"Blast-resistant boxes have not taken off"

Friday, October 4, 2002

Blast-resistant boxes have not taken off 
Airlines are wary of added weight, costs, but U.S. could force issue 
By JIM MORRIS
The Dallas (TX) Morning News 


WASHINGTON - The concept evolved quickly after Pan Am Flight 103 was
destroyed by a suitcase bomb in December 1988. 

Since a certain percentage of explosives would escape detection by
airport screeners, the thinking went, why not provide an extra layer of
security by putting checked luggage in blast-resistant containers? 

This way, a bomb the size of the one that eviscerated Flight 103 would,
at worst, produce a sharp jolt, and the airplane could land safely. 

The technology was blessed long ago by the Federal Aviation
Administration, and two companies are making FAA-certified containers.
But U.S. airline executives - wary of the big boxes' weight and cost at
a time when the industry is experiencing staggering losses - haven't
lined up to buy them. 

"You would think that after 9-11, with the increased focus on security,
acceptance [of the containers] would start to gather steam, and it's
really not," said Thomas Rachfalski, a program manager with one of the
manufacturers, Galaxy Scientific Corp. of Egg Harbor Township, N.J.
"What it really comes down to is, 'Is someone going to mandate their use
by the airlines?' " 

Airline officials aren't commenting. Representatives for American
Airlines Inc., United Airlines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc. and Delta
Air Lines Inc. either declined to comment or did not return telephone
calls. Diana Cronan, a spokeswoman for the airlines' trade group, the
Air Transport Association, said, "The ATA is not looking at it
industrywide. It is up to the individual carriers whether or not this is
something they will decide to use." 

The Transportation Security Administration could force the airlines to
buy the containers "if it felt the threat were sufficiently severe,"
said Dr. Lyle Malotky, a TSA scientific adviser, "but I don't think
we're at that point." 

There has been some post-Sept. 11 movement. The TSA has ordered seven of
the so-called hardened containers from the other manufacturer, Telair
International Inc. of Rancho Dominguez, Calif., and will deploy them on
an unspecified airline, Dr. Malotky said. 

Congress' moves 

In addition, legislation that cleared the House aviation subcommittee on
Wednesday and the Senate Commerce Committee on Sept. 19 would require
the TSA and the FAA to thoroughly assess the technology and report back
to Congress within six months. 

A member of the House subcommittee, Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald,
D-Calif., said that blast-resistant containers should be part of a
comprehensive aviation security plan that includes enhanced luggage
screening and more air marshals. The containers, she said, represent
"the last line of defense if an explosive device eludes active security
measures." 

Telair spokesman Daniel McCue said that airlines have shown interest in
the company's hardened container. However, he said, "This is an industry
that cannot move quickly." 

Carriers need to be convinced that blast-resistant containers would
substantially reduce risk, said Edmond Soliday, recently retired vice
president of safety, quality assurance and security at United. 

"I think there are a lot of pluses with the container system, but we
don't know how much mitigation we're going to get," Mr. Soliday said.
Other considerations, he said, are cost and durability: "If you're going
to spend that much money on containers, you want to know, 'How long are
the darned things going to last? Can I repair them in my current repair
shops?' " 

Mr. McCue said that Telair's container - made of composite material with
aluminum framework - "has shown itself to be very resilient. It is
expected to do very well in the real-world environment." 

The FAA began its Hardened Container Development Program in 1991, in
response to a provision of the Aviation Security Improvement Act of
1990. 

After a three-year research project, the agency concluded that
blast-resistant containers offered "the best opportunity for a near-term
solution" to terrorist bombings. 

The U.S. General Accounting Office expressed a similar sentiment in
1994. 

Galaxy made its first sale - to a foreign airline Mr. Rachfalski would
not identify - in 1999, and two other foreign carriers have since become
customers. 

Weighty issue 

The product, however, never caught on with U.S. airlines. One sticking
point is weight: Galaxy's container weighs 370 pounds, Telair's 320
pounds - compared with about 200 pounds for a standard, non-hardened
container. 

Weight is important to airlines because it affects fuel consumption. A
Boeing 767 carrying an extra 1,500 pounds' worth of containers could
consume an extra 150 pounds of fuel each hour, Mr. Soliday said. 

On a long-range flight, he said, "you may have to take off people. When
you're taking off people, you're taking off revenue." 

Higher costs 

The other big issue is the initial cost of the containers: Galaxy won't
say how much its hardened container costs, but Telair says it expects to
sell its units for $15,000 to $20,000 apiece, compared with about $1,000
apiece for today's standard containers. 

The total cost for U.S. airlines to protect their entire fleets would be
about $602 million, according to Telair's director of engineering,
Robert Fu. 

And the airline industry already is losing record amounts. The ATA
expects the industry to lose $8 billion this year on top of 2001's
record $7.7 billion. 

The containers would complement congressionally mandated
baggage-screening equipment, projected by the TSA to cost more than $850
million, not including installation or personnel. 

They would be a comforting redundancy to have in these dangerous times,
said Bob Monetti, whose 20-year-old son, Rick, was killed on Pan Am
Flight 103. 

Mr. Monetti harbors no illusions, however. 

A longtime member of the FAA's (now the TSA's) Aviation Security
Advisory Committee, he noted that the containers were once touted as
"the quick-and-dirty technology that would buy us time to develop the
[explosives] detection machines." That, he said, was more than a decade
ago.


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?conf=DCConfID8

*****************************************