SSCP Evolving Technology & Planning Considerations Analysis Case Studies

Transcription

1 SSCP Evolving Technology & Planning Considerations Analysis Case Studies 14 March 2018 Regine Weston

2 Overview Security checkpoints (SSCPs) have evolved continuously over the last 20 years As each processing constraint has been identified, solutions to increase efficiency for that aspect have been implemented triggering a new constraint The idea of achieving balanced capacity has been elusive and the variables change too frequently day to day and sometimes hour to hour Simulation modelling allows us to understand the impact of changes before implementation and test mitigation measures as necessary Case study 1 is a US airport where the challenge is minimizing wait times within an existing footprint Case study 2 is a UK airport where changing regulations had a significant impact on operations 2

3 ASL & Matrix Screening The throughput for ASL and Matrix Screening systems is based on number of trays per machine and not on number of passengers Typical throughput rate is trays per hour. This includes 10% re-circulation rate for trays diverted for secondary screening Lanes with same equipment can have different throughput rates for passengers as the number of trays per passenger varies by: Airport location Type of airline (low cost, legacy, charter) Route (leisure vs business)

4 Case Study 1 10 double ASL lanes w/ current throughput Pre-Check Throughput: 275 passengers / hr Target Wait Time: 5 mins No Queue Balancing South 10 Lanes / SSCP Area Pre-Check (2) Pre-Check (3) North 80% 20% Pre- Check (8) (7) Throughput: 225 passengers / hr Target Wait Time: 10 mins Queue Balancing

5 10 Double Lanes (225/hr Reg; 275/hr Pre-check)

6 Case Study 1 Only 8 double ASL lanes staffed 80% 20% Throughput: 225 passengers / hr Target Wait Time: 10 mins Queue Balancing Pre-Check Throughput: 275 passengers / hr Target Wait Time: 5 mins No Queue Balancing Pre- Check Pre-Check North South North South Passengers Passengers Passengers in Queue Wait Time (mins) min LOS Wait Time (mins) min LOS Wait Time (mins)

7 Case Study 1 What throughput would be required to stay within the Maximum Wait Targets with only 8 double lanes open PRE-CHECK Target Wait Time: 5 mins Option A Queue Balancing Throughput: 275 passengers / hr Option B No Queue Balancing Throughput: 285 passengers / hr 80% 20% Pre- Check South 8 Lanes / SSCP Area North 260 pph 285 pph 10 +4% Pre-Check (2) Pre-Check (2) % (6) (6) REGULAR Throughput: 260 passengers / hr Target Wait Time: 10 mins Queue Balancing 225 Base 275 Base Lane PreCheck Lane

8 8 Double Lanes (260/hr Reg; 285/hr Pre-check)

9 SSCP Evolving Technology & Planning Considerations Case Study 2

10 Case Study 2 UK originally implemented Matrix screening for bags while using only WTMD for passengers. Government was considering implementing a minimum use of AIT (Body Scanners; 25% day & 20% of peak hour) Use a randomizer to select who uses lanes with AIT What percentage need to be sent to AIT lanes to ensure that the minima are met?

11 Case Study 2 Tray throughput rate varies by lane (length): Type Trays per hour Mid Parallel Load and Matrix Long Parallel Load and Matrix Family Long Parallel Load and Matrix Tray loading time/divestiture (survey based) is a random continuous distribution: Number of Trays :00 04:00 05:00-06:00 Trays per passenger varies by time of day 07:00-08:00 09:00-10:00 11:00-12:00 13:00-14:00 15:00-16:00 17:00-18:00 19:00-20:00 21:00-22:00 Time (seconds per tray) Cumulative % Magnetometer 720 passengers/hour (5 seconds / pax) Body-scanner 150 passengers/hour (24 seconds / pax) Number of Trays :00 04:00 05:00-06:00 Trays per passenger varies by season (20% higher in Winter) 07:00-08:00 09:00-10:00 11:00-12:00 Summer 13:00-14:00 Winter 15:00-16:00 17:00-18:00 19:00-20:00 21:00-22:00

12 Case Study 2 Impact of minimum target requirements for Full Body Scanner (AIT) Usage on security checkpoint lane operations Key Drivers: Avoid lane starvation Mini-queues Tray Throughput Lane Length Case 1: 0% AIT Usage..TO Case 10: 100% AIT Usage AIT installed in Lanes Number of Trays per Hour Maximum Simulated Tray Throughput per Lane Lane 6 Lane 7 Lane 8 Base Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Lane 7 Lane 8 Lane 9 Lane 10 se 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 10 Declared Throughput

13

14 SSCP Analysis Questions?