Carry-on bag X-ray classifies liquids

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by KrazyKat, May 24, 2013.

  1. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    New from our friends at Rapiscan:http://www.airportsinternational.com/2013/05/rapiscan-620dv-achieves-stac-certification/13589
    :rolleyes:
    Without all those worrisome liquids passengers are punished for attempting to carry aboard, John Pervole, (his biting dogs and stupid humans), can concentrate TSA's layered efforts at the higher risk areas--like between your legs.
     
  2. If TSA ever gets some of these, I imagine it being a situation where they will make a big PR blitz about it, and everybody will think liquids are now fine, but then it will be a few months before staff gets trained and people will get all their water and a bunch of nice bottles of wine seized, and then only certain airports will have it, and you won't know which, and there will be some weird way in which you have to present your liquid on the x-ray belt and if you don't, no soup for you.
     
    KrazyKat and Caradoc like this.
  3. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    You will also lose your soup if the smurfchen like your soup and decide that you should "voluntarily surrender" it so that they "dispose" of the hazardous materials.
     
  4. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    I bet the price of post security water and soda drops once they can't profiteer on this.
     
    phoebepontiac likes this.
  5. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    "That lobster bisque is in a can..." Who knows what madmen are creating factory sealed IEDs in cans with soup labels these days...:rolleyes::td:You can never be too safe, (or hungry, if you're TSA).
     
  6. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I would love to disagree with you, but in reality, this is most likely exactly what will happen. It takes time for the new equipment to be rolled out, and sadly it seems that everyone but the front line employees know what changes are coming - loooong before they are actually implemented. We are having people come through almost every day now with a buck knife or some other format of pocket knife, expecting it to be able to go through due to the rule change... that is evidently going to be shot down by Congress if the recent letters to Pistole are any indication (A lot of the bad press on this can be attributed to the Flight attendants/pilots Unions, and AFGE who representes some of the TSOs). If these are going to be the standard in the near (or not so near) future, then the rule changes do not even need to be mentioned until there is at least one of these in each of the checkpoints.

    I wish we would have a comprehensive review and streamlining of the prohibs list - there are tons of things on there that are not a threat to the plane or make it where the individual wielding the item can take control of the plane - anything outside of those two categories can pretty much be removed. I have been a staunch opponenet of the current LAG process, I am of the opinion that we should let all of them go, and test them if there is reason to be concerned. Pocket knives, hockey sticks, billy clubs, throwing stars, things of this nature are not going ot allow you to take over a plane, even under optimum circumstances. Guns are a bit harder sell, as most people have a freeze or flee reaction when confronted with the wrong end of a gun (seriously, the last time someone pointed a gun at you in anger, what did you do?). Most people stand there staring as if to say "this isn't really happening", while others (usually ones that have had some training to counteract just such an occasion) run like (expletive deleted) or dive behind something solid - while a very small amount pull their own guns out and begin to try and exert control over the situation... or just shoot the other person. That would make the sell on allowing guns in the cabin, very precarious indeed.
     
  7. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Snipped to shorten post. Refer above for context.

    I thought the xrays used for carry on had software that helped to identify if an items was a threat. Or does it just highlight organics or such.

    AFGE represents all TSA non-supervisory employees.

    Limitations to what can be taken onboard an airplane isn't really all to far from being correct know. It isn't only a question of taking command of the airplane but how much carnage one could do before being taken down. Guns, hand and long, should not be in the cabin except for very limited exceptions (LEO's). Golf bats, hockey sticks, lacrosse sticks, and things of that nature should not be in the cabin. Small knives I don't see as much of a threat especially given that TSA allows sharp scissors, knitting needles, and other such items. I understand that rifle scopes are not permitted currently but would be under the adjustments that Pistole was going to roll out. I see no threat from a rifle scope. Cup cakes in a jar, no threat. Water, soda, other liquids are such a low level threat as to be almost zero.

    The real threat to commercial aviation is TSA. A TSA that allows airport workers to enter the secure area without screening. A TSA that allows airport workers to bring in anything they want. A TSA that allows these unscreened airport workers complete access to airplanes and passenger baggage.

    TSA and its employees are the clear and present danger to me and everyone else who flies commercially.
     
  8. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    A TSA that hires thieves, thugs, and morons who answer "job ads" placed on pizza boxes.

    A TSA that hires former priests defrocked for sexual deviance.

    A TSA that hires ex-military personnel who've been discharged for various reasons without having picked up anything in the way of useful skills.

    The TSA and every single last one of its current employees need to just go away.
     
  9. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    So how's that whole hopey-changey thing going for you?
     
    Fisher1949 likes this.
  10. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Sheldon's mother?
     
    Caradoc likes this.
  11. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    It depends on the type of xray system. The older ones are still pretty much 70s tech with coloring added, some of the newer versions have threat alerts based on density and such. Most of the specs for the xray systems in use worldwide can be found on the net, with active descriptions of the abilities alongside. The best ones that I have had experience with are the CT systems. A pretty good description of the basic systems can be found here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/airport-security6.htm

    For the FEMA page on CT-80s, see here - https://www.rkb.us/contentdetail.cfm?content_id=179228

    For specs on the CT 80s, see SAICs page here - https://www.saic.com/products/security/reveal/

    As for regular checkpoint baggage xrays, Smiths presser here - http://www.smithsdetection.com/1025_3297.php - Atix specs here - http://www.smithsdetection.com/HI-SCAN_6040aTiX.php

    Indicates that the Atix (HI-SCAN 6040) does have automatic explosives detection capabilities, and with a $21 mil contract, there will be some of these still in use - even though the presser is from 2007. I am not certain of all the types of machines in use at all of the checkpoints nationwide. In some cases, you could have the Atix at somewhere like RDU, and 90 miles down the road in NC, they could have a completely different system in use. Each airport is trained and tested on the system in use at that airport, this has been the case since I came on at TSA, and back then we had the older Rapiscans that were a color software suite, but still essentially 70s tech. We have upgraded to a dual view AT system at this point, but I am not certified on those due to position, and do not have a lot of information on the models or specs for them.

    I agree with you on some of the items above, but the sticks and bats are not truly a threat to take over a plane, and most people will fight back now - plus with the limited room inside of most planes, using one would be difficult past a jabbing motion. I really would like to see a streamlining of the list, taking it to a more basic list, that would allow more focus on finding things that go boom. Of course, I am accused of being an eternal optimist, so what do I know?
     
  12. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I'm going to take the more conservative position. It's not just taking over the plane but also safety of the passengers. Items that make ready weapons should be restricted.
     
  13. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I agree that the safety of the passengers should be the primary to the equation, but if we look at thing through this POV, it would indicate banning most items on the planes. You know as well as I do, that almost anything can be turned into a weapon on the whim of someone creative. Just look at all the things prisoners make into weapons for an idea of things that even you and I wouldn't put together normally. As a personal POV, I think we are wasting time looking for little pocket knives and worrying about lacrosse sticks and things of the same ilk. It takes a ton of time, it could dtetract from paying attention to the really important stuff like bombs and guns, it costs the passengers additional money, and it earns us bad will (like we need any help in that department). If we took all this stuff off the prohibs list, and concentrated on the things that would cause mass damage, I think we would be better served and so would the passengers. Plenty of times I have had others post about how we take pocket knives and let things like steel knitting needles go, how the one is just as dangerous in the wrong hands as the other - and they have a point. I am not silly enough to think that mine is a realistic position, but it is what I would love to see.

    Just a side point I would like to make, the Union may represent me in negotiations (I am a TSO, and therefore technically designated as a covered employee), but they do not speak for me. You have heard my commentary long enough that you have some basic understanding of my positions. In the case of them posting a complaint about the changes, they do not speak for me, they speak their own positions. I can not find a link with the actual numbers on the voting and membership, but the numbers are not as wholesale as the Union likes to represent. There were 8903 votes to use AFGE, 8447 votes to use NTEU, and 3111 votes for no Union at all (this was during the selection process in 2011), and the most telling statistic was that less than 50% of the eligible employees voted at all. Another stat that I found interesting was that AFGE was claiming 10k members, that is less than 1/4th of the workforce at that time - and yet they won representation rights. The ratification vote for the contract (which was a yes or no vote) only drew 17326 for, and 1774 against - that is still less than half of the eligible workforce voting. To be perfectly honest, looking at the numbers, it shows a high rate of complete disinterest in the Union, and the masses being governed by the few at this point - very similar to the American public in general election situations.
     
  14. RB

    RB Founding Member

    The unions voice is much louder than yours and reaches people you can't.
     
  15. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Do you pay union dues/fees?
     
  16. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    Agreed, but that doesn't make me any happier with their position on this issue.

    No.
     
  17. RB

    RB Founding Member

    You may not be happy but the louder voice will likely prevail. Besides, I don't think Pistole has the balls to do what is right. Don't let us forget that Pistole signed off on Enhanced "Sexual Assault" Pat Downs for children so his decisions are questionable to start with.
     
  18. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    The problem is "What does Pistole really think is 'right?'"

    The other problem is people who choose to continue violating American citizens for a paycheck while pretending to be against the union that speaks for them.
     
  19. N965VJ

    N965VJ Original Member

    I just leave the liquids in my rollaboard. Even when TSA employees are specifically looking for liquids, they can't find them.

    Case in point; recently a TSA employee standing at the opening of the x-ray was droning on about liquids. He specifically asked me about liquids in my bag and I totally blew him off. He looked PO'd as I watched the last of my things go into the machine. He walks over to his fellow employee operating the x-ray, exchanges a few words with him, and they both stare intently at the screens as the operator manipulates the various views.

    You just know he was looking for liquids so he could call a secondary while teaching me a lesson about respecting his policeman's costume.

    There was one full mini tube of toothpaste, a half full one, a few liquor minis, some little bottles of Bath and Body Works lotion from my hotel that a lady friend likes, and... three raw eggs. (I usually try to stay at Homewood Suites or Residence Inns so I can cook my own food.)

    I was soooo hoping for that secondary bag check, thinking about what I would say:

    "Oh, noes! EGGS! Sombody could make an omelet!!" :td::eek:^

    But, sadly, my rollaboard came out of the machine without further incident, and I missed an opportunity to make the TSA look dumber than they are. :(



    Keep on chasing after things that are not a threat to commercial aviation. :rolleyes:
     
  20. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Is that even possible?
     
Tags: Rapiscan

Share This Page