Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by jtodd, Mar 19, 2013.
I can. There are only two possible reasons.
Not directly from TSA but this pile of is clearly not true.
So did Kulpin just make up these numbers or did TSA tell him this?
[quote="Rugape, post: 52949, member: 34"use of the AIT can cut down on the time needed to clear and get through the checkpoint.[/quote]
Do you mean like at Reno where the claim is being made that 1300 people can get through 3 MMWs in 10 minutes?
No, it is not a lie. The AIT runs about the same speed, maybe a little bit longer - by a factor of a couple of seconds at most, (at least here anyway) as the WTMD. Especially if you factor in the multiple walk throughs that are necessitated by people not getting metal off, families, and those with special needs. With the AIT, patdowns are done to clear the anomalies instead of an entire patdown (which would be the result after a WTMD alarm that was unable to be resolved). Even if we had the WTMD and wands back, the process with AIT would be less in general for what would generate an alarm. Having worked with both systems, I can tell you first hand, the AIT is about the same in general time. The limited patdowns for anomalies usually takes a couple of seconds, where as a hand wanding can take a couple of minutes. I would venture a guess that the average person that transits the AIT spends about 7-10 seconds going through, total. Most that have an anomaly run about 15-20 seconds, where as someone that alarms the WTMD and hs to undergo a patdown or even the HHMD are looking at about 2 minutes minimum, and that is with someone that is really efficient at the patdown/HHMD. I will say again, the AIT here runs about the same time frame as the WTMD or maybe just a shade slower.
I can't confirm nor deny those numbers. I will say, that if they have 3 AITs that can process 1300 passengers in a 10 minutes period, I would reaaaaallllllly like to have them here...
Yes, it is. When your POS "AIT" scanner flags seventeen out of seventeen people for "anomalies" in the small of their back due to sweat on a hot August day, any claims that the AIT is overall faster than previous scanning methods are purest horsepuckey.
It's an outright lie, and you know it.
So here you admit that the AIT is actually slower than the WTMD. Good for you, finally admitting something that bears a resemblance to reality.
In the two European countries where AIT was evaluated impartially PRIOR to its possible adoption, it was shelved:
Ireland prisons: 43% of test objects missed.
Hamburg airport: 54% of the time when it did "find" something, it was a false alarm.
And don't forget Jon's YouTube demos showing how to smuggle stuff through both MMW & X-Ray scanners.
The head of Israeli airport security dismissed the possibility of using scanners from the very beginning, stating you could get enough explosives to bring down a 747 through one.
Anyone who claims this is faster and better is delusional.
You are not factoring in the instances of stubborn individuals (like me ) who do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, pose spread-eagle naked for anyone... or anything. OPT-OUTS slow the system down, and there is a growing number of people who will OPT-OUT each and every time. Not to mention those who are unable to use this "advanced imaging technology" because of medical issues.
The thought of getting into one of those infernal machines creeps me out to no end, and I am appaled at the government's decision to use this expensive, ineffective, invasive method of screening!!! <RANT to be continued in my submission to the TSA's (tardy, and court-ordered) request for public comment on the "rule change.">
How many people who would have been able to go through the WTMD and/or be wanded are now forced into a full blown patdown for an ostomy bag or any other number of things? Can we compare that number to how many folks with metal knees or whatever used to have to get wanded but now use AIT? And how much longer does a wanding take than a patdown? (I've been wanded before. It was pretty quick.) These numbers should also play into the discussion of how long it takes to get through the scanner -- people who can't use it now seem to take a lot longer.
You also don't seem to acknowledge the human cost of your post-scan patdowns to resolve anomolies. Being forced under duress to allow some creepy aparachik to feel them over just some sweat tripped the not-so-smart machine is a reasonable thing to feel completely grossed out about.
Based on your best guess numbers from the post above if it takes 10 seconds to process one person then that would be 6 people per minute.
6 people per minute x 10 minutes = 60 people x 3 Strip Search machines =180 people every ten minutes. 180 people x 6 ten minute periods per hour = just a 1,080 people per hour using three Strip Search machines. Not very efficient.
I don't see how WTMD's could ever be slower and from personal observation I would say they are not. TSA is trying to sell a bill of goods that is rotten to the core.
Even without opt-outs, the AIT scanners take longer to "clear" any individual that presents no alarms at all than the WTMD for any individual who presents no alarms.
Which is why any claim that AIT is "faster" than WTMD is simply an outright lie. At this stage, there's no delusion possible. Simple observation of two lines - one WTMD, and one AIT - shows which one processes passengers faster.
Now, factoring in the sheer volume of false "anomalies," it can be clearly stated that the AIT isn't just "a little slower," but a *lot* slower.
Add in the simple fact that the AIT DOES NOT DETECT metallic objects in certain locations (including GUNS, as seen in the DFW case where they missed a gun on the body five out of five times), and it becomes absolutely clear that the AIT isn't about "safety."
Considering the source, unsurprising.
I didn't even consider the time it takes to enter the Strip Search Machine, the time it takes to assume the I Surrender Pose and then the time it takes for the machine to resolve the naked image of the suspect.
I suggest that everyone Opt Out and make the screeners feel everyone up. Quickest way to make the Strip Search machines go away. Refuse to use them.
For anyone who questions TSA's version of events I encourage everyone to read, view, and listen to the various media reports. Then tell me TSA is telling the truth.
TSA, honor comes last!
I might agree with that, if any TSA employee had the vaguest notion of what "honor" meant.
Mr. Anonymous at the blog certainly isn't listening to anyone about anything, is he, RB?
You mean the TSA employees who post as Anon? Flame 'em!!
"Starting today, injured service members no longer will need to remove their shoes, jackets or hats at airport security checkpoints, but they must call ahead to qualify for the perk...
TSA spokesman Nico Melendez said the change has been in the works for several months, predating a March 13 incident at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor Airport, in which service members accompanying a wheelchair-bound Marine complained of mistreatment by TSA screeners."
Sure, Nico, it's been in the works for several months.
NBC Nightly News said it was done in response to many complaints about poor treatment wounded servicemen receive at the hands of the TSA.
Don't know why it came out like this - I never asked for color. Oh well
coached by barbell to remove funky formatting.
But wait - hasn't the TSA said they've followed proper procedures and they haven't mistreated any service members? Sounds to me that if they're going to change the procedures for military they just admitted they have been mistreating them. But then, haven't they been mistreating ALL of us. And what are the "qualifications" for this "perk"? If it's like pre-check, well, good luck with that.
Really cause I find it a reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal far stretch at best. I have sat and watched TSA "screen" people (at ORD, DFW, SAT, AUS, HOU, DCA, IAD, BWI, SJU, LAX, JFK, MIA, EYW, and about 30 other airports since pervert-vision was installed) on average porno vision takes 2-10x longer then the WTMD and HHMD.
Separate names with a comma.