Summary of Key Points
This article takes the 14th anniversary of the June 29 hijacking incident as an opportunity to highlight four major challenges in current civil aviation security, in light of the new Civil Aviation Law that came into effect on July 1st (for the first time legally defining the role of aviation security personnel). These challenges include:
1. Weak security checks: A shortage of staff, outdated equipment, and assessments that focus more on service than effectiveness.
2. Inadequate capabilities and authority of aviation security personnel: Training that does not reflect real-world situations, exposed identities, and limited response powers.
3. Marginalized security oversight by airlines: Confused departmental responsibilities, lack of resources, and a reluctance to address issues seriously.
4. Insufficient emphasis on security compared to economic interests: A tendency to prioritize profit over safety.
The article calls on the entire industry to put aviation security from mere formality into practice, as the cost of a single accident is too high for anyone to bear.
I. The new law gives security personnel official status, but underlying issues remain
The new Civil Aviation Law has officially recognized aviation security personnel alongside pilots and flight attendants, granting them formal recognition. It also specifies that the captain can authorize passengers to assist in handling emergencies. This is a positive step, but there are still many problems:
- Disconnection between training and reality: Security personnel's training often involves theoretical exercises and running, which do not prepare them for real-life situations (such as when someone pulls out a weapon). New recruits have limited experience, and once they fly solo, they rely on their own judgment without guidance.
- Exposed identities making them targets: Originally, security personnel were required to wear plain clothes during flights to avoid being identified by terrorists. Now, they are easily recognizable, which puts them at risk.
- Limited authority: Security personnel can only take limited actions with the captain's authorization, and using equipment or force may lead to legal issues. For example, if they suspect someone suspicious, they can only watch without checking them directly; if they do check, they must worry about whether their actions are lawful.
II. The security check line: understaffed, underfunded, and constrained by service standards
Security checks are the first (and often the last) line of defense in aviation:
- Shortage of staff and equipment: Small and medium-sized airports suffer from a severe shortage of security personnel, and it's difficult to attract and retain them. Millimeter-wave security gates, which can detect hidden items, are rarely used, leading to missed or incorrect inspections.
- Service-oriented evaluations: Airports emphasize customer service when assessing security staff, which discourages strict checks. For example, if a passenger is carrying something suspicious, the security staff may avoid conflict to prevent complaints. However, if a dangerous item is missed, no one will care whether they smiled that day.
- The gamble of luck: With insufficient personnel and equipment, security relies more on chance rather than effective measures.
III. Airlines' security departments are marginalized in oversight
Airlines' security teams should be the core of safety supervision, but:
- Confused responsibilities: The roles of security and aviation management departments overlap, leading to unclear accountability.
- Lack of resources and support: There is a shortage of security experts and funding, and performance evaluations are ineffective. Without leadership attention, these departments lose their influence, hindering safety improvements.
- Reluctant higher-ups: Regulatory authorities avoid confronting airlines' staffing, funding, and other issues, fearing consequences.
IV. The dilemma of aviation security: invisible investment, catastrophic consequences
These problems persist due to an economic focus that overlooks the long-term benefits of investing in security:
- High costs with no immediate returns: Security requires significant investment (recruitment, equipment, training), but there is no direct financial benefit. Without incidents for years, leaders may deem such spending unnecessary.
- Complacency: The lack of recent terrorist attacks has led to relaxation in security measures. However, aviation safety is a long-term investment; every penny saved now could be crucial in the future (e.g., the洛克比空难 and 9/11 incidents).
- Hidden efforts, hidden rewards: The value of security is often unnoticed until an accident occurs. If passengers safely land, no one remembers the hundreds of people working behind the scenes to ensure it.
Final call for action
Aviation security requires genuine commitment, not just symbolic initiatives. The new law provides a framework, but true improvement depends on:
- Filling staffing gaps and providing adequate funding.
- Bold regulatory actions.
- Full industry commitment: Leaders must prioritize safety, as the cost of a failure is too high.
As the General Secretary said, "Performance should focus on benefiting the people." Aviation security is the ultimate way to do just that. Frontline civil aviation staff must monitor every flight and process, and decision-makers must always keep safety in mind. The loss from a single accident is something we cannot afford.
(The translation maintains the structure of the original Chinese text, using clear and concise language to convey the complex issues and their importance to the general audience.)