Airport Security

[peter_muller1]

Had a bad experience last week at an airport security station where

they refused to visually check my film, and demanded that it be put

it through the x-ray machine because the ASA was not above 800. I

acted professionally, encouraged them to open the two new cassette

cans, but to no avail. I understand that a number of professionals

have resorted to FedEx'ing their film ahead, then FedEx'ing it back

home, but that is not always practical. There are a lot of pro and

amateur photographers out there whose voices should be heard.

Clearly, air safety is critical, but there should be some

reasonableness and common sense applied as well.

[eric friedemann]

When you give half-witted, high school drop-outs the power to make others' lives miserable, they will. This is true at departments of motor vehicles and now its happening at airports. Read:

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20011122.shtml

[thomas_diekwisch1]

Eric, I couldn't agree with you more. You hit the nail on the head.

[steve_swinehart]

And I suppose everyone was expecting magic to happen once they became federal employees?

[eric friedemann]

Nope, I fully expect that almost all of the same people now working for private security firms will be rehired by the federal government as airport security guards, will be paid more (at the expense of higher taxes or ticket prices) and will act worse toward the flying public, as it will be harder to get them fired.

[dfdncithekxlbn8kaglf33]

<i>encouraged them to open the two new cassette cans</i>

<p>

You can't nor should expect them to open all your contraptions up to inspect something. You must strip the film to the barest possible. This means film out of boxes and out of containers in a plastic zip-lock. Only then might you get a hand inspect.

[david_henderson]

Why didn't you just put it through the machine?

[paul_ashton]

Welcome to the bleeding hearts "I demand to have my film

inspected" club. You have provoked the usual comments about

security personnel being dumber than dumb, etc. Such

arrogance!

 

There continue to be two trains of thought on film inspection on

this site. On the one hand there are the "I demand my rights

people" who do nothing but complain but never actually give

examples of their film having been fogged. Then there are those

who know that several passes through through an x-ray

machine has no effect - plenty of examples of such statements

in the archives. My most conclusive evidence was for Fuji Astia

x-rayed seven (7) times on an 8-leg trip to Africa and back. No

discernible fogging, period.

[eric friedemann]

The CTX machine in the story is now used all over the U.S.:

 

Times Newspapers Limited, February 6, 1998

 

Attenborough film wiped at airport

 

By Jason Nisse and Claire Cozens

 

Five weeks' sweat and toil for David Attenborough's television crew filming part of The Life of Birds in the jungle of Papua New Guinea has been rendered useless by an airport security system.

 

Their film was among luggage checked into the hold, but it was damaged by X rays as it left Manchester Airport. The damage caused by the Pounds 600,000 scanner, which is also in operation at Heathrow, has angered the BBC so much that it is considering legal action.

 

Phil Hurrell, the assistant producer, said: "I don't want to get blown up, but there should be a warning about the possible damage to your film."

 

In-vision Technologies of California, the manufacturers, say the CTX 5000 is the only scanner which can detect explosives. "Our machines will stop a disaster like Pan Am 103," said a company official. "It is up to the airports to warn people about damage to film."

 

The airports say that they were not aware of any damage to film.

 

A combined test by BAA, the airports operator, Kodak, the film manufacturer, and the Transport Department in 1993 showed that there was little risk of unexposed films being harmed. However, the CTX 5000 was not included in this test.

 

Kodak recently warned professional photographers that there could be a problem with new security systems.

 

Both BAA and Manchester Airport said it was up to airlines to warn passengers not to put unexposed film in baggage in the hold and that in any case they were not sure it would harm all films.

 

However British Airways said it had not been informed that there was a problem to tell passengers about.

 

 

According to Vivid, the systems manufactured by the company meet the US standards for Cabinet X-ray systems, which limit the exposure to articles under inspection to 1.0 mR per inspection. All Vivid systems are below 0.25 mR per inspection, with the vast majority of its 230 EDS deployed around the world, below 0.15 mR per inspection, says the company.

[Spearhead]

The CTX machine is used for checked baggage only. Although there have been rumors that they will be put into use for carry-on bags, but that probably won't happen for quite a while for a variety of reasons.

 

I've stood in other countries with people with machine guns pointing at my bags and asked to open them or put through x-ray. After that, what goes on here seems minor.

[kevinconnery]

Yes, Paul, there are amazing numbers of people who demand--or at least try to demand--that employees follow the regulations their companies are required to follow.

 

The current FAA regulations still require inspection when requested. They don't say you have to DEMAND them, it doesn't say you're a criminal if you request what the federal agencies REQUIRE from the inspection organization. On Feb. 17, 2002, there was a significant update to the security regulations [TSA 1544, specifically 1544.211.e.4] that says "If requested by individuals, their photographic equipment and film packages must be inspected without exposure to an X-ray system."]. Note that these are not'tips', 'recommendations' or 'requests' they're federal regulations that all approved agencies are REQUIRED to follow.

 

You may choose to call people bleeding-hearts for trying to prevent non-governmental employees from violating the regulations; I'd be just as inclined to see it as preventing those employees from taking actions that jeopardize their firm's certification. (Well, as well as acting as a typical American who insists that the so-called rights the government says the citizens have actually be paid attention to, and minimizing easily avoidable excess exposure to x-rays to film.)

 

Again, the law requires that these procedures be followed. It's not a remnant from the halcyon days of September 10th; it's a regulation updated specifically to handle issues arising from the events on Sept. 11th. [Not that it actually has any impact on that, but that's their stated claim.]

[alan_krantz]

Eric get real. It is well known (at least on photo.net) that you should not put film in luggage. That is NOT THE SAME as the little scanners they use at security points for carry on luggage.

 

Why the red hearing ?

[eric friedemann]

Alan, if your read Paul's comment, to which I was responding, he seems to address x-ray machines generally; not limiting his comment to carry-on baggage. As such, I reprinted the article.

 

You are a cranky fellow. Have a martini, take a poop and relax.

[paul_ashton]

Kevin, you can throw all the regs at me you want, I've read them

many times over on this site! What I would really like to see is an

example of a film, say ISO 100 speed, that has been fogged by a

carry on bag x-ray machine. Of course it would also be useful to

know just how many times the film was passed through the

machine and whether or not the operator stopped the belt in

order to double check for a suspicious object, etc. That may be

much too much to ask for when it is soooo much easier to just

complain to what is largely a like-minded audience that doesn't

expect to see any evidence.

 

OK, enough said. Got to go to the airport!

[seth_hamstead]

I do not think that anyone is claiming that scanning 100 is necissarily a problem, but some of us use higher rated film that is a problem. I myself have refused to put Delta 3200 through a baggage scanner and think that I was right to do so. Paul, why don't you do an experiment for us. Take some film of various speeds (100,400,800,1600,3200) to the airport. Have it go through the scanner. Spend some good time taking pictures you would enjoy coming out and report back to us which ones actually did come out. I would bet that the 100 would, the 3200 would not. The others, I am not too sure about.

[lawrence_title]

Come on guys, lets grow up.

 

Peter is asking a simple question that bothers many

photographers (amateurs and pros). On Sept 10 or before, my

experience was that any N. American airport would agree to a

hand inspection of film. As for Europe, most centers (esp.

Heathrow, Paris etc) wouldn't let you get on the plane without

passing everything through X-ray. I haven't travelled much with

film since Sept. 11, but I suspect regardless of the regulations,

that most airports in US and Canada will insist that everything go

through. I am sure Europe is as strict as it was before.

 

On the other hand, Kodak and other sites on the web clearly

suggest the risk of film damage is real with carry on x-ray

exposure. Moreover, factor in a stop over or two to get to your

final destination, the film could be exposed at least 4 times or

more. At Heathrow its hard to walk too far before you are going

through another security check.

 

So, simply put how do you pros deal with this now. Do you have

proof that it is risk free to put your film through the x-ray machine

multiple times ? If so, up to what ISO is safe ? Do you develop

film abroad before returning ? Do you FedEx film home ? Are

FedEx packages subjected to x-rays ?

[jeff_drew4]

Well, I'm probably the slow one. . . I usually stuff my film into FilmShield bags and place them in the carry-on bag. This has never prompted a search; no film fogging; and faster throughput. If the bags provoke a search, then aren't we getting that much sought after service? I have been randomly selected to be searched, but when they see the cameras and film-in-the-bags, they usually move on to some other high point, like dirty underwear. No sniff test there!

[eric friedemann]

Jeff, my guess is that film x-ray bags will be banned soon. CBS did an expose on getting contraband onto planes on the Evening News this week using film x-ray bags. I doubt that the FAA will continue to allow the use of any device that can mask the contents of an article in baggage.

[Spearhead]

<i> Do you FedEx film home ? Are FedEx packages subjected to x-rays ?

</i><p>

What I have been told is that they don't right now but there are no guarantees on that.<p>

 

Also, one should be aware when shipping overseas that FedEx does not carry the packages to and from many final destinations. I found this out the hard way when some prints I shipped to Chiapas spent eight days on a truck in hot weather (not really a problem for the prints, but for film...) because FedEx doesn't do their own delivery south of Mexico City.

[eric friedemann]

"FedEx doesn't do their own delivery south of Mexico City"-

 

I just got a mental image of a burro piled high with FedEx packages.

[david_henderson]

The only proof that I can offer is the only one that counts. I travel by air a lot, sometimes on multi-leg trips and to countries where x ray on arrival is usual. I've had film up to 400 ISO X rayed multiple times. I've never had a problem and I don't know anyone that has. Though I must admit I (pleasantly) avoided the ninth and tenth X Rays in Mexico because that was unknown territory for me but in general I just put my film on the belt and have it X rayed. There's enough about air travel that's stressful without making waves for yourself and others. I do this on trips that have cost thousand of dollars and where if the film was fogged I'd have to go again, so I don't want to be smugly challenged when I'm already putting my own money where my mouth is.

 

I wouldn't take ISO 3200 film on a plane because I'm not trying to find out where the boundaries are - I'm trying to get a quantity of the film I use into and out of a country that's all. So just because I haven't done a scientific experiment to please the people that would like to believe that they are right to insist on a hand check doesn't make my experience and that of people who actually do fly a lot irrelevent.

 

Kodak's web-site is a joke. They post information in there so that if anyone does get fogged film from wherever they can say "well, we told you" and deflect any implication that it could be their fault. Sending film by fedex or another carrier is chancy since it leaves your control. Can they guarantee that it isn't going to be X Rayed and by what sort of machine? If the rules they face change will they know until it happens in any country and will they choose to proactively tell their customers? What happens when they use agents - do they behave the same way? Personally I'll take my chances with the hand-baggage X Ray machines.

 

Finally I think Paul Ashton's post was right. People moan constantly about unavailable hand-checks, or the fact that they weren't allowed to take a tripod on as hand baggage, or the fact that they are no longer allowed to take their Lowepro super-elephant weighing 40lb into the passenger cabin. They need to get real. If you turn up to an airport depending totally on "getting away with it" you are being increasingly unrealistic and it will cause you problems.

[roger krueger]

David: "Getting away with it"? We're the ones with the law on our side, NOT the baggage screeners.

 

FWIW the one test I saw several years ago in Shutterbug showed fairly subtle damage - you wouldn't have said "Oh, this is hosed", but side-by-side with an identical non-X-rayed photo, there is some definite fog-induced loss of contrast and saturation.

 

If the law is changed such that I no longer have a legal right to a hand check, fine. I won't like, but I'll accept it. But until then it seems reasonable to express a desire that screeners OBEY THE LAW.

 

Finally, as far as I'm concerned the security checks are a pointless waste of time anyway. You want explosives or a non-metallic-knife on a plane? Put it in a tube and stick it "where the sun don't shine." If you're willing to die just swallow the explosives like they do smuggling cocaine. There's no way to dectect this in a manner that the American public would tolerate for a second. (If the cocaine guys can beat the dogs with careful wrapping and by isolating the "mule" from the raw substance, I'm guessing you can beat bomb sniffers too). There's a glimmer of hope from ground-penetrating-radar technology, but my understanding is that that's not going to be ready in the near future

[ellis_vener_photography]

Eric's story about the damaged Attenborough film is about five

years old and the film that was damaged was checked luggage,

not carry on. CTX technology is not currently (nor is it likely to

everbe, unless John Ashcroft finishes turning the US into a

police state.-- and I expect he will be run out of office before then)

used on carry on baggage.

[peter nelson]

<I>Their film was among <B>luggage checked into the hold</B>, but it was damaged by X rays as it left Manchester Airport. The damage caused by the Pounds 600,000 scanner, which is also in operation at Heathrow, has angered the BBC so much that it is considering legal action.</I><P>

 

I have about as much sympathy for them as I do for Enron employees who put all their retirement savings into company stock! If you do something blatantly stupid don't whine about it after you get hurt. Everyone with at least a half a brain knows that that you <B>never</B> put film in checked luggage because the x-ray machines they use will delete it.<P>

 

There are no well-documented cases of film being fogged by x-ray machines at the gate used for carry-on items. If it worries you then shoot slower film, FedEx your film, have it developed at your destination, or shoot digital. <P>

 

What do Israeli photographers do? Arlines flying in and out of there have the toughest security in the world.

[andrew l. booth]

A couple of points. Firstly, to be fair to the BBC, at the time they had their film destroyed, it wasn't common practice to X-ray hold luggage. Everyone may know not to use the hold now - but it's only in the last 5 years that the more powerful hold X-ray machines have become prevalent. For a location film unit with a couple of months of stock, I daresay that carrying film as cabin luggage is out of the question.

<p>

I've been trying to find a working link off <a href="http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_14/14cfr108_main_00.html">this FAA page</a>, which details the relevant FAA rulings. I understand from previous threads on this subject that further down the same document from the quote the 'rights' posters always cite there's a special circumstances opt out clause. In these special circumstances following Sep 11, I don't believe you have a legal case to require hand searching.