After a long battle by crusaders and other government agencies to correct an impending airport security disaster, the battle was lost with a fight to nearly the last second.
In May of 2001, a memo was drafted by the FAA's director of Civil Aviation Security, Michael Canavan, which encouraged the FAA security managers to pursue a business relationship with airlines and airports. Yes, a “business” relationship.
The FAA having been relieved by Congress of their responsibility for safety has long been the facilitator of airline profits over safety. Despite a horrific history of basic safety disasters, the FAA refuses to go against the profits of business.
In the spirit of the FAA’s profit facilitation, Canavan advised the FAA security personnel not to impose fines if there was a security problem, as long as it was being corrected. Certainly a pragmatic approach, IF, corrections were actually made.
In August of 2001, a retired FAA special agent, Brian Sullivan sent an E-mail to Canavan advising him that FAA managers were prostituting the memo, written in May, to prevent agents from reporting the airlines and the airports who allowed known security breaches to go uncorrected.
Then, on August 22nd, not quite three weeks before the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Canavan replied to Brian Sullivan, agreeing that there was a problem, and promising that it was being fixed. The rest of the story is a mystery, until 9-11.
From
www.wbur.org -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subject: ACTION: Compliance and Enforcement Date: May 30, 2001
Philosophy
From: Associate Administrator for Civil Reply to
Aviation Security ACS-1 Attn of:
To: Managers, Civil Aviation Security
Divisions 700s, Federal
Security Managers
As we work with the aviation industry, it is important to
Remember that our primary goal as a regulatory agency is to
Gain compliance. While I know that there are circumstances that
Present difficult choices, it would be helpful to explain
Our approach to compliance and enforcement issues.
As I outlined in the ACS strategic plan, the safety and
Security of the flying public will depend upon the FAA and
Industry maintaining a candid, respectful, and mutually
Responsive business relationship. To be effective in this
relationship, we need to be flexible. While I expect
regulated parties to comply with regulatory requirements,
there will be times when we find areas of noncompliance.
When we do, I want to fully consider the actions the party
Has taken to fix the problem. I want to work with industry
To develop action plans to permanently correct problems
That have resulted in violations. To encourage industry
To join us in this effort I do not expect us to impose a
Civil penalty against a regulated party for certain
unaggravated violations, if we believe the party has
successfully implemented a permanent fix that will resolve
the security problem and preclude recurrence of future
violations. To answer questions you may have about this
new philosophy and how it will work, detailed guidance will
be provided to you shortly.
I want to continue to give our partners a realistic
opportunity to comply with the regulations and to work with us.
Signed
RESPONSE -
Subj: Compliance and Enforcement Policy
Date: 08/16/2001 11:55:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: BandBSul To:
[email protected]
General,
Your C&E philosophy makes sense and is “well intentioned”, but is being abused by field management to
Close cases without finding and as the basis for not opening cases, despite the fact that violations persist.
Your intent was to work with the regulated parties and develop action plans to permanently correct problems. Here’s what’s really happening. A problem is identified. Instead of opening a case, we work with industry to develop the required plan. The agents go out and find that the problem persists, but field management won’t allow them to open a case, incorrectly citing your may 30th Memorandum as the basis for their decision. As a result, we have a paper fix. Nice looking plans, but no real fix. The façade of security continues. Our line agents continue to experience the frustration of not being allowed to do their jobs.
The only way to confirm what I’m saying is to check on the ground. What’s the old military saying, “What goes right is what a commander checks”, or something like that? When the Fox 25 report was done at Logan in May, the reporter went back a few weeks later, after the dust had settled, and rechecked the same screening checkpoints with the same negative result, despite the assurances from the BOS CASFO and airport/airlines. I know FOX could easily determine if these current action plans work as intended. Let me suggest that it would be better if you looked at some of these action plans and test them with a red team to see if they actually work. I know our field agents have re-checked violations after the action plans have been developed only to find that the same violation persists. Plans aren’t worth the paper they are written on unless they work. The only way to determine if they really work is to test them with an “honest broker” and that can’t be done by our line agents, if their management won’t open up cases when problems persist.
If you doubt what I’m saying, this is very easy to check. I know you get more with honey than vinegar, but compliance requires goth the carrot and the stick, if it is to be truly effective. The industry is primarily concerned with the bottom line ($) and will give security the attention it merits, only if we are perceived as willing to work with them, while at the same time committed to both compliance and enforcement. If they think we are soft and they can get away with paper plans, that is exactly what they will do. The key is to insure that the action plans do, in fact, permanently correct the problems which have resulted in violations. This is not happening. When the plans don’t correct the problem, we have to have field management willing to open up cases and support our line agents who find that violations persist.
I hope this is helpful information. I’m not looking for a response. I just want to help your philosophy work as intended.
Best Wishes. We are hearing some good things since your arrival.
Brian Sullivan
RESPONSE -
Subj: Compliance and Enforcement Philosophy
Date: 08/22/2001 12:41:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From:
[email protected] (Michael Canavan)
To:
Brian, thanks for the e-mail. From what I have been able to see and hear you are right. This is being fixed. Mike
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Despite all efforts, since 9-11 the FAA continues to register a ridiculous standard of safety. In the latest round, the new bill requiring airline employees to be fingerprinted, excepts ‘old’ employees from fingerprinting and background checks, leaving ‘sleepers’ in place..