Staying on guard
As airport security evolves, so do the threats in an era where ‘we have to be right every time’
FIFTEEN years and billions of dollars after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, threats to air travel continue to evolve and airport security has become as laborious as it is routine.
Some experts call the post-9/11 screening procedures, from shoe screening to full-body scans, “security theater.” Others describe the efforts as a critical part of prevention. Both sides agree there’s room for improvement.
“In the end, the program has acted as a deterrent,” said Anthony Roman, president of global investigation and risk management firm Roman & Associates. “But it has many deficiencies and many problems that could allow for a catastrophic attack.”
The security gaps exposed by 19 terrorist hi- jackers aboard four separate jetliners, 15 years ago Sunday, have largely been closed. But others persist and new ones crop up. Experts remain wary of employees who can access secure areas, for example. They worry about an insufficient number of armed law enforcement officers. Cyberattacks make them jittery, too.
Some of these concerns have played out in recent headlines. In November 2013, an armed man entered Los Angeles International Airport and killed a federal security officer, wounding two others and a passenger. A year later in Atlanta, a Delta Air Lines employee was arrested for allegedly helping smuggle guns onto planes.
Experts cite multiple factors, including budget constraints at the federal Transportation Security Administration, created the month after the attacks to shore up a screening system described by one researcher as “completely full of holes.” High turnover and recently addressed training issues also are mentioned. Plus, they say, the agency doesn’t truly understand aviation.
TSA officials say they are constantly working to improve security, even as threats shift along with the imaginations of those determined to do harm.
“Today’s terrorists publish their instruction manuals online and call on their followers to take action,” TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger said shortly after he took the position in 2015. “The persistence of this more dispersed threat is among the TSA’s most pressing challenges. Our enemies will continually adapt, and so must we.”
The consequences of a single mistake are unthinkable, said Charles Perez, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s area port director for Houston airports.
“We have to be right every time,” he said.
Prior to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which Congress passed as the nation mourned 2,977 people who died in the Sept. 11 attacks, checked bags and cargo weren’t always scanned for explosives. Other protocols seem, in retrospect, obviously inadequate.
“The system was com-
“Our enemies will continually adapt, and so must we.” Peter Neffenger, TSA administrator
pletely full of holes, Swiss cheese,” said Jeff Price, professor of aviation management at Metropolitan State University of Denver.
Multiple layers of protection were put in place, starting before travelers reach the airport. Passenger names, for instance, are matched against watch lists to make sure terrorists aren’t given boarding passes.
The more visible security happens at the airport, where people line up to take off their shoes, belts and jackets and pile it into crates on conveyor belts for a process that takes longer than it once did.
The full-body scanning machines that came later incited the most criticism, as travelers initially were concerned about privacy — Could they be seen naked? — and potential exposure to radiation. The TSA has made adjustments for both, said Henry Harteveldt, founder of San Francisco-based Atmosphere Research Group, a travel industry research company.
While there’s a bulked-up appearance to airport security, Harteveldt said there are still gaps, such as the ability to forge boarding passes, passports and IDs. The TSA scans a boarding pass to make sure it aligns with a flight scheduled to depart, he said, but it doesn’t make sure the person has a reservation for that flight.
Harteveldt gives the TSA credit for its accomplishments, but he said tighter protections are needed.
Even a show of force can help deter attacks. Highly visible security measures keep people thinking about security and make them more likely to notice unusual activity, said Ken Button, a transportation economist and professor at George Mason University. ‘Security theater’
Price, also lead author of “Practical Aviation Security: Predicting and Preventing Future Threats,” compared it to turning the porch light on when leaving the house.
“Security theater is part of any security program,” he said.
It does, however, need to be backed up with other measures. Turn on the porch light, Price said, but also lock the front door.
Security consultant Robert DeFrancesco, former director of security for JetBlue Airways and former acting federal security director for the TSA, said the combination of efforts — matching travelers to watch lists, screening at airports, placing cameras throughout the terminals, having armed law enforcement, using dogs to sniff for bombs and training flight crews to fend off terrorists — has made airports more secure.
“When you put all those layers of security together, you’ve got a good system,” he said.
He said that is true despite recent testing that highlighted deficiencies in TSAscreening. In June 2015, ABC News reported an internal probe where undercover investigators were able to smuggle mock explosives or banned weapons through checkpoints in 67 of 70 tests.
The TSA’s Neffenger said in recent testimony that addressing this concern was his “immediate priority” when he took the job. He has since worked to improve security through “enhanced protocols, a retrained and refocused workforce and efforts to drive technological improvements.”
DeFrancesco agreed that these tests help find weaknesses and better train TSAofficers. Long lines
To combat fliers’ complaints about long screening lines, the government has created several initiatives to speed up airport security while maintaining safety.
TSA Precheck applicants voluntarily submit to and pass background checks. These low-risk travelers are then pre-approved to enter security lines that don’t require taking off shoes, removing laptops from luggage and other hassles. Putting more people in this category would allow TSA officers to more thoroughly screen the other travelers.
Customs and Border Protection, which was put in charge of several existing airport security functions when it was created in 2003, has a similar program. Global Entry gives pre-approved, low-risk travelers expedited entrance into the U.S. Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport was one of the first airports to have this program, and the city has often been a frontrunner in testing Customs initiatives.
New technology can speed up lines, too, said Mark Ahasic, senior airport planner with Arup, an independent design, planning and engineering company. Automatic bin-retrieval systems for the containers that move items through X-ray machines, for instance, will prevent TSA officers from wasting time to collect bins and return them to the front of the line.
“There are certainly ways that the TSA can make screening more efficient while still having very high security standards,” Ahasic said.
But it begs a question: At what point is security too much? Areport called the “Cost-benefit analysis of airport security: Are airports too safe?” assessed the risks and costeffectiveness of terrorism-related security at airports and associated facilities such as parking areas. Authors Mark G. Stewart and John Mueller considered threat likelihood, the cost of security, expected losses and other factors.
“Attack probabilities had to be much higher than currently observed to justify additional protective measures,” the report’s abstract read. “Overall, then, it is questionable whether special efforts to further protect airports are sensible expenditures. Indeed, some relaxation of the measures already in place may well be justified.” ‘Insider threat’
One evolving risk of concern is the “insider threat” from employees wiling to misuse their airport access to do harm.
In June 2015, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General released a report that found TSA’s process for vetting workers with potential links to terrorism was “generally effective” but hampered because the agency does not have access to all terrorismrelated databases. The agency does use the Consolidated Terrorist Watchlist to screen new applicants and rescreen existing ones each time the watchlist is updated.
The report also found that the TSA had “less effective controls in place” when vetting criminal history or authorization to work in the U.S. Among the complaints was that the TSA didn’t perform recurrent criminal record checks of employees.
The agency in May initiated a pilot program of an FBI service that provides near real-time notification of an individual’s criminal record.
Security experts now are concerned that terrorists will recruit people with clean backgrounds specifically because they can get an airport job. They call for more metal detectors or other physical screening systems for employees entering secure areas.
The TSA reported in February that it had greatly increased such screening. Neffenger testified in June he had also directed a nationwide vulnerability assessment of airports to further enhance security.
“We have addressed one of my highest concerns,” he said, “the insider threat.”