Florida Transportation Magazine

By Alexander Kolpakov
Center for Urban Transportation Research

"Do Florida’s 84 General Aviation (GA) airports have an adequate level of security?” – a question sometimes raised by the public. This concern is often rooted in the lack of visible security measures at GA airports. While most people flying on commercial passenger flights see rigorous screening of both passengers and baggage, there are no such measures in place in most GA airports.

GA refers to all types of civil aviation except for scheduled passenger, scheduled cargo service, or military aviation.

The lack of highly visible security checkpoints, however, does not automatically make GA airports less secure. Typical GA operations are totally different from commercial service flights and don’t require the same security measures. Consequently, a breach of security at a GA airport has different potential implications than a security breach at a commercial airport. For example, a hijacked Boeing 737 jet aircraft, weighing 60,000 pounds, poses a bigger threat than a hijacked single engine four-seat Cessna 172 aircraft that weights less than most passenger cars.

Florida’s GA facilities are numerous and extremely diverse.

There are no federal mandates regarding the level of security at GA airports. Most of the federal regulations issued after September 11, 2001 focused mainly on the airports with scheduled passenger service. This does not mean, however, that there are no rules or guidelines for general aviation facilities. A distinction is made between public use and private use airports, where public use facilities are considered higher risk.

Certain types of operations, such as, on-demand service, agricultural operations, operations of large aircraft, flight training, aircraft rentals, etc., are considered to be vulnerable and require a higher level of airport security.

The idea behind this risk-based approach is that airports located close to mass populated areas, with larger numbers and large-size based aircraft, long runways and certain types of operations are considered to pose higher threat and are recommended to have more rigorous security measures compared to remote landing facilities with few based aircraft and short and/or unpaved runways.

Could this approach be an effective solution to GA security? TSA has expressed a high level of confidence that these voluntary measures are working and that GA airports are compliant overall and go even further to ensure adequate security.

The Center for Urban Transportation Research at USF in Tampa applied the TSA risk-based approach to assess the security needs of Florida GA airports. CUTR surveyed all public-use and publicly owned GA airports to identify and prioritize the security needs of general aviation in Florida.

The project was sponsored by the Secure Airports for Florida Economy (SAFE) Council.

The survey results indicate that almost 90.0 percent of the airports responding to the survey have fenced perimeter; 92.0 percent operate fueling facility on site; the majority do not monitor fueling facility after hours, and 47.4 percent monitor airport access 24 hours a day. The main types of operations for the surveyed airports include pilot training, aircraft rentals and on-demand operations. Top three priorities for ensuring GA security are: 1) preventing unauthorized airport access, 2) control of tenants’ activities, and 3) verifying identity of student pilots and aircraft renters. The majority of the airports cited the lack of funding as the main obstacle for addressing the major concerns.

So, how secure are Florida airports? The results of CUTR analysis indicate that, on average, all surveyed GA airports meet or exceed the TSA requirements for the total number of implemented security measures at the airport. However, the airports do not always have the exact types of security enhancements recommended by TSA. While the level of security varies from airport to airport, these differences are indicative of the differences in airport risk level, determined by unique characteristics of each GA facility. Contrary to general belief, smaller GA airports are not necessarily less secure than larger GA facilities. The lack of sophisticated security measures at smaller airports is compensated by the fact that unusual or suspicious activity is smaller airports more readily noticed than at larger facilities.     

There is room for improvement, however. The survey indicates that only 6 of the surveyed Florida airports have all the recommended TSA security measures, while an average compliance percentage with TSA recommendations is 66.9%.  

The discrepancy between compliance percentage and the total level of  security is explained by the fact that airports do not always implement the improvements recommended by TSA but often have additional security measures beyond TSA recommendations. This practice does not help the airports with compliance but clearly improves the overall level of security.  

CUTR’s findings show that many Florida airports tend to aim higher than TSA recommendations in providing airport security. However, many security measures that can improve airports’ compliance with TSA recommendations are basic and can be implemented at lower cost compared to security measures currently pursued by some airports. For example, some smaller rural airports don’t really need to invest in a sophisticated intrusion detection system. Implementing simpler measures, like a community watch program or a personnel ID system, might be a more cost effective approach to ensure adequate security of the facilities. CUTR analysis reveals that many of the surveyed Florida airports invested in the security measures well beyond their designated threat level while, at the same time, overlooked some of the more basic security enhancements and procedures that could be implemented at a relatively low cost.        

Identifying the needs of the airports is only part of the problem. The main challenge is to address these needs in the most effective manner, considering funding shortfalls, state budget cuts, and the aviation industry crisis. With needs exceeding available funding, decision-makers will inevitably face choosing between the projects competing for funding.   

CUTR ranked the potential security improvements based on the chosen prioritization criteria and also applied analysis techniques to develop a prioritization system for identifying potential security enhancements. The developed methodology allows ranking the airports based on compliance improvements by additional security enhancements at the airport. This approach can help identify the projects that yield the highest security improvements and can maximize the effectiveness of the use of limited funds.

Florida GA airports play a vital role in the state’s economy. They support essential health, emergency, and safety services. Due to its landscape and weather, Florida is also a center of commercial airline pilots training with GA airports playing a major role in supporting this activity. FDOT estimates that GA airports bring about 9 million vacation and business travelers to the state each year. A healthy, well functioning and secure aviation system is a crucial component of economic growth and prosperity of the state. We often hear the catchy phrase: “Safety is no accident.” Well, neither is security. And as such, it requires proper attention from the federal, state and local officials, as well as adequate and timely funding. And as aviation funding being constantly squeezed, prioritization methodologies and innovative financing schemes are bound to gain more popularity in the years to come.