TSA's bomb-sniffing dogs

Old Jun 23, 2016, 8:56 am
  #211  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by Section 107
That's because they function differently....

The dogs and machines do their jobs very well; that they are not capable of applying judgment and discretion in these matters does not mean they are useless.
We can still go back to how many alarms/alerts there are and how many times those alarms result in finding contraband.

If the number of alarms vs contraband found is near zero then a case can be made that those detection methods are looking for the wrong things.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jun 23, 2016, 3:34 pm
  #212  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,497
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
We can still go back to how many alarms/alerts there are and how many times those alarms result in finding contraband.

If the number of alarms vs contraband found is near zero then a case can be made that those detection methods are looking for the wrong things.
You can, but that case is extremely weak.

Have you ever walked into a room, smelled poopcorn and searched around for it because you wanted some but couldn't find the popcorn?

Did you fail to find the popcorn because it never existed? Would you say your failure to find it means your olfactory system is useless? Would you say you failed to find it because your eyes and nose were looking for the wrong things?

No, of course not.

For exactly the same reasons one cannot say the dogs and the machines are not working correctly.
Section 107 is offline  
Old Jun 23, 2016, 3:39 pm
  #213  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by Section 107
You can, but that case is extremely weak.

Have you ever walked into a room, smelled poopcorn and searched around for it because you wanted some but couldn't find the popcorn?

Did you fail to find the popcorn because it never existed? Would you say your failure to find it means your olfactory system is useless? Would you say you failed to find it because your eyes and nose were looking for the wrong things?

No, of course not.

For exactly the same reasons one cannot say the dogs and the machines are not working correctly.
I'm not saying the dogs and machines aren't working correctly but I am saying that they are programmed to alarm/alert on the wrong things.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jun 24, 2016, 7:41 am
  #214  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,497
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I'm not saying the dogs and machines aren't working correctly but I am saying that they are programmed to alarm/alert on the wrong things.
What would you say are the right things for explosive detection dogs/machines to alert on if not the chemicals in explosives?
Section 107 is offline  
Old Jun 24, 2016, 9:06 am
  #215  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The lower of the two Carolinas
Programs: Former AA Gold, SkyMiles, Hilton HHonors, SPG Gold, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 387
Originally Posted by chollie
I still fail to see how keeping accurate measurements is a bad thing.

I thought I made it clear (as if it needed to be made clear) in my post that I am not talking about something as basic as comparing which process generated the most 'false alerts' - or the most real 'catches'. Money, time, practicality (we're not putting full-time dog teams in every single airport) and predominately useful and accurate results have to be factored in - as does TSA's uncanny ability to muck up almost everything they touch.

Remember how many times we were assured that properly used, the NoS's would be almost as fast but much more reliable than the WTMD? No mention of the cumulative delays and staffing impacts from the constant ridiculous false positives that TSA decided require a dedicated staffer to resolve using clever techniques like stroking a bald man's head or arm because it alarmed.

It's entirely possible that neither approach is the single best solution; it may be that both are so flawed that it's time to start looking for a different solution. Without actual data, we have no way of knowing.
The data for a dog - and in the military it's a legal, Federal document - is his or her training record.

I hate to say this, but I'd put very little stock in a TSA dog's records because I don't trust the handlers. I've already seen them handling the dogs poorly. I'd have to wonder how reliable their records are.
Pup7 is offline  
Old Jun 24, 2016, 9:08 am
  #216  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The lower of the two Carolinas
Programs: Former AA Gold, SkyMiles, Hilton HHonors, SPG Gold, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 387
Originally Posted by Section 107
You can, but that case is extremely weak.

Have you ever walked into a room, smelled poopcorn and searched around for it because you wanted some but couldn't find the popcorn?

Did you fail to find the popcorn because it never existed? Would you say your failure to find it means your olfactory system is useless? Would you say you failed to find it because your eyes and nose were looking for the wrong things?

No, of course not.

For exactly the same reasons one cannot say the dogs and the machines are not working correctly.
Yes, but the dogs are different.

While this is true, the only thing that can be used as probable cause for search is a proper and uncued alert of the dog. My dog once walked into a garage in base housing and walked around for the better part of ten minutes trying like hell to pinpoint where the smell was coming from - think about the possible air currents flowing through a garage and how the dog might experience them. We were all praying he'd sit. He did - and we found coils of det cord, blasting caps, and powder the guy had been lifting from his job for years. Had he never sat, we could've appealed to JAG for a warrant based on his training record and my testimony/kennel master's testimony as to the dog's reliability, but you may or may not get the warrant based on that.

How do I test if the dog was potentially cued, should such a scenario hypothetically go to court?

A smart lawyer would set up a training problem and have the team show their stuff. It's so obvious when a dog is cued it's insane.
Pup7 is offline  
Old Jun 24, 2016, 11:10 am
  #217  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by Section 107
What would you say are the right things for explosive detection dogs/machines to alert on if not the chemicals in explosives?
I find it hard to believe that there are no chemicals found in most explosives that are unique to explosives and not also common in hand lotion, soaps, contact lens solutions, and so forth.

If the chemical being detected is so common that it is used in thousands of normal everyday products then that detection method is flawed, the detection method is not detecting explosives or explosive precursors but common everyday items.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jun 24, 2016, 3:31 pm
  #218  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,329
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I find it hard to believe that there are no chemicals found in most explosives that are unique to explosives and not also common in hand lotion, soaps, contact lens solutions, and so forth.

If the chemical being detected is so common that it is used in thousands of normal everyday products then that detection method is flawed, the detection method is not detecting explosives or explosive precursors but common everyday items.
Yeah, but a dog is not a machine. It's a living thing with a nose and a brain, and although it's not at human-level intelligence, a dogs brain IS capable of making finer fuzz-logic distinctions than a machine, which is pretty much binary.

Pup7 will have to chime in on this, because I'm not an expert, but I don't believe that dogs are trained to sniff the chemical precursors of explosives, as the chemical tests in an ETD machine do. Rather, dogs are trained to sniff for whole substances, such as TNT, C4, etc., which have distinct odors. I am doubtful that a dog will alert on lotion with glycerine in it, but the dog WILL alert to nitroglycerine, if trained to do so.

Pup, am I in the ballpark here?
WillCAD is offline  
Old Jun 24, 2016, 3:37 pm
  #219  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Originally Posted by WillCAD
Yeah, but a dog is not a machine. It's a living thing with a nose and a brain, and although it's not at human-level intelligence, a dogs brain IS capable of making finer fuzz-logic distinctions than a machine, which is pretty much binary.

Pup7 will have to chime in on this, because I'm not an expert, but I don't believe that dogs are trained to sniff the chemical precursors of explosives, as the chemical tests in an ETD machine do. Rather, dogs are trained to sniff for whole substances, such as TNT, C4, etc., which have distinct odors. I am doubtful that a dog will alert on lotion with glycerine in it, but the dog WILL alert to nitroglycerine, if trained to do so.

Pup, am I in the ballpark here?
And that's the problem with the machines which in turn often cause passengers unnecessary stress and feelings of humiliation and shame.
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Jun 24, 2016, 4:55 pm
  #220  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by WillCAD
Yeah, but a dog is not a machine. It's a living thing with a nose and a brain, and although it's not at human-level intelligence, a dogs brain IS capable of making finer fuzz-logic distinctions than a machine, which is pretty much binary.

Pup7 will have to chime in on this, because I'm not an expert, but I don't believe that dogs are trained to sniff the chemical precursors of explosives, as the chemical tests in an ETD machine do. Rather, dogs are trained to sniff for whole substances, such as TNT, C4, etc., which have distinct odors. I am doubtful that a dog will alert on lotion with glycerine in it, but the dog WILL alert to nitroglycerine, if trained to do so.

Pup, am I in the ballpark here?
If your suppositions are correct then the dogs are vastly superior to TSA's ETD machines. Of course dogs have a large number of issues starting with their human handlers.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2016, 7:21 am
  #221  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,329
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
If your suppositions are correct then the dogs are vastly superior to TSA's ETD machines. Of course dogs have a large number of issues starting with their human handlers.
Exactly why I favor using both dogs and ETD machines rather than just one.

Since 9/11, hijacking is virtually a non-issue, at least in the US, because flight deck doors are locked and reinforced, and travelers and flight crews are still (even a decade and a half later) so paranoid about anyone exhibiting any abnormal behavior on a plane that any would-be hijacker will be quickly and mercilessly subdued by an angry mob of panicked pax. Heck, some drunks and mentally disturbed people have been so subdued over the years; actual hijackers would probably be beaten to death with their own shoes... nasty business.

But that promotes bombings to, IMHO, the number one most dangerous threat vector to aircraft in flight (not discussing dangers to people on the ground at the moment). With that so, I agree with one aspect of TSA's focus, which is to screen pax for explosives.

I do not agree with TSA's methodology. The NoS is virtually useless, and we've seen that it's possible to travel halfway across the country with both C4 and smoke grenades in your carry-on, so the shotgun approach to cover the incompetence of the average TSO seems prudent. I like the approach of using both dogs and ETD machines.

I am also unthrilled with the incompetence and ignorance of the average TSO in regard to cross-contamination and false-positive resolution. The procedures for re-testing to confirm a positive are simple, non-invasive, and easy, but the average TSO immediately goes to "Escalate" rather than "re-test", because that's the way they're trained, and their vaunted "discretion" cannot conceive of any alternatives. But even when they do re-test, they often do so carelessly, without regard for cross-contamination, and wind up escalating anyway.

Having a canine nearby who can sniff a traveler after an ETD alarm and clear them without an invasive pat-down or calling out the National Guard is, IMHO, a great alternative. Obviously, it's not a 100% guarantee every single time no exceptions without fail panacea of success, but the overlap between the dogs and the machines should handle the vast majority of problems far more quickly and efficiently, and with far less personal invasion and violation of civil rights, than the current "strip search 'em all and let god sort 'em out" mentality.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Jun 25, 2016, 8:13 am
  #222  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Originally Posted by Pup7
It's so obvious when a dog is cued it's insane.
I can make my dogs sit with just a slight movement of my head, so it's quite easy to manipulate the dog if the handler wants to do so.

BTW:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...-body-scanners
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Jun 26, 2016, 8:14 am
  #223  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Report of sniffer dog biting a passenger on @AskTSA:

https://twitter.com/AskTSA/status/747057323718352896

https://twitter.com/zoebender/with_replies
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Jun 26, 2016, 9:48 am
  #224  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CHA, MAN;
Programs: Delta DM 1 MM; Hz PC
Posts: 11,169
Originally Posted by petaluma1
Not good
GRALISTAIR is offline  
Old Jun 26, 2016, 11:12 am
  #225  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CHA, MAN;
Programs: Delta DM 1 MM; Hz PC
Posts: 11,169
BTW -true story from about 15 years ago and I think it is relevant.

My brother (always amused by human anatomy below the waist) was having a pint with my father in The Dungeon Ghyll in The Lake District UK. He was amused by two dogs and of course one dog started licking and sniffing the arse/... of another dog. Well my brother turns to my father and says "Watch this, I bet you a pint of beer that within the next minute or two that dog will now go and lick the face of its owner". Sure enough - exactly what happened.

I say this because although I like dogs, I would not want one licking me - sniffing OK.

EDIT - glad the British English Slang for the buttocks etc does not get auto-edited out.
GRALISTAIR is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.