I occasionally must remind myself that the “9/11” terrorist attacks occurred nearly 23 years ago and that, for a growing number of people across the population, it is either a distant memory or perhaps even something members of a younger generation only learned about in a school history lesson. Yet, more than two decades later, most of the current security measures and regulatory requirements for the aviation industry can trace their origin back to the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
Prior to that, the last major shift in aviation security took place after numerous aircraft hijackings occurred in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. The Nixon administration sought to address the problem and announced an anti-hijacking program (ironically, on September 11, 1970). Requirements and standards were developed leading to mandated passenger and carry-on baggage screening which began across the country in 1973. The bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 resulted in additional aviation security action including the creation of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, consisting of family members of victims and industry stakeholders, that works together with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to this day.
Apart from previous bombings and hijackings that focused on extortion and/or political ideology that threatened the lives of passengers and crew onboard the aircraft, the 9/11 attacks brought a new level of terror by utilizing the aircraft as a weapon to multiply the level of death and destruction. This compounding factor weighs heavily into the regulatory framework we see in the Code of Federal Regulations and various security programs in force today where aircraft size is a significant part of the equation.
Although commercial scheduled service under part 121 received the most rapid and obvious attention for security requirements in the wake of these incidents and events, those operating under part 135 have seen an increase in regulatory scrutiny as well. Both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and TSA have recently signaled reviews and possible changes to regulations and programs that extend beyond current requirements and likely lean toward the more stringent side of the spectrum.
Although the bulk of new requirements typically fall directly on the aircraft operator, anyone in the aviation industry knows the indirect implications they can have across the aviation ecosystem. Airports and fixed based operators can certainly be affected by new requirements levied onto operators, even if the specific requirements are not technically their primary or direct responsibility.
In addition to the changes likely ahead for part 135 operators, the unprecedented growth of new technologies such as Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) has also garnered the attention of regulators in the U.S. and around the world. It is often human nature to fear what we do not understand. Therefore, when you add “buzz words” such as cybersecurity, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and others to the existing lexicon of known safety concerns and security threats, anxiety tends to rise rapidly.
Balancing the need for safety and security requirements with the intent to provide for the growth and success of industry stakeholders is certainly not an easy task. In fact, it is safe to say that while everyone may concur on the need for a certain level of safeguards and protections, it is rare to achieve 100% agreement on where that level should be set or what measures are adequate to achieve it.
Aviation industry companies must remain vigilant in the analysis of their security posture, remembering that regulations alone merely set a minimum standard to be met. Ongoing individual assessments of threats and vulnerabilities should become routine for any line of business. Of course, proper compliance with regulations and security programs can also be a formidable task and is worthy of a dedicated and consistent effort. Preparing for the future also includes involvement with industry associations that support regular communication and engagement with regulating bodies, government representatives, and subject matter experts to help strengthen the aviation industry on all fronts.
By Michael Rucinski, Hawthorn Hill, LLC
Michael Rucinski’s career spans more than three decades in the fields of security, law enforcement, and investigations in both the public and private sectors. After more than 20 years with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration, he retired from the federal government and formed Hawthorn Hill, LLC where he provides consulting services to a variety of industry stakeholders regarding aviation security policy and programs, regulatory compliance, and asset protection.