Off the Radar for Terrorists?

At tiny Hot Springs Memorial Field in Arkansas, highly trained federal security personnel -- six screeners and two supervisors -- are on duty.

Split into two teams of rotating shifts, the crisply uniformed staffers unzip tote bags, wave metal-detection wands over outstretched arms and swab suitcases for signs of explosives. Averaging 15 travelers a day -- about three per flight -- the airport sometimes has more security personnel than passengers.

“It’s hard to justify, I know. But the smaller airports deserve to have the same security for the flying public as those flying out of major airports,” said George Downie, director of the airfield in west-central Arkansas. “Even though it’s small aircraft, what if they plow into a Dallas Cowboy sporting event? Why open that window of opportunity to them, to the terrorists?”

About 470 miles away at Brownwood Regional Airport in Texas, passengers and baggage encounter no security screening.

“If they put [federal screeners] in here, we’re OK with that. But we’re not actively pursuing it,” said Mike Wilson, manager of the central Texas airport, which also averages three travelers per flight. “You’d have more screeners standing here than you’d have passengers.”

As the Transportation Security Administration continues tightening passenger and baggage screening at airports across the nation, tiny airfields such as the ones in Hot Springs and Brownwood are emerging as a topic of debate: How much security should they have, and is the federal government doing too much, or not enough?

‘A Commitment’

Some, including members of Congress, say that flyspeck airports without any passenger screening are gaps in the nation’s aviation security system, and that more should be done to bolster them.

“We have a commitment to make sure that [a terrorist attack] doesn’t happen again,” said Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.), a member of the House subcommittee that oversees TSA funding, who advocates that all commercial airports, no matter how small, have federal security. “If you can’t afford to do it, then we just don’t need to be boarding passengers at those airports.... Some of the smaller planes are easier to fly than the big ones, and they can do a lot of damage.”

But others question beefing up security at remote airfields when large urban transit centers that serve many more people -- such as bus and train stations -- are not similarly secured.

“People get carried away in this hysteria, in their emotions,” said Douglas Laird, an aviation consultant and former director of security for Northwest Airlines. “Those airports are so small they present no grave threat. It’s a terrible waste of resources, from a security perspective.” Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the federal government has been assigning personnel and distributing explosives-detecting baggage scanners to commercial airports, starting with the largest and those deemed most at risk of being a target. To date, 445 of more than 600 commercial airports nationwide have passenger and baggage screening, according to the TSA.

Airports without security include more than 60 in Alaska. Some, including Merced Municipal, Southern California Logistics in Victorville and North Las Vegas, have flights that go only to other tiny airfields.

Others, including ones in New Mexico and Montana, offer service to bigger hubs such as Albuquerque and Billings, respectively, according to federal records and interviews. But they serve so few travelers that scheduled flights sometimes depart without anyone other than the crew aboard.

The TSA is considering adding security to at least 18 such airports, which would require a total of 90 screeners. The agency declined to confirm any details, but sources familiar with the situation said the candidates included Brownwood, several airports in Montana and at least one in New Mexico.

Once the agency decides to provide security at an airport, it typically dispatches a team of at least one male screener for male passengers, one female screener for female travelers, one baggage processor and one supervisor.

“This is rural Montana ... they’d be twiddling their thumbs,” chuckled Bill Arvin, the part-time manager of Havre City-County Airport, which sometimes has no passengers on its flights to Billings. “I would personally like the job of a screener!”

Havre is a candidate for TSA security, sources say.

According to TSA officials, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act mandates passenger and baggage screening only at commercial airports served by aircraft with 61 or more passenger seats. Those airports served only by smaller aircraft are under the TSA’s discretion, and decisions are made on a case-by-case basis after a risk assessment.

“Every airport is treated differently, based on the situation,” said Nico Melendez, an agency spokesman. When unscreened passengers from a small airport arrive at a federally secured airport, they are screened before they are permitted to board a connecting flight, he said.

Critics say federal policy toward small airports appears inconsistent and swayed by political considerations. Both Brownwood and Hot Springs, for example, are served by 19-passenger planes that fly to the same destination, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

“There should be a level of consistency, of uniform standards ... so travelers are assured of security no matter where they are,” said Paul Haney, spokesman for Los Angeles World Airports, the agency that runs Los Angeles International, Ontario International, Van Nuys and Palmdale Regional airports. “U.S. airports really function as a system. People can enter the system at any point.”

The Los Angeles agency has requested federal screeners for Palmdale, which currently has no commercial service but could start in May, with at least one flight a day in a 19-passenger plane to North Las Vegas. The request is pending.

Downie, the manager of Hot Springs, credits Berry -- the congressman with power over the TSA’s budget -- for pressing the Arkansas airport’s case. A TV network was also preparing a report about the lack of security there, he said. Days before the TV crew was scheduled to show up at the airport, Downie said, the TSA dispatched security personnel to Hot Springs and three other tiny Arkansas airfields. About the same time, three small airports in Alaska also received screeners.

“A lot of time, it’s decided on a political basis -- who has political clout to decide which airport gets money,” said airport consultant Billie Vincent, former head of security for the Federal Aviation Administration.

TSA Response

According to Berry, the TSA’s acting administrator, David Stone, told him in a recent meeting that the agency provides security to a tiny airport when a member of Congress asks for it.

“That makes no sense at all to me,” Berry said. “Security can’t be that arbitrary.”

Stone, in a statement provided through a spokesman, responded that the TSA considered many factors, including threats and vulnerability, before putting security at an airport

“The process is also inclusive of those key decision-makers on the local level who know their airport and provide key insights and recommendations to the TSA,” Stone said.

In the TSA’s current annual budget of about $5.6 billion, more than 80% is dedicated to aviation security, including salaries and training, baggage-scanning machinery and an audit program for cargo. Last year, after encountering heated criticism that staffing levels were bloated, the agency downsized from more than 55,000 screeners to about 45,000.

Some experts noted that the TSA and its overseer, the Department of Homeland Security, focused little attention on public transit until last month’s bombings in Madrid.

“The priorities are all screwed up. We’ve overreacted in the airport area and have overspent,” said Robert Poole, director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation, a Los Angeles-based think tank. “We’re doing nothing about the rail sector.”

But others say airports still deserve priority because of how maneuverable planes can be.

A 19-seat Beech 1900D turboprop -- a staple at many tiny airports -- weighs about 10,600 pounds, or one-third the weight of a 32,000-pound Metropolitan Transportation Authority bus that can hold three times as many riders.

But when the aircraft is fully fueled, its flying range exceeds 1,000 miles at speeds faster than 300 miles per hour.

“You put something in the air that holds any amount of fuel, it can be dangerous,” said Susan Farley, legislative director of Regional Aviation Partners, a nonprofit lobbying group representing small commercial airports and aviation businesses in 28 states. “You don’t want the worst to happen. Better to be safe than sorry.”