Category: Aviation

Philip Baum considers the impact of the ongoing conflict in Israel and Gaza on the aviation industry and identifies potential challenges for those responsible for ensuring security at airports and in the skies.

More than two months have passed since the horrific terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas fighters against Israel on October 7, 2023, and, save for a week’s pause in hostilities, on a daily basis ever since, we have borne witness to the subsequent exacerbation of the humanitarian tragedy which has befallen the residents of the Gaza Strip as a result of Israel’s mission to free the 240 hostages seized that fateful day and, simultaneously, attempt to destroy Hamas completely.

It was an intentionally long opening sentence to this article, but it is one which has probably already riled some readers who struggle to brand Hamas a terrorist organization or, on the flip side, have little empathy for the Palestinians killed or forever scarred by the brutality of war. There may be even a few (precious few, I hope) conspiracy theorists out there, as there were post-9/11, who even question whether the October 7 attacks even happened.

And therein lies one of the challenges facing the aviation community — amongst many other global industries — as we bring together people with divergent viewpoints on a highly emotive conflict. Like LinkedIn — pre-October attempting to remain a professional networking site yet now rife with hate speech on all sides — we have to consider what the Israel/Gaza (or Israel/Palestine) war means for the passengers we fly, the routes we operate, the staff we employ and the cargo we transport. This is a conflict that can, and already has, impact the good order and discipline on board aircraft … and worse.

The aviation industry, alike other transportation modes, faces a number of distinct challenges. At the disruptive, yet legal, incident end of the scale, we are witnessing airport-based protests — by both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups — who are concerned about the way in which the industry directly or indirectly facilitates the movement of weapons. Airports have, after all, increasingly become the stages for political expression regarding topics as diverse as the climate crisis, human trafficking, asylum-related issues, labor pay and governmental corruption. In the middle of the scale, we have aggressive behaviour taking place in our terminals or within aircraft cabins where those with different perspectives are clashing with each other and where we are witnessing blatant Islamophobia and antisemitism. Further along our continuum, there are specific acts of violence, as occurred in Dagestan (more later), where people and facilities are targeted by mobs; such actions have the potential to cause serious injury or even death. Finally, we cannot ignore the potential for the anger, senses of injustice, hopelessness and frustration experienced by many (I have to reiterate, on all sides) to lead to the very worst kind of acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation we traditionally exert our energies on preventing.

Addressing the topic, it’s nigh on impossible to avoid being political, so let me tackle the elephant in the room head-on — my own viewpoint. I’m not going to take you on a potted history of the conflict; you can find that elsewhere and, if we’re honest, most people will, as with the news channels they elect to view, read the history as related by those they empathize with the most. In an era of soundbite communication fueled by the anonymity afforded us by social media platforms, opinions are aplenty and the truth is hard to find. The reality is that we face a challenge of two peoples with legitimate concerns about their security and, indeed, very existence. Even if you don’t believe that one side’s claims are legitimate, the people on the ground are a reality. Israel does exist as an independent state and the Palestinians should, likewise, have a homeland. Bottom line, I still passionately believe in the two-state solution, even if that may incur the wrath of those towards the right of the Israeli, or even western, political spectrum, or the condemnation of those who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge Israel’s right to continued existence at all.

Responsibility and Rhetoric

All of us operating within the industry need to ensure that we are on the side of good order and discipline regardless as to our own viewpoints. It’s a challenge. The media certainly haven’t got it right and are blatantly causing upset to people on both sides with the imagery they show and the rhetoric they use. Sometimes we might not even appreciate the sense of injustice words or focus can cause. For example, those supporting the Israeli narrative condemn the BBC for failing to brand Hamas a terrorist organization — even though the British government regards it as such — and are frustrated that all coverage of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza on Al Jazeera is captioned “Gaza Genocide”; the words “terrorist” and “genocide” are politically charged, rarely devoid of bias and are clearly debatable. Both sides seize the opportunity to inject the word “Nazi” into their description of their opponents, exactly as is the case in the war between Russia and Ukraine. Those empathizing more with the Palestinian side express disgust with the extent of the media’s coverage of the trauma the Israeli families of the 240 hostages are going through, and consider their pain completely disproportionate to that endured by an entire displaced population wondering whether they will live to see the next day as the Israeli bombardment continues. We need to be sensitive to the perspectives of those we serve and we need to police the operation to ensure that our customers and service providers do likewise. The advantages are twofold — the prevention of conflict on board aircraft and the potential identification of insiders working amongst us who may be expressing sentiments which should be sounding the alarm bells.

For years, those of us who have taught aviation security have referred to the actions of the Palestinian groups of the 1960s to 1980s as terrorist attacks. I recall, when interviewing Leila Khaled in Jordan regarding her active participation in two hijackings (TWA, 1969, and El Al, 1970), that her only precondition for our meeting was that any report I wrote would not brand her a terrorist. I let people form their own opinion. Interestingly, that’s the BBC stance today regarding Hamas.

In order to avoid workplace conflict, we need to exercise caution in, and recognize the dangers of, convoluting words and terminology. Muslims are not the same as Arabs, Palestinians are not the same as Hamas, and Israelis are not the same as Jews. Any glance at social media, sadly including professional networks, will demonstrate that we’ve a long way to go. A failure to do so in this context directly feeds Islamophobia and antisemitism which is particularly worrisome for those operating in cosmopolitan environments.

I write as a Londoner. Whilst most British people are rightly upset by the images they see of Gaza on their TV screens, there are those who struggle with the de-Christianizing and de-whitening of their society and worry about the implications of mass immigration from predominantly Muslim nations. That latent racism amongst a small but significant minority was, I believe, one of the reasons why the nation, by the slenderest of majorities, voted for Brexit (exiting the European Union).

In the meantime, the U.K.’s Jewish community is also experiencing hate at unprecedented levels. The Community Security Trust (CST) reported on December 6 that in the 61 days since October 7 they had, “recorded at least 1890 antisemitic incidents across the U.K. This is the highest ever total reported to CST across a sixty-one-day period.” For comparison, “CST recorded 301 antisemitic incidents over the same 61 days in 2022. This means that we have seen an increase in anti-Jewish hate acts of 528% this year compared to the same period last year.” The U.S.A. is no different with the Anti-Defamation League announcing — also on 6 December 6 — that it had recorded a 337% increase in incidents over the same period in 2022. The relevance — our aircraft are a microcosm of society and increases of hate crimes on the ground, whoever they are directed at, can result in an increase in unruly incidents in the air.

In terms of this conflict, there appears to be a readiness to tarnish all with the same brush. By no means do all Muslims support Hamas and nor do all Israelis support Israeli government action; just like not all Americans support either Trump or Biden and not all British people wanted to leave the European Union. Many are aghast at what their governments stand for. Our security briefings need to weed out any inherent generalizations we carelessly may include.

Failure of Leadership

Whilst the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is long-standing and October 7 was clearly not the beginning, the events of that day were a game-changer and there are many lessons to be learned. Let’s start with the fact that it was a security failure of unimaginable magnitude.

I hope that we will eventually learn the details of the intelligence purportedly shared with Israel prior to the attack and why it wasn’t treated with the degree of seriousness it warranted. Israel has long been regarded as having the gold standard of security both operationally and in respect of its processing of intelligence; this image was shattered. The scale of the snafu was one thing, but the simplicity of the attack should also serve as a lesson to us all.

We ensure the security of our airports through the deployment of checkpoints and fences; these offer little protection if they are attacked by large groups of armed individuals. And this was demonstrated at Makhachkala Airport in the Russian republic of Dagestan on October 29 this year.

Sickening scenes of hundreds of pro-Palestinian, antisemitic protestors storming the airport rapidly went viral on social media. Their target was a Red Wings aircraft arriving from Israel — or rather the passengers on board. This was no peaceful protest — the mob, carrying Palestinian flags and shouting “Allahu Akbar” broke through doors in the terminal and stormed onto the tarmac. One has to question whether any airport is staffed and equipped to repel such as action, yet every security manager should be re-examining their contingency plans for managing such an incident. Many will have already rehearsed scenarios to counter the threat posed by environmental groups, such as Extinction Rebellion, aiming to paralyze an airport’s ability to operate.

Protests

The right to peaceful protest may be one we are keen to preserve, although I have long been concerned that permitting such action at airports can distract the security services from their primary responsibility of ensuring that aircraft and their users are able to operate safely and securely.

Pro-Palestinian groups have already carried out a number of protests at European airports.

On November 14, Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam became the target of a group protesting the Dutch government’s role in supplying arms to Israel. They were chanting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which takes us back to the issue of rhetoric.

In our soundbite world, where issues — often laudable ones — become trendy, we must exercise even greater caution. I’ve already stated that I yearn for an indepe≠≠≠ndent Palestinian state, so I do believe in a “free Palestine”. But the Free Palestine movement’s catchphrase “From the river to the sea” does seemingly negate Israel’s right to exist and implies conquering the entire Holy Land. Is an airport really the right place for such aspirations to be uttered?

Meanwhile, in Dublin, activists occupied the European Commission offices in the city to both protest military arms being flown to Israel via Shannon Airport (in the west of Ireland) and against Ursula von der Leyen’s (president of the European Commission) solidarity visit to Israel.

It was a pro-Israeli group of demonstrators who decided to make their voices heard at Miami International Airport on December 3. They were protesting Qatar Airways being able to operate to the USA given the relationship between the Qatari government and Hamas.

Freedom of Dress

Expressions of political affiliation in the air have the potential to be more serious than those on the ground, where law enforcement is available to police an organized event and respond to excesses should they occur.

In the U.S., there were a number of inflight outbursts between Republicans and Democrats both in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election as President and, in January 2021, pursuant to the Capitol Hill riots. Some of these were instigated by the clothes people wore – the “Make America Great Again” cap being a particular trigger for some, simple badges identifying voting allegiance for others. Likewise in the U.K. during the Brexit campaign.

On November 28 this year an American Airlines flight was operating a domestic route from New York JFK to Phoenix when a flight attendant noticed a passenger wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with the word “Palestine.” The man was asked to remove the sweatshirt and wear it inside-out in order to minimize the potential for either offense to be caused to other passengers or, for some, paranoia to set in. There was no argument on board, rather an upset individual feeling silenced by the crew, albeit his humiliating experience has since been championed by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

These are very real challenges. After all, if wearing a Palestinian shirt or emblem is unacceptable, then presumably so should wearing an Israeli flag on one’s clothing? But if that is the case, there are a whole list of countries whose flags could anger others on board. Should Russians and Ukrainians be allowed to? And a Kurdish passenger may well be upset by somebody donning clothing with the Turkish flag. One could almost say that no flags or emblems should be tolerated as someone might be upset!

Coincidentally, I was travelling on a train in Bangkok a week ago when I was appalled to see probably the single most offensive T-shirt I have ever witnessed. I can’t write here the actual wording, but it used the most derogatory word in the English language to describe Jesus. I certainly hope that no aircrew would ever permit that shirt to be worn on an aircraft.

Other Conflicts

The plight of the Palestinian people should not be under-estimated, but it is strange how the eyes of the world are fixated on this conflict in particular. For sure, the imagery emanating from Gaza is agonizing to watch and we are simply not seeing anything like that scale of destruction anywhere else. But that doesn’t mean that death tolls elsewhere are not staggering to comprehend.

People are not taking to the streets of capital cities to campaign for the rights of other oppressed groups. I mentioned the Kurds earlier. Despite the thousands killed in their conflict with Turkey and ongoing air strikes (240 Kurdish locations reportedly hit by Turkey in 2022), the streets of European cities remain free from mass protest.

In March this year, the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) announced that it has documented, “the deaths of 230,224 Syrian civilians, including 15,272 who died due to torture, in addition to the arbitrary arrest/enforced disappearance of 154,817 others, while roughly 14 million citizens have been displaced.” Last year, the Middle East Monitor reported that the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad and its allies had been responsible for around 91% of deaths since the start of the conflict. Concern expressed by a few, but no flag waving.

There have been relatively few — and are currently a declining number of — pro-Ukrainian demonstrations condemning Russian military action. Nor for the Rohingyas of Myanmar. According to the United Nations, “860,000 Rohingya refugees are living in settlements across Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar district. Most of them, some 740,000, fled from Myanmar during the most recent displacement crisis in 2017. Other countries in the region host some 150,000 Rohingya refugees.” Darfur was topical for a while and, despite an August 2023 United Nations report accusing China of committing abuses that might be considered crimes against humanity against Uyghurs and other Turkic communities in the Xinjiang region, it remains just that — a report.

The Democratic Republic of Congo is host to one of the most significant ongoing catastrophes, yet it receives next to no airplay. The United Nations highlights that, “More than 6.2 million people are displaced within the country and more than one million Congolese have sought asylum, mostly within Africa. At the same time, the DRC hosts more than half a million refugees from neighboring countries.” And since this October, hostilities have increased and the plight of the population has worsened.

Yemen has, according to UN figures, 21.6 million people requiring some form of humanitarian assistance as a result of eight years of conflict in which the Houthis are trying to take control of the entire country. But the world observes in silence. The Houthis, being supporters of Hamas, launched a Qader missile strike on the Israeli port of Eilat on October 31 this year; it was destroyed by Israel’s Arrow missile-defense system. The incident is described by many as the first shoot-down of a ballistic missile outside of Earth’s atmosphere and is, therefore, the first recorded combat ever to take place in space. Most of the threat posed by the Houthis has been directed at maritime interests and, on December 12, they hit — but did not destroy — a Norwegian vessel they claimed was heading towards Israel.

The arguably excessive focus on Israel and Gaza is partially down to the access to social media, and presence of journalists (at great personal risk) in Gaza when compared to the other conflicts listed (except Ukraine). Ships at sea can be targeted but stories of executions, beheadings, and rapes at a music festival, and in the surrounding communities, or the plight of Palestinian women and children dying in their thousands have greater media appeal. But perhaps the West perceives the lack of peace between Israel and the Palestinians as a threat to their own societies … or, perhaps to be more accurate, illustrative of the potential threat to their own societies?

The examples listed, I should stress, are not designed to detract from the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, rather they are directed at a security industry audience who have to react to the unsung conflicts of the globe as well.

Profiling

I have been an ardent supporter and promoter of profiling, but completely reject racial profiling. There is little doubt that the xenophobia that exists within the security services of many states can extrapolate into discriminatory action. No community has experienced this more than those who follow the Muslim faith. For that reason, in training, I try, wherever possible, to use examples of attacks perpetrated by a broad range of adversaries; the attempt is to avoid stereotyping the threat.

Then again, no faith has been a greater victim of Islamist actions than Muslims themselves.

Muslim nations are equally concerned about the actions of groups such as Hamas and so are many religious councils. Indeed, in March this year the Islamic Fatwa Council issued a fatwa decreeing that “Hamas bears responsibility for its own reign of corruption and terror against Palestinian citizens within Gaza” and that it was prohibiting people “to pray for, join, support, finance, or fight on behalf of Hamas — an entity that adheres to the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood movement”. And, in respect of the Muslim Brotherhood, they define their ideology as being, “The Islamist, violent, terroristic belief system and charter that advocates for the establishment of a global Islamist caliphate by all means necessary.” They even issued a charge sheet that many would have expected to be drafted by the Israeli government rather than an Islamic court.

Again, it all boils down to not tarnishing people with the same brush. The problem is not Islam per se, rather the extremist elements.

And they exist in Israel too. For the past year Israeli society has been divided by the election of a government that, as a result of coalition-building, includes some extremist characters that the majority of Israelis struggle to accept as being suitable to serve in Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet. The country has been tearing itself apart as large numbers of civilians have been protesting reforms to the judiciary.

Many believe that the internal divisions within Israeli society were one reason why the October 7 attacks were “successful” — the government had its eyes on internal challenges, including the protection of illegal settlements in the West Bank. These outposts are often “home” to religious vigilantes who believe that they have a biblical claim to the territory in which they reside. The more extremist members of this community are associated with the ‘Price-Tag’ movement whose guerilla attacks on local Arab villages deserve condemnation, yet the more extreme elements of Netanyahu’s government not only support them but openly encourage them to bear arms, officially in order to protect themselves.

Worst-Case Scenarios

From an aviation security perspective, the possibility of an aircraft hijacking perpetrated by suicidal terrorists, a marauding firearms attack at an airport, the bombing of an aircraft or the shooting down of an aircraft in flight cannot be ignored. Complacency is not an option, nor is a failure of imagination.

It’s easy to focus all our attention on conflict zones. Unsurprisingly, despite the success of the Iron Dome interception system, most overseas carriers suspended their operations to Israel within days of October 7; many have since resumed operations. According to the Israel Defense Force, by 5 December Hamas had fired 11,000 rockets towards Israel, 3,500 on the first day of the current period of hostilities.

On December 10, video footage emerged of an Arkia Airlines flight landing at Ben Gurion International Airport amid a barrage of missile attacks emanating from Gaza; some of the video was filmed by passengers on board. The airline has, throughout the conflict, continued to operate flights between Tel Aviv and Eilat.

Conclusion

Whatever your opinion is regarding the current conflict, and regardless as to whether you are advocating for a ceasefire, humanitarian pause or continued military action, the threat to aviation remains ever-present. The greatest threat is posed by Islamist groups, just as they have in the past, prepared to sacrifice the lives of the innocent and even themselves for their cause. Whilst we need to remain vigilant to all types of actions that can disrupt our operations, from unruly passengers through to suicidal terrorists, we now need to be extra alert to the insider threat. It is more than likely that there are some industry employees who, in light of the images they are witnessing and spurred on by the rhetoric and fake news of social media, could somehow justify actions that are incompatible with the goals of the aviation security industry — to ensure all passengers, all crews, all airports and all aircraft are safe from action that could have catastrophic results.

Philip Baum is visiting professor of aviation security at Coventry University, the managing director of Green Light Ltd., and the former editor of Aviation Security International. In 2021, he was presented with a Lifetime Achievement and Contribution to Aviation Security award by Emirates Group Security and Edith Cowan University. He is the chair of both Behavioral Analysis 2024 and DISPAX World 2024. He can be contacted at pbaum@avsec.com

The large-scale movement of Palestinians away from Israeli troops advancing into Gaza is just the latest of many mass evacuations to occur in human history. A case in point: According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), more than 6.2 million people have fled from the conflict in Ukraine (as of July 2023). Millions more have left their homes — sometimes en masse, other times based on individual initiative — due to conflicts in Syria, the Tigray region of Ethiopia, Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Yemen, among others.

In this article, Transport Security International will look at the security issues associated with mass evacuations in particular, drawing on documents from the Norwegian Refugee Council, the UNHCR, and the Australian Government’s Attorney-General’s Department. We will also tap into the real-life experience of Osprey Flight Solutions, which handles aviation risk management. Our goal is to give TSI readers a sense of the security issues associated with managing mass evacuations, given the increasing possibility that some of them may be faced with such a challenge sometime in the future.

What an Evacuation Is, and Why People Do It

According to the Evacuation Planning Handbook published by the Australian Attorney-General’s Department (part of its Australian Disaster Resilience handbook collection), “Evacuation is a risk management strategy that may be used to mitigate the effects of an emergency on a community. It involves the movement of people to a safer location and their return. For an evacuation to be effective it must be appropriately planned and implemented.”

The circumstances in which both individual and mass evacuations occur are central to what makes them so risky from a security standpoint. In both instances, people are only leaving because they see no other way to protect themselves and their families in their homes, due to the conflict, violence and chaos raging around them. It is this trifecta of danger from hostile players that makes these evacuations so dangerous, and security of paramount importance — assuming that it can be enforced at all.

“Evacuations are one of the most delicate operations in a crisis environment,” said the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) document, ‘Considerations for Planning Mass Evacuations of Civilians in Conflict Situations’. “While an evacuation can provide an immediate, lifesaving intervention in the face of an imminent threat, evacuations also carry substantial risks and the dilemmas they evoke can be significant. If humanitarians are faced with implementing an evacuation it means all other options have failed. Siege environments (where evacuations are most likely to be needed) are one of the most difficult operating contexts for humanitarian agencies and the process of evacuating can pose dangers for the affected population and humanitarians alike.”

Managing End-to-End Security Risks

For a security official tasked with protecting people in a mass evacuation, the dangers to be dealt with begin when the evacuation is being planned, and only end when the evacuees have arrived safely at a secure destination where they are being housed, fed, and properly protected.

If at all possible — and in war zones such an “if” can be difficult to achieve — the security official needs to identify areas of potential risk and take steps to deal with them before evacuation begins.

For a mass evacuation even to be feasible, there has to be a consensus among all of the parties involved in the conflict — including aid agencies — that such a movement of people can be executed safely and without interference. “If even one organization raises concerns about the rationale for the evacuation, partners should take this seriously and review (even if only quickly) the logic demanding the evacuation,” said the NRC document. “Critically, it is important to identify who is calling for the evacuation: is it the affected persons themselves? Humanitarians? The authority or state? [And] Are there potential alternative motivations driving them?”

This last reservation is worth heeding, because “some stakeholders may call for an evacuation (and even support it directly) in order to be seen to be doing something about a crisis” the NRC document warned. “This desire to be seen to do something can lead actors to call for an evacuation before the evacuees or humanitarians have even decided an evacuation is necessary.”

Assuming that a mass evacuation has been chosen as the preferred course of action, every step of the process needs to be mapped out to identify security risks. This includes everything from who is allowed to evacuate and how they will be screened to eliminate “bad actors”, to where the evacuees will assemble, how they will be transported (often in some form of vehicular “convoy”), what provisions will be made to feed and protect them en route (including medical support), where their final destination will be, and how they will be taken care of there and for how long.

Key Concerns To Plan For

The business of ensuring security during mass evacuations is an extremely complex and often dicey matter. This TSI article will not pretend to be able to authoritatively identify all of the threats a security official needs to watch out for — but we can highlight some key concerns to plan for.

Now, the task of identifying people to be evacuated and preparing them to leave is best left to professional humanitarian aid agencies. Where the security official needs to step up is in ensuring the safety of transportation to and from the staging sites, plus perimeter and access security. Of key concern is whether or not hostile players may take advantage of such a mass gathering to stage terror attacks designed to inflict maximum casualties — such as the August 26, 2021, suicide bombing near Kabul’s international airport that killed 183 people during the West’s retreat from Afghanistan. There is only so much that anyone can do to prevent/deter such attacks, but all possible security steps should be taken nevertheless.

Once the mass evacuees have been readied for transportation — often on buses and/or trucks — ensuring security along the convoy’s route is a top priority. Again, achieving this goal can be very difficult, particularly if the convoy is moving through territory held by those hostile to the evacuees. “Obtaining reliable guarantees from the parties to the conflict to permit safe evacuation of civilians across the frontlines is a challenge, particularly where the parties to the conflict are using civilians as pawns,” said the UNHCR document, ‘Humanitarian Evacuations’. “Even small-scale attempts to evacuate civilians sometimes require arduous negotiations before the warring parties allow the evacuees to leave.”

Even when mass evacuation negotiations have been successfully concluded, “Humanitarian actors should undertake contingency planning for eventual breaches of agreements on safe access and passage by parties to the conflict,” the UNHCR document advised. “Meticulous forward planning will be critical to minimize potential loss of life and any other risks to the civilian population and humanitarian staff.”

Meanwhile, no matter what ceasefires have been arranged to permit the convoy’s safe passage, security officials should assume that trouble will occur and prepare for it as best they can.

“Regardless of the preparations or negotiations that take place in advance of an evacuation, it is possible that the convoy may come under attack,” warned the NRC document. “There is little concrete advice that can be offered on how to manage such a situation, as it will vary significantly by context and by the nature of the attack. The best thing that can be said is to discuss how an attack will be managed prior to departing on the evacuation … Human rights monitors should ideally be present in all evacuations, but this is particularly true if humanitarians feel that there is a risk of part of the convoy being stopped, diverted or having individuals detained.”

Armed Escorts: Yes or No?

In theory, the risk of a mass evacuation convoy being attacked can be mitigated by it being accompanied by armed escorts. However, unless these escorts have enough firepower and depth to successfully deter/repel attacks along the entire route without provoking hostile players, relying on them may not be a good idea.

“In particularly dangerous environments, humanitarians may feel that there is a need for armed escorts to accompany an evacuation convoy,” the NRC document observed. “The use of armed escorts can carry significant risks however, and at times can actually increase the dangers to the convoy if the escorts are not perceived as neutral. [As such] Humanitarians should make every effort to negotiate safe passage so as to avoid having to use an escort and should only resort to an escort when all other alternatives have been ruled out.”

The Need for a Safe and Secure Refuge

So far, we have touched on the security concerns of assembling and moving people safely in mass evacuations. But these concerns do not disappear once the evacuees arrive at their destination unless that location is truly a safe, secure, and well-equipped refuge.

For this to happen, “An evacuation center should be a safe and secure place for meeting the basic needs of people away from the immediate or potential effects of an emergency,” said the Australian Attorney-General’s document. “While the arrangements across jurisdictions will vary, the primary function should be to address basic human needs and support requirements.”

These needs include essentials such as adequate food, water, shelter and medical care; adequate aid personnel to assist and secure the mass evacuees; and a location that — while accessible to mass evacuees — is at “a safe distance from hostilities, besieged or hostile areas as well as border areas.”

All of these elements should be part of consultations with persons of concern and negotiations with the host government and relevant non-state armed actors, who must remain the guarantors of the physical security of the evacuated populations.

Osprey’s Experience

Osprey Flight Solutions’ mission is to “enable systematic risk management,” said the company’s website. “On their own, data, technology and human analysts cannot deliver objective, consistent and dynamic risk management. But by bringing these essential components together — hundreds of thousands of reliable data sources, an industry-leading analysis team, and a proprietary software package to seamlessly fuse them together — we enable operators, governments and regulatory bodies to truly understand the broad spectrum of risks facing each and every flight and thus the global aviation network.”

In recent years, Osprey has provided risk management services to clients fleeing Afghanistan in 2021 and Sudan in 2023. These included detailed strategic analysis of the aviation situation under the names, “Afghanistan: Analysis of the post-war aviation operating environment” and “Sudan Conflict: Osprey’s analysis of the impacts on aviation.”

Even after the event, both documents make for compelling reading. Take Afghanistan in 2021: “The presence of armed conflict within Afghanistan coupled with heightened levels of crime, social unrest and aviation infrastructure deficits pose logistical constraints to civilian flight operations within the country,” wrote Matthew Borie, Osprey chief intelligence officer. “In addition, the threat of militancy posed to aviation within Afghanistan is highlighted by recent attacks against airports and aircraft inflight. Afghanistan does not meet International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards for safety, and the security posture at airports in the country varies considerably. Security personnel are unlikely trained to the highest international standards, and staff responsible for safeguarding airport operations likely face severe difficulties in handling significant aviation-related safety or security events.”

Then there’s Sudan in 2023, following the outbreak of armed conflict in April of that year. “Rerouting of civil aviation overflights away from both FIR Khartoum (HSSS) and FIR Juba (HJJJ) is likely to persist in the near team amid the ongoing armed conflict in Sudan between the RSF [paramilitary Rapid Support Forces] and Sudanese Army,” wrote Osprey Aviation security analyst Sean Patrick. “Operators should remain prepared for an ongoing loss of access to Sudanese and South Sudanese airspace for overflights of FIR Khartoum (HSSS) and FIR Juba (HJJJ) until a ceasefire is reached between the Sudanese Army and RSF, or until adequate ANS [air navigation service] provision can be re-established by the authorities in Sudan.”

Reflecting upon these and other volatile situations, Osprey Fight Solutions’ CEO Andrew Nicholson said, “The fact is that any evacuation, whether due to natural disaster or conflict, is extremely difficult and fraught with challenges, logistical and security … The level of confusion, stress, anger, fear and desperation that is felt by those on the ground puts huge pressure on evacuation routes to be less than perfect in their screening. At the end of the day — and having done this operationally, I know the feeling well — those coming in to actually effect the evacuation are desperate to get everyone out. The feeling of doing your bit to protect the citizens of your nation is almost overwhelming. This feeling is extremely difficult to suppress and can, if unchecked, lead to corner-cutting in order to get as many people out as quickly as possible.”

Three Conclusions

TSI’s research into mass evacuations, as explained by experts in this field, has led us to the following three conclusions:

First, due to the difficult circumstances they are typically conducted in, mass evacuations are inherently risky and insecure. As such, every contingency must be examined by security officials with respect to such operations, guided by the assumption that what can go wrong, will go wrong.

Second, security must be considered at every single stage of a mass evacuation. Every element — from identifying and assembling evacuees through transport and eventual arrival at the destination — entails risks due to hostile players.

Finally, although trust is necessary to broker mass evacuations, trust is frequently broken by players who perceive an advantage in deception and deceit. As such, security officials handling mass evacuations must be prepared to cope when this occurs, to keep evacuees as safe as possible when the proverbial hits the fan.