This paper examines how a new airport can be designed to maximize security while minimizing passenger inconvenience. Drawing on research in access control, surveillance technology, and risk-based passenger screening, the paper evaluates three interconnected components: the structure and training of security personnel (including both visible and covert forces), the physical layout of airport facilities, and the passenger screening process. The paper also briefly addresses freight carrier security. It argues that no single component is sufficient on its own — effective airport security emerges only through the tight integration of human resources, architectural design, and technological systems such as CCTV, electronic access control, and real-time risk assessment tools.
The paper demonstrates effective synthesis of multiple sources to support a practical proposal. Rather than summarizing each source separately, the author weaves together findings from Diedam, Klauser, McLay et al., McCartney, and Cate to build a coherent, evidence-backed design argument. In-text citations are used to attribute specific claims while keeping the prose flowing, which is a hallmark of strong academic writing at the undergraduate level.
The paper opens with a framing introduction that establishes the problem (post-9/11 security gaps) and previews three design components. It then dedicates a full section to each component — personnel, physical layout, and passenger screening — before a brief synthesis section on integration and a separate note on freight security. The conclusion restates the central argument without introducing new material. This structure mirrors a standard proposal or policy paper format, making it a useful model for applied academic writing.
In the near-decade following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon — carried out using hijacked commercial airliners — the various aspects of airport security underwent almost constant revision and examination in an effort to keep airline passengers and the general public safe from any such future incidents. Though no other attacks or attempted hijackings occurred in the years after September 11, several close calls involved individuals and devices that managed to pass through multiple security checkpoints at domestic airports, illustrating the continued need for better — and possibly more — security in these facilities. Sheer magnitude of a security force is not necessarily a measure of its effectiveness, however, and large forces have the potential to create additional problems in the safe and efficient operation of a given airport.
While the safety and security of airline passengers and other individuals in the airport is the paramount concern, passenger delays and discomfort must also be minimized in order to ensure the continued viability of air travel. Though it would be theoretically possible to hand-search every passenger and every piece of luggage entering an airport or airplane, the extra time this would require — even at a relatively small airport — would be prohibitive to most travelers. At large airports, such procedures could require passengers to arrive days before a planned departure. The financial requirements of such measures would also be enormous, necessitating astronomical increases in ticket prices and effectively pricing many travelers out of the market. Security design must therefore seek to streamline measures while increasing their efficacy.
To this end, three major components of airport security must be examined when planning a new airport. Arguably the most essential is the human security force; decision-making and action on the ground remains the only true method of responding to a security breach. The overall physical layout and organization of the airport building or buildings is also an essential design feature, as is the passenger screening process that must occur before passengers and other personnel are permitted to enter the main areas of the airport. These three components must be designed in tandem so that they remain highly integrated and responsive to one another, allowing the security system to operate at maximum efficiency. Finally, security measures for freight carriers must be examined to ensure the security not just of an individual airport, but of the broader public.
The proper screening, training, and deployment of human resources within a security force is the first priority in developing an effective airport security strategy. Though the rapid pace of technological development — especially in areas relevant to security and access control — promises to play an ever-growing role in maintaining airport safety, human observers remain necessary for evaluating technologically gathered information (Diedam 2008; Klauser 2009). Furthermore, the visible presence of identifiable security personnel is a well-established deterrent to criminal activity and security breaches.
With this in mind, airport security personnel can be divided into two separate groups, each requiring distinct screening processes and training. The first group consists of personnel typically visible to the public: those policing and monitoring terminals and other public areas, screening baggage and passengers through x-ray imaging and metal detectors, and conducting random searches. The second group would remain largely unseen, monitoring and analyzing information from technological and first-force sources to enable efficient deployment of resources by identifying high-risk areas and individuals, thereby streamlining on-the-ground security (McLay et al. 2009). Preliminary screening for both groups would consist of extensive background checks; only applicants with the most complete and clear records would be accepted. Though this approach will inevitably reject some qualified candidates, public safety concerns override concerns about the fairness of the screening process.
For the first, visible force, screening must also include minimum intelligence and physical requirements, as is standard in most municipal and county police agencies. Though training would be geared specifically toward airport operations and procedures, the duties of this force closely resemble those of local police — a comparison that has been noted in relevant scholarship (Diedam 2008; Klauser 2009; Cate 2009). Training would cover standard policing techniques, including the observation and detection of suspicious behaviors and the safe apprehension and detention of suspects. Crowd control techniques for use during emergencies would also be included.
The second group would require more extensive screening and training, as its work would be more technically demanding. An extensive battery of intelligence and personality tests would be administered to pre-screened applicants to confirm they possess the skills, behaviors, and traits necessary for working in close quarters for extended periods while monitoring input from multiple sources. Such monitoring would occur in a highly centralized location that could also serve as the command hub for deploying the first, visible force — creating a more efficient integration between the two groups (Diedam 2008). Shifting the emphasis of security from visible presence to unseen monitoring, facilitated by this organizational structure, may also benefit the overall efficacy of the security operation (McCartney 2009).
Training for the second group would include extensive familiarization with the technologies used to monitor airport activity, covering both hardware and software. Standard police observation techniques would also be taught, along with more complex forms of data analysis. The bulk of this group's work, however, would involve responding to computerized risk analysis and adjusting the deployment of first-force personnel based on statistical risk assessments — making a thorough understanding of the programs used and their operation essential.
Though airports are often studied as closed systems — a perspective that remains relevant to security design — they are fundamentally transportation centers with multiple points of ingress and egress. Each entrance and exit carries unique security needs and available remedies, making access control one of the most essential security measures in an airport (Diedam 2008). Many areas within an airport are off-limits to the general public, requiring doors secured against unauthorized entry; equally important is maintaining tight control over who and what is permitted inside (Diedam 2008; McCartney 2009). The physical layout of the airport must account for these security concerns and can be used to separate areas both by the relative distance between them and by limiting — and eliminating where possible — accessible passages between zones, thereby structurally enhancing security.
At the same time, there must be ample and accessible emergency egress routes from any area of the airport in the event of a fire or other emergency requiring immediate evacuation (Diedam 2008). This is required by federal, state, and local law, and a failure to provide such escape routes would directly endanger everyone inside the airport. Technology offers several solutions to this challenge, including electronic locks that can bar unauthorized entry or exit under normal conditions but can be unlocked centrally in an emergency (Diedam 2008). Such locks and similar features allow for airport designs that otherwise restrict internal movement more effectively.
With these concerns in mind, the most effective airport layout from a security perspective is one that separates the various zones of the airport as much as possible and limits passage between them. From a practical standpoint, every airport must have one or more passenger entry points, and the common needs of arriving passengers make centralizing this entry point ideal. The airport should therefore have a central hub where ticketing, baggage check-in, and baggage claim take place — as is already common practice. The bulk of passenger screening would also occur in this central hub before passengers are permitted to proceed to other areas. The physical passage from the entrance hub should consist of a single hallway — as narrow as safety regulations allow and without branching — to facilitate the monitoring of movement.
This hallway would connect the entrance hub to the main public area of the airport, where retail shops and food service establishments would be located. This area should be modeled after many existing airports: a large, open space resembling a shopping mall food court that can be easily monitored and that does not feature multiple points of ingress and egress. Everyone entering this area would have either passed through the screening process at the entrance hub or arrived from a plane in one of the terminals, where they would presumably have been screened before boarding. A single hallway exit from the shopping and dining area to the terminals would further improve security, reducing the number of entry points into the area to two. Electronically monitored emergency doors leading outside would be placed in the hallways and within the shopping area to facilitate mass evacuations when needed.
The hallway leading away from the shopping area should extend without branching for some distance; eventual branches to individual terminals should lead to similarly narrow corridors — within safety limits — that connect to the arrival and departure gates themselves. The greater the separation between planes and passenger populations, the lower the risk to any individual terminal and the easier it becomes to secure each section of the airport independently. A problem in one terminal could therefore result in that terminal being sealed off and security deployed there, isolating the issue and preventing an airport-wide breach. Electronic security doors at all hallway termini would enable centralized security forces to seal off compromised areas nearly instantaneously. Security walls and fences surrounding the airport perimeter would complete the structural security of this design, preventing unauthorized access from outside.
Though security could most easily be enforced by barring all movement from one area of the airport to another, this is an impractical solution that would eliminate the airport's functionality (Klauser 2009; McCartney 2009). Employee screening and access control are essential, but screening passengers for potential security threats is a far more complex and ultimately more necessary task (Diedam 2008; McLay et al. 2009). This aspect of airport security has been the subject of considerable recent research.
Many long-standing passenger screening methods remain viable and effective, and they would be central to any enhanced-security airport design. Passenger screening would take place at the beginning of the hallway leading from the entrance hub to the shopping area, as this location has been found more effective and efficient than searches conducted immediately before boarding (Cate 2009). X-ray imaging machines would be used, as they are today, to scan carry-on items; suspicious bags or items and the passengers who own them would be directed to a separate security area for more extensive searching and examination. Passengers would also pass through metal detectors and be scanned with a handheld device if the source of an alarm could not be immediately identified. Large or bulky clothing items — including footwear and oversized jewelry — would be removed and passed through the x-ray machine. Privacy cubicles would be set up adjacent to the security line for use when the removal of such items would cause embarrassment or discomfort.
Closed-circuit television monitoring of passengers waiting in the security line would also be used as an effective tool for identifying suspicious individuals and activities (Klauser 2009). The absence of a visible immediate security presence in the queue can encourage suspects to lower their guard and possibly attempt to conceal a prohibited item before reaching the checkpoint; CCTV monitoring allows security personnel to detect such individuals without alerting them, enabling a calmer and more controlled apprehension (Klauser 2009; McCartney 2009). This approach both improves real security and reduces the perceived level of threat in the public eye.
Newer methods for identifying high-risk passengers have also been developed, including tools that allow real-time risk determinations weighed against the time and resource constraints of conducting additional searches (McLay et al. 2009). Security personnel trained to assess passengers and apply these criteria would be present at the security checkpoint and would also monitor passengers at a centralized location via CCTV. Passengers flagged by these criteria would not be approached until they reached the checkpoint, at which point they would be quietly directed to an adjacent secured area for a more thorough search and possible interview — without alarming other travelers. The inconsistent presence of bomb-sniffing dogs and random searches within the terminals has also been shown to be an effective deterrent to prohibited activity (Cate 2009).
You’re 81% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.