Making Airports More Secure

Everything you do as an official at the Department of Homeland Security is about control. Your task is to maintain strict security standards at all U.S. airports, while also trying to keep things running smoothly and efficiently. As the training program you created repeats emphatically, and as recent events have demonstrated, just one slip, one small mistake, can quickly escalate into a disaster. It is your responsibility to make sure that tragedy does not occur again.

The security measures that DHS has put in place have created a complex system of checks. Passengers are now required to show a valid photo ID and a boarding pass to proceed to the terminal. They cannot take knives or other sharp objects onboard the plane, as a reaction to the events of 9/11. They need to take off their shoes at the x-ray machines, as a precaution against the shoe bomb plot of 2001. There are strict limits to how much liquid they can take on board, as a reaction against the liquid bomb plot of 2006. And at many major airports, they are subject to full body scans, as a reaction to the underwear bomb plot of Christmas 2009. In addition, the DHS maintains several lists of people who are either subjected to additional security or prevented from flying at all.

There are, however, many critics to these measures. They argue that scanning shoes or limiting liquids is only a reactionary step against tactics that future terrorists wouldnt think of using. They argue, further, that DHSs control methods are not refined enough. Mikey Hicks, an eight-year-old boy from New Jersey, is included on a selectee list maintained by the government that subjects him to a high level of security every time he flies. Even when he was two years old, he was subject to pat downs, a thorough frisking, and even an interview with DHS screeners. There are many other stories about people who, because they have the same name as a suspected terrorist, are subjected to extraordinary delays. Even the late Senator Ted Kennedy found himself on a suspected-persons list! As congressmen William J. Pascrell comments We cant just throw a bunch of names on these lists and call it security. If we cant get an 8-year-old off the list, the whole list becomes suspect.
Other critics argue that the primary effect of federal control methods is to heighten the sense of paranoia in the skies. In January of 2009, a US Airways flight heading to Louisville, Kentucky, was diverted to Philadelphia because passengers saw a Jewish passenger wearing phylacteries, leather straps that Jews wrap around their heads and arms as part of a prayer ritual. After the underwear bomb plot of 2009, some airlines prohibited passengers from using blankets or toilet facilities for the last hour of the flight.

You have been assigned to a DHS team charged with refining the agencys control methods. How can you maintain security in the nations airports while also proving passengers with an efficient and smooth experience? Is there a way you can prevent eight-year-old boys from ending up on a suspected terrorist list?

Questions:

In your opinion, is there a way to you can maintain airport security without sacrificing efficiency? What would such a system look like?

How could you incorporate feedforward control (gathering information about performance deficiencies before they occur) into airport security measure?

Please use as many of these key terms as possible

Key Terms
Control
Standards
Benchmarking
Cybernetic
Concurrent control
Feedback control
Feedforward control
Control loss
Regulation costs
Cybernetic feasibility
Bureaucratic control
Objective control
Behavior control
Output control
Normative control
Concertive control
Self-control (self-management)
Balanced scorecard
Suboptimization
Cash flow analysis
Balance sheets
Income statements
Financial ratios
Budgets
Zero-based budgeting
Economic value added (EVA)
Customer defections
Value

please view attached files about control