TSA Rolls Out ‘Detention Pods’ At Airport Terminal

rmoore7734 · Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:02 pm

TSA Rolls Out ‘Detention Pods’ at Airport Terminal Exits ----> http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...remind-you-that-you-are-a-captive/

Quote from article "The new “exit” portals gulags at Syracuse Hancock Airport are bulletproof pods that are meant to make you feel like a prisoner who cannot leave."

Perhaps not near as bad as the TSA loudspeakers that threaten travelers with arrest for making jokes about security -------------------> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkWPMeLSk6M

Cubsrule · Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:09 pm

There's plenty that TSA does that deserves complaints, but how are these any worse than the variety of automated doors that various airports have now? At least they would seem to do away with the need for the obnoxious automated alarms that are necessary in the majority of current setups.

Birdwatching · Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:39 pm

How are they "detention pods" as your title suggests? Have you made that up? These gates don't "detain" you or anything. They just let you pass in one direction but not the other. I've seen it in many European counties where wages are higher and you can't just place officers everywhere like it's done in the USA.

Have you ever noticed the TSA agents performing this job? They sit on a chair and all they do is make sure everybody walks one way and not the other. What kind of a job is that? There are some jobs that are meant to be performed by machines. And this is one of them.

Soren

rmoore7734 · Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:44 pm

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 2):
How are they "detention pods" as your title suggests? Have you made that up?

Got it from this article that references the other ----> http://www.infowars.com/tsa-rolls-ou...on-pods-at-airport-terminal-exits/

jcwr56 · Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:11 pm

So watching the video...

It appears they've timed the doors to close and open just enough you're trapped for a second or two. Would be interesting to see in the event of a fire within the terminal how these would operate, or you had to evacuate the terminal quickly.

max999 · Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:18 pm

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 2):
How are they "detention pods" as your title suggests? Have you made that up?

I agree, the title of this thread is misleading. The wording makes it seem like the thread starter has an agenda to push.

And I've used these doors before, so there's no detention involved.

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 4):
Would be interesting to see in the event of a fire within the terminal how these would operate, or you had to evacuate the terminal quickly.

I'm sure like most other exit doors in modern buildings, the doors / locks in these things are tied to the fire alarm system. They would automatically open and unlock if something happened.

flyingcat · Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:19 pm

so in a way a more extravagant version of a revolving door.

Personally I think it's ok if not a little overdone. PHL has exit doors with sensors in a mini hallway arrangement. In a way this is more simplistic and takes up less real estate.

Will this eliminate the need to have a person stand around all day to watch people leave?

If so than it might be worth it however knowing government, conservative and liberal, this is likely a multi million dollar fix for a problem that costs far less.

Detention pods however is considerable overkill, I wonder how the tin foil hat crow would react to a phone booth.

flyingthe757 · Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:21 pm

We have them at the staff exit in T3. You stand on the pad in the middle, wait a few seconds and your out.

Saved a person having to sit here and monitor people going out and making sure no one came in that way

DocLightning · Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:24 pm

Quoting flyingcaT (Reply 6):
so in a way a more extravagant version of a revolving door.

Why not use one of those revolving cage doors that only allows traffic to flow in one direction like you see at theme parks and the like? Surely if the diameter is made large enough, it will accommodate a passenger with a roll-on.

Natflyer · Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:27 pm

I have seen a better system in Europe, f.ex in CPH. You walk through the first door, and keep on walking, and it closes behind you and the one in front opens. No delay. Simple.

UALWN · Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:58 pm

Quoting Natflyer (Reply 9):
I have seen a better system in Europe, f.ex in CPH. You walk through the first door, and keep on walking, and it closes behind you and the one in front opens. No delay. Simple.

It's like that in BCN too.

Rdh3e · Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:03 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
Why not use one of those revolving cage doors that only allows traffic to flow in one direction like you see at theme parks and the like? Surely if the diameter is made large enough, it will accommodate a passenger with a roll-on.

Agreed. This seems like the simplest solution. No high-tech gadgets to malfuntion etc. It is one way and that is final!

For those who don't know what we're talking about:

http://www.fta.dot.gov/images/APG33.JPG

Cubsrule · Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:06 pm

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 11):
Agreed. This seems like the simplest solution. No high-tech gadgets to malfuntion etc. It is one way and that is final!

And how much would a sufficiently large one weigh?

Rdh3e · Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:12 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 12):
And how much would a sufficiently large one weigh?

Not that much? Why is that even an issue given these are ground based? The whole thing is made from aluminum tubing. They are very fast and thousands of people use them daily at hundreds of transit stops across the nation. The "processing time" for a pax leaving is less than a second with something like this. So if you have to "wait a couple seconds" with the "pods" then these are 3 times faster already, reducing the need for additional units.

[Edited 2013-11-18 11:13:21]

Cubsrule · Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:18 pm

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 13):
Not that much? Why is that even an issue given these are ground based?

I've pushed through plenty of these, and some of them require quite a bit of effort to keep moving. I'm not convinced it's a better solution.

It seems to me that none of the revolving door-type exits will work for exits with large volumes of passengers.

Rdh3e · Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:19 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 14):
It seems to me that none of the revolving door-type exits will work for exits with large volumes of passengers.

Have you never commuted on a subway/cta? Larger volumes of passengers use those than use airport exits.

According to the CTA website, their rail ridership in 2010 was 210.85 million.

Chicago O'hare did only 67.03 million. So CTA ridership is roughly 3 times Chicago O'hare volumes.

[Edited 2013-11-18 11:23:51]

Natflyer · Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:24 pm

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 15):

Yes but not lugging everything INCLUDING the kitchen sink as "carry on" as the US airline industry has taught people to do.

Cubsrule · Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:31 pm

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 15):
Have you never commuted on a subway/cta? Larger volumes of passengers use those than use airport exits.

The analogy fails for a couple of reasons.

First, many (most?) CTA customers use the turnstyles and wheelchair 'doors' for egress. Second, most CTA passengers don't have luggage.

Rdh3e · Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:35 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 17):
First, many (most?) CTA customers use the turnstyles and wheelchair 'doors' for egress. Second, most CTA passengers don't have luggage.

Your shortsightedness is blinding you. Yes, many people do also carry their luggage on the CTA, I see them every morning, but that is not the point. The point is, the same concept could very easily be implemented much cheaper and just as effectively as this concept that is the topic this thread was about.

ADent · Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:39 pm

According to other articles (such as http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel...lanes-seattle-minneapolis/3003941/ ) the TSA says they will not guard the exit from secure passenger areas to the baggage claim. The airports have to guard that exit, or create a secure, one-way door system.

The USAToday link above shows a different design at SEA.

Cubsrule · Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:42 pm

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 18):
The point is, the same concept could very easily be implemented much cheaper and just as effectively as this concept that is the topic this thread was about.

But again, I'm not so sure it would be effective. To make them work for folks with luggage, they'd need to be large, and they already aren't great for high throughput areas. That's why CTA doesn't use them extensively.

rwessel · Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:47 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
Why not use one of those revolving cage doors that only allows traffic to flow in one direction like you see at theme parks and the like? Surely if the diameter is made large enough, it will accommodate a passenger with a roll-on.

If nothing else, those would approximately halve the capacity of a given width of doors (only half of the width of those can be used for people moving through). Also, the purely mechanical ones are going to be a handful for many people trying to haul several bags. Especially if you've got a cart. And while you can obviously mechanism those, you lose one of that design’s major advantages.

Quoting Natflyer (Reply 9):
I have seen a better system in Europe, f.ex in CPH. You walk through the first door, and keep on walking, and it closes behind you and the one in front opens. No delay. Simple.

How is that different than these? Except perhaps in size? The critical thing is that you can't reopen the inner door until the passenger passes the outer door, and the outer door closes. Or open the outer door until the inner door closes. With a longer hallway you're either going to have a longer cycle time, or you're going to need to admit groups of people (which might be a better idea anyway) to maintain capacity.

fpetrutiu · Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:57 pm

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 4):
Would be interesting to see in the event of a fire within the terminal how these would operate, or you had to evacuate the terminal quickly.

Both sides open up and is triggered by the fire alarm.

DocLightning · Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:39 pm

Quoting rwessel (Reply 21):
If nothing else, those would approximately halve the capacity of a given width of doors (only half of the width of those can be used for people moving through). Also, the purely mechanical ones are going to be a handful for many people trying to haul several bags. Especially if you've got a cart. And while you can obviously mechanism those, you lose one of that design’s major advantages.

But these are for passengers BEFORE baggage claim. Baggage claim is always outside the security cordon. Who is going to have carts?

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 22):
Both sides open up and is triggered by the fire alarm.

And there is the fatal security flaw.

Cubsrule · Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:41 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 23):
And there is the fatal security flaw.

Maybe, but isn't that a flaw with most of the existing systems now? It's certainly a flaw of human monitoring with no barrier.

max999 · Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:04 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 23):
And there is the fatal security flaw.

In most airport terminals I've seen, the emergency fire exits lead out directly to the tarmac or ramp. Wouldn't thousands of people running out onto the ramp be a bigger security flaw?

All the criticisms about these doors from calling it a detention pod to the fire issue are either pointless or not that serious. The advantage of these doors is so the TSA agent can be reassigned to a more useful post that requires more skill than sitting around watching an exit. I think we can all agree that automating a function that requires little skill has benefits for everyone.

[Edited 2013-11-18 13:10:23]

Rdh3e · Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:10 pm

Quoting max999 (Reply 25):
The point of these doors is so the TSA agent can be reassigned to a more useful post that requires more skill than sitting around watching an exit.

I believe it's so that you can just fire that guy. I also think this is the first time anyone has referred to the TSA as "skilled" labor.

max999 · Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:17 pm

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 26):
I believe it's so that you can just fire that guy.

You can look at it either way...automation has killed off a lot of jobs in every industry and it has moved a lot of people to different jobs which are higher skilled. All elevators were at one time manned by an attendant...I think most of those people moved on to other jobs.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 26):
I also think this is the first time anyone has referred to the TSA as "skilled" labor.

I'm all for making the TSA more efficient and I think technology can help. I'm unsure what your position is here...

[Edited 2013-11-18 13:19:36]

747megatop · Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:20 pm

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 2):
There are some jobs that are meant to be performed by machines.

There are a wide variety of jobs that a machine can perform and the list is increasing

. At some point in time the job of a commercial pilot may also fall in that category thanks to MBA wiz kids a.k.a bean counters if the laws allow that.

fpetrutiu · Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:29 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 23):
And there is the fatal security flaw.

Not really. In case of any fire alarm being triggered, the whole terminal area is considered as being not sterile in standard SOP. In other words, no aircraft can be boarded/departing/deplaned in that area until the area is back to sterile status.

DocLightning · Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:41 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 30):
Not really. In case of any fire alarm being triggered, the whole terminal area is considered as being not sterile in standard SOP. In other words, no aircraft can be boarded/departing/deplaned in that area until the area is back to sterile status.

If the alarm allows both doors to open at once, then there might be a way to hotwire it without the alarm actually sounding. It would take an inside job, but such things have happened before. And since the whole point is that the exit would be unguarded, then whoever is holding the "garage door opener" could get through undetected. If the solution is to guard the exit, then why have the expensive doors?

My sole issue is that these things look expensive and they have lots of electronic controls and moving parts to malfunction (I wonder how many people will get stuck in them when the exit doors fail to open). Now if they are actually going to save taxpayer money, then I'm all for them. But I see them not being as effective as envisioned and I see a significantly cheaper and time-tested alternative.

UALWN · Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:54 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31):
I wonder how many people will get stuck in them when the exit doors fail to open

None, based on the experience here in BCN. The system works just fine, and, no, it has not led to any security scare either.

aklrno · Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:58 pm

They are really very simple. It is well tested technology, and if one fails there will usually be several others side by side as backups. If you really want to see a detention pod, there are real security doors that trap you inside until a security agent releases you, or in some I've seen in the past, your outgoing weight is compared to your incoming weight to be sure you aren't leaving with something you didn't arrive with. These things have really been installed in high security locations.

As an addition to airport security I like the idea. That nearly sleeping guard at airport exits is bad security at a high price. I suspect that just a few weeks pay for 24 hour security would pay for a gate. The full cost for a line of gates will be recovered in a few months. All you need is one fool to run back into the secured area because he forgot something to close a terminal for an hour or two. It happens!

Amusement park or mass transit one way gates could work, but in both of those situations most people have a hand free to push them. That is often not true in airports. I usually have both hands full myself.

Where I live it is cold so many stores have double doors, many electric. That works fine, and has for decades. The TSA doors are just a variation on that to take up less space. Please stop searching for reasons why this is a bad idea until it has been tried for a while.

timpdx · Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:12 pm

Looks incredibly sloooooow. This really needs to be looked at for busy airports or at airports without an adequate area for the throughput of people. My local LAX would be an example of this, there is not enough width for enough of these style of exits, it would take as long to leave the airport as it would to get in. Right now the continuous revolving doors are fine now, if this exact type of door is mandated by the TSA, then there will be problems, I imagine.

vhtje · Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:49 pm

Having watched the video, I don't see how these are different to the exit doors that operate in any number of places around the world. One that springs to mind immediately are the one-way dual doors in the QF domestic terminal in Sydney. Once you are through both doors, you are landslide and need to clear security again to get back through - one cannot gain entry to airside through the exit doors.

It means they do not have to have a security guard standing by the exit. Really - it seems like a good idea to me, especially as they seem to work well.

I smell a right-wing media beat up, with a possible anti-TSA agenda.

gigneil · Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:53 pm

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 15):
So CTA ridership is roughly 3 times Chicago O'hare volumes.

Across 145 stations.

NS

ArmitageShanks · Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:54 pm

This madness has to stop.

flyingwithfish · Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:02 pm

The "portals" are not rolled out by TSA, they were rolled out by the airport. The purpose of these portals is to eliminate security breaches at the exits and reduce manpower staffing required at exits. Exits are prone to breaches and at most airports the staffing at the exit is a private, unarmed, security guard.

The TSA has a lot of things passengers can complain about, however these are not one of them.

Mortyman · Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:03 pm

We have something similare at airports in Norway, such as OSL and SVG when you enter the luggage carousel area from Your flight. Have had it for several years now. Nothing New.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 27):
Whew!! I thought the article was going to be about the TSA implementing the mini Guantanamo camps found in European Airports.

What are you exactly talking about ?

jpetekyxmd80 · Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:03 pm

Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 37):

This madness has to stop.

What madness? Sensible design?

Quoting rmoore7734 (Thread starter):

Quote from article "The new “exit” portals gulags at Syracuse Hancock Airport are bulletproof pods that are meant to make you feel like a prisoner who cannot leave."

You should be embarrassed at the BS you are precipitating. I know I would be.

ArmitageShanks · Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:10 pm

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 40):
What madness? Sensible design?

How about just put some doors there. Just a couple of regular ole sliding glass doors. This "security" culture is getting out of control.

jpetekyxmd80 · Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:16 pm

Because they want to keep someone from the outside getting into the secured airport area through the exit.... like they already do, except now without the person with the most boring job on earth looking on...

It's really quite simple. Or is any kind of security check at airports 'out of control'?

[Edited 2013-11-18 15:17:38]

mayhem · Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:18 pm

Not impressed at all by this system. Why on earth do you need to be locked up in there (even for a second), I am slightly claustrophobic, and really dislike this type of pods. They are simply too slow, and I hate having to stop in there and wait for the doors to close/open.

In BRU it is similar to BCN and others for the past 5 years, you have a longer walkway which opens and closes so fast that you can walk through, and the doors even remain open if other people come behind you as a continuous floor. It is intelligent enough to sense if someone changes direction or tries to go back, which sets of an alarm and closes the back door. That was an improvement, this is not.

rwessel · Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:22 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31):
If the alarm allows both doors to open at once, then there might be a way to hotwire it without the alarm actually sounding. It would take an inside job, but such things have happened before. And since the whole point is that the exit would be unguarded, then whoever is holding the "garage door opener" could get through undetected. If the solution is to guard the exit, then why have the expensive doors?

Well, sure, that could be a way for an insider to allow access to the sterile area. Along with the (already existing) hundreds of other methods. If you can "hotwire" the door hardware, why not "hotwire" one of the hundreds of "secure" doors used by staff with a PIN (via a keypad) or key card? Or give someone your keycard. Or just use the insider to smuggle things in. Or "fix" the sensitivity of a metal detector? Or build a new hidden door? Or...?

If your threat includes an insider with the ability to alter the infrastructure unobserved, you’re going to have big problems no matter what.

Indy · Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:37 pm

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 4):
It appears they've timed the doors to close and open just enough you're trapped for a second or two. Would be interesting to see in the event of a fire within the terminal how these would operate, or you had to evacuate the terminal quickly.

This is an absolutely horrible design and completely pointless. Someone got badly duped into paying for this. The nonsense we do as a nation to pretend to be safe. What this useless technology does is create the possibility of a bottleneck at the point of exit in case of an emergency. Are we supposed to hope and pray that the both sides of the system will open in the event the fire alarm goes off? What happens when you have an airport shooter and people are panicked and trying to get out and people are getting crushed at the door because the alarm hasn't sounded and the doors aren't opening fast enough. Just look at the Rhode Island nightclub fire to see what happens when there is any kind of problem at an exit. This is a completely nonsense obstruction and will add very little security.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 23):
And there is the fatal security flaw.

Yeah. Set off the alarm and the doors open up. But the completely dumb thing is that the airport has an entrance that can be used. Just go in that way and let this silly technology work to your advantage by trapping your potential victims. This stuff won't save a single life. It will, however, put people in greater danger in the event of an emergency.

I hope someone got a nice kickback on this deal.

usflyguy · Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:46 pm

Quoting max999 (Reply 5):
I agree, the title of this thread is misleading. The wording makes it seem like the thread starter has an agenda to push.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 40):
You should be embarrassed at the BS you are precipitating. I know I would be.

All you need to do is look at the title of the website from which he sourced the story...

rcair1 · Tue Nov 19, 2013 12:00 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
Why not use one of those revolving cage doors t

Luggage. Even the 'big revolvers' at many hotels in cold or hot climates are a bottleneck. In addition, a rotating door, by definition, is 50% less effective in using corridor space when you have 1-way traffic.

Quoting flyingcaT (Reply 6):
Will this eliminate the need to have a person stand around all day to watch people leave?

Quoting aklrno (Reply 33):
As an addition to airport security I like the idea. That nearly sleeping guard at airport exits is bad security at a high price.

An what a boring job...

Quoting Indy (Reply 45):
But the completely dumb thing is that the airport has an entrance that can be used.

Huh?

Fact is these were used in airports in Europe before 9/11 so before TSA existed. As I transited thos - I always thought how much better they were than "freddy the sleeping guard" in the US.

b727 · Tue Nov 19, 2013 12:46 am

I had the plesure of going thru one if these at KSYR (syracuse airport) What a pain in the ass. takes about 10 seconds for the door open, 4 or 5 people load in, then wait for rear door to close, about 20 seconds later the front door opens. Its a pain in the ass.

B727 Glenn

dtw2hyd · Tue Nov 19, 2013 12:58 am

So all this is to cut one TSA job "sitting on a chair reading magazine", while allowing unlimited free flow of outward foot traffic. These pods seem to be very slow.

YQBexYHZBGM · Tue Nov 19, 2013 12:59 am

As an engineer who previously lived near SYR and is all too familiar with its climate, these exit "pods" should be helpful for reducing heating, ventilation and air conditioning energy costs.

Al
YQBexYHZBGM

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net