=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This article was sent to you by someone who found it on SF Gate. The original article can be found on SFGate.com here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/c/a/2002/03/24/MN218878.D= TL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday, March 24, 2002 (SF Chronicle) Race to overhaul airline security/Industry pressure may slow reform, critic= s fear Alan Gathright, Chronicle Staff Writer With a fall deadline looming for a new air-security system, U.S. aviation officials will meet at San Francisco International Airport tomorrow to confront charges that airline industry pressure made America vulnerable to the Sept. 11 attacks and to plot how to beat terrorists to the next punch. So far, the new Transportation Security Administration is being lauded f= or plowing ahead on a mammoth task: taking over nationwide supervision of airport screeners who work for private firms while readying a 60,000-member federal security force by Nov. 19. It also must install billions of dollars of bomb- detection machines at the nation's 429 airports to screen every bag that goes on an airplane by year's end. Transportation Department Inspector General Kenneth Mead recently told Congress he's "impressed with the diligence and aggressiveness" with which the fledgling agency has beefed up security. But in the post-Sept. 11 urgency to bolster security for an aviation system that carries 700 million passengers annually, experts say problems are being overlooked and political expediency is threatening reforms. Critics worry the TSA is ignoring security holes on the "backside" of airports, bending on tough standards for federal screeners and wavering on which bomb-detection technology to use. The fear is that the new agency, created by Congress after Sept. 11, may succumb to airline industry pressure to avoid flight delays and merely provide the "facade of security," as one critic called it. In a whistle-blower complaint made public last month, the head of an eli= te FAA undercover team accused agency managers of trying to "bury" airport security flaws that agents found during mock attacks conducted years before Sept. 11. When airport bomb-screening machines that cost $1 million performed poorly during undercover tests, a supervisor ordered agents to tip off airports before future "surprise" tests, according to former FAA undercover team leader Bogdan Dzakovic. WHISTLE-BLOWERS' FORUM "The terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 could and should have been completely avoided," Dzakovic, a former air marshal, said recently at a congressionally sponsored whistle-blowers' forum. Their failure "to protect the flying public made it inevitable that terrorists could attack in this particularly heinous manner," added the agent, whose accusations have triggered an inspector general's investigation. In an interview, Dzakovic said the FAA dragged its feet on plans to reinforce airliner cockpit doors for a decade. It also barred the FAA's undercover team from using "realistic" terrorist weapons -- including knives and disassembled bombs and guns -- to test airport security checkpoints. Instead, agents were limited to FAA-approved test bombs and guns concealed in plastic. Dzakovic now works for TSA, which absorbed the FAA security division's 1, 100-member staff. He worries that the new agency is relying too much on his old FAA managers in shaping the new security system. "My big fear is that, until you start holding these people accountable, we're basically going to be doing the same work but wearing a different hat," he said. But former FAA security chief Cathal Flynn said Dzakovic's claims are "flat wrong." "The work of the Red Team was very valuable for finding out what was the actual state of vital security measures," said Flynn, who will deliver a keynote address Tuesday at the Aviation Security Summit and Expo at SFO's Westin Hotel. The two-day conference will include soul-searching about whether the FAA= 's failure to implement security recommendations by presidential commissions and existing legislation contributed to the Sept. 11 attacks. Participants will also debate whether the new federal aviation security law will truly enhance security. The anxiety about "spending zillions of dollars" on manpower and technology -- and whether it will deliver -- has been palpable at recent congressional hearings. "Are we likely to see ourselves invest billions of dollars in some 2,000- plus of these enormous (explosive detection) machines, . . . remodel every doggone airport in the country to accommodate them, only to find . . . that somebody came up with a cheaper, quicker, smaller, more efficient . . . way to do this?" asked Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the House transportation appropriations subcommittee. "There is no rule book for doing this," replied Deputy Transportation Secretary Michael Jackson. "So, we're inventing it as we go along. But with precision and with, we think, deliberate work." JUMBO MACHINES The government has scaled back plans to spend up to $2.5 billion on 2,500 of the jumbo machines that use CT-scan technology to detect bombs in baggage. Officials are concerned about whether the truck-size explosives detection system scanners (EDS), which can weigh nine tons and cost $1.5 million each, would literally fit in the nation's 429 commercial airports. The choice was between the costly installation of machines into existing baggage systems -- where they'd work more efficiently -- or cramming them in lobbies, which would require more staffing. There is also concern that the automated EDS machines have a 28 percent false alarm rate, signaling nonexistent bombs, which could paralyze a nationwide system that handles 3 million checked bags daily. More worrisome, undercover agents found that operators often missed test bombs because they're so eager to "clear" frequent false alarms and keep bags flowing. So the security agency plans to use a mix of the big EDS machines and smaller explosive trace-detection machines, which cost only $40,000 and are currently used at airports to analyze swabs taken of passenger bags and shoes for explosive residue. "We don't want to be spending multiple billions of dollars on a machine that technologically may be out of date in two or three years," Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said recently. While attention has focused on screening passengers and bags, security experts warn that about 1 million airport workers nationwide with access to top-security areas -- the ramps where empty jetliners park and baggage rooms -- don't go through metal detectors. VAGUE DEADLINES The new Aviation and Transportation Security Act requires workers with security clearances to have their fingerprints checked for criminal violations by year's end. But screening of individuals, vehicles and other equipment entering security zones is only required as soon as the security agency deems it "practicable" -- or possible. Critics say such vague deadlines have fueled delays in security improvements for years. "As long as you can employ 40,000 people, for instance, at JFK (International Airport) and not put them through the same kind of screening that we put passengers and flight crews through, we have an enormous hole in airport security," said security expert Charles Slepian, who will lead a workshop review of the new security law at tomorrow's conference. "It doesn't make sense to have the very people who have access to the security areas of the airport, to the aircraft, to the baggage and provisions . . . that go onboard an airplane not going through the same checks that t= he passengers do. And until they do, security is a farce." San Francisco International Airport's largest employer, United Airlines, has begun requiring all employees to pass through metal detectors at the start of their shift. And SFO wants all top-security employees to undergo the same screening by the end of the year. Meanwhile, experts fear lawmakers are rolling back requirements to impro= ve the quality of airport screeners who have suffered from dismal pay, training and effectiveness. The new law does not require screeners to be high school graduates; instead, they can have one year of job experience deemed suitable by the security agency. Yet some Bay Area congressional leaders oppose the law's requirement that screeners be citizens, which could cost an estimated 1,200 immigrant screeners their jobs at local airports. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, recently introduced a bill that would allow legal immigrants, who can serve in the military, to continue working as screeners. "I am extremely disappointed that the administration is standing by while hard-working airport screeners are being unfairly targeted, and legal immigrants can carry an M-16 in our nation's airports as members of the National Guard," Lofgren said. 'BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST' Unless the law changes, Mineta said, he can only urge immigration officials to expedite foreign-born screeners' citizenship applications, including some requests pending for years. Mineta vows to hire "the best and the brightest for these critical security positions," but adds that might include current screeners who can pass TSA muster. But Slepian countered: "This is a shock to me that an effort is being made to re-employ the same people who couldn't do the job in the first place. We have legislators who are saying this should be more of a 'jobs' program than a security program." At Slepian's urging, JFK airport has asked the security agency to approve a pilot program to use retired police, firefighters and state and federal law enforcement agents as screeners and security officers. About 1,000 retired officers, among them former bomb squad members, with decades of experience have signed up for the program that Slepian says could be replicated nationwide. "Why should we settle for (existing screeners) when we can get people who can do the job the way it has to be done?" Slepian asked. "We need street- smart cops in these airports if this thing is ever going to work." E-mail Alan Gathright at agathright@sfchronicle.com.=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 2002 SF Chronicle