Communications: electrical – Condition responsive indicating system – Specific condition
Reexamination Certificate
2000-10-04
2003-01-14
Pope, Daryl (Department: 2632)
Communications: electrical
Condition responsive indicating system
Specific condition
C340S005100, C340S005300, C340S005320, C340S005700
Reexamination Certificate
active
06507278
ABSTRACT:
STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates to the control of movement into and out of secured or access-controlled areas, and more particularly, to a control system to effect movement of airline passengers from a public area of an airport terminal into a secure, controlled area such as a concourse leading to gates by which passengers embark onto an airplane and from which disembarking passengers exit the concourse into the public area.
With the threat of airline hijackings which began in the 1960's and 70's, and the more recent terrorist threats of placing bombs on airplanes to blow them up during flight, airports have been more and more involved with passenger safety and airplane security. To this end, airports in the United States have established control points within their terminals. Typically, these control points are set-up at those areas leading from the public areas of the terminal (where ticket counters, ground transportation centers, restaurants and gift shops are located) into the aisles (concourses) where the airplane gates are located. A control point functions to a) screen people entering the concourse from an entry (or Q side) and b) insure that no one circumvents the control point by trying to enter the concourse through its exit (or X side).
At present, a control point typically includes one or more conveyors onto which passengers are required to place any luggage, handbags, or other articles. These items are then conveyed past an X-ray machine (or other screening device) by which the contents of the items can be viewed by security personnel. If a suspicious item is spotted, the item is removed from the conveyor and required to be opened by the person carrying it so a close visual inspection can be made.
Each person is also examined. This is done by having the person pass through an archway or portal which includes a magnetometer, for example, that provides a primary level of screening. If the magnetometer detects an object which is suspect, an alarm is sounded and the person is stopped by security personnel. The person is usually requested to empty his or her pockets, step back through the archway and reenter it again. If the second passage does not cause an alarm, the items the person removed are returned to them and they are allowed to continue. If an alarm again sounds, the person may be requested to cycle back through the arch yet a third time, or security personnel will use a magnetometer wand (a second level of screening) to go over the person's body to locate whatever is causing the alarm. It will be appreciated that having people recycle through the primary screening point clogs the lane leading to the checkpoint, and creates a bottleneck for others needing to get to their gates.
Heretofore, the exit (X Arch) side of the control point has usually been open; that is, there are no restrictions such as at the entry (Q Arch) side. One reason for this, of course, is to not impede deplaning passengers from leaving the concourse area. However, a major drawback to this arrangement is that an open space is provided for someone wanting to circumvent the security checkpoint or who inadvertently wanders into the exit passage. While exit lanes are usually clearly marked, the warning is a visual warning only and may be missed by someone not paying attention because they are otherwise engaged in looking for deplaning family or friends. Usually this X side of the security point is manned by security personnel whose function is to stop people from entering the concourse this way. If, however, someone enters a concourse through this exit route and eludes the security personnel stationed there, the effect is the concourse must be shut down until the person is located. This includes prohibiting planes located at gates along the concourse from leaving until the intruder is found or determined to no longer be in the area. This causes substantial delays, passenger inconvenience, and missed connections. A number of these incidents have recently occurred at major airports with the resultant cost running into millions of dollars in each instance.
Other problems attendant with current security checkpoints include incorrect information as to the number of passengers entering a particular concourse. Airlines, in effect, rent gates from an airport. One measure of the rental charged by the airport is the number of people using a concourse to embark on planes flown by a particular airline. As people pass through the checkpoint, they are automatically counted and a report including this count is periodically created. Airlines are then assessed based upon the count. The difficulty with this procedure in current installations is as follows:
As noted above, if a passenger passing through the checkpoint triggers an alarm, that person is asked to go back through the portal, empty his or her pockets, and pass back through. In doing so, that person is counted three times. Once when they first enter, a second time when they have to go back through, and a third time when they re-enter. Most people successfully pass through the checkpoint the first time, but some do not. The resultant multiple counting of people sufficiently distorts the reported volume as to have a significant economic impact.
Another problem which occurs is theft and fraud. With conventional installations, a person approaching the entrance places their luggage, briefcase, purse, laptop computer, camera, etc. on a conveyor which conveys these articles past an X-ray unit as previously mentioned. The person then retrieves their articles from the other end of the conveyor and proceeds to their gate. While the articles are examined, and the persons passing through a portal are being screened, as a rule, no one checks to see that the correct person is retrieving the articles. One reason for this is the limited number of security people assigned to the checkpoint and the multiple duties they are required to perform. As a result, if there is a long line of people waiting to pass through the portal, items may reach the other end of the conveyor well before their owner. If someone picks up someone else's camera, for example, no one will likely notice. On the other hand, if someone passing through the entrance claims that an article has been stolen, there is no way to know if the person is telling the truth or not. As a rule, the airport/airline/security agency/insurance company pays off on a claim that can be in the range of hundreds or thousands of dollars.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Among the several objects of the present invention may be noted the provision of a passenger security system for use in airports and other facilities in which both ingress into a controlled part of a facility and egress therefrom must be strictly controlled and monitored. The ingress and egress portions of the security system can be implemented together, or separately.
It is further an object of the invention to not only control ingress into a secured area, but to also increase the pass-through rate of people into the controlled area. To this end, visual cues are provided by which approaching persons can readily tell which lanes through the checkpoint are open and which are not, how they are to proceed through the checkpoint, and what items are prohibited. The system operates to not unduly delay passengers heading for gates and increases the number of people (throughput) who can pass through a screening point over a given period of time; all of this without comprising security. Provisions are also made for the efficient screening of handicapped individuals. Further, the system provides an accurate count of all persons passing through the control point to facilitate auditing by an airport, for example, of those people using a concourse. In a multi-lane facility, individual lane counts are also made.
Another object of invention is a multi-stage screening of passengers entering the checkpoint. The multi-stage approach allows passengers who pass a
Brunetti Sam
Firesheets Scott
Thew Lee
Woody Don
ADT Security Services, Inc.
Polster Lieder Woodruff & Lucchesi L.C.
Pope Daryl
LandOfFree
Ingress/egress control system for airport concourses and... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Ingress/egress control system for airport concourses and..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Ingress/egress control system for airport concourses and... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3064014