FORTIFYING AGAINST TERROR

Nov 1, 2001 12:00 PM, By PAUL ROTHMAN

Suppliers of bomb-detection, x-ray and other airport security equipment are bracing for a wave of requests for the technology from the Federal Aviation Administration.

For example, fallout from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has already boosted the profile of InVision Technologies Inc., a Newark, Calif.-based supplier of bomb and explosive detection machines designed for baggage security.

“The fear of aviation terrorism is now escalated by the events of September 11th and the declaration of outright war,” Frederick F, Muntz, vice president of InVision told Congress during recent testimony. “While InVision's role in this war is essentially the security of checked baggage and is only a part of the overall response required, it is a critical role and one that remains to be completed.”

A recent report by Kenneth M. Mead, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Aviation, outlines sweeping security changes necessary at America's airports. Those changes will likely involve countless security industry suppliers and manufacturers, including InVision and L-3 Communications, New York — both of which produce bomb detection equipment already in use at some airports.

One problem, according to Mead, is with the airlines and airports that use the bomb detection equipment sparingly, improperly, or in the worst case, not at all. Additionally, each of the complex machines designed for bomb detection is ultimately dependent on a human operator.

UPGRADE: EXPANDING THE WORLD OF AIRPORT SECURITY

Mead advocates the purchase of “significant numbers of advanced technology bulk detection systems, upgraded x-rays and other innovative systems.”

As companies scramble to meet the needs of airport security, the decision may rest with the federal government. Mead recommended Congress “consider the option of vesting governance of the program and responsibility for the provision of security in one federal organization.”

With federalization of airport security a hotly debated issue — President Bush and The House of Representatives both oppose it, while the Senate has approved it unanimously — security suppliers are working to develop relationships with government agencies. In the past, according to Mead, the FAA has purchased advanced security technologies from multiple vendors. In an effort to promote competition, the FAA required itself to purchase one L-3 eXaminer 6000 machine for every InVision CTX. The FAA is also deploying trace explosives detection devices from four different vendors.

As of Sept. 30, 2001, the FAA has deployed 142 certified bulk explosives detection machines at 47 airports, 20 non-certified explosives detection machines at eight airports and 789 explosives trace detection devices at 174 airports.

HOW WELL DO THE MACHINES WORK?

The InVision CTX machine isn't what most people imagine when they think of airport security devices. The CTX measures density of objects within a piece of baggage, and it evolved from InVision's involvement in the healthcare industry. The CTX uses technology similar to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machines made popular in hospitals and doctor's offices. If the CTX machine detects greater density issues, it alerts someone monitoring the machine who can call up a computer-generated “slice” of the baggage in question and examine it in detail.

The CTX machine and the L-3 eXaminer can detect objects metal detectors can miss. Plastic objects immediately come to mind — not just the plastique from a plastic explosive, but also the plastic used with box-cutters and other instruments. The plastique is virtually impossible to find without the scanning machines, especially when a bag is lined with explosives thinner than a piece of cardboard.

The CTX is available in three types: the 2500 model, 5500 model and 9000 model. The 2500 and 5500 models are what most travelers encounter at the airport. They are used for baggage check both at curbside and at ticket counters. The 9000 model is too large to fit in those areas, and is relegated to an area of the airport not visible to everyday travelers. The 2500 is capable of screening 128 bags per hour; the 5500 can screen 384 bags in an hour, and the 9000 is able to check 542 bags per hour.

According to the FAA, the eXaminer machine uses computed tomography and is designed with multiple detector arrays and a spiral-scanning mode to allow for continuous data collection to produce either a 3-D or 2-D image of an entire bag. When the system alarms on a suspect bag, the parts of the object of interest are highlighted. The operator can then rotate the image of the object to view it from different perspectives to resolve the alarm. The system can analyze a bag in seven seconds.

The standards for checked baggage screening were established in response to the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988 by plastic explosives hidden in a checked bag. The resulting action by the Gore Commission set guidelines for the aviation security industry and required that 100 percent of all checked and carry-on baggage be screened by the year 2009. According to Mead, the European Civil Aviation Conference — albeit seeing significantly less volume than American airports — has a goal of screening 100 percent of baggage by 2002.

“Given the events of Sept. 11, the deployment should be escalated and a date established on which the screening of 100 percent of checked baggage must be achieved,” Mead says.

UNDER-UTILIZED EQUIPMENT BECOMES A PROBLEM

With the CTX and eXaminer machines theoretically capable of screening 100 percent of checked baggage, it becomes clear they are being under-utilized around the country — even after the tragic events of Sept. 11.

Mead reported that Congress has twice mandated the FAA increase the use of bulk explosives detection equipment. Congress even included a provision in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1999 mandating the FAA certify to Congress, in writing, that air carriers will substantially increase the use of the machines. In 2000, Congress again issued a similar mandate as a part of the Airport Security Act.

While the FAA may mandate airlines use the devices, the air carriers themselves are responsible for operational and maintenance cost of all advanced security technologies deployed by the FAA.

This means that some of the deployed machines are not in use at all, are broken or are simply under-utilized, Mead reported. In July 2001, the average usage rate per CTX or eXaminer machine was 350 bags per day. The InVision CTX 5500 machine is capable of screening 384 bags per hour. Mead's report implored the FAA to take immediate steps to ensure air carriers use the equipment at proper levels.

The under-utilization, however, can get worse. After Sept. 11, the FAA requires air carriers to ensure continual use of all deployed explosives detection equipment or advanced security technologies. To determine if this mandate was being met, Mead and his staff visited seven of the nation's largest airports after Sept. 11. The findings were alarming.

“During recent limited visits, we were concerned to find that the majority [of deployed equipment] was still not being continuously used,” Mead reports. “At some locations, the machine was not turned on. At others, the machines were on and staffed with screeners, but no baggage was being screened. At others, baggage was being screened only sporadically.

“We are disappointed to find that despite a recognized need for heightened security, air carriers still are not fully utilizing these machines to the maximum extent possible.”

How can the problem be solved? The answer lies on both sides of the fence.

At some airports, Mead notes, the machines are installed in locations not conducive to efficient and effective security operations — i.e. machine operators are not sufficiently blocked from noise and distraction, machines are not secured from the public, etc. Mead says that at one major airport, the airport operator would not approve a lobby installation because “the machine did not fit the lobby's color scheme.”

At other airports, there is simply not enough room to house more than one of the machines.

There have also been technical problems with some of the machines — and they are being warehoused in storage until the problems can be fixed. Maintenance costs are also high. Mead says the complexity of the installations and the number of entities involved has slowed deployment.

According to the FAA, 11 CTX machines had not been installed primarily because funds were not available to pay for the installations.

Those who make their living on airplanes also advocate greater security measures without regard to cost. A group of flight attendant unions issued this plea in mid-October:

“Flight attendants are united in calling on the federal government to do everything possible to protect lives and not give in to airline management complaints about convenience and cost.”

THE HUMAN FACTOR

Screening and training companies that provide airport security workers should be certified, Mead's report urged. It's a concept paramount to greater airport security. Lapses prior to Sept. 11 abound, but much of the news coverage focuses on Argenbright Security Inc., Atlanta, and its questionable hiring and training practices.

One month to the day after the Sept. 11 tragedies, Argenbright pleaded guilty to violating federal rules on training, testing and conducting background checks on employees. The company, which placed workers in airports throughout the country — notably at Washington's Dulles International Airport and Newark International Airport in New Jersey, the takeoff points of two of the hijacked airliners — was ordered to pay a $1 million fine and was placed on three years probation. Prosecutors in the case reported that 18 airport security guards were allowed to work with convictions for crimes ranging from drug possession to burglary and resisting arrest.

Recently, government investigators found undocumented Argenbright workers screening passengers at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, and seven of 20 Argenbright screeners at Dulles had failed annual tests.

To improve airport security, Mead recommends the continued use of Threat Image Projection (TIP) software in conjunction with the screening machines. In short, TIP projects fictitious images onto bags or an entire fictitious bag containing a threat onto the screener's monitor. This is designed to keep the screener alert while providing real-time conditions to measure performance.

The FAA relies on TIP not only to measure screener performance, but also to certify screening companies. The FAA also uses TIP results to establish screener performance standards. “By measuring operator performance, the FAA can hold certified screening companies and the air carriers that hire them accountable for effective screening operations,” Mead says.

TIP has been installed on all CTX machines, and the FAA is also deploying new TIP-ready x-ray machines. Currently, there are 697 TIP-ready x-ray machines deployed at screening checkpoints in 72 airports.

Overall, Mead asserts the obvious notion that “better selection, training and testing of the people who work at airport x-ray machines will result in a significant boost in security.”

The Inspector General, however, says he is concerned the FAA has not yet established screener performance standards, thus allowing screening companies to maintain their certification without routine checks.

“In the immediate term, the FAA needs to expedite the deployment of programs used to test screener performance; establish quantity and quality parameters for measuring screener performance; and maximize the continuous use of explosives detection equipment,” he says.

FOR THE RECORD

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Paul Rothman is associate editor of Access Control & Security Systems.

ABOUT THE COMPANIES

For information, please circle the
Reader Service number (listed below) on one of the Reader
Service cards in the issue or
visit infoLINK at
www.securitysolutions.com.

InVision Technologies Inc.	30
L-3 Communicationa	31
Quantum Magnetics	32
Identix Inc.	33
Taser International	34
Imagis Technologies	35
Ingersoll-Rand	36
Recognition Systems Inc.	37
I.D. Systems Inc.	38
CBL Systems Corp.	39
Boeing Security & Safety	40
Triad Int'l Maintenance	41
Advanced Composite Tech.	42
SecuGen Corp.	43
Honeywell	44
NICE Systems	45
Axcess Inc.	46
Lenel Systems Intl	47

FAA RESPONSE TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

Here are some of the recommendations made Oct. 1 by the FAA rapid-response team regarding increased security aboard airplanes and in airports:

• An appropriate barrier device for flight deck doors should be approved, and installation should begin within 30 days. Installation throughout the entire U.S. fleet should be completed in 90 days. All safety issues regarding the new doors should be considered.

• Flight deck procedural changes should be made at all airlines within 30 days. Passengers should be prohibited from loitering at the forward lavatory and galley areas. Curtains/dividers should be left open between cabins, Persons entering the flight deck should be positively identified using peepholes, code words, or other similar methods.

• The FAA and industry should define requirements for an automated system to validate, in real time, the identities of persons with legitimate access to the aircraft (universal access identification) within six months.

• The industry should evaluate the use of cameras and lighting outside the flight deck door within six months.

• The FBI should present reasons for and against its proposal to arm pilots.

• The industry, unions and FAA should redesign security training to address newly-identified threats within 30 days, incorporate changes into the annual curriculum within 60 days, and provide security training to all crew members within six months after updating the curriculum.

• A new Federal security agency should be developed to be responsible for conducting searches of aircraft cabins.

AIR SECURITY DRAWS FAMILIAR SUPPLIERS

The airline security expansion has begun, and suppliers of security technology are pushing their way to the forefront, seeking a niche in the expanding world of airport security.

InVision Technologies, Newark, Calif., and L-3 Communications, New York, already have FAA approval for explosives detection equipment.

Other companies moving into the airline security market, or increasing their stake include:

• Nine “Category X” U.S. Airports within the last year have chosen biometric authentication from Identix Inc., Los Gatos, Calif., for background checks of prospective employees. San Francisco International Airport was the latest to adopt this technology, using TouchPrint Live Scan systems. Installation is expected to be complete this month.

• The use of non-lethal force has been recommended in hijacking emergencies. Taser Intl., Scottsdale, Ariz., announced in mid-October that Mesa Air will begin training its pilots to carry the Advanced Taser M26 less-lethal weapon. The weapon uses compressed nitrogen to launch two small probes at a range of 21 feet. An electrical signal penetrates the nervous system regardless of the placement of the probes.

• Imagis Technologies, Vancouver, recently announced the Oakland (Calif.) Police Department (OPD) is extending installation of Imagis' ID-2000 facial recognition technology in Alameda County to Oakland International Airport. OPD, which oversees security of the Oakland International Airport, has deployed Imagis' integrated booking and biometric identification system to enhance airport security.

• Jim Scott, president of Ingersoll Rand's Security and Safety Solutions unit, Woodcliff Lake, N.J., testified in front of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Aviation, touting advanced biometric access control for use at airports. Biometric systems by Ingersoll Rand's subsidiary, Recognition Systems Inc., are already in place at international airports in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Tel Aviv and Seoul.

• I.D. Systems Inc., Hackensack, N.J., has offered discounts on its Wireless Asset Net driver tracking and control system to the world's airlines and airports. The system is designed to stop unauthorized use of aircraft ground support vehicles.

• CBL Systems Corp., Hopkinton, Mass., is pushing a fiber-optic system that includes cameras around an aircraft's cabin and flight deck and a system of silent alarms.

• Even larger companies such as Boeing Co. have begun to address security. The aircraft-producing giant will form Boeing Security and Safety Services, a division designed to improve current security measures and systems aboard aircraft.

• Triad Int'l Maintenance, Greensboro, N.C., has designed steel reinforcing bars for use on the flight deck doors of aircraft. Delta, Continental and Alaska airlines have already ordered hundreds of the kits, which fit Boeing jets.

• Advanced Composite Technology, Atlanta, is supplying New York airline JetBlue with bulletproof Kevlar linings for every cockpit door on its 18 jets.

• O'Hare International Airport, once the busiest in America, will upgrade its building access control system with smart card fingerprint-verification readers by SecuGen Corp., Milpitas, Calif.

• Honeywell, Morris Township, N.J., has dedicated a division to developing new aircraft security measures such as airborne video/audio systems and hardened cockpit doors.

• NICE Systems, Ra'anana, Isreal, announced an initiative to provide a comprehensive suite of open standards-based solutions tailored the aviation industry. NICE will build on its technology in voice and video recording. In addition, NICE will use its extensive integration capabilities to partner with other vendors and system integrators to combine its solutions with other ground and air systems.

• Axcess Inc., Dallas, is adapting its video surveillance, personnel and vehicle access control and asset protection systems for use in airports. Applications such as hands-free access control for employees, RFID tags for vehicle gate control, integrated video surveillance with remote streaming video and alarm-based digital recording for terminals and concourses and airplane-to-ground streaming video surveillance are being implemented.

• Lenel Systems Intl., Pittsford, N.Y., has proposed to the FAA the use of Lenel's visitor identification system as a way to track airport passengers. A photo ID element of the system, for example, could help airport officials confirm that the passenger who checks in at the counter is the same passenger who boards the airplane. The Lenel system would generate an information security management database of airport passengers, which could be useful after an incident occurs or to analyze trends to help prevent an incident. According to Elena Prokupets, Lenel president and CEO, interest in the product has been high, with the company's 20 to 30 representatives in the field providing information daily to airports and airlines.

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