June 9, 2007
Still More Airport Insecurity
As I’ve said herein a few times before, the roll of protector (a job that includes or consists solely of security responsibilities) is more akin to a sacred duty than simply a paycheck generator.
Others are placing, whether they know or even know of their protectors or not, their lives, property and general well-being in the hands those who have agreed to safeguard these precious commodities. By taking any security job, high end to low, one is in effect vowing to assume a great trust.
Unfortunately, too many security functions are relegated to people who possess neither the mindset nor the single-minded dedication required to effectively protect others.
One of my pet peeves, as has undoubtedly become pretty obvious, is the security, or lack thereof, that we can expect to find at various and sundry airports that demonstrates the low priority placed upon our lives by bean counters and outright stupid individuals at the upper management levels of airlines and airports and, arguably, the TSA and those who hold its purse strings. (At this point, the image of an English teacher of yore appears in my mind’s eye, saying something or other about run-on sentences).
So, yes, here is yet another among the many disconcerting stories of security in air travel.
After an investigation uncovered what appeared to be major lapses in security, a prominent U.S. lawmaker is calling for transatlantic flights from the main airport in Britain’s second-largest city to be suspended.
In a six-month undercover investigation, Britain’s ITV News videotaped security staff at the Birmingham International Airport apparently sleeping on the job, not bothering to examine luggage being x-rayed, and leaving planes unguarded.
Lovely. What say you, Osama?
Among the incidents recorded was a conversation between two ICTS UK supervisors, cursing Continental Airlines and expressing the wish that one of its planes would blow up.
“You know what? F— Continental,” one said. “I’m f—ing sick of Continental.”
In another recorded conversation, two baggage checkers teased each other about not watching their screens as baggage was being x-rayed and laughing about how their brains were “miles away” from the task at hand.
Okay, sure. I understand that the interviewers, personnel screeners and other folks involved in the process of hiring these jamokes have busy jobs, and probably don’t have much in the way of hands-on security embedded in their career histories, but that’s not — or should not — be responsible for placing the lives of an unsuspecting public at risk.
Positions whose accents are on security should be filled entirely via processing by security personnel, not by human resources folks whose preponderant concerns involve staffing the production and marketing sectors of company affairs. This may involve spending more money, which holds more sway with many firms than the concept of people dying. Some idiotically and irresponsibly prefer to gamble that “nothing will happen”.
After viewing the footage, Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security, said the U.S.-bound flights should be suspended until security is improved.
Ah, rare good sense from a Democrat in Congress! Make it happen, Bennie.
Chris Yates, a British aviation security expert, told Cybercast News Service on Thursday that the problem stems from a”culture of denial.”
The staff appeared to be poorly supervised and nobody in charge wanted to hear about any problems, he said.
“The whistleblower in the program, Colin Cross, said that he flagged issues up to his superiors and to the airport itself but nothing was done,” he noted.
Yates pointed out that ICTS subsidiaries are contracted to other American airlines in Europe, and said he worried that similar conduct might be taking place at other airports on the continent.
“If it’s happening at one, it’s happening at others,” he said.
Exactly.
-
http://hardastarboard.mu.nu/wp-trackback.php?p=688
June 9th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Wow, Seth. I’m really happy that I have no plans to fly out of country. In fact, I have no plans to fly anywhere, because I never fly in country. I can drive anywhere I want to go in the USA and am happy doing so because I love to drive. Thank God, because then at least I know who the nut is behind the wheel!
I don’t trust most security personnel anywhere. I’ve seen to much of this. Because I worked at Martin Marietta, which later became Lockheed/Martin, I came to the conclusion long ago that most security personnel are people who are police force wannabees and couldn’t make the grade. That may seem unfair, but I’ve known security personnel who were turned down by the police, so it’s a reasonable conclusion to reach. It may not be true in all cases, but I’ll bet it’s to true far to often.
June 10th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Gayle –
There are a lot of people in security positions who don’t belong there, but there are many more who do.
Today, a number of certifications are available to protection personnel, and there are a lot more in-house training courses as well. Most are basis’ for hiring and/or advancement.
Most certifications require CEUs.
Since 9/11, the security business has been growing and evolving at a very fast pace, and you’ll find that many companies are now paying attention to who they hire.
It’s too bad the air travel folks are more concerned with cutting costs than with human lives.
June 10th, 2007 at 11:59 am
It was disconcerting to read a couple weeks back that here in Idaho, there is no requirement for doing a background check for hiring by private security firms: oddly, we check teachers, schoolbus drivers, school cooks, so it must be an overlooked area. Gayle touched some on the problem, which is addressed in more detail at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276002,00.html I can see that some levels in this business would be interesting and rewarding, but the thought of patting down angry airline passengers day in and day out and doing it well sounds pretty dreary. Not that there are not a lot of dreary type jobs…it’s just that they tend to remain entry level and not very satisfying. Conservative dogma precludes throwing more money at education, heatlth, social problems, etc and I would think we are hardly getting our $$ worth in some of these homeland security efforts. Like Gayle, I drive!
June 10th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
BB –
I always recommend that my clients use a well screened proprietary security force and have them trained to meet all potential threats, with additional training for supervisors. I hook them up with training specialists and often administer some training myself. As I said in my reply to Gayle, there are numerous certifications available as well.
I always recommend that these security personnel be compensated better than their contract counterparts, and supply convincing arguments that go with these recommendations. Conventional thinking is that security is merely necessary overhead — I show how a well trained and dedicated force can save their employers large sums of money via the proper handling of several different types of incidents — it always comes down to money, right?
I won’t defend the employers, and certainly not the lackluster security officers described in the article you linked, in my opinion the former are either criminally cheap or ignorant, the latter are a waste of skin. Anyone who takes a job, any job and doesn’t give 100% deserves to starve in the streets, but anyone who takes a security job and doesn’t give 200% deserves to be taken out and drowned.
Proprietary security officers at many companies have much better advancement opportunities, based on merit, than contract officers do, and a security department that is properly run will provide access to training options and materials that will increase an officer’s asset value.
All that said, since 9/11 the protection industry has been evaluated and reevaluated like never before, and I believe that we will see gradual positive change.
This still does not excuse airlines, airports, other companies and the TSA that do not invest adequately in security.
June 11th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Perhaps you mentioned it and I missed it. We could learn a great deal about airport security from the experts. For example: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/23/what_israeli_security_could_teach_us/
June 11th, 2007 at 11:22 am
BB –
I read that OpEd when it was first published, and agree with it, however:
Terrorism on our soil didn’t really begin to sink into the consciousness of the American people as a real threat until 9/11. Since then, the Democrats have downplayed the threat — hell, now the War on Terror is being called a bumper sticker slogan!
Israelis, on the other hand, have faced the reality of terrorism from the beginning, learned that survival takes precedence over PC politics and worries about personal inconvenience.
In comparison, we are spoiled. Americans, for the most part, are not likely to support the idea of making the sacrifices Israelis make in the name of security, and our liberals would see to it that profiling and “intrusive” or “rights depriving” surveillance are diluted out of the security equation.
In order to work, some things have to be done all the way, not altered to meet political agendas or avoid offending people.
June 11th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Well, Seth, when you note “liberals would see to it that profiling and “intrusive” or “rights depriving” surveillance are diluted..” it reminds me of a quote from an ex-hollyweird fellow, “There you go again.” While liberals resent government intrusion, I would remind that out here in the high hinterlands, so do rock-ribbed conservatives, both Senators fighting the Patriot Act. Some years back we elected congresswoman Helen Chenowith, who roused us with the fear of “black Apache helicopters” spying on (I guess) our poaching elk, growing funny plants on the mountainside and
sipping our MooseDrool brown ale. Dare we term these the libertarian flavor of conservative? IMHO, if we did, as the well-trained Israeli security types do, ‘psychological’ profiling..eg ferreting out the guy with the sweaty palms, shifty eyes and mimeographed passport, we would avoid the touchy PC
‘racial’ profiling….even if most suspects were wearing red/white checkered turbans.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:29 am
BB –
Unfortunately, ‘racial’ profiling would still come into play, and the first turban, no matter what the reason was for its attracting suspicion, to encounter any official attention would trigger the usual liberal media rigmarole.
“Mimeographed”?
June 12th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Thanks for responding to my comment, Seth. One lives and learns! Perhaps things have changed since I worked there. That was back in the 80’s. From what you said, things have improved in many places other than airports. I wonder why airports are so far behind?
June 12th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Gayle –
Bureaucracy, “Cost Efficiency” (Cheapness/Greed) and/ or ultimately, profound obtuseness.
Many companies have chosen, perspicaciously, to employ protection professionals, as part of management or as consultants, and to budget submitted recommendations.
I have attended scores of seminars and work shops in a wide variety of security venues and networked with specialists in areas ranging from Loss Prevention to terrorism to Port Security, food supply security to public and employee safety, and every protective tradecraft in between. Our conventions consist of several days filled with diverse “classroom” activities, lectures, state-of-the-art technology exhibits and networking functions, and seminars are available all year in different parts of the country, including virtual and teleconferenced seminars.
Most people have no clue as to how big, how specialized and how professional the security business has become.
Private companies and government agencies that do not avail themselves of the protective expertise that’s available in the private sector are negligent, period.
Like the old Desenex commercials used to say, “Don’t blame Desenex”.