"Holes in airport screening

Thursday, June 10, 2004

Editorial
Holes in airport screening
The Boston (MA) Globe


CONGRESS IS warming itself up for a new battle over whether airport
screeners should be federal or private employees. But the real problem is
that screeners are using machines that are nowhere near as sensitive as they
should be. Before lawmakers do another round of big government vs. little
government, they should provide a dose of good government by improving the
equipment. They should also get the Transportation Security Administration
to tighten up the hiring and body screening of airport employees.
  
When it was discovered after 9/11 that airport security screeners were often
paid less than fast food workers, had high turnover, and got virtually no
training, Congress created a federal agency to handle screening. Knee-jerk
opponents of expanding government fought the TSA, but majorities in both
houses insisted that screening is too important to be left to for-profit
security firms.

The TSA continues to be a whipping boy of critics, including Republican
Representative John Mica of Florida, chairman of the House aviation
subcommittee. Mica wants to return screening to private firms, with the TSA
setting policy, doing audits, and conducting background checks of
applicants.

In April Mica criticized the TSA when the agency's investigators found that
its screeners were missing substantial numbers of dangerous test objects.
But according to the TSA, screeners at five airports that are still allowed
to use privately hired personnel did no better. The solution is to provide
detection machines as sensitive as those, for instance, that are in use at
the Capitol and the White House and in many foreign airports.

The TSA has other challenges as well. A study by the General Accounting
Office released this week found gaps in the screening of both permanent and
temporary airport workers, including some with access to runways. The TSA
should also insist on the screening of the commercial cargo that passenger
planes carry in their holds. The vast majority of it gets no inspection at
all, with the airlines relying on a "known shipper" system. Aviation
security will never be perfect, but the flying public has a right to expect
much better than it is getting.


 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


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