[S.B.Nichols]

Flew out of DFW International on Monday and they had a one set up right next to the normal magnetic machine. After the identity checkpoint you got to pick a line. I actually wasn't paying attention and got in the wrong line at first; when I realized which line I was in I moved to the next one...I had my 11month old son with me and didn't know if they'd let him go through with me.

What struck me was how slow the backscatter line was moving. For about every 4 people moving through the normal line you had 1 move through the backscatter.

At the Indianapolis airport they had 4 magnetic machines and one backscatter, but the backscatter was closed and covered in bright yellow tape.

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Are there enough dogs?

Last I checked, dogs are more than happy to make more dogs for you. That's an easy problem to fix.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

beagles would be perfect for that. Personally, I trust beagles a heck of a lot more than the TSA.

A lot of the really good nose driven dogs could do this that are not large. Rottweilers and dobermans are not what you would want for something like this. You could use them like customs does to detect drugs and produce. And they would have caught the shoe bomber and underwear bomber.

Absolutely. You could use beagles, as well as a large variety of other dogs.

Around here, the Washington State Patrol uses some of their German Shepherds at the ferry terminals to sniff the cars as they wait to board. One dog can cover an entire parking lot full of cars in a matter of minutes. I bet one dog could work at least 4 times as quickly as any of these scanning machines, and be vastly more accurate, much safer, less invasive, and less expensive while doing it.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by mulletman

Last I checked, dogs are more than happy to make more dogs for you. That's an easy problem to fix.

I assume it would take a special type of breed for the job, and a long training process. And enough handlers. I think the reason that they want machines, is at least partially, that machines are seen as reliable, predictable, and a fixed cost. You buy em once, and depreciate em for 5 years until you get a new one. Dogs and handlers seem to have an unknown component. Handlers may cost different amounts of money, do their job inconsistently, and perhaps unionize, creating an unknown expense variable.

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I assume it would take a special type of breed for the job, and a long training process. And enough handlers. I think the reason that they want machines, is at least partially, that machines are seen as reliable, predictable, and a fixed cost. You buy em once, and depreciate em for 5 years until you get a new one. Dogs and handlers seem to have an unknown component. Handlers may cost different amounts of money, do their job inconsistently, and perhaps unionize, creating an unknown expense variable.

Special breed, kinda. There are many breeds that would be more than capable of accomplishing this. Training, yes... I do not know how long training would take. The handler problem would be taken care of if the TSA were abandoned, and we went back to who was doing the security before the TSA. In Seattle, it would be the Port of Seattle Police. If you need to hire more cops, fine. That's a known job with a known cost. Also, the police force is already familiar with the use of dogs in this role. Sure, the cost may be a bit higher for a security checkpoint. Higher than the cost of the entire Department of Homeland Security/TSA? Doubtful. You know what TSA stands for don't you? Thousands Standing Around.....

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Handlers may cost different amounts of money, do their job inconsistently, and perhaps unionize, creating an unknown expense variable.

You can have these same issues with a person running a machine.

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

You can have these same issues with a person running a machine.

Good point. Furthermore, we don't actually know how much the current machines cost (well, I don't know, personally...), and can't really compare the costs. Its very probable money could be saved by using dogs and handlers.

Edit : also, does it really matter that much? At least going by current views on keeping America safe from terrorism. Isn't that the justification for using these machines and patting children down?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I assume it would take a special type of breed for the job, and a long training process. And enough handlers. I think the reason that they want machines, is at least partially, that machines are seen as reliable, predictable, and a fixed cost. You buy em once, and depreciate em for 5 years until you get a new one. Dogs and handlers seem to have an unknown component. Handlers may cost different amounts of money, do their job inconsistently, and perhaps unionize, creating an unknown expense variable.

beagles do this kind of work, as do bloodhounds, heck, my OEB could do this. (I know bulldogs are not renowned for their noses, and would be a public relations nightmare, but she has enough of a nose to) I can think of probably 30 dogs that could. Beagles though have been in use in airports for this in international terminals for years though, plus they have the advantage of being cute and non-threatening, and have lethally accurate noses.

A trainer with a beagle could probably replace a very expensive machine and 3-4 people operating it. Besides, dogs tend to be less biased.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Thrash

Good point. Furthermore, we don't actually know how much the current machines cost (well, I don't know, personally...), and can't really compare the costs. Its very probable money could be saved by using dogs and handlers.

Edit : also, does it really matter that much? At least going by current views on keeping America safe from terrorism. Isn't that the justification for using these machines and patting children down?

It is the justification being used, when in fact it is a weak measure that is invasive and ineffective. I would prefer an effective, but non-invasive measure especially when it exists.