Good point, TUS. However, assuming I'm forced to live with behind-the-back ruffling, I was pissed in the first half of the year that the TSA didn't provide free seals to at least protect the luggage after it leaves the TSA's custody. "Leave your luggage unlocked for us TSA people in the case a physical inspection is required. We don't give a **** if it's sent unlocked to the airline after it leaves our custody in the event a physical inspection is not required. We're the TSA."

I am still pissed that the TSA seals are rather flimsy and cheap. Obviously, I'm defending the everyday traveler, as I have a bunch of US Customs-approved, high-quality seals that I use myself. The current TSA seals pathetic.

Another issue of interest though: How are alarms resolved in the UK then? (rhetorical question) Very few check-in baggages have to be physically opened. Screeners try to resolve things without a physical inspection. So, there has to be a few reasons for this:

• Sheer numbers of more baggage screened in the US? Faster to yank a lot of baggage open than have screeners closely examine CTX images? Or TSA are not using their screeners to their full potential, i.e. they need more in-depth training on analyzing CTX images?
• US has stricter standards? I heard that the UK uses high-speed x-ray, which has a high false negative rate, whereas CTX has a lower false negative rate but higher false positive rate. Only selected bags in the UK get sent to CTX. But then how are many of those bags resolved?
• FAA/TSA (who certifies the equipment?) hasn't certified more sophisticated equipment that can resolve alarms? There's an article from Wired magazine that Invision (the one of the makers of CTX), developed or is developing a machine that will be able to do a chemical test of a baggage WITHOUT opening it!
  
  
  Quote:

  <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
  Another promising technology is X-ray diffraction, which InVision, the company that makes the CTX machines, invested in last year by buying a German firm that makes a diffraction unit called the Yxlon 3000. The device can check only 60 bags an hour - the CTX 5500 can handle about six times that - but it could help reduce false positives. "We believe that the magic bullet is the combination of CT and diffraction," says InVision CEO Sergio Magistri. By having a diffraction machine check what the CTX flags, "you can do 500 bags an hour."
  
  In case diffraction doesn't become the new standard, InVision also owns Quantum Magnetics, a San Diego company that's applying MRI techniques to security by using a process called nuclear quadrupole resonance. It involves shooting low-frequency radio waves into an object to stimulate the nuclei of the atoms in it. The electrical response of each substance is unique, so in theory, the units would pinpoint an explosive without false alarms.
  </font>

While I have my love/hate aspects of the TSA, I'd have to say though that I was glad to read that there are TSA test labs out there. i.e. They're constantly working to improve things.

I'm trying to live through this stupid policy of physical searches with the pax's presence in the meantime. However, having this is as a permanent, long-term solution is UNACCEPTABLE.

- Pat

[This message has been edited by Wiirachay (edited Nov 19, 2003).]