Official: Many airport bomb detectors still underused

Even under heightened security after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, scores of machines to detect bombs in checked baggage at U.S. airports are idle or underused, a federal investigator told Congress on Thursday.

The testimony from Kenneth Mead, inspector general of the Transportation Department, provided a rare independent critique of one aspect of the Federal Aviation Administration’s ongoing security crackdown. Although armed troops and long lines at airports attest to a greater concern with security, many experts doubt that all loopholes have been closed.

“Bulk explosives detection systems continue to be seriously underutilized,” Mead told the House aviation subcommittee. The $1 million machines work on the same principle as CT scanners used in human medical diagnosis.

Other witnesses told the panel that more advanced technology is available -- including body scanners and machines that “sniff” for explosives -- but that the FAA has been slow to embrace it.

Mead said his agents recently checked seven major airports and found some bomb detection machines turned off and others staffed but not in use, despite an FAA order that the units be operated “continuously” after the attacks.

Terrorists have planted bombs in checked baggage before, with devastating effect. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down over Lockerbie, Scotland, by a bomb hidden in a bag in the cargo hold. All 259 aboard the Boeing 747 were killed, as were 11 people on the ground.

At U.S. airports, Mead estimated that bomb detection machines are being used at less than 10 percent of their capacity. Equipment capable of screening 150 bags an hour instead scans an average of 350 bags a day, he said. His estimate was based on figures from July, the latest available.

About 140 of the scanners are being used by airlines at some 50 major airports around the country. Another 20 or so of the devices are sitting in a warehouse, Mead said.

The FAA pays for the detection equipment and its installation. However, airlines have complained that heavy utilization could lead to delays.

“The air carriers are reluctant to increase the use,” Mead said. “That is centered on a belief that passengers won’t accept the inconvenience.”

Michael Wascom, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, which represents major airlines, questioned the inspector general’s conclusions. “Mr. Mead went to seven airports,” he said. “The airlines are doing what we have been told, as per FAA. I have every reason to believe that all our members are complying with this directive.”

Before Sept. 11, use of the scanning machines was limited. The bags of passengers flagged by a computerized profiling program were checked, as were a small random sample of other bags.

Since Sept. 11, the FAA has directed airlines to increase the number of bags scanned at random. But Mead said the FAA’s order was “too fuzzy.”

FAA Administrator Jane Garvey said that she agrees that the scanners are generally underused, and she said the agency is taking steps to enforce its order that they be used “continuously.” She also told the committee that machines now warehoused will be deployed within 90 days.

Garvey said the agency’s goal is to scan all checked baggage. But other witnesses said that under current timetables, that may not be achieved for another 16 years. The FAA sets and enforces requirements for aviation security, but the responsibility for carrying them out rests with airlines and airports.

Lawmakers at the hearing said they were frustrated with the FAA, but some also said Congress shares blame for allowing the airline industry to put convenience and cost ahead of security. Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, D-Ore., said the current system represents “security on the cheap.”

“This is not just a failure of government,” DeFazio added. “This is a failure of government because government responds to pressure and influence.”