"Women refuse to go through airport body scanners"
in [UK Air Travel]
|
From: Colum Mylod on 4 Mar 2010 12:38 On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:28:38 +0000, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: [Schiphol fancydancy scanners] >Is there an option to go through a conventional arch? Big plastic barriers cover both arches. Someone might try to ask. .... >One justification is that they are faster - I've even seen claims that >you don't need to empty pockets, because they can see what the offending >(and innocent) item is (but see above). No, it is definitely empty all pockets to a higher degree than the usual - I normally can get through with the vital pp in the shirt pocket, this time no. And the belts come off too, all belts - which means we blokes do not clear the other side before we re-hitch them trousers! If I had to identify one item that causes people to ignore grumpy staff and "reload", it is the trouser belt. -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com
From: Roland Perry on 4 Mar 2010 12:53 In message <3mrvo5tpmddnm2n8uo2jpguduetud48j53(a)4ax.com>, at 17:38:51 on Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Colum Mylod <cmylod(a)bigfoot.comREMOVE> remarked: >>One justification is that they are faster - I've even seen claims that >>you don't need to empty pockets, because they can see what the offending >>(and innocent) item is (but see above). > >No, it is definitely empty all pockets to a higher degree than the >usual - I normally can get through with the vital pp in the shirt >pocket, this time no. And the belts come off too, all belts - which >means we blokes do not clear the other side before we re-hitch them >trousers! If I had to identify one item that causes people to ignore >grumpy staff and "reload", it is the trouser belt. This is one quote I can find: "The scanner, made by the firm RapiScan Systems, speeds up the passenger check-in process, who will not have to remove their coats, shoes or belts." I've conflated the "not removing coats" with "not removing things from the coat pockets either", although that's how many people would read such a thing. -- Roland Perry
From: Neil Williams on 5 Mar 2010 04:40 On Mar 4, 6:53 pm, Roland Perry <rol...(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > I've conflated the "not removing coats" with "not removing things from > the coat pockets either", although that's how many people would read > such a thing. I would be strongly in support of the new scanners if they removed the need to remove coats, belts, empty pockets etc. (I usually stick things in my coat pocket and put it through the X-ray machine, so if you have to empty pockets it's no better). But I suspect they won't, so they will just mean added inconvenience. Neil
From: Roland Perry on 5 Mar 2010 04:58 In message <e592d45d-4808-4a69-9fd4-ec37ba40bde9(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, at 01:40:31 on Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Neil Williams <pacer142(a)gmail.com> remarked: >> I've conflated the "not removing coats" with "not removing things from >> the coat pockets either", although that's how many people would read >> such a thing. > >I would be strongly in support of the new scanners if they removed the >need to remove coats, belts, empty pockets etc. (I usually stick >things in my coat pocket and put it through the X-ray machine, so if >you have to empty pockets it's no better). > >But I suspect they won't, so they will just mean added inconvenience. I think the manufacturers (and people trying to "sell the idea" to the public) think they ought to work like that, but for some reason the people operating the machines at the airports are firmly stuck in their "empty it all out" rut. I'd have some sympathy if that was to simplify the "pat down" for people failing the test, although surely the operators will say to the patters "look in his left trouser pocket" when they see whatever it is they are trying to look out for. In other words, exactly the same modus operandi as when the conventional x-ray machines spot something odd and the bag is selected for hand searching. That happened to me recently, and they homed straight in on... my spare laptop battery. "Oh is that all ... go ahead then". -- Roland Perry
From: Colum Mylod on 5 Mar 2010 06:12
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 09:58:40 +0000, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: .... >I'd have some sympathy if that was to simplify the "pat down" for people >failing the test, although surely the operators will say to the patters >"look in his left trouser pocket" when they see whatever it is they are >trying to look out for. The scans show your corpse in grey with harder items (belt, passport, shoes) in yellow. All items. Wallets, pens, even a plastic card. A coat could easily mask something nastier - book in left coat pocket, knife in trouser pocket. It would show as a yellow splodge onsceen and could cause the bods to check the distracting coat pocket. In other words, the marketing droids have been busy again spreading their evil weeds of whatever-it-takes! Coats definitely come off. And you have to raise both arms high, which doesn't make sense if the Thing could see through flesh to id nasties. A tissue of expensive lies I fear. BAA could get away with it with centralised security and a general disregard for the victims' loss of time to go airside (retail "oportunities" be damned in the BAA all-be-damned approach). For Schiphol, for LCY and the new LGW those boxes are going to be trouble. The something must be seen to be done becomes delay. Airports have a death wish.. -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com |