Teo Celestino

Professor Karen Larson

English 1010
August 1, 2014

How safe is our airline security?
After the rude awakening of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, American people and
perhaps the whole world was shocked that something like this could happen to the most powerful
country in the world. Nobody expected that someone thousand miles away could carry out a well
organized attack on American soil. Immediately after the incident people realized that a major
revamp was needed in the United States airline security system. In an article published by
Michael Hiltzik of Los Angeles Times said that United States airline security system is weak and
vulnerable to people like terrorist and hijackers. Probably because the system was based to look
for explosives and guns rather that potentially unsafe individuals. The system has worked fine
for decades until terrorists found a loophole in the system. What steps did the American
government do to make the airline security safer?
Before September 11, no one thought of hijackers would commandeer a plane and attack
the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The usual pattern was that a plane is hijacked because of
political intent or a plane was to divert its course to another country. The hijackers used sharp
objects to take control of the plane. That's why a point has been made about security personnel
on US airports not being properly trained or schooled like other developed countries. Other
countries require a college degree for an individual to be a part of the airline security plus long
months of training before actually being physically present on airport grounds. Whereas United
States only train an individual to be a part of the airline security force for only 3 months. This is
a big difference considering that the United States remain a high prime target for terrorists and
should have been more comprehensive with educating and training its airline security officers.
Who would ever think that a developed country like the United Stated would have this problem?
After the 9/11 attacks the government created the Transport Security Administration
(TSA) to increase the safeguard of all 400 commercial airports in the country. Large scale
changes in security were made since the September 11 incident. Although big changes in
security system were made, the system still fall short because of many factors and loopholes that
exist and can be exploited to do harm in a colossal magnitude. A new software system for
profiling passengers was created but not very effective as it has its flaws and regular very low
threat if not zero treat are being pulled out of line just because of ridiculous reasons. For
instance, Anna Quindlen of Newsweek narrates her experience of embarrassing pat downs and
being pulled out of line because the computer picked her. She remembers being asked by the
airline security personnel if they can feel her back for search purposes that made her feel
uncomfortable but what can she do. She recalls how people look at her with their judgmental
eyes during the pat down, probably even thinking how is she associated with Osama Bin Laden. I
totally agree with her because I too have experienced a pat down, it made me uncomfortable
being touched by someone else other than my wife. Quindlen mentioned in the article that a
former Governor of South Dakota was taken out of line because he has a Congressional Medal of
Honor in his pocket and a US Congressman asked to removed his pants because his artificial hip
triggered the alarm. Random lowest risk passengers like old people and young children to be
pulled out of line just to satisfy notion of other people that the TSA is not racial profiling.
Quindlen said that based on the system software an individual could be a considered a person of
high interest if he/she change his/her route the last minute. Maybe even leaving a harmless
lipstick in your pocket could land you in an isolated room for a pat down. Even wearing bras
with metal under wires could be a reason for you to be pulled out of line. Quindlen points out
some key facts about terrorists based on history, like the average known age of the hijackers was
under 30 and no women has ever hijacked a plane. This facts are considered now for a system
software revamp to provide better profiling and behavior observation of passengers. If a person
is being pulled out of line because of faintest reasons, what system is TSA doing to detect
behavior traits that would indicate red flags of a person.
In an article by Scott McCartney titled "The Middle Seat: Subtle Signs That May Mark
You A Security Risk" he said that another strategy of TSA to strengthen the system is to deploy
security officers to observe and to look for signs that may consider an individual inside the
airport a potential threat and TSA have thousands of trained people to detect unusual behaviors
that may suggest something is not right with the individual. McCartney explains that TSA
lookout for air passengers with behaviors like fear, stress and fraud and sometimes they will
make small talks with the passenger to observe responses from the traveler. McCartney also
mentioned that the program is not cheap it cost around $200 million a year. Some say it is not
effective but TSA says it is a learning part of the airline security citing that this will make
officers better at detecting anomalies . McCartney said that records will show its success and
TSA has boasted that the program has made 2100 air travelers selected for further verification,
that resulted to 181 arrest. This include people with fake ID's, posses drugs, found to be illegally
in the country and people with outstanding warrants. They were all turned over to law
enforcement. The security officers usually team up in pairs, looking for 94 different indicators,
some of which are excessive sweating, appearing nervous or wearing warm clothing in warm
climate. I have observed that they focus not to look for weapons but for individuals who are a
potential threat and the program has been criticized for being not effective because of false
accusations on innocent passengers. I noticed that the program also has complaints about racial
profiling. This racial profiling was more pronounced after the 9/11 often of which targeting Arab
looking men which is totally biased. The system is still on developmental stages as everyday new
discoveries has been unraveled about human behavior. The system is based to look for signs that
would indicate red flags on a normal person and not an individual who is mentally ill.
McCartney concludes that air passengers who did not show signs worthy of additional security
scrutiny will most likely pass security checkpoints and board the plane. I think that the system
does not look into a persons mental disability, it does not include this in the screening factor and
an unforeseen incident may happen like an accidental fatal shooting on the plane by air marshals.
Take for instance a report by Anita Hamilton titled "Death On The Jetway." , Hamilton narrated
the events before the incident. Rigoberto Alpizar and wife Anne Buechner was on a flight from
Miami to Orlando , Florida when suddenly Alpizar had an argument with his spouse and started
to ran off the plane with his backpack. The next scene was his wife is crying saying "He's sick
and has a disorder" and two federal marshal fatally shot him. It was the first incident of it's kind
after the 9/11 incident. Hamilton said that the air marshals have evaluated the situation as a
threat to passengers and to the plane, all along it was only an episode attack of a man with
mental problems who has stopped taking his medication. In my knowledge air marshals have
only seconds to decide if the person is a threat or not. Air marshals are trained to handle unusual
and irregular conduct of a person. In my opinion the incident revealed that additional trainings
should be done with air marshals and advance information perhaps to the flight personnel if a
passenger on board a plane has a medical history of mental illness. So appropriate contingencies
can be applied if needed. According to Hamilton there was an argument surfaced that Alpizar
was carrying a backpack and him announcing that he has a bomb in his backpack, but witnesses
from the plane said it differently and believed that deadly force was unnecessary. Witnesses
believed that the situation should have been handled differently. Hamilton said that people who
new Alpizar described him as ordinary guy and just living a normal life. Alpizar was from Costa
Rica and became a US citizen, but people who knew him did not know he has mental disorder.
Hamilton states that after the incident concerns were raised if air marshals should be armed. I
think maybe the faith of Alpizar would have been different if the air marshals were not armed
and perhaps advance medical information a person should have been provided to flight
attendants. This is a sad event that happened and has made me ask if air marshal need more
training what about pilots who need to be screened for mental and personal problems before
boarding the plane?
People are fixated on looking for passengers who are potential hijackers overlooking the
security breach could come from the inside. It's unusual but it does happen, In an article by
Daniel Michaels of The Wall Street Journal , he reported about pilots hijacking the airplane that
they are flying. Michaels said the latest one was an Ethiopian Jetliner was hijacked by its own
pilot and went of course to Geneva to seek asylum. Michaels also mentioned that nine
commercial planes were commandeered by its own pilots pursuing asylum. Michaels quoted
Philip Baum, managing director of Green Light Limited, a consulting firm said that "We spend
so much time in aviation safety on catching passengers at checkpoints that we forget all other
screening matters". Nobody was ready for this except only the pilot/hijacker. I observed that
some pilots are also accused of committing suicide using planes. According to Michaels some
pilots are under suspicion that they are involved in purposely crashing a well tuned airplane. I
think the sad part is innocent passengers also dies along with the pilot. Just because he prefer to
commit suicide using own plane. Nobody really knows the reasons behind the suicide. Pilots are
regularly screened before employment. Michaels stated that one very similar fact among this
incidents is that the pilots are alone in the cockpit when this events happened and many believed
that the pilot waited the other pilot to momentarily exit the cockpit and then carry out his
intentions. Michaels said that that's why flight attendants now are asked to stay with that pilot
until the other pilot returns inside the cockpit. In my view suicide of pilots via crashing
commercial airplanes are very rare but whenever it happens its a very horrifying. None of this
suicide incidents happened in United States, at least on commercial planes and most happened
overseas.
If the United States is improving its system on airline security, what about other
countries? Are they also improving their airline security as well? Based on my exploration I
learned that the United States is not only fortifying its airline security from within it border but
from outside its borders as well. According to Lisa Caruso of the National Journal, United States
has reached other countries for help and tries to impose policies of a tighter screening of people
bound to enter United States soil and putting pressure to other countries to give more scrutiny to
individuals headed to United States especially from 14 countries on the Transport Security
Administration list. Caruso states that policy requires that all vital information of passengers
headed to United States from the list should be transmitted 30 minutes before departure, they call
it "Advance Passenger Information". According to Caruso United States Homeland Security
Department and Transport Security Administration had to wrangle with the European Union
about how much information they can acquire pertaining to passengers from Europe and it was
a lengthy and bitter process. I feel United States can only go so far as to implementing its
policies on other countries because other countries do not want policies dictated for them, instead
they want to make their own policies. They want their policies to conform with their culture.
This is difficult for the United States because US wants to assert that security is its main
objective while the European Union maintain its priority of safeguarding the privacy rights of its
passengers.
On a very related topic, What is the level of security that's being done on cargo inspection
on other parts of the world? Jenny Rogers of Aviation Week and Space Technology reports that
the Transportation Security Administration has imposed deadlines for airline companies to
comply with the cargo inspection security policy. Rogers insist that airline companies should
inspect 100% of all cargo going in to United States, this applies to air and ship cargo. They
should be able to inspect 100% of all its content. Rogers mentioned in the article that part of the
inspection process will mandate the airline companies to look materials for explosives to United
States bound cargo. This will require segmentation of condensed shipments. This will also
mean that there will be more strict screening of high danger freight. I think the venture is
complicated because of difficulty in reaching security agreement with other nations, because the
process has to be done on both foreign airports. The author raised concerns about the 100%
cargo inspection approach will be impractical and very hard to accomplish because it is fixated
on achieving 100% inspection of all cargo, the element of focusing to find the real damaging
threat is weakened. The article's purpose is to educate the public about TSA's imposed deadlines
on airline companies to have intensive inspection on cargo's bound to the United States. It is not
clear if other countries will abide with the specifics of the policy. Since this looks like a matter
that concerns more of the United States than other countries. I wonder if other developed
countries is as spirited as the United States is in terms of cargo inspection or are they more laid
back because they feel that they are not the first one on the list of terrorist. If United States is
demanding 100% percent of cargo coming in to United States should be inspected before
reaching US soils then United States should show the world that they are also taking big steps
toward the improvement of inspection on cargo and passengers that go through United States
security checkpoints to travel domestically or internationally. I am now thinking about
technologies that would further enhance detection of dangerous materials being brought inside
the plane. Has the Transport Security Authority made efforts to enhance technologies to
strengthen security inside airports?
Jermey Matthews of Physics Today Paper reported that US government is raising
its efforts to upgrade its airport screening technologies. US Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) has expedited the modernization of its security scanners. Matthews said
that TSA is allocating millions for its modernization of security scanners and among the
technologies are on trace -explosives detection systems, liquid -explosive scanners and full body
scanners to which may have detected the explosives that are placed on the suspect's underwear
on a December bombing attempt. The article states that the price of the full body scanners are
$160,000 each, placed at 31 US airports and plans to install a lot more over time . The author
said that full body scanners has different types of system employed. Some of which are the
backscattered x-ray radiation and the scattered millimeter waves. Both system takes 10 seconds
to test the person. I think that both system has disadvantage and advantages of it's own. Critics
of the system raises the privacy concern of the public. Matthews said such solution were done by
integrating software that would blur the person's face. According to Matthews concerns also
arise about health issues concerning full body scanners could cause cancer. Malesh
Mahadevappa , who works at John Hopkins Hospital as a Chief physicist said that "A person
would have to go through 1000 to 2500 times to a body scanner to get the same radiation effect
as a normal chest x-ray". I think critics are still not convinced that side effects are still present
with the new body scanners. . I personally welcome the advancement in technology but a good
system must be in place at the same time. It has to work together otherwise this endeavor would
fail and it will be such a waste of money. The technology should be present at all US airports
otherwise this will be one of those loopholes where bad guys would exploit. For me airline
security should be evolving and continue to find new threats. If x-ray scanners are there to detect
weapons, what if the weapon is drawn out before it could reach the scanner? Are the security
officers on the airport ground ready for this kind of situation?
Common sense seems to dictate that security officers scanning for deadly weapons at
security checkpoints should be armed but this has been slowly dropped by the TSA. In an article
by the Wall Street Journal it outlined the issue about bringing back armed security officers at
security checkpoints. The article said that the request was done headed by Mr. McClain,
president of police union at LAX and Mr. Paul Nanziato, president of the airport police union at
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. They requested that armed police officers to
stay within 300 feet of the screening area. The article said that TSA denied the request without
providing clear answers. According to the article Transport Security Authority has emphasized
that its priority is not to secure the airport grounds but to prevent explosives and guns from
reaching airplanes. The article states that a year after the request and a shooting incident
happened at LAX, the suspect, Mr. Cianca shot Mr. Hernandez, a TSA officer stationed at one
of the security checkpoints with a rifle. Mr. Hernandez died of gunshot wounds. Mr. Cianca was
later arrested in the airport food court, he is waiting trial. According to the article it was
determined that Mr. Cianca has intended to kill TSA officers. After the incident TSA still has
not placed armed officers at checkpoints. In other words despite someone being killed at the
security checkpoint does not convince the TSA that this incident merit an action towards arming
officers at checkpoints. Maybe they are waiting for a bigger disaster to happen. Personally I
don't like to see armed officers near security checkpoints, they make me feel uncomfortable. I
think firearms of the security officers at security checkpoints, if ever they would be reinstated
should be concealed.
In conclusion, I applaud the United States Government for making huge improvements in
its airline security system , perhaps other countries has patterned their own airline security
system to it. New technologies were acquired to battle the new threat, sometimes undermining
the privacy and health concerns of passengers. I also admire the efforts of the United States to
extend its hand to other countries for a more coordinated airline security system even though its
seems that its only a sided deal that benefits the United States more that the other party. I
commend them for developing new techniques in profiling passengers to look people as potential
threat to be a terrorists regardless of them discriminating people. It is very clear that United
States is not concerned about peoples rights but the security of the United States as a whole. It is
determined to prevent another September 11 incident. The system has changed so much since
Sept 11. But it still needs a lot work and must not stop to work hard because terrorist are also
relentless. It must keep up with the new threats that emerge every now and then and not to put
its guard down ever. The whole exploration has made me aware of the improvements and present
problems of US airline security. After learning all of this information, I still ask my self how safe
is our airline security?



Works Cited
Caruso, Lisa. "Getting Foreigners On Board With Airline Security." National Journal (2010):
15. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 July 2014.
Hamilton, Anita, et al. "Death On The Jetway." Time 166.25 (2005): 48. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 22 July 2014
Hiltzik, Michael A., and others. "How Did Hijackers Get Past Airport Security?." Los
Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA). Sept. 23 2001: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 15
Jul. 2014.
Matthews, Jermey N. A. "Airport Checkpoint Technologies Take Off." Physics Today 63.7
(2010): 27-29. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 July 2014
McCartney, Scott. "The Middle Seat: Subtle Signs that may Mark You A Security Risk." Wall
Street Journal, Eastern edition ed.Jan 23 2014. ProQuest. Web. 21 July 2014
Michaels, Daniel. "World News: Co-Pilot Commandeers Jet, Lands in Geneva --- Inside Threats
are Relatively Rare, but Harder for Airlines to Thwart." Wall Street Journal, Eastern
edition ed.Feb 18 2014. ProQuest Newsstand. Web. 24 July 2014
Pasztor, Andy, Jack Nicas and William Harless. "U.S. News: Shooting Renews Debate on
Armed Officers --- Police with Guns Once were Common at Airport-Security
Checkpoints, but Practice Fell Away Over Cost, Changed Priorities." Wall Street Journal,
Eastern edition ed.Nov 04 2013. ProQuest. Web. 23 July 2014
Quindlen, Anna. "Armed With Only A Neutral Lipstick." Newsweek 139.11 (2002): 72.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 July 2014
Rogers, Jenny. "Cargo Check." Aviation Week & Space Technology 174.30 (2012):
15. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 July 2014