UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Homeland Security

Statement by Tom Jensen, President/CEO of the National Safe Skies Alliance

Before the Subcommittee on Aviation

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

U.S. House of Representatives

February 12, 2004

__________________________________________________________________

 

I would like to thank Chairman Mica and this distinguished committee for the opportunity to provide testimony to you today regarding the progress and problems in aviation passenger and baggage screening. Our organization, the National Safe Skies Alliance, owes its inception to this committee and to its former chairman, the Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr., and its continued support to this esteemed body and to you, Mr. Chairman. For this, we are very grateful.

 

National Safe Skies Alliance (Safe Skies) is a membership-based, not-for-profit corporation that was founded six years ago (see Appendix A for a membership list). In essence, Safe Skies serves two missions for aviation transportation: the first is as a conduit to bring stakeholders and solution-providers together to solve security challenges; the second is to serve as an independent testing organization that evaluates technologies and security systems. 

 

The Alliance is funded in part through a cooperative agreement in response to the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21). The AIR 21 Bill called for the funding of an independent testing organization to evaluate current and emerging airport devices, systems, and procedures and provided a minimum of $5 million annually for such purposes. Since the passage of AIR 21, Safe Skies has answered that need by providing operational testing of security devices at its permanent test bed located at McGhee Tyson Airport (TYS) in Knoxville, Tennessee, and at 30 other airports nationwide. The information garnered from these operational evaluations has been used by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to make improvements in airport security infrastructure and practices. Additionally, we have from time to time provided information to the Inspector General and to the Government Accounting Office.

 

Our organization provides information, through operational and developmental testing, that assists the TSA in making decisions on the deployment of security devices. We would like to bring three examples to your attention that illustrate this function.

 

First, Screener-Assisted X-ray was a technology designed to provide image enhancement support to the security screener in the detection of explosives. We tested devices from four different manufacturers to determine the operational viability prior to procurement and deployment; however, our testing demonstrated that none of the devices were mature enough to meet detection or passenger through-put standards.  As a result, the technology was not purchased and deployed, which saved taxpayers an estimated $30 million (see Appendix B for TSA document references).

 

The second example is that of product improvement for the L3 eXaminer 6000 Explosive Detection System (EDS) for checked baggage (see Appendix B for the TSA document reference).  Because of our testing, the manufacturer was able to generate more than 100 improvements to make the device operationally acceptable, which in turn allowed the U.S. to have more than one source for EDS and to achieve the 100% baggage screening mandate by December 31, 2002.

 

Finally, Congress appropriated funds for 1600 enhanced metal detectors to replace older units that existed in all U.S. airports. Safe Skies evaluated the operational effectiveness for these enhanced metal detectors from different manufacturers. Because of our testing results, the TSA was able to make purchasing decisions based on equipment effectiveness for all of our nation's airports (see Appendix B for TSA document references).

 

Safe Skies test engineers have employed their extensive experience in Biometrics, Explosive Trace and Vapor Detection, Explosive Detection Systems, Passenger Screening, Human Factors, and Perimeter Protection Technologies. Testing has been conducted in over 30 airports on a wide variety of projects and technologies, some of which include Checkpoint Optimization at Atlanta Hartsfield and Seattle Tacoma International Airports, a Checked Baggage Security Wrapping Project at Miami International Airport, and a Biometric Fingerprint Access Project at Jackson Municipal Airport (see Appendix B for TSA document references). Our support of aviation transportation security has also included participating in the first risk assessments for airports after September 11th, and recently, providing the necessary evaluations of resolution protocols for screeners of checked baggage at Boston Logan, San Francisco, Jacksonville, and Orange County John Wayne Airports. This has lead to training modifications for screeners and on-screen alarm resolution, which will potentially allow for more efficient and effective alarm resolution for checked baggage.

 

Congress is to be commended for the foresight that it has shown and its willingness to address the problem of aviation security in a direct manner. The TSA is also to be commended for its efforts and ability to achieve improvements in aviation security in a short period of time. Changes have been implemented that have resulted in heightened professionalism among the security screeners nationwide. With these improvements comes an increased standardization in technology and screening procedures, which has encouraged uniformity and higher performance in threat detection. One hundred percent screening of checked baggage has now been implemented at all U. S. airports, and the industries that supply screening devices are fully engaged and committed to improving the quality of their products for the enhancement of both security and the stream of aviation commerce.

 

One such example of this vendor commitment is the work that has been conducted on the Advanced Technology Security Checkpoint (ATSC). The ATSC is a suite of equipment that has been configured to optimize conventional threat and explosive detection. Technologies that make up the ATSC include a prescreening divestiture device, quadrupole resonance, explosive trace detection, walk-through trace portal, scanner for explosives and hazardous liquids, metal detector, dual-view x-ray, and body scanning with backscatter x-rays. To determine the effectiveness of this system, Safe Skies conducted two separate tests. The first was a TSA-endorsed operational test and evaluation that was conducted for three months at Orlando International Airport. This test was focused on operational impact issues such as processing time, screener performance, system configuration, and passenger acceptance.

 

After the operational tests in Orlando were completed, a need was identified to perform system effectiveness testing. This system effectiveness testing, funded by ATSC Consortium Members, was conducted using conventional threat objects such as guns and knives, non-conventional threat objects such as weapons made from plastic and ceramic, and live explosives of various compounds shaped into numerous configurations. All threat objects were placed into luggage or on test subjects. The combined system of the individual ATSC security devices, each of which was provided, installed, and paid for by ATSC Consortium Members, was tested at the Stanford Research Institute International site in Tracy, CA. Consortium Members, who ordinarily are rivals, saw specific problems in screening and put aside competition for patriotism. These manufacturers recognized that none offered a complete solution, but together, they offered a more comprehensive approach to aviation security screening. The results of the ATSC tests are available by request from the Consortium Members (see Appendix C).

 

Although much progress has been made in aviation security, much more work needs to occur to ensure the safety of the traveling public. As our adversaries become increasingly sophisticated, so too must our technologies and personnel continue to improve so that we can meet new threats. There must be a continual and advancing training program for all screeners, and at the same time, a continual and advancing test program to monitor the progress of implemented changes to devices and systems. Security must be balanced and layered to combat threat migration at airports of all sizes, so the same level of security effectiveness exists at our smallest regional airport as what is in place at our largest international airport.  Technology development and vetting has often been hampered by funding; our nation must rise to meet these challenges and commit to continued support of better aviation security.

 

We face an enemy that is imminent and dangerous. But by committing ourselves to security improvement, we can close many of the potential portals to disaster. The National Safe Skies Alliance plays an integral role in quality assurance for emerging technologies and systems, which includes support for the short and longer term Phoenix and Manhattan II Developmental Projects. Safe Skies will continue to be dedicated to improving aviation security for the U. S. and for the world. In closing, I would like to thank you for offering me the honor of appearing before you today. I welcome any questions that the committee has for me.


Appendix A: National Safe Skies Alliance Members

 

Government, Education,

Airports and Associations

 

AVSECO, Hong Kong

Air Line Pilots Association

Airports Council International - NA

Amputee Coalition of America

BAA/Heathrow, UK

Blue Grass Airport

East Tennessee Economic Council

Eastern Kentucky Univ., Justice & Safety Center

El Paso International Airport

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Greater Orlando Aviation Authority

Gulfport-Biloxi International Airport

Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Lab.

Jackson Municipal Airport Authority

Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport)

Metropolitan Knoxville Airport Authority

Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro. Airports Commission

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

SITA

Tennessee Air National Guard

Transport Canada

University of Tennessee

 

Corporate

 

ADT Security Services

American Airlines

American Safehouse, Inc.

Boeing Company

BWXT Y-12, LLC

CEIA - USA

Cernium, Inc.

Delta Air Lines

DRS Data & Imaging Systems, Inc.

Engineering & Computer Simulations, Inc.

 

Corporate, cont.

 

FMC Corporation

Gate Safe, Inc.

GE Ion Track

Georal International of New York

Global Systems Technologies, Inc.

Harris, Gov't. Communications Div.

Honeywell Technology Center

iMove Inc.

Ingersoll-Rand Security & Safety

InVision Technologies, Inc.

Johnson Controls, Inc.

Knox-Air, Inc.

L-3 Communications

Laser Data Command

Lockheed Martin

Lockwood Greene

Logan Fabricom, Inc.

Metorex Security Products, Inc.

Michael Stapleton Associates Ltd.

Mistral Security, Inc.

National Recovery Technologies

New Chromex Incorporated

Northrop Grumman

Nuclear Safeguards & Security

QinetiQ Ltd., UK

Rapiscan Security Products, Inc.

Raytheon

Samsung CCTV

Scintrex Trace Corp.

Siemens Dematic

Smart Approach, Ltd., UK

Smiths Aerospace - Electronic Systems

Smiths Detection

Smiths Heimann

SRI International

TransSolutions

Ultra Electronics Airport Systems, Inc.

XTec, Inc.

Appendix B: Safe Skies Test Reports Submitted to the TSA

 

To obtain copies of our test reports, contact our Contracting Officer's Technical Representative:

 

Kurt Montavon

Office of Security Technologies

TSA Headquarters, West Tower

TSA-16, 739S

601 S. 12th Street

Arlington, VA  22202-4220

571-227-1161

kurt.montavon@dhs.gov

 

  1. ADT X-Exit Arch Test Report

 

  1. Biometrics Technical Guide and Usage Survey

 

  1. Checkpoint Optimization Report For Phase I Data Collection at the Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport

 

  1. Data Collection Report for Spatial Dynamics Applications BCT 2000 Bottle Contents Tester

 

  1. Data Summary Report for the CTX 2500 Operational Utility Evaluation Conducted at the Raleigh Durham International Airport

 

  1. Evaluation of CTX 2500/5500 Training and Performance of Personnel With and Without X-Ray Experience

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the HandKey CR Hand Geometry Identification Device

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the IDS Systems Inc. Tailgate Detection System (TDS)

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the IrisAccess® 2200T Access Control Device

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Laser Guard Ltd. Laser Guard System for Unattended Aircraft Protection

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Law Enforcement Officer Verification Card System

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the ADT Security ServicesNewton Research Labs Inc. Tailgate-Detection, Alarm, and Recording (T-DAR) System

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Perimeter Products, Inc. Tactical Microwave Portable Sensor (21100) Intrusion Detection System for Unattended Aircraft Protection

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the PortalT Facial Recognition Access Control Device

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the SAGEM MorphoAccessTM Access Control Device

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Southwest Microwave, Inc. Mil Pac 310B Rapid Deployment Intrusion Detection System for Unattended Aircraft Protection

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Transaction Control Technologies' VersamaxT Selector Door

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Ultra-Scan FingerpunchTM Access Control Device

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Veriprint 2100 Fingerprint Identification Device

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the V-FlexT Biometric Access Control Device

 

  1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Wireless AssetnetTM Fleet Security and Management System

 

  1. Evaluation of the Secure Wrap Process at the Miami International Airport

 

  1. Field Data Collection Report for the Checked Baggage Baseline Study at the Bluegrass Airport

 

  1. Final Report for Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Georal 2001-2DS

 

  1. Final Report for Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Secure Access Portal

 

  1. Implementing Technology to Address Checkpoint Breaching in the Airport Environment

 

  1. Implementing Technology to Address Tailgating and Piggybacking at Airports

 

  1. L3 ARGUS VCT30 Operational Data Collection, Portland International Jetport

 

  1. Operational Evaluation Report of the Ion Track Instruments (ITI) EntryScan 3® Walk-Through Explosives Detection and Identification System

 

  1. Performance Evaluation Report for EG&G Astrophysics' Screener Assist X-Ray Technology

 

  1. Performance Evaluation Report for Exit Lane Baseline Testing at the McGhee Tyson Airport in Knoxville, TN.

 

  1. Performance Evaluation Report for Heimann Screener Assist X-Ray Technology

 

  1. Performance Evaluation Report for Rapiscan Screener Assist X-Ray Technology

 

  1. Performance Evaluation Report for Spatial Dynamics Applications M600 Bottle Contents Tester

 

  1. Performance Evaluation Report for Vivid Screener Assist X-Ray Technology

 

  1. Phase II Operational Data Collection Report for the General Dielectric, Inc. BCT 2000 Bottle Contents Tester at the Louisville International Airport

 

  1. Report for Operational Evaluation of the Rapiscan 520 Dual View X-Ray System at Orlando, Florida

 

  1. Report for Operational Testing and Evaluation of the Automated Video Tracking System

 

  1. Report for Operational Testing and Evaluation of the CEIA Enhanced Metal Detector at the TSL-Knoxville Laboratory

 

  1. Report for Operational Testing and Evaluation of the Garrett Enhanced Metal Detector at the TSL-Knoxville Laboratory

 

  1. Report for Operational Testing and Evaluation of the Metorex Enhanced Metal Detector at the TSL-Knoxville Laboratory

 

  1. Report for Operational Testing and Evaluation of the Rapiscan Secure 1000 Full Body Scanner System

 

  1. Report on Operational Alarm Rates for Seven Metal Detectors at the McGhee Tyson Airport in Knoxville, TN

 

  1. Report on Pilot Demonstration of Revised EDS On-Screen Alarm Resolution Protocols- Phase I

 

  1. Report on the Demonstration of L3 Communications' Examiner 3DX 6000

 

  1. Site Survey Report - Blue Grass Airport

 

  1. Site Survey Report - McGhee Tyson Airport

 

  1. Statistical Analysis of the Test: Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Metorex Metor 200 HD
  2. Multi-Zone Metal Detector

 

  1. Task Report for McGhee-Tyson Ramp Data Collection Knoxville, Tennessee

 

  1. Test Report for Barringer Instruments' IONSCAN 400 Document Scanner

 

  1. Test Report for Evaluating the Effectiveness of the FastLane® Door Detective

 

  1. Test Report for the Operational Evaluation of the i-Portal 100 Advanced Weapons Detection System

 

  1. Test Report for the Operational Evaluation of the Liquiscan Bottle Scanner at Orlando International Airport, Orlando, FL

 

  1. Test Report for the Operational Evaluation of the QSCAN QR 160 Explosives Detection System

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C: ATSC Consortium Members

 

To learn more about the results of the ATSC demonstration, contact the following person:

 

John Huey

John Huey and Associates, LLC

2300 M Street NW

Suite 800

Washington, DC  20037

202-872-5045

jhuey01@attglobal.net

 

ATSC Consortium Members

 

GE Ion Track Instruments

 

OSI/Rapiscan Inc. Security Products

 

Quantum Magnetics

 

 



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list