Beyond the Gore Commission: What next?

May 1, 1998 12:00 PM, Kate Doherty

Pointed questions about baggage, stepped-up luggage screening, requests for photo identification - all before airline passengers are let anywhere near their gates - are some of the tangible results of the increased scrutiny federal agencies have focused on aviation security.

In its final report issued Feb. 12, 1997, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security (the Gore Commission) directed its primary security recommendation at the federal government: "Consider aviation security as a national security issue."

Since then, federal agencies have made clear progress toward fulfilling the commission's recommended improvements to aviation security, and more improvements are on the horizon for fiscal year 1999. Observers, however, give the agencies' efforts mixed reviews.

Security improvements on the horizon After President Clinton included $100 million for civil aviation security in the fiscal year 1999 budget request, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a statement outlining how it intends to use the money: n to continue installation of certified explosives detection systems; n for trace detection devices; n for operator-assisted x-ray devices; and n for hardened cargo containers that could contain explosions such as the one that destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

Additionally, says the FAA, passenger bag matching will be expanded. Passenger screening will be used as a basis for examining luggage with explosive detection devices or through passenger bag matching. A new Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening (CAPS) program has already been implemented by a few airlines on a voluntary basis, and, according to FAA spokesperson Rebecca Trexler, the FAA intends to mandate its use.

Passenger screening - or "profiling" as it is sometimes called - has come under fire by some who claim it is discriminatory and threatens basic civil liberties.

The Justice Department has, however, concluded that both the automated and manual passenger screening systems do not illegally discriminate against airline passengers. The department issued these statements: "The Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening system does not record, nor give any consideration to, the race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion or gender of airline passengers. CAPS also [does not consider] a passenger's name or style of dress."

The Justice Department has also outlined steps to help preclude future discrimination. All the FAA is allowed to say of what CAPS screens for, says Trexler, is that it looks at travel behaviors. She says the system does not ask for anything more than information passengers commonly give to airlines.

At issue Some security professionals such as John Strauchs contend that the White House Commission - or the Gore Commission as it has come to be called for its chairman, Vice President Al Gore - "picked only the low-hanging apples." Strauchs is a security engineer and CEO of Systech Group, Reston, Va., who has consulted for numerous airport projects. Though Strauchs says the commission's work is laudable for bringing much-needed attention to aviation security, he contends that the recommendations do not address "tough issues" such as the lack of standardization in aviation security.

n Security standardization is an issue that speaks to the age-old American question: "to what extent should the federal government govern?"

Currently, airlines and airports are responsible for presenting the FAA with their plans for compliance with FAA security regulations. The FAA then approves as adequate or rejects as inadequate security precautions on an individual basis.

Strauchs says, however, that the lack of standardization from airport to airport - of requirements, procedure, training and operations - causes significantsecurity vulnerabilities.

Attorney and risk consultant Charles Slepian, who has dealt with security negligence liability issues of concern to the aviation industry, agrees that the inconsistency in the system is detrimental.

"Security regulations are promulgated by the FAA, which, down the road, transfers security responsibility to the airport authority and then to the airlines, which are not prepared to put in place the kind of security that should be put in place," says Slepian. "It's inconsistent. There is a responsibility to put security into each of the airports, but it is like beauty in the eye of the beholder: There is no standardization of that."

Rebecca Trexler asserts that standardization of specific practices in airports is not only impractical, but would also be ineffective, given the diversity in size, location and traffic of airports across the country.

n Criminal background checks. The commission's recommendation that criminal background checks be performed on screeners and airline and airport employees with access to secure areas seems vital to aviation security as a national security concern, but the recommendation is problematic.

Currently, FAA regulations require only employment background checks on employees with unescorted access to secure areas at airports. But the FAA has proposed a rule requiring baggage screeners and their supervisors to undergo employment background investigations. A criminal history investigation is conducted when potential employees have an unexplainable gap of at least 12 months in their employment history, according to Trexler.

The proposed rule has met with resistance because of possible civil liberties infringement, but Slepian holds that criminal background checks are imperative if airports are to be considered high-security areas.

"The greater portion of risk comes not from passengers but from others who have access to aircraft," he explains. "It's fairly simple to screen what passengers put on planes. It is not so simple to screen, for instance, the almost 40,000 employees who work at JFK airport who go to work every day and don't go through security. There are hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. every day who have access to the planes who don't go through a security check, and I find that to be a very serious flaw in the system."

The final rule on the issue is being drafted now, says Trexler, and should be made public by the end of the year.

n Inadequate security personnel. The inadequacy of screeners and guards is another common lament about aviation security, and one that was addressed in the commission's recommendations: "The FAA should work with industry to develop a national program to increase the professionalism of the aviation security workforce."

As Slepian puts it: "The caliber of security staffing at airports in the U.S. is terribly inconsistent, because the federal government has not taken the responsibility to police our airports, and it ought to." John Strauchs concurs. "Aviation is a government-regulated industry, yet the government does not take responsibility for security in any adequate measure," he says.

Strauchs says that when security is left up to the carriers, "they do it poorly, they have no motivation, and they're trying to keep ticket prices low. You end up with poorly paid and trained guards and poor equipment, because they can't afford much more."

The FAA is taking steps to do something about it. In accord with the commission's recommendation, the FAA has improved training for air carrier personnel with security responsibilities and is working to deploy the Screener Proficiency Evaluation and Reporting System (SPEARS), a new, computer-based training program.

Up to speed with 1997 The Department of Transportation's status report on the commission's progress, issued on Feb. 12, 1998, asserts that President Clinton has acknowledged aviation security as a "major element of our strategy against terrorism."

The following actions satisfying security recommendations have been completed and are excerpted here from the report: n In June 1997, the FAA proposed that the International Civil Aviation Organization begin a program to verify and improve compliance with international security standards. n The Department of Transportation strengthened its working relationship with the Departments of Defense, Energy and other federal agencies and local authorities to assess the possible use of chemical and biological weapons as tools of terrorism. n The Department of Defense has established an interagency task force to assess the potential use of surface-to-air missiles against commercial aircraft. n The FAA has given properly cleared airline and airport security personnel access to needed classified information. Industry officials with appropriate security clearances are now provided classified information regarding threats. n The FBI increased the number of agents assigned to counter-terrorism investigations to improve intelligence and crisis response. n The FAA has been a full partner with the Department of State in providing anti-terrorism assistance through airport security training to countries where there are airports served by airlines flying to the United States.

The National Security Council has formed a subgroup of federal agencies involved in aviation security to address the White House Commission's security recommendations.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2012 Penton Media Inc.

This month in Access Control

• Targeting The Customer
• Electronic Pedigrees
• One Hero Among Many
• Who? What? When? Where? Why?
• More from September's issue