A holistic approach for evaluating liquid explosive detection systems
Tóm tắt
European legislation requires airports to screen liquids, aerosols, and gels by 31 January 2014. As a variety of devices can be used for that purpose, airports have to evaluate which devices best suit their needs. In order to so, a holistic “three-pillar approach” was designed and applied at a large European airport in order to evaluate all six “type B” liquid explosives detection systems that are currently certified and available. The “three-pillar approach” consists of laboratory tests, field tests, and stress tests. The laboratory tests aimed at evaluating the devices under standardized conditions. Field tests were conducted to analyze the devices’ performance and human-machine-interaction aspects in the real environment. The aim of the stress tests was to find out more about how the devices might perform upon a further lifting (phased approach) of the ban of liquids in hand baggage. The three-pillar approach could successfully be applied. The results from all three pillars differed with regard to their outcome variables and the information gained. The operational performance (false alarm rates and range of use) of the devices differed significantly between different devices and depended on the sample of liquids screened. Furthermore, some devices differed significantly regarding their false alarm rates between laboratory and field setting, which could be attributed to the usability of the devices. Security Officers’ overall impression and trust in the devices depended on the false alarm rates and the usability of the devices. At present, the amount of liquids carried by passengers is too small to have a significant influence on operation. However, the stress tests showed that an impact of the screening of liquids on operation has to be expected if passengers bring more liquids to the security control checkpoints. The results imply that human factors, as well as the environment in which devices are implemented, influence the performance of liquid explosives detection systems and should therefore not be underestimated. This again stresses the importance of a holistic evaluation of security technology with different methodologies.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Barnes LR, Gruntfest EC, Hayden MH, Schultz DM, Benight C (2007) False alarms and close calls: a conceptual model of warning accuracy. Weather Forecast. doi:10.1175/WAF1031.1
Bielecki Z, Janucki J, Kawalec A, Mikolajczyk J, Palka N, Pasternak M, Pustelny T, Stacewicz T, Wojtas J (2012) Sensors and systems for the detection of explosive devices—an overview. Metrol Meas Syst 19:3–28
Block FE Jr, Nuutinen L, Ballast B (1999) Optimization of alarms: a study on alarm limits, alarm sounds, and false alarms, intended to reduce annoyance. J Clin Monitor Comp 15:75–83
Breznitz S (1984) Cry wolf: The psychology of false alarms. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Eliasson C, Macleod NA, Matousek P (2007) Noninvasive detection of concealed liquid explosives using Raman spectroscopy. Anal Chem 79:8185–8189
European Union (2013) Commission implementing regulation (EU) No 246/2013. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:077:0008:0011:EN:PDF. Accessed 30 May 2013
Feng Q (2007) On determining specification and selections of alternative technologies for airport checked-baggage security screening. Risk Analysis. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00966.x
Gilliam RR (1979) An application of queuing theory to airport passenger security screening. Interfaces. doi:10.1287/inte.9.4.117
Highway Loss Data Institute (1997) Insurance industry analyses and the prevention of motor vehicle theft. In: Felson M, Clarke RV (eds) Business and crime prevention. Willow Tree Press, Monsey
Hofer F, Wetter OE (2012) Operational and human factors issues of a new airport security technology: two case studies. J Transp Secur. doi:10.1007/s12198-012-0096-5
Ledru Y (2009) Current issues in aviation security. In: Seidenstat P, Splane FX (eds) Protecting airline passengers in the age of terrorism. Abc-clio, Santa Barbara
Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Academic, San Diego
Peil LE (1972) Apparatus for baggage inspection. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria
Venkatesh V (2000) Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inform Syst Res. doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
Wetter OE, Lipphardt M, Hofer F (2010) External and internal influences on the security control process at airports. In: Pritchard DA, Sanson LD (eds) Proceedings of the 44th International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, San José, CA. doi: 10.1109/CCST.2010.5678708
Wickens CD, Hollands JG (2000) Engineering psychology and human performance. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River