Analyzing Security

Analyzing Security

Industry meets to discuss Security Act, TSA, and possible solutions for airports

By John Boyce, Contributing Editor

May 2002

SAN FRANCISCO - The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 puts such an enormous burden on the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that there are those in the aviation industry who say, "it ain't workable," at least as written and within the deadlines mandated. In March, industry veterans used such thinking as the premise for fleshing out ideas and possible solutions that in time could lead to workable solutions for airports.

Foremost among those elements of the Act that even Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta says can't be in place by the end of 2002 - as the law demands -are 100 percent Explosive Detection System (EDS) inspection of all checked bags and the hiring and training of 40,000 checkpoint screeners.

Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, a Rand Corporation policy analyst and former staff director for the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, challenged the aviation industry in his opening address to the recent 2nd Annual Aviation Security Summit at the Westin Hotel-San Francisco Airport to brace the Congress with its doubts.

Making it clear that his was not a Rand company presentation but a personal one, Kauvar told the assembled airport, airline, and related officials, "I haven't heard too much from the civil aviation community saying to the Congress that this ain't going to work, (that) it may be too soon. It's up to you to generate the lobbying pressure to get some of the legislation rolled back. If you're convinced that there are more rational approaches to aviation security, then you are the ones who have to carry that story home and it's a tough story, it really is. It's up to you, all parts of the industry, to make a rational case to Congress and hope they roll it back."

In a later panel discussion, Charles G. Slepian, a security consultant and former security official with the City of New York, further advised the assembly, "We need to tell the people who are making the rules what their opinions are. The fact of the matter is they just don't know.

"Since September 11, I have patrolled the halls of Congress trying to talk to members of Congress, and all of their responses are political. They know nothing of the basics of security, to say nothing of aviation security. So you need to be able to explain to them something they can sell to their constituents and make them look smart. If you do that you'll get your message through to them and they'll respond to you in a manner in which you'd like them to respond.

"If you sit back and wait for a September 11 and have the world come to Congress and say, 'What are you going to do about it?,' they're going to change it. In fact, they're going to tell you what you have to do about it and you're just not going to be able to do it."

In further explaining the act and its implications, Thomas Anthony, a security manager for the TSA, touched on a subject that perplexes airport managers across the country: funding for the mandates in the Security Act.

Referring to all the things Congress demands in the Act, Anthony says, "...the bottom line is that there is not enough money to do all this. The legislation contains language that actually authorizes money but it does not appropriate it. It appropriates some and there is money being taken out of the FAA appropriation as well to address airport improvements. Previously, airport security improvements had not been able to be included in the AIP funding. The legislation now allows that."

Anthony went on to address a broadly held fear that Congress would not follow up on the legislation as Kauvar had pointed out it hadn't with the Gore Commission recommendations. "(TSA Director John) Magaw feels that the Congress cannot let this initiative fail and they will back it up with money," Anthony says.