Airports And Covid-19: Screening Measures In Place?

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a massive impact on the aviation industry, with international passenger traffic suffering the most dramatic drop in aviation history. Airports and airlines worldwide have had to adapt to changing health requirements and implement new safety measures. Screening measures at airports have included temperature checks, health questionnaires, and random testing. However, the effectiveness of these screenings has been questioned, especially in countries like the US, where the CDC ended its screening program in September 2020 due to its limited effectiveness in identifying infected travelers. As the pandemic evolves, the focus is now on integrating health screening and security measures into a single, seamless, and touchless process to boost passenger confidence and support the aviation industry's recovery.

Screening methods: thermal imaging vs hand-held devices

Thermal imaging cameras and hand-held devices have been used to detect fevers in individuals since the 2003 SARS outbreak. As countries began to ease Covid-19 lockdowns, these technologies were once again considered to limit the spread of the virus.

Thermal Imaging Cameras

Thermal imaging cameras can be used to detect fever, a common symptom of Covid-19, by taking multiple thermal images of a person's face. These images can identify regions of the face such as the nose and mouth, and detect a higher temperature than normal. This method of screening is advantageous as it does not require direct physical contact with the individual being screened and can be operated remotely.

However, there are some concerns about the accuracy of thermal imaging cameras. External factors such as sitting in a hot vehicle for too long or wearing a mask can contribute to a raised surface-level temperature, leading to false positives. Additionally, the distance between the individual and the camera can affect the accuracy of the reading, with further distance resulting in a less precise measurement.

Hand-Held Devices

Hand-held devices, such as infrared thermometers, use an infrared sensor to measure the surface temperature of an individual from a distance without physical contact. These devices are typically pointed at the forehead to take a temperature reading.

However, Dr Bobby Schwartz, president of the American Academy of Thermology (ATT), cautions against the use of hand-held infrared thermometers for fever detection. He argues that the tear duct area is a more accurate representation of body temperature as it is closer to the internal portion of the body.

Comparison

Thermal imaging cameras and hand-held devices each have their own advantages and limitations in the context of Covid-19 screening. Thermal imaging cameras offer the benefit of remote operation, reducing the risk of viral transmission to the operator. They also provide a faster screening process with a higher throughput rate of 720 passengers per hour compared to 180 passengers per hour for hand-held devices.

On the other hand, hand-held devices are more portable and can be easily deployed in various locations. They may also be more cost-effective, with some businesses offering equipment at a lower price point.

In conclusion, both thermal imaging cameras and hand-held devices have been utilized for Covid-19 screening, each presenting its own set of advantages and drawbacks. The choice between the two methods depends on the specific needs and constraints of the screening location, such as passenger volume, available resources, and accuracy requirements.

Screening ineffectiveness

The effectiveness of airport screening for COVID-19 has been questioned by various health authorities, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States. The CDC concluded that airport screening during the early stages of the pandemic was largely ineffective in detecting COVID-19 cases. This ineffectiveness was attributed to the fact that individuals can transmit the virus without exhibiting symptoms, which rendered symptom-based screening methods inadequate.

In California, for instance, out of 12,000 passengers screened between February 3 and March 17, only three were later identified as having COVID-19 among the 26,182 patients reported in the state by April 15. This indicates a near-complete failure of the screening process, despite the significant resources and person-hours invested.

The CDC also compared the screening process for COVID-19 to that of Ebola during the 2014-15 outbreak. The Ebola screening was deemed more effective because Ebola "has obvious clinical manifestations, is contagious only after symptom onset, and a smaller number of travelers required monitoring." In contrast, COVID-19 can be transmitted asymptomatically, making it challenging to identify infected individuals through temperature checks and health questionnaires.

The CDC's analysis highlighted the limitations of airport screening for COVID-19, particularly the low yield of positive cases detected. This prompted the CDC to recommend a shift in strategy, discontinuing resource-intensive, low-yield symptom-based screening, and instead focusing on enhancing communication with travelers, reinforcing mechanisms to refer ill travelers, and improving public health response capacity at ports of entry.

Furthermore, challenges with obtaining complete and accurate traveler contact information, high volumes of travelers, and competing health department priorities hindered efforts to conduct effective contact tracing and oversee self-monitoring for those who had been screened. The CDC is now working on developing a framework to collect reliable contact information electronically before travelers arrive in the United States, enabling real-time data transfer for more efficient public health management.

Overall, the ineffectiveness of airport screening for COVID-19 underscored the need to transition from symptom-based screening to more comprehensive approaches that address the unique characteristics of the virus, including asymptomatic transmission and nonspecific symptoms.

Screening alternatives

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the aviation industry, with international passenger traffic experiencing the most dramatic drop in aviation history. As countries closed their borders and implemented lockdowns, airports and airlines were forced to adapt to new health and safety measures. While temperature checks and health questionnaires were initially introduced, these measures had limited effectiveness in identifying infected travellers. As a result, airports and governments are exploring more effective alternatives to screening passengers for COVID-19.

One alternative is the use of touchless technology to reduce the risk of transmission. This includes the deployment of Computed Tomography (CT) scanners for cabin baggage screening, which increases security lane throughput and removes the need for passengers to unpack their belongings. Additionally, enhanced body scanner algorithms can be implemented to reduce the number of touchpoints during the security process. Airports can also invest in automated tray return systems equipped with tray disinfection modules to create a safer environment for passengers and staff.

Self-service initiatives, such as video assistance during the security process, offer another alternative to traditional screening methods. This approach allows passengers to reserve a place in a virtual queue and claim access to security checkpoints at designated arrival times, reducing crowds and facilitating social distancing. Biometric technology, such as facial recognition, can also play a role in creating a seamless and secure passenger journey by verifying identity and establishing security risk through government databases.

Furthermore, airports can explore semi-permanent health screening facilities that are modular, scalable, and self-sufficient. These facilities can be equipped with temperature screening devices or thermal imaging camera technology to identify passengers with elevated temperatures. Implementing such measures can help build public confidence in air travel while adhering to changing regulatory requirements.

While the future of airport screening in a post-pandemic world remains uncertain, a combination of technological advancements, operational flexibility, and stakeholder collaboration will be key in creating a sustainable and cost-efficient security checkpoint that prioritises health security and passenger experience.

Screening impact on airport operations

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on airlines and airports worldwide. The introduction of health screening measures has had a noticeable impact on the complexity of security protocols, the time required to complete all sub-processes, the cost of the infrastructure, and the number of staff required to operate them.

One of the most significant challenges for airports has been managing the increased floor space needed for security checkpoints, which are often positioned in the middle of a terminal building. This has required airports to rethink the layout of their terminals and streamline their processes to accommodate physical distancing and the allocation of areas for health screening.

The implementation of health screening measures has also resulted in longer queues for passengers, who may now have to undergo two separate screening processes—health and security—before they can board their flights. This has placed a strain on airport resources and increased the time and complexity of the travel process.

To mitigate these challenges, some airports have introduced new technologies such as computed tomography (CT) scanners for cabin baggage screening, which increase security lane throughput and facilitate the lift of liquid, aerosol, and gel restrictions. Other measures such as virtual queuing, where passengers can reserve a place in a virtual queue and claim access to security checkpoints at their designated arrival time, have also been implemented to reduce crowds and improve social distancing.

Furthermore, the pandemic has accelerated trends towards automation, self-service, and touchless technology to reduce the risk of transmission. Biometric technology and digital processing are also expected to play a more significant role in the future, providing a simplified, integrated solution for security and health screening.

Overall, the impact of screening measures on airport operations has been significant, requiring airports to adapt their processes, infrastructure, and staffing to ensure a safe and efficient travel experience for passengers.

Screening impact on passenger experience

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on airlines and airports worldwide. The introduction of health screening measures has further complicated the security screening process, which was already beset by bottlenecks and over-capacity issues.

The implementation of physical distancing requirements in security screening areas has had a severe impact on operational capacity. Social distancing measures, such as floor markings to ensure travellers maintain distance while queuing, have reduced the capacity of security checkpoints. Billy Shallow, manager of the Airports Council International's (ACI World) Smart Security program, predicts that as passenger numbers recover, social distancing measures will become increasingly unsustainable.

To address these challenges, airports have explored various solutions, including the introduction of security booking systems that allow travellers to pre-book a security slot and avoid queuing. Manchester Airport in the UK, for instance, has implemented a system where travellers can book a free 15-minute security slot online, gaining access to a dedicated lane that takes them straight to the security checkpoint. This not only helps manage passenger volume but also provides valuable data insights to anticipate peaks and troughs in demand.

Another solution proposed by ACI World's Smart Security Vision 2040 report is the use of screening gateways – enclosed walkways that allow travellers to be screened along with their baggage in a single, seamless, and contactless process. However, this technology is expected to take at least 15-20 years to mature before it can be implemented in airports. In the meantime, self-service security systems are being considered as an intermediate solution, allowing travellers to operate automated kiosks for threat detection, similar to self-tagging checked baggage or printing boarding passes.

The pandemic has also accelerated trends towards automation, self-service, and touchless technology to reduce the risk of virus transmission. Security lane technology upgrades, such as replacing conventional x-ray equipment with CT scanners and enhanced body scanner algorithms, reduce the need for physical contact between passengers, their belongings, and security agents.

While these measures aim to enhance health security and improve the passenger experience, they also present challenges. The increased reliance on technology and automation may require significant time and investment before they can be fully implemented. Additionally, the current measures may not be enough to prevent the spread of the virus, as infected individuals without symptoms can still slip through the screening process. Ultimately, a combination of health screening, public health measures, and individual responsibility is necessary to create a safer travel environment.

Frequently asked questions