Use Caution on Airport Checks

Wednesday’s report from the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security contained several useful recommendations, some of which are already being implemented at the nation’s airports. The panel was formed after the TWA Flight 800 disaster last summer that killed all 230 passengers and crew members.

Not all of the commission’s ideas were warmly received, however. A troubling one is the controversial proposal to screen airport passengers for likely terrorists, so-called “profiling.”

Experts say that automated profiling uses computers to scan past travel records and the possible criminal histories of passengers. The commission said that this would be an easy task since “passengers could be quickly separated into a very large majority who present little or no risk, and a small minority who merit additional attention.”

The report noted that U.S. Customs officials have already used a form of automated profiling to control drug traffic.

The commission claims that passenger profiling could be done at random without basing it on race, ethnicity or gender. But it’s still an idea that deserves very cautious thinking and far more detail on how it would work.

Americans have become less enamored with the claimed accuracy of terrorist profiles, particularly on the heels of the FBI’s Richard Jewell debacle, the case of the bombing at Atlanta’s Centennial Olympic Park last year. And who would have predicted an honorably discharged Gulf War veteran would be the prime suspect in the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building?

But much of the report sets forth welcome changes and goals that are, for the most part, long overdue. A major upgrade of FAA infrastructure and its safety and security measures is one. A call for enhanced equipment to better warn pilots when they are too close to the ground or mountainous terrain is another.

The commission has largely done excellent work in shaping aviation safety and security goals for the future. But a few ideas, such as passenger profiling, may go too far. They need a hard look.