How people influence the appliance of science

In recent months we’ve been spared the headlines of long queues at airports but, with increasing passenger numbers, it is always a battle to achieve a smooth flow through airports, particularly as security remains a key issue.  

The Middle East is one of the fastest growing regions for air traffic, with increasing volumes, and a high level of investment in airports and infrastructure. 

Dubai Airport, for example, has seen an 8% growth in passenger volumes this year; Muscat is up by 13% and Abu Dhabi has increased numbers by 15%.

In Qatar, the new Doha airport, which has an initial capacity of 24 million passengers a year, will see an increase to 48 million with the next phase of development as $15 billion is pumped into the facility. 

Bahrain is currently seeing a nearly $350 million investment in upgrading its airport.

These are big numbers and keeping the increasing amount of passengers moving smoothly is no mean feat.  Consideration of human factors – something that is intuitively understood, even if the science behind it is not – is one way that designers can maximise the value of any investment and ensure that operators get the most out of any airport. 

Passengers, maintainers as well as operators, are all ‘users’ of security checkpoints and by recognising their needs throughput can be optimised. 

* Passengers: key human factors concerns are privacy, attitude, processing speed, stress and anxiety.

* Operators: the science of human factors would look at process design, equipment design, training, environmental factors, and posture.

* Maintainers: efficient processors, access design, working postures, training.

Of course, with any international destination/transit point there will be a very wide range of cultural differences between travellers, which adds to the challenge for designers wishing to consider human factors. 

Psychological factors are important for the passenger. Body searches involve intrusion into an individual’s body space. The experience is a negative one for both the security staff and the passenger – successful pat-downs must involve checks on some of the most intimate body areas. 

Because passengers now expect to be searched, they may consider what they will wear for a journey and its temporary removal when being screened. Donning and doffing clothing can be facilitated – zips are more quickly fastened and unfastened than buttons and ‘Velcro’ strips quicker than shoelaces. But that assumes seasoned travellers who are willing – or able – to make these compromises. 

A US survey reckons that American travellers would take an additional two to three flights per year if the hassles in security screening were eliminated. These additional flights are estimated to add nearly $85 billion in consumer spending and 900,000 jobs to the American economy. 

Understanding the different types of passenger will have an impact on the design of screening areas to maintain the throughput. Passenger extremes will include octogenarians, wheelchair users, mothers-to-be, children, those with learning difficulties and individuals with restricted vision. In each case designers need to consider heights of conveyors, light levels, instructions and assumptions on mobility to ensure that security lines are not to be held up.

Regulators are now looking at radical alternatives to the current screening processes involving risk-based approaches, where they degree of screening is based around risk assessments. This ‘smart thinking’ approach will make a significant difference to the way checkpoints are laid out.  The advantages cited include the more effective use of available resources and improvements to the passenger experience.  

Life for designers would be easier if passenger flows were constant but the reality is that they are not. Not only are there daily and seasonal variations, airports have to cope with massive influxes during special events. 

On an annual basis, the pilgrimage to Mecca means millions access the city through the Hajj terminal of King Abdul-Aziz International Airport or the Jeddah Seaport. This is a challenge, as many are inexperienced travellers not used to the checkpoint experience. 

Other notable events in the region can drive sudden spikes of passengers – the (now occasional) arrival of the Formula 1 circus. With ten years to go, Qatar has plenty of time to consider the implications of the World Cup.

For operators working at the conveyor – checking bags through X-ray machines or physically manipulating trays or luggage – the physical layout of equipment is crucial. Manipulating a heavy bag on a conveyor, which is too high, may be acceptable occasionally but it certainly won’t be if this has to be done 30 times an hour over a full shift. Back injury issues are rife among staff involved with manual handling and the financial implications of reduced efficiency and time off work are worth avoiding. 

This point of the process usually involves both the passenger – it is their responsibility to load luggage on to the conveyor – as well as the operator, who needs to make adjustments to the baggage being X-rayed to make sure it goes through in the optimal position.

Effective design, created in conjunction with the operators themselves, can speed up the process as well as minimising the injury risk. 

X-ray screeners have received much attention in the past, with working periods and target detection having been looked at. Features such as poor layout of equipment, inappropriate general illumination and poor posture all chip away at performance. Just as important are the ‘softer’ issues to do with motivation, training, team working and supervision.

Maintenance engineers are not seen as front-line staff as far as security screening zones are concerned and their needs often do not receive the same level of attention as others in the security team. But their needs matter when it comes to easy access to vital parts of the machinery, which must be accessed to keep the systems operating. Access hatches, lighting and sight lines are also points to be considered by designers, as these make a significant contribution to the speed of maintenance and repair. 

Operators expect to squeeze every ounce of performance from equipment and the design needs to allow faults to be fixed efficiently and correctly.

There is no definitive solution to checkpoint human factors as each airport is different – it is easiest to ensure ‘best practice’ when a facility is being built from scratch. But, equally, there are ‘best practice’ approaches that can be applied to the refurbishment of older terminals.

In the Middle East, where investment is high, the use of human factors thinking will help make it one of the key travel hubs in the world.

• John Woods is executive chairman of CCD Design and Ergonomics and is currently involved with establishing standards across Europe, where he is currently involved in projects at both London Heathrow and Gatwick. He has extensive experience internationally.