. A second airliner hit the South Tower. Fire and smoke billowed upward. Steel, glass, ash, and bodies fell below. The Twin Towers both collapsed in less than 90 minutes. At 9:37 A.M. that same morning, a third airliner slammed into the western face of the Pentagon. At 10:03, a.m. A fourth airliner crashed in a field in southern Pennsylvania. It had been aimed at the United States Capitol or the White House, and was forced down by heroic passengers armed with the knowledge that America was under attack.

Up to 50,000 people worked each day at the places that were affected by the terrorism strike. Out of these 50,000 more than 2,600 people died at the World Trade Center; 125 died at the Pentagon, and 256 died on the four planes. The death toll surpassed that at Pearl Harbor in December 1941. To many, at least where the magnitude of the death toll was considered, the tragic event of September 11 was another Pearl Harbor. In practical reality, when it comes to the task that lies ahead, it is quite possible that it will turn out to be another Gulf of Tonkin.

Some believe that the Bush Presidency began on September 11, 2001 when the terrorist attacks marked a quantum leap in the audacity and deadliness of terror (Fredrickson & LaPorte, 2002). In the most eloquent speech he has delivered, Bush stated that he was giving the Taliban a second chance to hand over Osama bin Laden. Since then, there has been sparked a fundamental debate about the tension among privacy, freedom, civil liberty, and security, in particular about how governments can prevent terrorism without infringing on privacy where airline security is concerned. The real intricacy stems from the fact that physical world attacks do not propagate beyond physical limits. Our privacy rights were stolen away as well, as the nation debated how to protect our liberties while waging war on terrorism.

Statement of the Problem

Before September 11th, the digital revolution in many ways expanded the capability of both the government and private companies to track, monitor and profile us by putting unprecedented power of communication technologies under the control of individuals. The threats to our privacy came largely from the government's usual thirst for information about our private lives, combined with the rapid development of new technologies that made interception of communications faster and collection of data cheaper.

The security of our nation has always been important, but never more so than after the tragic events of September 11, 2001. When the terrorist strike occurred, lawmakers and other concerned individuals began to realize the need for more security at various vulnerable points. Specifically, they concerned themselves with borders, airport security, infrastructure, law enforcement and intelligence, and cyberterrorism, because these were the areas that they felt were most vulnerable to terrorism.

These areas were also some of the most difficult areas to protect, because so many people used many of them every day. It was almost impossible to track who was coming in and out of every airport, or check the truthfulness of the document the border patrolman was just handed. If everything seemed legitimate then it was assumed to be legitimate, and that was that. All of those feelings changed when the attacks occurred and the United States saw just how easily it had been conned into thinking that everything was perfectly alright. That false sense of security was what got the U.S. into trouble, and now that they realized why it happened, they were out to make sure that it did not happen again.

All of the specific areas mentioned above are very vulnerable to terrorists, but for different reasons. The airports, naturally, were a big focus shortly after the terrorist attacks, but it was soon realized that they are not the only potential problem areas for terrorists to infiltrate our country. Terrorists getting into the country is a big concern, but so is what they are doing while they are here.

If one does manage to get in, or is already in the country, he must be watched closely to make sure he does not try anything. The likelihood is that he will, if he thinks he can get away with it. The object of homeland security and the new technology is to make it clear to the terrorists out there that America is on to them, and that they cannot just get away with it. There will be technology in place that is designed to make sure that they do not cause the kind of destruction and devastation that they previously handed to us.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to not only show the seriousness of the problem in question, but to come up with ideas that will help to show how this problem can be reduced in size. The best way to do this is to first analyze the problem in question to determine just how serious it actually is, and then use that seriousness as a wake-up call for those that have been looking the other way and avoiding dealing with the issue. There are many of these individuals, and it is time that this is changed. Even though advancements have been made, there are still many people who do not take the terrorist threat at the nation's airports seriously enough, and this is true of other areas for terrorism, as well. The only way to ensure safety is to better control all of the possible terrorist entries to this country, which is something that has not yet been accomplished.

Importance of the Study

It is necessary and pertinent to discuss the importance of a study, and this particular study is important to many people across the country. Not only does it have importance for veterans of past terrorist attacks and their families, but it also has importance for those who are considering an aviation career and those that are currently working in the aviation field as well. The reason behind this is that terrorism is something that is not going to go away, and something that is not simply going to be 'cured.' It is possible that, in the future, new and better ideas for how to address it and stop it from affecting this country will come about, however.

The study is important to the future of this kind of research as well because it will give a great deal of insight into the topic and discuss many of the concerns that exist now and the solutions that are being used, as well as what is being considered for the future of the field. With the threat of terrorism remaining so strong in this country it is vital to find new and better ways to protect people and to keep them safe from harm as much as is humanly and technologically possible.

Scope of the Study

The scope of this particular study is very broad and far-reaching, because there are so many people who are being affected by it now and will be affected by it in the future. This was mentioned briefly earlier, as the current individual that may be suffering from the after-effects or the fear of terrorism is by far not the only one that is affected or will be affected in the future. The family and friends of that person are also affected, and the individuals of the future and their families and friends may also be affected by terrorism some day. Even though not everyone that goes through a traumatic experience like terrorism acquires problems later on they are prevalent enough, especially with aviation security and mishaps, to warrant further research and study at this point in time.

Another reason that the scope of the study is so broad is that it can be expanded to include those issues that are not aviation-related. For the actual study, the focus will remain on the aviation, and that is also where the data will come from for the analysis. However, it can be seen that aviation workers are not the only ones who can find themselves dealing with this problem or terrorism, and therefore it is important to expand one's mind to the idea that there are many other areas out there that are also in need of examination and upgrading to protect them from terrorism. Some of these will be addressed in the literature review. While these areas will not be examined in the data analysis for this study, other studies should consider looking into this issue and expanding upon what has been done here and in other studies of this nature, as terrorism remains a serious threat.

Since virtually everyone in the country has the potential to experience terrorism, the study is something that will have value for everyone - especially those that are already in the aviation field, have experienced a terrorist event, or have an interest in this issue for some other reason (such as a friend or family member that has experienced a terrorist event and is showing some signs and symptoms of problems coping with it).

Rationale for the Study

An important part of the rationale behind this study is that there have not been that many other studies done specifically like this one. Doing a study like this therefore helps to provide new and unique information, but it can also be difficult, since there is really not much of a precedent for this type of study that the researcher can follow. The potential problems that a study like this could have will be dealt with further in the methodology chapter, since they are important concerns that must be pointed out and discussed.

There are three hypotheses that must be pointed out here, so that they can be studied during the data analysis and either validated or invalidated by the conclusion of the study. They are presented here in bullet form:

Hypothesis One - the threat of terrorist activity from an aviation standpoint affects a significant percentage of those who are or have been in that industry.

Hypothesis Two - the ease with which terrorism can occur in the aviation industry is something that has not yet been accepted enough to ensure that a high percentage of individuals actually take their security jobs seriously.

Hypothesis Three - Terrorism as it relates to a pre and post 9/11 world must be further studied and better understood in order to help as many individuals as possible live safely and fly safely.

These three hypotheses will be tested through a study of the literature information that will be collected in Chapter Two and also through the data analysis that will be conducted in Chapter Four. Then, in Chapter Five, the conclusions and summary of the study can show whether these hypotheses are valid or invalid, and whether there are other hypothetical issues that were largely overlooked and should be addressed in the future. Recommendations for further research will also be made at that point, so that other studies that will be conducted in the future can look toward further ways to solve problems and address issues

Chapter Two - Review of Related Literature

In order to keep up with the rapidly changing demands to keep the country safe, new technology had to be employed. Technology deals with applied sciences, engineering, and industrial arts, and all three of these areas were put into motion by the attacks. The main interest of technology companies became innovation. Companies had to use the knowledge they already had, plus make an effort to acquire as much new knowledge as possible as rapidly as they could. In order to be able to keep the country safe, they had to know what they were protecting it from and how to make sure that the threat could be effectively noticed and stopped before any damage could be done.

Borders are highly important security points in the fight against terrorism. Keeping our borders safe means keeping terrorists out of the country. This is extremely important, for obvious reasons. On May 14 of 2002, President Bush signed a bill that would help to keep the borders much safer. This new border security bill will require that foreign visitors carry high-tech passports and visas. It will also require computer tracking of students who are visiting the country to get an education. In addition to these two things, it will greatly improve the access to the electronic databases of the U.S. consular offices in various overseas locations around the globe (Matthews & Hasson, 2002).

There is also talk of using the 'EZ-Pass' system, which would allow people who have already been checked out and approved to cross borders much faster (Sirhal, 2002). This is being considered for people who live very near the Canadian border and travel to Canada frequently. It could also be used for Canadians who come into the United States on a regular basis. There is talk of perhaps using it at airports at some point in the future, but that has not come to pass yet.

The EZ-Pass system is being considered so strongly because Canada and the United States spend a great deal of time trading with one another. The EZ-Pass would open the doors not just to people but also to trade and commerce. Right now, things are slowed down because there are so many border checks and lines are often long. The hope is that the new system will still keep people safe but also not delay them like the current system is doing.

There is also an open call into all technology companies out there to give ideas to the Bush administration about terrorism and border security. So far, there are devices on the market that could be used to scan a person's specific information such as fingerprints, facial features, etc., but they are not being used (Harris, 2001).

The Defense Department's call to technology makers tells many people that the Department is stumped for ideas about what to do with the terrorism problem that seems to loom large over the country right now. They are not sure what technology will work or where they want to go from here, and that is causing delays in implementation of technology that could be used to stop another terrorist attack before it gets started.

The best solution for the borders seems to be the EZ-Pass system combined with the scanners that read fingerprints, etc. However, so far no one in the government has implemented anything of the kind, and they do not seem to be in a hurry to do so. The biggest problem for the technology companies is going to be convincing the government that the technology they have is the best and that it will do what the government wants it to do. Cost is also a factor, but not as much as the interest in whether the new technology will actually live up to all of the promises that it has made.

The good thing is that there are not many competing technologies, only competing companies, so the odds are pretty high that the scanners and the EZ-Pass system will be used eventually. Which company gets to produce them for the government, though, remains to be seen. They cannot work for everybody, either, because some people will travel to our country so infrequently that there would be no point in them getting one of the EZ-Passes. An even bigger problem is that the other security measure, the scanners, will work the same way as law enforcement does. If your fingerprints are on file, then they know who you are. If they are not, then they do not. The scanners will help to identify someone after they have done something to require fingerprinting, but not before.

This means that someone could come into this country, commit some terrible terrorist act, and get out again before their fingerprints could be recovered off of anything that they might have touched and linked back to the terrorist act. Once that link was made, law enforcement would have to check and see who the prints belonged to. It could turn out to be a long process that might not work as well as lawmakers and the government seems to think that it will, which could endanger the lives of the American people.

Airport security is another area where changes are being made and continue to be made. The work being done on airport security is a little more specific and detailed than any other area of anti-terrorism work. This is largely because the terrorists in the 9/11 attack used the airports and they made it look ridiculously easy. No one suspected anything, and the terrorists did not have a difficult time getting through the security checkpoints and getting onto the planes that were later hijacked and crashed.

There has been a lot of talk about biometric equipment, like the scanners mentioned above, for airport security. While the scanners are an interesting idea, there is no way to get a 100% accuracy rate on them, and there are several different scanners to choose from, depending on the needs of the particular airport (Guevin, 2002). With this in mind, it is important to realize that anything that could slow terrorists down and possibly prevent another attack would be helpful, but stopping terrorism altogether in this country is the ultimate goal of any technology company that makes its way to the front of the pack. It is also the ultimate goal of our government, which is why they are being so careful about who they choose to provide them with the technology that they need to secure the country's airports.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is also interested in the security of the nation's airports. It has a research and development program of its own for new technologies, but it is not moving fast enough to keep up with the terrorism problems. Cheaper baggage-screening machines for smaller airports, better people-screening machines that can check for non-metallic weapons and explosives, and machines that search for wider ranges of contraband are very important, but they are just not available yet (LaCosse, 2002). The machines that have been put into place since the attacks certainly help, but there have been many news reports of how easy it is to still get some things through, especially in smaller airports, or in very busy airports where people are not paying as much attention as they should be.

One of the main problems with airport security is that many airports are designed on what is called the hub and spoke system (Doganis, 1991). In other words, most of the airport is located in one central hub, and the concourses going to different airlines go out from that hub like spokes on a wheel. Because of this, it is very difficult to close off just one area if there is a problem at the airport. It would seem that it would be easy -- just block off one of the spokes -- but that is actually not an effective strategy.

The problem with that argument is that individuals who are planning terrorist activities and are trying to board a plane are still in the hub when their baggage and person is checked. They have usually not made their way down one of the spokes yet. Because of the fact that they are still in the hub, they are around a great deal of other passengers who are waiting to get their bags checked and are performing other activities while waiting for a plane such as making phone calls, getting a snack, or browsing in the gift shop.

The fact that all of the central parts of the airport are pushed together in the hub makes airline travel much more convenient, because one does not have to walk a great distance to find water, food, restrooms, or something to read. In this case, however, convenience breeds danger, and it seems as though airport design should be adjusted in an attempt to avoid the kind of problems that September 11th brought to this country.

Many articles have been written about airport security since the terrorist attacks on our nation, and a great deal of them say the same thing. Airport security needs work (Rogers, 2002). The hub and spoke design makes airports dangerous for passengers if a terrorist is found to be present. This is not the only problem with this design, however. Another problem with the hub and spoke design is that even a suspected terrorist incident can cause problems for travelers and long delays at the gate (Fredrickson & LaPorte, 2002). It can also cause flights to be missed and connections in other cities to be missed as a result (Pickel, 2002).

The reason for this is that every time there is a suspected incident, airport security individuals want to be safe rather than sorry. Their feeling of wanting to protect the individuals in the airport is admirable, but the airport is evacuated every time a suspicious object is found or something it is x-rayed that looks like it could be dangerous. Most of the time none of these objects are dangerous. They could turn out to be something that is mundane and routine but looked strange on an x-ray or was found abandoned by someone who did not know what it was. For example, an airport was evacuated at one point because of an abandoned battery-powered toothbrush (Pickel, 2002).

Many people missed flights and were highly upset because they had been rudely evacuated from the airport and frightened when there was no real cause for alarm at all. This is not the only incident that has happened in airports across the country since the terrorist attacks. While it is important to be safe rather than sorry, many airports are taking the security measures just a little bit farther than they really need to. Moving people away from a suspected problem while airport individuals determine whether or not it is dangerous would be more logical than evacuating the entire airport for something that may not be important. Since most of these problems occur in the hub, there is no easy way to evacuate only a small section of the airport, so everyone is removed from the building until the threat level can be determined or the legitimate threat removed (Pickel, 2002).

While it is true that every suspected problem does not lead to an entire evacuation of the airport, even evacuating one of the spokes can be difficult. Many of the concourses are narrow, and if they are clogged with passengers trying to get to and from their flights it becomes difficult for people to move in an orderly fashion and relocate themselves either outside or somewhere else in the airport.

Naturally, people do not want to leave the scene in an orderly manner if there is a suspected terrorist attack about to take place. Some people want to stand around and see what is going on, and others want to run screaming in the other direction. The mix of these two kinds of people in the middle of the few people that will leave in an orderly fashion makes evacuating a part of the airport almost as difficult as evacuation of the entire airport, and sometimes it can even be worse.

The screening machines that were installed in many of the larger airports were one of the newest and most innovative ideas in airport security to come along in quite some time. Unfortunately, they were not without their problems. Many of the machines did not work as planned, and there were problems with the individuals who were hired to operate the machines. Some of them were even arrested because they either were in this country illegally or had a criminal background that was not noticed until after they had already been given the screeners job and trained to perform it (Fredrickson & LaPorte, 2002).

Overlooking these types of issues caused many problems for the screening program. It was believed that airport security was not taken seriously even in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001. This made the screeners and their machines into somewhat of a joke, and many air travelers still fail to take them seriously (Fredrickson & LaPorte, 2002). It is often not believed that these individuals will catch many of the problems that could conceivably occur on an airplane.

Even though the machines are designed to catch anything dangerous, and the airports and airlines have implemented a zero-tolerance policy, several people hired to check the abilities and worthiness of the screeners and their machines, as well as other aspects of airport security, were able to board plans with knives and guns even after the screening procedures were in place (Fredrickson & LaPorte, 2002). This showed the airports and the airlines that they had a much longer way to go if they truly wanted to provide safe passage for those who trusted their lives to them every day, and that even though the baggage screeners and other security measures were a good idea, they did not do all that the airports believed they would.

Some who are in charge of airports want to build airports that are safer from the beginning, instead of working so hard to change the existing airports into safe havens for passengers. Obviously, it is unrealistic to tear down and rebuild all the country's airports simply to make them safe for passengers. It is, however, feasible to look at safety and security when new airports need to be built (Whitcomb, 2001).

The mayor of Los Angeles is looking into turning LAX into an airport that is completely safe for passengers. He is making statements that a new approach to airport design is needed in order to create airports that are safe and secure. Unfortunately, while many people agree with the fact that airports need a new design, not too many of them seem to know what that design should be (Whitcomb, 2001).

One area where technology has already gotten a firm grip is the infrastructure that makes our nation run. Autodesk Inc., which is the world's largest software design and digital content company, has announced that its GIS software is being used in some of the programs that law enforcement will be using to help combat terrorism (Autodesk, 2002). Their technology is likely to expand into more interesting arenas as well, since the need is strong for an infrastructure that will not be able to be harmed by terrorists. Not only does law enforcement need to have something reliable, but so do companies such as the electric, gas, and water companies, as well as emergency responders such as ambulance companies.

Trouble with the computer controlled infrastructure in any one of these areas could be disastrous for many people, and it would be very dangerous for those with chronic medical problems to be without the ability to summon an ambulance or other responder such as the police or the fire department. The infrastructure of the country must be carefully guarded, because so many things are run by computer. Many of the things that run off of computers are also linked together, such as police, fire, and ambulance calls, for example. They all go into the 911 system. If that system goes down, no one is going to be able to get help, and it could potentially be all over the country, since 911 works virtually everywhere. Not many people know the local numbers for their emergency response providers, but everyone knows to dial 911.

The hope is that there will not be any more terrorist attacks, but the way the world has been lately, that is certainly not something that can be counted on. If another attack were to occur, the United States would still not be ready for it. They would also likely not have enough technology in place to prevent it or stop it before it starts. Until the threat of terrorism goes away, or until the infrastructure of our nation is secured, people will always be concerned. Right now the nation's infrastructure is extremely powerful, but it is also very vulnerable (Using, 2002).

Law enforcement is another area where new technology is critical. Law enforcement agencies are particularly vulnerable to terrorists because they are often the first on the scene of a terrorist attack. Another attack in virtually the same place in a short period of time would kill or maim many of the people who came to try to help out. Aether Systems is working on wireless technology that will be offered to police and other emergency responders, as well as intelligence agencies, and which will greatly help the fight against terrorism (Meloan, 2002). This technology is so important because so many of these people spend the majority of their time away from their desks or offices.

With the wireless technology, they will always be in touch and they will not have to worry about what they are missing at their work place. They can be notified instantly of any new and important developments that may appear, and they will then have the time to be proactive instead of reactive if there is a terrorism threat. One of the things that law enforcement is doing to help combat terrorism is trying to use the terrorist's own technology against them. Law enforcement agencies are subpoenaing records of Internet service providers so that they can get an idea as to who is using the computer and Internet, and for what purpose (Benson, 2002). It is common knowledge that almost anything can be found on the Internet, including information on how to make bombs and other problematic devices. Chemical warfare information is also available to those who know where to look for it.

With Internet provider records, law enforcement will be able to tell who has accessed these sites, which can give them a good idea of the kinds of activities would-be terrorists might be up to. It is possible that the very technology the terrorists are using to send and receive information may be used against them by law enforcement; hopefully stopping another terrorist attack before it gets started.

Cyberterrorism is particularly frightening because so many things run on computers today. The country could be almost shut down if the nation's computer framework were to be somehow sabotaged. There have been many technological advances recently to try to combat the idea of cyberterrorism, but not everything that needs to be used has been put into place just yet. Many companies are working on encryption and firewall techniques that will stop any unauthorized people from getting access to various networks. Firewalls are used to prevent people from getting into the network in the first place. If they do happen to somehow get into the network, encryption and tunneling are used so that they cannot make sense out of any of the information that they can access, or do anything to that information to damage it in any way (Ulanoff, 2002). These are not 100% foolproof, but they work pretty well. They need to, since everything from our cable network to our missile defense systems are largely run and monitored by some kind of computer network.

There is also the problem with wireless computers and other wireless gadgets that are becoming so popular today. Wireless transmissions are not the kind of things that we want terrorists to be able to pick up on, but it is hard to stop that. Wireless communications are not totally secure, and they can be picked up on and monitored if you have the right equipment and know what frequency you are looking for. Sometimes you do not even have to try; the frequencies just cross for an instant and you can hear someone else. This is why you sometimes overhear part of someone's conversation on your cordless or cellular phone. If it is that easy to pick up the conversation of someone else on a simple household cordless phone, it would be extremely easy for terrorists to monitor almost anything said over a wireless communication device.

The main problem for technology companies trying to combat cyberterrorism is to find something that the terrorists cannot access. New and better firewalls and encryption technology are constantly being developed, but they still need work. The wireless communication devices need work as well, since it is obviously not a secure method of conversation just yet. Much more research is needed into how to make technology more secure before it will be totally safe from terrorists. However, technology has already come a long way, and it should not have to come much farther before cyberterrorists will find that they cannot get anywhere when they try to access computers in the United States.

Although there are many important issues with terrorism today, airport security continues to be the one that is in the news more and more often. Someone changed their regulations, or someone forgot the regulations, or some airport was shut down for three hours because of a suspicious package, etc. There seems to always be something of importance going on in the aviation security world. It is for that reason that it is important to turn attention in the data analysis chapter specifically to airport security and study how individuals feel it has been addressed, both pre- and post-9/11.

Chapter Three - Methodology

The methodology of any study is particularly important. Without a clear understanding of how the study was conducted and what was dealt with in it, it becomes very difficult to analyze data in a way that makes any kind of sense later on. Because of this, the methodology that is carried out must be explained clearly and precisely, so that there is no confusion about what was done, and what was discovered. The methodology for this particular study will be discussed in this chapter, and the results of the study will be detailed and analyzed in the following chapter.

Research Design

This section of the methodology deals specifically with how the research was designed and what approach was utilized. The approach to this particular study is considered to be really a relatively simple one, but it is also a very important one, and it makes the most sense for the information that is available and the answers that the researcher seeks to find in this particular study. Instead of re-examining everything that has been done in the past when it comes to the literature review and drawing conclusions from it, which would be very time consuming and difficult, the information for the analysis will come from what was gathered by the researcher from the surveys that were conducted regarding aviation security and the individuals who are ultimately responsible for it.

The collected data of others will be utilized, however, in order to determine what kind of information has been seen in the past and whether the current study indicates the same types of concerns. This is important, since there may be different, and new, information that is presented from the data that the researcher has collected. This type of analysis can allow for better understanding of what has gone on in the past, what the current study shows, and where future trends are heading when it comes to this very important issue.

Population and Sample

The database for the study will be relatively large, simply because there is so much information available in the surveys that have been conducted. There were 50 aviation personnel in the group who was surveyed. Approximately 20 articles and studies that deal with this subject will also be consulted and used in the literature review so that information about aviation security and other types of security that is seen in the survey analysis can be backed up by sound theory and information. By doing this, the database will be much larger than it would have otherwise been, and it will also provide much more information than the researcher might have collected simply on his or her own with surveys.

Some of this comes from the sheer volume of information that has been compiled, and some of it comes from the fact that the researcher could potentially forget to ask a particular question that might be important later, or could possibly word something in such a way that it would be misinterpreted and therefore not provide the researcher with the information that she really needs to deal with the problem statement that was presented earlier. This is one of the main dangers with surveys, as there are always mistakes that could be made or issues that could be problematic when the wrong questions are asked, or even when the right questions are asked in the wrong way.

Collection and Tabulation of Data

Because of the approach to this particular study, the method that will be used to gather the data will consist of an analysis of the information that was presented in the literature review regarding security after 9/11 and information collected from the researcher's surveys into the current state aviation where that issue is concerned. All of the information found in the literature review articles could not possibly be incorporated into the literature review, but a great deal of it is in there. Other information that was read and understood but was not able to fit into the literature review will also be used in determining the answers that will be incorporated into the data analysis that will take place in Chapter Four, although enough new information will not be introduced to confuse or upset the reader in any way.

The survey data will also be incorporated into the findings in Chapter Four, as it is vital to a complete understanding of the information that is presented about security against terrorism and what should be the best plan of action for aviation, since so many individuals still do not seem to realize just how much this nation is at risk from terrorist events and how harmful this will be if nothing is done to enhance security.

Data Analysis Procedure

The data analysis will use information that has already been collected by others that have written books and articles about the subject at hand, or about parts of the subject that work to make up the whole of security where aviation is concerned as well as information that has been collected by the researcher. The information from the literature will generally consist of a great deal of information from articles, but information from other sources will also be used to provide some of the data that is so important to the study. This is done for several reasons, but the two most significant ones are time and cost. Attempting to collect new data about security overall would be costly, and it would also take up a great deal of time that could be better spent on the aviation issue. Added to that information will be the work done by the researcher, so that the two areas of information can be fused together to show what was planned to be done and what has actually been done.

Limitations of the Study

As with any study, this one has some limitations that must be dealt with. All studies have their problems and limitations that surface, and tackling them and discussing them do not indicate weakness, but rather they show the strength of understanding possessed by the researcher when looking at the chosen field for the study. It is with this in mind that the limitations of the study will be discussed here, so that it can be shown that the researcher had a full and complete understanding of the problems inherent in doing a study such as this with the limited resources that are available. Any biases that the researcher might have can also be considered a limitation.

The main limitation of this study, other than any potential biases of the researcher, is that the study is largely subjective. Some may not see this as a limitation, but others will view it that way, and so it is important to discuss it and clear up any concerns early on. Objective studies are analytical and deal with facts and figures. Subjective studies deal more with perceptions and feelings, as well as thoughts and beliefs. While both are good ways of studying things, the kind of study that is being performed often dictates which way the study is conducted.

For this particular study, being able to be objective and provide facts and figures about aviation and security would have been good, and could have provided some very significant data that would be important for future study. However, when dealing with issues such as this where individuals answer surveys, there are few facts and figures that can be used and relied on with any degree of certainty. This is why the study is subjective - not because there are no figures provided, but because the figures provided are based on answers to Yes/No questions, and these types of answers are largely subjective and based on the perceptions of the individual.

Chapter Four - Data Analysis

Addressed here is the compiled data from the information in the literature review and the individuals who were surveyed for this study. Airports still have a long way to go to be the safest and most efficient that they can be. One of the main problems with security issues is that changing the security to something that is more strict often compromises the efficiency of the airport. People spend so long in lines waiting for security clearance to go to their planes that they often get aggravated and irritated. If something holds up the line, many every people who are in line behind the person in question could miss their planes because they cannot simply go through the metal detector and be on their way.

Some airports even search baggage by hand, and this takes a great deal more time than simply running it through a machine. While it is true to say that airports must take precautions that they did not take before the terrorist attacks, it is also true to say that it is easy to overreact to a threat and therefore inconvenience a great number of people who have done nothing wrong. There is a delicate balance between safety and convenience, and airports are still working to find it.

An airport manager who is facing renovations or rebuilding should look at safeguards in the design of passenger areas. Many things could be done to reduce the impact of potential threats, and this may help avoid mass evacuation of passengers. It could also make that particular airport more attractive to those who travel a lot, because they will have less hassle getting to their flights. Fewer problems will also attract more airlines.

It is difficult to state exactly what will work for each airport in every situation, but there are several things that seem to be universal. Travelers want to be safe, and travelers want convenience. Airlines and the pilots who fly for them want the same things. Airport managers and others who work in and around the airport also want the same things. The only real difference is monetary. The airlines and the airports want to make a great deal of money, and the travelers are reluctant to part with theirs. Without looking at the financial implications, however, it would be inappropriate and difficult to design an airport that met the other needs of all of those involved.

As for the safety issue, it is clear that existing procedures are not always effective. It is likely accurate that no procedure will be effective 100% of the time unless the entire person and their luggage is searched by hand. With the volume of individuals that pass through our country's airport every day, this is simply not feasible. It is also an invasion of privacy to some extent, and many individuals would not willingly submit to a strip-search simply because they wished to fly to another state.

The screening procedures that are in place now for people and baggage are reasonably effective, as long as the individuals doing the work are paying attention. The machines will be what they are and do what they do regardless of the individuals running them, but extensive efforts should be made in the renovation or rebuilding of an airport to make certain that the individuals obtained to screen passengers and baggage take their job extremely seriously. Anyone who does not take their job very seriously should be removed and replaced, because the lives of the passengers and crew could be jeopardized by the disinterest or silliness of one individual.

Passengers and crew are trusting their lives to the people who screen many individuals and baggage, and they have enough things to be concerned about without worrying that the screeners are possibly not doing their job. It may be difficult to find individuals who will take the screening job seriously, but they are out there and every effort should be made to locate them so as not to put innocent lives in jeopardy.

The design of the airport is also a safety consideration. The old hub and spoke design, while convenient, does not allow many of the larger airports the luxury of evacuating only a small section should a problem arise. Some airports have security checkpoints at each concourse, instead of in the hub. In this case if security is breached the concourse can be closed off, and this will prevent the problem from spreading into the entire airport, which then may need to be evacuated.

Any renovations to an existing airport and any airport that is built in the future should require separate checkpoints in each concourse. By putting the checkpoints in the concourses instead of in the hub, problems found by screeners can be caught early on instead of causing commotion throughout the entire airport. This will improve not only the safety but the convenience of the airport as well.

Convenience is extremely important for air travelers. These individuals often have to make several different connections before they arrive at their destination, and they are stressed and tired. Many of them are businessmen who travel a lot, and although they have learned to expect inconvenience at many airports, that does not mean that they like it or get used to it. An airport manager who is designing a new airport or renovating an existing airport should look at combining both safety and convenience for these and other travelers, as well as for the airlines, as the opinions of pilots and crew who are using the airport during layovers are also important to note.

There is no easy way to make security convenient. One of the best things that can be done is to have an efficient design with all of the necessary staples of flying located in the hub and the separate checkpoints located in each concourse. The screening machinery should be up-to-date and efficient, and the individuals who perform the screening should also be efficient. They should be highly trained individuals who know what they are looking for and can move passengers through as rapidly as possible without overlooking anything. This does not mean that they can never make a mistake, because they are only human, but they should be the best in the business. Having the best and most efficient uses of space and manpower will help to make the most convenient arrangement for all involved in the airport.