t7 b18 united misc fdr- 7-31-00 report re dulles security audit 564

8/14/2019 T7 B18 United Misc Fdr- 7-31-00 Report Re Dulles Security Audit 564

1/4

July 31,2000

M s. Karen BurkeGeneral ManagerUnited AirlinesDulles International AirportDear Ms. Burke: 9/11 closed by StatuteThe LAX Security Team, representing the Hub to Hub aud it program, visited the IADoperation from June 19-23,2000. Du ring that period, we >vere able to complete acomprehensive audit that focused on the security operatiori Additionally, under thenewly revised Performance Measurement Program, w e were able


2/4

Ms. Karen BurkeJuly 31,2000Page Two

The screeners were generally very pleasant, and respectful to all the customers passingthrough the screening process.CTX Operations:The CTX operation was outstanding. The screeners were confident, protective of theirwork area and the integrity of the overall screening process. They were confident, proudand knowledgeable, and at the same time genuinely aware of customer concerns oranxiety about the process.Training/TrainerObservations:Th e morning of June 21 , we observed a new hire training class. The trainer covered thematerial thoroughly, and specifically reviewed critical procedures, which m ay occur inthe event of an extraordinary security incident. He seemed to be very aware of classcomprehension of the subject matters, particularly in light of the language diversity of theattendees.Interviews:

< 'Interviews were conducted with representatives from both the CSS and PDS screenergroups. The CSS staff members interviewed were very competent, and extremely awareof the skills of individual PDS screeners on duty. They were quick to respond to calls forassist, and their demeanor with passengers and screeners both was above reproach. Theywere on the dime!As a whole, the PDS staff interviewed well, however there were obvious languageconcerns with several screeners, and one in particular. This individual was identified tothe Duty Manager and the Account Manager, with a recommendation for immediateremoval from position for retrainingor accommodation in another work area. Some ofthe screeners interviewed had difficulty with terms such as breach, haz mat, disabled.Interviews were also conducted with members of the Special Service group. They were avery caring group. Again, however, there was some language problems that deter fromassisting passengers with special needs. WARNING

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINSSENSITIVE SECURITY

INFORMATION


3/4

'9/11 Closed by Statute

Ms. Karen BurkeJuly 31, 2000 7PageThreeTraining Files:We reviewedthe files of those employees randomly selected for interviews. The fileswere categorized in an orderly manner.The areasof concern requiring some correctiveaction included the following:

1. Cross outs on cover, pages2. Blanks- nosignatures3. Recurrent training dates2months to1-1/2 year late._ \.Object Testing I

'

There were a few other minor issues, however Dan and Jack were able to resolve to oursatisfaction prior to the day's end.Personnel Files:

Personnel files were reviewed matching the interviews and training files from theprevious day. We could not verify:

1 High school diplomas or GED for one screener.2. Sign off on ten year background checks for seven screeners.3. Drug tests on one sc^eener.4. 1-9 for one screener.5. Hire date discrepancies between training files and personnel files.

ACSSP:The ACSSP andSecurity Directives were current andappropriately available for review.GSC training records were also current and available for review.FACILITIES:

The FAA required signage was posted at the checkpoints, however UA has madeavailablestandard signagefor system use, which mayordered through a DIS page. Jackhad obtained the DIS information prior to our departure, and advised it presented noissues with the Consortium. WARNING

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINSSENSITIVE SECURITY

INFORMATION

UASSH-00032943


4/4

Ms. Karen BurkeJuly 31,2000Page Four

9/11 Closed by Statute

In conclusion, we would l ike to thank you for the opportunity to review the securityprocess at Dulles In ternational Airport. We are certainly cognizant that facility issues, aswell diversity of the work group may contribute to some differenc es by location. Wewere very impressed with the space and eq uipm ent set up at the IAD checkpoints andCTX area. W e also wo uld like to note our observations of the good w orking relationshipbetween Argenbright and United management staff. The Argenbright employees alsodisplayed a good attitude toward their jobs, and the United customers.We believe the audit process was rewarding to all, and very informative for us. We wishto thank Jack and Dan for their assistance, and hospitality. Thank you for you r time andfeedback during the exit debriefing.Sincerely, Sincerely,

Joe Carricato Barbara HarrisonArgenbright Security United AirlinesAccount M anager Security M anagerLosAngeles 4' LosAngeles

WARNINGTHIS DOCUM ENT CONTAINSCc:Dan DiGiusto SENSITIVE SECURITY

DanBoelsche INFORMATIONBeth ZurenkoJack Bentley

t7 b18 united misc fdr- 7-31-00 report re dulles security audit 564

Documents