How 9/11 Changed Airport Security and International Aviation Law

The system of 9/11 airport security familiar to travelers today developed through changes at both the national and international levels. In the United States, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), shifted responsibility for passenger screening to the federal government, required screening of checked baggage, and strengthened protection of aircraft flight decks (United States Congress, 2001). Internationally, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) revised its aviation-security Standards and Recommended Practices and established a mandatory audit program to assess how states implemented the international security framework (ICAO, 2001; ICAO, 2002). September 11 changed the organization and supervision of aviation security as much as the procedures encountered by individual passengers.

Airport security itself did not begin in 2001. The United States had required passenger and carry-on baggage screening since 1973, while airlines remained responsible for checkpoint screening under federal regulation when the September 11 attacks occurred (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 2004). International law had also addressed unlawful interference with civil aviation for decades. The Tokyo Convention of 1963, Hague Convention of 1970, Montreal Convention of 1971, and 1988 Protocol concerning violence at airports serving international civil aviation created treaty obligations addressing offences aboard aircraft, unlawful seizure, sabotage, and attacks connected with civil aviation. ICAO had already adopted Annex 17 to the Chicago Convention, containing international Standards and Recommended Practices on aviation security, in March 1974 (ICAO, 1974).

The attacks nevertheless exposed weaknesses in a system whose rules depended heavily on national implementation. ICAO adopted Amendment 10 to Annex 17 on 7 December 2001, strengthening provisions concerning matters including domestic operations, access control, flight-deck protection, security controls, national quality control, and international cooperation. The amendment became applicable on 1 July 2002 (ICAO, 2001). ICAO Resolution A33-1 also initiated consideration of a global aviation-security audit program, and the High-level Ministerial Conference on Aviation Security in February 2002 endorsed regular, mandatory, systematic, and harmonized audits. The ICAO Council approved the Aviation Security Plan of Action in June 2002, and the first audit under the Universal Security Audit Programme was conducted later that year (ICAO, 2002).

Many security practices now associated with post-9/11 air travel appeared only after subsequent plots exposed different vulnerabilities. Shoe-screening measures followed Richard Reid’s attempted bombing in December 2001, while restrictions on liquids were introduced after the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Other screening technologies and procedures developed as aviation authorities responded to later threats. The enduring legacy of September 11 is consequently broader than any single checkpoint rule: it accelerated federal control of aviation security in the United States and strengthened an international system in which ICAO standards, national implementation, and continuing international oversight became more closely connected.

Airport security in the United States before September 11 was federally regulated, but its operation looked very different from the system that followed the attacks. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established aviation-security requirements and supervised compliance, while airlines remained responsible for passenger and carry-on screening at checkpoints. In practice, carriers commonly fulfilled that obligation through private security contractors rather than federal screening officers. Universal screening of passengers and carry-on baggage had been required since January 1973, so the claim that U.S. passengers were not screened before 9/11 is historically inaccurate (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 2004).

Access beyond security checkpoints was also considerably more open. Non-ticketed visitors could pass through screening and enter sterile airport areas, allowing relatives and friends to accompany travelers to departure gates. The prohibited-items regime was narrower than it later became. Federal rules did not categorically prohibit knives with blades shorter than four inches, and airline checkpoint guidance permitted some small utility knives. Box cutters present a more complicated case: airline checkpoint guidance treated them as restricted items, even though detection practices and the application of restrictions were not sufficiently reliable to prevent such implements from reaching aircraft on September 11 (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 2004).

Checked baggage was subject to security controls, but the United States had not yet adopted the post-9/11 requirement to screen all checked baggage. The Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS, identified selected passengers whose checked baggage received additional security attention. Explosive-detection systems had begun to appear at airports, but they were not yet used to screen every checked bag. The later requirement for comprehensive checked-baggage screening represented an expansion of an existing system rather than the creation of baggage security from nothing.

Flight-deck protection rested on assumptions shaped by earlier forms of hijacking. Cockpit doors were generally required to remain closed and locked in flight, but they were not designed to resist determined forcible entry of the kind demonstrated on September 11. U.S. aviation-security policy had developed around a model in which hijackers were expected to seize an aircraft, issue demands, and seek transportation, political concessions, or ransom. The possibility that hijackers would deliberately use a commercial aircraft as a weapon had not been incorporated adequately into the security system (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 2004).

International aviation security was already well developed by 2001. The Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944, commonly known as the Chicago Convention, created the institutional framework within which ICAO develops technical rules for international civil aviation. Article 37 commits contracting states to cooperate in achieving the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures, and organization. The ICAO Council is empowered under Article 54(l), together with the procedures set out in Article 90, to adopt and amend Standards and Recommended Practices contained in the Convention’s Annexes (Chicago Convention, 1944).

A separate treaty regime had also emerged in response to successive forms of violence against civil aviation. The Tokyo Convention of 1963 addressed offences and certain other acts committed aboard aircraft. The Hague Convention of 1970 established obligations concerning unlawful seizure of aircraft, while the Montreal Convention of 1971 addressed unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, including sabotage and destruction. The 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation extended the Montreal regime to specified attacks at airports serving international civil aviation. ICAO had also adopted Annex 17, containing Standards and Recommended Practices on safeguarding civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference, in March 1974.

By September 2001, the central weakness was not the absence of international law or national security rules. The difficulty lay in uneven implementation, inconsistent oversight, differences in national capacity, and the limited ability of the international system to determine whether formal standards were being applied effectively in practice. ICAO’s pre-9/11 technical evaluations had already identified shortcomings in implementation of Annex 17. September 11 exposed the cost of those gaps and gave new urgency to the problem of verifying compliance across national aviation-security systems.

The most important institutional change in the United States came through the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, signed into law on November 19, 2001. The Act created the Transportation Security Administration and transferred the federal government’s civil aviation security functions from the FAA to the new agency. It also required the federal government to assume responsibility for passenger and property screening, replacing the previous model in which airlines bore primary responsibility for checkpoint operations, subject to limited statutory provisions allowing approved private screening arrangements (United States Congress, 2001).

Federalization changed the structure of aviation security, not merely the identity of individual screeners. Congress established national requirements concerning screening personnel, qualifications, training, supervision, background checks, and security performance. Aviation security became a direct federal operational responsibility administered through a specialized agency. TSA initially formed part of the Department of Transportation before being transferred to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003.

Passengers saw the new system most clearly at airport checkpoints and in restrictions on secure areas. Access beyond screening points became generally limited to ticketed passengers and authorized personnel. The prohibited-items regime was tightened substantially, and items such as box cutters and many knives were excluded from aircraft cabins. Passenger screening also became more intensive, although many procedures now associated with air travel were introduced only after later plots and attempted attacks.

Checked baggage received similarly extensive attention. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act required screening of all checked baggage transported on passenger aircraft and directed the deployment of explosive-detection capability throughout the system. Congress set deadlines for implementing explosives screening, while allowing alternative approved methods where explosive-detection systems were not yet available. The legal change was comprehensive screening of checked baggage, not an immediate requirement that every bag pass through the same type of explosive-detection machine.

Flight-deck security changed sharply. Congress directed the federal authorities to strengthen cockpit protection, and the FAA adopted rules in 2002 requiring reinforced flight-deck doors on specified commercial aircraft. The new standards were designed to resist forcible intrusion and specified ballistic or fragmentation threats. Flight-deck access was also more tightly controlled, and doors were required to remain locked during flight except when operationally necessary (United States Congress, 2001; FAA, 2002).

The post-9/11 system also expanded security measures beyond the checkpoint itself. Passenger information, watch-list screening, airport-worker vetting, intelligence sharing, federal air marshals, canine units, explosive-detection technologies, restricted-area controls, and aircraft protection became increasingly integrated. Several of these elements existed before September 11, but they were expanded, centralized, or connected more closely after the attacks.

Layered security was not a new concept created in 2001. Before the attacks, the FAA already regarded intelligence, passenger prescreening, checkpoint screening, and onboard security as separate defensive layers. The problem was that those layers contained serious weaknesses and were not designed for attackers willing to die while using an aircraft as a weapon. The post-9/11 reforms strengthened and added layers, placed greater responsibility in federal hands, and sought to reduce dependence on the success of any single protective measure. What changed was the scale, integration, and institutional control of layered security rather than the existence of the concept itself.

The September 11 attacks took place in the United States, but they exposed vulnerabilities relevant to international civil aviation as a whole. Commercial aircraft operating within an interconnected aviation system had been used as weapons, and weaknesses in one national system could have consequences extending beyond that state’s territory. ICAO responded through its 33rd Assembly in the weeks after the attacks. Resolution A33-1 condemned the misuse of civil aircraft as weapons of destruction and called for consideration of an aviation-security audit program and a high-level international conference on aviation security (ICAO, 2001a).

A major regulatory response followed on December 7, 2001, when the ICAO Council adopted Amendment 10 to Annex 17. The amendment became effective on April 15, 2002, and applicable on July 1, 2002. It introduced or strengthened provisions concerning the application of aviation-security measures to domestic operations, international cooperation and threat information, national quality control, access control, passengers and their cabin and hold baggage, in-flight security personnel, protection of the flight deck, human factors, and management of responses to acts of unlawful interference (ICAO, 2001b).

Its application to domestic operations was particularly significant. ICAO had been created to regulate and facilitate international civil aviation, while domestic aviation remained principally within national jurisdiction. September 11 demonstrated that a security failure on a domestic flight could create consequences of international significance. Amendment 10 reflected the growing recognition that effective protection of international civil aviation could require common security standards to influence domestic operations as well.

The amendment did not replace the older conventions dealing with unlawful interference. The Tokyo, Hague, and Montreal instruments continued to establish international obligations concerning offences aboard aircraft, hijacking, sabotage, and related criminal conduct. Annex 17 addressed a different dimension of the problem by prescribing preventive and organizational security measures intended to reduce the risk that unlawful interference would succeed. Post-9/11 aviation law thus developed through both criminal-law instruments and preventive regulatory standards.

The institutional response advanced further at the High-level Ministerial Conference on Aviation Security held at ICAO headquarters in Montreal on February 19 and 20, 2002. Participating states endorsed a global strategy that included regular, mandatory, systematic, and harmonized security audits. The ICAO Council approved the Aviation Security Plan of Action on June 14, 2002, and the first audit under the Universal Security Audit Programme took place in November of that year (ICAO, 2002). ICAO’s response had moved beyond revising technical rules: the organization would also assess the national systems responsible for implementing them.

The Universal Security Audit Programme changed the institutional character of international aviation-security oversight. Before USAP, ICAO could adopt Standards and Recommended Practices, issue guidance, provide technical assistance, and conduct security evaluations. Those mechanisms did not amount to a regular, mandatory global audit system covering the national structures responsible for implementation. USAP introduced a more formal process for assessing whether contracting states had established the legislation, institutions, personnel, procedures, and oversight capacity required by the international aviation-security framework.

The original audit cycle assessed both national-level arrangements and, on a sample basis, security implementation at selected airports. Its purpose was broader than an airport inspection conducted by a domestic regulator. ICAO examined the state’s capacity to oversee aviation security, identify deficiencies, develop corrective action, and ensure implementation across the national system. Airport-level examination could form part of that process, but USAP did not displace domestic inspection, enforcement, or operational responsibility.

The program later evolved into the Universal Security Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Approach. Under that model, ICAO maintains continuing information about national aviation-security performance, identifies deficiencies, evaluates corrective action, and determines when additional monitoring or audit activity is required. The change from periodic audits to continuous monitoring strengthened the connection between international standards and the continuing performance of national oversight systems.

The legal status of the rules being assessed requires careful distinction. The Chicago Convention is a multilateral treaty. Annex 17 is one of the technical Annexes adopted through the institutional procedures established by that treaty; it is not itself an amendment to the Convention in the ordinary treaty-law sense. Amendments to the Convention are governed by Article 94, whereas Annexes and amendments to Annexes are adopted through the procedures associated with Articles 54(l) and 90 (Chicago Convention, 1944).

Article 37 provides the wider legal basis for international standardization. Contracting states undertake to collaborate in securing the highest practicable degree of uniformity in regulations, standards, procedures, and organization concerning matters affecting air navigation. The Council adopts international Standards and Recommended Practices to give practical effect to that objective. Their legal significance is not identical.

An ICAO Standard is a specification whose uniform application is recognized as necessary for the safety or regularity of international air navigation and to which contracting states are expected to conform in accordance with the Convention. Article 38 requires a state that finds it impracticable to comply fully with an international Standard, or whose regulations or practices differ from that Standard, to notify ICAO of the difference. The notification system does not convert non-conformity automatically into treaty breach in every instance; it establishes a formal mechanism through which differences from international Standards are disclosed within the Chicago Convention system.

Recommended Practices occupy a different position. ICAO uses that category for specifications whose uniform application is recognized as desirable and to which contracting states are expected to endeavor to conform. They do not carry the same status as Standards, and Article 38’s formal notification obligation is directed to differences from international Standards. Treating the two categories as legally interchangeable would obscure an important feature of the ICAO regulatory system.

Domestic implementation remains central. ICAO does not employ airport screeners, operate passenger checkpoints, administer national access-control systems, or enact domestic criminal legislation. Contracting states give effect to aviation-security obligations and standards through their own legislation, regulations, national civil-aviation security programs, administrative institutions, airport security programs, personnel requirements, training systems, and quality-control procedures.

The post-9/11 change was a stronger international framework for standardization and scrutiny rather than the international administration of airport security. States retained regulatory and operational authority, while ICAO gained a more systematic capacity to assess national oversight, identify deficiencies, evaluate corrective measures, and monitor continuing compliance with applicable Standards. International aviation security became more closely supervised without ceasing to depend on national implementation.

Many procedures now associated with 9/11 were introduced only after later attacks or attempted attacks exposed vulnerabilities that the first wave of reforms had not resolved. The measures adopted in 2001 and 2002 concentrated heavily on federalizing U.S. passenger screening, securing aircraft flight decks, screening checked baggage, controlling access to secure airport areas, and preventing weapons from reaching cabins. Airport security continued to change as attackers tested other ways of defeating those defenses.

On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid attempted to detonate explosives concealed in his shoe aboard American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami. Passengers and crew restrained him after the device failed to detonate. The incident made footwear a persistent focus of passenger screening and led to increased use of measures intended to detect explosives concealed in shoes. Routine removal of shoes at U.S. checkpoints was standardized later, in August 2006, during another tightening of screening procedures (GAO, 2007).

The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot produced one of the most recognizable features of contemporary airport security. British authorities disrupted a plan to use liquid explosives against passenger aircraft traveling from the United Kingdom to North America. On August 10, 2006, U.S. authorities prohibited most liquids and gels in carry-on baggage, subject to limited exceptions. The restrictions were later adjusted to permit small quantities, developing into the familiar 3-1-1 rule under which most liquids, aerosols, gels, creams, and pastes may be carried in containers of no more than 3.4 ounces, or 100 milliliters, within a quart-sized bag. Medicines, infant feeding products, and certain other items remain subject to separate exceptions.

A different vulnerability emerged on December 25, 2009, when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate explosives concealed in his underwear aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. Advanced imaging technology was already being developed and deployed before the attack, so the incident did not originate airport body scanning. It did accelerate TSA’s use of the technology. After Flight 253, the agency increased its planned deployment of advanced imaging systems from 878 to 1,800 units and moved toward using them as a primary screening method where feasible (GAO, 2010).

The chronology is important because post-9/11 airport security developed cumulatively. September 11 produced the major institutional shift and redirected the security system toward preventing another coordinated hijacking. Reid’s attempted bombing increased attention to explosives concealed in footwear; the 2006 plot transformed rules governing liquids and contributed to stricter footwear procedures; and Flight 253 accelerated the deployment of technologies capable of detecting nonmetallic objects concealed on the body. Treating all of these measures simply as “9/11 rules” obscures how aviation security has been repeatedly revised in response to new methods of attack.

Twenty-five years after September 11, the durability of the post-9/11 security system does not depend on preserving every individual restriction introduced since 2001. Screening technology changes, threat assessments are revised, and particular procedures can be relaxed or replaced when authorities conclude that other controls can manage the same risk. The underlying system remains centered on controlled access, risk assessment, national aviation-security programs, layered screening, and international oversight.

Gate access illustrates that distinction. In September 2026, TSA introduced Gateside by TSA PreCheck at 13 U.S. airports. Eligible TSA PreCheck members and participants in certain trusted-traveler programs can apply in advance for access beyond security even when they are not flying. Approved visitors must still present acceptable identification and undergo TSA screening (TSA, 2026). Before September 11, non-ticketed visitors could much more broadly enter gate areas after passing through security. Gateside represents a limited, eligibility-based return to that practice rather than restoration of the earlier system.

ICAO’s contemporary security concerns extend well beyond the type of coordinated hijacking carried out in 2001. At its 2026 Civil Aviation Legal Advisers Forum, ICAO highlighted cyberattacks, insider threats, and vulnerabilities associated with unmanned aircraft systems among the evolving risks confronting civil aviation. These threats differ operationally from the seizure of an aircraft by passengers, but they raise the same underlying regulatory problem: aviation security must adapt when technology and methods of unlawful interference change (ICAO, 2026).

Cybersecurity has become a particularly important part of that development. Modern aviation depends on interconnected information and communications systems used by airlines, airports, air navigation services, governments, and other operators. Annex 17 now includes a Standard requiring states to ensure that relevant entities identify critical information and communications technology systems and data and protect them against unlawful interference according to risk assessment. A related Recommended Practice addresses further protective measures, while ICAO has developed additional strategies, guidance, and capacity-building initiatives. Resolution A42-19, adopted by the ICAO Assembly in 2025, continued this international cybersecurity framework (ICAO, 2025).

Insider threats pose a different type of security problem because the person creating the risk may already have legitimate access to restricted areas, aircraft, systems, or sensitive information. Amendments to Annex 17 have strengthened requirements concerning background checks and other measures directed at persons who are not passengers, while national systems increasingly combine access control, personnel screening, information sharing, and security culture measures. These controls show how aviation security has expanded beyond the traditional image of an unknown attacker approaching a passenger checkpoint (ICAO, 2019).

Unauthorized or malicious use of unmanned aircraft creates another challenge. Drones can disrupt airport operations, interfere with protected airspace, and threaten aviation infrastructure without requiring an attacker to penetrate a passenger terminal. ICAO has developed aviation-security guidance addressing such risks, while its 2026 risk discussion identified vulnerabilities associated with unmanned aircraft systems alongside cyber and insider threats. The issue illustrates how an international framework strengthened after 9/11 is now being applied to technologies that were not central to the security debate in 2001.

For passengers, the legacy of the post-9/11 era remains visible in screening, baggage controls, identification procedures, restricted access, and protected flight decks. States encounter a wider structure: national civil aviation security programs, Annex 17 Standards, quality-control systems, personnel requirements, risk assessment, international cooperation, and ICAO’s audit mechanisms. The airport checkpoint is the most visible part of a regulatory system whose principal institutions and responsibilities extend well beyond the traveler passing through security.

September 11 did not create airport security or international aviation-security law. Passenger screening, international conventions addressing hijacking and sabotage, ICAO security standards, and national aviation-security programs all predated the attacks. Several practices now strongly associated with post-9/11 flying also appeared later, as attempted shoe, liquid, and concealed-body explosive attacks exposed different weaknesses in the system.

The more lasting change was institutional. In the United States, Congress placed aviation security under direct federal control through the TSA, expanded checked-baggage screening, strengthened flight-deck protection, and reinforced a layered system of passenger, baggage, personnel, intelligence, and access controls. Internationally, ICAO strengthened Annex 17 and established the Universal Security Audit Programme, adding systematic international assessment to a regime that had previously relied more heavily on standards, national implementation, and less comprehensive forms of evaluation.

Individual security practices can be revised as threats and technology change. The institutional framework created or strengthened after September 11 has proved more durable. Its central aviation-law legacy is a system in which national authorities remain responsible for airport security while their implementation of common international standards is subject to far greater coordination, scrutiny, and continuing ICAO oversight than before 2001.

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1971) adopted at Montreal, 23 September 1971, entered into force 26 January 1973, 974 UNTS 177.

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (1970) adopted at The Hague, 16 December 1970, entered into force 14 October 1971, 860 UNTS 105.

Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944) signed at Chicago, 7 December 1944, entered into force 4 April 1947, 15 UNTS 295.

Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (1963) signed at Tokyo, 14 September 1963, entered into force 4 December 1969, 704 UNTS 219.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (2002) ‘Security Considerations in the Design of the Flightdeck on Transport Category Airplanes’, Final Rule, 67 Fed. Reg. 2118, 15 January.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (1974) Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Security — Safeguarding International Civil Aviation against Acts of Unlawful Interference. 1st ed. Adopted by the ICAO Council on 22 March 1974. Montreal: ICAO.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2001a) ‘Resolution A33-1: Declaration on Misuse of Civil Aircraft as Weapons of Destruction and Other Terrorist Acts Involving Civil Aviation’, in Assembly Resolutions in Force (as of 5 October 2001), Doc 9790. Montreal: ICAO.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2001b) Amendment 10 to Annex 17 — Security — Safeguarding International Civil Aviation against Acts of Unlawful Interference. Adopted by the ICAO Council on 7 December 2001, effective 15 April 2002 and applicable 1 July 2002. Available at: (Accessed: 11 September 2026).

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2002) Annual Report of the Council — 2002, Doc 9814. Montreal: ICAO. Available at: (Accessed: 11 September 2026).

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2019) Amendment 17 to Annex 17 — Security — Safeguarding International Civil Aviation against Acts of Unlawful Interference. Adopted by the ICAO Council on 25 November 2019, effective 30 March 2020 and applicable 30 July 2020. Available at: (Accessed: 11 September 2026).

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2022) Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation: Aviation Security — Safeguarding International Civil Aviation against Acts of Unlawful Interference. 12th ed. Montreal: ICAO. Available at: (Accessed: 11 September 2026).

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2025) ‘Resolution A42-19: Addressing Cybersecurity in Civil Aviation’. 42nd Session of the ICAO Assembly. Available at: (Accessed: 11 September 2026).

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (2026) Programme: Fourth Civil Aviation Legal Advisers Forum (CALAF/4) [online]. Available at: (Accessed: 11 September 2026).

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (n.d.-a) Aviation Cybersecurity [online]. Available at: (Accessed: 11 September 2026).

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (n.d.-b) The Universal Security Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Approach (USAP-CMA) and its Objective [online]. Available at: (Accessed: 11 September 2026).

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (2004) The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available at: (Accessed: 11 September 2026).

Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1988) adopted at Montreal, 24 February 1988, entered into force 6 August 1989, 1589 UNTS 474.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (n.d.) Gateside by TSA PreCheck [online]. Available at: (Accessed: 11 September 2026).

United States Congress (2001) Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Pub. L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597, approved 19 November 2001. Available at: (Accessed: 11 September 2026).

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2007) Aviation Security: Risk, Experience, and Customer Concerns Drive Changes to Airline Passenger Screening Procedures, but Evaluation and Documentation of Proposed Changes Could Be Improved, GAO-07-634. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office. Available at: (Accessed: 11 September 2026).

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2010) Aviation Security: TSA Is Increasing Procurement and Deployment of the Advanced Imaging Technology, but Challenges to This Effort and Other Areas of Aviation Security Remain, GAO-10-484T. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office. Available at: (Accessed: 11 September 2026).