TOPICS
TOPICS
Lawmakers criticize TSA screening systems as inefficient
Lawmakers on Thursday called the Transportation Security Administration's baggage screening and bomb detection systems inadequate and said failure rates of some programs indicate the potential for dire consequences.
"The system we now have in place, the failure rate [to detect explosives] is just disastrous," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Aviation Subcommittee, at a hearing. Detailed information on failure rates is classified, the lawmakers said.
In addition, TSA's baggage handlers are injured on the job more often than employees at other federal agencies, Mica said. He cited an Occupational Safety and Health Administration report that said 16 percent of TSA baggage screeners were injured at work.
The physical toll on screeners can be measured in dollars and cents: the $55 million for workers' compensation requested by the agency in its fiscal 2007 budget is a 40 percent increase from 2006.
Systems that keep luggage out of screeners' hands and on conveyor belts would be faster and safer, Mica said. Some baggage examination machines require too much staffing, as well, he said.
He also urged the agency to look into a more standard and consistent screening system. "TSA unfortunately created a hodgepodge of systems," he said, calling for an investigation into the agency's screening contracts.
Some of the machines certified, bought and deployed to airports by TSA test for explosives residue on bags, while others target materials with density comparable to explosives. They vary widely in size, efficiency and cost.
The machines fall into two categories: explosive detection systems (EDS) and explosive trace detection machines (ETD). TSA is considering, or has deployed, 10 different EDS and ETDs since 1996. Nearly $4 billion has been spent since fiscal 2002 on EDS alone, according to Mica.
The baggage inspection systems represent an improvement in aviation security since Sept. 11, said subcommittee member Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill. But the bomb detection systems might not be ready for widespread use at major air traffic hubs.
"Maybe the expectations were set too high," he said.
Mica said because of the sheer weight of some systems and the ergonomic reconfigurations that accompany their installment, older, major airports may have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to accommodate the machines and some may find the task impossible. TSA should pinpoint one system that can be implemented on a broad scale, instead of using its current variety of machines, he said.
TSA's assistant administrator for operational process and technology, Randy Null, said the agency has made important strides in screening since December 2002. TSA is working with the aviation industry to develop a cost-sharing program for some baggage screening, and a study will be prepared by the end of 2006 on that program.
"The systems we deploy today are significantly more efficient than the systems initially deployed, and the systems we deploy tomorrow will be even better," Null said.
Mica, however, was not appeased.
"We're three ... years into this thing," he said at one point. "It just drives me out of my gourd.... What ... went wrong?"
COMMENTS
- To the Retired Senior Customs Inspector: Let's take a look at your picture. To begin with, the new, improved TSA is composed of mostly the same private security goons from before. I agree with your statement that their job can be improved but what would you be looking to gain by taking a comprehensive look at the physical aspects of their job? It's not all that encompassing. As far as screening outbound passengers, are you overlooking the domestic flight arena? I sure care about what questionable mopes board flights within the United States because I may be on that flight and, being an LEO who travels armed, may have to interdict if something goes south. I’m not as concerned with the safety of airports overseas but you can't discard the fact that many U.S. citizens travel abroad and their safety is equally important. More intense screening of inbound passengers? Absolutely! The problem is the mindset, "Well, they're not on the plane anymore so it's OK." There are a lot of people attempting to enter the United States who should be put on the next flight going out instead of being escorted to secondary, processed for removal, and cut loose on supervised release only to disappear. That's not the job of TSA; it's the job of CBP and its cadre of inspectors from both sides of the legacy camps. They need to start dropping the hammer on these dweebs and quit playing the politics as handed down by our inept leadership in headquarters. Don't take exception to the ICE/SSA's comments about dirty laundry because I'm sure he knows there's more to inspections than that. It has nothing to do with elitism; it has to do with accountability. The Gunny GovExec.com reader Posted July 11, 2006 9:02 AM
- "What's wrong with this picture?" Remember that old cliche? Well, in my opinion the TSA is far better than the so-called private security goons hired by the airlines. But their job can be improved. What's needed is a comprehensive look at the physical aspects of the job with a view to streamlining the process. Perhaps physical exercise would help in reducing on the job injuries. But the basic premise is still wrong. Why are we wasting so much time screening outbound passengers? So that the airports overseas will be safer? Our screening, like that of the overseas cargo inspections should be directed to inbound passengers. Also, to take exception to the Senior Special Agent (ICE), there's more to inspection than sorting through people's dirty laundry. That comment shows the elitism that has gotten the special agents where they are today. GovExec.com reader Posted July 10, 2006 6:48 AM
- To the person who feels we need to give TSA the equipment they need to do the job: You can have the finest, most sophisticated equipment in the world but if you don't have the personnel with the knowledge to not only operate it, but the ability to exercise sound judgment and discern in handling people and situations, it just takes up space and renders the entire process impotent. I travel frequently in my job as a federal LEO and the majority of the screeners I've encountered can't find their butts with both hands. GovExec.com reader Posted July 8, 2006 8:24 AM
