"In-Line Screening Systems See Operational Progress"

Thursday, March 25, 2004

In-Line Screening Systems See Operational Progress
But Cloudy Funding Issue Threatens Program Expansion To More Airports
Airport Security Report


Installation of bag screening equipment into airport conveyor systems is
proving to be operationally and fiscally successful, according to airport
sources. But the snail's pace of funding further installations could
potentially leave many large airports with deficient security for years to
come. 

The in-line systems place U.S.-government certified explosives detection
systems (EDS) into airport bag conveyors out of public spaces, a necessity
for optimal security and operational efficiency. 

Today, only eight complete in-line checked baggage screening systems are
installed and operate at the nation's more than 400 airports. The TSA had
until Dec. 31, 2003, to screen all checked baggage, which forced the agency
to deploy less-sophisticated technology at nearly every airport. 

To meet the congressional deadline, Secretary of Transportation Norman
Mineta authorized in April 2002 the use of explosives trace detection (ETD)
units as a first-level screening tool. Those machines are usually used as a
secondary screening device at pre-board passenger screening checkpoints for
carry-on bags. The detectors are widely known to be less effective and
slower than EDS machines. 

The result was around 7,000 explosives trace detection (ETD) units deployed
for first-line use as only about 1,000 EDS machines could be manufactured. 

Directors from most of the eight airports told ASR that the in-line bag
screening systems have performed well to date and are constantly improving.
EDS machine performance was not identified as a major problem, but airports
said they continue to face similar conveyor performance issues. The State of
Checked Bag Screening 

Several airports identified the false reading of baggage tags, conveyor belt
durability, steep inclines and the lack of backup or redundant bag diverters
as key issues. In the case of a diverter failure, the lack of a backup
system forces security personnel to manually carry bags from ticket counters
to either EDS machines or trace detectors. Sometimes, the bags must be
carried after screening to airline bag makeup rooms, where they are sorted
and loaded onto aircraft. 

Of the eight airports, five are labeled in the small or medium airport size
category. Only Jacksonville International Airport (JAX), Boston Logan
International Airport (BOS) and San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
are large airports where in-line systems operate. 

A major factor for in-line installation is the design of an airport and the
available construction space, which will determine if an airport can build a
centralized screening room - such as at Jacksonville and at SFO's
international terminal. Some airports had built a specific conveyor system
for each airline tenant running from ticket counters to the bag makeup area
- such as Boston Logan and SFO's domestic terminals. 

"You add to your woes in trying to build a true in-line baggage screening
system because of all those airline-specific facilities," said Billie
Vincent, president of Aerospace Services International. Vincent was the
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) security chief in the mid-1980s. "It
adds to your cost and it adds to your time. Each one has to be individually
analyzed and designed. There's no standard - and I don't know if one wants a
standard. It's all evolving."

Jacksonville's system has operated well, but the system is beginning to
reach its capacity on some days, said Danette Bewley, JAX's general manager,
at a recent aviation security summit. The system was built to handle 13,000
bags per day, but the 10,000-plus bags on one day after a college football
bowl game in January "really taxed the system," she said. Jacksonville hosts
the Super Bowl next year - the smallest market to ever host the game - and
the airport authority is considering asking for a one-day waiver of the 100
percent bag screening mandate to accommodate all the anticipated traffic.
Also, the airport has tested a radio frequency identification (RFID) bag tag
system for selected Delta Air Lines [DAL] flights and hopes to have the
system 100 percent operational by the Super Bowl in February 2005. 

San Francisco is nearing completion of in-line screening systems for its
entire airport. The international terminal was completed in November 2002
and the domestic terminals are 85 percent finished, said Bob McKinley,
assistant deputy director for security and operations, at the aviation
security summit. 

SFO has achieved 99 percent system reliability, McKinley said. False alarms
on domestic bags are down to 18 percent, while international bags alarm at a
30 percent rate. McKinley said TSA saves $2.85 million annually on staffing
costs alone for United Air Lines' [UAL] bag screening operation at the
domestic terminal by using InVision Technologies [INVN] CTX9000 versus using
ETD machines. 

Tulsa Airport, Okla. (TUL) said the better operational performance of the
in-line system was worth the investment. "We're very pleased because it's a
real convenience for the passenger," said Brent Kitchen, Tulsa's airport
director. "At some airports, the passenger has to carry their bags to the
machine and it's an extra effort on their part. This is seamless - the
passenger knows no difference."

Kitchen said the lack of redundancy in the system is a major concern, as it
requires manual labor to move bags to and from screening operations when the
system fails. The airport also experiences small problems regarding failed
bag tag reads, oversized baggage and the use of tubs for soft bags that tend
to caught on the conveyor. 

Idaho's Boise Airport (BOI) does not have enough queuing length in the
conveyor going into the ETS room for secondary searches, said an airport
official. Bags can back up if TSA doesn't properly man the ETD room, thus
bring the entire system to a halt, said Garry Fraise, assistant airport
director. "We're going to put another queue in there to give us some
flexibility," he said. 

"Our system has worked really good. We had a few problems at the beginning
on bags" that lost tracking speed while on the conveyor, he said. "There was
a lot of tweaking to make sure those times were right and a lot of training
with airline personnel to make sure bag wheels are up and not down on the
bag."

Fraise said the airport installed a stronger conveyor belt on inclines and
declines to maintain proper bag tracking. "I'd say we had two months of
fiddling with it and now it works like clockwork."

Now, the airport is constantly achieving more than 94 percent-plus bag tag
reads with a nine-headed bar code reader, he said. 

A Manchester Airport, N.H. (MHT) official said the in-line system is
worthwhile, but it comes with plenty of headaches for everyone from ticket
agents to maintenance staff to engineers to baggage handlers. 

"So many things have to work right. Everything from bag spacing to loose
straps on bags to bags that are too light to bags that are too long - all
these different issues can cause you different types of problems," said
Richard Fixler, Manchester's assistant director of engineering and planning.


It all starts at the front of the house, Fixler said, as ticket agents must
load bags correctly, use tubs for softer bags, resist placing oversized or
odd-sized bags in the system and remove any loose straps from bags.
"Everybody has to do their job. We've experienced that for the most part
here," he said. 

"To be quite honest with you, the system overall has worked fairly well, but
even now we're still sorting out some bugs. Most of that is behind us now
and we're just trying to fine-tune it to optimize the throughput," Fixler
said. "There are always bugs in the system and we certainly had our share of
them, whether it was the baggage handling system, or the EDS machines. We
had a lot of software glitches - a lot of problems with the baggage handling
system talking with the EDS machines and sharing information. We had some
mechanical issues, as well."Funding Problems Cloud Future Roadmap 

TSA's $250 million annual expenditure to install in-line systems is
insignificant compared to the estimated $3 billion to $5 billion needed to
install systems at up to 70 large and medium airports. Authorized from
fiscal year 2003 to 2007, the "letter of intent" (LOI) program to install
systems at the nation's largest airports will total $1.25 billion. 

"The situation at this point is a mess, because of funding and time,"Vincent
said. "Money being no object, it would take from five to 10 years to build a
true, integrated, in-line checked bag system in the U.S. That's 10 years
from 2001," right after the signing of the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act, which mandated 100 percent checked baggage screening at
commercial airports, he said. 

Vincent said the failure to formulate a long-term U.S. government funding
plan for all the necessary airports could further drive the costs of future
installations into the tens of billions of dollars because of higher
staffing levels and eventual redesigns at airports with lower technologies. 

Only seven more airports have a signed LOI with TSA to help fund an in- line
system installation over the next few years. As it stands, only 15 airports
would have a fully integrated system. 

But airport community officials contend that as many as 60 more airports
will need in-line screening solutions to best manage security and
operations. Additionally, many airport officials are annoyed with projected
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding levels. 

The FAA reauthorization legislation signed into law in December 2003
established the federal share for in-line checked baggage systems at 90
percent for large and medium hub airports and 95 percent for projects at
smaller facilities. However, DHS insisted the LOI projects will be funded at
the previously established 75 percent federal match despite provisions in
the law. 

"The law is clear and congressional intent is clear. We are mystified that
[DHS] has chosen this path in the face of clear direction to the
contrary,"said airport community leaders in a February 24 letter to
Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge. Washington, D.C.-based airport
associations argued that in- line checked baggage solutions have provided
more efficient use of labor and the LOI funding mechanism has allowed DHS to
recover its capital outlays in just a few years. 

Likewise, Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Homeland
Security Appropriations Subcommittee, warned TSA officials March 11 that the
current limitations on installing in-line systems at more airports could be
shortsighted. 

"There are no plans for additional letters of intent beyond [those] that
have already been signed," Rogers declared. "Without solutions to their
baggage screening problems, as air traffic mounts [other] airports could
fall out of compliance" with the 100 percent screening mandate. 

"While I recognize that having a lower federal share will allow you to
spread out your funding among more airports, it is inconsistent with federal
law," Rogers said. 

Capital Hill sources said initial talks with TSA officials over the funding
discrepancy were not fruitful. >> Kitchen, Tulsa, tel. 918/838-5000; Fraise,
Boise, tel., 208/383-3110; McKinley, San Francisco, tel., 650/821-5000;
Bewley, Jacksonville, tel., 904/741-2072; Vincent, ASI, tel. 703/322-1900 <<


[Copyright 2004 PBI Media, LLC. All rights reserved.] .end
(paragraph)<<Airport Security Report -- 03/24/04>>


Airport In-Line Checked Bag Screening Operations

Airport: Boston Logan Int'l Airport (BOS)

Start of operation: Jan-03

EDS machines: 38 (L-3 eXaminer 3DX-6000)

Initial investment cost: $146 million

Annual operation costs (including maintenance and staff) : N/A

Enplaned passengers daily: 31,000

Daily bags: 46,500

Bags per hour capacity: N/A

Airport: Boise Airport, Wyo. (BOI)

Start of operation: Jan-03

EDS machines: 5 (InVision CTX 9000)

Initial investment cost: $15 million

Annual operation costs (including maintenance and staff) : At least $250,000

Enplaned passengers daily: 3,800

Daily bags: 5,500

Bags per hour capacity: 1,100

Airport: Jacksonville Int'l Airport (JAX)

Start of operation: Dec-02

EDS machines: 5 (InVision CTX9000)

Initial investment cost: $24 million

Annual operation costs (including maintenance and staff) : $2.94 million

Enplaned passengers daily: 6,700

Daily bags: 10,000

Bags per hour capacity: 950

Airport: Lexington Blue Grass Airport (LEX)

Start of operation: Jan-03

EDS machines: 2 (InVision CTX5500)

Initial investment cost: $5.5 million

Annual operation costs (including maintenance and staff) : $400,000

Enplaned passengers daily: 1,500

Daily bags: 2,400

Bags per hour capacity: 350

Airport: Manchester Airport, N.H. (MHT)

Start of operation: Jan-03

EDS machines: 9 (L-3 eXaminer 3DX-6000)

Initial investment cost: $21 million

Annual operation costs (including maintenance and staff) : N/A

Enplaned passengers daily: 5,000

Daily bags: 8,000

Bags per hour capacity: 2,700

Airport: Orange County John Wayne Airport (SNA)

Start of operation: Jan-03

EDS machines: 8 (L-3 eXaminer 3DX-6000)

Initial investment cost: $33 million

Annual operation costs (including maintenance and staff) : $2.3 million

Enplaned passengers daily: 11,800

Daily bags: 14,300

Bags per hour capacity: 1,700

Airport: Tulsa Airport, Okla. (TUL)

Start of operation: Jan-03

EDS machines: 6 (L-3 eXaminer 3DX-6000)

Initial investment cost: $22 million

Annual operation costs (including maintenance and staff) : At least $500,000

Enplaned passengers daily: 4,400

Daily bags: 7,000

Bags per hour capacity: 2,100

Airport: San Francisco Int'l Airport (SFO)

Start of operation: International terminal completed November 2002; domestic

terminals are 85 percent complete

EDS machines: 45 (InVision CTX 9000)

Initial investment cost: $91 million1

Annual operation costs (including maintenance and staff) : N/A

Enplaned passengers daily: 39,500

Daily bags: 60,000

Bags per hour capacity: 7,200

1- international terminal infrastructure previously existed Sources:
Individual airports


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

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


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