FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate-687/)
-   -   New Evolv Technology (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1807275-new-evolv-technology.html)

N830MH Dec 6, 16 8:29 pm

New Evolv Technology
 
http://evolvtechnology.com/security-...lty-screening/

You guys didn't know about that. It's brand new. Manchester (MHT) is the first one to install new Evolv Technology. Soon, they will install more at US airports.

TWA884 Dec 6, 16 10:43 pm

MIT Technology Review:
AI Body Scanners Could Solve the Worst Thing About Airports

Excerpt

The most annoying thing about airports is going through security. But a startup called Evolv Technology is getting set to begin public tests of a new AI-powered body scanner, which it claims will allow people to saunter through checkpoints without breaking stride or emptying their pockets.

Evolv has built its scanner using the same millimeter-wave imaging frequencies as existing (and often controversial) full-body scanners. But instead of having someone stand still in a circular booth, the company scans its radar beams up and down people as they walk, measuring how the waves scatter off them.

The data isnít used to create an image like those normally shown to security staff. Instead, itís processed by a machine-learning algorithm thatís been trained to spot dangerous items like explosives and weapons. If the system thinks itís spotted something, a member of security staff is alerted to perform a more detailed check.

GUWonder Dec 7, 16 3:41 am


Originally Posted by TWA884 (Post 27575931)

Inspired by the movie Total Recall.

Boggie Dog Dec 7, 16 8:28 am

If TSA gets their hands on something like this I'm confident that they will find a way to screw it up. Extra ID checks, more squiggly markings on boarding passes, or the Super Secret BDO Interrogators.

guflyer Dec 7, 16 11:54 am

This worries me. Currently, at many airports (such as EWR on Monday morning), they let everyone go through the WTMD when the body scanner would have been way to slow. I am concerned that this new device could end this practice. Also, it could be used in other areas or even stealthily.

Additionally, it concerns me that the article says that this is going to be tested first at train stations in Washington, DC and Los Angeles. Does this mean that body scanners are going to be part of the plan for train stations now?

Boggie Dog Dec 7, 16 12:19 pm


Originally Posted by guflyer (Post 27578203)
This worries me. Currently, at many airports (such as EWR on Monday morning), they let everyone go through the WTMD when the body scanner would have been way to slow. I am concerned that this new device could end this practice. Also, it could be used in other areas or even stealthily.

I suspect, but have no evidence, that TSA would scrap WTMD's at the first opportunity should a newer Whole Body scanner come along that has throughput similar to the WTMD.

Guess the future will hold the answer.

TWA884 Dec 7, 16 12:23 pm


Originally Posted by guflyer (Post 27578203)
Additionally, it concerns me that the article says that this is going to be tested first at train stations in Washington, DC and Los Angeles. Does this mean that body scanners are going to be part of the plan for train stations now?

According to The Guardian:

<snip>

According to documents filed with the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Boston-based Evolv Technology is planning to test its system at Union Station in Washington DC, in Los Angeles’s Union Station metro and at Denver international airport.

<snip>

“Transportation is a very soft and attractive target,” said Alex Wiggins, the executive in charge of security for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. “Given the recent large-scale attacks at transit facilities in Europe, we need to see if there is technology that can screen large number of peoples and focus in on weapons and explosives.”

The three locations named in Evolv’s FCC application process upwards of 300,000 people every day, although Denver airport said its pilot project with Evolv had yet to be finalised. The test in LA is due to run in November for three or four days, and will involve thousands of members of the public. “We want to see how finely these [scanners] can be tuned, and what size of weapons and explosives they can detect,” says Wiggins.

<snip>

GUWonder Dec 7, 16 1:03 pm


Originally Posted by guflyer (Post 27578203)
This worries me. Currently, at many airports (such as EWR on Monday morning), they let everyone go through the WTMD when the body scanner would have been way to slow. I am concerned that this new device could end this practice. Also, it could be used in other areas or even stealthily.

Additionally, it concerns me that the article says that this is going to be tested first at train stations in Washington, DC and Los Angeles. Does this mean that body scanners are going to be part of the plan for train stations now?

They may end up creating worse bottlenecks of sorts at the stations, but those shouldn't be much worse than they are at stores in terms of bottlenecking itself. The key difference perhaps may be that more innocent, unarmed people end up shot by police or other "security forces" due to more "alarms" and more "alarmed" armed governmental personnel around to react to alarms. Other than that, such an approach may able to be as unintrusive as those shoplifting alarm gates at stores.

FliesWay2Much Dec 7, 16 7:11 pm

Look Who's on the Advisory Board...
 
http://evolvtechnology.com/about-us/

There's a couple of other former TSA and DHS dweebs as well.

yandosan Dec 7, 16 8:45 pm

I am always skeptical about Brave New Algorithms that
are going to spot the bad guys or differentiate harmless weapons from deadly ones. Remember the 911 attackers only had box cutters and look what they did to NYC.
This sound more like Artificial Stupidity to me.

guflyer Dec 7, 16 10:04 pm

Is there any concern regarding the radiation from these scanners?

Boggie Dog Dec 7, 16 10:24 pm


Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much (Post 27580309)
http://evolvtechnology.com/about-us/

There's a couple of other former TSA and DHS dweebs as well.

Pistole being part of this gives me every confidence that they will fail.

Boggie Dog Dec 7, 16 10:27 pm


Originally Posted by guflyer (Post 27580975)
Is there any concern regarding the radiation from these scanners?

MMW is non-ionizing so should be no concern.

DeafBlonde Dec 8, 16 2:57 pm


Originally Posted by guflyer (Post 27580975)
Is there any concern regarding the radiation from these scanners?

I agree that there should be no radiation concerns, but if this technology is implemented, I bet we will soon see threads appear on TSS/Checkpoints on "What not to keep in your pockets..." or "What not to wear..." in order to keep from getting shaken down because the machines throw out false positives.

Pesky Monkey Dec 8, 16 7:05 pm

It's millimeter wave with some facial recognition and computer algorithms. They claim "very low false positives".

Fail.

Boggie Dog Dec 8, 16 10:22 pm


Originally Posted by Pesky Monkey (Post 27584972)
It's millimeter wave with some facial recognition and computer algorithms. They claim "very low false positives".

Fail.

TSA always claims "very low false positives" <redacted>.

N830MH Dec 8, 16 11:52 pm


Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much (Post 27580309)
http://evolvtechnology.com/about-us/

There's a couple of other former TSA and DHS dweebs as well.

Oh, yes! That's him! That's John Pistole. I see him.

Schmurrr Dec 9, 16 1:59 pm

This might be better for airports (subject to advance public review of the machines' capabilities and effectiveness), but it also sounds like a technology that we could very well eventually see used in non-airport contexts (a sad thing, IMO). Fortunately, we've not seen whole-body scanners in mass deployment outside airports, but a less despicable technology might make inroads there.

guflyer Jan 13, 20 6:03 pm

Is Evolve Edge Security Screening Device a Metal Detector or a Body Scanner
 
Yesterday, I entered a bowling alley that is also a concert venue (Brooklyn Bowl) where they made me walk through an Evolve security device. I think it looks like the object in this link: https://evolvtechnology.com/products/evolv-edge/

The security staff told me that it was a high tech metal detector, but it looks more like a body scanner. Is this a metal detector or a body scanner? Does it use MMW or something else? I have had trouble figuring out what I went through. If this is a body scanner, this would be the first instance to my knowledge of a body scanner being used at a private business in the U.S.

TWA884 Jan 13, 20 6:21 pm

Hello @guflyer,

I merged your question into the existing thread on the Evolv Edge scanner.

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator

Boggie Dog Jan 13, 20 6:33 pm


Originally Posted by guflyer (Post 31946534)
Yesterday, I entered a bowling alley that is also a concert venue (Brooklyn Bowl) where they made me walk through an Evolve security device. I think it looks like the object in this link: https://evolvtechnology.com/products/evolv-edge/

The security staff told me that it was a high tech metal detector, but it looks more like a body scanner. Is this a metal detector or a body scanner? Does it use MMW or something else? I have had trouble figuring out what I went through. If this is a body scanner, this would be the first instance to my knowledge of a body scanner being used at a private business in the U.S.

From the website you posted.


Real-Time Threat Detection: Detects metallic weapons and non-metallic items of interest.
Must employ a mixed technology screening method.

gsoltso Jan 14, 20 10:11 am


Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 27576583)
Inspired by the movie Total Recall.

Holy crap! I was just sitting here thinking that is my fallback example of what I would like TSA Security to be like. :D

gsoltso Jan 14, 20 10:22 am


Originally Posted by yandosan (Post 27580682)
I am always skeptical about Brave New Algorithms that
are going to spot the bad guys or differentiate harmless weapons from deadly ones. Remember the 911 attackers only had box cutters and look what they did to NYC.
This sound more like Artificial Stupidity to me.

I am cautiously hopeful. The information that I have seen shows signs of promise, but I need more analytical information that they will gain from field testing. My first question for new equipment has always been "can it stand up to the rigors of being used in such high traffic areas". I remember the puffers well, and they still serve as a tale of tech that was really good, but not well suited to the checkpoint environment.

Boggie Dog Jan 14, 20 11:12 am


Originally Posted by gsoltso (Post 31949171)
I am cautiously hopeful. The information that I have seen shows signs of promise, but I need more analytical information that they will gain from field testing. My first question for new equipment has always been "can it stand up to the rigors of being used in such high traffic areas". I remember the puffers well, and they still serve as a tale of tech that was really good, but not well suited to the checkpoint environment.

From the companies website is this blurb:


HOW CUSTOMERS USE EVOLV EDGE Organizations such as Lincoln Center, Oakland Airport, Gillette Stadium, and LL Bean use Evolv to detect threats before they enter their venues while providing a non-intrusive experience. The Evolv Edge is designed for sites with single-file entrance flows where weapons (firearms, IEDs, and bare explosives) and non-metallic items of interest are significant concerns. These include places such as VIP entrances at sports stadiums and entertainment venues, corporate events, hospitality venues, boutique performing arts venues and more.
Being used at Oakland airport sounds good but in what capacity. Then the sentence about use at VIP entrances seems to suggest a weakness and suitability for more trusted or lower volume needs.

Being used for employee only screening per case study. Strike 3 and you're out!

It wouldn't take much to improve on the TSA'S Whole Body Imaginer.

Curious if it's known whether TSA has tested this device?

nachtnebel Jan 14, 20 4:38 pm


Originally Posted by guflyer (Post 31946534)
Yesterday, I entered a bowling alley that is also a concert venue (Brooklyn Bowl) where they made me walk through an Evolve security device. I think it looks like the object in this link: https://evolvtechnology.com/products/evolv-edge/

The security staff told me that it was a high tech metal detector, but it looks more like a body scanner. Is this a metal detector or a body scanner? Does it use MMW or something else? I have had trouble figuring out what I went through. If this is a body scanner, this would be the first instance to my knowledge of a body scanner being used at a private business in the U.S.


Interesting. I wonder what the resolution protocols are for these venues. I'm assuming hands in the genital areas would be a massive legal liability, so that's probably not in the cards. Interesting machine though.

guflyer Jan 14, 20 6:44 pm

Thanks for all of the responses. I was not happy to learn that I was misled by the security guard who claimed that the device was just an advanced metal detector, but I guess I should have known better than to trust what security screeners tell me about the screening devices that they use.


Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 31949379)
From the companies website is this blurb:



Then the sentence about use at VIP entrances seems to suggest a weakness and suitability for more trusted or lower volume needs.

With the knowledge that I now have about this product, I would be bothered if I was a VIP and forced to go through this instead of being able to go through a traditional WTMD or opt for a pat-down.

jfunk138 Jan 15, 20 8:12 am

"weapons (firearms, IEDs, and bare explosives) and non-metallic items of interest"

Since a WTMD detects all but a few of the items in the weapons category, it seems pretty clear these machines are about finding those non-weapon, "non-metallic items of interest"

TWA884 Jan 15, 20 9:52 am

According to SecurityInfoWatch.com:


Similar to the TSA’s body scanners, the Evolv Edge solution combines millimeter-wave technology and a number of other sensors to non-intrusively screen people as they walk through the machine for threats. Unlike those airport body scanners that require people to enter, turn 90 degrees and put their arms in the air while columns scan the entirety of their body to create an image, the Edge system screens subjects as they walk between two columns and can produce an analysis of what someone may be carrying in about a hundredth of a second.

Mats Jan 18, 20 12:03 pm

The idea of the Evolv technology is so appealing: non invasive, minimal or no radiation risk, reduced queuing, more dignified.
But does it actually work? I recall the investment in "puffer" machines, which--quite literally--blew hot air.

I would like to see greater testing and trials of Evolv because it has the possibility of working out. Even the newest "eqo" machines still require "hands up" and turning around. The Rohde and Schwarz versions get rid of "I surrender" but still require turning around and "assuming the position," so to speak.

The Post article implies that this could rid of us of security bottlenecks. It could help, but it does not fix the liquid and shoe obsessions, which dramatically affect the time spent per passenger. An Evolv machine does not stop "blue light" ID inspections, the "name game," behavioral detection questions about one's pets and boss' phone number, etc.

gsoltso Jan 19, 20 8:49 am


Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 31949379)
From the companies website is this blurb:



Being used at Oakland airport sounds good but in what capacity. Then the sentence about use at VIP entrances seems to suggest a weakness and suitability for more trusted or lower volume needs.

Being used for employee only screening per case study. Strike 3 and you're out!

It wouldn't take much to improve on the TSA'S Whole Body Imaginer.

Curious if it's known whether TSA has tested this device?

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.

Boggie Dog Jan 19, 20 9:50 am


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.

GUWonder Jan 19, 20 3:24 pm


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.

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.

Boggie Dog Jan 19, 20 5:13 pm


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 fieldís use ó a waste of money, akin to a Starbucks near Piccadilly Circus in London buying a snowblower for use to clean the streets.

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.

GUWonder Jan 19, 20 5:27 pm


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.

Even as the TSA fails to find things which it should find, I have no doubt that the TSA is going to find ways to bloat its budgets over the longer term for as long as it has frontline screeners at airports near and far.

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.

gsoltso Jan 20, 20 8:56 am


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.

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.

Boggie Dog Jan 20, 20 10:26 am


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.

lost_perspicacity Jan 21, 20 10:02 am

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.

gsoltso Jan 21, 20 10:46 am


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 fieldís use ó 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 (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.

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.

Boggie Dog Jan 21, 20 12:40 pm


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?

gsoltso Jan 22, 20 7:27 am


Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 31977915)
What is the real world throughput of the current Whole Body Imagers, not the claimed throughput?

To be perfectly honest, I have no information on those stats, I seem to recall something like the cyclical was around 200, and you can come down from there based on the different checkpoint challenges and dynamics. Please do not quote me on that number though, because I have nothing to back it up, I just think I remember seeing something on a manufacturers page somewhere.

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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:39 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.