Airline security and internal investigations.

Operational applications

When an airline security issue needs a clearer account.

Scope of application: This page applies only to international carriers based outside the United States. It does not apply to U.S.-based carriers, including those operating international routes.

A cargo discrepancy, an unexplained access event, or a reported security breach may span several teams and handovers. Employees, contractors, ground handlers, couriers, and service providers may each hold a different part of the record. Investigators need to establish who observed what, which procedures applied, and where additional evidence is needed.

AISIS gives airline security and corporate investigation teams an additional source of structured information during suitable investigative interviews. Its purpose is to support focused clarification, not to turn a voice indication into an allegation.

From an incident to a testable lead

Focus on the gap between accounts and records.

For a cargo-handling discrepancy, an investigator may need to clarify which person accepted responsibility at a transfer point. Prepare the interview around the documented movement and the person's direct knowledge. A follow-up account of an unrecorded handover should lead to a check of transfer acknowledgements, available surveillance, and other relevant statements.

For an access irregularity, establish the assigned duty, the reported reason for entry, and any authorised exception. Ask clear questions about the specific event rather than treating a person's access privileges as evidence of misconduct. Compare the explanation with access records and the applicable procedure before deciding what the event means.

For conflicting incident accounts, separate what each person saw from what they heard later. Preserve the order of events and identify where recollection differs. The useful outcome is a specific verification task, such as checking a time, location, or responsibility, rather than labelling one interviewee as deceptive.

These are illustrative investigative applications, not reports of an airline deployment or a validated examination script. Formal examination procedures and question formulation remain the responsibility of trained examiners.

Two products. Examiner-led investigation.

AISIS innovation. VASIS experience.

AISIS is VIPRE's AI-assisted system for reviewing stress-related vocal information during investigative interviews. It supports trained examiners in identifying responses that warrant clarification and independent follow-up.

VASIS remains an active VIPRE product, with more than 20 years of operational use by trained investigative professionals. Its established voice stress technology provides an examiner-led option alongside AISIS.

Both products support professional judgment. Neither voice stress indicators nor software output independently establish deception or guilt. Review the two systems with VIPRE in the context of your team's responsibilities, training, and examination procedures.

Responsible use

One part of the investigation, never a security clearance.

AISIS is an investigative aid. Voice stress indicators do not, by themselves, establish deception or guilt. Anxiety, the significance of a question, interview conditions, and other contextual factors can influence a response. The examiner must keep alternative explanations open.

It is not a replacement for aviation security controls, mandatory checks, or established incident-response procedures. It should not be used as an automatic hiring, access, disciplinary, or operational fitness decision. It does not provide a medical or psychological diagnosis.

Before introducing an examination process, the airline should establish its authorised use, applicable requirements, appropriate participation procedures, recording arrangements, and handling of interview information. Security, human resources, and qualified advisers should define responsibilities for review and follow-up.

Reports should distinguish the interviewee's account, the examiner's observations, and independently verified facts. A follow-up topic that cannot be corroborated remains unresolved. Clear documentation helps supervisors assess the investigation without treating the software output as a verdict.