“...if there is an incident, then given the superior detection capabilities of CT, it is likely that a major replacement strategy will occur on an accelerated basis...”
lifted in two stages, for transiting passengers in 2011 while originating passengers will need to wait until 2013. The TSA on the other hand is looking to screen only “allowed liquids”, such as medication, and is not planning to remove the “3-1- 1” rules any time soon.
The Technology Multi-View AT X-ray adapted from HBS has now largely replaced the aging single-view X-ray systems in the US and Europe. How successful this will be from a detection perspective is unclear; the checkpoint threat is signifi- cantly tougher than for hold baggage, where, for several categories of explosives, ATs fell short in terms of false alarm rates and detection and were never deployed in the US. However, both the TSA and the Europeans now deem them suitable for cabin baggage screening; in the absence of anything more capable that meets operational require- ments. The TSA’s AT-2 programme aims to improve the
detection algorithms, although not necessarily in the same manner as in Europe. European regulators are working on cabin bag screening
standards and will likely adopt a similar approach they used for hold bag screening; different levels of detection standards with planned obsolescence over several years, but the standards will include human factors attributes, such as Threat Image Projection (TIP), and Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) and liquids inspection will be less technology specific. This approach will allow developers to focus their algorithms on what they do best, while driving nuisance alarms down and relying on operators to find those threats that the machines cannot, rather than being forced to adopt the HBS strategy of requiring the algorithms to detect everything, with high false alarm rates. This approach may have the added benefit of simplifying the operators’ ever more complex job. In the meantime, the AT automatic algorithms remain unused. An example of this strategy is a Canadian company, OptoSecurity, which is developing an add-on to existing AT systems to detect liquid explosives and conventional weapons. Other companies are working on algorithms specifically for laptop inspection. If successful, rather than having the operator only resolve automatic rejects, both the operator and the automatic AT will have parallel primary detection roles, simplifying the operators’ job considerably. This tactic of using the strengths of both operators and automation may be expandable to other threats and, if successful, this ability for companies to offer such upgrades could change the marketing approach for security systems, especially in poorer countries that lack resources to upgrade hardware. However, it may pose a challenge for regulators aiming to maintain consistency across various combinations of hardware and software from different vendors. More capable from a detection perspective is CT technology. TSA trialled compact baggage CT scanners from two companies, Analogic and Reveal Imaging, and Morpho Detection (which owns GE’s CTX product line) is releasing a high-speed compact CT that might have checkpoint applications. Manchester Airport also trialled the Reveal system, but has yet to adopt the technology. However, if there is an incident, then given the superior detection capabilities of CT, it is likely that a major replacement strategy will occur on an accelerated basis, in spite of it being more costly, larger and slower. For secondary search, or Level 2, there appears to be no
better short-term solutions for the cumbersome secondary search process, which is about to get more burdensome with rejects from liquids inspection and could easily become the bottleneck if detecting a wider range of threats leads to more rejects. Regulators are relying instead on next generation trace detectors.
Alternatives to X-ray Over the past 10 years, several manufacturers have inte- grated complementary technologies with X-ray and CT. One example is Rapsican’s QXR1000, a combined X-ray/ Quadruple Resonance (QR) system. QR is a radio frequency technique that detects plastic explosives regardless of shape and thickness but lacks the breadth of materials to be used
14 Register now for FREE instant access to ASI online by visiting
www.asi-mag.com August 2010 Aviationsecurityinternational
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75