Evaluation of Airport Security Measures
Evaluation of Airport Security Measures
Response and especially quick response to stresses may results to major loopholes and possible risky omissions. Mainly, this occurs due to lack of enough time to holistically evaluate the immediate issue at hand and possible local and international pressures. Since September 2001, US transportation systems security on terrorist attacks assumed vast urgency that saw major changes in the sector’s operations. The Congress passed the Airport Security Federalization Act of 2001 as the main platform for restoring the overall sanctity and integrity of the airports to secure the fast dwindling consumers confidence both locally and internationally.
1. Describe implementation issues of the airport security measures which were approved by Congress shortly after the incident on September 11 (i. e. Airport Security Federalization Act of 2001). To begin with, the act required that all the airport security screening personnel be federal employees and an estimated 20, 0000 new federal workers had to be hired. Smaller airports were required to employ local law enforcement agencies to provide security. However, ensuring that the transport funding needs are effectively identified and comprehensively prioritized is still a major challenge.
Putting the security measures under the federal considerations in all the airports rose with a great deal the funds required by the new department of homeland security. Arguably, the Act did not immediately establish the direct input of the airports where the new security teams were deployed. With the current economic downturn, the Department of Homeland Security has expressed one of its operations setbacks as lack of enough funds to sustain these operations (Alexander & Seth, 2004).
To add to that, effective harmony and coordination in the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Transport has proved to be a hard nut to crack altogether. As indicated earlier, bulk of the employees in airport systems were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security which has created an extended system of response to the major problems by the expanded panel (Marcus, 2004). Notably, scholars have indicated that September 11 Terrorist attack resulted from long time known vulnerabilities that indicated failure to pro-actively address them.
Though an immediate operation system was established for running the airports, there was lack of clear long term focus on the management of the airports under the combined system. Ensuring the overall competence of the staff via high quality and staffing competence emphasis for the expanded workforce has been a major challenge since the passing of the Act (Robert et al, 2008). Arguably, the Department of Transport acknowledged of possible future stresses from the large demand for training and capacity building for the employees.
This formed an extension of the prior challenges on funding and coordination between the private sector, the Department of Transport and the Department of Homeland security. Monitoring and supervision of this massive and highly integrative workforce widens the gap further due to the variance in approach (Robert et al, 2008). Whereas the private entities are direct after effective implementation of the law under al conditions, the private parties are after maximal profits which could compromise the whole agenda due to considerations of risk taking in a capitalistic setting.
2. Describe gaps in airport security, which were not addressed by these measures Arguably, the Airport Security Federalization Act of 2001 had major gaps that have seen slow implementation of its demands and reduced capacity to achieve the overall objectives. The main aim of the laws is to enhance better operations and maximum returns to the public and the government. However, the massive screening measures established never appreciated the difficulties that people go through to be cleared for flights.
This has raised concerns locally and globally. To add to that, the law requires that only Americans can serve in the airport screening personnel (Subcommittee on Homeland Security, 2008). This was a major gap in promoting non professionalism and closing out innovations from the global outsourcing arena. Notably, laws preventing entry into the Cockpit have existed with little success in US and other countries. However, the Act emphasizes on the rule as a major preventive measure.
This indicates possible disaster in waiting as it is entirely dependent on consciousness of the crew on board. To add to that, the act requires that the cockpit be equipped with stun guns for emergency purposes (Robert et al, 2008). However, this is another major loophole with analysts urgently calling for its reconsideration. Presence of ammunitions should be under a highly trained federal air marshal. Arguably, arms in the cockpit act as a possible supply to the terrorists after lacking possible ways to get theirs on board.
University/College: University of Chicago
Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter
Date: 2 January 2017
We will write a custom essay sample on Evaluation of Airport Security Measures
for only $16.38 $12.9/page