Err-to-air combat: Security experts agree that explosive-detecting devices alone won't make airports safer. The challenge, the say, lies in combining technology with stricter screening standards
By Stephanie Stoughton, Globe Staff, 1/7/2002
abbed last month as he allegedly attempted to blow up an American Airlines flight from Paris, Richard Colvin Reid failed miserably in his mission when he couldn't light up the plastic explosives stashed in his high-top sneaker. But the fact that he managed to board the plane highlighted the weaknesses in airport security systems.
For decades, airports, airlines, and governments have been struggling to bring in new technology that can detect explosives on people and in baggage. But as the US government races to assess systems that can ''sniff'' explosive particles and view everything between you and your jeans, some security experts are sounding alarms.
An overwhelming reliance on technology, they say, is not the answer. The latest machines are not fail-safe. Plus, they provide few protections when deployed without the far-reaching policies and skilled security workers needed to scrutinize suspicious passengers.
''We need a combination of the human factor and technology,'' said Lior Zouker, CEO of ICTS, a Dutch security firm hired by carriers such as American Airlines. ''Technology is important, but it is more important to have a comprehensive and integrated [security] system.''
The first time the Federal Aviation Administration demanded that airlines deploy explosive-detection equipment was in 1989 after a bomb placed in checked luggage blew up Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland. But it was not until 1994 that the FAA certified the first bomb-detection screeners for baggage from InVision Technologies Inc. of California.
Using ''computed tomography'' technology similar to CAT-scan medical devices, InVision's CTX units can detect C-4 and other plastic explosives. About 250 CTX devices are now in use at airports worldwide, with about 160 in the United States.
By the end of 2002, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act mandates that all checked bags in the United States must go through explosive-detection equipment.
The machines are not perfect. Although the FAA has set minimum performance standards, the accepted explosive detection and false-alarm rates are still ''not those rates desired by the aviation industry,'' James F. O'Bryon, deputy director of the Defense Department's operational testing office, told Congress in October.
''Rather these thresholds have been driven by the inability of current equipment to perform any better.''
Some government and airline officials have been particularly critical of machines made by L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., the only other company certified by the FAA to provide explosive-detection systems.
The New York company had lobbied hard in Congress to bring its eXaminer scanners to airports, but one of the company's $1 million baggage scanners at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport repeatedly broke down, while nine other devices idled in warehouses.
L-3 executives have blamed the problems on typical start-up glitches, and said the Dallas baggage scanner was intended to be a demonstration model.
Other versions of the equipment, now installed in airports in Baltimore, Hawaii, and Italy, have not had the same problems, chief executive Frank Lanza said. ''The performance has improved dramatically,'' he said.
Over the next year, US airports are expected to experience more frustrations as they make room for the bulky equipment that screens checked baggage, said Tom Jensen, president of the National Safe Skies Alliance, a nonprofit organization in Tennessee that researches aviation security equipment.
''There are going to be lots of problems going forward,'' Jensen said.
To make room for the equipment, some airports have knocked down walls and taken over lobby space. West European countries, which have battled terrorists for decades, have overcome many of the glitches in installing and operating new checked-baggage screening machines.
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and Reid's alleged Dec. 22 bombing attempt, there has been renewed interest in explosive-detecting technologies, including new devices that scan passengers and their carry-on bags. Today, the vast majority of walk-through detectors used to scan passengers do not detect plastic explosives, and the X-ray machines for carry-on items rely heavily on humans to recognize a vast array of potential weapons.
Companies such as Rapiscan Security Products, a subsidiary of OSI Systems Inc. of California, say their products could have caught the explosives in Reid's shoes. The FAA recently awarded Rapiscan $1.4 million to step up development of technology to detect explosives in checked and carry-on baggage. The company uses a multienergy X-ray system that distinguishes between inorganic and organic materials, and uses different colors on the screen to classify items under scrutiny.
Rapiscan has developed a walk-through detector that can see everything between a passenger's skin and clothing.
Using low-level X-ray technology, the portal creates a computer image of the body, showing the shape, size and precise location of ceramic knives, C-4, and other hidden weapons. It can also see love handles and body parts - one reason why airlines have eschewed it.
''It's more an issue of privacy,'' said Sanjay Sabnani, an OSI Systems spokesman. ''Several correctional institutions use it. But these are places where you forego your rights.''
The FAA also has funded the development of bomb-screening devices made by InVision's Quantum Magnetics subsidiary. Quantum's ''Qscan'' baggage scanner and handheld wand use a technology related to the magnetic resonance imaging used in hospitals.
Billerica-based American Science and Engineering has re-
entered the fray with a device that uses low-level X-rays to highlight explosives. The company, which has provided equipment to the US military and several federal agencies, previously moved away from the aviation industry after the FAA picked computed tomography as the winning bomb-detection technology.
At Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, authorities are now testing a walk-through portal made by Ion Track Instruments Inc., based in Wilmington. The device ''sniffs'' the air around a person for vapors and microscopic particles given off by drugs and explosives. Although the system might have detected the explosives in Reid's shoes, it is only being used for passengers traveling to the Middle East.
In spite of the new high-tech developments, most equipment manufacturers and security experts agree that the airport screening process is only as good as the security policies in place and the workers used to implement them.
''I am very frustrated,'' said ICTS's Zouker, a former El Al sky marshal, who said he has tried to get US airlines to adopt more stricter screening standards. ''You have to have a system - a much more thorough means of searching - not just technology.''
Zouker declined to discuss the specifics of Reid's screening at Charles de Gaulle Airport on Dec. 22 and the previous day, when a wary ICTS security worker called for French border police.
Although no metal detector would have caught the plastic explosives in Reid's shoes, French police have been criticized for allowing the British drifter to board Flight 63 bound for Miami in spite of numerous warnings signals. They included no fixed address, a murky travel agenda, no checked luggage, and a one-way ticket purchased with cash.
At no time was Reid searched by hand or sniffed by dogs that can detect plastic explosives.
Over the summer, El Al took a more aggressive approach toward Reid before allowing him to board a flight from Amsterdam to Israel. Security workers were so skeptical that they interrogated him, gave him a body search, and removed his shoes for screening. Then the airline reportedly assigned him to a window seat in the back of the plane. His seatmate: an armed sky marshal.
The challenges of deploying the Israeli system is more daunting in the United States, which has hundreds of airports and thousands of planes. Today, US security officials are still trying to devise ways of deploying bomb-detection equipment without creating long lines, as well as integrating technologies in a way that is invisible to passengers.
But in addition to installing new equipment, the United States must develop better intelligence and screening policies to identify risky fliers, security officials said. Then, passengers who arouse as much suspicion as Reid should be given both the high-tech and low-tech treatments, including body searches and the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, officials said.
Other recommendations include cross-referencing the FAA's Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System with law enforcement and financial databases and beefing up training and requirements for airport security workers.
Security screeners have been a glaring weakness in the system. In FAA tests, screeners missed 13 percent of potentially dangerous objects in 1978, and 20 percent in 1987. Test data for 1991 to 1999 revealed that greater percentages of weapons were being missed, according to a US General Accounting Office report. The report blamed the low detection rates on rapid turnover of underpaid employees and ''inadequate attention to human factors.''
There is also great hope that the nation's intelligence community and aviation officials are keeping a step ahead of tomorrow's criminals. But as the nation patches yesterday's security holes, terrorists are likely thinking of new ways to sneak explosives onto planes.
''I don't think there is a fail-safe system in anything,'' said Frederick Muntz, a vice president at InVision. ''What we can do is continue to make it better, knowing full well that every time we make it better, we deter. ... The bad guys will know.''
Stephanie Stoughton can be reached by e-mail at stoughton
@globe.com.
boston.com |
