Coming soon to a Gen. Aviation ramp near you - TSA x-rays

wsuffa

wsuffa

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
23,615
Location
DC Suburbs
Display Name
Display name:
Bill S.
Just what we need: Link to article

Portable Unit Could Inspect Any Airplane On Any Ramp

The Department of Homeland Security has awarded a contract that should make every GA pilot sit up and take notice. Following a study of the general aviation "screening problem,".......
Click to expand...
 
I doubt they'd have legal authority to perform such a search except in customs for international flights.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
I doubt they'd have legal authority to perform such a search except in customs for international flights.
-harry
Click to expand...
I'd have thought they wouldn't have legal authority for a virtual strip search or pat-down just to board a plane either.
 
mantakos said:
I doubt they'd have legal authority to perform such a search except in customs for international flights.
-harry
Click to expand...

Why? They have legal authority to do it now for domestic flights. If this really did work out, then I can easily see them doing it. They'll start with 135s and business aircraft. I'm afraid a freight train like that will be hard to stop -- after all, it's for the kids.....:incazzato::mad2:
 
mantakos said:
I doubt they'd have legal authority to perform such a search except in customs for international flights.
-harry
Click to expand...

They're already doing it to trucks and cars on the highway. They must think they have the authority to do it for anything.

Ah, but what's the loss of a few freedoms, anyway, if it keeps us safe? :rolleyes2:
 
Is there much debate that X-Rays are damaging to humans? I don't believe that this is seriously being debated.

Given that, how can they possibly be allowed to injure random people, be it on highways or anywhere else, without their consent? At least you consent to this if you step into a scanner at the airport, but this isn't similar since there is no informed consent at all.
 
I'm not sure that consent with airline scanners is all that "informed."

As for x-raying airplanes, it seems to me that would be rather limited in effectiveness with the metal ones.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm not sure that consent with airline scanners is all that "informed."

As for x-raying airplanes, it seems to me that would be rather limited in effectiveness with the metal ones.
Click to expand...
Agreed that most people are completely uninformed. Otherwise, they wouldn't go through those things.

But I don't know that this would be of little effectiveness. Increase the radiation dose = better resolution. Something to think about :O
 
The article says they will be backscatter scanners, the premise of which is that they backscatter from the skin, and thus don't significantly penetrate the body. If human skin is enough to backscatter the radiation, it's not going to get through a metal fuselage except where there are windows.
 
Palmpilot said:
The article says they will be backscatter scanners, the premise of which is that they backscatter from the skin, and thus don't significantly penetrate the body. If human skin is enough to backscatter the radiation, it's not going to get through a metal fuselage except where there are windows.
Click to expand...

The few photos that have been found of the images generated by backscatter indicate that they show bones. That's far deeper than the TSA wants to admit. There is no recurrent testing or independent measurement of these devices.
 
sba55 said:
Is there much debate that X-Rays are damaging to humans? I don't believe that this is seriously being debated.

Given that, how can they possibly be allowed to injure random people, be it on highways or anywhere else, without their consent? At least you consent to this if you step into a scanner at the airport, but this isn't similar since there is no informed consent at all.
Click to expand...

It's for the kids....
 
Hitler had an overreaching security agency.
 
Palmpilot said:
The article says they will be backscatter scanners, the premise of which is that they backscatter from the skin, and thus don't significantly penetrate the body. If human skin is enough to backscatter the radiation, it's not going to get through a metal fuselage except where there are windows.
Click to expand...

What those claims of non-penetrating radiation overlook is you're now concentrating the dose to the skin. The threshold theory of radiation damage (i.e.; there is an energy deposition threshold below which no biological damage from ionizing radiation can occur) has never been fully accepted by the scientific community.

No one ever dies from melanomas....right. :cool2:
 
I think the system in question is for scanning the aircraft itself (similar to the ones used to scan trucks and cargo containers), not people. I can't fathom what legitimate purpose this would serve since there are no restrictions on what can be carried on a GA aircraft. Their use would be no different than scanning peoples private cars or RVs. If they want to scan your plane (or car), just say no.
 
mantakos said:
I doubt they'd have legal authority to perform such a search except in customs for international flights.
-harry
Click to expand...

There are a lot of good arguments that could be made against this search being constitutional. A technology that physically intrudes, lack of any suspicion whatsoever, lack of any significant demonstrated need (we can reasonably leave aside things like that guy flying the plane into the IRS building), etc.

Nevertheless, it's already well-established that you have a reduced expectation of privacy in a car. For instance, a police officer doesn't have to have any cause whatsoever to walk a dog around your car in the hopes of finding drugs.

It wouldn't be much of an extension for a judge to say something like, "m'eh, your plane is parked on public property, you're going to be using it nearly exclusively within public property, they could do the same thing by walking up and looking through the windows, therefore no expectation of privacy from this kind of search, no constitutional protections here."

I'd say it's more likely than not that the validity of this would be affirmed, if it comes to pass and if it's challenged.
 
I can't figure out what the heck they would find with this scanner that would be illegal to carry on a general aviation aircraft. I don't think that type of scanner detects illicit drugs, does it?
 
Palmpilot said:
I can't figure out what the heck they would find with this scanner that would be illegal to carry on a general aviation aircraft. I don't think that type of scanner detects illicit drugs, does it?
Click to expand...

They look for hidden compartments or masses where one would not expect them (something solid in the fuel tank for example) when they x-ray trucks at border crossings to catch drug smugglers.

I would assume they would be looking for something similar in aircraft. With the additional possibility that someone might have filled their Cessna 150 with 6000 pounds of explosives to turn it into a weapon of mass destruction.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Life is beginning to seem like one of those post-apocalyptic sci fi movies of the 70s. Maybe "A Boy and his Dog" or something.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm on a Heston kick.

Soylent Green
The Planet of the Apes
The Omega Man
 
Ken Ibold said:
Life is beginning to seem like one of those post-apocalyptic sci fi movies of the 70s. Maybe "A Boy and his Dog" or something.
Click to expand...

"She had good taste..." :wink2:
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
They look for hidden compartments or masses where one would not expect them (something solid in the fuel tank for example) when they x-ray trucks at border crossings to catch drug smugglers.

I would assume they would be looking for something similar in aircraft. With the additional possibility that someone might have filled their Cessna 150 with 6000 pounds of explosives to turn it into a weapon of mass destruction.
Click to expand...

A 150 carrying 6000 pounds will get off the ground???
 
wsuffa said:
The few photos that have been found of the images generated by backscatter indicate that they show bones. That's far deeper than the TSA wants to admit. There is no recurrent testing or independent measurement of these devices.
Click to expand...

Hmpph. And if you come out the machine claiming you're suddenly blind they'll bring the local cop over to arrest you for interfering.

(Thinking of the diathermy machine that had a user interface flaw that made it easy for the operator to make the dose 10x or 100x what was prescribed and microwave the patient until their blood boiled.)
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
If they try that, I will blast them back with the on-board radar.
Click to expand...

This sounds like another good reason for me to upgrade planes. I'm going to toss this in the mix when I pester Mrs Flyersfan. "But if I had radar I could teach those jackwagons a lesson their DNA would never forget!!!"
 
TSA finally admits that the backscatter is more powerful & sees more than they originally let on: Link to TSA document

(4) the x-ray technologies penetrate the skin sufficiently in some instances to reveal matter that lies adjacent to but beneath the surface of the skin (for example, shin bones);
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top