Air Cargo Loopholes May Risk Security
These days, air travelers are subject to extensive searches to protect against a terrorist attack. But what about the billions of pounds of cargo loaded into aircraft every day? CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian has an exclusive report on this major security problem. It's the result of a two-month investigation.
The government on Monday issued new directives designed to further tighten air cargo security. Last week, CBS News showed TSA officials the results from an elaborate test it conducted to see what packages could get through.
A CBS News producer with a hidden camera was sent to a shipping company near London's Heathrow Airport, armed with a lead-lined package that could hide a bomb. In this case, it holds only high-speed film. The package is specially designed so CBS News would be able to tell whether security has opened or x-rayed it. The super-sensitive film would show that.
CBS News conducted the same kind of air cargo experiment on three other international flights: United from London to JFK, Continental from Rio de Janeiro to Houston, and American 45 from Paris to JFK.
You're not supposed to be able just walk up to a shipping company, name a flight, and put your package on a plane, like we did overseas. After 9/11, the airline industry - both here and around the world - instituted what's called the "Known Shipper" program to deter a terrorist attack.
To become a "Known Shipper," you first fill out a simple form, then submit to a basic background check. If it is approved, you operate basically on an honor system - that what you say is inside a package is actually there.
"In a lot of cases, I almost feel like some of these shippers - due to the lack of inspectors - are overseeing themselves," says William McReynolds, chairman of air cargo for the Airline Pilots Association. "It's the fox guarding the henhouse in many cases."
In the case of cargo-only planes, experts say security is even more suspect. CBS News tested it, sending two more packages on jumbo jets flying from Dulles Airport near Washington to Los Angeles.
In the end, the packages finally made their way to CBS News' offices in New York. But in looking at the markings on the box, it appears that the package wasn't opened.
In all, five of the six packages that CBS News sent on planes were not visibly opened or inspected. The package sent from Rio on Continental Airlines was the only one that was opened. According to CBS experts, none of the hidden film was examined by x-ray.
Robert Jamison, second-in-command at the TSA, stands by their inspections.
"I think you're not accurately representing--the--levels of explosive detection that we have in place," he says after being told of the results by Keteyian.
Even without opening cargo, Jamison says, it can be inspected with explosive-detection devices and bomb-sniffing dogs. He says the public should "absolutely" feel safe and secure with the packages that are in the belly of the airplane.
However, despite such certainty - and the TSA's announcement today of enhanced air cargo security - these changes will not completely close the loopholes we found in the system.
Copyright 2010 CBS. All rights reserved. The government on Monday issued new directives designed to further tighten air cargo security. Last week, CBS News showed TSA officials the results from an elaborate test it conducted to see what packages could get through.
A CBS News producer with a hidden camera was sent to a shipping company near London's Heathrow Airport, armed with a lead-lined package that could hide a bomb. In this case, it holds only high-speed film. The package is specially designed so CBS News would be able to tell whether security has opened or x-rayed it. The super-sensitive film would show that.
The cargo was shipped on a fight of CBS' choosing: American Airlines 115, direct from London to JFK Airport in New York. There were nearly 200 passengers and 100,000 pounds of cargo aboard.The Airforwarders Association has written a letter in response to this piece.
CBS News conducted the same kind of air cargo experiment on three other international flights: United from London to JFK, Continental from Rio de Janeiro to Houston, and American 45 from Paris to JFK.
You're not supposed to be able just walk up to a shipping company, name a flight, and put your package on a plane, like we did overseas. After 9/11, the airline industry - both here and around the world - instituted what's called the "Known Shipper" program to deter a terrorist attack.
To become a "Known Shipper," you first fill out a simple form, then submit to a basic background check. If it is approved, you operate basically on an honor system - that what you say is inside a package is actually there.
"In a lot of cases, I almost feel like some of these shippers - due to the lack of inspectors - are overseeing themselves," says William McReynolds, chairman of air cargo for the Airline Pilots Association. "It's the fox guarding the henhouse in many cases."
In the case of cargo-only planes, experts say security is even more suspect. CBS News tested it, sending two more packages on jumbo jets flying from Dulles Airport near Washington to Los Angeles.
In the end, the packages finally made their way to CBS News' offices in New York. But in looking at the markings on the box, it appears that the package wasn't opened.
In all, five of the six packages that CBS News sent on planes were not visibly opened or inspected. The package sent from Rio on Continental Airlines was the only one that was opened. According to CBS experts, none of the hidden film was examined by x-ray.
Robert Jamison, second-in-command at the TSA, stands by their inspections.
"I think you're not accurately representing--the--levels of explosive detection that we have in place," he says after being told of the results by Keteyian.
Even without opening cargo, Jamison says, it can be inspected with explosive-detection devices and bomb-sniffing dogs. He says the public should "absolutely" feel safe and secure with the packages that are in the belly of the airplane.
However, despite such certainty - and the TSA's announcement today of enhanced air cargo security - these changes will not completely close the loopholes we found in the system.
Recommended
- Gardasil Researcher Speaks Out
- Acorn Charged With Fraud
- Exclusive: Rape in America: Justice Denied
- Assisted Living, Erratic Regulation
- How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?
- Could Hepatitis B Vaccine Be Harmful?
- Grand Theft Cargo: See A Truck Get Stolen in :30
- VA Hid Suicide Risk, Internal E-Mails Show
You absolutely do not get the point of the piece. Armen was trying to show how easy it is to get past our shoddy security system. You SHOULD appreciate anyone who tries to make the FAA wake up and make us safer.
1. mjstover said, "Thank you for helping terrorists get their bombs delivered to America. If you had done this (story), shared it with the government, tracked their response and they did nothing, (THEN) you would have a story..."
--
Bush agencies did nothing-- year after year-- which gives CBS a huge story. Bush incoherence on US domestic security spans 2001-2006. By 2003, Bush asked for $29 billion for domestic security-- and Congress gave one billion more than he requested-- but there was still no money for improving port security, first-responders, or airport security. The Dems protested the misplaced priorities, but GOP leaders protested budget pressures. Appropriate funding would cost "too much". The money was going, instead, to support such things as Iraq ($87 billion that year) and tax cuts for the upper one percent of taxpayers (who got roughly 20 percent of the money in 2002, will get 37 percent in 2006, and will get more than half of it by 2010-- all this money deficit spending, borrowed against future budgets). Not until May of this year did congress specifically address US seaport security, but the technology to provide it still does not exist.
Bush, Big Story-- 2
Meanwhile, Bush security agencies got failing marks on their own security preparedness. The Bush inertia on domestic security ran deep, as seaports were left unprotected, and airports periodically revealed scandalous security gaps. Nuclear and chemical plants were left to devise their own protection plans. From 2003-2006 , TSA failed its own security probes (penetration tests) while getting no meaningful appropriations from GOP-controlled congressional committees to redress security deficiencies. Few of these failures were publicized proactively-- they were sometimes internal reports which had to be extracted by the press. The security deficiencies continued. As late as August of this year, officials discovered a stick of dynamite in luggage-- already checked by airport security-- and a box cutter was found on the seat of an airliner.
So, yes, there is a story here-- a monstrous record of incompetence and deceit which leaves us wide open to the terror Bush promised to defeat.
2. Shutup said, "So you want the government to open our packages, but you dont want the government to use tough interrogation methods or listen to our phone calls to afghanistan and the rest of the middle east......
You are "upset" that the packages are not being opened, but you are also upset that your phone calls to terrorist may be recorded and that you cannot bring toothpaste on your carry on....
Im confused, make up your mind....The libs seem to want it both ways......what else is new.
------
Actually, poster Shutup is not confused but disingenuous-- he tries to create a false dispute between the Constitution and public safety. Americans polled about the issue indicate they understand the importance of both defending personal rights and liberties while effectively fighting terror. But they voice suspicion of Bush attempts to violate their privacy and other rights and will not accept it on the pretence of fighting terror. These Americans respect the rule of law and Constitution, and say NSA warrantless spying is a serious matter. Interestingly, many of Bush's own party challenge him on the NSA spying issue, saying it is not only serious, but Bush may be breaking the law.