TSA's bomb-sniffing dogs
Jun 26, 2016, 10:44 pm
#227
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 396
As for manipulating the dogs, they do search for explosive compounds. Compounds which are found in common household items. So while a dogs alert catalog may not be a karge as an ETD....both dog and ETD alert on common household items that share ingredients with explosives
Last edited by gingersnaps; Jun 27, 2016 at 10:19 am
Jun 27, 2016, 10:36 am
#228
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 396
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.
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.
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.
Household Items that Contain Explosive Compounds: A Guide for Explosive-Detecting Canine Handlers
by John V. Goodpaster, Ph.D. ATF Forensic Science Laboratory
INTRODUCTION
A common question posed by canine trainers and handlers centers on everyday materials to which explosive-detecting canines have alerted. The phenomenon of false alerts is not unheard of and can arise due to improper recognition of a material by the canine. ...
The ATF has successfully imprinted and certified numerous explosive-detecting canines on concentrated hydrogen peroxide. Unfortunately, the fact that lower levels of hydrogen peroxide have legitimate uses in a number of consumer products means that these items may illicit a canine alert.
CONCLUSIONS
Explosive-detecting canines are called upon to find hidden explosives in a variety of environments. Unfortunately, explosive compounds are not only found in explosive formulations but in a number of legitimate consumer products. Given that a canine cannot discern this difference, it is up to the canine handler and other first responders to be aware of these products and put a canine alert in its proper context.
Jun 27, 2016, 12:09 pm
#229
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Household Items that Contain Explosive Compounds: A Guide for Explosive-Detecting Canine Handlers
by John V. Goodpaster, Ph.D. ATF Forensic Science Laboratory
INTRODUCTION
A common question posed by canine trainers and handlers centers on everyday materials to which explosive-detecting canines have alerted. The phenomenon of false alerts is not unheard of and can arise due to improper recognition of a material by the canine. ...
The ATF has successfully imprinted and certified numerous explosive-detecting canines on concentrated hydrogen peroxide. Unfortunately, the fact that lower levels of hydrogen peroxide have legitimate uses in a number of consumer products means that these items may illicit a canine alert.
CONCLUSIONS
Explosive-detecting canines are called upon to find hidden explosives in a variety of environments. Unfortunately, explosive compounds are not only found in explosive formulations but in a number of legitimate consumer products. Given that a canine cannot discern this difference, it is up to the canine handler and other first responders to be aware of these products and put a canine alert in its proper context.
by John V. Goodpaster, Ph.D. ATF Forensic Science Laboratory
INTRODUCTION
A common question posed by canine trainers and handlers centers on everyday materials to which explosive-detecting canines have alerted. The phenomenon of false alerts is not unheard of and can arise due to improper recognition of a material by the canine. ...
The ATF has successfully imprinted and certified numerous explosive-detecting canines on concentrated hydrogen peroxide. Unfortunately, the fact that lower levels of hydrogen peroxide have legitimate uses in a number of consumer products means that these items may illicit a canine alert.
CONCLUSIONS
Explosive-detecting canines are called upon to find hidden explosives in a variety of environments. Unfortunately, explosive compounds are not only found in explosive formulations but in a number of legitimate consumer products. Given that a canine cannot discern this difference, it is up to the canine handler and other first responders to be aware of these products and put a canine alert in its proper context.
The methodology is flawed.
Jun 28, 2016, 12:14 pm
#230
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
[1] Most ED handlers are not DHS employees but law enforcement officers of airport or mass transit LEAs; their positions would exist irregardless of the canine program. (Yes, I know irregardless is not English).
[2] As stated previously: the dogs (and machines for that matter) are used for initial screening to only indicate the presence of a potential threat. It is up to humans to investigate and determine the reality of the threat.
Using the dogs is not dissimilar from having passport and customs inspectors ask a few screening questions; based upon the responses to those screening questions more investigation may be needed to determine if some-one/-thing is permissible to enter or under what conditions.
Even with their limitations, the dogs are exponentially more sensitive, efficient and reliable at this basic screening than are humans. (Screener: "Do you have explosives in your pants?" Pax: "No." S: "Oh, so you are just happy to see me. Great! Please board on the plane. Next!" vs. Dog: Screens 200 pax in 5 minutes and sits down in front of the one with a panty liner made of Semtex)
Jun 28, 2016, 12:33 pm
#231
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
The criticism is flawed both in its simplicity and understanding.
[1] Most ED handlers are not DHS employees but law enforcement officers of airport or mass transit LEAs; their positions would exist irregardless of the canine program. (Yes, I know irregardless is not English).
[2] As stated previously: the dogs (and machines for that matter) are used for initial screening to only indicate the presence of a potential threat. It is up to humans to investigate and determine the reality of the threat.
Using the dogs is not dissimilar from having passport and customs inspectors ask a few screening questions; based upon the responses to those screening questions more investigation may be needed to determine if some-one/-thing is permissible to enter or under what conditions.
Even with their limitations, the dogs are exponentially more sensitive, efficient and reliable at this basic screening than are humans. (Screener: "Do you have explosives in your pants?" Pax: "No." S: "Oh, so you are just happy to see me. Great! Please board on the plane. Next!" vs. Dog: Screens 200 pax in 5 minutes and sits down in front of the one with a panty liner made of Semtex)
[1] Most ED handlers are not DHS employees but law enforcement officers of airport or mass transit LEAs; their positions would exist irregardless of the canine program. (Yes, I know irregardless is not English).
[2] As stated previously: the dogs (and machines for that matter) are used for initial screening to only indicate the presence of a potential threat. It is up to humans to investigate and determine the reality of the threat.
Using the dogs is not dissimilar from having passport and customs inspectors ask a few screening questions; based upon the responses to those screening questions more investigation may be needed to determine if some-one/-thing is permissible to enter or under what conditions.
Even with their limitations, the dogs are exponentially more sensitive, efficient and reliable at this basic screening than are humans. (Screener: "Do you have explosives in your pants?" Pax: "No." S: "Oh, so you are just happy to see me. Great! Please board on the plane. Next!" vs. Dog: Screens 200 pax in 5 minutes and sits down in front of the one with a panty liner made of Semtex)
If either a dog or other ETD screening method alerts on some substance and nothing is found then that is a false alarm and a waste of everyone's time.
If the initial screening method is more prone to alert and no contraband is found then the screening method is faulty. I believe that the ETD machines are more likely to alert on non-threats.
You may believe that I don't understand but I believe I have a firm grasp on the subject.
Jun 28, 2016, 1:32 pm
#232
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
TSA unwilling to send their detection dogs to foreign locales more in need of them? Thinking of Istanbul/Turkey, for example.
Jun 28, 2016, 1:35 pm
#233
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
TSA has spent a lot of effort recently talking about how TSA is increasing its canine force. I have no reason to believe someone other than TSA employees will be the handlers.
If either a dog or other ETD screening method alerts on some substance and nothing is found then that is a false alarm and a waste of everyone's time.
If the initial screening method is more prone to alert and no contraband is found then the screening method is faulty. I believe that the ETD machines are more likely to alert on non-threats.
You may believe that I don't understand but I believe I have a firm grasp on the subject.
If either a dog or other ETD screening method alerts on some substance and nothing is found then that is a false alarm and a waste of everyone's time.
If the initial screening method is more prone to alert and no contraband is found then the screening method is faulty. I believe that the ETD machines are more likely to alert on non-threats.
You may believe that I don't understand but I believe I have a firm grasp on the subject.
Jun 28, 2016, 4:15 pm
#234
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
Jun 28, 2016, 5:19 pm
#236
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
TSA Inspectors lead 322 canine teams, including all Passenger Screening Canine (PSC) teams,
Jun 28, 2016, 8:24 pm
#237
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Nov 14, 2016, 8:15 am
#240
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
Profile on CBP cash detecting K9 at IAD
A recent profile of a currency detecting K9 assigned to IAD
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...399745791.html
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...399745791.html