This video is quite biased: "Lying dogs vs Useful dogs" is how it starts; but it does raise some interesting facts about the use of dogs vs AIT.
Minus points for the fake backscatter blond chick that everybody has been circulating, but as I recall, this image was originally put out by the manufacturer of the machines right?
A well-trained dog's nose is just about the best explosive detection equipment known to mankind. In fact, as far as I am aware, we are incapable of measuring the lower limit of what a dog can detect because we can't build a machine to detect trace amounts smaller than a dog can detect.
And they certainly have several advantages beyond detection capability above and beyond the WBIs. They are incredibly mobile and they are very unintrusive. Even moreso, they tend to be liked (vs the WBIs being tolerated at best).
Look at an organization like Pups for Peace. A non-profit, non-political, TINY organization that helps fund the training and deployment of explosives detection dogs has demonstrably saved more lives and prevented more terrorist attacks than the Thousands Standing Around.
Minus points for the fake backscatter blond chick that everybody has been circulating, but as I recall, this image was originally put out by the manufacturer of the machines right?
No it was put out in a post on Drudge Report and poached by Gizmodo
"In addition, dogs probably can't be trained to detect the kind of explosives many experts increasingly worry about. Peroxide-based substances like TATP—used by shoe bomber Richard Reid"
Last edited by frazier345; Nov 29, 10 at 10:04 am..
Reason: Add content.
I've seen a number of reports that military explosive sniffing dogs are very good at what they do. OTOH, I've also read that they can only work for about 20 minutes before they need a break and have to be switched out for a new dog. that's probably fine for the military who need to check out a vehicle in a war zone. But for airport screening that would require a lot of dogs. I wonder why they can only work for 20 minutes. My parents have a poodle and he seems to be sniffing things pretty much whenever he's not asleep. And his nose seems to twitch even when he's asleep. Maybe he's sniffing stuff in his dreams.
And then there are allergy issues. I would probably be extremely allergic to those Jackal-Lapp Reindeer hybrid dogs. For that reason, breeds like Poodles or Portuguese Water Dogs would probably have to be used. I wonder if you could cross a Poodle or Portuguese Water Dog with a Jackal.
As far as certain explosives like PETN or TATP not being detectable by dogs, I wonder why that would be. Are these explosives truly odorless? Anything with any smell at all should be detectable by a dog.
Programs: DL-PM, Small Luxury Hotels & Proud Member of TSA Disparager-Gold
Posts: 773
I've seen dogs at CBP sniffing out contraband food items which in the scheme of things is a rather minor infraction by comparison to the explosives threats our govt wants us to believe is imminent.
Involvement with pax would be non-existant if no explosives are found, so would allergies really be a huge problem? Besides, I'm deathly allergic to TSA gropings and NoS.
Bring on the dogs.
__________________
An Activist Against TSA Abuses
Last edited by FetePerfection; Nov 29, 10 at 10:20 am..
Reason: typo
Isn't scope-or-grope due to the fear that pax are carrying explosives on their person? So the doggies would be sniffing you. Not your luggage. Now it may be possible for a sensitive dog to smell explosives from across a room (although you know that won't happen), but even then there would be allergy issues. The dander gets into the air and floats around.
Isn't scope-or-grope due to the fear that pax are carrying explosives on their person? So the doggies would be sniffing you. Not your luggage. Now it may be possible for a sensitive dog to smell explosives from across a room (although you know that won't happen), but even then there would be allergy issues. The dander gets into the air and floats around.
Don't like it Don't fly.
No offense, but the same argument is just as effective right now for PTS patients from sexual trauma etc....
I've seen dogs at CBP sniffing out contraband food items which in the scheme of things is a rather minor infraction by comparison to the explosives threats our govt wants us to believe is imminent.
Involvement with pax would be non-existant if no explosives are found, so would allergies really be a huge problem? Besides, I'm deathly allergic to TSA gropings and NoS.
Bring on the dogs.
I have seen the dogs at SYD. They are looking for food. Also the false positive results is not as big of a deal for passengers. (Getting accused of bringing in an apple to Australia is a lot different than being accused of bring in a bomb. And your bags are still go through an scanning machine before you finish customs.)
The reason they say they can not be trained is that the substances are very unstable and could explode during testing.
Okay we have 457 airports that the TSA is at. Lets say just for comparison there are 3 checkpoints on average per airport (Rochester MN has one but Minneapolis has 5.) So 3 just for this example.
They are open from 6:00 am to 12 Midnight (some are 24 hours some are less but again to use an average.) So 16 hours a day and at each check point there are on average 2 lines running, so 2 dogs per check point. Now they can only work 30 minutes per 2 hours. and only 8 hours a day (including break time. so two shifts of dogs.) So how many dogs are needed?
So in an 8 hour shift we need how many dogs. 457 airports* 3 check points per airport. * 2 lines per check point. * 4 Dogs needed (30 minutes per 2 hours 120 minutes/30 minutes is 4. So we would need 4 dogs. They can only work 40 hours per week so we would need 6 dogs (5.8333) to cover the other 2 days.) * 2 shifts of Dogs = 32,904 dogs minimum. Now The 2006 article says the program cost 2.7 million for 30 dogs or $90,000 per dog. So taking that number it will cost a minimum of $2,961,360,000
That many dogs to be used at all airports. Now that does not include replacing dogs that have too many false positives, dogs injured in the line of duty or other situations.
And that assumes that a dog can work 30 minutes per 2 hours. if its 20 minutes per 3 hours then the costs goes to $5,922,720,000. (12 dogs per shift due to 40 hour work week)
Granted I will give you the benefit of the doubt of the dogs only cost $30,000 to train and manage it brings it down to $987,120,000
and $1,974,240,000 respectively.
Plus you have to find 32,904 or 65,808 dogs that can pass the training test, plus get them trained. My guess is that there are not 5,000 dogs trained a year in the world for this type of work. (I may be way off here, but it seems that this is very extensive training and needs to be done by professionals.)
Comments? Is my analysis wrong?
****Revised Numbers *****
Airports 457 * 3 Check points = 1,371 Checkpoints
1,371 * 2 lines per check point = 2,742 Lines dogs are needed at
2,742 * 6 dogs needed per 8 hours = 16,452 Number of dogs per shift
16,452 * 2 shifts of dogs for 16 hours CP is open = 32,904 dogs needed.
32,904 * $90,000 per dog for training, food and housing. = $2,961,360,000.
Last edited by frazier345; Nov 29, 10 at 1:06 pm..
Reason: Added in 40 hour work week for dogs.
I have seen the dogs at SYD. They are looking for food. Also the false positive results is not as big of a deal for passengers. (Getting accused of bringing in an apple to Australia is a lot different than being accused of bring in a bomb. And your bags are still go through an scanning machine before you finish customs.)
The reason they say they can not be trained is that the substances are very unstable and could explode during testing.
Okay we have 457 airports that the TSA is at. Lets say just for comparison there are 3 checkpoints on average per airport (Rochester MN has one but Minneapolis has 5.) So 3 just for this example.
They are open from 6:00 am to 12 Midnight (some are 24 hours some are less but again to use an average.) So 16 hours a day and at each check point there are on average 2 lines running, so 2 dogs per check point. Now they can only work 30 minutes per 2 hours. and only 8 hours a day (including break time. so two shifts of dogs.) So how many dogs are needed?
So in an 8 hour shift we need how many dogs. 457 airports* 3 check points per airport. * 2 lines per check point. * 4 Dogs needed (30 minutes per 2 hours 120 minutes/30 minutes is 4. So we would need 4 dogs.) * 2 shifts of Dogs = 21,936 dogs minimum. Now The 2006 article says the program cost 2.7 million for 30 dogs or $90,000 per dog. So taking that number it will cost a minimum of $1,974,240,000 That many dogs to be used at all airports. Now that does not include replacing dogs that have too many false positives, dogs injured in the line of duty or other situations.
And that assumes that a dog can work 30 minutes per 2 hours. if its 20 minutes per 3 hours then the costs goes to $4,442,040,000.
Granted I will give you the benefit of the doubt of the dogs only cost $30,000 to train and manage it brings it down to $658,080,000 and $1,480,680,000 respectively.
Plus you have to find 21,936 or 49,356 dogs that can pass the training test, plus get them trained. My guess is that there are not 5,000 dogs trained a year in the world for this type of work. (I may be way off here, but it seems that this is very extensive training and needs to be done by professionals.)
Comments? Is my analysis wrong?
Airports 457 * 3 Check points = 1371 Checkpoints
1371 * 2 lines per check point = 2742 Lines dogs are needed at
2742 * 4 dogs needed per 8 hours = 10968 Number of dogs per shift
10968 * 2 shifts of dogs for 16 hours CP is open = 21936 dogs needed.
21936 * $90,000 per dog for training, food and housing. = $1,974,240,000.
Estimates for cost of the AIT rollout over the length of the program are $2,400,000,000 according to that GAO report so we're still quite within the realm of reasonableness here if your numbers are right.
I have seen the dogs at SYD. They are looking for food. Also the false positive results is not as big of a deal for passengers. (Getting accused of bringing in an apple to Australia is a lot different than being accused of bring in a bomb. And your bags are still go through an scanning machine before you finish customs.)
The reason they say they can not be trained is that the substances are very unstable and could explode during testing.
Okay we have 457 airports that the TSA is at. Lets say just for comparison there are 3 checkpoints on average per airport (Rochester MN has one but Minneapolis has 5.) So 3 just for this example.
They are open from 6:00 am to 12 Midnight (some are 24 hours some are less but again to use an average.) So 16 hours a day and at each check point there are on average 2 lines running, so 2 dogs per check point. Now they can only work 30 minutes per 2 hours. and only 8 hours a day (including break time. so two shifts of dogs.) So how many dogs are needed?
So in an 8 hour shift we need how many dogs. 457 airports* 3 check points per airport. * 2 lines per check point. * 4 Dogs needed (30 minutes per 2 hours 120 minutes/30 minutes is 4. So we would need 4 dogs.) * 2 shifts of Dogs = 21,936 dogs minimum. Now The 2006 article says the program cost 2.7 million for 30 dogs or $90,000 per dog. So taking that number it will cost a minimum of $1,974,240,000 That many dogs to be used at all airports. Now that does not include replacing dogs that have too many false positives, dogs injured in the line of duty or other situations.
And that assumes that a dog can work 30 minutes per 2 hours. if its 20 minutes per 3 hours then the costs goes to $4,442,040,000.
Granted I will give you the benefit of the doubt of the dogs only cost $30,000 to train and manage it brings it down to $658,080,000 and $1,480,680,000 respectively.
Plus you have to find 21,936 or 49,356 dogs that can pass the training test, plus get them trained. My guess is that there are not 5,000 dogs trained a year in the world for this type of work. (I may be way off here, but it seems that this is very extensive training and needs to be done by professionals.)
Comments? Is my analysis wrong?
Airports 457 * 3 Check points = 1371 Checkpoints
1371 * 2 lines per check point = 2742 Lines dogs are needed at
2742 * 4 dogs needed per 8 hours = 10968 Number of dogs per shift
10968 * 2 shifts of dogs for 16 hours CP is open = 21936 dogs needed.
21936 * $90,000 per dog for training, food and housing. = $1,974,240,000.
Don't kow about many airports but DFW for example has 5 terminals, at least three checkpoints per terminal with multiple lanes per checkpoint.
LAS has several multiple terminals and checkpoints, by memory I would say 10ish lanes per checpoint.
Well the number of airports comes from the TSA website. So I am assuming there are a lot of smaller feeder airports like the Rochester MN where there is one check point and only one line. You have Denver that thas 3 checkpoints 2 of which are very large 10+ lines and one that is smaller 3 or 4 lines, so I just did an average.
And again I am still not sure I am correct.
*I forgot something* how many days can they work till they need a day off? (can dogs work 7 days a week or only 40 hours?) So I will recalculate that we need now. Will update above****
Quote:
Estimates for cost of the AIT rollout over the length of the program are $2,400,000,000 according to that GAO report so we're still quite within the realm of reasonableness here if your numbers are right.
That is over the 7 year life of an AIT according to the foot note on that report plus the staff time to run the machines.
I do not know the additional staff time needed for each dog, but my guess is that is more than the amount I have in here. The average dog has a 10 year career as a bomb sniffing dog. (I have seen from 9-12 years.)
No offense, but the same argument is just as effective right now for PTS patients from sexual trauma etc....
That can always be said, but they could also just use poodles to bypass most of the allergy issues. And I am already mostly not flying. Only if I absolutely have to because I am moving somewhere far away. Never for a vacation.
It sounds like this is all moot anyway. Frazier's analysis seems more or less correct. I guess dogs are just not practical due to the fact that they can only sniff in 20-30 minute blocks, get tired...etc.
The unemployment level among canines is at historical lows. If they were to replace human screeners, TSA would be an utter failure as a workfare program. How many utter failures does TSA need?
That can always be said, but they could also just use poodles to bypass most of the allergy issues. And I am already mostly not flying. Only if I absolutely have to because I am moving somewhere far away. Never for a vacation.
It sounds like this is all moot anyway. Frazier's analysis seems more or less correct. I guess dogs are just not practical due to the fact that they can only sniff in 20-30 minute blocks, get tired...etc.
Quite possibly so, there are other breeds of hypo-allergenic dogs as well:
Even if dogs are unfeasible, it would be very comforting to see that the TSA had even gone even as far into such an analysis as Frazier.
According to the GAO, this has never happened. Like many other brands of pseudo-science: The TSA has been shown on multiple occasions pick their conclusions before they start looking for evidence to back it up, at great taxpayer and traveler expense in terms of money, time and now privacy and dignity.
