# Presentation: 402146

## Aviation Security Impact Assessment Working Group(ASIA-WG)Report to ASAC

**                ****January 11, 2006 (R2)**
**	**

**Transportation Security Administration**

## Aviation Security Impact Assessment (ASIA) Working Group Structure

**TSA Administrator**

**ASAC**
**Aviation Security Advisory Committee**

**ASIA – WG**
**Aviation Security Impact Assessment**
**Working Group**

**USCAP - TWG**
***(U.S. Commercial Aviation Partnership – Technical Working Group)***
**Operational/Economic Impact Analyses**

**RMAP - TWG**
***(Risk Management Analysis Process -***
***Technical Working Group)***
**Risk and Effective/Efficient Countermeasures**

**Membership:**
**AAAE, ACI-NA, ATA, Boeing, DHS, DOT, TSA**

**Membership:**
**AAAE, ACI-NA, Airbus, ALPA, ATA, Boeing, CAA, DHS, DOT, FAA,  NACA, NASA, NGATS/JPDO, RAA, TSA**

**Membership:**
**AAAE, ACI-NA, ATA, Boeing, DHS, DOT, TSA, Airbus, ALPA,  CAA, NACA, RAA, NASA**

***ASME/RAMCAP ***
***DHS/USC-CREATE***
***DHS/RNCSAA/DNDO***
***LANL/LED***
***DHS/Homeland Security Institute***

## ASIA-WG Accomplishments

**Full Working Group membership met October 2005 **
**Elected Asst Administrator Randy Null as Co-chair for Government Sector**
**Sustained Ron Robinson (Boeing) as Co-chair for Industry Sector**
**Held monthly face-to-face meetings with USCAP and RMAP-TWG’s**
** **Baseline** **Application Output Progress and Plan Reviews
-  Problem and Issue resolution
- Oversight and detail path forward plan direction
**Held monthly Co-chair dialogue and coordination discussions**

##   US Commercial Aviation Partnership (USCAP)           Technical Working Group Progress

**Model Baseline, Operational and Economic Outputs Reset to FY 2004 Results**
**Model has reached operational readiness**
- Macro, dynamic developmental and veracity testing complete
**TSA to determine Future Application Needs per Charter**
- Anticipated Air Cargo Security Screening Rule Change
- Initial results two months following published rule change
- Final results one month later
**USCAP Econometric Model selected as finalist for 2006 Franz Edelman Competition Award**
- Final six of twenty-two entrants
- Highest recognition for Operational Research excellence in management sciences and innovation
- International annual competition of the Institute for Operational Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)

##    Risk Management Analysis Process (RMAP)            Technical Working Group Progress

**Initial Risk Management Tool (Evolution to Revolution)**
- Based on best practice CAST spreadsheet and existing LANL-LED capability
- Enhanced LANL-LED functionality for full Attacker/Defender Uncertainty
- Fuzzy Logic Spanning Sets with limited Advanced Hierarchal Processing
- Planning to Event
- Monte Carlo gaming
- Manual capability
- Gated progress from Evolution to Revolution
- Revolution extends Evolution best practices
- Automated interactive approach (Attacker, Defender, Detection, Interdiction)
- Advanced Gaming strategies including Time Effects and Resource Variability
- Robust Monte Carlo simulation and uncertainty modeling
- Robust AHP primary logic
- Evolution target May 2006
- Revolution target November 2006
**Initial Stepped Plan, changed to Revolution Only  **
**Revised Revolution Development Path Forward Plan**
- Reassign resources and develop path forward technical plan
- Initial Revolution target July 2006
- Refined Revolution capability by year end

**           ****Back-Up Material**

## Relative Economic Impact of Security Changes		--- 20 Year Horizon ---

- What the model is:
**Macro operational and economic relationships of key elements of U.S. Commercial Aviation – 20 year time scale**
**An “order of magnitude” dynamic tool to estimate impacts resulting from aviation security initiatives**
**A mechanism to facilitate stakeholder discussions and analyses on operational and economic impacts of security initiatives – to define areas of consensus and disagreement  **
- What the model is not:
**A security/regulation decision making tool**
**A detail cost estimating tool**

## USCAP Econometric Model“The Pachinko Machine”

- Excel Model
- 79.2 Megabytes of Files
- 13 Linked Workbooks
- 191 Worksheets
- 15,676 Lines of Data
- One Scenario Recalculation Produces 1.5M Values
- Run Time up to 3 minutes
- Iterative Options (Revenue) can take up to 90 Min.
-   “Pachinko Machine” = Progressive Airline Computational 	Heuristic Interactive Numeric Kinetic Output Machine

##       Requested USCAP Analyses Summary	 	        --- 20 Year Horizon ---		

| Title | Original Assessment | Updated Assessment |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Scenario 1:  Credentialing | $0.3B | $0.4B |
| Scenario 2:  Sterile Area Screening | $1B | $1.5B |
| Scenario 3:  Airside Screening | $77B | $93.4B |
| Initiative 2004 - | $1B - $2B | $0.7B - $1.3B |
| Initiative 2006 - | $4B - $16B | $5B - $19B |
| Initiative 2009 - | $8B - $100B | $8B - $106B |
| Air Cargo Screening – 
Scenario 2: Screen 30% Non-Exempt Freight   | $3.4B - $3.5B | $3.4B - $3.5B |
| Air Cargo Screening – 
Scenario 3: Screen 100% Non-Exempt Freight | $64B - $106B | TBD |

- Limits access doors & screen terminal workers

- 100% screening of all sterile area entrances

- Perimeter fencing improvement & 100% AOA worker screening

## PAX Belly Cargo Screening

**PAX Belly Cargo Screening**
- At some point, consequential impacts can become significant

**% of Belly Cargo screened**

**Screening**
**Cost**

***Minimal***** Consequential Impacts**

***Significant***** Consequential Impacts**

## Updated USCAP Funds Flow

**$194B/yr**

_**At the Airport**_
**$87B/yr**
- (includes fuel, catering, maintenance, etc. purchased by airlines)

**Updated USCAP Funds Flow**
**New 2004 Baseline - Preliminary**** **

**Airlines**

**Service**
**Providers**
**at Airports**

**Taxes**
**& Fees**

**Fuel**

**Other**

**Capital**

**Service Provider Profits**

**Security**

**Cost of **
**OPS**

**Pass.**
**Ticket**
**Taxes**

**Security**

**Other**

_**Government**_
_**$13B/yr**_

**Passenger facility charges**

_**U.S. Airlines**_
**$134B/yr**

**Includes Airlines Annual Loss ~ $7-$15B**

**Crew**

**Maint.**

**Ownership**

**$134B**

**$13B**

**$2B**

**$45B**

**$27 B**

- $8B

- USC APv4.0

- RMP0192905

**Notes:**
Chart reflect revisions of Sept 29, 2005. 														

##                 Dynamic Risk Management                           ASIA – WG Role

- Commercial Aviation Network

- Threats

- Security
- Measure(s)

- Information for decision makers

- Performance

**Threat ability to degrade system (Likelihood)**

**Security measure ability to protect system **
**(Effectiveness)**

**Operational & Economic impact**** of security measures on system**

***USCAP-TWG***

**Operational & Economic impact of threat on system**
**(Consequence)**

- Impact

***RMAP-TWG***

**Notes:**
The RMAP and USCAP team’s study boundaries are depicted in the right side of the chart.
RMAP is an assessment of the various countermeasures relative ability to protect the aviation system.They describe what type of countermeasure is to be installed, its threat deterrent capabilities; is it an improved technology for an existing threat, a productivity improvement or does it target a new threat or risk?
USCAP taking the RMAP data and the best understanding of the current US commercial aviation airport security processes (passenger and cargo) adds the proposed changes to the US airport system (443 airports).  The relative impact of these changes in terms of employees, equipment, real estate are determined.  In addition, because these changes have direct effect on the passengers willingness and ability to travel (or ship) the consequential impact on entire commercial aviation system is captured.

## Security Risk Management Analysis                  	

***Identify effective/efficient risk reduction***

**Implementation**

**Prioritize Countermeasures**

**Plan and Implement Countermeasures**

***Implement and adjust plans as needed***

_**Security**_** Risk Management Analysis****        ****          ****	**

**Risk Reduction:**
***Specific threat***
***All threat***

**Resources:**
***Direct***
***Indirect***

**Evaluate Countermeasures**

- Likelihood

- Consequence

**High risks**

**Low risks**

- Total Risk Reduction

- Resources

**Identify effective and efficient countermeasures**

***Identify high risks***

**Develop plans**

**Actions:**
***Government***
***Industry***

**Resources:**
***Government***
***industry***

**Approve plans:**
***Government***
***industry***

**Monitor/adjust:**
***Government***
***industry***

**Consequence:**
***Human***
***Direct***
***Indirect***
***other***** **

**Likelihood**
***vulnerability***
***intent***
***availability***

**Threat analysis**

**Evaluate Risks**

***Must include uncertainty***

## Security Objectives (from 2SR at TSA:  

**Asymmetric Risk in a Dynamic Network)**
**Make travel more secure and efficient, with less confusion and no unnecessary intrusion**
**Prevent attacks of major consequence; no matter what terrorists do, maintain a functioning national transportation network**
**Asymmetric risk; Cannot predict terrorist activity**
**Dynamic, interconnected, adaptive network (overlapping and interconnected sub-networks) – strengths and weaknesses are independent from individual components; changing pieces/independent operations achieves network resilience**
**Flexible, dynamic, risk-based deployment of resources**
**Increase randomness; so terrorists can’t use predictability of security measures to their advantage; variety of consistent protocols applied in an inconsistent fashion, creating confusion/uncertainty in preoperational surveillance; disrupt the planning process to delay, reduce or thwart potential attack**

## Security objectives (from 2SR at TSA: 

**Asymmetric Risk  in a Dynamic Network):**
**Focus on people’s behavior as well as threat vectors; identify terrorists without having to wait until an attack is underway**
**Leverage capital markets; engage private sector and use innovative funding to acquire, maintain and replenish technology in an affordable and sustainable manner**
**Protect privacy of traveling public**
**Advance public commitment to become a force multiplier**
**Activate a wide variety of organizations – within and outside government at all levels**
**Improve communications and info sharing; gather, collect, analyze, and distribute timely information**
**Differing level of consequences based on services they deliver, geographic location, role in social, economic, and national security; impact, scope and scale**
**Minimize risks and impacts of a system breach**

## Security Analysis Approach – “Revolution”

**(**Experience/best practices to develop next generation capability)
***Utilize: interactive approach***** *****(Attacker, defender, detection/interdiction capability)***
***Utilize: Pre-attack planning, survey, resourcing and dry run, and exit planning/testing methodologies***
***Integrate: robust Monte Carlo simulation and uncertainty strategies***
***Integrate: robust AHP logic primarily***
***Integrate: advanced gaming strategies, utilizing time effects and resource variability alternatives***
***Integrate: highest function of dynamic modeling that is possible***
***Develop advanced metric suite based on “evolution” experience and “revolution” best practice realities at the time***

## RMAP – TWG Go-Forward Plan

- 4th Qtr

- 1st Qtr

- 2nd Qtr

- 3rd Qtr

- 4th Qtr

**RMAP – TWG Go-Forward Plan**
- December 7, 2005 status

- Item

**Develop initial “revolution tool, processes and analyses**

- 2006

** ****Develop initial useful “revolution” tool, processes and analyses**

- 2005

**RMAP  team**
**Modeling meetings**
**“****Weekly” VTC reviews**
**RMAP Team meetings**

**ASIA**** - WG**

**E****xec**** ****Reviews**

- Quarterly

- 2nd week
-  of Jan

- Feb
-  or Mar

- ~6 - 8 weeks