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.