|
The
country's airline industry now faces what is probably its most
grave financial situation ever. Meanwhile, it must also grapple
with the fact that its security system is widely perceived as
an abysmal failure after four planes were hijacked, in almost
perfect synchronicity, on September 11. Improved technology is
available and can help, yet that is only a segment of a much larger
problem.
Yet during the discussions last week, the airlines were also asking for $3 billion dollars to meet mandated beefed-up security measures, acknowledging their importance to the viability of the industry. A specific security budget request has yet to be scheduled for a government vote, yet security may play a larger part in the future health of the airline industry than it has before. Indeed, many people--in Congress and elsewhere--have called for a federal takeover of airport security (thus ensuring consistency and coordination among the army of agents soon to be pressed into service under the new Office of Homeland Security). As of this time, there seems to be hesitation in the Administration about this idea. However, given Americans' pervasive sense of insecurity about flying after the attacks (and following an unprecedented surge in air travel over the past ten years), there is a gnawing fear among airline executives and analysts that the air transportation business will be dealt a crippling blow from which it may never recover unless passenger confidence is restored quickly.
It is widely accepted, inside the Beltway and beyond, that airport security, which has become a bottom-line, cost item for the airlines, has widely been given less than adequate attention by all concerned. To be fair, this has been fueled by consumers' unstoppable appetite for convenience and the airlines' response: clogging the airways and the airports to accommodate ever-increasing flight schedules. But the US is the only western country, and one of the only countries in the world to be laissez-faire about airport security, leaving it up to individual airlines to staff the function. Despite regular assurances from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the irregular appearance of high-tech machinery at various airports over the last decade, human monitoring and investigation at the point of airport check-in and clearance has received less planning than is available with any of our European allies. A former CIA agent, interviewed recently on 60 Minutes, claims that in conducting close to 400 tests of airport security checkpoints, he was able to pass through scanners and security 90 percent of the time even though he was in possession of explosives, guns or other weapons.
The blame game has predictably ensued, with harsh criticism and explanations flying in all directions: the money airlines save in hiring minimum wage security employees, for the important task of human intervention and monitoring; the demand from the flying public for faster, convenient service dominating safety precautions; outdated technology at security checkpoints that is simple to outsmart; the lack of background checks of airline and airport employees; the empty promises of the FAA to step up measures to make airports secure, and so on.
The bottom line--according to the Hart-Rudman panel, which issued its report to Congress well before the attacks on September 11--is that federal spending on airport security must be accompanied by great coordination and information sharing, among disparate and turf-conscious agencies of government, and with the various points of the industry itself: airlines and employees, tourism operators and the like. One security expert referred to such an effort as establishing interlocking rings, thus insulating against the danger of things falling between the cracks.
High-tech help
Many technological advances have been made in the fields of detection, including imaging and "sniffer" technologies. Their use has been scattered. Demonstration, testing, decision, and choice are slowed by multiple factors. Since the attack, both technology providers and the FAA refuse to discuss any concrete plans on what new equipment they intend to deploy at airports.
Here we highlight two promising technologies developed in Southern California:
"In a scenario where a bombmaker or carrier has explosives on themselves, they would be contaminated," says Syage."We identify them by the molecules and can be very certain that it's an explosive. Also we can be very certain that we're not going to be fooled. Other techniques get fooled. Certain things look like explosives but are not, such as perfumes, and those are called interferences. It will suppress, significantly, the detection of interference."
Another company that has developed an advanced passenger screening technology is Rapiscan whose Secure 1000 x-ray technology gives a front and back body scan in five seconds. Current metal detectors cannot detect weapons that are either ceramic, glass or wood; or sometimes if a weapon is hidden under several layers of material, it can be undetectable. This type of system would give an x-ray scan of all objects concealed on the body. Unlike a medical x-ray system, the Secure 1000 is not strong enough to pierce through tissue and emits as much radiation as "what a TV set emits", says Rapiscan spokesperson Sanjay Sabnini.
Like Syagen's technology, the Secure 1000 hasn't been used in airports yet. The only announced installation the company has made on this technology, is at some undisclosed correction facilities as well as the Mexican government, who had placed an order for multiple units to be used in airports, order checkpoints, and customs facilities. However, this technology may have some problems getting approved by the FAA--the technology also gives a detailed scan of a person's body shape, and thus may raise privacy concerns.
"The mandate for airline security has not yet been there because there is an issue of privacy," says Sabnini. "People may not be comfortable with somebody seeing an outline (of their bodies). Even though it's not a high quality image it is one that does show the shape and outline of love handles and other body artifacts. People may have medical issues that normally weren't intruded upon by the old ways."
However, the concern for privacy does tend to be overlooked during a crisis in security, and some recent polls have indicated that the public is increasingly more open to security, as well as surveillance, that might have been considered too invasive before the disasters.
"A situation like the one we just had creates a heightened awareness or request in the consumer's mind to have more done to them," Sabnini says. "Everywhere you see information now about increased wiretapping or surveillance, and people are saying they wouldn't mind a little more scrutiny if it protects the greater good. But these aren't simple decisions and (they're made) by an institution whether it's a correctional institution or the FAA."
click
here for part 2 of 2 Rohit Shukla, larta CEO, also contributed to this report |
|
Return to larta home page. |
With
a $1 million grant from the FAA, Orange County-based