Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Meeting Europe’s Security ChallengesBorder security
Maritime security
ICT/Biometric security
UAVs
Transport security
AeroSpace & Defence Industries Association of Europe
FOCUS02SUMMER 2008
www.asd-europe.org
01
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8C
ON
TE
NT
S
Forewords02 °Ake Svensson / Saab
ASD members respond positively to growing pan-European security agenda
03 François Gayet / ASDEuropean security moves up EU agenda
04 Giancarlo Grasso / FinmeccanicaThe European industry supports an EU integratedsecurity approach
Border security06 Robert Havas / EADS
Coping with border securitychallenges
08 Ilkka Pertti Juhani Laitinen /FrontexShaping European security
Maritime security09 Peter Mollema /
Port of RotterdamRotterdam: Enhancing security with technologies
10 Paolo Neri / Large ArchitectureSystems, Selex Sistemi IntegratiShaping European security
ICT / Biometric security13 Joerg Sauerbrey / Siemens
Developing a European security identity
14 Bernard Didier / Sagem SécuritéBiometrics; the citizen & the state
15 Paul Weissenberg /European CommissionReaping the benefits of European R&D
UAVs16 Serge Lebourg / Dassault
UAV operations in future ATM18 Mike Strong &
Holger Matthiesen /EUROCONTROLSupport UAS ATM integration
19 Gérard Mardiné /Sagem SécuritéFlying UAS in civil Airspace
Transport security20 Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus /
Association of European AirlinesA holistic approach to aviationsecurity
22 Stefan Aust / Smiths DetectionAlleviating the security bottleneck
24 Frank Greverie / ThalesInnovation solutions for publictransport security
26 Valère Moutarlier / GMESGMES contribution to security
28 Kathleen Barthe / AirbusMaking it simple
30 Christian Ehler /European ParliamentFP7: Building European defence & security
32 Luigi Rebuffi / EOSEOS develops a coherentEuropean security market
PublisherFrançois GayetASD Secretary General
EditorMartin ToddASD PR & Communications Manager
Design bywww.landmarks.be
AeroSpace and Defence IndustriesAssociation of Europe, ASDAvenue de Tervuren 270 B-1150 BrusselsBelgiumTel. +32 2 775 8110Fax. +32 2 775 [email protected]
©2008 All rights reserved.The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the individual authors or advertisers and do not necessarily reflect those of the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe, ASD, or its members. The mention of specific companies or products in articles or advertisementscontained herein does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ASD, their members, and must neither be regarded as constituting advice on any matter whatsoever, nor be interpreted as such.
FOCUS02SUMMER 2008
Cover Story13 Joerg Sauerbrey / Siemens
Developing a European security identity
14 Bernard Didier / Sagem Sécurité Biometrics; the citizen & the state
15 Paul Weissenberg /European CommissionReaping the benefits of European R&D
02
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8F
OR
EW
OR
D
The emergence of a pan-Europeansecu rity agenda has seen ASDmembers respond with positive andinnovative approaches offering theircapacity to develop advanced hightechnology solutions, to the rapidlychanging security scenarios.
There is clearly a growing need forimproved measures to protect societyand citizens in areas like maritimesecurity, crisis management andemergency response as well as toprotect critical infrastructure andsecure transportation, in other wordsto protect flows in society.
ASD has played an important role insupporting the creation of the ECSecurity R&D programme within FP7,seeking to develop technologies whichenhance the security of the Europeancitizen. We have also seen ASD memberssuccessfully forming consortia andwinning contracts in the initial calls of theSecurity R&D programme within FP7.
ASD was also a key catalyst for thefoundation and development of theEuropean Organisation for Security(EOS), which is going from strength tostrength. EOS membership includes anumber of ASD members as well asother companies.
As a launch event, EOS is hosting aconfe rence on Security in mid-May,where the development of a coherentEuropean Security market in supportof EU security policies and highsecurity priorities will be discussedbetween regulators, users, operatorsand suppliers.
Supporting the development of short-term capability in a European context;is increasingly important to the securitycommunity. Promoting and realizingthe concept of a technolo gi callyadvanced European security orientatedindustrial base and to initi ate and foster
ASD MEMBERSRESPOND TO GROWING EUROPEAN SECURITYAGENDA
SME support measures are other areasthat requires further development.
ASD member companies are increa -singly involved in supplying systemswhich manage information flows andco-ordinate information exchangesbetween various civil authorities res -pon sible for preventing terrorist threats,responding to natural disaster andtackling organised crime.
Security solutions, where our memberscan contribute, also cover systemsdevelopment, systems integration andsystem security for government de -part ments, defence agencies and thetelecommunications industries, whowork together to build and protect avariety of infrastructure.
As the market for civil security systemscontinues to grow, new opportunitiesand challenges are created. ASDmembers have shown creativity andinnovation in the development of pro -ducts and solutions in areas as diverseas reconnaissance, surveil lan ce, com -mu nication and command control.
I believe that through the continuedactive involvement of ASD membersand through the partnership with EOS we can play a major role in thedefinition of a global, coherent andstructured security policy across Europeand also help in shaping the market.
I sincerely hope that our active enga -gement, will contribute to building amore secure Europe.
° Ake
Sven
sson
ASD
Pre
side
nt a
nd C
EO o
f Saa
b
ASD has played an important role in supporting the creationof the EC Security and R&D programmewithin FP7.
03
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8F
OR
EW
OR
D
Fran
çois
Gay
etSe
cret
ary
Gen
eral
ASD
The perception and the understandingof security have evolved markedly inrecent years. The concept of the secu rityof a country has broadened to nowfocus much more clearly on the secu -rity and protection of citizens ratherthan primarily addressing political andeconomy stability.
The globalisation of security threatsand the increased likelihood of natio nalsecurity crises means security concernsare now much closer to EU citizens’everyday life than traditional interna-tional conflicts.
External secu rity missions (e.g.“Petersberg’s tasks”) with the use ofmilitary capabilities and internalsecurity activities demanding theintervention of specific and wellequiped forces, have contributed to the transformation of the perception inthe needs for security and stabilisationof countries. The line between defenceand security is increasingly blurredand dual technology is more and moreused in both domains, arising fromdefence in the form of performanceissues while coming from civilian sectorsin areas for cost and rapid availability.
ASD and our members are heavilyinvolved in this transformation of thesecurity sector and have had a consi -de rable impact on the evolution andimplementation of a range of securitysolutions taking place at both thenational and international level.
Euro pean defence has taken close to 60years to reach the current level ofcoope ra tion across member states.Security cooperation is still in itsinfancy, but European-wide and urgentsecurity needs exist and are morevisible with each passing day.
The European Commission has initi-ated a specific security research pro-gramme to help with the develop ment
and implementation of European se-curity technologies. The recent crea tionof ESRIF (European Security Researchand Innovation Forum) will helpfacilitate the dialogue between thedemand and supply elements of secu-rity technologies and solutions as wellas the development of European-widesecurity policies.
ASD and its members are stronglypresent in all the new developmentsand activities, affecting security. ASDwas the initiator of EOS, the EuropeanOrganisation for Security, formed tosupport the progress and implemen -tation of European security techno-gies as well as challenging the frag -men tation of the European securitymarket. Increased cooperation onsecurity issues goes well beyond theaerospace and defence sectors, de -man ding a more holistic approach tocommunicating, with a broad range ofstakeholders. It is my firm convictionthat ASD and our members’ industriesare committed to creating effectivesustai nable security solutions, basedon innovative technologies that respectthe rights of citizens, while satisfyingthe specific requirements coming fromprivate and public users.
EUROPEANSECURITY MOVES UPEU AGENDA
ASD and its members are strongly present in all the new developments and activities, affecting security.
04
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8F
OR
EW
OR
D
€22b (some 0,22% of US GDP) whilstthe EU market for security is onlyaround €10b (some 0,08% of EU GDP).In order to increase the protection ofits citizens and develop innovativesecurity technologies, systems andservices, Europe must leverage on thehigh level competence and innovationcapacity of its industry. Large compa-nies with a broad technological baseshould partner with innovative SMEsand research organisations.
Security ResearchResearch on security plays a growingrole in providing solutions to evolvingthreats, satisfying demanding criteriaof performance, reliability, and at thesame time increasing European indus-tries’ competitiveness.
The European Commission activelysupports the growth of European com-petence in civilian security by allocating€1,4b in the FP7 (for the period 2007-2013) to the European Security ResearchProgramme (ESRP). European Industriesparticipated extensively in the firstESRP call for tender (with 328 bids),demonstrating that they are willing to co-operate and invest, to promotesustainable solutions. ASD strongly andsuccessfully supported this action.
In order to help the co-ordination of a pan-European effort, the Commisionersfor Enterprise & Industry and Justice
Security: a Concern for European Citizens
Protection of citizens, governments andthe economy is an issue that has alwaysexisted, but today it is consi de red asone of the greatest challenges of thecentury. According to Eurobaro meter,Europe’s security (in particular relatingto terrorism, organized crime and illegalimmigration) together with unemploy-ment, is among the most importantissues for European citizens. Today’sthreats are international and can bedifficult to anticipate and this explainswhy security is the most important areawhere citizens believe that an inte-grated European approach is needed.
Europe countries are increasingly cons-cious of the need to coordinate theiractions. A higher level of coordination isneeded to face growing challenges andgive EU Citizens adequate levels of se-curity, both in terms of SustainableSecurity (e.g. engaging the constituen-cies that will influence security over thelong-term) and socially accepted security(e.g. individual rights, privacy and therule of law).
The worldwide Homeland SecurityCivil market is developing at a rateestimated at over €40b p.a. DespiteEurope’s increased awareness of theimportance of protecting its citizensand assets, America still gives“Security” a much higher value: USinvestment in security is approximately
THE EUROPEANINDUSTRY SUPPORTS AN EU INTEGRATEDSECURITY APPROACH
Gia
ncar
lo G
rass
oFI
NM
ECC
ANIC
A Se
nior
Adv
isor
to th
e P
resi
dent
Cha
ir A
SD S
ecur
ity C
omm
ittee
; vic
eCha
ir E
SRIF
Freedom and Security have createdthe European Security Research andInnovation Forum (ESRIF).
ESRIF will define the roadmap of theEuropean effort to achieve SustainableSecurity, linking research needs bothat national and European level withsecurity policies as well as promotinga Europe-wide single market for advan-ced security systems and services.
Security SustainabilityHow European security stakeholderscan support Security Sustainability ?The following activities are proposed:/ Exploiting relevant information avail-
able in different areas, through aNetwork Centric Operations (NEC)approach; Defining a StrategicResearch and Innovation Agenda for technological development;
/ Defining a European Industrial Secu-rity Policy aiming to reinforce itstechnological strengths. This willsupport the development and imple-mentation of cost-effective solutionsto improve international competiti-veness while overcoming Europeanweaknesses like fragmentation;
/ Specifying Security as one of the crucial requirements to be embeddedinto new systems;
/ Ensuring an optimal use of resourcesthroughout the product life-cycle bypartnering with users;
/ Integrating Security functions in sys-tems intended for other applications:e.g. Safety (Crisis management); EarthMonitoring (GMES and managementof Earth resources); Defence (C3 forMaritime Safety and Security);
/ Developing new Security Services for the protection of Citizens, theEconomy and Country stability.
Research on security plays a growing role in providing solutions to evolvingthreats.
G1Limited level of integration productsand services that wereavailable on the securitymarket before 9/11
G2 Moderate level of integration productswhose core technologieswere available on 9/11 in other fields (especially in the military field)
G3High level of integration technologies that are in the R&D phase, specifically designed to cope with the new security requirements
G1G2
G3
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Homeland Security Technologies Evolution
COPINGWITH BORDER SECURITYCHALLENGES
Rob
ert H
avas
Secu
rity
, EAD
S, D
efen
ce &
Sec
urity
All sides involved in the provision of se-curity systems, suppliers as well asend-users and operators, essentiallythink in terms of threat assessmentand related mission definition, respec-tive to their distinct duties. The task of theindustrial side here is to develop, deploy- and perhaps also support ope rations- solutions that enable end-users andoperators to effectively and satisfacto-rily deal with these threats and vulner-abilities and thus fulfil their missions.
This is also one of the main reasonswhy, in security research in Europeand elsewhere, the linkage betweendemand and supply, already at an early stage, is rightly stressed as animportant factor in achieving successin security projects.
Illegal crossing of borders by peopleand goods is a threat to European security as well as potentially destruc-tive for social consensus. Borders andtheir checkpoints also constitute natu-ral strategic lines and chokepoints forsecurity authorities. Border checkpointsare especially tasked with the problemof facilitation of movement across theborder while not compromising secu-rity (terrorism and social). These arethe challenges driving R&D related toborder security capabilities.
Preparing the FutureIt is therefore worthwhile to take stockof existing and future technologies enabling this balance between a maxi-mum of freedom of movement and anoptimum in border security./ Intrusion prevention: Implementing and
hardening of physical obstacles: barriers,fences, (fire-) walls, etc. integration ofphysical / hardware security tools withsoftware-based lo gi cal components, and in particular, encryption;
/ Intrusion detection: Optical andelectro-optical sensors, acousticsensors, pressure sensors, IT intru -sion detection systems; again we seean integration of physical / hardwaresecurity tools with soft ware-basedlogical components;
/ People, material, and systems authen-tication and tracking: identity mana -gement, including biometrical andpattern sensors and systems, RFID, etc.
06
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8B
OR
DE
R S
EC
UR
ITY
/ Material analytics: x-ray, CBRNE(Chemical, Biological, Radiological/Nuclear, and Explosive) sensors, inparticular Laser Ion Mobility Spec -tro metry (LIMS), etc;
/ Sensor Platforms: fixed and rotor wingmanned and unmanned aircrafts,vehicles and satellites;
/ Integrated, inter-operable, secure,real-time IT with multiple functions(See Box). These systems are basedon open standards and pro to cols, whichallow intero perability and, whereappropriate, harmoniza tion.
/ Secure fixed and mobile digital voiceand data (including media data)communication systems.
Industries as Security Capability Enabler
As societies grow increasingly complex,so do their vulnerabilities and thusalso the security solutions requi red.Security responsibles will thereforerather require comprehensive securitysystems instead of individual, isolatedtechnologies geared towards one specific challenge. Future security solutions will need to be embeddedinto a network of legacy security systems, inte ract with them and provide the benefits of their synergies.
More and more security solutions willtherefore become part of complexsystems, or "Systems of Systems". If wewant end-users to fully take advantages
of the increased capabilities thus pos-sible, solution designers and suppliersnot only are required to possess hightechnological skills, but also system-level thinking and a profound knowl-edge of the end-users' operationalprocesses. This is a requirement frombeginning to end, from architecturaldesign, technological implementationand project management, sourcingand vendor management, training, financial controlling, and, last but notleast, quality control and assurance. It is crucial that these "Systems of Systems" be easy to operate, cost-effective for the operational expensesand scalable.
This in turn requires the system de-signers to be aware of and to under-stand future challenges the end-usermight face. Lastly, these systems willalso need to be resilient against dis-ruptions, allow the control of servicelimitation resulting thereof and rapidlyre-establish service provision. Onlythen can the "Security Capability Enabler" truly stimulate science, tech-nology research, and innovation for thebenefit of the end-users and ultimatelybecome his long-term partner.
With the growth of the European Unionby gaining new member states, bordersecurity is a huge area for R&D devel-opments and a promising market.
07
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8B
OR
DE
R S
EC
UR
ITY
Main Functions of IT Systems/ Danger Prevention & PreparednessManagement / Crisis & EmergencyResponse Management/ Intelligence (HUMINT, SIGINT, intelligent surveillance means); Situational Awareness; Common Relevant Operational Picture, Data Fusion/ Operational Concepts Modelling and Simulation, Training/ Command, Control, Computers,Communication (fixed and mobile),Sensors, Biometrics, Identity Management/ Criminal investigation systems, Prosecution support systems, Fines collection systems/ National and international interagency cooperation & interoperability, civil-military collaboration/ Operational and organizational resource management and logistics.
08
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8B
OR
DE
R S
EC
UR
ITY
Effective bordermanagement does not exist withoutsophisticated systemsof data collection and analysis.
Border authorities in Europe are beingchallenged today as never before.Globalisation, a term used by econo-mists and sociologists to characterisetoday’s world, also touches the area of border security. We observe threephe no mena in Europe which makeborder management a real challenge:growths in migration, internationaltravel and trade globalisation, thesehave also created increased demandsfor more security.
Hundreds of millions of people aretravelling around the globe. Accord-ingly to IATA, the ten biggest air carrierstransported more than 640 millionspassengers in 2006. Their estimationsshow that this number will be increa -sing by almost 5% every year until 2010.
Frontex, is one of major the players inthis field in Europe, promoting a pan-European model of Integrated BorderManagement, which consists of severalmeasures which are not only limitedto border checks. An exhaustive modelof border management actually com-prises five dimensions: / border control, including relevant
risk analysis and crime intelligence, / detection and investigation of cross-
border crime in coordination with allcompetent law enforcement authorities,
/ the four-tier access control model(measures in third countries, coope -ra tion with neighbouring countries,border control, control measureswithin the area of free movement,including return),
/ inter-agency cooperation in borderma nagement (border guards, customs,police, national security and otherrelevant authorities) and interna tio nalcooperation,
/ coordination and coherence of theactivities of Member States and insti tu tions and other bodies of theCom munity and the Union.
The implementation of this model is amajor challenge for Frontex and lawenforcement authorities of the EUMember States. In the 21st centuryborder management must be intelligence-driven.
This is a prerequisite of all actions takenregarding borders. Effective bordermanagement does not exist withoutsophisticated systems of data collec-tion and analysis followed by its timelydissemination to officers making deci-sions on the ground, such as the eligi-bility for crossing of a person or cargo.Illegal entries represent a small per-centage of the overall flow across aborder. Nevertheless, in real numbersit is a massive flow. That’s why the concept of a “virtualborder” is so important, because themanagement of a border starts evenwhile gathering intelligence or issuinga visa in a third country. The physicalborder is, so to say, the “last border line”.
The next part of the puzzle is the phys-ical security of the border. Operationalefficiency can be achieved only throughcoordinated actions, not only betweencountries but also internally amongagencies securing the flow of peopleand cargo. Border management agen-cies should be aligned around the samemission and should ensure consistentstrategic coordination among them.
To complete the picture it should bestressed that all these activities haveto be ensured through adequate re-sources. Constant updating of infra-structure, equipment and investmentsin training activities is a sine qua noncondition if we want to effectively safe-guard tourists and European citizenswhile at the same time not harmingtheir privacy. All new technologies,such as biometrics, unmanned aerialvehicles or entry-exit systems are ex-pensive, but they will allow Europe toremain open and be to ready for a fastresponse to constantly changing threats.
SHAPING EUROPEANSECURITY
Ilkka
Per
tti J
uhan
i Lai
tinen
Fron
tex
Exec
utiv
e D
irect
or
With security screening,the physical borders ofEurope are now becomingthe “last border line”.
09
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8M
AR
ITIM
E S
EC
UR
ITY
Implementing the International Shipand Port Facility Security (ISPS) codein Rotterdam was quite a job. Althoughover 150 port facilities had to be as-sessed, audited and certified withinapproximately a year, Rotterdam wasable to report 95% of all terminalsISPS compliant by July 2004. Certifica-tion proved to be only the first hurdle,since we are now finding that a well-organised system of inspections andenforcement is just as important.
Every month, specially trained PortAuthority personnel perform approxi-mately 40 unannounced ISPS inspec-tions in the port of Rotterdam.
Supply Chain SecurityAt an operational level, ISPS will con-tinue to require a commitment fromport au tho rities. But in terms of policy,the focus is swiftly shifting towardsSupply Chain Security, especially con-tainer security. Although there havebeen numerous developments in thisarea for some years, many of themoriginating in the US, it seems that thetransport world is only now appreciat-ing their full value. A global under-standing of and approach to transportsecurity is on the horizon, providing a business case for investments insupply chain security.
Worldwide Security LanguageThis global approach to supply chainsecurity can be seen in the “Frameworkof Standards to Secure and FacilitateGlobal Trade” introduced by the WorldCustoms Organization (WCO) and thenew ISO standard for security mana-gement: ISO 28000. These systems ofcertification allow logistics operatorsto communicate their proven status oftrustworthiness. With these new andwidely accepted standards, a commonsecurity language can finally be spokenworldwide.
Besides certification, technology playsan important role in securing freighttransport. We see two major develop-ments in this field: / Firstly, the introduction of so-called
Container Security Devises (CSD)that monitor container integrity andoffer tracking and tracing;
/ Secondly, we see advanced scanningtechnology, making it feasible to scanlarge volumes of containers withoutdisrupting the logistical process.
Going FurtherTo prepare the port of Rotterdam forthe security demands of tomorrow weare seriously investigating the possi-bility of cargo scanning at a centralpre-gate facility. At this facility, all ex-port containers would be subject toelectronic data exchange, damage in-spection, non-intrusive inspection andnuclear detection. The scanning doneat the pre-gate facility is expected toprovide advantages over decentralizedscanning.
Optimal SecurityOptimal supply chain security will not, ofcourse, be limited to action in seaports.All elements in the transport chain mustparticipate, starting with the shipper.Since most of these logistics serviceprovi ders are not subject to mandatoryregulations, they should critically assesstheir facility’s security and seek an in-ternationally accepted security certifi-cate. This will not appeal to all ope-rators, but companies involved in inter-national supply chains should seriouslyconsider it.
ISPS: New Requirements for Security/ The International Ship and PortFacility Security (ISPS) code wasadopted by the members of the International Maritime Organization(IMO) in 2002. Among them are the 108 Contracting Governments to the 1974 Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS)./ This new, comprehensive securityregime for international shipping entered into force in July 2004. The code contains detailed security-related requirements for govern-ments, port authorities and shippingcompanies in a mandatory section,together with a series of guidelinesabout how to meet these require-ments in a second, non-mandatorysection.
ROTTERDAM:ENHANCING SECURITYWITH TECHNOLOGY
Pete
r M
olle
ma
Dire
ctor
Por
t Pla
nnin
g &
Dev
elop
men
t fo
r th
e Po
rt o
f Rot
terd
am A
utho
rity
Heading the IAPHSafety and Security Committee, PeterMollema explains how Rotterdam is preparing for the security demands of tomorrow.
10
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8M
AR
ITIM
E S
EC
UR
ITY
“A global understanding of transport security provides a business
case for investments”
MARITIMESECURITY
Paol
o N
eri
Vice
Pre
side
nt L
arge
Arc
hite
ctur
e Sy
stem
s,Se
lex
Sist
emi I
nteg
rati
The European Commission (EC) has avision for an integrated maritime policy. This vision emerged as a resultof the consultation process whichstarted with a debate on the GreenPaper and led to the Decision N527/2007. The action plan linked to Decision N 527/2007 highlights the main guidelines that the EC is willing toundertake to implement an ambitiouswork programme in marine security,for the coming years.
The need for a “European Network forMaritime Surveillance” – has emerged,this is viewed as paramount in contributing to the improvement ofmari time safety and security.
One relevant outcome of the consulta-tion process is the need for better co-ordination and integration between thedifferent stakeholders and agencies incharge of the maritime operations. Thecomplexity of the legal framework andthe variety of procedures and meansavailable at European county level cancause a fragmented response in theabove-mentioned context.
Hence, as the need to reduce fragmen-tation and improve coordination bet-ween all actors emerges, the questionarises, how is this achieved? One answerbeing primarily with the high qualitydata sharing of different fields both athorizontal level (i.e. adjacent national
coast guard can share data) and verticallevel (i.e. vessel traffic data can beshared with the environmental agen cy to determine the environment impacton critical areas).
Because of the specific area of mari-time security, it is now clear that anyeffective response can only be achievedthrough an integrated approach, look-ing at the problem as a whole, payingattention to the mix of social, cognitive,informative and physical domains.
Clearly this provides great opportunitiesfor companies such as SELEX SistemiIntegrati operating in the deployment ofworldwide scale solutions with specialfocus on maritime security.
SELEX Sistemi Integrati has developedthe Italian Vessel Traffic System andborder control: the largest VTS systemin the world with similar but customisedversions implemented in Yemen, Polandand St. Petersburg. The company hastherefore the knowledge and the skillto manage the evolution of such systems.Moreover, SELEX Sistemi Integrati hasalready carried out, within its systemarchitecting activities, the shift towardsnetwork centric architecture, namelythe enabling approach to achieve therequired data sharing between diffe-rent maritime sectors.
The need for a European networkfor maritime surveillance has emerged.
MA
RIT
IME
SE
CU
RIT
Y
12
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8
Last but not least, because of its favour-able geographical position in theMediterranean Sea, Italy is mandatedto play a major role in the implementa-tion of the European policies on maritimematters.
The challenge for SELEX Sistemi Inte-grati and the other European majorplayers is to develop a capability to man-age a wide variety of evolving require-ments in an ever changing scenario.
The viable approach will be to designflexible, loosely coupled system of systems, able to dynamically adapt tothe different situational needs.
To achieve this goal SELEX Sistemi Integrati has developed valuable skillsto manage the complexity of System on System Engineering methods. Inparticular, the application of capabilitybasedmethods (CBM) provides a meansto capture real mission needs and develop a spiral understanding processto validate, step by step, the solutionadoption.
The way to reach this end is to developa network enabling capability solutioncentred on data sharing that can guar-antee the exchange of timely informa-tion to solve critical issues.
Validated data and network, open architecture, service-based system development, ability to exploit the current system functionalities are keydrivers for success.
A key point will be represented by the ability to manage the maritime security infospace as resulted from thefusion of a variety of data sources.
The right approach will be to developan upper level set of enabling func-tionalities leveraging from the current system availability and progressivelyfilling in the gap with appropriate newtechnologies.
EU Country #1/ Coast Guard/ Navy/ Customs/ Anti-fraud/ Law Enf. Agency
EU Country #3Coast Guard /
Navy /Customs /
Anti-fraud /Law Enf. Agency /
ControlImmigration
ControlFishing
ControlEnvironment
ControlMaritime
TrafficPerform
SAR
ControlIllegalGoods
Trafficking
Info Space Management
A Mission Capabilities View for Maritime Surveillance & Security
Suggested approach for Maritime Info Space exploitation
FRONTEXEMSA
EDAREMPEC
CFCA
EU Country #2/ Coast Guard/ Navy/ Customs/ Anti-fraud/ Law Enf. Agency
EU Country #4Coast Guard /
Navy /Customs /
Anti-fraud /Law Enf. Agency /
Member state org Access
Mar
itime Data InfoSpace
EU
Levelled Access
It is now clear that any effective response can only be achieved through an integrated approach.
Maritime Surveillance & Security
13
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8IC
T / B
IOM
ET
RIC
SE
CU
RIT
Y
In a globalised world with highlyinterdependentinfrastructures,internal security is becoming more and more important.
With many government and businessorganisations being linked acrossnational borders in a globalised worldwith highly interdependent infras truc -tures, internal security is becomingmore and more important. In this context,efficient information and iden ti ficationsystems such as biome tric systemscan play a significant role.
Siemens IT Solutions and Services hasextensive experience in implementingsecurity solutions in the public sector,ranging from national identificationdocuments, such as electronic passportsand ID cards, to access and bordercontrol systems.
One Single Solution Given the need to protect sensitive dataand facilities, access controls for publicbuildings are an important componentof internal security. That is why theDutch Ministry of Defence is putting itsfaith in Siemens technology with its“Defence ID Card”. By the end of thisyear, all military and civilian employeesof the ministry will be issued chip cardsthat will control their access to buildingsand computer systems, and as well asallow them to encrypt their e-mailmessages and digitally sign documents.Siemens is responsible for integratingthe entire system, operating the cardmanagement software and linking thesolution to existing IT systems.
E-passports Germany has been a trailblazer in theintroduction of digital passports inEurope, issuing these since 2005.Since November 2007 Germany’s E-passport also includes a secondrequired biometric feature, the finger -print of two fingers.
Since 2006, Swiss citizens have beenable to apply for passports that includea digitally stored passport pictureidentifying their holders without thepossibility of error. The system comparesthose features that do not change withfacial expressions, such as the upperedges of the eye sockets, the cheek -bones and the sides of the mouth. Thedata is stored on a chip that is em-bedded into the passport and protectedagainst unauthorized access. SiemensIT Solutions and Services supplied thefull-service solution with which theSwiss passport authorities record andprocess the biometric data.
Pro
f. Jo
erg
Saue
rbre
yH
ead
of P
ublic
Sec
urity
at
Sie
men
s IT
Sol
utio
ns a
nd S
ervi
ces
The Czech Republic began issuingbiometric passports in 2007 andSiemens is involved in the systemimplementation and the production ofthese passports. The solution hasalready been designed to accom -modate the planned addition of digitalfingerprints, an EU requirement due tocome into effect on May 1, 2008.
Upgrading Controls To be able to read the biometric passportdata, border control systems must beupgraded accordingly. In February oflast year, Croatia was the first countryin Europe to take this step. At ZagrebAirport and the Bajakovo border cros-sing, Siemens has imple men ted a bordercontrol system capable of reading thenew biometric EU passports.
In the future, the procedure may beco -me even more efficient, for example,with so-called ‘registered travellerprogra mmes’ (RTPs) for automatedbio me tric controls. With its new bordersecurity system, Croatia meets therequi re ments of the Schengen Agree -ment, which is a prerequisite for thecountry's application for EU mem ber -ship in 2009.
What the Future Will Bring For the medium term, IT service provi -ders such as Siemens IT Solutions andServices are working to standar dizethe systems of the various countriesand authorities in order to consolidatethem into a single system.
In the not too distant future, thebiometric EU visa for controllingtravellers and immigrants from non-EU countries will be a genuinepossi bility. Based on current develop-ments, a global identity managementsystem and electronic documents withbiometric functions may also becomean everyday reality.
The market will continue to grow untila level of security has been reachedthat meets citizens’ requirements. As aleading supplier of infrastructureequipment, Siemens is well equippedto meet this challenge.
DEVELOPING A EUROPEANSECURITY IDENTITY
14
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8IC
T / B
IOM
ET
RIC
SE
CU
RIT
Y
Biometric solutions were already mak-ing inroads as early as the mid-1990s,although in Europe we were not neces-sarily aware of this trend. The initial ap-plications were for healthcare in theUnited States, pension management inAfrica and ID cards in Asia. These usesreflect the two distinct contexts in whichbiometric solutions began to be deplo-yed. For emerging countries without thesystems needed to manage publicrecords, biometrics was a way of quicklysetting up a reliable citizen identifica-tion system. For developed countries,mainly in Europe, biometrics was a partof “e-government” initiatives. In thesecountries, the primary issues were therelationship between the State and itscitizens, protection of personal dataand confidentiality, and trade-offsbetween security and comfort.
Since 2004, countries have teamed up to ensure identification system interoperability through work carried out by the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization). This is actuallya remarkable trend, since it reversesthe usual process; that is, countriesare seeking solutions for problemsfacing people around the world, beforeaddressing issues concerning ID man-agement for their own citizens!
This situation obviously impacts thetimetable for the deployment of natio-nal solutions.
However, these national projects willundoubtedly rebound very quickly, allthe more so since countries can call oninfrastructures and procedures thathave been deployed in the meantimefor cross-border e-passports and/ore-visas.
Today, one thing is sure: when a coun-try undertakes the modernization of itsnational ID system, biometrics will bepart of the recipe.
In the commercial market, as opposedto federal applications, biometric applications are developing in thebanking industry, as well as for physicalaccess control. Company heads haveseen the advantages brought by bio-metric passport or airport control ap-plications, and are ready to apply themwithin the corporate world. For instan-ce, office entrance sensors made bySagem Sécurité alone have alreadyperformed millions of biometric checks.
Sagem Sécurité has carved out a po-sition as supplier of a range of identi-fication solutions, including of coursebiometrics. Its solutions are used for anumber of rights management appli-cations, including State-citizen (bordercrossing, driver licenses, healthcaresystem access, voting rights, etc.),company/employee (physical accesscontrol, connection to information sys-tems) and service provider/user(transport access, etc.).
The distinguishing characteristic ofSagem Sécurité is that it is the onlyprime contractor to cover all con-stituent components in a completeidentification system: tokens, terminals,encryption devices, biometrics, etc.
This means that the company can offer customers – generally the State – solutions tailored to their specific needs.Because of this unrivaled capability,Sagem Sécurité systems are now deployed in 70 countries and support160 different types of ID solutionsworldwide. Its priority markets arethose in which security factors are
decisive, with stringent standards, andgoverned by extremely demanding assessment and certification processes.In practice this means governmentmarkets, or commercial and industrialapplications subject to governmentalregulations. Sagem Sécurité is theworld leader in this growth sector, withmore than 100 million biometric IDdocuments delivered around the world.At Sagem Sécurité, we explain thetechnical possibilities so that the au-thorities can make informed decisions.Biometrics use is growing rapidly, especially for control functions in thecivil sector. High-value sites such asairports, nuclear power plants andports are all equipped with effective IDsystems. It’s been democratised, evengadgetised, in applications where fa-cility takes precedence over security.For example, we may now use biomet-rics in so-called logical control appli-cations, to unlock a PAD or mobilephone, instead of the usual passwordor code.
Note: Sagem Sécurité offers provenexpertise in fingerprint, facial and irisrecognition technologies.
BIOMETRICS;THE CITIZEN& THE STATE“Today when a country undertakesthe modernisation of its national IDsystem, biometrics will be part of thesolution”
Biometrics use is growing rapidly, especially for control functions in the civil sector.
Ber
nard
Did
ier
Seni
or V
P,
R&
T -
Bus
ines
s D
evel
opm
ent
at S
agem
Séc
urité
15
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8IC
T / B
IOM
ET
RIC
SE
CU
RIT
Y
Threats to security are of growing concern to all European citizens. The lat-est of these many threats, the plannedterror attacks in Germany, were luckilydiscovered in time. This situation con-firms that it is of crucial importance to better coordinate our efforts to increase security, so as to be betterable to prevent such attacks. Securityresearch on this issue is one importantway to bring about cooperation.
Research CooperationThrough increased research coope-ration, collaborative projects and activities, duplication of efforts can be avoided and synergies reached. Furthermore, by networking with keysecurity stakeholders in Europe, wecan also promote a common Europeanapproach to dealing with this issue. Onthe so called ‘demand-side’, this pro-motes the creation of common andcompatible standards and procedures,while on the ‘supply-side’, it helps tocreate a European market for securityequipment.
The objectives of research at the Euro-pean level are to respond to politicalneeds and to the needs of Europeancitizens, as well as to increase thecompetitiveness of the European in-dustry. The European security industrymust convert this challenge into an op-portunity to become the leader in theemerging worldwide market for secu-rity equipment and solutions.
Joint Security Research AgendaThe newly established European Se-curity Research and Innovation Forum(ESRIF) will contribute to meeting thischallenge. ESRIF will help increasetransparency and joint planning in security research programmes andactivities in Europe, with a view to enhanced cooperation between thevarious security stakeholders. It willsupport civil security policy with theappropriate technology and knowledgebase by establishing and carrying forward a mid- and long-term JointSecurity Research Agenda, involvingall European stakeholders, from boththe supply and the demand sides.
The Lisbon StrategyResearch has also been recognized asplaying a key role in achieving thegoals of the Lisbon strategy in the EU,and in making Europe the most com-petitive economy in the world by 2010.Members States have therefore beenurged to increase their R&D spending.The EU has also drastically increasedits spending on R&D: the budget of theSeventh Research Framework Pro-gramme (FP7) 2007-2013 is more than40% higher budget than the previousFP6 (some €54 billion in total).
For the first time FP7 also includes se-curity research as one of its ten keythemes under the largest Specific Pro-gramme “Cooperation”, with a budgetof €1.4 billion, which will be used in acomplementary way, with differenttypes of projects and coordination andsupporting activities. In the first call forproposals, 325 eligible proposals werereceived. We have now started thepreparation of “grant agreements” for44 of them.
REAPING THE BENEFITS OF EUROPEAN R&D
Paul
Wei
ssen
berg
Dire
ctor
Aer
ospa
ce, G
MES
, se
curi
ty a
nd d
efen
ce a
t the
DG
Ent
erpr
ise
and
Indu
stry
, Eur
opea
n C
omm
issi
on
“Through theDevelopment of a European Security Identity”
FP7 in a NutshellFP7 is the EU's main instrument for funding research in Europe. This framework identifies 10thematic areas, corresponding to major fields in science and research, including 5 fields of direct interest for ASD:/ Information and Communication
Technologies; / Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies,
Materials and new ProductionTechnologies;
/ Transport (including Aeronautics); / Space; / Security.
The identified “missions” for securityresearch are recognised as being highlyrelevant in addressing threats to secu-rity in Europe. Ensuring the ‘Securityof citizens’, the ‘Security of infrastruc-tures and utilities’, ‘Intelligent surveil-lance and border security’, and ‘Restoringsecurity and safety in case of crisis’ re-main the key ones, while due attentionwill also be given to ‘Security and So-ciety’ issues. Research in these areasshould deliver the needed knowledgeand technologies in Europe.
European SecurityEU investments in R&D for securitymust be coordinated with national andprivate investment. By combining efforts in Europe we can effectively increase the security of citizens and industry. R&D, therefore, in many ways,is the buttress of European security.
Security Research on the Web/ The DG Enterprise and Industry website dedicated to Security Research with useful links for SMEs:http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/security/index_en.htm
Serg
e Le
bour
gD
assa
ult A
viat
ion
Safety objectives as they are definedfor civil aircraft (FAR/CS 25, FAR/CS23) are aimed at the protection ofpeople on board the aircraft. As thereare no humans on-board the UAV, thesafety objectives must be reorientedto the protection of people on theground. This explains why the UAVsafety objectives must be "a priori"different from the safety objectivesused on civil aircraft. These safetyobjectives are closer to those ofmilitary aircraft than to civil ones. To operate a UAV in airspace you need,as a minimum (depending on the typeof airspace), to obtain a Certificate of Airworthiness and approval tooperate in the airspace. DassaultAviation has proposed a method basedon kinetic energy to allow deter mina-tion of UAV categories and associatedsafety objectives. This method ispublished as part of the report of the"JAA Eurocontrol UAV task force".
The reorientation of the safety objec -tives towards the protection of peopleon the ground of course has conse -quences: Firstly, there are no reasonsto justify the use of different safetyobjectives for military UAVs operatingin the same airspace as civil ones.Secondly, the risk for “over flown”population must be the samewhatever the certification authority,this means that there is a need for aworldwide agreement on UAV safety
objectives. Most of the key elementsof future UAV certification regulationsare now avai lable. National regulationsare develo ping. In France the DGA(Délégation Générale de L'Armement)has published an airworthiness codenamed USAR, for military UAVs. Inaddition, the NATO FINAS group hasamended and published its codeunder USAR4.
All airspace users believe that UAVsoperate in the air-space just as anyother aircraft would. While this isindeed a given, it has to be recognizedthat UAVs do have specifi cities, as doall other types of aircraft, and thesespecificities must be consi dered.Detection of other users and conse -quent separation from other users is aspecific & difficult task for UAVs. Initialoperations of UAVs have so far beenmade in segregated airspace, effortsare now focusing on operations incontrolled airspace, this is airspacewhere all aircraft are cooperative
(Transponder mode S) and where ATCis in charge of traffic separation. Withthis evolution, rules of the air (aspublished by ICAO or FAR91) will haveto be updated.
Operations in Controlled AirspaceCurrently, conditions exist which allowfor UAV operations in controlledairspace. However, in order to convincethe aeronautical community of thisfact, it is now time to develop acompre hensive UAV demonstrationprogramme. New developments intechnology in the CNS domains willboth facilitate and improve the safetyof UAV operations in a controlledairspace. Currently airspace collision avoidanceis covered by the agreement with theICAO rule And based on the "see &avoid" principle. Fortunately, to im pro -ve the safety of operations, re gula tionshave introduced the requirement thataircraft above 5700 kg must installTCAS / ACAS. Communications: ATC can commu -nicate with the UAV pilot (groundbased) through the UAV or better still,through a direct phone line. Thus,UAVs benefit from safer means ofcommunication between ATC & thepilot than aircraft do. Contrary toaircraft, UAVs need a communicationdata link between the UAV pilot andthe machine. When such data link is
UAV OPERATIONS IN FUTUREATM
“Safety objectives as they are defined for civil aircraft are aimed at the protection
of people on board the aircraft”
16
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8U
AV
s
There are no reasons to justify the use of different safetyobjectives for militaryUAVs operating in the same airspace as civil ones.
ATC can communicate to the UAV pilot based on the ground, through the UAV or better still through a direct phone line.
lost then UAVs have the option of flyingin an autonomous mode (similar toaircraft operation following loss ofcommunication). ATC might be infor -med by a specific XPDR code set bythe UAV. Navigation: The location of a UAV can be determined by the UAV pilotindependently of an on board UAVnavigation system by using radar or a multilateration system.Surveillance: Separation is achievedthrough the communication of ins truc -tions to pilots by the ATC. The UAV pilotmight have in front of them the sametactical situation as the ATC, a displaythat an aircraft pilot does not havetoday. The UAV pilot is thus in a betterposition than an aircraft pilot tounderstand the situation. UAVs canaddress Collision Avoidance in twoways, first by using the ATC tacticalsituation, and second by installing TCASequipment on UAV. It will be possible todemonstrate an equivalent level ofsafety for UAVs as compared to aircraft.
Improving SafetyCPDLC (Controller Pilot Data LinkCom mu nications): Data link willimprove communications betweenATC & the "UAV pilot" and will allowpartial automation of UAV answers(this will improve safety in case of lossof communication between the "UAVpilot" and UAV). CPDLC also gives theUAV the capacity to operate in fullautonomous mode (in cases of loss ofdata link between the UAV pilot and theUAV) and so any drawback due to lossof data link between the pilot and theUAV is eliminated. ADS-B (AutomaticDependence Surveillance-Broadcast):will allow all aircraft, including UAVs,to have a perfect knowledge of thetactical situation before them.
Operations in Non-ControlledAirspace
Such operations require that all aircrafthave a means to locate and separatefrom all other traffic. Two differenttechnologies might be used.
Cooperative technologiesMost aircraft are equipped withtransponders. Yet, very light machineswhich have no on board power supplysource cannot be equipped with thesedevices. Therefore, there is a need for technology developments. Certaintechnologies used by the glider commu-nity, such as FLARM, can be candidate.
Other technologies such as thosebased on a combination of cellularphone GPS and TIS are also affordablecandidates.Non-cooperative technologies: Maturesolutions in the area of non-coo pe ra -tive technologies need to be developed.It can be difficult to cover detection inall directions, some UAV systems havea field of detection similar to theaircraft cockpit field of view. Althoughsuch a system might provide a level ofsafety equivalent to the "see & avoid"principle, it still might not provide alevel of safety acceptable for futureoperations. It might be difficult todevelop and certify a system whichwill be able to detect and allowcollision avoidance in only 80% of theconditions.
Presently, cooperative technologiesseem to be more promising. However,this does not mean that developmentefforts in non-cooperative technologiesmust be slowed down. Europe, withthe help of SESAR, and the US with thehelp of NextGen, are developing largeprogrammes to update their ATMsystems. In order to be successful inintegrating all users into the sameairspace, these programs must addressthe concerns and needs of all, includingUAVs - whenever this is possible.
At Dassault Aviation, our knowledge ofair transport, business aviation andmilitary and UAV operations allow usto fully understand the synergies andto promote solutions for the benefit ofall new concepts. Insertion of UAVsinto the controlled airspace will helpATM stakeholders (pilots, controllers,authorities) to identify the remainingATM safety issues and to fix them.UAVs will not be a security risk forother users, but will point the waytowards ATM safety.
See & Avoid: an Inadequate Principle?
UAV specificity paves to the way to better safety principles. Human eyelimitations, limited field of view (blindzones), weather conditions, lightconditions, collision speed, as well asmany other factors, explain why thesee & avoid principle is considered bymost safety authorities as inadequate.Suggestion: Collision avoidance mustno longer be based on this principle,or on the application of operationalrules. It is recommended that "Aircraftseparation and collision avoidance" bevalidated by a method similar to themethod used for certification ofaircraft systems (CS/FAR 25 or CS/FAR23 paragraph 1309). This method isbased on "safety targets" validated by "safety analysis".Communication: a deficient tool? UAV specificity can be used for thedevelopment of the future ATM.Controllers and pilots use voicecommunications in order to commu-nicate with each other. This type ofcommunication carries with it highrisks, which include: - loss of criticalcommunications (due to improperfrequency setting or wrong squelchsetting) - transmission of misleadinginformation (risk of mix-up of aircraftidentification by pilots or ATC) -misunderstanding (due to the use ofnon mother tongue language).Suggestion: Develop communicationsystems based on data link usingstandard messages and used as theprimary means of communication.
17
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8U
AV
s
Europe with SESAR and the US with NextGen are developinglarge programmes to update ATM.
18
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8U
AV
s
EUROCONTROL is the joint civil/militaryEuropean Organisation for the Safety ofAir Navigation, in which role it regardsunmanned aircraft systems (UAS) aslegitimate airspace users. EUROCON-TROL focuses on an ATM-driven pers -pec tive of the UAS airspace integrationissue. Airspace requirements shouldthus form the basis for UAS perform-ance standards/specifications, to bedeveloped by appropriate bodies withthe support of EUROCONTROL.
The integration of UAS into the pan-Euro-pean ATM network requires thatsimilar performance considerations beafforded to UAS as to manned aircraft.EUROCONTROL therefore supports theintegration of UAS with due considera-tion of the evolving requirements of othercivil and military airspace users.EUROCONTROL also considers that UAScan provide a foundation for improve-ments to manned aviation (e.g.: safetyenhancing sense and avoid systems)and future ATM (e.g. autonomous flight).
UAS can only be integrated into the ATMnetwork through effective workingarrangements between all partners inEuropean aviation. EUROCONTROL istherefore coordinating with organisa-tions such as ICAO, State aviation au-thorities, EUROCAE, EASA, JAA, RTCA,FAA, as well as ASD. Moreover, sincecivil UAS MASPS/MOPS (Minimum Avi-ation System Performance Standards/
Minimum Operational PerformanceSpecifications) and military UAS certi fi -cation standards will provide the basisfor compliance with the ATM networkairspace requirements, EUROCONTROLis active in the NATO FINAS Task Force where military UAS certification specifications are under development. In addition, EUROCONTROL was ins-trumental in the establishment of theEUROCAE Working Group 73 on UAS(WG73 UAS) where MASPS for civil UASare being actively developed. EUROCONTROL provides the chairmanfor WG-73 and other expert support.
EUROCONTROL has produced a set of“ATM Specifications for Military UAVsas Operational Air Traffic outside Seg-regated Airspace”. Based upon com-mon acceptance that UAS operationsoutside segregated airspace should beconducted at a level of safety equivalentto that for manned aircraft, the specifi-cations follow three basic principles:/ Firstly, UAS operations should not
increase the risk to other airspaceusers;
/ Secondly, ATM procedures shouldmirror those applicable to mannedaircraft; and,
/ Thirdly, the provision of air trafficservices to UAS should betransparent to ATC controllers.
The specifications are also innovativeinsofar as they are not constrained bylimitations in current UAS capabilitysuch as sense-and-avoid. The specifi-cations will therefore only be practica-ble once industry develops this andother necessary technologies.
The EUROCONTROL Agency has re-cently established an internal “UASATM Integration Activity”, consisting ofa coordinated agency work program -me intended to support all facets ofUAS ATM integration issues.
In a first work stream, the drive will beto accommodate,an integration of UASinto non-segregated airspace on the
basis of a “phased integration” approach(possibly supported by restricted UAStype certificates and/or UAS permits tofly). Such phased integration will providethe important first steps from whichcritical operational experience and lessons-learned can be derived. EU-ROCONTROL will work closely withspecific national authorities in sup-porting phased integrations of indivi-dual UAS systems as well asundertaking airspace studies and UASreal-time ATM simulations.
The Agency’s UAS activity will interfaceclosely with civil and military stake-holders as well as other internationaland national organisations dealing with UAS. The area of activity will also link with the FAA in the frame of the EUROCONTROL-FAA Memorandum of Cooperation, where a dedicated UASAction Plan has been established. A second work stream will focus onproviding deliverables to, and interfac-ing fully with, SESAR to ensure full con-sideration of UAS as legitimate airspaceusers during the SESAR developmentand deployment phases.
SESAR must be afforded the opportunityto assess the technological enhance-ments emerging for UAS, and theirpossible application to manned aviationfor building overall ATM network im-provements. The work stream will seekto coordinate the work necessary todevelop a complete set of UAS certifi-cation specifications as a basis for fullintegration to the pan-European ATMnetwork, consistent with the SESARATM Target Concept.
As regards interface with industry, effective formal working relationshipshave already been established betweenASD and EUROCONTROL. This will fa-cilitate solutions to areas such assense and avoid and radio frequencystandardisation for communications,command and control.
Finally, EUROCONTROL supports therecently established ICAO UAS StudyGroup. This global technical UAS bodyaims to entrench the regulatory re-quirements of civil UAS into the ICAOStandards and Recommended Prac-tices (SARPs) contained in the 18 An-nexes to the Chicago Convention. Theprocess will be a complex yet key ele-ment of the complete UAS integrationissue.
SUPPORT UASATM INTEGRATION
Mik
e St
rong
EUR
OC
ON
TRO
L M
ilita
ry E
xper
t
Hol
ger
Mat
thie
sen
EUR
OC
ON
TRO
L AT
M E
xper
t
EUROCONTROL will work closely with specificnational authorities in supporting phasedintegrations of individualUAS systems.
19
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8U
AV
s
Most UAS experience has been gainedthrough military missions achieved insegregated airspace over battlefieldsor in training areas, with UAS rangingfrom light systems operated at veryshort range to High Altitude Long En-durance (HALE) systems operatedthrough a satellite data-link. Thesemilitary operations, like the SAFRANSagem Défense Sécurité made SperwerUAS operations in Afghanistan andKosovo, have confirmed UAS as increasingly valuable assets. Theyhave also underlined a key challengearound drastically extending their usefor more efficient governmental andcommercial applications: includingroutine access to civil airspace.
UAS access to civil airspace, com-monly called non-segregated airspaceto illustrate the capability to fly bothmanned aircraft and unmanned air-craft in the same airspace area, is anew type of challenge for the aviationcommunity: How to manage the inte-gration of a new family of aerial sys-tems in the very mature and struc turedmanned aviation system? And how toensure these are accepted by mannedaviation stakeholders such as airlines,pilots, air traffic controllers and thegeneral public?
Safety FirstThe first consideration has to be thesafety of air transport, particularlymanned aviation, must not be affectedin any negative way by UAS operations.This is of paramount interest in defin-ing and regulating UAS operations innon-segregated airspace. Quantifiedsafety objectives need to be defined bythe relevant regulatory bodies at theEuropean (Eurocontrol, EASA) and na-tional (CAAs) levels. The fulfilment ofthese safety objectives will have to bedemonstrated as part of the certifica-tion and flight authorisation process.Safety simulations and real flightdemonstrations will be required tosupport this safety process.
Many issues must be addressed todemonstrate the safe integration ofUAS into civil airspace. All that is con-tributing to the safety of manned avia-tion will have to be reviewed andadapted for the specific case of UAS:airworthiness/certification, operationalapproval items, maintenance, UAS crewqualification and training and aero-drome operations. All of these issuesencompass technical, safety and regu-latory aspects but have different levelsof complexity. For example, the appli-cation of the ICAO annex 2 regulationsrelative to the rules of the air (the com-monly called UAS Sense and Avoidconcept) makes that the scenario of anUnmanned Aircraft (UA) flying accord-ing to Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)with Air Traffic Control providing sepa-ration from other aircraft is easier toaddress compared with flying the sameUA according to Visual Flight Rules(VFR) in non-controlled airspace.
FLYING UAS IN CIVIL AIRSPACE
Gér
ard
Mar
diné
Pro
gram
me
man
ager
, U
AS in
sert
ion
proj
ects
“Do you really think thereis a need for UASCollision Avoidancesystems?”
Moreover, the less complex, theshorter is the resulting timeframe toestablish the suitable regulations andfor industry to develop adapted techni-cal solutions.
A Step-by-Step Approach The goal is to provide UAS users withsignificant additional operational ca-pabilities (when compared with flightin segregated airspace) in a medium-term timeframe. Routine UAS IFR op-erations in controlled airspace willmost probably be part of this first step,offering a cruise flight capability innon-segregated airspace.
This first step, which could be achievedby 2015, would be to operate UAS forborder surveillance and maritime sur-veillance missions.
Standards have also to be developedstep by step in order to ensure UAScompatibility with manned aviation andto provide UAS manufacturers withagreed requirements to support thedevelopment of UAS.
European standardisation efforts havebeen achieved in the framework of theEUROCAE Working Group 73 . Theseefforts must be supported by the defi-nition of a common UAS concept of op-eration in non-segregated airspaceand of a pertinent safety case. Thegroup also benefits from the participa-tion of all the aviation and UAS stake-holders (regulatory bodies, Air Naviga-tion Service Providers, pilots, industry,research lab) to generate widelyagreed material suitable for futureregulatory endorsement.
A significant and coordinated effort isrequired to progressively and safely in-troduce UAS into civil airspace. Thiswill lead to major positive repercus-sions for manned aviation as it willbenefit from the technological progressand will also develop European aero-space industry leadership.
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) havedemonstrated in recentyears a growing potentialto fulfil a wide range of missions for both governmental and commercial applications.
“European policy makers need to ensure that aviation
security measures areefficient and risk-based”
Ulr
ich
Schu
lte-
Stra
thau
sSe
cret
ary
Gen
eral
, Ass
ocia
tion
of E
urop
ean
Air
lines
Aviation security, although high on theagenda of governments, Europeaninstitutions, airlines and airports alike,still suffers from a lack of efficiency and an excess of complexity. Securityrules are often audit-driven ratherthan based on policy, foresight or real,on-the-ground expertise. Duplicationand lack of international harmoni -sation – even within the EuropeanUnion – are a real challenge to airlines’and airports’ operations. The costs ofthe current system are shared byairports and airlines, with a directimpact on passengers. These variouschallenges caused the Association ofEuropean Airlines (AEA) and theEuropean branch of Airports CouncilInternational (ACI Europe) to joinforces in 2006 to set up ESPAS, theEuropean Strategic Partnership forAviation Security.
ESPAS aims to remedy some of thecurrent shortcomings of the securitysystem, by setting long-term principles,in cooperation with European policy-makers, to ensure that aviation se cu ritymeasures are efficient and risk-based,and by providing a platform for jointAEA/ACI positions to be presented toEuropean Institutions.
It is in the interest of airlines and airportsto have security rules developed on thebasis of, on the one hand, the assess -ment of the risk or threat, and, on theother, of the impact that they will have
on operations. The overall objectivemust be to deliver proactive, customer-focused, sustainable security in anefficient manner.
ESPAS is an innovative venture whichwill regularly propose ‘green field’approaches to reviewing the system,getting rid of unnecessary duplicationsand building a system in which indus -try, regulators and passengers canhave faith. This approach will not onlystrengthen deterrence, but it will alsodrive costs down as resources arepooled to core priorities.
ESPAS operates on a series of basicprinciples, which drive all its activities.
Assessing the Risk of Each Element in the Overall System
Europe’s aviation security system hasbeen built incrementally over recentdecades, starting from the ECACDocument 30 which was adapted tobecome an EC Regulation on the eveof the 9/11 attacks. The main elementsof today’s aviation security system arecentral search (passenger and baggagescreening), access control, the settingup of critical parts at airports and theprotection of cockpit doors in theaircraft.
Any new legislation should mean addingelements wherever necessary andreinforcing these general, cornerstonerules, rather than creating multiple
A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO AVIATION SECURITY
20
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8T
RA
NS
PO
RT
SE
CU
RIT
Y
layers of measures to compensate forprevious, unsatisfactory ones. In thecurrent setup, however, attention hasbeen focused on accumulatingresponses to possible scenarios on anarbitrary basis, without reviewing theoverall system, risk and existingmitigations. In practice, some areasseem subjected to a disproportionateamount of measures (e.g. protection ofaircraft). Under a 'green field' approach,we might expect some reapportioningto better address the broader risk.
Security Layers in theory
Security Layers in practice
Prioritise and Focus Resourceson where the Risks are
Resources dedicated to counterterrorist threats in air transport arenot only financial but also human,physical and spatial (notably at theairport), technological, and opera ti -onal. Such resources are necessarilylimited. Airports’ security infras truc -ture cannot be stretched to infinity, norcan passenger fares be increasedcontinuously to cover increasing secu -rity costs. Security is a constraint whichmust be adapted to, and integrate in,the very specific environment that iscivil aviation. Eliminating 100% risksand threats to air transport is notpossible if airports and airlines are tocontinue to open their doors to pas -sengers. Instead, priorities must be set,and we must find the most effectiveway to counter the main risks. Similarly,given these finite resources, time shouldbe spent to re-balance the overallsetting and to re-allocate resourceswhere the main vulnerabilities are.This is all the more relevant as theindustry and its passengers are cur -rent ly asked to bear the costs of nearlyall of aviation security in Europe.
Research into new technologies isessential for producing more efficientand more effective security solutions tocounter significant threats to civilaviation. Technology deployed to protectthe air transport infrastructure mustfulfill complex technical and ope ra ti -onal criteria that must work in harmonywith air transport operations to securepassenger and freight facilitationprocesses, not to paralyse them.Defining future research and deve -lopment priorities must be dependent
on the need to minimise or eliminatevulnerabilities that pose a significantrisk to the air transport industry. Prio-rities must also take full account ofemerging and evolving threats to airtransport. The backing of EuropeanCommunity and national governmentresources is critical for defining, stimu-lating and co-ordinating initiatives inthe European Union. Industry stake-holders should be fully involved in theprocess.
Distinguish the “Possible”from the “Probable”
Too often today, European aviationsecurity is either rule-based or audit-based. Rather than addressing what islikely to happen (what is “probable”), itaddresses everything that can theo re -tically happen (what is “possible”). Thedifference between what is possibleand what is probable is assessed notonly by knowing about the threat, butalso by looking at the wider contextand at existing mitigations.
Measure the Relative Effectivenessof Security with the “3 Ds” of Detection, Denial and DeterrenceAny given security measure should aimto address at least one of the followingobjectives: detect, deny, and deter (the3 Ds”). However, strengthening onemay lead to the cancellation of theothers, and that must be put in thebalance. A series of security measuresto counter the same threat mightincrease detection but will also give asignal to possible terrorists that secu -rity is poor and needs to be compen- sated (thereby decreasing the deterrenteffect). Similarly, a fourth elementwhich must be taken into account isthe passenger’s perception or feelingof security. Taking the example ofbaggage reconciliation, it is likely thatthis added measure to baggage scree -ning adds to actual security (by preven -ting unaccompanied baggage frombeing placed on board aircraft);however, it also adds to the pas sen -ger’s percep tion that the centralsearch was weak and that s/he is atrisk, as the captain communicates topassengers that the said baggagemust be offloaded.
A measure applied 100%, i.e. syste -matically, is also 100% predictable,which risks diverting potential terro -rists to a different target. As a rule ofthumb, unpredictability and random -
21
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8T
RA
NS
PO
RT
SE
CU
RIT
Y
Aviation security, although high on the agenda of governments, European institutions, airlines and airportsalike, still suffer from a lack of efficiency and an excess of complexity.
ness should thus be further intro duced,both for their facilitation effect (theneed for fewer resources) and for theirdeterrent effect. They are also able tomatch the threat if percentages areadaptable. It should be noted howeverthat deterrence should only be usedwhen security is visible or proceduresknown (by passengers or staff). Itapplies, therefore, mainly to peoplescreening and access control butmuch less to cargo or catering.
To set these principles into action, ACIand AEA are committed to long-termcooperation. This implies continuousjoint identification of problems andpriorities, but also a regular exchangeof information on ongoing operationalissues, such as the differing levels of security according to shifts, lack of synchronisation between the shiftsand volume of traffic, etc. To conveythis strategic vision to the regulators,ESPAS representatives regularly meetwith the European Commission andnational authorities to set commonpriorities.
The work of ESPAS does not stopthere: ultimately, it aims to associateall relevant stakeholders, institutionalor economic players, to counter thethreat to the European aviation industryfrom international terrorism.
22
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8T
RA
NS
PO
RT
SE
CU
RIT
Y
As it is unlikely that we will see a re-duction in the threat level posed to airtravel in the foreseeable future, SmithsDetection has looked to other avenues-to technology advancements - to assistin smoothing our passage through thesecurity channel.
Screening ProceduresThe checkpoint security procedure hastwo main targets: the screening ofpassengers and of their carry-on bags.For both of these areas, new technolo-gies promise to address the extra re-quirements that recent events haveimposed. Screening activity is stan-dardised by regulation and generallyresults in a uniform configuration of X-rayand metal detector equipment, togetherwith their associated procedures.
aTiX Deployment Worldwide With the recent development by SmithsDetection of the HI-SCAN 6040aTiXsystem, which is now being deployed, aquiet revolution is occurring in the areaof carry-on baggage screening. Tech-nologies that have previously been thepreserve of sophisticated hold baggagescreening methods are now findingtheir way into the passenger check-point. The multi-view X-Ray aTiX sys-tem offers the screener severalpers pectives of a scanned bag andthus assists greatly in the resolution ofsuspicious objects in a carry-on item.
ALLEVIATING THESECURITY BOTTLENECK
Stef
an A
ust
Dire
ctor
of P
rodu
ct M
anag
emen
t Sm
iths
Det
ectio
n EM
EA
“Recent technicaladvances from Smiths Detection offer improved security and moreefficient processes at airport checkpointsworldwide”
Moreover, adding threat detection ca-pabilities to this multi-view approachleads to the real breakthrough of pro-viding automated detection of explo-sives – both liquid and solid – as wellas other substances of interest. Byproviding the system operator withalarm prompts in the displayed image,the detection performance and timetaken in clearing bags are greatly enhanced. The ability of this SmithsDetection technology to distinguishbetween benign and dangerous liquidsholds out the promise of a return to thedays before the term 3:1:1 entered theairport lexicon. Additional inspectionangles and the tomography capabilityof the multi-view aTiX system alreadypermit passengers at UK airports, including London Heathrow and Glasgow, to leave laptops in the bag ona trial basis.
Passenger Flow =Passenger Convenience
Throughput performance depends onvarious aspects such as equipmentbalance, alarm resolution and tray re-turn. Here, technical enhancementsthat assist the procedures can greatlyboost the efficiency of the overallcheckpoint operation. Observations ofthe flow process through the securitychannel have identified where en-hancements to the checkpoint infra-structure can make significantdifferences to the throughput and op-erational costs. Bottlenecks such asdivestment of personal items onto theX-Ray conveyor offer an example ofhow small changes can make a big dif-ference. Lengthening the loading con-veyor so that several people cansimultaneously off-load their personalitems turns a sequential – one at atime – process into a parallel operationwhere a slow passenger does notdelay the whole line. Motorized rampsnow are used to transport empty traysfrom the end of the channel back to thestart, saving on operator time whilealso ensuring continuous supply oftrays to passengers entering the secu-rity lane. Reconfiguring the balance betweenpeople and baggage screening proces-ses reduces labour and equipment costsand at the same time harmonises themovement of people and their bags, asthey move through the checkpoint.Smiths Detection has encapsulatedthese operational improvements to thecheckpoint flow into an integratedhandling system concept – iLane.iLane facilitates the passenger to passquickly through the channel.
It’s first major application is at LondonHeathrow’s new Terminal 5.
Increased Security Plus Improved Passenger Convenience at a Checkpoint Near You!
Using an integrated automation ap-proach, the Smiths Detection iLaneconcept incorporates a sophisticatedtray handling system, with sensorsidentifying empty trays which auto-matically return to the beginning of thecheckpoint for passengers enteringthe lane. Extended entry conveyorsallow several passengers to load bagsand personal items at any one time.Bags that are deemed suspicious bythe X-ray screener are automaticallydiverted by the conveyor system intothe secondary search area for follow-up inspection. Cleared bags carrystraight through for reclaim by thepassenger. By incorporating these pro-cedural approaches into a single han-dling system, the overall efficiency ofthe checkpoint has been dramaticallyimproved.
24
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8T
RA
NS
PO
RT
SE
CU
RIT
Y
Fran
ck G
reve
rie
VP S
trat
egy,
Bus
ines
s D
evel
opm
ent &
Mar
ketin
gTh
ales
– S
ecur
ity S
olut
ions
& S
ervi
ces
Freedom of movement is the lifebloodof modern European economies and isone of the founding principles of theEuropean internal market. But con-straints remain. Today, travel is impedednot only by transport efficiency problemsand by the lack of trans-European net-works, but also by the myriad securitychecks that passengers must gothrough, and by the plethora of obsta-cles they encounter – such as differentticketing systems – every time that theyswitch between transport operators.
The response to these challenges istwofold. It involves finding ways to makepublic transport easier to use, and itmeans deploying security solutions thatenhance passenger safety without beingobtrusive. This applies to travellers atairports, on trains, on roads, ferries andsea transportation. So what are the keytechnologies that should be deployedto address public transport security is-sues? And what can be done on a Euro-pean level to foster innovative solutions?
Enhancing Transport SecurityPublic transport systems face a widerange of safety and security threats.These cover a broad spectrum, fromlow-probability, high-impact eventssuch as terrorist attacks, to everydayanti-social and petty criminal behaviour.
The traditional solution has been thewidespread deployment of CCTV sys-tems monitored by operators andrecorded for evidential purposes. Oftenthese have been isolated systemsunder local control. But systems of thistype depend on the vigilance of individ-ual operators – and the limitations ofthis approach are widely recognised.Furthermore, conventional on-boardsystems – such as CCTV on trains andbuses – are essentially passive. The out-put is often simply recorded and cannotbe viewed in real-time as events unfold.
Dealing with the increasing amountsof information generated by securitysystems – such as CCTV networks –presents a major challenge. But smarttechnology can help. The latest inno-vation in integrated operation controlcomes with intelligent data processingperformed by advanced security sys-tems. Major developments in this areainclude the integration of data to en-able rapid situation assessment andresponse planning, support for controloperators, and forensic tools for evi-dence extraction from massive amountsof data.
Key features of today’s advanced systems include facial recognition, behaviour recognition, automatictracking of suspicious individuals,
INNOVATIVESOLUTIONS FORPUBLICTRANSPORTSECURITY
“Developing an integrated security approach to intermodal
transport systems”
25
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8T
RA
NS
PO
RT
SE
CU
RIT
Y
automatic detection of suspect objectsand detection of overcrowding. Othertechno logies that have an impact on transport security include accesscontrol to secure public spaces andgeo-localisation for vehicle tracking systems. Technology can also be usedto reduce fiscal risks: transactional security plays a key role in ensuringthe security of revenue collection fortransport operators.
Integrated SolutionsSmart technologies like these bringmajor benefits and can be applied on all modes of public transport. Butrather than deploying them in isolation,the trend is now to integrate thesetechnologies to create truly intermodalsystems. In recognition of this fact,Thales offers ground transportationoperators solutions that integrate bothsecurity and safety dimensions to de-liver improved passenger comfort.
Intermodality occurs when publictransport users are able to easilyswitch between modes of transportand between transport operators inthe course of the same trip. The mainarea for improvement lies in ensuringthat the switchover happens as smoothlyas possible. Innovation in the sphereof intermodality is being led by European countries. For public trans-port, there are certain areas where intermodality should be improved to increase safety, security and competi-tiveness. For instance, while most urbanand interurban systems are now physi-cally interconnected, the ticketing systems that they use are not. But thatis beginning to change.
Seamless TravelSeveral countries are adopting an in-tegrated, national approach to theirpublic transit systems. In the Nether-lands, Thales and its partners havepaved the way for a national, fully in-teroperable secure e ticketing systemto be used by multiple transport oper-ators throughout the country. Whenfully operational, the system will allowmore than two million passengersdaily to use a single ticket on the com-muter trains, subways, buses and fer-ries of all major operators nationwide.
Thales is providing know-how in thedesign and implementation of large-scale, secure and integrated fare col-lection systems based on contactlesssmart cards. These are easy to use,create smooth passenger flows andoffer very high security – three criticalsuccess factors for the deployment ofintegrated ticketing systems.
This experience is now being repli-cated in Denmark and is heralding anage of seamless intermodality. ‘Park& ride’ projects, where a single ticketcan be used to pay for parking andtravelling on public transit systems,offer similar benefits. A system of thissort was successfully implemented inTurin by Thales for the Winter Olympicsin 2006.
Fostering Security InnovationsFor now, intermodality is still ham-pered by national regulations andstandards that limit the interoperabil-ity of transport systems across bor-ders. But much more could beachieved if travellers in Europe’strans-regional border areas couldmove swiftly from one country to an-other. In this context, initiatives aimedat abolishing the ‘border effect’ be-tween European member states wouldhave a significant positive impact.
A number of existing programmes haveproved to be highly successful in pro-moting enhanced transport integra-tion. These include the European RailTraffic Management System (ERTMS),an initiative set up to enhance cross-border interoperability and signallingprocurement by creating a single Eu-ropean standard for train control.
The Galileo programme should also bea source of inspiration for policy mak-ers looking to foster public security re-search and innovation. Similarly, theSecurity Research Programme estab-lished and funded by the EuropeanCommission with a cross-borderscheme that brings together opera-tors, academics and industry, pavesthe way for the next generation ofsafety and security systems. Theseprovide for the detection of abnormalsituations in an aircraft cabin (SAFEE),railway explosives detection and re-sponse to luggage NRBC alerts(TRIPS), integrated passenger inspec-tions (EFFISEC) and resilient au-tonomous transmission means fordisaster response (ASPIS).
Advanced integrated technologies –from smart ticketing to intelligent se-curity systems – have the capacity totransform transport networks, makingthem easier to use and safer than ever.Fostering these innovations, with thehelp of increased co-ordination at theEuropean level, will play a pivotal rolein turning the dream of free movementinto a reality.
Initiatives aimed at abolishing the “border effect” between European member states would have a significant positive impact.
26
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8
Valère Moutarlier, head of the European Commission’s GMES Bureau
explains the security dimensions of the GMES programme
GMES CONTRIBUTION TO SECURITY
Valè
re M
outa
rlie
rH
ead
of th
e Eu
rope
an C
omm
issi
on's
GM
ES B
urea
u
ASD: Can you explain what GMES isand what it will provide, in a nutshell?
V. Moutarlier: GMES (Global Monitoringfor Environment & Security) aims atcoordinating existing observation systems,producing services of guaranteed vali-dity and, crucially, ensuring their sus-tainability. As many of these systemsalready exist, GMES is meant to makebest use of the existing (civilian or dual)capabilities, but also to develop newsystems filling the observation gaps.
The challenge for an operational serv-ice is the guarantee of service provi-sion at European level. This requireshomogeneity of the coverage (in par-ticular in new member states), accessto data from non-European infrastruc-ture for addressing global issues, andharmonisation of technical standardsfor data exchange.
Finally, efficient data managementand information sharing is a prerequi-site for GMES services. In that respect,the INSPIRE (Infrastructure for SpatialInformation in Europe) Directive willcontribute to facilitating access, useand harmonisation of geospatial infor-mation at a pan-European level.
What is the security dimension of this programme and what is thebudget dedicated to this area?
GMES will ensure a continuous moni-toring of the main Earth elements for
purposes mainly linked to environ-mental policies but also to security issues. For the latter, different imple-mentation approaches are required anddifferent partners involved, i.e. theMember States and the Council, aswell as their agencies and bodies, e.g.EDA and EUSC.
For the development of the GMESservices security components, the European Commission uses its R&Dprogrammes, and especially the FP7Space thematic programme. For theperiod 2007-2013 GMES will benefitfrom about 85% of the FP7 Spacebudget, which amounts to €1,2 billion.
Do you have some indication of theindustrial input of aerospace anddefence industries in this initiative?
For several years the EC and the Eu-ropean Space Agency (ESA) have beensupporting projects aimed at integrat-ing existing information systems forsecurity applications. Industry isdeeply involved in these projects,which are the real test beds of GMESservice components. Successful re-sults have been and are being achievedthrough ESA or FP6 and now FP7 proj-ects. These will now pave the way tofuture GMES Services in the securitydomain.1
1) For more information: www.gmes.info
Considering the increasing numberof risks and threats, how will the GMES programme address securityconcerns in the future?
The concept of security has evolvedsince the end of the Cold War and theterm “security” is now used in a varietyof contexts. In its wider definition, se-curity refers to combating all threatsthat might affect our population, ourinstitutions, our environment, our in-frastructure, our socio-economic worldetc. Many threats are man-made, butthe impact of major natural catastro-phes should not be underestimated.The memory of the Asian Tsunami ofDecember 2004 or the dramatic firesin Greece during the summer of 2006showed that the use of early warningand crisis management tools for natu-ral disasters is crucial.
A society that lives in, and takes forgranted a secure environment, de-mands action from its authorities tomaintain this level of security, no mat-ter what threats may arise in a chang-ing world. In this environment, nosingle country is able to tackle suchcomplex problems on its own. Throughits Earth observation operational capability, GMES will contribute to theanswer given at the European level. A continuous research effort (withinGMES and within the security researchin FP7) will also guarantee that serv-ices are state-of-the-art.
27
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8
GMES will ensure a continuous monitoring of Earth for purposes mainlylinked to environmental policies but also to security issues.
Could you give some examplesof how GMES has contributed to the security field?
The security domains relevant to GMESinclude: "Homeland" security address-ing the security of the citizen and of in-frastructures and utilities; Border and"deep border" security including landborder security and maritime surveil-lance and security; and "Global" security,including global situation awarenessand EU external interventions.
For all these domains, observation in-frastructure (especially through highspatial resolution optical or radar in-struments) and derived service com-po nents could enable pattern reco gnition(e.g. detection of vessels, buildings,vehicle) as well as mapping, e.g. refer-ence mapping, rapid mapping in supportto intervention or damage asses smentin case of emergency or crisis situations.These products should be combined ormerged with information derived fromother systems such as positioning ones.Moreover, this data and these productsshould also be combined with other in-formation provided by GMES, such asland cover and use, sea state, air qual-ity, as well as with information externalto GMES (e.g. meteorological fore-casts, maps provided by National Map-ping Agencies).
To what extent will GMES contribute to building a significantsecurity capability in Europe?
Taking into account the particular ins-titutional framework around security,the work on the "S" part of GMES waskicked off with a seminar in Paris orga-nised by the Institute for Security Stud-ies (ISS) on 16 March 2007. The con-clusion that was derived from thisseminar is clear: we need to work to-gether among institutions and acrosspillars, driven by operational securityneeds and not hindered by administra-tive procedures.
Through its security component, GMESwill contribute to existing and futuresecurity activities in Europe. These ac-tivities are undertaken by pan-Euro-pean and national authorities whichhave a specific mandate in this area. Itis hoped that by adding a European di-mension and by reinforcing an appro-priate Earth Observation capacity atthe service of these authorities, a trulyEuropean capability in security will begradually built up. An European di-mension also implies that synergiesbetween defence, security and civilianneeds and capacities regarding observa-tion infrastructure and derived informa-tion services should clearly be explored.
The Community Research programme has set up GMOSS -Global Monitoring for Stability andSecurity. What is the purpose ofthis project and how does it work?
GMOSS is a network of excellence financed under the 6th EU ResearchFramework Programme managed by DG Enterprise and Industry. Theaim of GMOSS is to integrate Europe’scivilian security research, through theinvolvement of entities addressing
both technical and political issues, in order to acquire and enrich the au-tonomous knowledge and expertisebase of Europe needs, and to foster thetransfer of knowledge and methodolo-gies to the service developers and op-erators, including industry. In additionto the security-dedicated FP6 and FP7projects, GMOSS is an important pre-cursor of the future GMES securitycomponents.
Are you already working with futureend-users in the field of security?
The GMES Bureau is working bothwithin the EC and with the Council andits agencies and bodies (such as EDAand EUSC) in order to identify theusers' needs in the field of security.
In order to make sure that the invest-ment that we are creating at the Euro-pean level has the best added value, weneed to listen to all EU users. In thiscontext, existing forums of experts insecurity are being screened and mo-bilised in a phased approach. First,GMES is presented to them; then theyare asked to reflect on what contribu-tion GMES could bring to their activi-ties; finally, their feedback is usedin order to shape the GMES service requirements.
The GMES action plan runs from2004 to 2008 and a first set of operational GMES servicesis scheduled for 2008. How far has this programme progressedand where are we now in the agenda?
Since the Bureau was created, impor-tant progress has been made towardsachieving key goals in 2008.
Through projects co-funded by the Eu-ropean Framework Programme forResearch and Development, there havebeen precursors for the first GMESservices that will be demonstrated thisyear, covering marine, land and emer-gency response.
In the last years, Expert User Groupshave prepared the ground for a defini-tion of the scope and architecture ofthe GMES operational services. Theyhave delivered strategic implementa-tion plans which, following consulta-
tion with Member States and otherstakeholders, are now the main guide-lines for validation of the first servicesto start through FP7 projects. Whilethe current phase of moving towardsreal services is of course an excitingdevelopment, it is important to under-stand that what we are preparing withthe fast track services is only a first step.Later on, these services will have toevolve, and service evolution will alsobe a function of evolving user needs.
Moreover, other services are followinga similar path and should becomeavailable shortly after 2008. Work hasstarted for a GMES atmospheric serv-ice, while, as already explained, theBureau is working with its Councilcounterparts to define users’ needs inthe security field. In parallel, the Bu-reau is progressing in defining withstakeholders the overall architecturefor GMES and in preparing proposalsfor GMES governance. So, when serv-ices are ready to become operational,the necessary financial and institu-tional framework should be available.
I think the most challenging task forthe Commission in order to meet ourpolitical commitment to establish anautonomous and operational capabilityis three-fold: to successfully validatethe first operational services; to en-dorse a common programmatic visionfor GMES and to propose an institu-tional framework for governance andfunding that enables this common vi-sion to be operational and sustainable.We are firmly committed to progresson all these issues in the coming months.
28
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8
Kathleen Barthe of Airbus explains how the Simplified Technical
English initiative is an essential tool for aircraft manufacturers.
Kat
hlee
n B
arth
eFo
rmer
Cha
ir o
f the
ASD
Sim
plifi
ed T
echn
ical
En
glis
h M
aint
enan
ce G
roup
Air
bus
ASD: STE is the acronym of Simplified Technical English. What is the purpose of this project?
K. Barthe: STE is a set of writing rulesand basic vocabulary for writing tech-nical documentation. Why is it needed?Well, aerospace technical documenta-tion is provided in English. But it is readby people in many countries, and bypeople whose mother tongue is notnecessarily English. So, in order to avoidthe risks that can arise due to misun-derstandings, the documentation hasto be easy to understand for all users.
When was this initiative launched and why?
It all started way back in 1979. You haveto remember that at that time, therewere far more aircraft manufacturersthan there are today, and although theyall wrote in English using the same ATASpecification (known as ATA 100 at thetime), their writing styles were very dif-ferent. There was documentation writ-ten in American English (Boeing,Douglas, Lockheed…), in British English(Hawker Siddeley, British Aircraft Cor-poration) and by companies whose na-tive language was not English (Fokker,Aeritalia, and some of the companiesthat formed Airbus at the time, for ex-ample). On top of that, some Europeanairlines had to translate parts of theirmaintenance documentation into theirlocal language so that their mechanicscould understand it.
This was a source of problems for theEuropean airline industry, and is whatled them to approach AECMA in 1979to ask the manufacturers to investi-gate the possibility of using a con-trolled form of English – and of course,for all manufacturers to use this sameform. After investigation into the typesof controlled languages that existed inother industries, AECMA decided toproduce its own controlled English,and in 1983, set up a project group,under the leadership of Fokker.
The project was not limited to the Euro-pean industry, however. The AmericanAerospace industry, through the AIA(Aerospace Industries Association of America) was invited to participate,especially as some AIA companies hadalready done some standardizationalong the same lines.
Is STE a new technical jargon for a happy few?
On the contrary. STE is not a “technicaljargon”. It does not control what we call“Technical Names” (for example,words such as “bolt”, “grease”, and“corrosion”), or “Technical Verbs” (suchas “drill”, “anneal”, and “upload”). Itwill not tell you whether you shoulduse “landing gear” or “undercarriage”to name the element that the aircraftstands on when it’s on the ground.That’s a question for each com pany to decide. But it does tell you which
MAKING ITSIMPLE
general words you can use, “general”meaning words such as “disconnect”,“hold”, and “sharp” – the sort of wordsyou need to have in order to make sen-tences with the Technical Names andTechnical Verbs.
What criteria are used in choosing words for STE?
The criteria used to choose these gen-eral words were simplicity, flexibilityand frequency of use. For example, “do”is simpler, more flexible and much morefrequent than “achieve”, “carry out”, or“accomplish”.
In most cases, the general words thatare approved only have one approvedmeaning and one part of speech. Thisis to avoid misunderstandings. For ex-ample “about” is only approved withthe meaning “concerned with”. Youcannot use it to mean “approximately”or “around” (these words are them-selves approved). “Check” is only ap-proved as a noun (as in “do a check”),not as a verb (as in “check the lights”).So you will see that, as I explainedabove, STE is designed to help authorswrite in simple English, to make theirdocumentation understandable to asmany readers as possible.
29
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8
How can STE adapt to the new requirements of technologicalevolution?
The first thing to be aware of is thatSTE is not set in stone.It does evolve – as you can see by thefact that the Spec is now at Issue 4. Thechanges are managed by a group, theASD Simplified Technical EnglishMaintenance Group (STEMG), consist-ing of representatives from Europeanand North American industry, and ofobservers from user organizations (atthe moment, airlines and military).There is a change form in the Spec thatpeople can fill in and send to ASD or tothe chair of the group, and the propos-als are investigated.
For new technology, most of the newwords needed would be either Techni-cal Names or Technical Verbs. So au-thors are free to use them. It’s only ifother “general” words are needed thatan amendment to the Spec may benecessary.
This can take the form of an addition tothe dictionary of approved words, or ofa new writing rule. For example, com-puter-related verbs are not in the dic-tionary. The STEMG decided to considerthem as Technical Verbs, and in Issue1, Revision 1 (Jan 2001), reworked thewhole set of rules concerning TechnicalVerbs to include them.
Could you give an example of a term or expression “before and after” STE?
For example, “Turn off the power sup-ply” becomes in STE “Stop the powersupply”. This is because the verb“turn” is only approved with the mean-ing of “rotate”, not with the meaning of“switch off”.
Could you give some examples of cooperative programmes for which STE is used?
Certainly. The best known exampleswould be Airbus (if you consider coop-eration between different nationali-ties), Eurofighter Typhoon and theNH90 Helicopter.
Is ASD consideringthe extension of STE to othersectors or new users?
Good question. This is a possibility, fol-lowing the extension of S1000D to landand sea vehicles. But the STEMGwould need input from the sectorsconcerned before being able to decideif such an extension is necessary, orwho should do it. Some industries out-side ASD, other than aero space, al-ready use STE or have expressed aninterest in using it. The STEMG knowsthat some companies have adaptedSTE to their own requirements (com-panies have to ask for permission to dothis, since there is a copyright on STE).In these cases, we do not know howmuch adaptation was necessary.
Of course, we can’t control what non-ASDindustries decide to do. But if, say, the Defence industry decided to useS1000Dand STE for tank documentation,
Do You Speak STE?/ Non STE: “It is equally importantthat there should be no seasonalchanges in the procedures, as, al-though aircraft fuel system icing dueto water contamination is more oftenmet with in winter, it can be equallydangerous during the summermonths.”/ STE:“Use the same procedures allthe time, because water in the fuelsystem can freeze during summer or winter.”/ In the non-STE example, the sen-tence is too long and too complex.Sentences of more than approxi-mately twenty words can be difficultto understand and memorize. So STEtells you not to write sentences ofmore than twenty words. There isalso what STE calls a “noun cluster”(aircraft fuel system icing). Conven-tional technical writing loves makingsuch noun clusters, but they can beconfusing, because the most impor-tant word is at the end of the cluster.This particular cluster is fairly shortand not very difficult to understand,but longer ones can be very difficult.So, in general, STE does not allowsuch clusters. In addition, the word“icing” doesn’t describe a thing butan action. But in English, actions arebetter expressed by verbs wheneverpossible. So STE has a rule to that effect, which explains why “icing” hasbecome “water … can freeze”.
STE is not a technicaljargon, but a team buildingtechnique used to achieve better cooperation.
it would obviously be in the interest of ASDto control any additions or changes toSTE that proved to be necessary.
To what extent is STE applicableto military aircraft?
It is fully applicable. There has alwaysbeen a representative from the militaryaircraft business on the STEMG, rightfrom day one. And it is a requirementof S1000D, now adopted by the all mil-itary programs.
Is STE fully acknowledged by the Americans?
As I explained before, the Americanshave participated in the project fromthe beginning, and they are very active,especially now that they are very muchinvolved in S1000D, and in making itthe unique Spec for technical docu-mentation.
Do you think that STE may be developed further to meet theneeds of non-European users?I am thinking in particular aboutemerging players in Asia.
The STEMG has been trying for sometime to find observers from Asian air-lines, who would provide input to helpfine-tune STE, if necessary. So the an-swer is yes. This would be all the moreuseful as there are already companiesin the Pacific Rim that use STE. For ex-ample: Matsushita in Japan (one of theearly users of STE in Asia) and severalsub-contractors in India (who do tech-nical documentation work for themajor aircraft manufacturers).
And in fact, there are companies in otherparts of the world, too, who either useSTE or are interested in it: Russianaerospace, Embraer in Brazil, Emiratesin the Middle East, and until recently,Turkish Airlines.
30
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8
Mr. Christian Ehler, German European
Security Association E.V.C
hris
tian
Ehl
erM
EP
ASD: How do you think the FP7programme will address Europe'sdefence and security challenges?
C. Ehler: The 7th Framework Pro-gramme includes, for the first time, se-curity research as a thematic priority.This recent inclusion of security re-search underlines the importance as-signed to this research area and showsthe commitment of the EU to engageon this issue. One of the strengths of the FP7 is its mission-oriented ap-proach, and consequently its demandorientation. Moreover, the FP7 willstructure the focus of the security research carried out, which implies ahigh level of stakeholder involvementin the programme as it will channel theefforts of the industry, research insti-tutions and member states.
What has been achieved in terms of defence and security in the firstyear of the FP7 programme?
The first call of the FP7 programme,with a budget of 155 million euros,took place from December 2006 toMay 2007 and resulted in 44 proposalsbeing selected, including 8 large scaleintegration projects on topics such assoftware defined radio, land borderprotection or security checkpoints.Furthermore, there will be 24 smallerresearch projects and 12 supportingactions. More than 400 companies,universities and public bodies from allmember states and 11 other countries
are involved in these projects. Further-more, I welcome the EUs decision toestablish a European Security Re-search and Innovation Forum (ESRIF)in order to guarantee the efficient useof funding within a Public Private Part-nership (PPP)-dialogue. This will ben-efit the interests of the EU in the areaof security policy as well as industrypolicy.
FP7 has a € 50 billion budget with9% dedicated to security and space.Do you think this is enough?
The European Parliament was able topush through 1.4 billion euros for se-curity research for the years 2007 to2013. However, this is still far from thefinancial volume of one billion eurosper year recommended by the Groupof Personalities in 2004. The budgetproblem becomes clear if we take alook at the first call. Not even 15 per-cent of the 328 projects handed in wereeventually accepted for funding. Thedemand for funding amounted to morethan a billion euros as compared to155 million euros allocated to the callby the Commission. I consider the sum ofone billion euros per year the long-termgoal if we want to offer an attractive re-search programmes for enterprisesand effectively use the innovativeness ofour companies to enhance the securitycapabilities of Europe.
FP7: BUILDINGEUROPEAN DEFENCE & SECURITY
What is the role of the European Parliament in the assessment and management of FP7 resources?
The European Parliament fought forthe best possible funding of the FP7and security research. Unfortunately,the Council subsequently cut the EUbudget for security research back sub-stantially. In the trilogue, the EuropeanParliament was able though to securethe original funding level of 1.4 billioneuros.
Is defence and security researchnow becoming a key driver for the EU's overall research anddevelopment ambitions? If yes, is this particularly the case forthe FP7 programmes?
One of the most important effects ofplacing the security research pro-gramme within the FP7 has been itstriggering function as regards the es-tablishment of parallel national secu-rity research programmes. Thefunding for these programmes hasnow reached levels similar to that ofsecurity research in the FP7, and willprobably be growing further, as not allcountries have decided yet whether tocreate a national programme.
Do you think that Europeans are now ready to link research efforts and build up significant capabilities?
This question has to been seen in rela-tion to the fragmentation of the marketsin the area of security and defence andthe fact that demand is mainly driven bypublic institutions. We will need coope-ration and collaboration in Europe inorder to overcome these obstacles andallow innovation in this area.
Which area do you consider a priority among the defence missions defined by FP7?
Considering that within the FP7 thereare no pure defence missions but onlydual use missions, I think that com-bating terrorism will be the questionwe will have to deal with most exten-sively.
The ASD represents over 2000 aerospace and defence companies,many of which are SMEs. How do industry and SMEs benefitfrom FP7?
Compared to earlier framework pro-grammes, the new financing instru-ments and simplified administrativeprocedures present in the 7th Frame-work Programme better accommo-date the needs and requirements ofSMEs and thus improve the possibilitythat they will be able to successfullyparticipate in the program. It is fore-seen that 15% of the budget will beused to fund SME projects.
Furthermore, since FP7 is comple-mentary to the new Competitivenessand Innovation Programme (CIP), itwill be possible for SMEs to receivefunding in order to develop practicalprototypes of the technology derivedfrom their research.
What are you expecting fromthe defence and security industriesin the year 2008?
Growth, as well as innovative solu-tions, that will result in better securityand prosperity in Europe, and thecourage to support a liberalized Euro-pean defence and security market inorder to maintain the future viability ofthe European industry in the globalcontext.
Christian Ehler is a member of bureau of the European People’sParty in the European Parliament and Vice-Chairman of the CDU/CSUGroup in the European Parliament.Besides being a member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, he is also a substi-tute of the Subcommittee on Securityand Defense and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. He was a member of ESRAB until last year and is now a member of the follow-up initiative ESRIF. He is chairman of the German European Security Association.
German European Security Association E.V. (GESA) is a non-partisan organisation founded by members of the European andGerman Parliament in November2006. Its aim is to create more security in Germany and Europe by furthering the dialogue betweengovernment, society, research andindustry, as well as identifying common interests and cooperationopportunities for purchasers, users,developers and suppliers. GESA’smembers come from parliaments,private companies and research institutions as well as from the German government, administrationand security offices.
31
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8
Framework programmes (FPs) have been the main financial tools through which the European Union supports research and development activities. FP7 runs for seven years and has been fully operational since 1 January 2007.
I consider €1 billion per year the long-termgoal if we want to offer an attractive researchprogram for enterprises.
The European Organisation for Security(EOS) was created in July 2007 by Euro-pean private sector providers and usersfrom all domains of security solutionsand services. The aim is to develop acoherent European security market bypromoting the innovation and imple-mentation of European civil securitycapabilities. EOS, by developing closerelationships with key public and private stakeholders, aims to position itself as the mutually beneficent inter-locutor in the security domain.
What is EOS?EOS is a tool for European securitystakeholders to support a comprehen-sive implementation of security strate-gies at National, European and Inter-national levels. Such an approach callsfor the development of a common understanding of security require-ments and solutions for each sectorand coherent links across sectors.
EOS’ role encompasses all stages of theprocess from supporting the civiliansecurity policy makers to define indus-trial security policy, to the developmentand implementation of solutions andprocesses. Therefore, EOS will make asignificant contribution to a commonsecurity awareness and the globalcompetitiveness of Europe's industrialstakeholders.
The Reasons to actEurope's security market is fragmen-ted at both national and internationallevels in the areas of both supply anddemand. This is why EOS has achieveda high degree of representation acrosssectors as well as countries. This in-cludes close co-ordination betweenpolicy makers, regulators, users andproviders.
We believe that an integrated EuropeanSecurity Market is a necessity and willonly be achieved by close cooperationbetween private and public stakehold-ers, users and suppliers. EOS Membersfully subscribe to the security of Eu-rope’s citizens and for that reason, EOSwill support the various activities in thefollowing priority areas:/ EU Green and Blue Borders
Surveillance, Security and Safety/ End-to-End Air Passenger
Transport Security/ Civil Protection
(including Crisis Management)/ Information and Communication
Technologies’ Network and DataSecurity
/ Supply Chain Security/ Security and Resilience
of Energy Infrastructures / Surface Transport Security
for Travellers
Our Short Term ObjectivesEOS aims to bring effective addedvalue to cooperative activities in 2008,to its Members and to the whole secu-rity community. One of our priorities is to enlarge membership and hencerepresentativeness in the main sec-tors. Particular attention will be paid inincreasing cooperation with privateusers and operators. They own or arerunning about 80% of the critical infra-structures in Europe and have shortterm needs to satisfy security and resi-lience requirements while allowing affordable business continuity.
They need development and / or im-plementation of coherent proceduresand architectures that will allow the useof existing solutions and technologies.In 2008, EOS will support a better understanding of common securityrequirements by users and foster development of innovative securitytechnologies and services, allowingtheir faster implementation in priorityareas such as border surveillance, crisismanagement, and protection of criticalinfrastructure.
EOS will also support the contributionof SMEs into the fabric of the Europeansecurity via specific support actions.We will also support the developmentof a European validation / test Platformin coordination with the EuropeanCommission and major European research Centres, to facilitate im-plementation of results of security research and innovative technologies ineffective situation scenarios. This willallow verifying compatibility and inter-operability of solutions and identifyingpossible gaps and future evolutions.
EOS will hence continue its growthwith the support of its Members andwith the cooperation of public institu-tions, and will be one of the key toolsfor the effective implementation of Eu-ropean security policies.
More information is available on EOS’web site: www.eos-eu.com or byemail: [email protected]
EOS DEVELOPS A COHERENT EUROPEANSECURITY MARKET
Luig
i Reb
uffi
Chi
ef E
xecu
tive
Offi
cer
(CEO
) of E
OS
“EOS aims to developa coherent Europeansecurity market”
32
AS
D F
OC
US
02
/ S
UM
ME
R 2
00
8
EOS REPRESENTS 26 MEMBERS FROM11 EUROPEANCOUNTRIES INDIFFERENT SECTORSOF RELEVANCE IN THE SECURITYMARKET.
EOS main goals are:/ Contribute to the definition of a holistic
European civil security policy/ Promote a more coherent
European Union Security Market/ Support the creation of comprehensive
and state-of-the-art civil security solutions for citizens, governments and the whole European economy.
EOS is an initiative open to private non-governmental stakeholders engaged in civil security.Join us!
For further information:www.eos-eu.com / [email protected] / +32 2 777 02 54
![The 2014 Ukrainian crisis: Europe’s increased security ... · The 2014 Ukrainian Crisis: Europe’s increased security position [iv] ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This 2014 Ukrainian Crisis](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5edc26a1ad6a402d6666b1d1/the-2014-ukrainian-crisis-europeas-increased-security-the-2014-ukrainian.jpg)
![The 2014 Ukrainian crisis: Europe’s increased security ... · [i] The 2014 Ukrainian crisis: Europe’s increased security position Natural gas network assessment and scenario simulations](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5b3f60e17f8b9a5e2c8c066a/the-2014-ukrainian-crisis-europes-increased-security-i-the-2014-ukrainian.jpg)
