Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Uk To Introduce Body Scans As Soon As Possible  
User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2689 times:

This is was annouced by the PM today. To be installed as soon as possible.

And here is a comment by the head of BAA

A spokesman for BAA said: "It is our view that a combination of technology, intelligences and passenger PROFILING will help build a more robust defence against the unpredictable and changing nature of the terrorist threat to aviation."

Some common sense in my view.

We should start will all US bound flights and IS carriers then extend it all other flights as soon as possible.

But could a body scan detect 80 grams of explosive?

Some people have argued that terrorist would swallow the explosives - but then how do you detonate it?

Maybe a body scan could make it possible to ban lighters and matches from aircraft which are required to detonate explosive. That would close another window of opportunty for terrorsit. That could the most effective use of body scanners! Body scan could also speed up security as it much faster then pat downs.

As for internal US I am told that there are 2000 security lanes in all US airports. If a body scannner costs $200,000 then you can have a body scanner at all security lanes for $400 million. That is less then $1 per passenger (about 650 million passengers travely domestically in US) It is also the cost of 2 boeing 777. If it speeds up security then airlines would be pay for it


At the risk of sounding complacent I really think body scans are the answer! Only a anti-aircraft missile has any realistic chance of bringing down a plane. And I think that would have attempted IN EUROPE long ago if it was possible

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGosimeon From Ireland, joined Jan 2008, 663 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2675 times:

So now I'm going to have to work out before I fly to keep a bit of pride.  Smile

Really though, I guess this makes sense. I'm not totally comfortable with the idea, but if it makes flying safer then so be it.


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2575 times:



Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
Maybe a body scan could make it possible to ban lighters and matches from aircraft which are required to detonate explosive. That would close another window of opportunty for terrorsit. That could the most effective use of body scanners! Body scan could also speed up security as it much faster then pat downs.

I'm no chemist but I feel there is probably a group of chemicals that when combined could cause an explosion with no matches necessary

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
If it speeds up security then airlines would be pay for it

With what money? Don't we already have a TSA fee to cover things like this?

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
At the risk of sounding complacent I really think body scans are the answer! Only a anti-aircraft missile has any realistic chance of bringing down a plane. And I think that would have attempted IN EUROPE long ago if it was possible

My understanding is that body scanners can't see anything inside the body. It won't be long before terrorists simply insert things up their.......you get the idea. You could have multiple individuals combine liquids or powders together on the other side of security to fashion a bomb.

While this technology would certainly help I know it won't be fool proof. The best line of defense will be FAMs, FFDOs, FAs, and vigilant passengers. I've simply been around the TSA too much to trust them with anything.


User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

I would have thought that the body scanners would be at the gate so no one can make a bomb on the air side of a terminal.

I am not sure if there chemicals that could cause an explosion by mixing which could be bought aboard an aircraft. But a ban on all chemicals and liquids should be maintained.

It is simply a matter of multiple layers of defence

layer one - intelligence to indentify potential suicide bombers before hand (no fly lists or list of potential terrorists who need full body searches before they board a plane)

layer two- passenger profiling (optional if you have the resources for greater then 50% random checks)

Layer three -ban on liquids or other non verifiable solid matter

layer four airport security (x rays of bags and metal detectors)

layer five body scans at gate

layer six vigilent passengers and cabin crew to pounce on any passenger acting suspiciously

For a terrorist to get through all layers and still be able to detonate a bomb is very remote my view (but not impossible)


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2462 times:



Quoting Eugdog (Reply 3):
I would have thought that the body scanners would be at the gate so no one can make a bomb on the air side of a terminal.

In Europe yes, not in the US but I guess since we are talking about the UK then you are right.

Quoting Eugdog (Reply 3):
I am not sure if there chemicals that could cause an explosion by mixing which could be bought aboard an aircraft. But a ban on all chemicals and liquids should be maintained.

What about carry ons? Would it be really that hard to hide explosive materials in travel size toothpaste, shampoo, etc.?

Again what stops a terrorist from hiding something up his butt and retrieving it onboard in the lavatory?

Quoting Eugdog (Reply 3):
For a terrorist to get through all layers and still be able to detonate a bomb is very remote my view (but not impossible)

Absolutely and I agree with the list, but terrorists are clever.


User currently offlineShamrock604 From Ireland, joined Sep 2007, 4160 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2458 times:



Quoting Eugdog (Reply 3):
I would have thought that the body scanners would be at the gate so no one can make a bomb on the air side of a terminal.

You answered your own question right here:

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
As for internal US I am told that there are 2000 security lanes in all US airports. If a body scannner costs $200,000 then you can have a body scanner at all security lanes for $400 million.

If one now needs to be at every gate, then you can multiply that cost several times.

Amazing that instead of instigating a proper Isreali style profiling system, we prefer to see people naked. Almost makes me think there's another agenda to introducing these machines.... it makes several other types of law / customs enforcement so much easier!



Flown EI,FR,RE,EIR,VE,SI,TLA,BA,BE,BD,VX,MON,AF,YS,WX,KL,SK,LH,OK,OS,LX,IB,LTU,HLX,4U,SU,CO,DL,UA,AC,PR,MH,SQ,QF, EY, EK
User currently offlineElite From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2006, 2793 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2452 times:



Quoting NorCal (Reply 4):

Absolutely and I agree with the list, but terrorists are clever.

And not only that, despite the possibility being very "remote", they only have to be lucky once.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7055 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2447 times:



Quoting NorCal (Reply 4):
What about carry ons? Would it be really that hard to hide explosive materials in travel size toothpaste, shampoo, etc.?

Well we all thought the 311 check were stupid, who would use tooth paste tubes to hide bomb making materials?  Smile

There is no magic bullet, we can be looking at a dying industry, what the US is attempting to do is to harden their requirements for entry into the US in order to preserve their domestic industry. The more difficult it is for domestic travel the less people will fly, presently the bulk of funds made by US carriers is within the US - I stand to be corrected -.
So spend money beefing up domestic aviation security or start working on better roads and trains, how much did the TSA cost?


User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4474 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2426 times:

I support this move. Very much so.

But sadly I think that even if we get airports pretty secure, the terrorists will just start bombing malls, markets, stadiums, etc...

It will never end. They're dying for their God, why would they stop? It's a shame.


User currently offlineRolypolyman From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2406 times:

Agreed... you can throw half a billion dollars at this problem but it only plugs one hole in the leaking sieve. How much more money do we need to throw into this black hole? With the next "incident" there is just going to be another half billion dollar kneejerk response.

User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2406 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 7):
So spend money beefing up domestic aviation security or start working on better roads and trains, how much did the TSA cost?

We essentially hired the same idiots we had before 9/11, doubled their pay, and gave them a badge and an attitude to go with it.

Of course if trains replace planes as the mass transit system in this country then terrorists will simply blow them up. Much easier to do IMO, how many thousands of miles of train tracks in remote locations would we have? Not that hard for a terrorist (they live in rough countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan) to hike to a remote area and plant C4. At least with planes you need sophisticated vehicle based SAMs to hit an aircraft at cruise.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 7):
Well we all thought the 311 check were stupid, who would use tooth paste tubes to hide bomb making materials?

That Saturday Night Live and TSA gangstaz skits weren't that far off the mark.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2950 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2402 times:



Quoting Eugdog (Reply 3):

I am not sure if there chemicals that could cause an explosion by mixing which could be bought aboard an aircraft. But a ban on all chemicals and liquids should be maintained.

Umm - my recollection of first year high school chemistry says that phosphorous, potassium, sodium (amongst others) ignite on contact with air. About half a gram should be enough - try finding that with a body scanner.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 4):
Again what stops a terrorist from hiding something up his butt and retrieving it onboard in the lavatory?

All body cavities must be inspected and secured shut before boarding and throughout the flight - including nose and ears  mischievous 



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2390 times:



Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 11):
All body cavities must be inspected and secured shut before boarding and throughout the flight - including nose and ears

Ummmm.........ouch!  worried   wideeyed   weeping 


User currently offlineB747-4U3 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 990 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2384 times:



Quoting Shamrock604 (Reply 5):
Amazing that instead of instigating a proper Isreali style profiling system, we prefer to see people naked. Almost makes me think there's another agenda to introducing these machines.... it makes several other types of law / customs enforcement so much easier!

I think that is where the problem is. I have no problem at all with these machines (in fact I was one of the people who used the machine during the trial at Heathrow in 2006). My issue is that this machine needs to be part of a much wider and deeper security effort such as can be found in Israel. If this machine makes other areas of security complacent then it will make security worse, not better.

The other question is, will this be used alongside metal detectors, or will it replace them? When I did the trial, I had to empty my pockets, go through this machine, put all of my belongings through the standard x-ray machine, and then go through the metal detector. If everyone had to do this it would make security lines even longer which I feel would be unacceptable. If these machines eliminate the need for a metal detector then it shouldn't add any time to the security checkpoint.


User currently offlineMMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

So governments around the world appeared to be prepared millions/billions to implement a "high tech" solution (why do we always look to technology to supply the answer?) which has some folks all wound up about invasion of privacy and yet governments tread softly and delicately around profiling because it might upset some political correcttness advocates. It is well beyond time to get real, we need (and have) several layers of protection in our aviation system one of those needs to be better intelligence and profiling. This means human eyes and ears on the ground, not just huge cumbersome databases that (apparently) don't talk to each other. I'm sorry if that means Muslims or Asians (or any other ethnic group you care to mention) are subject to addtional checks but last time I checked, the tiny proportion of people bent on blowing airplanes out of the sky had a Muslim connection. Not to say that everyone else gets a 'free pass' through security, we don't, we need to focus our resources on trying to identify upfront who is most likely to be a potential terrorist. A 25 year old Muslim male from Wisconsin who has just spent 3 months in Pakistan/Afghanistan/Yemen...yeah might be worth an extra pat down and investigation of luggage...an 87 year old Grandma from Kansas who doesn't have a passport but has 4oz of shampoo...may not top the list for TSA interrogation. The 99.99999999999999% of Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Agnostic, etc. travelers will continue to travel safely and securely in the knowledge they have done nothing wrong. it is the miniscule % we have to find.

We are looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. IATA claims around 6 billion passengers are flown around the world each year and we had how many terrorist incidents? We need to balance our risks and responses. There is no such thing as 100% security, even if we stripped searched everyone who came in contact with an aircraft (passengers, crew, ground staff, maintenance etc), made them wear only a coverall provided by the TSA, body searches and subjected every piece of cargo, baggage and carryon to a detailed inspection..the terrorist would still find a way to blow an aircraft out of the sky. Focus more of our resources on trying to find out more in advance on potential plots and take them our before they even get to the airport/aircraft. Tackling a terrorist on board an aircraft is the very last line of defence.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8187 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2340 times:

I went through the trials of body scanning at LHR years ago. At that time the technology was pretty good, but not exceptionally fast. I did get to see my last image (backside) and my comment to the guy who had to sit at the display all day was, "you poor S.O.B.". Not a pleasant job.

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
As for internal US I am told that there are 2000 security lanes in all US airports. If a body scannner costs $200,000 then you can have a body scanner at all security lanes for $400 million. That is less then $1 per passenger (about 650 million passengers travely domestically in US) It is also the cost of 2 boeing 777. If it speeds up security then airlines would be pay for it

Actually passengers pay for airport security with the taxes tacked onto their airfares. The last administration worked hard to pass the buck and the responsibility when TSA was started. The TSA should be funded with tax dollars, be federal employees who follow federal guidelines and, most of all, take responsibility.


User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2274 times:



Quoting Elite (Reply 6):
And not only that, despite the possibility being very "remote", they only have to be lucky once.

You are right but I think if we reduce the lost one one plane every decade I could live with those odds. As long more planes are lost through accidents then terrorist attacks then people would not be so fearful of a plane bombing.

But I think the pool of available suicide bombers is much smaller then you think. Only two suicides bombers have succesfully boarded a US bound plane in the entire decade. If terrorist try only a handful of times to board a plane then the odds could be in our favour for a zero success rate. if terrorist could make 100s of attempts then they are far more likely to get "lucky once". And that is why I think profiling is so important. It prevents multiple attempts.

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 8):
But sadly I think that even if we get airports pretty secure, the terrorists will just start bombing malls, markets, stadiums, etc..

That is true but that simply does not kill as many people as bring down a fully loaded plane. As I said before a suicide bomber on a plane is the only way a single suicide bomber could kill 200 + people. Even bombing a subway in London took 4 bombers and killed "just" 50+ people. Only a plane requires 80 grams of explosive to kill 100s of people!

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 11):
mm - my recollection of first year high school chemistry says that phosphorous, potassium, sodium (amongst others) ignite on contact with air. About half a gram should be enough - try finding that with a body scanner.

They ignite but not explode. And half a gram is not really going to do much harm!

Quoting NorCal (Reply 4):
Again what stops a terrorist from hiding something up his butt and retrieving it onboard in the lavatory?

But can a terrorist keep something up there for hours from check in to departure with out being noticed. But this where anti-terrorism experts need a solution to this problem


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2950 posts, RR: 28
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2245 times:



Quoting Eugdog (Reply 16):
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 11):
mm - my recollection of first year high school chemistry says that phosphorous, potassium, sodium (amongst others) ignite on contact with air. About half a gram should be enough - try finding that with a body scanner.

They ignite but not explode. And half a gram is not really going to do much harm!

Precisely my point - they can be used in place of a lighter/matches to ignite an explosive. I was responding to your own posts:

Quoting Eugdog (Thread starter):
Maybe a body scan could make it possible to ban lighters and matches from aircraft which are required to detonate explosive. That would close another window of opportunty for terrorsit.



Quoting Eugdog (Reply 3):
I am not sure if there chemicals that could cause an explosion by mixing which could be bought aboard an aircraft.




Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2950 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2239 times:



Quoting Eugdog (Reply 16):
But can a terrorist keep something up there for hours from check in to departure with out being noticed.

Drug mules and involuntary guests of Her Majesty do it all the time, sometimes for more than a day - I'll spare you the details.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7363 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2228 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Article from the Manchester Evening News regarding the scanners in use at MAN.

Of interest: "Airport bosses say the tide of public opinion is changing with passengers increasingly accepting of the device. A team of researchers conducted a survey of travellers from December 21-23, with 75 per cent agreeing to go through the scanner. But when they repeated the exercise after the failed attack, they found 92 per cent were willing to use the machine."


User currently offlineTravelExec From Spain, joined Dec 2007, 449 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2099 times:

Reason number 2,378 to avoid LHR in the future...

Wasted time and money. Terrorism relies on terrorising people. How many of us are terrorised away from flying right now? And how many of us believe that these scanners will make anything any safer than they are now? There is always a way if you really want to explode something.


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2024 times:



Quoting Eugdog (Reply 16):
But can a terrorist keep something up there for hours from check in to departure with out being noticed.

I don't know, but drug mules seem to do it. I'm sure they would do some kind of training for it......  vomit 

Quoting Eugdog (Reply 16):
But this where anti-terrorism experts need a solution to this problem

Everyone needs to take laxatives before flight?  Wow!


User currently offlineGosheto From Bulgaria, joined Jun 2009, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1986 times:

I am surprised no one brings up the question about the radiation one is subjected to, when passing through the new body scanners.

Sure, security, privacy issues, etc, but I myself prefer to be tapped down or get down with my boxer shorts, but I do not want to go through that radiation -- let alone doing that several times per week!


User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26846 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

Are planned airport scanners just a scam?

New technology that Gordon Brown relies on for his response to the Christmas Day bomb attack has been tested – and found wanting

The explosive device smuggled in the clothing of the Detroit bomb suspect would not have been detected by body-scanners set to be introduced in British airports, an expert on the technology warned last night.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html


User currently offlineMMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1962 times:



Quoting Gosheto (Reply 22):
I am surprised no one brings up the question about the radiation one is subjected to, when passing through the new body scanners.

Sure, security, privacy issues, etc, but I myself prefer to be tapped down or get down with my boxer shorts, but I do not want to go through that radiation -- let alone doing that several times per week!

It's absolutely not an issue. The level of radiation is about the same or less than an MRI and considerably less than the radiation you will be exposed to while flying for an hour or so. The scanners use millimeter wave radiation which is significantly less powerful than the radiation emitted by cellphones which use different frequencies of radiation.


User currently offlineEugdog From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1895 times:



Quoting OA260 (Reply 23):
The explosive device smuggled in the clothing of the Detroit bomb suspect would not have been detected by body-scanners set to be introduced in British airports, an expert on the technology warned last night.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk....html

If it is true then there is no defence against this sort of attack. I am not going on aboard any plane to the US until I am assured that there is some way to detect this amount of explosive. Not even profiling which I support is the going to protect me against this type of attack. It all very well to say that flying is a safer then houses but I live in the UK which has a large number of radicalised muslins. I just think that flying to US from the UK is far more dangerous then any other flying.

I just hope that the independent are just be try to sensationalistic by exaggerating the problem!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Continental To End Its AE & AS Partnerships posted Thu Jul 23 2009 16:45:03 by LAXintl
Australia To UK With Narrow Body? posted Wed Nov 12 2008 14:58:16 by F27friend
Airfares To Go Up Even As Oil Heads Down! posted Sun Aug 17 2008 18:26:12 by Blr2Syr
How To Find Registration Number As Passenger? posted Wed Dec 19 2007 16:25:21 by Jawed
Delta Expected To Name Richard Anderson As New CEO posted Tue Aug 21 2007 20:08:17 by Panamair
Ordering An Airplane Part As Individual, Possible? posted Thu Aug 16 2007 01:49:20 by HAMAD
AMS Using Body Scanning Machines As Of Today posted Wed May 16 2007 01:04:43 by BuyantUkhaa
UK Opposition Party To Introduce Flight Limits! posted Sun Mar 11 2007 06:46:44 by Kaitak
Why 20 Years To Use The 757 As Intended? posted Tue Oct 10 2006 09:36:37 by N328KF
Airports scheduled to see the A 380 as of now posted Thu Sep 14 2006 22:57:04 by Af773atmsp
AA To Cease Activities At BRU As Of 1 Nov posted Tue Aug 14 2012 08:06:42 by edoca
Additional AS/QX Expansion Possible 2011? posted Sat Dec 11 2010 19:21:49 by wedgetail737
Australia To UK With Narrow Body? posted Wed Nov 12 2008 14:58:16 by F27friend
Airfares To Go Up Even As Oil Heads Down! posted Sun Aug 17 2008 18:26:12 by Blr2Syr
How To Find Registration Number As Passenger? posted Wed Dec 19 2007 16:25:21 by Jawed
Delta Expected To Name Richard Anderson As New CEO posted Tue Aug 21 2007 20:08:17 by Panamair
Ordering An Airplane Part As Individual, Possible? posted Thu Aug 16 2007 01:49:20 by HAMAD