This is a thought-provoking post from our Head of Risk and Counter Terrorism, Jonathan Neal, all about how the #security and #counterterrorism sector can ensure #HVM installations meet the right performance for the deployment and why that's so important. It will be interesting to see what other professionals in the field think on this topic.
Head of Risk and Counter Terrorism providing support and guidance to organisations to help improve safety and physical security focusing on bespoke counter terrorism measures and advice.
Given the complexity of HVM deployments, I am asking…Should there be a dedicated regulatory body responsible for overseeing these security measures? Such a body could play a critical role in standardising qualifications, mandating compliance, and ensuring that all HVM solutions meet the required level of performance for their specific deployment. Here are my thoughts – what are yours? A dedicated regulatory authority, perhaps overseen by the National Protective Security Authority (NPSA) or another governmental agency, could: Set standards for HVM Deployments: A regulatory body could create a framework of standards that outline specific requirements for HVM deployments. These would ensure consistency across deployments, working alongside PAS68, IWA14-1 and the new ISO 22343 standards. Existing impact ratings are designed to showcase the requirements for an HVM product to achieve one of these standards. Paramount to this is the number of unit/arrays required, the attack angle and the speed and weight of a vehicle impacting the product. WHY IS THIS SO IMPORTANT? 🤔 Because all too often, deployments are not installed at 90 degrees to the potential threat, or assets (either people or property) are situated within the documented penetration and debris field distance of the mitigation. Wherever possible, any solution should provide a level of protection adequate to the speed and weight of vehicles able to access the location – ticking a box of rated system is not enough!! Certify Qualified Practitioners: By establishing certification requirements, a regulatory body could mandate that HVM must be deployed only by certified professionals who meet a minimum standard of knowledge and practical experience. This certification could require continuous professional development, ensuring that practitioners stay up to date with evolving threats and technological advancements. Standardise acceptable risk: One potential challenge for a regulatory body is the inherently subjective nature of risk assessments. Defining risk levels involves subjective judgments about threat likelihood, vulnerability, and impact. However, by working with standardised criteria and quantitative assessments, it could be possible to create a more objective basis for defining “acceptable” risk levels. Conduct Inspections and Audits: Regular inspections could verify that deployed HVM measures meet performance and safety standards, as well as their effectiveness against specified threats. Audits could provide accountability, revealing instances where HVM measures fall short or require improvement. As we await Martyn’s Law legislation, shouldn’t we be pushing for HVM deployment standards that protect to the required level? Interested to know what other PSSA - Perimeter Security Suppliers Association, security professionals, safety officers and current or former #CTSAs and #CTSecCOs think… #hvm #hostilevehiclemitigation #security #counterterrorism #martynslaw #protectduty #safecrowds