Aviation Security
7381
Airport security: it is a buzzword for the media, a political minefield for politicians and lawmakers, and a headache for travelers. No matter which camp you are in, the controversy surrounding airport security isn't going away. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the safety, or lack thereof, of American airports have become the subject of considerable debate. On November 19, 2001, President George W. Bush signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), which created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) within the Department of Transportation. The goal of this new legislation was to create an authority charged with the task of securing the air travel system in America. The first major initiatives for the organization included replacing all private sector security screeners with a workforce of federal employees and equipping all airports with the machinery needed to screen every single piece of checked baggage. The time frame for implementing these sweeping changes was immediate. One year was allocated to complete the transition from civilian to federal employees and a December 31, 2002 deadline was adopted in regard to the checked baggage mandate.
By January 2003, the business of airport security in the United States had received a complete overhaul. The November 19, 2002 deadline for deploying federal baggage handlers was honored, resulting in the termination of millions of dollars in contracts with private security firms. The goal of installing electronic systems to screen 100 percent of checked baggage was nearly achieved by the established deadline. Only 30 or 40 of the nation's 429 airports waited for equipment deliveries. These improvements represented the beginning of a new wave of potential security measures for airports around the country. Different options have been proposed and challenged by many groups that have a stake in the future of airline security. As new proposals are reviewed and adopted, new corporate players in the industry will emerge.
By the mid-2000s, the aviation security sector remained in a state of flux. At that time, the agency had programs in place to test the use of non-federal screeners in U.S. airports. Called the Screening Partnership Program (SPP), this initiative paved the way for private corporations to re-establish a presence in the industry. However, airports were reluctant to participate due to concerns over liability, and were seeking liability protection from Congress.
During the mid-2000s, some observers noted that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was potentially moving away from a heavy emphasis on bag and passenger checking and toward a more scientific, risk management approach involving forecasting techniques and cost benefit analyses. The agency also had proposed a number of measures to make air travel more convenient for passengers. These included lifting the requirement that all passengers remove their outerwear (coats, jackets) and shoes at security checkpoints, scaling back the number of pat-down searches, and allowing travelers to once again carry items such as razors, small knives, and scissors on flights. However, at least two bills in the U.S. House of Representatives called for more stringent airport security measures.
On June 21, 2005, the Orlando International Airport became the first in the nation to offer a privately sponsored and Department of Homeland Security approved Registered Traveler program. After submitting to an in-depth background investigation, qualifying passengers receive biometric smart cards that allow them to bypass regular airport screening practices. Although the program is designed to reduce travel time and inconvenience, many view it as an invasion of personal privacy. In 2004, the TSA's controversial CAPPS II program was replaced with a new proposed program called Secure Flight. Less invasive than CAPPS II, Secure Flight does not involve the use of commercial data sources to verify the identities of air travelers, only passenger names and birth date. The TSA planned to roll out Secure Flight in the summer of 2005. However, delays pushed the launch until late 2005 or early 2006. Some observers were concerned that the TSA had not met the bulk of program criteria set by Congress, including those involving data safety and accuracy. These developments illustrate that the balancing of privacy and safety will continue to be a key issue for years to come.
A review of the inner workings of airport security sheds some light on the challenges facing the industry. First, the very word "industry" suggests a group of comparable companies and organizations competing to serve or fill a need. In the complicated world of aviation security, nothing could be further from the truth. Providing airport security is a Herculean task and can be divided into four main categories: facilities, employee and vendor supervision, equipment, and procedures. The responsibility for keeping travelers safe has historically been divided among various factions: airport authorities, who manage the facilities; airlines, who control maintenance and access to the planes; the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), who monitors the skies and determines safety standards; and a mix of public and private sector companies patrolling the areas in between. The division of duties has long posed a challenge to the authorities trying to safeguard the traveling public.
The creation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was intended to provide a single governing body to monitor the safety of U.S. airports. The first priority of the TSA was achieved in December 2002 when it successfully hired and trained over 40,000 federal passenger screeners. These screeners replaced all private sector employees and effectively eliminated the role of private security firms in this capacity.
In addition to staffing facilities with federal employees, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) mandated the use of sophisticated baggage screening devices for all airports. The private sector was able to regain a piece of the airport security business by bidding on the contracts to install the new screening equipment. Defense and electronics companies competing to install the new equipment designed to detect explosives included Northrop Grumman Corp. and Raytheon Co. Northrop eventually won a large portion of the assignment, including providing training for screeners using the devices. Other contracts related to installing security upgrades in airports have received bids from a number of companies specializing in defense electronics such as Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp., and TRW Inc. The explosive detection/screening devices are manufactured by a handful of companies, such as L-3 Communication Holdings and Invision Technologies.
In 2003 the TSA placed the control and structure of the airport security industry firmly in the hands of the federal government. Acting with the authority of congressional legislation and the cooperation of the FAA, the agency determines necessary safety measures and moves to implement them. As of 2003, the mandate that all TSA and airport security personnel must be federal employees remained in place. Private sector companies now provide services as equipment manufacturers and train federal employees on proper use of the equipment, but private security firms are no longer a strong presence in U.S. aviation security.
Airport security traces it roots back to 1926, the year Congress passed the Air Commerce Act. The goal of the legislation was to create safety standards for air travel, thus making it more appealing to the public. The Department of Commerce, operating from its newly formed Aeronautics Branch, assumed oversight authority for the nation's airports, air traffic control, and regulations governing pilot training and certification. At that time, guaranteeing the safety of air travel meant focusing on the pilot certification process and the procedures for safety inspections of aircraft. Lighted runways and radio beacons were introduced to serve as navigation aids.
In 1934 the Aeronautics Branch was renamed the Bureau of Air Commerce in response to...
To continue reading
Request your trial