Originally Posted by
GUWonder
Combining the cheaper WTMDs with way more expensive strip-search machines into a joint device of sort means that when a screening machine breaks, then the costs (in money and time) from a recovery from a device problem skyrockets more than if a separate WTMD or separate strip searching machine go down.
Cheaper equipment is good enough (if not even better) for the relevant purpose.. And providing more expensive capital equipment to the TSA is like giving each of the poorest farmers in India a tractor dedicated for just their own field’s use — a waste of money, akin to a Starbucks near Piccadilly Circus in London buying a snowblower for use to clean the streets.
I understand this point of view, it was the same reason I was loathe to purchase TV/DVD combo units when they were popular. I think that at this level the compartmentalization of the tech would be fairly standardized to the point that each tech was its own unit and segment for maintenance/repairs, and the machine would function independently for each tech - if the Metal Detector broke, the AIT segment would still function to code, and vice versa. I could be wrong, but I would hope that the manufacturer and the purchasing organization(s) would recognize that the benefits outweigh the challenges prior to finalized design and deployment.
Please let me reemphasize that
I hope that they would see the benefit, and think that way...
Originally Posted by
Boggie Dog
I suspect that the 800 screenings per hour is inflated or best case numbers. Even at half that rate I believe it would best the WBI now in use. My observations suggest real world screening time, including loading and unloading, of roughly 20 seconds or about 180 people/hour with the current Whole Body Scanner. I see no reason that alarm rates should increase over current rates. The manufacturer claims detection of both metallic and non-metallic items and can distinguish between threat and non-threat items. The question of " does it do what's claimed" can only be determined by real world testing.
Agreed. 800 people through one screening device in an hour may be a *statistical* possibility, but facing real world situations found in the checkpoints, 400 sounds like they are really pushing the envelope.
One other thing that the manufacturer nor DHS/TSA will put out there are the tons of variables in the checkpoints that slow down throughput. These numbers do not realistically reflect those considerations. I do love the possibile ability to detect both metallic and non-metallic in one unit while specifically delineating which is which - like the x-ray units.