The case for risk-based aviation security policy

Abstract

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, governments in the United States (US), Canada, and Europe implemented additional aviation security measures. Although the rhetoric of risk-assessment is often heard, actual policy was driven largely by political imperatives to reassure frightened populations that air travel was still safe. The challenge in dealing with terrorist threats is always one of deciding where to invest scarce resources to maximum benefit. This inevitably requires difficult choices. The premise of this paper is that risk assessment provides an essential framework for making such choices and should be applied more consistently to aviation security. The goal should be to wean legislators away from enacting mandates not based on risk analysis. Legislators should direct the national aviation security policymaker/regulator to address problems within some kinds of quantitative parameters. Details of making actual policy and resource-allocation decisions should be left to the aviation security agency. That agency, in turn, should be flexible in tailoring policies to changing threats and different situations at individual airports which vary enormously in type, size, and configuration. While it seems likely that commercial aviation will remain a high-profile potential target, spending billions every year on static defences at airports is almost certainly a poor use of resources. Whether any kind of effort can succeed in educating elected legislators and opinion leaders to these realities is the most difficult challenge.