Article
citation information:
Kwasiborska, A. Assessment of the passenger
security screening process using a virtual reality simulator. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of
Technology. Series Transport. 2025, 128,
115-132. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2025.128.7
Anna KWASIBORSKA[1]
ASSESSMENT OF THE
PASSENGER SECURITY SCREENING PROCESS USING A VIRTUAL REALITY SIMULATOR
Summary. Passenger security
screening is a necessary process carried out at the airport that affects the
safety and capacity of the airport. Every person entering the restricted
airport area must undergo a security check. The security control operator
conducts training to detect prohibited items appropriately. Currently, training
of security control operators is carried out in various ways, e.g., using
electronic support systems. The author's proposal concerns using an innovative
passenger security control simulator built using virtual reality technology.
The author researched the effectiveness of passenger security screening at the
airport. Indicators have been used in the VR simulator to assess the passenger
screening process. The article aims to present an assessment of the security
control process using an innovative VR simulator.
Keywords: virtual reality, passenger screening, airport screening operator
training, security operational experience
1. INTRODUCTION
The
dynamic development of civil aviation poses a serious challenge to the aviation
sector in the context of the increasing number of passengers. One effective way
to increase aviation's competitiveness is to increase the quality and safety of
the services provided. Changes in technology force the adaptation of emerging
opportunities to air transport, which leads to an increase in the quality of
airport operations. At a time of rapid and difficult changes, the concept of
sustainable development is of particular importance, understood not only
concerning ecology but also in the broad sense of the word sustainability,
interpreted as, for example, the use of conditions created by the environment
in air operations. The subject of sustainable development of air transport is
related to increasing the capacity of the infrastructure of existing airports,
ensuring conditions for the effective development of aviation at airports, and
ensuring environmentally sustainable development of the aviation market.
Achieving these goals involves using innovative technological solutions and
virtual reality in training processes.
Airport
processes must be carried out in a way that ensures security but also increases
airport capacity. Passenger screening is a necessary process carried out at the
airport. Every passenger and person entering the security-restricted area of
the airport must undergo security screening.
Screening
of passengers and cabin baggage shall take place in accordance with
regulations. The screener shall have the right to deny a passenger access to
the security-restricted area if he/she finds the passenger carrying prohibited
articles. In this case, the passenger shall be screened again until the
operator is satisfied that the screening requirements have been met. Metal
items in travelers' possession cause the alarm
signal's appearance. Numerous restrictions on the ability to bring certain
items on board the aircraft determine the level of security of the flight
operations performed. The screening operator undergoes training to ensure an
adequate detection level of prohibited items. Currently, screening operators
are trained in different ways. This paper proposes using an innovative
screening simulator made with virtual reality technology. Such an approach
allows the monitoring and cyclical checking of a properly executed passenger
screening procedure.
Additionally,
using such a tool, instructors can increase the difficulty level and analyze the security operator's behavior
depending on the level of the passenger's recalcitrance. Security screeners who
are better trained should be better able to deal with difficult passengers. In
addition, repeated and refresher training should result in better compliance
with existing procedures and rules than those with less training.
Evaluating
the effectiveness of operator training with different knowledge-testing
techniques is not meaningful. In general, when analyzing
the training processes of the various groups working at the airport, it can be
concluded that the subjective feeling of the assessor plays a key role, which
makes the use of fuzzy sets justified when evaluating the training process [20].
Using a defined evaluation system will allow an unambiguous assessment of the
level of passenger screening and the preparation of operators for this role.
The
first part of this article presents an innovative passenger screening simulator
developed using virtual reality technology. The capabilities and functions of
the screening operator are described. The possibility of the instructor
monitoring the progress of the screening process is also presented, as well as
the parameters for evaluating screening.
The
second part of the article is a quantitative analysis based on the research
conducted. The evaluation parameters of passenger screening that can be adapted
and monitored in a five-level process to evaluate the training process of
passenger screening operators are presented. The main objective of the article
is to present a way to evaluate the training process of a passenger screening
operator. Based on the security operator's achieved level of training, it is
possible to increase the intensity of training for those elements in which the
trainee performs less well, while decreasing it for those in which the level of
training is satisfactory.
The
training evaluation system also considers passenger behavior
and introduces a parameter called “recalcitrance”. The VR passenger
screening simulator considers hazardous materials, a list of which can be
dissected.
This
paper aims to present and apply virtual reality technology in training security
screeners as a cost-effective method of training and improving staff
competencies, as well as to assess the training of security screeners and
identify areas in which the training of security screeners should be improved.
2. A
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Virtual
reality
Virtual
reality (VR) is a technology that is playing an increasing role in the aviation
industry and can be used for various educational and training purposes [18].
VR allows the simulation of realistic experiences under controlled conditions,
which can have critical applications in pilot training, aircraft operations [23],
mission planning, and developing new aviation technologies.
Today,
the possibilities of using VR are very wide, and the concept of VR itself was
formulated in the 1960s. The first commercial VR tools appeared in the late
1980s [2].
The first working and patented device, which resembles the most currently used
devices, was patented by Ivan Sutherland, who then constructed a device for
virtual world observation and interaction [21].
Aircraft simulators and cockpit mock-ups have been in use since around the
1920s, mainly to familiarize flying personnel with the equipment and to
practice procedures without risking damage to the aircraft or endangering
health in the early stages of military training. Training in classical
simulators based on a computer environment with different mapping stages yields
positive results, especially when practicing emergencies [14].
VR can be used to simulate realistic combat scenarios, train pilots in
difficult weather conditions, and test new aviation technologies. Using VR,
military pilots can hone their skills in safe conditions and be better prepared
for real-world missions [7].
VR
is increasingly used in civil aviation training. Training in the aviation
industry is crucial due to the need to achieve a high level of safety. Areas in
which VR can be applied include pilots' in-flight behavior,
operations during maintenance, aircraft ground handling, and passenger
screening at the airport terminal. Each of the aforementioned professional
groups is subject to training, and through regular training, aviation personnel
can improve their skills, learn new procedures, and respond quickly and
effectively to emergencies [3].
In
recent years, most of the scientific research in the area of VR applications
has focused precisely on the training aspect and the reduction of training
costs. Research shows a correlation between learning effectiveness and
cognitive ability when using VR-based learning [4].
One of the guiding applications is the transfer of training from traditional
flight simulators to the VR environment, which has positive cost effects
compared to expensive equipment. The manufacturer of the first EASA-certified
helicopter simulators, Loft Dynamics, claims that the VR-based FNPT Flight and
Navigation Procedures Trainer simulators are 1/20th the cost of
a full-size simulator while taking up significantly less space than
traditional designs of this kind [24].
In
addition to solutions that transfer the tasks of traditional simulators, one
other solution is to use the Head Mounted Device HMD to track the eyes of the
examinee when testing the examinee's ability to observe situations and make
decisions [5].
This device was designed by a company called Cineon
Training, called TACET Training Air Crew Competency using Eye Tracking. A study
on the effectiveness of this type of behavioral
control of behavioral patterns and observation of
given areas showed a correlation between the observation patterns of more
experienced pilots in environments with a high accumulation of tasks. In less
experienced pilots, significantly more searches of areas suitable for a response
and less consistent behavior were observed than for
experienced personnel. Hence, such devices can significantly change the
approach to flight crew training and highlight problem areas to instructors
[11].
Another
frequently suggested perspective of use is to move some of the training
modules, both theoretical and practical, into virtual spaces. One airline that
has announced the introduction of such modifications to its training programs
is KLM. According to the company's announcement, the technology will be
introduced into training for a given aircraft type (Type Rating) [12].
In addition to the positives related to the cost and effectiveness of training,
frequently cited advantages include the possibility of adapting simulation
environments more quickly to, for example, other aircraft configurations or
making modifications to the simulation environment more immersive and easier [16].
Regarding cabin crew training, only the carriers Lufthansa, Emirates, Qatar,
and ANA are currently running projects using VR technology [15].
In
2017, IATA launched a pilot project called RampVR to
enhance the safety of ground handlers [7].
It aimed to increase training effectiveness and compliance with ground handling
procedures and instructions. It incorporates modules
such as:
-
pre-flight
inspections,
-
aircraft
guidance,
-
operations
using the passenger bridge,
-
pushback
process operations.
The
benefits of using virtual reality in flight training include:
-
Increased
safety - through virtual reality simulation, trainees can train in various
emergencies and learn how to respond to them without risking their own lives
and health or endangering others.
-
Time and
cost savings - virtual reality training allows knowledge and piloting skills to
be acquired more quickly and efficiently, saving time and costs associated with
traditional training methods.
-
Accessibility
of training - thanks to VR, flight training can be accessible to more people,
regardless of location or access to actual flight simulators.
-
Personalization
of training - with VR, instructors can personalize training, monitor progress,
and tailor training to the individual needs and skills of the trainees.
-
Improved
learning experience - VR allows the creation of highly realistic and engaging
flight simulations that can provide a more effective and exciting learning
experience for trainers.
By
using VR in flight training, staff can be better prepared for various
situations, resulting in increased air traffic safety and reduced risk of
incidents. It is an extremely important tool in improving aviation personnel's
skills and raising air transport safety standards.
It
is worth noting that, despite its many benefits, VR does not replace
traditional aviation training methods but can be a valuable complement and
enrichment to the training process. With VR technology, trainers can gain more
practical skills and experience that will be useful in real-world operations.
Conclusions
from the literature review indicate that virtual reality has great potential in
the civilian and military aviation industry. With this technology, the quality
of flight training can be improved, flight safety can be enhanced, and the
development of new aviation technologies can be accelerated. Consequently,
there is a growing interest in the use of VR in aviation, and researchers and
technology companies are doing a lot of work to develop this technology so that
it can be used as widely as possible in the aviation industry. A review of the
literature also indicates that there is no transparent system for evaluating
the training process; therefore, a system for evaluating the passenger
screening process is presented in this paper, including options for adapting
the training process to the security operator's performance. The VR passenger
screening simulator can also be used for security operator candidates to learn
about the specifics of working with passengers and to indicate suitability for
the position.
2.2. Security
training
The
passenger screening process and security training have been topics widely
considered in the literature. The authors [9]
performed a review of European airports, analyzing
the impact of security training on security. The conclusions drawn indicated
that the training process results in attaining certain habits and security
decision-making, based on the operator's experience and identifying emerging
threats. In the article [8],
the authors investigated how to consider the decision-making and performance of
security control operators when assessing vulnerability to a terrorist attack
at an airport security checkpoint. An agent-based model (passenger, attacker)
was designed, in which the performance of security operators was modeled using a functional state model, while
decision-making was modeled using decision field
theory.
The
simulation results indicated that the most skilled operators outperformed their
least skilled counterparts in analyzing X-rays, but
performed less well in both bag searches and passenger searches. In addition,
the results showed that a high emphasis on speed by security operators reduces
the number of bag searches and thus increases vulnerability. Analyzing the field of airport security, there is a
conviction that the training of security screeners directly impacts the actual behavior of these individuals in accordance with the rules
in force, thus ensuring an optimal level of security. This area is very complex
in organizational terms but also in social terms, given that there is a
perception that a not inconsiderable percentage of security personnel,
including controllers, guards, and ground staff, do not apply the rules and
procedures in force, which calls into question the effectiveness of training [10].
The
authors [11]
investigated screening operator behavior and
adherence to or disregard for rules, dividing employees into three groups to
determine the dependence of these groups on adherence to procedures and rules.
These groups were combined with the job duties performed and the types of
airport employees: “adaptive”, “socially interactive”, and “compliant
bureaucrat”. The research carried out indicated that the “adaptive” group of
employees is prone to not complying with existing rules.” Socially interactive”
relies primarily on group decision-making, while “compliant bureaucrat” is
attached to administrative and safety regulations. The results can be used to
define candidates for screening operators in the recruitment process.
A
lot of attention has been given in the literature to analyzing
the screening of hand luggage. The introduction of automation that provides
alerts, alarms, or warnings allows security operators to be supported by
drawing attention to display areas that may contain a target. The authors [0]
tested security screeners who were supported by explosive detection systems for
cabin baggage screening (EDSCB). Used as low-level automation during baggage
screening at airports, EDSCBs support operators by pinpointing areas on X-rays
that may contain explosives. The study was performed using measures of
automation reliability (accuracy, positive predictive value). The results of
the study, conducted with operators at the X-ray screening of hand luggage,
confirm and extend the results of previous studies on low-level automation. The
analyses conclude that when device performance is high, operator confidence is
high, and automation provides only low benefits; when device performance is
lower, operator confidence is lower, and automation provides high benefits.
The
safety control process has been analyzed in terms of
human factors. The authors [17]
studied the prevalence of errors and human factors in the screening process and
their impact on security. The authors assessed the potential errors and human
factors that affect the performance of passenger security checkpoints using the
example of airports in Brazil. For this purpose, 10 out of 60 items of a
self-observation questionnaire, based on the Generic Error-Modeling
System (GEMS) theory and the human factors framework recommended by the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), were analyzed.
The exploratory analysis focused on items directly related to safety culture
and organizational environment. The results indicated the presence of essential
elements for creating an appropriate safety culture among professionals. On the
other hand, the data indicated the presence of human factors related to a
safety culture that may have a negative impact on passenger screening
performance.
The
training process was the subject of a study by the authors [1],
during which, using data from a random sample of 145 airline passengers,
hypotheses were tested to examine the predictive relationships of screening
procedures, security staff training, security staff professionalism, and
screening systems on passengers' perceived biases. Multiple regression analysis
was used to test the hypotheses. The results indicate that security staff
professionalism is negatively and significantly related to passenger-perceived
biases. In addition, security staff training and screening procedures are
positively and significantly related to security professionalism.
The
issues of coping with safety hazards in the workplace and the analysis of
employees' awareness of safety procedures were investigated by the authors [19],
who conducted analyses to explore the relationship between three dimensions of
employees' safety awareness. A questionnaire measured the relationship
between employees' knowledge of safety procedures and policies, attitudes
toward safety, and self-reported safety behavior.
Secondly, a case study was conducted to investigate the impact of training
sessions on employees' security awareness. By providing awareness training, its
impact on employees' knowledge, attitude, and behavior
was measured. While the first study found a significant relationship between
workers' knowledge and attitude and their self-reported behavior,
the second study showed that the training session positively impacted workers'
safety awareness levels.
The
authors in [13]
identified and quantified the relationships and trade-offs between the
effectiveness of illegal item detection and the average queuing time at airport
security checkpoints. These relationships and trade-offs were analyzed through simulations using a cognitive agent
model of operations at airport security checkpoints. As a result of the
simulation analysis, a performance curve of security checkpoints with three
different regions was identified. Furthermore, the importance of focusing on
accuracy for the security checkpoint operator was demonstrated. The simulation
study results were related to empirical studies at an existing regional
airport.
The
authors [22]
proposed several models to evaluate the effectiveness of safety training. The
study aimed to indicate how employee safety performance may improve after a
safety training intervention. The impact on safety performance was investigated
in two units of the study company based on a questionnaire and selected
indicators. A descriptive analysis was carried out on the basis of the
collected data. Based on the questionnaire, some improvements in safety
knowledge, attitudes, behavior, and safety
performance can be found.
2.3. Work
concept
The
literature review of the application of VR and the evaluation of the passenger
screening training process indicates that this area needs in-depth analysis and
research. The minimum requirements for the job are known in the training
process, but there is a lack of effective methods to determine skill levels at
the training stage. In addition, consideration must be given to emerging
threats and hazardous materials that the security operator must recognize.
Emerging threats necessitate refresher training, which can be done considering
the proposed VR simulator.
The
article is organized as follows. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical background
of the application of virtual reality and the airport passenger screening
process. Chapter 3 deals with the presentation of the VR simulator and its
application in the passenger screening process. Chapter 4 contains the results
of the research conducted. Chapter 5 provides a summary and conclusions.
3. PASSENGER
SECURITY SCREENING SIMULATOR IN VR TECHNOLOGY
3.1.
Implementation of the training process and functionality of the VR simulator
The VR simulator on display is equipped with goggles and two motion
controllers for each hand, allowing the selection of the relevant functions and
manual control of the passenger. The VR simulator can implement the passenger
screening process by operators visualizing the process and the ability for the
instructor to monitor the training process.
The passenger screening process is designed to check the passenger for
prohibited substances, objects, and risks to other passengers. The first
screening stage is the moment before passing through the security gate. From
the point of view of the security control operator, the operation begins with
selecting the appropriate function. At this stage, the security operator may
require the passenger to do the following (Fig. 1):
-
“clothing”
instructs the passenger to take off the clothing,
-
“accessories”
instructs the passenger to remove jewelry and exterior accessories,
-
“footwear” requires
the removal of shoes,
-
“turn around”
instructs the passenger to turn around,
-
“in the container”
instructs the passenger to put away potential,
-
“pass” allows the
passenger to be checked further, which begins after passing through security.
Fig. 1. Scheme
of function in simulator VR
Fig. 2. Scheme
of using a laser
As an alternative to the predefined functions, the passenger can indicate
the item of clothing he or she must remove by a point indicator (Fig. 2).
The second screening stage occurs after the passenger passes through the
security gate. More possibilities for passenger control characterize this
stage, and these are the following example functions (Fig. 3):
-
“turn” tells the
passenger to turn. You should be sure that you do not carry anything prohibited
in your back pockets or under your clothing.
-
“hand over”
transfers the passenger to a personal inspection performed by the second guard.
This option is required when we want to personally inspect a passenger, but he
is of the opposite sex. At the start of each session, we can choose our gender.
It is strictly forbidden for men to carry out personal inspections of women,
and vice versa. After ordering a personal inspection, the guard next to us
decides whether the passenger can proceed or not.
-
the “guard”
transfers the passenger to the border guard services.
-
“return” requires
the passenger to return to the gate. It should be used when the gate lights up
red while passing through.
-
“pockets”,
similarly to the previous stage, we can ask the passenger to empty his pockets.
If it turns out that the passenger has taken an item out of his pocket, we can
take the further steps shown in Fig. 4.
-
“manual check”
performed only on passengers of the same gender as the one we specified when
starting the session. The check requires us to approach the passenger and,
using traffic controllers, check the pockets, hands, and torso of the person
being searched to exclude the possibility of the passenger carrying prohibited
items.
-
“to the container”
requires the passenger to place all items that can be detected by the security
gate- liquids, electrical devices, and other items specified in the
regulations- into the container. This takes you back to the security gate
again.
-
“ETD” is a
passenger screening to detect dangerous substances, such as explosives. To
carry out the inspection, after selecting this action from the activity wheel,
we will receive a special piece of paper with which we should wipe our
hands and the passenger's clothing (Fig. 5) and then put the sample
into a special computer located next to the security gate (Fig. 6). After waiting a few seconds, we receive the result of whether a
given passenger has had contact with explosives or drugs. If so, it should be
handed over to the border guard services.
-
“finish” if we are
sure that the passenger does not pose a threat, we allow him to leave the
security check.
Fig. 3. Scheme
of function in the second stage of security
Fig. 4.
Function to empty pockets
Fig. 5. Function
of ETD
Fig. 6. ETD
testing device
The passenger security screening process ends after selecting the
function ending the session, or the session may end after screening a defined
number of passengers.
3.2.
Monitoring the passenger security screening process from the instructor's point
of view
The instructor monitors the passenger security screening process
performed by the security operator. In the first stage, the gender of the
security operator is selected. A defined operator can conduct the training
process at five training levels, characterized by increasingly higher
difficulty levels. In the program, you can set a user's profile and parameters
specific to a given training session.
Each level is characterized by default parameters, which can be changed
and adapted to the instructor's requirements. The groups of parameters that
have been proposed concern the characteristics (fig. 7):
-
surroundings –
ability to assign small, medium, or large surroundings and crowd size,
-
passenger – determining the number of passengers during the training session,
passenger recalcitrance and its severity, and gender compatibility,
-
items – defining the degree of allowed and prohibited items for passengers,
-
clothes – percentage of outerwear among passengers,
-
gates – number of
gate control excitation and identification of ETD traces.
Fig. 7. Session parameter settings
The instructor monitors the training process and previews the inspection
session to see what a given passenger brings to the airport. The instructor's
view is presented in Figure 8, which shows the passenger's clothing items and
what items the passenger has. Additionally, the implementation times of the
passenger screening process are presented. The program assigns bonus or penalty
points for activities performed. In the case of correctly performed activities,
points are added and displayed in green; in incorrectly performed activities,
points are subtracted and displayed in red. The proposed score for the
activities performed constitutes the weight of the activities performed by the
operator and can also be changed.
Fig. 8. Preview the instructor for an
inspection session
After completing the session, the instructor has access to a summary that
contains information on the points awarded, the time of the security check, the
number of correctly performed security checks for passengers who had additional
clothing items, the number of prohibited items found, and their identification.
The program contains a list of prohibited items that can be expanded.
4. CONDUCTED
RESEARCH
4.1. Study
data
The research was conducted on 30 people who are or were involved in
aviation activities. The respondents' aviation experience ranged from 0 months
to 12 months. The total points obtained for correctly and incorrectly performed
activities were recorded during the passenger security screening process
examination. Errors are expressed as positive points for a correctly performed
activity or negative points for an incorrect one. As mentioned earlier, these
points constitute weights for individual activities and can be changed
depending on the skills and need for training of selected activities.
Therefore, the total points obtained may have a low evaluative value in the
analyzed sample but may be extremely important for assessing progress during
training. The following parameters recorded concerned the average time of
passenger inspection and the percentage of passengers who passed through
wearing outerwear, with an accessory, in shoes above the ankle, with a
prohibited item, and with an illegal item. The research was carried out at
three levels of passenger safety control, at which passenger recalcitrance was
assumed to be 15%, 46%, and 60%, respectively. In practice, respondents were
asked to conduct passenger safety checks in a VR simulator. An example of the measurements
performed is presented in Table 1.
Tab.
1
A fragment of the measurements taken during
the safety check of
passengers in the VR simulator
|
No |
Pts |
n_pax_ch |
av_t_pax [%] |
p_out_c [%] |
p_acc [%] |
p_b [%] |
p_proh [%] |
p_ill [%] |
|
1 |
0 |
20 |
120 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
2 |
0 |
20 |
70 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
3 |
0 |
20 |
87 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
4 |
10 |
20 |
66 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
5 |
0 |
20 |
67 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
6 |
20 |
20 |
50 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
7 |
80 |
45 |
133 |
0 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
8 |
-10 |
20 |
163 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
|
9 |
0 |
20 |
47 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
10 |
-20 |
20 |
44 |
10 |
5 |
0 |
10 |
5 |
|
11 |
10 |
20 |
53 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
12 |
0 |
20 |
68 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
13 |
-5 |
20 |
110 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
|
14 |
0 |
20 |
90 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
15 |
10 |
20 |
77 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
where:
No – number of security operator
Pts – points
n_pax_ch –
number of passengers checked
av_t_pax
[%] – average time per passenger
p_out_c
[%] – passed in outer clothing [%]
p_acc
[%] – passed with accessory [%]
p_b
[%] – passed in ankle boots [%]
p_proh
[%] – passed with prohibited item [%]
p_ill
[%] – passed with an illegal item [%]
4.2. Results
The dependence of the security check completion time on
the passenger's recalcitrance is shown in Fig. 9. The obtained research shows
that operators achieve proportional passenger security check times at three
levels of training. However, when analyzing each operator's security
separation, it can be seen that the most extended passenger security screening
times were obtained for the highest level of passenger recalcitrance (level of
60%). The data obtained in this way may indicate the need to increase attention
to dealing with an unyielding passenger but may also result from the need for
the passenger to pass through the gate multiple times. Nevertheless, the
security operator's decisiveness is essential here to shorten the time of
passenger security checks. The passenger security screening time parameter is
not the most important during operational activities, but it may be extremely
important at the training level, indicating a candidate's progress for a
security operator.
Fig. 9. Dependence of the time of the
security check on the passenger's recalcitrance
When preparing for the security check, passengers must
place all metal objects in containers on the X-ray machine's conveyor belt.
When approaching the security check, passengers must remove the bag with
packages containing liquids from their hand luggage and place it in
a container with other items. Passengers are obliged to place outer
clothing (jacket, jacket, coat) on the X-ray machine's conveyor belt. Passenger
responsibilities are posted on the information board before the security check.
However, passengers forget about the items they have or are simply too busy
with other activities and enter the restricted area with prohibited or illegal
items in their pockets or other places. The security check operator's job is to
detect these items. The analysis of the security control process showed that
56.7% of the security operators achieved 100% effectiveness of security
control, while 43.3% of operators allowed passengers to pass wearing outerwear,
accessories, or prohibited or illegal items.
At the first level of testing the effectiveness of the
training, the results presented in Figure 11 were obtained. Figure 10 shows the analysis of each
security operator, and it can be seen that operator No. 18 achieved the highest
levels of permeability, including 20% permeability with
prohibited items. Such an analysis can help indicate which areas should be
trained or which of them a given operator should practice to achieve higher
efficiency.
Figure 11 shows the permeability of passenger security
screening at the second level of screening for each security operator. Compared
with the results in Figure 11, passenger safety control is seen to be more
effective. Operators 3, 7, and 26 allowed passengers with accessories to pass.
Operators 7, 17, 18, and 19 allowed passengers with illegal items to pass, and
only one operator (number 4) allowed passengers with prohibited items to pass
(5%).
Figure 12 contains the passenger pass-through results of
security operators that were recorded in the third level of the knowledge
check. The results obtained in Figure 13 indicate a better security control
effectiveness than the first level but slightly worse compared to the second
level. The third level of checking the effectiveness of security controls is
characterized by a higher level of passenger recalcitrance (60%), which may
affect the operator's actions. Operators No. 1 and 7 allowed passengers with
outerwear (10% and 20%) to pass. Operators 7 and 26 allowed passengers with
accessories to pass (6.7% and 13.3%). Operators 4, 12, 22, and 28 allowed
passengers with prohibited items to pass (5% and as much as 13.7%). Operators
no. 3, 12, 14, 19, and 24 let passengers pass with illegal items (5% and 10%).
Fig. 10. Permeability at the first
level of the operator's security knowledge check
Fig. 11. Permeability at the second
level of the operator's security knowledge check
Fig. 12. Permeability at the third
level of the operator's security knowledge check
The permeability percentage was determined by analyzing
the results achieved at three levels of training difficulty (Fig. 13). No
security operator allowed a passenger with shoes above the ankle to pass.
Security operators allowed passengers in outerwear to pass during the first
training (16.7%) and the third level (6.7%). Permeability with accessories was
highest at the first level of training (26.7%). The permeability value with
accessories was lower at subsequent training levels and amounted to 10% and 6.7%,
respectively. Passengers were allowed to go through with prohibited items, and
the rate ranged from 20% to 3.3%. The percentage of passengers allowed through
with illegal items was 13.3% (training level 2) and 16.7% (training level 1 and
3). Security operators achieved better results during subsequent levels of
training in terms of detecting accessories and allowing passengers to pass in
outerwear. By analyzing the permeability of prohibited and illegal objects, the
results indicated that operators should perform exercises to achieve better
efficiency in detecting these objects.
Fig.
13. The level of permeability, taking into account the type of permeability
5. SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSIONS
The presented work presents a simulator of passenger
security screening in VR technology and presents research on the security
screening process. The research was conducted on a sample of 30 people who
were assessed for passenger safety checks. The basic basis used for the
analysis was measurements made during safety inspections in the VR simulator.
The measurements recorded parameters related to the duration of passenger
screening, as well as each correctly and incorrectly performed activity. The analysis
was performed mainly in terms of the permeability of passengers in outerwear,
over-the-ankle shoes, accessories, and prohibited and illegal items. The tests
were carried out on three levels, which are characterized by an increasingly
higher degree of difficulty and an increased level of passenger recalcitrance.
The described tool can be used to verify the effects
after the training process, assess progress during training, and examine the
behavior of security operators against threats. From the point of view of
assessing the training process, parameters related to the time of security
checks may be important, as well as the assessment of the permeability of
objects with various passenger behaviors. The presented method of assessing the
security of operators can be used in airports but also in other areas with a similar
method of checking people entering restricted areas.
Funding
The
VR simulator was purchased with funds from a research grant supporting
scientific activities in the discipline of Civil Engineering, Geodesy and
Transport - Agreement No. 23/ILGiT/2023
References
1.
Carr A., T. Biswas, J.V. Wheeler. 2020.
“Airport operations and security screening: An examination of social
justice”. Journal of Air Transport Management 85: 101814. ISSN:
0969-6997, DOI: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101814.
2.
Cipresso P., I.A.C. Giglioli,
M.M. Raya, G. Riva. 2018. “The Past, Present, and Future of Virtual and
Augmented Reality Research: A Network and Cluster Analysis of the Literature”. Front.
Psychol. 9: 2086. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02086.
3.
Dymora P., B. Kowal, M.
Mazurek, S. Romana. 2021. „The effects of Virtual Reality
technology application in the aircraft pilot training process”. In: IOP
conference series: materials science and engineering 1024(1): 012099. IOP
Publishing. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/1024/1/012099.
4.
Guthridge R., V. Clinton-Lisell. 2023.
“Evaluating the efficacy of virtual reality (VR) training devices for pilot
training”. Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering 12(2): 1. DOI:
10.7771/2159-6670.1286.
6.
Huegli D., S. Merks, A. Schwaninger. 2020.
„Automation reliability, human – machine system performance, and operator
compliance: A study with airport security screeners supported by automated
explosives detection systems for cabin baggage screening”. Applied
Ergonomics 86: 103094. ISSN: 0003-6870. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103094.
8.
Janssen S., A. van den Berg, A. Sharpanskykh. 2020.
„Agent-based Vulnerability Assessment at Airport Security Checkpoints: a Case
Study on Security Operator Behaviour”. Transportation
Research 5: 100139. DOI: 10.1016/j.trip.2020.100139.
9.
Kirschenbaum A., C.
Rapaport. 2017. „Does training improve security decisions? A case study of
airports”. Secur J. 30: 184-198. DOI: 10.1057/sj.2014.39.
10. Kirschenbaum
A.A. 2015. “The social foundations of airport security”. Journal of Air Transporation
Management 48: 34-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2015.06.010.
11. Kirschenbaum
A.A., C. Rapaport, S. Lubasz, M. Mariani, M. Van Gulijk, C. Andriessen.
2012. “Security profiling of airport employees: complying wih
the rules”. Journal of Airport Management 6(4): 373-380.
12. KLM Royal
Dutch Airlines. KLM Cityhopper
introduces Virtual Reality training for pilots. 2020. Available
at: https://news.klm.com/klm-cityhopper-introduces-virtual-realitytraining-for-pilots/.
13. Knol A.,
A. Sharpanskykh, S.
Janssen. 2019. “Analyzing airport security checkpoint performance using
cognitive agent models”. Journal of Air Transport Management 75: 39-50.
ISSN: 0969-6997. DOI: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.11.003.
14. Lazic D.A., V. Grujic, M. Tanaskovic.
2022. “The Role of Flight Simulation in
Flight Training of Pilots for Crisis Management”. South Florida Journal of
Development 3(3): 3624-36. DOI: 10.46932/sfjdv3n3-046.
15.
Lufthansa Aviation Training: VR Hub.
Available at: https://www.lufthansa-aviationtraining.com/virtual-reality-hub.
16.
Marron T., N. Dungan, N., B.M. Namee, A.D.
O'Hagan. 2024. “Virtual Reality & Pilot Training: Existing Technologies,
Challenges & Opportunities”. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education
& Research 33(1). DOI: 10.58940/2329-258X.1980.
17.
Arcúrio Michelle
S.F., Rafael R.D. Pereira, Fabiana S. de Arruda. 2020. “Security culture in the
screening checkpoint of Brazilian airports”. Journal of Air Transport
Management 89: 101902. ISSN: 0969-6997. DOI: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101902.
18.
Nagrabski D. 2023.
„Virtual reality as a method of innovative education”. Maritime Safety
Yearbook XVII: 463-482. DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0054.1456.
19.
Sas M., G. Reniers, K. Ponnet, W. Hardyns. 2021. “The impact of training
sessions on physical security awareness: Measuring employees’ knowledge,
attitude and self-reported behaviour”. Safety
Science 144: 105447. ISSN: 0925-7535. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105447.
20.
Skorupski J., P. Uchroński. 2018. „Evaluation
of the effectiveness of an airport passenger and baggage security screening
system”. Journal of Air Transport Management 66: 53-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.10.006.
21.
Sutherland W.R. 1965. “The Ultimate Display”.
Proceedings of the IPIP Congress 2: 506-508.
22.
Tappura
S., A. Jääskeläinen, J. Pirhonen. 2021. “Performance Implications of Safety
Training”. In: Arezes P.M., R.L. Boring
(eds) Advances in Safety Management and Human Performance. AHFE 2021.
Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Volume 262. Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-80288-2_36.
23.
Vooren J. 2019. “Virtual Reality Training for
Aviation Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (Vi-Mro 1.0)”. EDEN Conference Proceedings:
518-523. DOI: 10.38069/edenconf-2019-ac-0058.
24.
Webside of Loft
Dynamics. Available at: https://www.loftdynamics.com/.
Received 14.12.2024; accepted in revised form 18.04.2025
Scientific Journal of Silesian
University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License