В этой статье рассматриваются современные технологии досмотра в аэропортах и лучшие практики, внедренные в период с 2021 по 2025 год, на основе практического опыта Международного аэропорта имени Нурсултана Назарбаева в Астане, Казахстан. В нем рассматривается внедрение сканеров 3D-компьютерной томографии (КТ) для ручной клади, сканеров тела с использованием передовых технологий визуализации (AIT) и систем обнаружения следов взрывчатых веществ (ETD) в контексте глобальных стандартов и региональной практики. Анализ объясняет, как новые технологии и процедурные инновации устраняют узкие места в пропускной способности, снижают количество ложных тревог и повышают эффективность обнаружения, одновременно подчеркивая возможность применения опыта Казахстана в глобальной среде и в США.

Ключевые слова: досмотр в целях безопасности в аэропортах, компьютерная томография, КТ, передовые технологии получения изображений, AIT, обнаружение следов взрывчатых веществ, ETD, передовые методы обеспечения авиационной безопасности, стандарты ИКАО, правила TSA, досмотр с учетом рисков, инновационные технологии обеспечения безопасности, соблюдение требований в области авиационной безопасности.

Airport security checkpoints serve as critical guardians of the sky, balancing the need to thwart threats with the imperative of efficient passenger flow. The post-9/11 era transformed aviation security worldwide, ushering in stricter regulations and new technologies at screening points. Despite aviation’s exemplary safety record, emerging threats continually test the limits of current systems [4]. Security agencies and airport operators face a dual challenge: how to detect ever-more sophisticated prohibited items — from liquid explosives to non-metallic weapons — while minimizing disruption to travel. This challenge is underscored by sheer scale: in 2024 the U. S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screened 904 million passengers, 2.5 billion carry-on items, and 500 million checked bags [3]. Each one of those screenings must be thorough yet timely, as any security lapse could be catastrophic, and any inefficiency cascades into delays and frustration.

Technology and international best practices have become indispensable in meeting these demands. Advanced screening equipment like computed tomography (CT) scanners and automated threat detection algorithms promise higher accuracy, detecting explosives that conventional X-rays might miss [2]. Meanwhile, programs emphasizing risk-based screening and security culture aim to allocate resources where they matter most. International bodies such as ICAO set baseline standards (Annex 17 for security) that member states implement, but regional differences remain. The United States employs rigorous, technology-driven screening (e.g. body scanners, the 3–1–1 liquids rule, TSA PreCheck) often seen as intrusive [5], whereas the European Union harmonizes measures under EC Regulation 300/2008 and is rolling out CT scanners to eventually relax liquid bans [8]. Other regions vary from the state-of-the-art hubs of the Middle East to emerging frameworks in parts of Africa, reflecting different threat perceptions, resources, and cultural attitudes.

The author’s perspective: From 2021 to 2025, the author managed and audited daily security screening operations at Astana’s Nursultan Nazarbayev International Airport in Kazakhstan. In this role, he supervised the use of X-ray baggage scanners, walk-through metal detectors (WTMDs), and ETD chemical sensors, ensuring they met both national regulations and ICAO standards. Kazakhstan’s aviation security authority has actively collaborated with global partners to elevate its practices — for instance, U. S. TSA advisors conducted site visits to Astana in 2021–2022, giving positive evaluations and recommending upgrades like 3D body scanners and modern explosives detectors for flights to the U. S. [6]. By implementing such recommendations, the airport aligned with international best practices, earning accolades like the ICAO Council President’s Award for 83 % security compliance in a 2017 audit. This unique experience at a fast-developing hub informs the discussion below, illustrating how practical knowledge from one region can translate globally. In the following sections, we identify key problems facing airport security today, review advanced technologies and methods addressing these challenges, and highlight how lessons learned in Kazakhstan’s context apply to broader global and U. S. aviation security strategies.

Global airport cabin baggage scanner market value is projected to grow from $3.3 billion in 2025 to $8.3 billion by 2035, reflecting rapid adoption of advanced screening technologies (notably 3D CT scanners) to meet evolving security regulations [10]. The chart illustrates the upward investment trend in checkpoint security equipment, with growth accelerating in the 2030s as airports replace aging X-ray machines with next-generation systems.

1. Problem Definition: Pain Points in Aviation Security Screening

Despite considerable progress, airport security professionals and travelers alike continue to face several pain points at the screening checkpoint. These challenges can be summarized as follows:

– Throughput Bottlenecks and Passenger Frustration: The security checkpoint is often a stressful choke point in the journey [1]. Passengers must remove jackets, belts, shoes, laptops, and liquids, leading to long queues and inconvenience. Unclear or inconsistent procedures (e.g. differing rules on liquids between airports) add confusion. Lengthy wait times not only anger travelers but also impact airport operations and non-aeronautical revenue, since time spent stuck in security is time not spent at shops or gates. Airport operators struggle to increase throughput without sacrificing security, especially during peak travel bank periods.

– False Alarms and Labor-Intensive Processes: Traditional 2D X-ray scanners rely on human operators to interpret grayscale images for threats. They provide limited material discrimination, showing objects’ shapes but not their composition [7]. As a result, innocuous items can appear suspicious, triggering a high rate of false alarms and manual bag checks. For example, a cluttered bag with electronics or food often must be pulled aside and inspected item-by-item, significantly slowing the screening lane. These secondary searches strain staff resources and intrude on passenger privacy. Likewise, walk-through metal detectors cannot detect non-metallic threats (like liquid or plastic explosives), so they alarm on every belt buckle or coin, requiring many time-consuming pat-downs. The cumulative effect is inefficiency — security officers must spend time resolving alarms that turn out harmless, while actual threat items might be missed amid the volume.

– Limited Detection Capability for Evolving Threats: Emerging threats expose limitations of legacy screening technology. Standard X-ray machines struggle to detect low-density plastic explosives or liquid explosives, which may not have obvious shapes. They also cannot differentiate harmless liquids (water, shampoo) from dangerous ones (liquid explosives) because they only measure object density, forcing a blanket restriction on liquids in carry-ons. Metal detectors, while excellent at finding guns or knives, would not catch ceramic knives or explosive devices with minimal metal content. Clandestine explosives like the 2006 transatlantic liquid bomb plot or the «shoe bomb» underscored these vulnerabilities. Even advanced imaging technology has had blind spots — early backscatter X-ray body scanners raised health and privacy concerns and were withdrawn in places like the EU and UK in favor of millimeter-wave scanners. Adversaries continuously adapt, using novel explosives or concealing methods to evade detection, so security technology must keep pace. A stark illustration came in 2015 when U. S. undercover tests found TSA checkpoints failed to detect prohibited items roughly 95 % of the time in Red Team drills. Such findings highlight the need for more robust detection tools and protocols.

– Operational and Resource Constraints: Cutting-edge screening equipment is expensive and infrastructure-heavy. Many airports, especially smaller or regional ones, lack the budget or facility space to upgrade swiftly. For instance, computed tomography (CT) scanners — the new gold standard for carry-on screening — cost over $2 million each and are physically larger and heavier than old machines, sometimes requiring floor reinforcement and checkpoint redesign. As of mid-2025, only 255 of 432 U.S. commercial airports had installed CT scanners at checkpoints, full nationwide deployment is not expected until 2043 due to these constraints. This gap means security protocols (like the liquids rule) cannot be uniformly relaxed yet without causing confusion. In less developed regions, resource limitations similarly delay the adoption of advanced tech, leading to uneven standards globally. Additionally, highly sophisticated systems demand well-trained personnel for operation and maintenance. Airports face challenges in training and retaining security staff, preventing skill erosion and complacency. Cultivating a strong security culture is essential but not always easy amid high turnover and the monotony of checkpoint duties.

– Regulatory and Compliance Pressures: Airport authorities must constantly adapt to changing regulations and standards from multiple bodies — national governments, ICAO, and (in regions like Europe) ECAC/EU mandates. These regulations often tighten in response to incidents or intelligence about threats. Compliance can be a pain point when rules change faster than technology deployment. A current example is the push to lift the liquid ban: the UK planned to allow up to 2 liters of liquids in carry-ons by 2024, but had to delay because several major airports hadn’t finished installing CT scanners required to reliably detect liquid explosives. Thus, airports walk a tightrope of meeting new security rules on schedule while minimizing disruption. They also undergo periodic inspections and audits (e.g. ICAO Universal Security Audit Program). Preparing for these audits — updating procedures, documentation, and performance tests — is a demanding process, as I had experienced firsthand during Kazakhstan’s ICAO security audit and U. S. TSA assessments. Failing to meet standards can have serious consequences (up to losing the airport’s certification for international flights), so the stakes for compliance are high.

Comparison of four X-ray screening technologies used in aviation security.

Standard X-ray provides only basic 2D images and cannot distinguish materials, leading to high false alarm rates and difficulty detecting low-density threats like explosives. Dual-energy X-ray (used in most current checkpoint scanners) adds two energy levels to differentiate organic vs inorganic matter, improving detection of explosives (light elements) even when hidden by dense objects. Backscatter X-ray (deployed in some older body scanners) excels at detecting organic materials on persons but cannot penetrate metals well. Computed Tomography (CT) uses rotating detectors to create 3D images that can be analyzed from all angles, offering superior detection of complex threats (including liquid explosives) at the cost of higher expense and slower throughput.

In summary, airport security screening in the early 2020s faces a convergence of high passenger volumes, evolving threat vectors, and pressure for efficiency. Outdated technology and procedures struggle to meet these demands, resulting in pain points like long lines, intrusive measures, and occasional security lapses. The next section discusses how the industry is responding — through cutting-edge technology deployments and best practices designed to resolve these issues and strike a better balance between security and convenience.

2. Methods and Solutions: Technologies and Best Practices for Safer, More Efficient Screening

To address the above challenges, airports and regulators worldwide have been implementing a range of solutions. These span technological innovations, process improvements, and cultural or regulatory shifts. Drawing from both global developments and my on-the-ground experience in Astana, this section outlines key methods and best practices that are enhancing security screening today.

Deploying Advanced Screening Technologies

Computed Tomography (CT) Scanners for Cabin Baggage: The introduction of CT scanners at airport checkpoints is arguably the most transformative recent development. Adapting the same 3D imaging technology long used for checked baggage and medical scans, checkpoint CT provides screeners with volumetric, high-resolution images of a bag’s contents [1]. Using sophisticated algorithms, CT scanners automatically detect explosives (including liquid explosives) and other threat items by analyzing materials’ densities and atomic signatures in 3D. A TSA official noted that CT produces such clear imagery that it «eliminates the guesswork» for operators, allowing them to see objects once hidden behind other items as clear as day. Operational impact: CT technology dramatically reduces the need for travelers to divest items. In airports with CT, passengers no longer must remove laptops or liquids from carry-ons, because the machine can ‘slice’ through clutter and distinguish benign liquids from dangerous ones [11]. This speeds up the divestment stage and reduces the number of bins per person, easing bottlenecks. Indeed, early deployments have shown shorter queues and less stressful procedures, improving the checkpoint experience. From a security standpoint, CT’s automated threat recognition lowers reliance on human observation, thereby decreasing false alarms and increasing probability of detection. EU regulators were confident enough in CT’s capabilities that they initiated a phased mandate for all major European airports to install CT scanners by 2026, with the expectation that the historic 100 ml liquid limit can be raised or abolished thereafter. The U. S. TSA has likewise invested heavily in CT: research shows CT is «the most consequential technology available today for airport checkpoints» according to TSA’s own documentation. As of 2025, TSA has installed hundreds of units at larger airports and plans to continue replacing old 2D X-rays nationwide.

It’s worth noting that CT scanners are not without challenges. They are costly and require more space and power. Early models had slightly lower throughput due to the time needed to compute 3D images, but manufacturers like Smiths Detection, Leidos, and Analogic have been refining their systems to speed up belt speeds and image processing. Operational adjustments, such as fine-tuning automated detection algorithms to minimize false alarms, are ongoing. In my experience deploying a pilot CT scanner at Astana Airport, extensive calibration and training were needed for screeners to interpret the new 3D imagery effectively. However, once integrated, the CT unit markedly improved the detection of threat simulants during internal tests, catching items that a traditional X-ray missed (such as a bottle of liquid explosive simulant concealed in a cluttered bag). Over time, as more airports implement CT, global security will rise and inconveniences like the liquid ban will recede. The investment trends reflect this promise: the global market for cabin baggage scanners (dominated by CT technology) is projected to grow at nearly 10 % annually, reaching $8.3 billion by 2035.

Advanced Passenger Screening: From Metal Detectors to Body Scanners: To address the limitations of walk-through metal detectors, airports have widely adopted advanced imaging technology (AIT) body scanners. Modern AIT units (typically millimeter-wave scanners) can detect both metallic and non-metallic threats by scanning a person for anomalies under clothing. These systems have significantly improved on older backscatter X-ray scanners — they do not use ionizing radiation and display a generic human outline or abstract figure, alleviating privacy concerns. The U. S. first deployed millimeter-wave body scanners in 2010 and now uses them at nearly all major airport checkpoints for primary screening of passengers, with WTMDs relegated to secondary or PreCheck lanes.

Europe also embraced millimeter-wave scanners after 2010, with the UK, Netherlands, and others phasing them in especially for flights to high-risk destinations. The result is a notable increase in detection capability for items like ceramic knives, liquid packets, or explosives strapped to the body that a metal detector would miss. The airport in Astana installed its first full-body scanner in 2022, as recommended by TSA consultants, to screen passengers on direct flights to the U. S. and other select routes [6]. During trials, this scanner identified a test improvised explosive device hidden on an officer’s person — a device that passed through a metal detector unnoticed since it had minimal metal content. Such anecdotes underscore the vital role of AIT scanners in closing the gap on person-borne threats. Best practices when implementing body scanners include maintaining random alarm resolution procedures (e.g. pat-downs for a percentage of travelers to deter tampering) and continuous staff training on image analysis, although modern systems automate most of the detection and simply highlight areas on a generic avatar that need checking. As a trade-off, AIT units typically have slightly slower throughput (approximately 150–200 passengers per hour) compared to WTMD (which can process 200–300 per hour), so some airports use a combination: metal detectors for known low-risk passengers (e.g. those in trusted traveler programs) and body scanners for others, balancing security and efficiency.

Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) Systems: ETD devices have become a staple of airport security checkpoints, used to swab baggage or passenger hands/clothing for microscopic traces of explosives. These systems, which often rely on ion mobility spectrometry or mass spectrometry, can detect a wide range of explosive compounds at extremely low thresholds (on the order of nanograms). In practice, ETD is used as a secondary screening tool — for example, if a bag triggers an alarm on X-ray/CT or a passenger sets off the body scanner, an officer will collect a swab sample and analyze it in the ETD machine for explosives. ETDs address the gap of non-visible threats: even if an explosive is well-concealed or disguised, it may leave trace residue that this chemical test can catch.

From 2021–2025, I routinely managed ETD operation at Astana Airport. Daily maintenance and calibration were crucial, as was ensuring consumables (swabs, calibration traps) were stocked. In one incident, an ETD alarm in Astana detected traces of TNT on a passenger’s laptop, prompting further investigation — it was later learned the individual had been on a demolition worksite recently, explaining the residue. Such cases reinforce ETD’s value as an extra layer of security. Newer ETD developments aim to improve usability and reduce false positives (which can occur from chemically similar substances like some fertilizers or heart medication). The U. S. Department of Homeland Security’s S&T Directorate has been pursuing Next-Generation ETD that is faster and more automated [3].

Additionally, S&T reported delivering prototype detectors capable of analyzing liquids in bottles for explosives without opening them, which could further augment liquid screening if deployed. Best practice is to integrate ETD screening smartly: e.g., only swabbing when triggered by other intelligence or alarms, to minimize passenger delays. Airports also often conduct random ETD swabs on both passengers and bags (including those of PreCheck or transit passengers) as an unpredictable measure.

Automation and Integration of Screening Lanes: Beyond individual devices, the design of the checkpoint itself is evolving. Many major airports have introduced automated screening lanes (ASLs) that incorporate motorized conveyor systems, automated bin return, and multiple stations for divesting items simultaneously [13]. These lanes, often paired with CT scanners, allow several passengers to load their belongings in parallel, significantly increasing throughput. The automated rollers pull bins through X-ray/CT and then divert any that trigger alarms to a separate area, where an officer can inspect without holding up the main line. This concept was part of IATA and ACI’s «Smart Security» initiative, which I had studied when considering upgrades in Astana. Although resource intensive, ASLs have proven effective at high-volume hubs like London Heathrow and Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson, reducing wait times and required staffing per lane. Integration also extends to remote screening: some airports now send X-ray or CT images to a central room where off-site officers analyze them, allowing flexible staffing and reducing on-floor crowding (this became appealing during COVID-19 for contact reduction [12]). In terms of outcome, integrated lanes and remote image analysis streamline the checkpoint while maintaining or improving security by enabling cross-verification and specialist review of images.

Emerging and Future Technologies: Research and pilot programs indicate that the next wave of security tech is on the horizon. For instance, shoe screening devices are being trialed so passengers can keep footwear on — DHS demonstrated a prototype shoe scanner in 2025 that can detect explosives in shoes without removal [3]. «Screening-at-speed» is a concept DHS S&T is pushing, envisioning a checkpoint where passengers may not even need to divest items or pause, instead, a combination of sensors (imaging, vapor detection, etc.) could scan people and bags in motion. One prototype in this vein is a pod-based self-service scanner, where travelers step into a screening pod and are scanned automatically (with millimeter-wave and AI) at their own pace.

I had the opportunity to observe a trial of a self-service screening pod, where passengers guided themselves through the process, and both throughput and user satisfaction were being evaluated. Another frontier is the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze X-ray/CT images for a wider array of threats (like 3D-printed firearms or novel explosives) and to adapt to new patterns. Open architecture software platforms advocated by TSA [14] aim to make it easier to deploy improved detection algorithms across different manufacturers’ machines quickly. Overall, the trajectory is toward less intrusive, faster, and smarter checkpoints.

Prototype pod-based self-service scanner unveiled by the U. S. DHS in 2025 as part of the «Screening at Speed» initiative. Passengers step into the pod and are scanned with advanced sensors and AI without direct officer intervention. Such innovations seek to minimize contact and streamline the process, potentially allowing future travelers to clear security with minimal divestment and waiting. In trials, these pods — along with other concepts like shoe scanners — demonstrated the feasibility of improving both detection capability and passenger experience through automation and new technology.

Enhancing Policies and Procedures

Technological tools are only as effective as the policies and human practices that accompany them. Several best practices in procedures and management have gained traction:

Risk-Based Screening and Trusted Traveler Programs: One way to reduce strain on the system is to focus resources where risk is higher. Risk-based screening uses intelligence and passenger data to differentiate screening levels. The TSA’s PreCheck program is a prime example — vetted, low-risk travelers get expedited screening (shoes on, laptops in bag, etc.), freeing up resources to focus on unknown or higher-risk passengers. Many countries have similar programs (Global Entry, EU «Registered Traveller», etc.). While these don’t directly increase the capability to detect threats, they increase efficiency and allow more thorough screening of those who warrant it. ACI World’s security experts have highlighted the value of risk-based measures: layering programs like these on top of baseline measures has yielded positive outcomes without compromising security [4]. In Kazakhstan, a risk-based approach was applied by designating certain flight routes (e.g. non-stop to the U. S. or Israel) for enhanced screening measures, while domestic CIS flights had slightly relaxed protocols. Furthermore, intelligence-led screening — reacting to current threat information (such as extra checks for electronics during the 2017 laptop bomb threat period) — is a key practice.

Security Management Systems (SeMS) and Culture: Borrowing from safety management, many airports are implementing Security Management Systems. SeMS is a systematic, proactive approach to managing security risks, which includes regular risk assessments, data-driven decision making, and fostering a strong security culture among staff. ACI’s Vice President for Security noted that an internal security culture and staff training can greatly enhance outcomes. In practice, this means empowering employees at all levels to identify and report security concerns, continuously training screeners with the latest threat information (e.g. images of newly discovered concealment methods), and promoting a sense of mission.

I had spearheaded monthly security briefings at Astana Airport where screening officers reviewed recent incidents and shared lessons learned, which improved alertness and morale. Another facet is performance testing — conducting regular in-house «red team» tests to find weaknesses, then using those results to improve training or procedures. Airports that treat these not as punitive but as learning opportunities tend to foster improvement. A security culture also extends to the traveling public: through signage and public education (like reminding passengers well in advance of prohibited items and what to expect), compliance improves and the checkpoint experience smoothens. TSA and other agencies have invested in passenger engagement via social media and websites (for instance, TSA’s detailed «What Can I Bring?» tool and travel tips [15]), which indirectly support security by reducing accidental rule violations that cause delays.

Global Standards Harmonization and One-Stop Security: In an increasingly interconnected world, aligning security standards internationally helps ensure that no weak links are left and also allows for efficiencies such as mutual recognition of screening. ICAO sets the baseline through Annex 17 and related guidance, but beyond that, forums like the ICAO Aviation Security Panel, ECAC, and APEC work on standardizing advanced measures. One outcome is the concept of One-Stop Security, where a passenger and their baggage, once screened at the origin airport to an agreed standard, need not be rescreened when transiting through another airport. The EU has implemented this within its member states and with certain third countries (like UK, U.S., Canada in some cases) — a passenger connecting in Europe from, say, Tokyo can skip a second screening if Tokyo’s outbound screening is deemed equivalent.

This requires harmonization of technology and procedures (for example, both airports must have similar liquid screening capabilities and follow ICAO’s guidelines on prohibited items). The benefit is a more seamless journey for travelers and less redundant workload for security staff. Kazakhstan, aspiring to be a regional hub, has engaged in such harmonization efforts, as noted in 2022, Kazakhstan’s aviation authority joined an ICAO regional group and committed to stepwise implementation of European security standards by 2030. Adopting globally-recognized best practices (like those from ECAC) allowed Astana Airport to confidently negotiate one-stop security arrangements for future routes.

For instance, the groundwork is being laid so that when direct flights to the U. S. launch, Astana’s screening will meet TSA standards and connecting passengers in the U. S. could avoid extra screening — a selling point for airlines and passengers. Overall, moving toward common standards — whether it’s equipment performance (e.g. an ECAC EDS CB C3 standard for CT scanners) or training and certification of officers — elevates security worldwide and facilitates international travel [17]. Harmonization is not without obstacles (as some countries have unique threats or political considerations), but ongoing dialogues and bilateral agreements continue to bridge gaps [16].

Process Optimization and Continual Improvement: Airports are also improving the layout and processes at checkpoints in pragmatic ways. Simple changes like better divestment tables, alternate line queuing systems, or using tablets to redirect passengers to shorter lines can make a difference. Many have introduced «family/special needs» lanes to handle passengers who may take longer, thus not holding up business travelers. Checkpoint signage and instructions have been refined using human factors research (for example, using universal pictograms to show what must come out of bags, or deploying staff as «divestment coaches» at the start of lines).

My team in Astana experimented with a preliminary checkpoint information kiosk — an officer with a pictorial flipbook who would brief passengers while they waited — which resulted in fewer secondary bag searches. On the staffing side, optimizing shift schedules so that screeners remain vigilant (avoiding overly long stretches on X-ray monitors, rotating tasks frequently) is a best practice to reduce fatigue-related misses. The integration of data analytics is an emerging tool: some airports now monitor in real-time the throughput and alarm rates of each lane and adjust staffing or open additional lanes dynamically. Machine learning may even predict when a lane will back up due to the composition of passengers (number of seniors, etc.) and suggest interventions. These operational tweaks, while not as headline-grabbing as a new scanner, are crucial to achieving the twin goals of high security and high efficiency.

3. Practical Knowledge Transfer: From Kazakhstan’s Experience to Global Practice

My tenure at Nursultan Nazarbayev International Airport illustrates how a local context can implement global best practices and, conversely, contribute lessons to the wider industry. Kazakhstan, as a growing aviation market, made a strategic decision to adhere to the highest international standards in security to attract airlines and ensure safe operations. This meant investing in modern technology and training despite budget constraints. For example, even before regulatory mandates, Astana’s airport procured new dual-view X-ray machines in 2021 for carry-on screening, replacing aging single-view units, to enhance detection of creative threats. These were complemented by explosive trace detectors at every lane, a practice common in U. S. and European hubs but not universal in all developing airports at the time. By 2023, the airport had also set up an internal X-ray image library and recurrent training program for operators, using materials from ICAO and U. S. TSA—this improved operators’ threat recognition scores on quarterly proficiency tests by 15 %.

Kazakhstan also benefited from international collaboration. The U. S. EXBS (Export Control and Related Border Security) program, as noted, funded training exchanges that acquainted Kazakh officers with TSA procedures and even contemplated donating advanced screening equipment. The knowledge transfer went both ways: visiting U. S. experts learned how Kazakh security integrated thorough manual checks (a strong suit developed from years of counter-narcotics screening) with technology, providing ideas for U. S. cargo and landside security measures. I was directly involved in these exchanges and later applied some U. S. techniques in Astana, such as introducing random covert testing of screeners and using canine teams for explosives detection during special operations. Meanwhile, Kazakhstan’s achievement in meeting 83 % of ICAO’s security effectiveness criteria demonstrates that with commitment, even airports outside the usual spotlight can reach world-class standards. This case underlines that global best practices are truly global — they can be adopted, practiced, and proven in any country, and doing so not only enhances security locally but raises the bar for international aviation security collectively (the principle of ICAO’s «No Country Left Behind» initiative).

For U. S. aviation stakeholders, Kazakhstan’s story holds a few lessons. It reaffirms the importance of embracing new technology early and of rigorous self-auditing and continuous improvement. It also shows the value of independent validation: Astana airport proactively invited international auditors and sought certifications, which helped identify gaps that might have been overlooked internally. U.S. airports, though generally advanced, vary greatly in size and resources, smaller regional airports in the U. S. might relate to the resource challenges that Astana faced. Strategies like pooling resources (e.g., state-level purchasing of equipment) or phased upgrades can be informed by such examples abroad. Additionally, my experience positions (and similar experts) to help U. S. aviation by providing an outside-in perspective: having navigated both ICAO and TSA expectations, and implemented changes on the ground, the author can advise on compliance and optimization in a holistic way. This is the foundation for the author’s U. S.-based consulting business in aviation security compliance and technology — leveraging practical know-how from Kazakhstan and international forums to assist U. S. airports, airlines, and regulatory bodies in enhancing their security programs. The consulting practice focuses on areas like technology integration (e.g., how to effectively deploy CT or biometrics in a given airport environment), audit preparation, training curriculum development, and bridging any gaps between global standards and local implementation. In a sense, it embodies knowledge transfer in action: taking the hard-won insights from one part of the world to benefit another, ultimately contributing to safer skies for all.

Conclusion

Aviation security screening is in the midst of a significant evolution, driven by both technology and a sharpened understanding of operational best practices. The period from 2021 to 2025 witnessed rapid advancements: 3D CT scanners are transitioning from pilot deployments to everyday tools at checkpoints, body scanning has become de facto standard for passenger screening, and auxiliary technologies like ETD devices and AI-driven algorithms are adding layers of defense against cunning threats. These innovations directly target long-standing pain points — reducing false alarms, speeding up passenger processing, and catching threats that previously might slip through. Equally important are the refinements in process: adopting risk-based methods to allocate effort wisely, fostering a proactive security culture among staff, and harmonizing international standards to ensure that security is consistently strong worldwide. The net effect is a system that is moving toward higher security and greater passenger convenience.

My practical experience at a major Central Asian airport reinforces that these advances are achievable and beneficial in real-world settings. By daily engagement with the equipment and procedures — calibrating machines, troubleshooting incidents — I had observed first-hand how incremental improvements (a new SOP, a better scanner) compounded to raise the overall security posture. It also highlighted that people remain a critical component: well-trained, alert officers can make the most of high-tech tools, whereas lacking that, even the best equipment may underperform. Thus, the human factor and technology must advance hand-in-hand.

Looking ahead, the future of airport security screening points toward even less invasive and more intelligence-driven approaches. We can envision a checkpoint where most passengers simply walk through a corridor without pausing, as invisible sensors screen them and their bags in real time — some airports are already experimenting with such concepts on a small scale. Biometrics might replace boarding passes and IDs, reducing identity fraud and streamlining the journey (trials of facial recognition systems are growing). Artificial intelligence will continue to learn from vast datasets of threat images to improve automatic detection. The lingering inconveniences like removing shoes or jackets may disappear as new detectors and policies come online (the TSA’s 2025 shoe scanner demo suggests this change is on the horizon). Importantly, the layers of security beyond the checkpoint — intelligence, passenger vetting, cargo screening, perimeter security, etc. — will integrate more tightly with checkpoint operations under unified security management systems. This holistic approach means that a detected risk in one area (say an intel tip about a certain individual) can instantly inform how screening is conducted elsewhere (like extra measures for that person at the airport). In such a future, expertise in both technology and compliance will be in high demand, as airports navigate complex upgrades and regulatory expectations.

For aviation professionals and policymakers, staying abreast of these advancements is essential. Investing wisely in proven technologies, sharing best practices through international cooperation, and supporting front-line personnel with training and leadership yields a high return in security effectiveness. The article’s insights, backed by industry references and my hands-on knowledge, aim to serve as a resource in that ongoing effort. My goal is to contribute to this evolution — helping airports and airlines implement cutting-edge solutions and meet stringent standards, ultimately raising the bar for aviation security while facilitating growth in air travel.

In conclusion, the path to safer skies lies in innovation, collaboration, and experience-driven strategies. The advances in airport security screening technology and best practices detailed here demonstrate that the aviation community is responding to threats with ingenuity and rigor. Challenges persist, but they are being met with smarter systems and smarter policies that improve security outcomes and passenger satisfaction together. From Astana to Atlanta, the knowledge shared and applied makes every flight more secure. With continued commitment to excellence and adaptation, airport security will remain a step ahead of those who seek to do harm, ensuring that the freedom of air travel is preserved and protected for generations to come.

References:

1. Copenhagen Optimization. «CT scanners: The airport security technology of the future». Updated August 27, 2025. URL:copenhagenoptimization.com/blog/airport-security-technology
2. Transportation Security Administration (TSA). «Computed Tomography». Accessed Sept. 2025. URL:www.tsa.gov/computed-tomography
3. DHS Science & Technology Directorate. «Feature Article: S&T Technology is Keeping our Skies Safe». June 17, 2025. URL:www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2025/06/17/feature-article-st-technology-keeping-our-skies-safe
4. Dowd, Darryl (Interviewee). «Staying ahead of the threat curve: ACI World’s Darryl Dowd on airport security in 2025». Sept. 17, 2025. URL:www.internationalairportreview.com/article/292156/staying-ahead-of-the-threat-curve-aci-worlds-darryl-dowd-on-airport-security-in-2025
5. BOS Security. «Global Standards in Airport Screening: Comparing Security Protocols Worldwide». May 18, 2025. URL:www.bossecurity.com/2025/05/18/global-standards-in-airport-screening-comparing-security-protocols-worldwide
6. Astana Times — Haidar, Aida. «Kazakh Aviation Administration Shares Plans to Launch Flights to US and Efforts to Improve Aviation Security». May 5, 2023. URL:astanatimes.com/2023/05/kazakh-aviation-administration-shares-plans-to-launch-flights-to-us-and-efforts-to-improve-aviation-security
7. Astrophysics Inc. «4 X-Ray Technologies That Will Make You a Security Expert». June 2020. URL:astrophysicsinc.com/4-x-ray-technologies-that-will-make-you-a-security-expert
8. Associated Press (via MPR News). «New airport scanners are better at spotting liquid explosives, but many airports lack them». (AP File). July 19, 2025. URL:apnews.com/article/airport-liquids-tsa-kristi-noem-homeland-security-6b904af29658f740e57e6f94a2ac12bd
9. Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation –Amendment 18, 2022. URL:www.studocu.vn/vn/document/hoc-vien-hang-khong-viet-nam/tong-quan-hkdd/icao-annex-17-security/99840044
10. Airport Cabin Baggage Scanner Market | Global Market Analysis Report — 2035 URL:www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/airport-cabin-baggage-scanner-market
11. The Last Piece of the Puzzle: CT Scanners at Security Checkpoints | ACI World Insights URL:blog.aci.aero/airport-security/the-last-piece-of-the-puzzle-ct-scanners-at-security-checkpoints/
12. Checkpoint CT scanners pave the way for the contactless checkpoint URL:www.smithsdetection.com/insights/checkpoint-ct-scanners-pave-the-way-for-the-contactless-checkpoint/
13. Cabin Baggage — Leidos URL:www.leidos.com/markets/aviation/security-detection/aviation-checkpoint/cabin-baggage
14. Open Architecture | Transportation Security Administration — TSA URL:www.tsa.gov/for-industry/open-architecture
15. Travel Tips 2025 | Transportation Security Administration — TSA URL:www.tsa.gov/travel/travel-tips/2025
16. Harmonizing Global Standards for Travelers — Homeland Security URL:www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2025/08/19/harmonizing-global-standards-travelers
17. ICAO's evolving framework on aviation security — what airports must URL: www.internationalairportreview.com/article/289729/icaos-evolving-framework-on-aviation-security-what-airports-must-do-now/