Airport security invaded by common sense

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has completed a detailed study of the relevance of general aviation in government anti-terrorism strategies.

The study paints a picture of strong and mutual industry/regulator consultation, and a determination to develop meaningful and effective strategies through risk analysis and cost-consciousness.

Australian GA figures are now hoping the study and its recommendations will be mirrored in Australia before any new security-related impositions are imposed on GA.

Richard L Skinner, Inspector-General of the DHS, said the review was conducted at the request of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, House Committee on Homeland Security:

“The study’s objectives were to identify existing security requirements for general aviation airports, threats to general aviation, measures taken to secure general aviation, steps which non-federal stakeholders have taken to enhance the security of general aviation, and any “incidents of concern” with security at general aviation airports,” he said.

The investigations were launched to evaluate allegations of security vulnerabilities at three Houston-area general aviation airports which had been presented in an “investigative report” by a local television station, tagged: Is Houston a Sitting Duck for Terrorism?

“We determined that general aviation presents only limited and mostly hypothetical threats to security. We also determined that the steps general aviation airport owners and managers have taken to enhance security are positive and effective. TSA guidelines, communication forums, and alert mechanisms, coupled with voluntary measures taken by the owners and operators of aircraft and facilities, provide baseline security for aircraft based at general aviation sites. Significant regulation of the industry would require considerable federal funding. We are not making any recommendations to the Transportation Security Administration regarding general aviation regulations.

Is anybody watching the railway station?

The study covered numerous GA airports with up to 400,000 GA movements annually, as well as major domestic and international airports with significant GA operations. Among the study’s findings, assertions and observations are:

• “As a platform for conventional explosives, the threat posed by light GA aircraft is relatively small compared to the threat posed by trucks.
• Most GA aircraft could not penetrate the concrete containment vessel of a nuclear power plant, release radiation through an explosion, or otherwise severely damage nuclear power plants.
• “This review was initiated in part because of the television station’s allegations. We reviewed the allegations and determined that they were not compelling. In each instance, the allegation of weak security was based on reporters gaining access to airfields or aircraft. However, the reporters were unaware of some passive security and monitoring measures. For example, the airports had instituted security procedures, including 24-hour video surveillance, locking or disabling grounded planes, and controlling fuel access, which the television reporters did not test.”
• “The FAA tower operator provides visual surveillance, and 24-hour video surveillance. These security measures have effectively deterred even petty vandalism. The airport does not handle air cargo, and most planes are housed in hangars, locked, or disabled when not in use. The jet that the television reporters approached during the filming of their report could not have been moved from the ramp without security personnel noticing them tampering with the jet.”
• “TSA scales its security strategy to the wide range of airfield environments and classes of operators and aircraft, rather than introducing overly broad regulations that are costly to implement. TSA works closely with the many associations of GA owners and operators to implement voluntary security measures based on threat analysis and risk management. In addition, TSA has introduced voluntary guidelines that are being used throughout the GA community, and has developed several programs targeted at the most vulnerable GA sectors.”
• “Although OI [Office of Intelligence] has identified potential threats, it has concluded that most GA aircraft are too light to inflict significant damage, and has not identified specific imminent threats from GA aircraft. OI has also concluded that there is no credible threat of crop-dusting aircraft being used to spread chemical or biological agents. However, OI noted that various intelligence sources have identified helicopters as aircraft of ongoing interest to terrorists. OI also stated that the potential for a terrorist group to use GA aircraft to conduct an attack remains a possibility that cannot be ignored.”
• The Aviation Security Advisory Committee reviewed GA airport security and concluded that non-federal stakeholders have taken extensive voluntary measures to limit security vulnerabilities. Measures range from pilot awareness programs and guidelines for flight schools to assisting airports in developing security plans and assisting businesses in identifying inappropriate airplane purchase offers. GA operators also may implement TSA guidelines that provide owners, operators, sponsors, and other entities responsible for oversight of GA airports with a set of federally endorsed security enhancements and a method for determining when and where these enhancements may be appropriate.

Is a similarly intelligent approach too much to hope for Down Under?

Related Articles

• No Related Post