TSA Installing Checkpoint CT Scanners
Jun 16, 2017, 8:19 am
#1
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,700
TSA Installing Checkpoint CT Scanners
The technology is already used for screening checked luggage, but the cost and larger size of the CT scanners has held back their use for carry-on bags. TSA had expected to begin testing CT scanners for carry-on luggage by the end of 2016.CT scanners create a 3-D image that can be rotated to give screeners a better look. Suspicious bags can be pulled aside and opened by screeners.American Airlines, which is participating in the test, said the technology could let passengers leave laptops, liquids and aerosols in their carry-on bags, speeding up the trip through the airport.The test comes as U.S. officials scramble to deal with potential new threats, including reports that terrorists are developing bombs that can be disguised as laptop batteries.
(bolding mine)
Such fortunate coincidental timing. TSA planned to start testing the devices in 2016, just when coincidentally new threats emerged.
If the new CT scanners can clear laptops, liquids and aerosols, does anyone really believe we will be allowed to leave those items in our bags?
Because if we are, then the only reason for anyone to pay for the Precheck lottery would be if they wanted to pay $85 to keep their shoes on.
Jun 16, 2017, 11:41 am
#2
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
If these scanners are so great for checked baggage, why are so many bags opened by TSA, contents strewn around and bottles/jars opened and then not properly reclosed?
What will prove the CT units are useful at checkpoints is if they result in far, far fewer bag checks.
What will prove the CT units are useful at checkpoints is if they result in far, far fewer bag checks.
Last edited by petaluma1; Jun 16, 2017 at 4:02 pm
Jun 16, 2017, 11:50 am
#3
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,700
It will be interesting to see how the rate of false positives with checkpoint CTs compares to the number of false positives generated by the checked bag CTs and by the NoS. If the latter two are anything to go by, there will still be plenty of bag searches.
Jun 17, 2017, 10:59 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bye Delta
Programs: AA EXP, HH Diamond, IHG Plat, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Plat, Nat'l Exec Elite, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 16,276
Seems our dollars would be much better spent by investing in medical devices to treat medical problems.
Jun 17, 2017, 2:55 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
More bag searches = more opportunities to find drugs and large amounts of cash.
Jun 17, 2017, 3:00 pm
#9
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 41
And TSA would say "Sign up for precheck if you don't like the scanner."
Last edited by sunshinekid; Jun 17, 2017 at 3:05 pm
Jun 18, 2017, 1:32 pm
#10
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,700
Is there a reason to believe that TSA equipment is suppose to only alarm dangerous items? A system that alarms on just about everything by design, can't really be said to have false positives. A vague system creates a great defense against legal complaints.
And TSA would say "Sign up for precheck if you don't like the scanner."
And TSA would say "Sign up for precheck if you don't like the scanner."
AFAIK, all xrays will be replaced with CT scanners (more money). There will be no exemption for Precheck.
If anything, if these machines perform as advertised, the value of Precheck will be diminished because all pax will be able to leave their laptops and LGAs in their bags. The only advantage to Precheck will be keeping (some) shoes and outerwear on and possibly a dedicated line.
Jun 18, 2017, 3:18 pm
#11
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,639
Jun 18, 2017, 9:09 pm
#13
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,700
Yeah, I wouldn't want to be working around them. The reason they have never been suitable is because in medical and baggage screening applications, they are very large because of all the shielding.
Now we've got a super-duper 3-D version conveniently ready to roll out juussssttt when a threat surfaces that requires this kind of technology, and it also conveniently can be safely shielded in a much tinier footprint than ever before.
Besides, we know how well the puffers weren't maintained.
Now we've got a super-duper 3-D version conveniently ready to roll out juussssttt when a threat surfaces that requires this kind of technology, and it also conveniently can be safely shielded in a much tinier footprint than ever before.
Besides, we know how well the puffers weren't maintained.
Jun 19, 2017, 2:41 am
#14
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,792
Never mind.
Jun 19, 2017, 10:27 am
#15
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Will somebody please explain to me how these CT scanners are going to be able to determine if a liquid is explosive. Is use of these screeners going to mean that parents will no longer have to either open all their baby foods or face being sexually assaulted by TSA?