GroundSupportWorldWide.com |

In this column, I shall refer liberally to an article, "US Airport Screening Tools Have Unexpected Reliability Problems," by Eric Lipton, which appeared on Sept. 3 in The New York Times. It was reported worldwide in the International Herald Tribune. (Click here to read the abstract that appeared on AirportBusiness.com).

TSA, citing "unexpected" problems, has announced it is suspending installation of one of the newest devices, the trace detection portal known as the "puffer", and may either modify them or wait until something better comes along. Among its major shortcomings: a high failure rate due to dirt and dust at an airport. Who knew airports were dirty and dusty?

They are only sidelining this one, not the other reasonably field-proven machines, (notwithstanding some continuing procedural problems) but it begs the question of why the immense scientific resources of the Dept. of Homeland Security called a time out?

Paraphrasing the Times article:

• Some Members of Congress and domestic security officials blame poor research management, turf fights, staff turnover and under-financing, not to mention airline opposition and just plain old bureaucratic ennui.
• A former DHS official called the controlled testing "disastrous" and "stupid" because it was not tested in the way it was intended to be used.
• Grant money given to a manufacturer for enhancement work completed a year ago, but no software upgrades made on hundreds of machines in the field.

The Times described an explosives testing demo (by a TSA lab guy called only "Mr. T" - how scary is that image) in which bad materials were stuffed inside common articles to test a machine's response parameters without experiencing too high a false alarm rate. While necessary and useful, a lab is not the same as testing in the real-world airport environment, where temperatures range to both extremes, fuel fumes permeate the air, dirt and grease are everywhere, equipment is continuously abused 24/7, and every contaminant known to man appears daily on and in hands, shoes, boxes, packages, luggage, toys, diaper bags, backpacks, pockets, briefcases, rope-wrapped trash bags, and more, a significant percent of which have just traveled through several foreign countries.

Many experts say TSA keeps trying to address the last terrorist plot - knives, guns, plastic explosives - but not necessarily the next one - liquid explosives or bio-chem. Congressional appropriations take months to reach the TSA labs, seriously hampering testing while "other priorities" cause the lab to lose half its budget. Congress itself causes similar problems as it reallocates R&D appropriations even as it complains about lack of progress.

What to do?

• Fund the labs fully, and with long term predictability
• That will also help deal with staff and management morale and turnover
• Squelch the turf wars - huge waste of money and brain power
• Better balance among short and long term strategies
• No rush-to-deployment until equipment is fully proven in an operational setting
• Know when to say no - kudos to TSA for having the political nerve to pull the plug on this one, albeit perhaps a bit too slowly.

Art Kosatka is CEO of TranSecure, an aviation consultancy in Virginia; he'll respond to questions or comments at .