Technical Review

A Study on Passengers’ Safety Awareness Regarding Items Carried on Board Aircraft

Ri Hyun Shin *
Author Information & Copyright
*한국항공대학교 일반대학원 국제교류학부 항공서비스학과 비전임교원
연락저자 E-mail : octopuses@naver.com, 연락저자 주소 : 경기도 고양시 덕양구 항공대학로 76

© Copyright 2024 The Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Aug 14, 2024; Revised: Aug 19, 2024; Accepted: Aug 23, 2024

Published Online: Sep 30, 2024

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to determine whether passengers can accurately judge whether or not items can be brought on board an aircraft. And it aims to identify differences in perceived risk depending on the type of product and confirm whether this has an effect on the judgment of possibility of import. The number of cases of prohibited items being carried on board exceeded 800,000 as of October 2023, and according to Korea Airports Corporation, the number of cases of prohibited items being carried on board increased by 19.5% from a year ago to 802,578 due to the early recovery in demand for international flights. The airport authority said that if this trend continues, the number of cases detected this year is expected to reach one million. In order to determine whether passengers’ judgments about carry-on items are related to the risk level of the items, a study was conducted on approximately 179 members of the public, dividing them into awareness, experience, perception, and risk level of carry-on times. The collected data was statistically processed through data coding and cleaning processes, and then analyzed using the SPSS v. 25.0 statistical package program.

Keywords: Carry-On Item; Safety Awareness; Security Check; Hazardous Items; Cabin Safety Management

I. Introduction

1.1 Background

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States were the largest terrorist attack in human history. They hijacked four American airliners and crashed them into buildings including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing more than 2,500 people, including 265 on board and 2,267 on the ground. The terrorists hijacked the aircraft by threatening the crew using legally carried items(Kang and Ahn, 2004). As a result of this aviation terrorist incident, aviation security has been strengthened internationally, and new organizations and systematic security have been implemented in aviation and airports. Additionally, aviation security in many countries has applied the same level of screening to all passengers and baggage(Kim, 2011). According to Article 32, Paragraph 1 of the Aviation Safety and Security Act, items prohibited from being carried onboard aircraft and checked baggage are categorized(Kim, 2013). As such, because aviation security is not a problem for just one country, international organizations have made multifaceted efforts to strengthen civil aviation security worldwide. In particular, ICAO(International Civil Aviation Organization) recognized the importance of security early on and established many regulations and various improvement programs to contribute to the development of international civil aviation security(Lee, 2019). However, despite various efforts, items brought onto aircraft are being used for in-flight disturbances and terrorism, posing a serious threat to the safety of passengers and air operations. In this way, items prohibited from being brought on board an aircraft are directly related to aviation safety and security, and are also important for the safe use of aviation by passengers boarding the aircraft. Since aircraft accidents usually result in the death of all on board, prior safety assurance and maintenance of order are required rather than after-the-fact relief measures(Jang, 2014).

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine whether passengers can accurately judge the possibility of bringing items on board an aircraft based on accurate criteria, and whether the type of item affects their perception of risk and their judgment of the possibility of bringing items on board. As of October 2023, the number of cases of prohibited carry-on items exceeded 800,000. According to Korea Airports Corporation, the number of cases of prohibited items being caught onboard increased by 19.5% from a year ago to 802,578 due to the early recovery in international flight demand. The airport authority said that if this trend continues, the number of cases detected this year is expected to reach one million(Park, 2023). Ultimately, it is about taking precautions in advance, accurately publicizing carry-on items, and properly understanding and considering fixed perspectives according to the type of items. Passengers should also be aware that carelessness with carry-on items increases that threat onboard the aircraft. This study was conducted on approximately 179 members of the general public, dividing them into awareness, experience, perception, and risk regarding carry-on items.

II. Literature Review

2.1 Previous Research

Previous studies have investigated the potential impact on aircraft operation and risk improvement in relation to operational and management systems, legal considerations, punishment measures, and legal standards related to items carried on board aircraft. There has been no research, like this one, on the accuracy of information on passengers’ carry-on items and the relationship between risk and judgment according to type.

Park(2016) studied the operation and management system, introduction of equipment and new technologies, and institutional improvement related to air cargo, passengers’ baggage, airport and cargo terminals, focusing on Incheon Airport after the 9/11 terriorist attacks. Seo(2022) pointed out insignificant punishment and methods of laws related to hazardous items on board and sought more effective countermeasures. Kim(2020) pointed out the legal standards for portable electronic devices(PED) used on board, examined the causes, damage, and risks of fire and explosion accidents caused by lithium-ion batteries used as power sources for PED, and conducted research on supplementary and revised laws that can reduce the accident rate and spread of damage. Jeon(2023) proposed a security management system for preemptive response to potential cyber threats through electronic devices that use wireless networks and internet services in aircraft among in-flight items, strengthening the availability of wireless network services in aircraft, and countermeasures to ensure the safety of aircraft operation from cyber threats. Jang(2014) studied the insufficient standards for prohibited items on aircrafts, inadequate screening systems, and lack of publicity. In addition, research was conducted on issues of response and sanctions, such as confiscation of prohibited items, detention, sale, disposal, and insufficient punishment for bringing dangerous items on board. Lee(2019) sought ways to reduce cases of non-detection due to human error in security screening and to prevent difficulties related to prohibited items from passengers in advance.

III. Empirical Research

3.1 Data Analysis Method

The collected data was statistically processed through data coding and cleaning processes, and then analyzed using SPSS v.25.0 statistical package program. Firstly, frequency analysis was conducted to determine the general characteristics. Secondly, a cross-analysis was conducted to determine the awareness, experience, perception, and risk level of carry-on items and to determine whether there were differences according to the general characteristics.

3.2 Research Results
3.2.1 Awareness and Experience

The following are the results of a cross-analysis conducted to find out about awareness and experience of carry-on items and to determine if there are difference based on the general characteristics of the survey.

Table 1. General characteristics
Config. Freq. (N) Percent (%)
Gen. Male 97 54.2
Female 82 45.8
Age 10s/20s 65 36.3
30s 34 19.0
40s 30 16.8
50s 27 15.1
60s & over 23 12.8
Job Employee 45 25.1
Student 50 27.9
Housewife 29 16.2
Unemployed 25 14.0
Etc. 30 16.8
Residence Metropolitan 122 68.2
Other area 57 31.8
Flight purpose Business 14 7.8
Travel 153 85.5
Transportation 8 4.5
Etc. 4 2.2
Total 179 100.0
Download Excel Table
3.2.1.1 Recognition of carry-on items

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 2. There were statistically significant differences by gender, occupation, and residential are(p<.05). Since these parts are statistical results based on simple observations, there may be limitations in fully understanding the level of awareness of in-flight items.

Table 2. Recognition of carry-on items
Config. Recognition χ2 (p)
Known Unknown
Gen. Male 84(86.6) 13(13.4) 8.738**
(.003)
Female 56(68.3) 26(31.7)
Age 10s/20s 49(75.4) 16(24.6) 5.709
(.222)
30s 26(76.5) 8(23.5)
40s 26(86.7) 4(13.3)
50s 24(88.9) 3(11.1)
60s & over 15(65.2) 8(34.8)
Job Employee 42(93.3) 3(6.7) 10.268**
(.036)
Student 35(70.0) 15(30.0)
Housewife 21(72.4) 8(27.6)
Unemployed 21(84.0) 4(16.0)
Etc. 21(70.0) 9(30.0)
Residence Metro. 103(84.4) 19(15.6) 8.681**
(.003)
Other area 37(64.9) 20(35.1)
Flight purpose Business 13(92.9) 1(7.1) 6.630
(.085)
Travel 119(77.8) 34(22.2)
Transport. 4(50.0) 4(50.0)
Etc. 4(100.0) 0(.0)
Total 140(78.2) 39(21.8)

* p<.05,

** p<.01.

Download Excel Table
3.2.1.2 Awareness of different standards for carry-on items by airline

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 3. There were statistically significant differences across occupations(p<.05). Lack of information and consistency on the part of airlines may be the reason for not being fully aware that carry-on items have different standards for each airline. And because there is only little concern about airline regulations and carry-on items during travel plans.

Table 3. Awareness of different airline standards
Config. Different airline standards χ2 (p)
Known Unknown
Gen. Male 17(17.5) 80(82.5) .569
(.451)
Female 11(13.4) 71(86.6)
Age 10s/20s 14(21.5) 51(78.5) 4.852
(.303)
30s 5(14.7) 29(85.3)
40s 3(10.0) 27(90.0)
50s 5(18.5) 22(81.5)
60s & over 1(4.3) 22(95.7)
Job Employee 13(28.9) 32(71.1) 12.282*
(.015)
Student 9(18.0) 41(82.0)
Housewife 4(13.8) 25(86.2)
Unemployed 1(4.0) 24(96.0)
Etc. 1(3.3) 29(96.7)
Residence Metro. 20(16.4) 102(83.6) .164
(.686)
Other area 8(14.0) 49(86.0)
Flight purpose Business 4(28.6) 10(71.4) 2.618
(.454)
Travel 23(15.0) 130(85.0)
Transport. 1(12.5) 7(87.5)
Etc. 0(.0) 4(100.0)
Total 28(15.6) 151(84.4)

* p<.05.

Download Excel Table
3.2.1.3 Awareness of different standards for international/domestic flights

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4. There were statistically significant differences by gender, occupation, and residential are(p<.05). Female, young people, and employees seem to be relatively well aware that the standards for carry-on items are different for international and domestic flights.

Table 4. Awareness of different standards for international/domestic flights
Config. Different standards for international/domestic χ2 (p)
Known Unknown
Gen. Male 21(21.6) 76(78.4) 4.153*
(.042)
Female 29(35.4) 53(64.6)
Age 10s/20s 20(30.8) 45(69.2) 13.476**
(.009)
30s 11(32.4) 23(67.6)
40s 13(43.3) 17(56.7)
50s 6(22.2) 21(77.8)
60s & over 0(.0) 23(100.0)
Job Employee 17(37.8) 28(62.2) 9.809*
(.044)
Student 13(26.0) 37(74.0)
Housewife 12(41.4) 17(58.6)
Unemployed 4(16.0) 21(84.0)
Etc. 4(13.3) 26(86.7)
Residence Metro. 30(24.6) 92(75.4) 2.127
(.145)
Other area 20(35.1) 37(64.9)
Flight purpose Business 4(28.6) 10(71.4) 2.053
(.561)
Travel 41(26.8) 112(73.2)
Transport. 4(50.0) 4(50.0)
Etc. 1(25.0) 3(75.0)
Total 50(27.9) 129(72.1)

* p<.05,

** p<.01.

Download Excel Table

This is likely because they travel by air more often and have more opportunities to learn about the standards for carry-on items on international and domestic flights.

3.2.1.4 Experience with returning and disposing of items when checking in luggage

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 5. There were statistically significant different across occupations(p<.05). As a results, there is quite a lot of experience with returning and disposing of luggage. The reason seems to be that some people are not familiar with baggage return and disposal regulations, or even if they know the regulations, they do not follow them. There was differences in the level of experience depending on the occupation, but it was found to be high among employees. This is because employees often travel by air more frequently when on business trips or on vacation, so they often have experience returning or discarding their luggage.

Table 5. Experience with returning and disposing of items when checking in luggage
Config. Returning and disposing when checking in luggage χ2 (p)
Yes No
Gen. Male 45(46.4) 52(53.6) 2.759
(.097)
Female 28(34.1) 54(65.9)
Age 10s/20s 20(30.8) 45(69.2) 6.115
(.191)
30s 14(41.2) 20(58.8)
40s 15(50.0) 15(50.0)
50s 11(40.7) 16(59.3)
60s & over 13(56.5) 10(43.5)
Job Employee 26(57.8) 19(42.2) 10.819*
(.029)
Student 13(26.0) 37(74.0)
Housewife 10(34.5) 19(65.5)
Unemployed 10(40.0) 15(60.0)
Etc. 14(46.7) 16(53.3)
Residence Metro. 51(41.8) 71(58.2) .165
(.684)
Other area 22(38.6) 35(61.4)
Flight purpose Business 8(57.1) 6(42.9) 3.839
(.279)
Travel 59(38.6) 94(61.4)
Transport. 5(62.5) 3(37.5)
Etc. 1(25.0) 3(75.0)
Total 73(40.8) 106(59.2)

* p<.05.

Download Excel Table
3.2.1.5 Experience in returning and disposing of items during security checks

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 6. There were statistically significant differences by gender and occupation(p<.01). As mentioned earlier, employees tend to travel abroad more often, so it is believed that they have a lot of experience encountering these regulations.

Table 6. Experience in returning and disposing of items during security checks
Config. Returning and disposing during security checks χ2 (p)
Yes No
Gen. Male 46(47.4) 51(52.6) 9.028**
(.003)
Female 21(25.6) 61(74.4)
Age 10s/20s 17(26.2) 48(73.8) 9.039
(.060)
30s 15(44.1) 19(55.9)
40s 15(50.0) 15(50.0)
50s 8(29.6) 19(70.4)
60s & over 12(52.2) 11(47.8)
Job Employee 27(60.0) 18(40.0) 18.466**
(.001)
Student 11(22.0) 39(78.0)
Housewife 7(24.1) 22(75.9)
Unemployed 12(48.0) 13(52.0)
Etc. 10(33.3) 20(66.7)
Residence Metro. 45(36.9) 77(63.1) .049
(.826)
Other area 22(38.6) 35(61.4)
Flight purpose Business 9(64.3) 5(35.7) 5.623
(.131)
Travel 53(34.6) 100(65.4)
Transport. 4(50.0) 4(50.0)
Etc. 1(25.0) 3(75.0)
Total 67(37.4) 112(62.6)

** p<.01.

Download Excel Table
3.2.2 Awareness of Carry-on Items
3.2.2.1 Chemical substances

1) Possible to bring container containing chemicals

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 7. There were no statistically differences in general characteristics(p>.05). It was revealed that it is thought that bringing containers containing chemicals on board is impossible. This suggests that people perceive chemicals to be highly risky.

Table 7. Possible to bring container containing chemicals
Config. Container containing chemicals χ2 (p)
Yes No Not sure
Gen. Male 1(1.0) 86(88.7) 10(10.3) .498
(.780)
Female 1(1.2) 75(91.5) 6(7.3)
Age 10s/20s 1(1.5) 60(92.3) 4(6.2) 6.398
(.603)
30s 0(.0) 32(94.1) 2(5.9)
40s 0(.0) 25(83.3) 5(16.7)
50s 1(3.7) 24(88.9) 2(7.4)
60s & over 0(.0) 20(87.0) 3(13.0)
Job Employee 1(2.2) 39(86.7) 5(11.1) 4.013
(.856)
Student 0(.0) 47(94.0) 3(6.0)
Housewife 0(.0) 26(89.7) 3(10.3)
Unemployed 0(.0) 23(92.0) 2(8.0)
Etc. 1(3.3) 26(86.7) 3(10.0)
Residence Metropolitan 2(1.6) 109(89.3) 11(9.0) .952
(.621)
Other area 0(.0) 52(91.2) 5(8.8)
Flight purpose Business 0(.0) 12(85.7) 2(14.3) 2.407
(.879)
Travel 2(1.3) 139(90.8) 12(7.8)
Transport. 0(.0) 7(87.5) 1(12.5)
Etc. 0(.0) 3(75.0) 1(25.0)
Total 2(1.1) 161(89.9) 16(8.9)
Download Excel Table

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 8. there were statistically significant differences by gender(p<.05). Overall, the chemicals appear to have been deemed highly hazardous onboard. This is considered to be a high risk regardless of the amount of chemical.

Table 8. Possible to bring tear gas, pepper spray, etc. of 100mL or less
Config. Tear gas, pepper spray, etc. of 100mL or less χ2 (p)
Yes No Not sure
Gen. Male 28(28.9) 46(47.4) 23(23.7) 7.654*
(.022)
Female 10(12.2) 45(54.9) 27(32.9)
Age 10s/20s 14(21.5) 37(56.9) 14(21.5) 12.154
(.144)
30s 8(23.5) 19(55.9) 7(20.6)
40s 6(20.0) 16(53.3) 8(26.7)
50s 6(22.2) 13(48.1) 8(29.6)
60s & over 4(17.4) 6(26.1) 13(56.5)
Job Employee 10(22.2) 28(62.2) 7(15.6) 11.412
(.179)
Student 10(20.0) 28(56.0) 12(24.0)
Housewife 4(13.8) 15(51.7) 10(34.5)
Unemployed 5(20.0) 9(36.0) 11(44.0)
Etc. 9(30.0) 11(36.7) 10(33.3)
Residence Metropolitan 28(23.0) 61(50.0) 33(27.0) .695
(.706)
Other area 10(17.5) 30(52.6) 17(29.8)
Flight purpose Business 3(21.4) 9(64.3) 2(14.3) 3.435
(.753)
Travel 33(21.6) 76(49.7) 44(28.8)
Transport. 2(25.0) 3(37.5) 3(37.5)
Etc. 0(.0) 3(75.0) 1(25.0)
Total 38(21.2) 91(50.8) 50(27.9)

* p<.05.

Download Excel Table

2) Possible to bring self-defense spray(tear gas, pepper spray, etc. of 100mL or less)

3.2.2.2 Sharp or pointed object
1) Possible to bring razor, cutter, multi-purpose knife, folding knife, etc.

There were statistically significant differences by age and occupation(p<01). Although there may be some differences depending on age and occupation, it is generally believed that all sharp objects are items that cannot be brought on board(Table 9).

Table 9. Possible to bring razor, cutter, multi- purpose knife, folding knife, etc.
Config. Razor, cutter, multi-purpose knife, folding knife, etc. χ2 (p)
Yes No Not sure
Gen. Male 5(5.2) 90(92.8) 2(2.1) 3.519
(.172)
Female 8(9.8) 69(84.1) 5(6.1)
Age 10s/20s 12(18.5) 52(80.0) 1(1.5) 33.592***
(.000)
30s 1(2.9) 31(91.2) 2(5.9)
40s 0(.0) 30(100.0) 0(.0)
50s 0(.0) 27(100.0) 0(.0)
60s & over 0(.0) 19(82.6) 4(17.4)
Job Employee 3(6.7) 42(93.3) 0(.0) 24.684**
(.002)
Student 10(20.0) 39(78.0) 1(2.0)
Housewife 0(.0) 26(89.7) 3(10.3)
Unemployed 0(.0) 23(92.0) 2(8.0)
Etc. 0(.0) 29(96.7) 1(3.3)
Residence Metropolitan 12(9.8) 104(85.2) 6(4.9) 5.041
(.080)
Other area 1(1.8) 55(96.5) 1(1.8)
Flight purpose Business 0(.0) 14(100.0) 0(.0) 3.151
(.790)
Travel 12(7.8) 134(87.6) 7(4.6)
Transport. 1(12.5) 7(87.5) 0(.0)
Etc. 0(.0) 4(100.0) 0(.0)
Total 13(7.3) 159(88.8) 7(3.9)

** p<.01,

*** p<.001.

Download Excel Table
2) Possible to bring scissors and knives with blades length of 6cm or less

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 10. There were statistically significant differences across occupations(p<.01). Awareness of whether scissors and knives with blades less than 6cm in length can be carried on board was lower than awareness of whether razor, cutters, multi-purpose knives, and folding knives can be carried on board. This suggests that although sharp objects such as knives are perceived as dangerous, there is tendency to think that knives less than 6cm long are relatively less dangerous.

Table 10. Possible to bring scissors and knives with blades length of 6cm or less
Config. Scissors & knives χ2 (p)
Yes No Not sure
Gen. Male 28(28.9) 58(59.8) 11(11.3) 2.971
(.226)
Female 21(25.6) 44(53.7) 17(20.7)
Age 10s/20s 22(33.8) 36(55.4) 7(10.8) 13.918
(.084)
30s 10(29.4) 20(58.8) 4(11.8)
40s 7(23.3) 15(50.0) 8(26.7)
50s 4(14.8) 21(77.8) 2(7.4)
60s & over 6(26.1) 10(43.5) 7(30.4)
Job Employee 8(17.8) 36(80.0) 1(2.2) 21.264**
(.006)
Student 18(36.0) 25(50.0) 7(14.0)
Housewife 7(24.1) 12(41.4) 10(34.5)
Unemployed 7(28.0) 13(52.0) 5(20.0)
Etc. 9(30.0) 16(53.3) 5(16.7)
Residence Metropolitan 36(29.5) 69(56.6) 17(13.9) 1.364
(.506)
Other area 13(22.8) 33(57.9) 11(19.3)
Flight purpose Business 3(21.4) 11(78.6) 0(.0) 7.453
(.281)
Travel 44(28.8) 82(53.6) 27(17.6)
Transport. 2(25.0) 5(62.5) 1(12.5)
Etc. 0(.0) 4(100.0) 0(.0)
Total 49(27.4) 102 (57.0) 28(15.6)

** p<.01.

Download Excel Table
3) Possible to bring nail clippers

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 11. There were no statistically significant differences in general characteristics(p>.05). The reason why no significant difference was found seems to be because nail clippers are commonly seen and used in everyday life, so the risk on board was judged to be low. Another reason why it was determined that nail clippers could be brought on board is that although the blades are sharp, their use on board is limited, so it appears that they were judged to be low risk.

Table 11. Possible to bring nail clippers
Config. Nail clippers χ2 (p)
Yes No Not sure
Gen. Male 35(36.1) 30(30.9) 32(33.0) .270
(.874)
Female 27(32.9) 28(34.1) 27(32.9)
Age 10s/20s 27(41.5) 24(36.9) 14(21.5) 12.465
(.132)
30s 12(35.3) 9(26.5) 13(38.2)
40s 12(40.0) 8(26.7) 10(33.3)
50s 8(29.6) 10(37.0) 9(33.3)
60s & over 3(13.0) 7(30.4) 13(56.5)
Job Employee 21(46.7) 14(31.1) 10(22.2) 13.445
(.097)
Student 17(34.0) 20(40.0) 13(26.0)
Housewife 12(41.4) 7(24.1) 10(34.5)
Unemployed 7(28.0) 8(32.0) 10(40.0)
Etc. 5(16.7) 9(30.0) 16(53.3)
Residence Metropolitan 46(37.7) 39(32.0) 37(30.3) 1.869
(.393)
Other area 16(28.1) 19(33.3) 22(38.6)
Flight purpose Business 5(35.7) 4(28.6) 5(35.7) 6.761
(.343)
Travel 49(32.0) 52(34.0) 52(34.0)
Transport. 5(62.5) 1(12.5) 2(25.0)
Etc. 3(75.0) 1(25.0) 0(.0)
Total 62(34.6) 58(32.4) 59(33.0)
Download Excel Table
4) Possible to bring tweezers

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 12. There were statistically significant differences according to age(p<.05). Overall, it appears that the decision was made to allow the carrying of tweezers on board. There were differences in awareness by age group, which is thought to be due to differences in awareness of aviation safety, management and interest in hazardous materials, and information on carry-on items.

Table 12. Possible to bring tweezers
Config. Tweezers χ2 (p)
Yes No Not sure
Gen. Male 38(39.2) 24(24.7) 35(36.1) .449
(.799)
Female 35(42.7) 17(20.7) 30(36.6)
Age 10s/20s 31(47.7) 11(16.9) 23(35.4) 17.082*
(.029)
30s 18(52.9) 7(20.6) 9(26.5)
40s 13(43.3) 5(16.7) 12(40.0)
50s 8(29.6) 11(40.7) 8(29.6)
60s & over 3(13.0) 7(30.4) 13(56.5)
Job Employee 19(42.2) 12(26.7) 14(31.1) 7.791
(.454)
Student 24(48.0) 7(14.0) 19(38.0)
Housewife 13(44.8) 7(24.1) 9(31.0)
Unemployed 10(40.0) 7(28.0) 8(32.0)
Etc. 7(23.3) 8(26.7) 15(50.0)
Residence Metro. 50(41.0) 31(25.4) 41(33.6) 1.826
(.401)
Other area 23(40.4) 10(17.5) 24(42.1)
Flight purpose Business 6(42.9) 4(28.6) 4(28.6) 7.640
(.266)
Travel 58(37.9) 35(22.9) 60(39.2)
Transport. 6(75.0) 1(12.5) 1(12.5)
Etc. 3(75.0) 1(25.0) 0(.0)
Total 73(40.8) 41(22.9) 65(36.3)

* p<.05.

Download Excel Table
3.2.2.3 Liquid, spray, gel
1) Possible to bring soybean and red pepper paste

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 13.

Table 13. Possible to bring soybean and red paste
Config. Soybean and red paste χ2 (p)
Yes No Not sure
Gen. Male 42(43.3) 36(37.1) 19(19.6) 1.263 (.532)
Female 39(47.6) 24(29.3) 19(23.2)
Age 10s/20s 34(52.3) 22(33.8) 9(13.8) 11.040
(.199)
30s 12(35.3) 14(41.2) 8(23.5)
40s 16(53.3) 10(33.3) 4(13.3)
50s 10(37.0) 9(33.3) 8(29.6)
60s & over 9(39.1) 5(21.7) 9(39.1)
Job Employee 17(37.8) 18(40.0) 10(22.2) 9.202
(.326)
Student 25(50.0) 19(38.0) 6(12.0)
Housewife 17(58.6) 7(24.1) 5(17.2)
Unemployed 10(40.0) 8(32.0) 7(28.0)
Etc. 12(40.0) 8(26.7) 10(33.3)
Residence Metropolitan 62(50.8) 35(28.7) 25(20.5) 5.391
(.068)
Other area 19(33.3) 25(43.9) 13(22.8)
Flight purpose Business 1(7.1) 8(57.1) 5(35.7) 13.619*
(.034)
Travel 73(47.7) 49(32.0) 31(20.3)
Transport. 3(37.5) 3(37.5) 2(25.0)
Etc. 4(100.0) 0(.0) 0(.0)
Total 81(45.3) 60(33.5) 38(21.2)

* p<.05.

Download Excel Table

Statistically significant differences were found depending on the flight purpose(p<.05). In the case of soybean and red pepper paste, there was a statistical difference because the carry-on standards for domestic and international flights were different.

2) Possible to bring cosmetics in spray or gel form, toiletries(toothpaste, shampoo, etc.)

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 14. There were statistically significant differences by gender, age, and occupation(p<.05). In toiletries, there were many differences depending on age and occupation. Depending on age, it may have to do with cultural differences between generations, lifestyles, travel experiences, etc. Additionally, differences by occupation may be related to work tendencies, travel purposes, and frequency of cosmetic use.

Table 14. Possible to bring cosmetics in spray or gel, toiletries(toothpaste, shampoo, etc.)
Config. Cosmetics in spray or gel, toiletries χ2 (p)
Yes No Not sure
Gen. Male 58(59.8) 34(35.1) 5(5.2) 10.038**
(.007)
Female 40(48.8) 25(30.5) 17(20.7)
Age 10s/20s 28(43.1) 29(44.6) 8(12.3) 16.064*
(.041)
30s 20(58.8) 12(35.3) 2(5.9)
40s 18(60.0) 10(33.3) 2(6.7)
50s 17(63.0) 6(22.2) 4(14.8)
60s & over 15(65.2) 2(8.7) 6(26.1)
Job Employee 21(46.7) 20(44.4) 4(8.9) 18.634*
(.017)
Student 22(44.0) 23(46.0) 5(10.0)
Housewife 15(51.7) 7(24.1) 7(24.1)
Unemployed 18(72.0) 4(16.0) 3(12.0)
Etc. 22(73.3) 5(16.7) 3(10.0)
Residence Metropolitan 73(59.8) 36(29.5) 13(10.7) 4.030
(.133)
Other area 25(43.9) 23(40.4) 9(15.8)
Flight purpose Business 6(42.9) 7(50.0) 1(7.1) 8.983
(.175)
Travel 86(56.2) 47(30.7) 20(13.1)
Transport. 2(25.0) 5(62.5) 1(12.5)
Etc. 4(100.0) 0(.0) 0(.0)
Total 98(54.7) 59(33.0) 22(12.3)

* p<.05,

** p<.01.

Download Excel Table
3.2.3 Risk level of carry-on items
3.2.3.1 Risk level of sharp or pointed objects

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 15. There were statistically significant differences according to age(p<.05). The overall level of awareness of the risks of self-defense sprays was rated mostly as ‘high’ and ‘very high’. This is because it may cause confusion on board the plane, with results similar to those of self-defense sprays.

Table 15. Risk level of sharp or pointed objects
Config. Risk level of sharp or pointed objects χ2 (p)
Very low Low Aver. High Very high
Gen. Male 0 (.0) 1 (1.0) 2 (2.1) 32 (33.0) 62 (63.9) 4.559
(.207)
Female 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 5 (6.1) 34 (41.5) 43 (52.4)
Age 10s/20s 0 (.0) 1 (1.5) 2 (3.1) 16 (24.6) 46 (70.8) 24.442*
(.018)
30s 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 1 (2.9) 13 (38.2) 20 (58.8)
40s 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 1 (3.3) 9 (30.0) 20 (66.7)
50s 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 13 (48.1) 14 (51.9)
60s & over 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 3 (13.0) 15 (65.2) 5 (21.7)
Job Employee 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 1 (2.2) 10 (22.2) 34 (75.6) 20.386
(.060)
Student 0 (.0) 1 (2.0) 2 (4.0) 13 (26.0) 34 (68.0)
Housewife 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 1 (3.4) 14 (48.3) 14 (48.3)
Unemployed 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 2 (8.0) 11 (44.0) 12 (48.0)
Etc. 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 1 (3.3) 18 (60.0) 11 (36.7)
Residence Metropolitan 0 (.0) 1 (.8) 5 (4.1) 46 (37.7) 70 (57.4) .681
(.878)
Other area 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 2 (3.5) 20 (35.1) 35 (61.4)
Flight purpose Business 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 2 (14.3) 12 (85.7) 9.435
(.398)
Travel 0 (.0) 1 (.7) 6 (3.9) 61 (39.9) 85 (55.6)
Transport. 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 1 (12.5) 3 (37.5) 4 (50.0)
Etc. 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 0 (.0) 4 (100.0)
Total 0 (.0) 1 (.6) 7 (3.9) 66 (36.9) 105 (58.7)

* p<.05.

Download Excel Table
3.2.3.2 Risk level of liquids and gels

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 16. There were no statistically significant differences in general characteristics(p>.05). It was shown to have a relatively low risk compared to other items, and it is thought that there is a lack of accurate information about the risk of liquids and gels, or that there is only little interest in the items.

Table 16. Risk level of liquids and gels
Config. Risk level of liquids & gels χ2 (p)
Very low Low Aver. High Very high
Gen. Male 1 (1.0) 24 (24.7) 28 (28.9) 29 (29.9) 15 (15.5) 9.110
(.058)
Female 0 (.0) 12 (14.6) 38 (46.3) 16 (19.5) 16 (19.5)
Age 10s/20s 1 (1.5) 14 (21.5) 27 (41.5) 12 (18.5) 11 (16.9) 14.233
(.581)
30s 0 (.0) 8 (23.5) 15 (44.1) 8 (23.5) 3 (8.8)
40s 0 (.0) 8 (26.7) 8 (26.7) 7 (23.3) 7 (23.3)
50s 0 (.0) 2 (7.4) 11 (40.7) 9 (33.3) 5 (18.5)
60s & over 0 (.0) 4 (17.4) 5 (21.7) 9 (39.1) 5 (21.7)
Job Employee 1 (2.2) 11 (24.4) 13 (28.9) 10 (22.2) 10 (22.2) 15.776
(.469)
Student 0 (.0) 10 (20.0) 21 (42.0) 11 (22.0) 8 (16.0)
Housewife 0 (.0) 3 (10.3) 14 (48.3) 6 (20.7) 6 (20.7)
Unemployed 0 (.0) 6 (24.0) 7 (28.0) 6 (24.0) 6 (24.0)
Etc. 0 (.0) 6 (20.0) 11 (36.7) 12 (40.0) 1 (3.3)
Residence Metropolitan 1 (.8) 27 (22.1) 40 (32.8) 33 (27.0) 21 (17.2) 3.536
(.472)
Other area 0 (.0) 9 (15.8) 26 (45.6) 12 (21.1) 10 (17.5)
Flight purpose Business 0 (.0) 5 (35.7) 2 (14.3) 4 (28.6) 3 (21.4) 6.829
(.869)
Travel 1 (.7) 28 (18.3) 58 (37.9) 40 (26.1) 26 (17.0)
Transport. 0 (.0) 2 (25.0) 4 (50.0) 1 (12.5) 1 (12.5)
Etc. 0 (.0) 1 (25.0) 2 (50.0) 0 (.0) 1 (25.0)
Total 1 (.6) 36 (20.1) 66 (36.9) 45 (25.1) 31 (17.3)
Download Excel Table

IV. Conclusion

4.1 Interpretation and Results

This study examined whether passengers can accurately judge whether various items can be carried on board, and looked into whether the perceived level of risk for each type of item affected the decision on whether or not it could be brought on board. The main analysis results are as follow.

First, differences in understanding and experience with carry-on baggage regulations emerged across different groups participating in air travel. In general, the survey respondents were aware of carry-on items, but the level of awareness varied depending on gender, occupation, and residential area. This shows that understanding and experience of air travel services and regulations can vary widely across participants. Therefore, airlines and related organizations should take this diversity into account to provide travelers with clearer and more effective guidance on carry-on items and consider improving services and regulations to provide a better travel experience.

Second, there was an overall difference in the judgment ratio regarding whether or not items could be brought on board depending on the items. This revealed uncertainty regarding the items as they had different regulations across countries and airlines. This can be confusing for passengers due to the incovenience of having to be aware of multiple criteria. It can also be a burden not only to passengers but also to airlines and airport staff. Because it can affect the overall efficiency and quality of air travel, it is necessary to improve regulations on goods and to enhance the convenience of air travel by providing information through education, publicity and marketing.

Third, the risk ratio for each carry-on item showed a similar pattern to the judgment ratio. This suggests that passengers tend to refer to risk assessment criteria when judging specific items. Additionally, the fact that a greater proportion of respondents were unaware that this differed by country and airline proves that their risk assessments by item are being influenced. When information is insufficient, decisions are made on one’s own judgment. As this may cause confusion in aviation safety, it it believed that passengers need to understand the regulations and policies regarding carry-on items.

4.2 Implication

The results of this study suggest that when passengers are unclear about the standards or are ignorant about the risks involved in their judgments regarding carry-on items, their judgments are influenced by the level of risk. Airline passengers’ awareness of aviation safety information shows a significant relationship with their attitudes and behavioral intentions toward safe behavior. Therefore, in order to expect positive results for aviation safety, such as high awareness of passengers regarding aviation safety information and a favorable attitude toward safe behavior, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and airlines need to engage in various activities, such as active event promotion, media promotion, and educational promotion, to raise awareness of the necessity and importance of aviation safety(Choi, 2017). If the analysis results of this study can increase passengers’ understanding of carry-on items, it will be helpful in improving aviation safety.

References

1.

Kang, J. Y., and Ahn, J. H., "Historical review on aviation threats and management of aviation security", Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics, 12(2), 2004, pp.29-42.

2.

Kim, H. W., "On efficient airport security measures as related to an increase of transit passenger at Incheon International Airport", Master’s Thesis, Korea Aerospace University, 2011.

3.

Kim, K. H., "Study on improving airport security to prevent air terroirism", Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics, 21(4), 2013, pp.90-105.

4.

Lee, J. H., "A review of the international civil aviation organization’s aviation security assessment", Journal of Korea Association for Aviation Security, 1(1), 2019, pp.45-57.

5.

Jang, I. H., "Air law, policy: The legal study of prohibited items on aeroplane for the aircraft safty and security", The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy, 29(1), 2014, pp.33-66.

6.

7.

Park, J. W., "A study on improving air cargo security system: focused on IIA security system", Master’s Thesis, Incheon University, 2016.

8.

Seo, I. S., "Sanctions for security violations of prohibited goods on board an aircraft: A legal study", Master’s Thesis, Korea Aerospace University, 2022.

9.

Kim, S. M., "A legal study on aviation safety and using PED in flight", Master’s Thesis, Korea Aerospace University, 2020.

10.

Jeon, S. H., "A study on proactive responses to in-flight cyber threats-centered on comprehensive information security management system improvements", Journal of the Aviation Management Society of Korea, 21(5), 2023, pp.67-78.

11.

Lee, K. S., "Study on classification system of hazardous items prohibited from being carried onboard aircraft according to ICAO international standards", Journal of Korea Association for Avation Security, 1(1), 2019, pp.13-19.

12.

Choi, K. O., "The effects of passenger’s aviation safety awareness on aviation safety behavioral intention", Master’s Thesis, Chungwoon University, 2017.