"Latest Plot Points Up Need for More Sophisticated Airport Screening"

Friday, August 11, 2006

Latest Plot Points Up Need for More Sophisticated Airport Screening
BY CHUCK McCUTCHEON 
Newhouse News Service 


WASHINGTON -- The disrupted plot to blow up airplanes between London and the
United States highlights the urgent need for high-tech systems that can
detect liquid and other forms of explosives, aviation security experts said
Thursday.

Several said technologies have advanced to where they could be put in place
at airports, even though systems are costly and passengers likely to be
inconvenienced.

"It's not that we don't know how to do security -- it's that we don't want
to spend for it," said Douglas Laird, a former Northwest Airlines security
chief who is now a consultant in Reno, Nev.

Charles Slepian, head of the Foreseeable Risk Analysis Center in New York,
said the British plotters' intention to mix chemical explosives aboard
planes was a threat that should have been addressed long ago. He cited a
failed 1995 al-Qaida plot in the Philippines in which terrorists planned to
bring aboard nitroglycerin bombs in bottles used for contact lens solution.

"We need to put in place technologies that will give us a chemical analysis
of things carried on board," said Slepian, a frequent critic of the
Transportation Security Administration. "Visual inspection simply isn't good
enough -- you can't tell whether something will go bang in the night."

Several different technologies can measure the chemical properties of vapors
or particulate matter collected from passengers or carry-on luggage. The TSA
and other agencies fund research in these areas, but some critics accuse
them of not moving fast enough.

"I'm seriously troubled because the U.S. counterterrorism apparatus has been
very slow to find and bring online technologies that can counter new
threats," said Michael Greenberger, director of the University of Maryland's
Center for Health and Homeland Security.

Others disagreed.

"Over-investing in screening technologies is not where you get the biggest
bang for the buck," said James Carafano, a senior fellow at the Heritage
Foundation, a conservative think tank. "Everybody wants a system that is
perfect and never makes mistakes; those things don't exist."

Slepian cited one company, HiEnergy Technologies of Irvine, Calif., that has
developed a system to identify concealed explosives. In tests with the Navy,
the company said it detected all explosives and provided accurate chemical
identification of more than 80 percent.

"We actually perform chemistry in midair," said Roger Spillmann, the
company's president and CEO. "Any substance can be examined, liquid or
solid."

Earlier this year, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
began using two HiEnergy systems. The $300,000 devices are enclosed in
suitcases and can detect explosive materials remotely. So far, they have
been deployed in training exercises and on patrol, but have not been needed
in an actual emergency, said Capt. John Wenke of the authority's Transit
Police Department.

Laird, the consultant, said technology for detecting liquid explosives is
only a "partial solution" because terrorists are likely to find ways to
smuggle small quantities aboard planes without having them scanned.

In his view, the government also needs to widely deploy computer tomography
systems that are more accurate than X-rays. "With an X-ray, your chance of
finding anything other than a gun or knife is minimal at best," he said.

One company, American Science & Engineering Inc. of Billerica, Mass., has
developed a system that creates a photo-like image as it scans parcels or
containers for explosives or other materials. It is awaiting word from TSA
on its usage, said company spokeswoman Dana Harris.

Stephen McHale, a former TSA deputy administrator, said the government "is
moving as fast as the technology exists" on airport security screening.

McHale said it could be impractical to use technologies to search many
different types of liquids for explosives, because "you end up having to
look for so many materials, you've gone beyond what you can reasonably
administer."

Alternatives, he said, might be to increase physical searches of passengers
or further restrict carry-ons.

David Stempler, president of the Potomac, Md.-based Air Travelers
Association, envisions tighter restrictions on carry-on luggage, pointing
out that the TSA's increased security measures do not affect checked
luggage.

Those averse to checking baggage might find the new limits hard.

"Not only does it add time at the front end, but you've got to wait at the
back end," Stempler said. "And there's the fear that your bag is not going
to be there."

But he predicted travelers would come to accept the adjustments.

"People just don't like the period when it's in transition, when the rules
change. But once they know what the rules are, everyone seems to go along
with it and fall in line."

 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


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