Drawing New Security Lines
The air cargo industry is girding for tougher cargo inspection requirements, and so are the technology companies specializing in screening
Robert W. Moorman
Managing Editor
 hen auditors for the U.S. Congress looked at what a proposed law calling for physical inspection of all cargo shipped on passenger aircraft would cost, they came up with a final tab of $3.6 billion over 10 years. That was just one measure of the high stakes behind the ongoing efforts in Washington to change nature of security across the air freight industry.
Many air cargo operators believe the costs could be far greater. In fact, some believe the real cost would be the very existence of some companies that could not cope with the changed economics that would come with far more stringent cargo requirements.
|
Insecurity in Politics
|
|
Despite widespread concerns among shippers and carriers that full physical inspection of all cargo is impractical, Capitol Hill and industry observers expect the U.S. Congress to pass an air cargo security bill with tougher screening provisions as early as this spring.
The U.S. House, under the new Democratic majority leadership, made aviation security its first approved measure with HR-1, a bill that its authors said took in the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and included the requirement for 100 percent physical inspection of cargo.
The Senate separately last month took up its Aviation Security Improvement Act with a similar screening requirement. Introduced by Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii and Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, the measure will likely be combined with the House version in a way that could dramatically the way cargo is handled and inspected, according to industry and congressional observers.
The House legislation would phase in the 100 percent inspection of belly air cargo, with 35 percent of the cargo to be inspected by the end of fiscal 2007, 65 percent in 2008, and 100 percent by the end of 2009. The Senate version says nothing about the phased approach, but requires 100 percent screening of all cargo transported on passenger airlines after three years.
The White House opposes the screening provisions, saying the technology does not now exist to handle the level of physical inspection required without impeding "the legitimate flow of commerce."
The White House said: "Imposition of this requirement would likely result in the shifting of all cargo shipping away from passenger airlines."
There are subtle differences in the measures. The House bill would require 100 percent "inspection," while the Senate measure talks about 100 percent "screening."
To some that sounds like splitting hairs, but it may make all the difference to cargo operators because many claim they already screen all their freight shipments - just not with the sort of X-ray machines that are used at baggage checks.
|
But the efforts in Washington have several companies working rapidly to create the sort of cargo scanning technology that some in the U.S. Congress are calling want, including on a range of new technologies that would X-ray industrial shipments and subject goods to explosives detection while keeping goods moving.
"We think these technologies hold promise, but it's probably two to three years away," Jay Payne, vice president of cargo inspection systems at American Science and Engineering of research into tomography, a kind of multi-dimensional X-ray technology.
Billerica, Mass.-based AS&E and L-3 Communications are among the leaders in the security scanning technology world that could reap a windfall from the new security requirements. Both are working on the sorts of devices that would fulfill new requirements moving through the U.S. Congress for full physical inspection of cargo shipments both for air and ocean shipping.
But many cargo industry executives believe the scanning devices wouldn't do much good and may even harm anti-terror efforts by focusing on physical inspection at the expense of other methods. "There are a lot of vendors out there finding problems for their technologies," said Eric Mensing, vice president of government trade and affairs at ocean containership company APL.
The bottom line, cargo executives say, is the technology simply doesn't exist to push full pallets and cargo containers rapidly through air cargo networks in the way smaller, simpler passenger luggage goes through baggage checkpoints. Requirements for 100 percent screening may be rushing toward reality sometime this year, but the reality at airports and cargo facilities is a different matter, they say.
"You cannot equate baggage screening with cargo screening," said Steve Alterman, president of the Cargo Airline Association. "They're two absolutely different businesses. It's wrong to legislate cargo screening as a function of what's being done in the passenger baggage area."
But with one cargo security measure passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in January and another moving through the U.S. Senate, there is a growing belief that a new law would take effect this spring and the cargo security line was already forming.
Government security officials say they understand the logistical and technological challenges of meeting the 100 percent screening requirement within three years.
"There is no question that the ability to look at whole pallet-sized loads is a real challenge," said Doug Bauer, research director at the explosives division of the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate.
For now, "we're having to break down some of the pallets to examine breakbulk to meet our requirements to screen significantly more cargo than we do presently."
Incorporating the best technology to screen the required 100 percent belly cargo is not enough to meet the 100 percent screening requirement, government officials acknowledge privately. The process of scanning and securing cargo earmarked for passenger airliners will have to be modified to make the screening process more efficient.
The Transportation Security Administration acknowledges that among the changes under consideration is a cargo equivalent of the Known Traveler Program, where passengers can bypass some security measures by going through a stringent vetting process.
Under such a plan, certain cargo providers would receive elevated status for their shipments, which will be pre-screened and approved. The air cargo industry already uses the so-called Known Shipper program in which shippers are certified by forwarders that have certified security programs. But the heightened program could incorporate tougher screening at the front end for some shippers, perhaps along the lines of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism now administered by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency for cross-border shippers and carriers.
TSA released this statement when asked about this novel concept for air cargo: "TSA is currently exploring a certified shipper program. Preliminary ideas could include an expedited system for cargo originating from shipper's facilities that have met specific and comprehensive security standards as identified by TSA."
What government agencies and companies offer today to screen cargo are variations of off-the-shelf baggage-screening equipment to screen cargo or the promise of new equipment down the road. There is also new equipment in development, but it is years away from the market.
L-3 Communications' Security and Detection Systems division offers the eXaminer 3DX 6500 explosive detection system for screening baggage to do the same for cargo on airliners. The company wouldn't comment about the equipment, referring questions to the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, which would not release results of a two-year-old study on grounds of national security.
Two years ago, TSA launched a study of eight technologies for cargo screening, from trace detection sensing technology to high-energy computer tomography. No information of those tests has been released.
L-3 Communications won a $4.8 million contract in late 2005 to determine the effectiveness of neutron resonance radiography for containerized air cargo explosives screening. L-3 is designing the electronics, mechanical systems and detection algorithms for the project in conjunction with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which is providing the facilities for the tests.
L-3 also is looking at computer tomography for the inspection of containerized air cargo. The system, now in the design stage, would give the examiner a three dimensional image of the item being screened.
AS&E, meantime, has two technologies being considered by "aviation security officials" worldwide, said AS&E Vice President for Marketing Joe Reiss.
The company's high-energy Omni View Gantry Inspection System, which can penetrate densely loaded sea containers from all sides, is being evaluated for use in air cargo. OmniView combines the high performance transmission X-ray with AS&E's three-sized Z Backscatter Van imaging technology.
The Z Backscatter Van is a portable yet industrial-size X-ray device used at some border posts for detecting contraband, often in trucks. According to the company, it offers photo-like images of the interior of containers and trailers. The company touts its ability to detect explosives hidden in containers, including the LD-3 containers most common in air cargo belly transport.
The Z Backscatter Van is being used as a security tool by some airports outside the United States, said Reiss.
The system itself is contained in a delivery-sized van, which scans containers waiting to be loaded on the tarmac. Reiss said an air cargo version of OmniView could be available in three years.
|
Favoring Inspection
|
|
There may be widespread opposition in the air cargo industry to full physical inspection of shipments, but the opposition isn't exactly 100 percent.
Some airlines, such as Colombia-based freighter operator Tampa Cargo, screen all of the cargo that goes on their aircraft. Tampa has a relatively limited operation, but one handling expert says more widespread screening wouldn't send the industry into a tailspin.
"No, the first few days would be a problem, but we would manage it," Olivier Bijaoui, president of global ground handler WFS, said at a recent press conference in London.
"In the U.K., we currently screen over 50 percent of American Airlines' freight because a large portion of their freight is unknown; if required to step up to 100 percent, we could do it.
"We have also been handling El Al in Paris since 1992 and when you handle them you really know what security means," he said. "We use a decompression chamber which is much longer process than X-ray - each pallet must spend 45 minutes in it. We are in the compression chamber 24 hours a day, seven days a week."
Bijaoui says because of the many parties and links in the chain involved, the known shipper approach to securing the supply chain will always have loopholes. Securing countless packing, loading and warehouse facilities across the freight map also leaves room for large gaps, he says.
"I honestly think the only way to secure cargo today is at the airport," Bijaoui said. "It is the logical place to do it. Today for U.S. carriers we even call shippers by house air waybill for some shipments to find out if they are a real shipper. It is a lot of work. We really ought to be calling the forwarder too and the trucker. Is it really better to do this than X-ray the cargo?"
And those scanning methods, he says, are improving. "Before X-rays could not take anything more than 1.6 meters (5.3 feet) high. They could not take a whole pallet. Today at least two companies have technology that can screen the whole pallet," Bijaoui said.
"Also, before there was the whole problem of X-ray penetration, that it did not allow you to see everything on the pallet. But now it can. Now the technology makes it feasible, and I think it has to be done."
By Peter Conway
|
But L-3 Communications and AS&E are not part of U.S. Department of Homeland Security's on-going $30 million cargo explosives screening pilot program.
The congressionally-mandated tests were launched last year at San Francisco International Airport and expanded to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The tests are expanding adding an unnamed airport in the U.S. Midwest this year.
In San Francisco, DHS and the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory are researching ongoing cargo handling processes and how use of existing screening technology may affect the movement of goods. GE Security's fully automated CTX 9000 is being tested in San Francisco to scan the contents of LD-3 containers.
In Seattle, which is part of a larger, multi-segmented program, DHS is testing devices designed to detect a heartbeat and excess carbon dioxide, warnings of the possible presence of a stowaway or terrorists on an all-cargo flight. Tests will also determine the flow of air cargo and how quickly it must be screened.
Officials stressed last year when those tests were starting that the effort wouldn't include new technology but would instead study cargo processes and how added screening would affect the flow of goods.
For hidden intruders, the Armstrong Monitoring CD-2 Human Occupancy Detector CO2 Monitor is undergoing tests. Developed in the mid-1990s for the Canadian shipping industry to detect stowaways, the system can detect small amounts of CO2, indicating human presence, said Don Seagall, chief technology officer for the Ottawa-based company. To detect CO2, the company developed a compact portable analyzer with a probe that can pierce the neoprene gaskets of intermodal containers.
For acoustic monitoring, ENSCO Microsearch Human Detection System and Avian Heartbeat Detector from Geovox Security are being tested in Seattle. Results of the tests on all the equipment will be compiled and submitted to the Congress by the end of 2007.
An explosives provision in an aviation security law proposed in the U.S. Senate is perhaps the most controversial of all the air cargo security provisions in Congress.
Reviving an idea first proposed in the wake of the Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988, the measure would require that so called "elevated risk cargo" be placed in hardened containers that could contain small explosions, protecting the aircraft hull from damage.
Telair International, a Germany-based manufacturer of cargo containers and cargo handling systems, started selling its Hardened Unit Load Devices in 2002 after the Federal Aviation Administration approved the containers that year.
"The innovative baggage container relies on advanced composites technologies, without which we could not meet the increased security demands of today's traveling public and the aviation industry as a whole," Telair President Axel Haurier said at the time.
But cargo industry officials say the idea relies on an entirely faulty premise.
"Elevated risk cargo should not be flying on passenger planes, period," said Brandon Fried, executive director for the Airforwarders Association.
But the measure introduced in the U.S. Senate would require the TSA by Jan. 1, 2008 to evaluate the containers and to make enough of them available to U.S. and non-U.S. air carriers "to enable the carriers to meet" TSA security programs. It would also require the TSA to manage the "storage, maintenance and distribution" of the containers.
That could address what airlines see as major flaws in such a program.
A standard LD-3 container lasts about eight years and costs approximately $1,000, according to one industry association. The blast-proof container has a one-year life span, costs $20,000 per copy and is twice as heavy as an LD-3 container. A standard LD-3 container also has 153 cubic feet of capacity while the hardened version has only 104 cubic feet available.
|
