FlyingUnderTheRadar

Was going to post this in the other forum but I think it will turn into a debate so I will save the mods the trouble of moving it.


Executive summary: If going through an AIT that utilizes the new Gumby software I believe the false positive rate can be as high as 50% based on my very limited observations. As such, PAX should be prepared to receive a quickie patdown even if going through the AIT. Because so many PAX receive a quickie patdown some slip through without one.

Obervations:

While at DCA I decided to observe the AIT with Gumby software. Of 50 PAX who I observed going through, approximately 50% failed to get the all green. All but two of those failing got a quick patdown of the non conforming area. The two that did not get a quickie patdown slipped through the system because there were so many passengers failing that the two TSOs at times could not keep a proper accounting of who failed and who passed. At times there were three PAX past the AIT but not yet clear or a waiting a quickie patdown.

Because there were so many failures there was a male and female TSO present to do the patdowns. They swapped places on an as needed basis.

Secondary observations: TSOs did not change gloves. Women with dense frilly, afro, pony tails, etc. where subject to hair pat downs.

I did not count but some of the patdowns were a result of PAX failing to remove everything.

Conclusions: The efficacy software is questionable. Because of the poor efficacy a minimum of three TSOs are required. One entry TSO, a male and female TSO on exit. At DCA there was a forth TSO standing around doing nothing (who after 5 minutes eventually did my opt out patdown). As such, there is no reduction in work force with the new software.

Those PAX doing a opt out could wait 1 to 5 minutes for a response. In my case it was a solid 5 minutes - to the point I asked the tray TSO to secure my possessions as so many other people were going through that I could not secure them. To her credit she immediately responded, gather them and stood by them and even told another TSO she was busy. I thanked her for it once I got my pat down.

Discussion ...

InkUnderNails

In another thread, there was discussion on "training" the software with real field generated data. This is why it may be necessary or at least recommended.

But then, someone would have to look at the images in the training process.

barbell

My sample is much, much smaller than yours.

However, I was able to observe 3 people go through whole body imaging with ATR. The failure rate of the software was 100%:

• I watched a man with pleats get his legs rubbed, which included his "resistance."
• I watched a woman with curly hair get both her hair and the area of her bra clasp patted down.
• I watched a man wearing glasses get his face patted. No joke.

Of course we are told these things are explosives since that is what these machines are designed to detect. Not one of these people was swabbed.

Oh, and no one changed their gloves.

gojirasan

There should be a sign in front of the ATR NoS that says "please remove hair, glasses, sweat, and clothing with folds or pleats". I have to admit to being curious about whether I would alarm the ATR NoS without my glasses, with a fully shaven head, a genuine orange prison jumpsuit or, possibly spandex cycling clothes, industrial strength antiperspirant, and some anti-anxiety pills to further reduce sweating. I wonder what the false positive rate would be then.

DeafBlonde

By this token, women should remove bras with underwires or hooks and hair clasps, pins, and/or pony-tail bands, any band-aids or surgical dressings, sanitary napkins, and those of us who are hearing impared should remove hearing aids. ....um...what's the point of these scanners...to detect threats?? ... might as well go through butt-nakid!

chollie

(bolding mine).

Careful. If you appear too relaxed, you'll probably get SPOT'd by a BDO because it isn't normal to be cool and relaxed at an airport checkpoint.

Global_Hi_Flyer

At DFW over a 30 minute observation period at one checkpoint, 80+ percent of males were subject to a pat-down after the AIT scanner (even when it flashed green). Almost no women were pulled aside.

chollie

May the sign should just say "Please remove yourself".

I watched the screens at AMS (they are quite visible to the pax being screened, the security person and anyone else sitting in the gate area). I watched one man who was nearly bald, no glasses or facial hair, didn't appear to be sweating. I don't know why, but the screen image showed 'anomalies' all over his face.

FWIW, another young guy went through and one large 'anomaly' displayed in the center of his image. He pulled up his t-shirt and showed a monster belt buckle to the screener and was good to go.

chollie

Were you seeing full gropes or 'targeted' resolutions?

Mr. Elliott

My wife and I just recently went through the MMW at TPA, which has the new gumby software, the screener at the entry to the MMW clearly stated to us that make sure we have absolutely nothing in our pockets. My wife went first and the AIT picked up her small belt buckle that is permanently attached to her slacks, the female screener just slightly patted her down on the area shown on the screen and verified it was the belt buckle and she was good to go.

I cleared without any problem, but it was very slow at the MMW, no one behind me so I was able to observe my image and talk to the screener about the new system. My image did show some small areas with a box around it, but the screener didn’t even bother to check those areas, even after I pointed it out on the screen, he said it was nothing to be concerned about.

He said they like the new system, it was faster than waiting for the out of sight screener to either clear the passenger or describe the area that needed to be checked, and that the passengers could see for themselves where the scanner has picked up any anomalies. So for me this has eliminated the privacy issue with the NOS and I find it acceptable.

As far as the BSX AIT’s, even after they are modified with the gumby software, I will never go through one because of the radiation issue, I will take the grope instead, but so far I have been lucky, at least half the airports I usually fly in and out of have the MMW or no ATI’s have been installed and so far I have been able to either avoid the BSX or they were not using them when I went through security.

Mr. Elliott

N965VJ

Wirelessly posted (Motorola DynaTAC: BlackBerry9630/5.0.0.1030 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/104)

I wonder if that's because the TSA has trouble staffing female screeners to do the gropes. One could imagine the pushback if they were done by male screeners.

SATTSO

What???

FlyingUnderTheRadar

SATTSO - on the exit side of the AIT there were two TSOs, one female and one male. At the exit of AIT one TSO would reset the screen and instruct the next PAX into the AIT. The other would watch the screen and would prevent the PAX from leaving the roped off exit area until the all clear or Gumby image showed up. If a Gumby image the TSO would pat down the PAX if they were the same sex. If not the TSOs would swap places and so a male TSO would pat down a male PAX. Because the PAX's sex was random and there were so many false positives the TSOs were swapping positions very frequently. Had there been fewer false positives perhaps only one TSO would have been needed.

IslandBased

So, is the AIT Gumby false positive rate better or worse than the BDO false positive rate?

DeafBlonde

^^ Eeexxxccceeelllleeennntttt question, IB! I am curious about this, too!