Why there will never another 9/11
Jul 9, 2012, 10:01 am
#31
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Jul 9, 2012, 10:25 am
#33
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Jul 9, 2012, 11:07 am
#34
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: DFW
Programs: AA EXP, MR Gold, HH Gold
Posts: 926
Oh, wait. That's the randomizer.
Jul 9, 2012, 11:21 am
#35
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
My point has nothing at all to do with whether I think that the AIT scanners are effective.
My point was that the TSA's focus is, and has been, on the detection of explosives. Most of the changes that they have made over the past decade to both procedures and equipment are targeted at improving their ability to prevent explosives from passing through screening.
As far as the definition of "detect"... If you walk through a WTMD with a brick of C4 under your shirt the WTMD will not alarm. If took that same brick through an AIT scanner there's a very good chance that it would alarm. Some are saying that alarm doesn't count as "detecting the explosive" because the AIT scanner didn't label it an explosive. So what? The procedure that follows an AIT alarm will find the brick and the subsequent ETD test will determine that it is an explosive. The result is that the explosive is detected due to the AIT alarm.
Call that whatever you want but it's a lot simpler to say that the AIT can detect hidden explosives while the WTMD can not. If someone can't see the difference between those two screening results then maybe they're getting a bit too wrapped up with their animosity toward the TSA.
My point was that the TSA's focus is, and has been, on the detection of explosives. Most of the changes that they have made over the past decade to both procedures and equipment are targeted at improving their ability to prevent explosives from passing through screening.
As far as the definition of "detect"... If you walk through a WTMD with a brick of C4 under your shirt the WTMD will not alarm. If took that same brick through an AIT scanner there's a very good chance that it would alarm. Some are saying that alarm doesn't count as "detecting the explosive" because the AIT scanner didn't label it an explosive. So what? The procedure that follows an AIT alarm will find the brick and the subsequent ETD test will determine that it is an explosive. The result is that the explosive is detected due to the AIT alarm.
Call that whatever you want but it's a lot simpler to say that the AIT can detect hidden explosives while the WTMD can not. If someone can't see the difference between those two screening results then maybe they're getting a bit too wrapped up with their animosity toward the TSA.
But wait, there's more:
If I walk through AIT with a block of modeling clay under my shirt, it will alarm.
If I walk through AIT with IHOP pancakes in my underwear, it will alarm.
If I walk through AIT with a thick hairdo on my head, it will alarm.
If I walk through AIT with sweat on my body, it will alarm.
However...
If I walk through AIT with a block of C4 in a hidden latteral pocket on my shirt, will it alarm? No? Then I guess it can't detect the presence of THOSE explosives.
If I walk through AIT with a C4 suppository, will it alarm? No? Then I guess it can't detect the presence of THOSE explosives.
If I walk through with a 1/4" layer of C4 inside the soles of my socks, will it alarm? No? Then I guess it can't detect the presence of THOSE explosives.
AIT is worse than useless; it actively misdirects both vast sums of money and huge amounts of attention that might be better spent elsewhere, on technologies or methodologies that would have a far greater and more reliable chance of detecting and interdicting actual explosives. Like, um, screening 100% of all cargo that goes onto planes, or maybe screening the thousands of boxes of frozen Wopper patties that go to airside food courts each year.
Jul 9, 2012, 12:24 pm
#36
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
AIT is worse than useless; it actively misdirects both vast sums of money and huge amounts of attention that might be better spent elsewhere, on technologies or methodologies that would have a far greater and more reliable chance of detecting and interdicting actual explosives.
Jul 9, 2012, 1:11 pm
#37
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,571
As WillCAD noted, the TSA mistaken reliance on this technology "actively misdirects both vast sums of money and huge amounts of attention that might be better spent elsewhere, on technologies or methodologies that would have a far greater and more reliable chance of detecting and interdicting actual explosives."
TSA is nothing more than Kabuki Theater designed by its creators to create the illusion of security.
Jul 9, 2012, 1:51 pm
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
Dilxat Raxit, spokesman for the German-based World Uyghur Congress which campaigns for Uighurs’ rights, said that it wasn’t a hijacking attempt, rather an in-flight brawl over a seat dispute.
Mike
Jul 9, 2012, 6:36 pm
#39
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Not a fair example at all. That stuff was being carried by a Real American Hero, who aroused no suspicion... oh, wait, he had been caught with a smoke grenade.
That stuff was being carried by a Real American Hero, who had a perfectly rational explanation why he was carrying a prohibited item in his bag and was thus completely above suspicion after it was confiscated...
Wait, that still doesn't add up.
Okay, I've got it:
That stuff went through a checkpoint staffed by abject morons who complete disregarded TSA SOP and basic common sense in failing to escalate to a thorough hand search of the bag after a prohibited item (one which I believe is actually illegal to possess) was found in it. Yup, that's about it.
That stuff was being carried by a Real American Hero, who had a perfectly rational explanation why he was carrying a prohibited item in his bag and was thus completely above suspicion after it was confiscated...
Wait, that still doesn't add up.
Okay, I've got it:
That stuff went through a checkpoint staffed by abject morons who complete disregarded TSA SOP and basic common sense in failing to escalate to a thorough hand search of the bag after a prohibited item (one which I believe is actually illegal to possess) was found in it. Yup, that's about it.
Jul 9, 2012, 8:27 pm
#40
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,784
...Okay, I've got it:
That stuff went through a checkpoint staffed by abject morons who complete disregarded TSA SOP and basic common sense in failing to escalate to a thorough hand search of the bag after a prohibited item (one which I believe is actually illegal to possess) was found in it. Yup, that's about it.
That stuff went through a checkpoint staffed by abject morons who complete disregarded TSA SOP and basic common sense in failing to escalate to a thorough hand search of the bag after a prohibited item (one which I believe is actually illegal to possess) was found in it. Yup, that's about it.
Jul 10, 2012, 7:54 am
#42
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 8,184
We can always count on you to make an argument personal, can't we Wally?
Give it a try and report back with your results.
Certainly better than the WTMD's success rate of 0%.
Got a link to the 60% figure? I'd like to read about the tests that produced it.
Got a link to the 60% figure? I'd like to read about the tests that produced it.
Jul 10, 2012, 7:59 am
#43
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15278872,00.html
Jul 10, 2012, 8:40 am
#44
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
You posted that it's "simpler to say AIT can detect explosives". With reference to the points raised by me and others (qv) that is an over-simplified contention. IOW; simplistic.
Now I will really leave it
.
Jul 10, 2012, 8:36 pm
#45
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,007
My point has nothing at all to do with whether I think that the AIT scanners are effective.
My point was that the TSA's focus is, and has been, on the detection of explosives. Most of the changes that they have made over the past decade to both procedures and equipment are targeted at improving their ability to prevent explosives from passing through screening.
As far as the definition of "detect"... If you walk through a WTMD with a brick of C4 under your shirt the WTMD will not alarm. If took that same brick through an AIT scanner there's a very good chance that it would alarm. Some are saying that alarm doesn't count as "detecting the explosive" because the AIT scanner didn't label it an explosive. So what? The procedure that follows an AIT alarm will find the brick and the subsequent ETD test will determine that it is an explosive. The result is that the explosive is detected due to the AIT alarm.
Call that whatever you want but it's a lot simpler to say that the AIT can detect hidden explosives while the WTMD can not. If someone can't see the difference between those two screening results then maybe they're getting a bit too wrapped up with their animosity toward the TSA.
My point was that the TSA's focus is, and has been, on the detection of explosives. Most of the changes that they have made over the past decade to both procedures and equipment are targeted at improving their ability to prevent explosives from passing through screening.
As far as the definition of "detect"... If you walk through a WTMD with a brick of C4 under your shirt the WTMD will not alarm. If took that same brick through an AIT scanner there's a very good chance that it would alarm. Some are saying that alarm doesn't count as "detecting the explosive" because the AIT scanner didn't label it an explosive. So what? The procedure that follows an AIT alarm will find the brick and the subsequent ETD test will determine that it is an explosive. The result is that the explosive is detected due to the AIT alarm.
Call that whatever you want but it's a lot simpler to say that the AIT can detect hidden explosives while the WTMD can not. If someone can't see the difference between those two screening results then maybe they're getting a bit too wrapped up with their animosity toward the TSA.