|
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 31969031)
I have seen nothing officially about these being on our tech RADAR, but I would think (read that to mean I am 99.99% certain) they already have some working versions, and are nailing down the ability to scale up, the detection capabilities, and the ability of the item to withstand the normal rigors of a checkpoint area. I do like that it combines the WTMD/AIT screening into one head unit. I have often wondered why that was such a no-go for the industry - I mean, I am not a scientist, but is there too much interference/feedback from one to the other? Does the power/energy produced have a detrimental effect on the other tech? Soooooooooooooo many questions.
Like you I noticed the VIP context on the comments, so this may be a future device considered for Precheck and other low-risk populations, or, if it scales well, and the detection capabilities are up to snuff, the checkpoints period. I am interested to see more analyticals, and throughput capabilities. Can it be scaled up for checkpoint usage by making the space between the front and back larger, to compensate for more traffic? If we extend the walkthrough zone to allow for families, does it detract from the capabilities of the machine? Does it have a sustained screening rate of 100 per hour, or is it workable to get 400 per hour? More? What is the maintenance need for the machine? How often does it need filters changed? What consumables are involved? How does it have to be cleaned? There is a whole list of things that would need research before it could even be placed into a Beta/live environment testing situation. Again, I am hopeful, but I am also realistic. I am hopeful, but realistically so. If it is an improvement on the AIT, or an alternative that presents the ability to minimize the impact on the passengers, I am all for doing our due diligence, and then employing it. The use of this device at Oakland suggested to me that the device was deployed by the airport operator not TSA. Just my opinion, no proof. Throughput Is claimed to be around 800 people per hour. That smokes TSA's current Whole Body scanners. Not requiring people to stop and take the "surrender" pose is a big plus, with more time saved by not having to empty pockets. The big question, is it effective? Seems that AI with automatic target detection is at the heart of the system. Is the target library complete and can the machine infer new targets. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 31969031)
I have seen nothing officially about these being on our tech RADAR, but I would think (read that to mean I am 99.99% certain) they already have some working versions, and are nailing down the ability to scale up, the detection capabilities, and the ability of the item to withstand the normal rigors of a checkpoint area. I do like that it combines the WTMD/AIT screening into one head unit. I have often wondered why that was such a no-go for the industry - I mean, I am not a scientist, but is there too much interference/feedback from one to the other? Does the power/energy produced have a detrimental effect on the other tech? Soooooooooooooo many questions.
Like you I noticed the VIP context on the comments, so this may be a future device considered for Precheck and other low-risk populations, or, if it scales well, and the detection capabilities are up to snuff, the checkpoints period. I am interested to see more analyticals, and throughput capabilities. Can it be scaled up for checkpoint usage by making the space between the front and back larger, to compensate for more traffic? If we extend the walkthrough zone to allow for families, does it detract from the capabilities of the machine? Does it have a sustained screening rate of 100 per hour, or is it workable to get 400 per hour? More? What is the maintenance need for the machine? How often does it need filters changed? What consumables are involved? How does it have to be cleaned? There is a whole list of things that would need research before it could even be placed into a Beta/live environment testing situation. Again, I am hopeful, but I am also realistic. I am hopeful, but realistically so. If it is an improvement on the AIT, or an alternative that presents the ability to minimize the impact on the passengers, I am all for doing our due diligence, and then employing it. 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. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31970249)
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. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 31970534)
The benefit would mean a machine that requires no divestment and doesn't require the person to stop moving during the screening. If TSA used it under those conditions would mostly negate the need for Pre Check. That in turn could justify cutting checkpoint staffing which would be a big savings to taxpayers.
We will face “layers of security” — layers of expanded taxpayer-funded “security” resources being expended, with the biggest payoff for the governments’ favorite business cronies. With these machines, expect another layer of fat to pad this agency in cold times and even more in hot times. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 31969193)
The use of this device at Oakland suggested to me that the device was deployed by the airport operator not TSA. Just my opinion, no proof.
Throughput Is claimed to be around 800 people per hour. That smokes TSA's current Whole Body scanners. Not requiring people to stop and take the "surrender" pose is a big plus, with more time saved by not having to empty pockets. The big question, is it effective? Seems that AI with automatic target detection is at the heart of the system. Is the target library complete and can the machine infer new targets. 800 does not seem achievable in the current screening paradigm. One thing that the adverts and such do not take into account, is the number of alarms that TSA would require to be addressed on the back end, which *can* create something of a bottleneck, slowing the throughput. 800 folks might be able to pass through this device in an hour, being screened to a certain level, but I do not see it being so revolutionary that it makes the ATL checkpoints a ghost town - do not mistake me, I would love to see that happen, I just do not see it being a probable outcome. The AI system and algorithms will always be the key, will it be good enough to determine the difference between a pocketful of change, and other items, will it detect non-metallic as well as metallic. See? Soooooo many questions. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 31972755)
Agreed, I have seen nothing on extended testing, and last I saw, OAK did not have it in their checkpoints (like you, I have no proof). I too think this is an airport operator system.
800 does not seem achievable in the current screening paradigm. One thing that the adverts and such do not take into account, is the number of alarms that TSA would require to be addressed on the back end, which *can* create something of a bottleneck, slowing the throughput. 800 folks might be able to pass through this device in an hour, being screened to a certain level, but I do not see it being so revolutionary that it makes the ATL checkpoints a ghost town - do not mistake me, I would love to see that happen, I just do not see it being a probable outcome. The AI system and algorithms will always be the key, will it be good enough to determine the difference between a pocketful of change, and other items, will it detect non-metallic as well as metallic. See? Soooooo many questions. 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. |
I've seen these are in use in a theater in NYC. They are pretty minimally disruptive and you can carry your bags through them instead of having a separate bag screen. I didn't notice many alarms requiring a manual screening, though it's plausible a theater would have sensitivity set lower than an airport would.
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 31970249)
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.
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 31973056)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 31977403)
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...
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. What is the real world throughput of the current Whole Body Imagers, not the claimed throughput? |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 31977915)
What is the real world throughput of the current Whole Body Imagers, not the claimed throughput?
After some further research, I am unable to find the Rapiscan stats from a TSA/DHS source, but L3 indicates between 200-300 per hour. The actual throughput varies based upon the different checkpoints (geography, staffing, the individuals running the machine, how many alarms are being produced and the types of resolutions needed, the passenger types*, etc). I think that 300 is really a perfect world scenario that will never exist in real life - although statistically it is probably possible. If the average time a passenger spends entering, scanning and exiting (think like a production line) is say 15 seconds - then process 300 people would take around 75 minutes. If the average is closer to 10 seconds, then the 300 per hour becomes fairly realistic - but that does not take into account the alarm resolutions on the back end, it is simply if we can "production line" the entry, scan and exit of the machine. I think the actual functional numbers are most likely 200 or less, due to the different challenges. DISCLAIMER- I am not the greatest at math, and this information is based solely on the manufacturers published info, some basic logic, and the fact that every checkpoint is different in several ways. *Passenger types refers to the difference in time it takes when a passenger less familiar with the process has to have some explanation, discussion, sometimes additional divestiture and any other differences that can create a situation where more time is needed. |
Looks like Six Flags will be using these (1:10 into the video)
|
Originally Posted by amejr999
(Post 32406367)
Looks like Six Flags will be using these (1:10 into the video) https://twitter.com/SixFlags/status/1265251336443949059. Will be curious how/if they work.
|
Originally Posted by amejr999
(Post 32406367)
Looks like Six Flags will be using these (1:10 into the video) https://twitter.com/SixFlags/status/1265251336443949059. Will be curious how/if they work.
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 32410077)
Which Six Flags? Video wouldn't play for me.
|
Originally Posted by N830MH
(Post 32410931)
Actually, it's all over United States. I think Six Flags over Georgia or somewhere else.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:22 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.