Airline Passenger Security Screening New Technologies and Implementation Issues (1996) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 PASSENGER SCREENING TECHNOLOGIES
3 PASSENGER SCREENING TECHNOLOGIES
Pages 13-21
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 13... ...
The system used to identify people who could be a threat is illustrated in figure 3-1, which identifies five types of people who could pose a threat to an airplane, ranging from naive terrorists, passengers who are unaware that they are carrying dangerous objects, to suicide terrorists who intentionally carry dangerous objects to destroy the airplane and ~i everyone on board, including themselves. El Al has also developed psychological profiles of these individuals and a passenger-interrogation technique designed to identify them during check-in and before boarding.
|
From page 14... ...
Although these technologies cannot detect objects concealed inside the body or in skin flaps, they are being considered for airport passenger screening because they would enable air carriers to screen for a wider variety of materials than they can with present screening systems. Two technologies under consideration use either x-ray or millimeter (or submillimeter)
|
From page 15... ...
Images of this type reveal items a passenger might normally carry, such as a wallet, keys, a pocket knife, and belt buckles. Effective image analysis and interpretation requires these and other common and nonthreatening items to be distinguishable from threat objects.
|
From page 16... ...
As in passive imaging systems, the presence of these nonthreat items makes images produced by x-ray imaging systems difficult to analyze and interpret. Assessment of Imaging Technologies The effectiveness of these technologies depends on how distinct the threat objects can be made against the background and how much of the body can be screened.
|
From page 17... ...
Vapor technologies are more effective for detecting explosive materials with high vapor pressures, while particulate technologies are more appropriate for explosive materials with low vapor pressure, such as military plastic explosives.
|
From page 18... ...
In general, contact methods focus on gathering particulates of explosive material from the hands or clothing of the subject. Noncontact methods may use the air stream to dislodge particles, or they may distill a sample of explosive vapor from the air stream.
|
From page 19... ...
NONIMAGING ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNOLOGIES Nonimaging electromagnetic screening technologies are used in places as diverse as libraries, court houses, schools, to Determine ~t the sample contains any explosive materials. sports stadiums, and clothing stores.
|
From page 20... ...
The health and safety concerns associated with these devices are minimal, and their widespread use in airports apparently elicits little negative reaction from passengers. Nonimaging electromagnetic screening technologies are unable to detect nonmetallic objects or materials.
|
From page 21... ...
The intensity of the incident beam could also be increased, but this could lead to increased passenger concerns about exposure to radiation. Similarly, a more aggressive sampling for trace detection could lead to a higher rate of positive identification of explosive materials, at the expense of making the sample-collection phase more personally invasive to the passenger.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.