Technology over secondary

Old Oct 31, 04, 10:16 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Lightbulb Technology over secondary

Serious discussion, please leave the policy bashing outside.

If the checkpoint lanes had a WTMD, EntryScan (puffer) type WTETD and back scatter WTX-Ray or combination or all three in one machine (the best) would the minor delay be worth it.

My opinion would be that the combination of all three of these technologies; metal, non metal and explosive detection should suffice to clear any person and the need for shoe removal, wanding and pat down could be eliminated except to clear an alarm. The need for a selectee system could be eliminated since all passengers would receive an extensive screening by a system which would be quicker and more precise.

In the long run the lines would probably be shorter since the only persons in secondary would be those who need to have alarms cleared. Screeners would be redeployed to operate the machines and possibly open more lanes.
TSAMGR is offline  
Old Oct 31, 04, 10:30 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England, UK
Posts: 102
I would think that most (indeed all?) of the 'innocent' travelling public would go for this. The key bit is the false positives. I would expect a considerable effort at testing the effectiveness of this arrangement to get the lessons learnt and make any possible refinements.

We should also test for fallibility (ie things getting through). I don't say that in order to prompt a furore over system weakness, but it would a) allow for an intelligent assessment of risk and b) provide an opportunity to narrow down the necessary action when a positive is sounded.

It is vital that this is done in a structured way, involving practitioners and members of the travelling public, as well as relevant security experts.

What cost would you put on this?

I might also add that, perversely, this could throw up some negative publicity - at least in the short-term. Delay is delay, in many people's minds, and the cause of it is often a lost detail. Those who perceive increased delay (and have not previously sufferred any problems with the security regime) might moan. Solve that with good publicity in advance.
damorgan is offline  
Old Oct 31, 04, 10:32 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Alabama
Posts: 400
I would have to agree with you there. That would place the workforce in more efficient roles to keep the lines running more smoothly. Then the torso patdown would only be necessary if the "puffer" alarmed. That would dramatically reduce the amount of complaints. Then again, the argument of too much technology may arise.
TSASuper is offline  
Old Oct 31, 04, 10:38 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Annapolis, MD
Programs: AC, WN, AA
Posts: 1,169
I don't think you could put all three technologies in a combination unit, since you are supposed to walk through the WTMD, and the puffers require that you stand there for a few seconds. That said, I would conditionally (I'm not very knowledgable on the subject of back scatter) support the use of this technology in lieu of secondary screening. Hopefully, the TSA would have the brains to buy more machines, to take advantage of the resulting reduced staffing requirements, to improve the situation with delays.
SonOfACockroach is offline  
Old Oct 31, 04, 10:42 am
  #5  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by SonOfACockroach
I don't think you could put all three technologies in a combination unit, since you are supposed to walk through the WTMD, and the puffers require that you stand there for a few seconds. That said, I would conditionally (I'm not very knowledgable on the subject of back scatter) support the use of this technology in lieu of secondary screening. Hopefully, the TSA would have the brains to buy more machines, to take advantage of the resulting reduced staffing requirements, to improve the situation with delays.
In all honesty with the use of the back scatter the WTMD could be eliminated since the back scatter could detect both metallic and non metallic items.
TSAMGR is offline  
Old Oct 31, 04, 10:44 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Annapolis, MD
Programs: AC, WN, AA
Posts: 1,169
Originally Posted by TSAMGR
In all honesty with the use of the back scatter the WTMD could be eliminated since the back scatter could detect both metallic and non metallic items.
You mean we could wear our shanked shoes without problems? ^
SonOfACockroach is offline  
Old Oct 31, 04, 10:44 am
  #7  
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Wild Wild Life, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,720
Not at all in favor of the backscatter x-ray, definitely in favor of the other two technologies.
Spiff is offline  
Old Oct 31, 04, 10:47 am
  #8  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by Spiff
Not at all in favor of the backscatter x-ray, definitely in favor of the other two technologies.

Come on, I was waiting for your comments and that's all you say?

Can you elaborate?
TSAMGR is offline  
Old Oct 31, 04, 10:50 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Annapolis, MD
Programs: AC, WN, AA
Posts: 1,169
Originally Posted by Spiff
Not at all in favor of the backscatter x-ray, definitely in favor of the other two technologies.
Looking very quickly at the idea of backscatter, I don't see a whole lot of difference between it and x-raying carry-ons, in terms of privacy. Could you please give an explanation, or do you also not support x-raying baggage?
SonOfACockroach is offline  
Old Oct 31, 04, 11:03 am
  #10  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by SonOfACockroach
You mean we could wear our shanked shoes without problems? ^
All of the discussion here is opinion but you alarmed the WTMD but passed the WTETD and back scatter (proved it was nails or shank) then why not. One test should clear or prove another. I guess it would all depend on how the lane was set up. My opinion would be to have the WTMD first, a person alarms they can be given a second chance to divest something they forgot. then WTETD for explosives and then back scatter to clear alarms from WTMD and WTETD. If the alarms could not be cleared then a wanding/pat down could be used.

Again, my opinion.
TSAMGR is offline  
Old Oct 31, 04, 11:18 am
  #11  
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Wild Wild Life, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,720
Originally Posted by TSAMGR
Come on, I was waiting for your comments and that's all you say?

Can you elaborate?
There is no safe dosage of x-ray radiation. While the x-ray levels for the backscatter technology are low, they are still present.

WTMD will get metallic items. Chemical sniffer will get explosives. There are no credible weapons that fall outside these two categories.

I am still in favor of x-raying baggage, just not living things, including me.
Spiff is offline  
Old Oct 31, 04, 11:25 am
  #12  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by Spiff
There is no safe dosage of x-ray radiation. While the x-ray levels for the backscatter technology are low, they are still present.

WTMD will get metallic items. Chemical sniffer will get explosives. There are no credible weapons that fall outside these two categories.

I am still in favor of x-raying baggage, just not living things, including me.
Ceramic or composite knives
TSAMGR is offline  
Old Oct 31, 04, 11:27 am
  #13  
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Wild Wild Life, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,720
Originally Posted by TSAMGR
Ceramic or composite knives
Not credible.
Spiff is offline  
Old Oct 31, 04, 11:27 am
  #14  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by Spiff
Not credible.
How are they not credible?
TSAMGR is offline  
Old Oct 31, 04, 11:31 am
  #15  
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Wild Wild Life, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,720
Originally Posted by TSAMGR
How are they not credible?
A ceramic or composite knife will not deliver an aircraft into the hands of a hijacker.
Spiff is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: