sethb

I wonder how that would interact with the legal requirement to allow passengers off the plane within 3 hours.

GUWonder

That requirement and associated penalties for violation are applicable to airlines but not to the government IIRC.

I wouldn't be surprised if government requirements that put the airline in such situations would ultimately be deemed to be situations where the airlines are not liable.

Schmurrr

How is this not invasive? How do you resolve a positive detection without being invasive?

WebMD says:

Is there a security risk in that? Are ovulating women or people who are racing to make a flight to be barred from flying while someone questions them and/or subjects them to some sort of medical test? Surely some sort of medical test is required if a suspect temperature was detected "before the people even knew they were sick."

anarchyjim

The point was it's a LOT less invasive and time consuming than taking the temperature of every single passenger, which is what it sounds like they are doing. Sure, if someone looks like they're potentially positive then pull them aside and actually take the temperature. Otherwise, thermal imaging sounds like a good way of identifying potential problems while not harassing every traveler. Of course TSA loves harassing travelers for no reason, so maybe it's not what they're looking for.

BMGRAHAM

That's not true for many reasons. First of all the basic statement is not correct, for example the requirement to take computers out of bags was not a TSA invention and was happening before 9/11. I can't remember for sure but I don't think it was the TSA that introduced the requirement to take off jackets.

Then taking it a step further, it was the lack of security in American airports before 9/11 that created the extra security.

BSBD

Correct - this requirement was implemented following the 1988 Pan Am bombing.

Not correct. TSA implemented the jacket removal requirement in 2004.

Whether security was truly lacking is debatable. A congressional report issued in 2011 found that security post-9/11 is no more effective than it was pre-9/11, despite the huge spend and effort. What is not debatable is that a need to reassure a frightened public is what created the additional security histrionics.

Schmurrr

"Many" reasons?

TSA is responsible for removal of shoes, jackets, and all items from pockets (not just metal) for the NOSs. And if you decline the NOS, TSA hits you with the time-consuming and invasive "enhanced patdown." Laptop removal is only a tiny part of the unpleasantness.

Lack of security didn't cause 9/11. Terrorists took advantage of how existing security functioned and how pax/crews were conditioned to respond to terrorists. They can do the same today with respect to how security functions; there are many examples of flaws in TSA's procedures, and there is even a recent university study confirming NOS blind spots.

Himeno

and still, no one operating NOS seems to care.

rsercely

I have only seen this technique once. It was a domestic flight within China.

Everyone got swabbed (I assume this is for explosives), but - they used 1 swab for maybe 25 people, and after swabbing - you went into a holding pen. After the 25th swab - they ran the test.

As they are running the test - they start another group of 25 going into a separate holding pen.

Once the test is done, when it comes back negative, as it does 99.99% of the time, the 25 people are released for the typical metal/body scan. Of course if the swab comes back positive - they swab the 25 people individually.

The reason I say this is useful: I trust these explosive detections way more than other technologies to actually find explosives. Yet - it takes virtually zero time (the time spent in the holding pen adds little or nothing to total time to get through security) and must be very cost effective - one swab for 25 people.

Cheap. Effective. Fast.

What's not to like, except of course for the quality of the TSA?

There is one caveat.
To be fast and not add to security screening time - the number of people going through screening must be high enough that the holding pens fill very quickly. Clearly the number of 25 used above is just an example. At very busy airports - could be 50. Moderate airports maybe 5-10.

Schmurrr

But wouldn't the swab transfer residue (and possibly other things) from one person to the next?

Canarsie

The results have been posted for this survey.