The state of airline security
— -- Like many Americans, I grudgingly accepted that the events of 9/11 had radically—if not permanently—transformed air travel in this country. I tried to take a longer view than most and philosophically adapted to the creeping security lines, the lists of prohibited carry-on items and the intrusive screening procedures.
Of course, I've always agreed with Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." But while I may have been reluctant to give up liberty, I was willing to give up convenience, all in the name of the greater good.
But after spending six months investigating aviation security for Consumer Reports, it's become clear to me that airline security procedures in 2008 are raising more questions now than when the Transportation Security Administration was formed in November 2001. Our investigation found that even after six years of intense scrutiny, the TSA suffers from what we termed "major security lapses." In many ways, the hype and the hassles are not balanced by effective procedures.
Little wonder that the report, which was published in the February 2008 issue of Consumer Reports and is also available online, is entitled: "Air Security: Why You're Not As Safe As You Think."
Overall, the lack of a large-scale airline security crisis in the years since 9/11 is something to be appreciated. But it's unclear how much of this is due to luck and how much to the TSA's planning and procedures. While no one at Consumer Reports or USA TODAY has any intention of abetting those who may attack our transportation systems, it's equally clear that publicly discussing such issues is a critical component in ensuring that air travel remains safe and secure.
The public record
This investigation stemmed from speaking to dozens of front-line employees at the TSA and the airlines: air marshals, screeners, pilots, and a variety of security officials. But it began by examining the public record, which in recent years has become quite extensive. In fact, there's been a growing litany of concerns about the TSA's performance from numerous government agencies.
A small sampling includes the following:
• In April 2007, the House Committee on Homeland Security's "2007 Annual Report Card" gave the TSA a "C" for Aviation Security and an "F" for Employee Morale.
• In February 2007, the Government Accountability Office found the TSA has made "limited progress in developing and deploying technologies" and faces "management, planning, and funding challenges" in security screening staffing.
• In May 2006, the House Committee on the Judiciary conducted a comprehensive investigation of the Federal Air Marshal Service entitled "Plane Clothes" and found "numerous problems that severely impact morale and, potentially, national security" and stated "while many of the problems facing management could be easily remedied, they remain unaddressed."
• Over the past several years, the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has repeatedly documented extensive weaknesses in TSA airline security programs, both on the ground and in the air, including problems with passenger screening, baggage screening, arming pilots, training employees, developing technology and several other areas.
Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general for the DHS from 2003 to 2004, told Consumer Reports: "We Americans tend to fight the last war. I don't think we're much farther along, to tell you the truth." After speaking to experts such as Ervin, I spent months talking to front-line warriors in the battle against terrorism. In many cases, their insights were chilling.
Missing its own benchmarks
Though the report was summarized in just four pages, the research and interviews were extensive. Consumer Reports' conclusion was that "the TSA still falls short in 7 out of 24, or almost one-third, of critical performance benchmarks set for itself." Among the key findings:
•Cockpits are stronger, but not strong enough. The good news is one of the quickest and most visible deterrents implemented after 9/11 was the strengthening of cockpit doors, a program that was completed by March 2002. The bad news is security experts note that such barriers are only effective when they're closed. The solution—at $5,000 to $10,000 per aircraft—is a "double-hulled" door system, but except for United Airlines and a few other carriers, the airline industry has resisted this resolution. We also searched through government databases and found dozens of problems with those new "secure" cockpit doors, including incidents where they popped open in flight, pilots were locked out and doors were broken when flight attendants slammed them shut.
•The last line of defense needs bolstering. After 9/11, one of the easiest, fastest, and least expensive solutions was the suggestion to greatly expand the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, which provides training and authorization for pilots to be armed. Pilots and security experts say the ranks have not swelled nearly enough, due in part to "cumbersome training arrangements."
•Screening failures abound. We also reported the TSA has "an erratic record" at checkpoint screening, and noted repeated failures during undercover tests for screeners to identify weapons and explosives. What's more, the TSA might have stacked the deck by tipping off employees during covert testing. In April 2006, the TSA's Office of Security Operations sent a memo to numerous security personnel titled "Notice of Possible Security Test," warning that the Department of Transportation was testing airport security in several airports and even provided clues about the testers.
•"Questionable rules." The TSA has issued 25 versions of screening procedures over the years, yet those rules seem to change constantly. That might be more easily accepted if each amendment strengthened security, yet potential weapons such as lighters, tools, corkscrews, and pointed scissors are still allowed in aircraft cabins. As for the shifting policies on bringing liquids and gels onboard, they've thoroughly confused the most frequent of fliers.
Frightening findings
In addition, the TSA has been the subject of reports of mismanagement and there have been accusations of wasteful spending—at best. For example, a report from that same Inspector General's office in 2005 found that a private firm used to hire screeners for the TSA had estimated its fee at $104 million but was paid $741 million, including a $1.7 million bill for the use of a Colorado ski resort for recruiting. An earlier report from the same office criticized TSA's spending and stated TSA "distributed about $1.5 million in individual cash awards to 88 executives during 2003, making its average award more than any other agency's average award to executives."
But perhaps the most frightening findings concern the Federal Air Marshal Service, which expanded dramatically after 9/11, from just 33 marshals to thousands. In recent years, however, government sources say those numbers have been shrinking again; one marshal told me, "Everyone thinks there are enough air marshals on the planes, and there are not." I also spoke to TSA insiders who have expressed concerns that suspicious individuals continue to conduct "probes" onboard U.S. commercial aircraft. One such incident, involving 13 Middle Eastern men acting suspiciously onboard a Northwest Airlines domestic flight in 2004, was serious enough to generate a report from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General.
There are other aviation security issues that require immediate focus as well. They include:
• Procedures for securing airport property and perimeters
• Hiring and screening of airport employees
• Inspecting and handling of air cargo (including air cargo transported on passenger aircraft)
• Security procedures for civil airports and civil aircraft
So what can the average passenger do? For one thing, it's important to stay current with the latest TSA passenger policies. For another, it's important for all of us to become more educated about how our elected officials are responding to their most critical mission, keeping all of us safe.
Many of those who are quite knowledgeable about such matters are sounding serious and unpleasant warnings. For example, the head of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, an organization actively seeking to arm more commercial crewmembers, offers these chilling words for about would-be terrorists onboard U.S. aircraft: "There's a term we are using in the airline industry: We are being ridden."
More than six years after 9/11, it's apparent the need for public discussion about our overall airline security procedures has never been greater. It's also apparent that the stakes could not be higher.
Bill McGee, a contributing editor to Consumer Reports and the former editor of Consumer Reports Travel Letter, is an FAA-licensed aircraft dispatcher who worked in airline operations and management for several years. Tell him what you think of his latest column by sending him an e-mail at USATODAY.com at travel@usatoday. Include your name, hometown and daytime phone number, and he may use your feedback in a future column.