Let me make it clear from the start. I do not like nor do I enjoy the current TSA screening procedures. But I think they are the best available option that the TSA has at present to protect the flying public.
I may hold a different view than most because I started my professional career as a combat arms army officer after graduating from West Point. There I was taught threat assessment and minimization. I was also trained to understand the impact of decisions and how they would be perceived in the media. (We called it the “New York Times Test” — How would this affect the perception of the US Army and the US Government if it were to appear on the front page of the New York Times?)
As I see it, the TSA currently has to defend the traveling public against five “known” threats:
- Shooting weapons: guns that were used in the hijackings of the 60s, 70s and 80s
- Edged weapons: knives that were used in 9/11
- Solid explosives hidden in clothing: the “shoe bomber” plot
- Liquid explosives hidden in carry-on luggage: the plot broken up in London
- Powdered explosives hidden on someone’s person: last year’s Christmas Day bomber
Since these are “known” threats that terrorists have either used or attempted to use, not defend against any of these would fail the “New York Times Test” and likely end the career of any politician or bureaucrat who made such a decision.
The TSA has to be “right every time.” Terrorists have to be right only once. In order to combat this, the TSA uses what the Army refers to as a “defense in depth.” This means that the TSA uses multiple techniques and methods on every person.
Here are some of the current methods used by the TSA:
- Limited background checks (Secure Flight): Everyone who flies now is screened against multiple lists, which is why we are now giving up more personal data when we book a ticket. This is supposed to keep “known terrorist and suspects” either off airplanes or subject them to extra security checks before they fly. It won’t work when people, like the shoe bomber, manage to keep a low profile or when the government bureaucracy breaks down and fails to put someone like the Christmas Day Bomber on the list.
- Behavioral detection (aka “profiling”): This has been used to a limited extent within the US (161 airports according to the TSA) and has met with great resistance. The Israelis have used this technique successfully for years as one of their primary means for screening. Unfortunately, the high training and personnel costs, not to mention the political backlash from widespread profiling, prevents this from ever being a viable, primary solution in the U.S. TSA currently has approximately 50,000 screeners working at just over minimum wage with a very high turnover. Even the current limited program costs taxpayers $200 million annually.
- Trained scent dogs: TSA uses trained dogs to detect explosives. Currently, according to the TSA, none of the teams in use at 80 airports around the country work exclusively for the TSA. In fact, most of the handlers for the 400 teams in use work for other agencies with the TSA paying $40,000 a year per team for their use after paying for the initial purchase and training of the dog. Expanding their use to every TSA checkpoint, as some of have suggested, would greatly increase the number of teams required and, as a result, the number of dogs. Just doubling the number of airports that TSA has teams at would require 400 dogs and that doesn’t consider that current levels only average 5 dogs per airport.
- X-ray screening of carryon baggage: This has been used for years to detect harmful items within carry-on bags such as guns, knives and explosives with a high dependency on the detection skills of the operators. Not surprisingly there have been numerous instances where this method failed.
- Metal setectors: Once the mainstays of any security checkpoint, these devices detect metal in or on the body of someone who walks through them. Their effectiveness has been limited in recent years because of the emergence of ceramic knives, ceramic guns and the use of explosives that do not require detonators or electronics. The shoe bomber used explosives that had to be lit; the Christmas Bomber and the recent cargo bombs both used explosives that detonate when two chemicals are mixed together.
- Pat-downs: These have been used by law enforcement for years to detect weapons and substances hidden on a suspect’s body. When done correctly, they can be highly effective but they are also highly intrusive.
- Whole-body scanners/AIT (Advanced Imaging Technology): There have been both privacy and safety concerns since these scanners were put into use. The scanners use low intensity electromagnetic waves to scan an individual and produce a picture reviewed by a TSA officer in a separate room. By contract, the TSA machines cannot store the scans they make and anything capable of taking a picture is banned from the screening rooms. The TSA scanners are similar to the ones used by the U.S. Marshals use to protect US Courthouses but were acquired under a different contract and requirements. (It was the U.S. Marshal version and not the TSA version that was recently in the news for storing scans.) While there have been questions about the safety of these scanners, TSA and manufacturers claim their testing has shown that they are safe Like the x-ray machines, these scanners also have an issue with being dependent on operator skill. This is the only technology currently in use that can detect all of the known threats hidden on a person.
I know a number of people who regularly read this site do not care for most of the TSA protection methods. As I stated in my opening paragraph, I’m not a big fan of some of them either.
Having said that, these methods are the only means currently available that will protect the traveling public against all of the currently known threats. Since the last few attempted terrorist attacks on passenger aircraft have come from explosives hidden on a person, the U.S. has to defend against these types of attacks and, unfortunately, continue to use these methods until something better is developed.
