Airport Security

[don_feinberg2]

Wrong. Wrong! WRONG!!!

 

There are in fact CTX 5000 machines used for checking hand luggage at a number of US airports of which I'm aware. They are not used for "everyone", but they are certainly used (ask how I know...!)

 

These machines are in use, to my knowledge, at least at ORD, MDW, EWR, and JFK.

[don_feinberg2]

Oh, and "what do Israeli photographers do?"

 

Speaking as an Israeli photographer -- the security methods in Israel are very different from what is being attempted in the US. The US thinks they can read people's minds by detecting some kind of "weapon" or potential weapon.

 

This is, to put it charitably, pretty misguided. The X-ray machines aren't going to prevent anything. Anyone who wants to take down an airliner with bare hands, who is sufficiently motivated to do so, can and will do so. No amount of X-ray surveillance would have prevented Sept 11th!

 

The only way to see what's going on is to have reasonably trained people on site, with serious backup readily available, interviewing each and every passenger, physically inspecting the documents, etc., and seeing if the "whole package" makes sense (like passport, speech/language, hesitations, nervousness, type of paperwork, and much more.) [hmmm... here's a guy on a one-way from TLV to JFK with no luggage, huh?]

 

Can you spell c-o-m-m-i-t-t-m-e-n-t to real security? That's why there are 40+ security lines in the main departure hall in TLV and you've always been advised to show up 3 hours before departure.

 

Whaddya think we organize this with a team of $5.25 an hour high-school-dropouts in the US?

[abintraphoto]

I have this mental image of Osama Ben Cartright's video crew reading all this and loading film cassettes with C-4 .... A photographer disguise could easily/logically be the next ploy used by "them". This IS what happened to the Afgan opposition leader who was blown up by a film crew on or about the 10th of Sept.....

After 9-11, "reasonableness and common sense" would dictate to me that those guys will utilize every nook and cranny (the shoe bomb)to demonstrate their "love of God".... Common sense tells me that we have to check EVERYTHING - EVERYTIME no exceptions....

Perhaps the film companies should start investing some R&D into their next generation films to shield against this - like UV sun-screen

SPF 10,000 ....

Hope this isn't another reason to go digital .... )-;

 

Ken,

[richard_trochlil]

These CTX5000 rigs checking hand bags. They easy to recognize?

[michael_briggs2]

The CTX machine that I saw checking selected carryon luggage had clear brand name markings, CTX or Invision (I don't remember). There were also signs warning travellers that the machine would damage film and that you should remove your film from your bag.

[shoshana]

<i>These CTX5000 rigs checking hand bags. They easy to recognize?</i>

 

<ul>

<li>Well, yeah. I assume you mean carry on luggage, not lady's handbags...

<li>They're much bigger than carryon luggage xray machines.

<li>They have "CTX5000" on them

<LI>They (usually) have a sign on them saying that they WILL fog film

<li>They aren't used for hand luggage in the US. A few years ago, I'm pretty sure I saw one at Heathrow, but it was not for carryon luggage, just checked baggage.

</ul>

 

'shana

[robert_kennedy]

The March 2002, Shutterbug has an article on this problem. The machines apparently to watch out for are:

 

The Examiner 3DX 6000 and the Invision CTX5500 (and 5000?).

 

These are basically just CAT scan machines. They use them mostly for checked baggage mostly but they may start using them for hand baggage. The FAA has talked about it (cost is the issue I guess).

 

The way to tell if your film has been zapped by one of these machines is if you see "strips" of fog on the negs. Imagine taking a marker to the film. That is what it will look like. A regular X-ray should just fog the film all-over.

 

So if you DO get fogged, you can at least know how it happened.

[kevinconnery]

Paul (again): my complaint isn't with the policy; it's with the lack of consistency in enforcement. Some airports violate the 'law'; some follow it, and _that_ is my point. Not that my ISO 160 film will get fogged if it's x-rayed, but that I can't get my EI 3200 film hand-inspected even when I insist the people do what they are required by law to do.

 

If I were in another country, or if the law here were such that that non-x-ray inspection was not required, I'd deal with it. As it is, I cannot know if this will be a problem or not, no matter what the law says.

 

I've been doing a lot more driving and a lot less flying because of just this issue. It doesn't seem to have had much impact on the airlines, though, as long flights aren't easily bypassed.

 

Peter M: It's unlikely that a PROPERLY ADJUSTED machine will cause any noticable fogging on normal EI films. Given the consistent lack of compliance with the rest of the regulations, though, I do question whether the machines are any more compliant.

[david_henderson]

"As it is, I cannot know if this will be a problem or not, no matter what the law says."

 

And isn't that the very point. No matter what the law says - and you have no rights to a hand search in many countries - you turn up to an airport and things are as they are. You can't predict it, and you can't influence it. You have to deal with the situation you find, without getting angry, without slowing up the security or check-in lines so other passengers get frustrated. The only way to do that is to be prepared, always, to put your film on the belt and treat is as a bonus if you don't have to.

 

It's the same with hand baggage. If you turn up at an airport with a huge pack or a tripod and are totally unprepared for someone to say "either you check it or don't fly" then you're not thinking right and the person with the problem is you, not the person you may consider is breaching regulations or policies. The only productive thing you can actually do is assume worst case and that's why a lot of people I know have bought Pelicases since Sept.11th, so that an instruction to check your cameras doesn't turn into a disaster.

[alan_krantz]

Uh - pardon my ignorance - but if I put C-4 in a film canister - what good does x-raying it do ? I can understand chemical detection (aka what they use for hand checking) or dogs in detecting explosives - but I thought X-rays were only good at detecting for bullets/guns/knives .. - for this reason I always thought they (airport security) would be happy to hand check items such as film as it would results would be more secure...

[steve_swinehart]

Well Allan, then you must think that X-rays are only good for looking at bones? If you use the correct type of machine (computed tomography) you can see soft tissue. You know, a CT scan? That's what the InVision machines (CTX-5500, CTX-9000) do. Get it? CT (computed tomography) X (X-ray)- CTX?

 

Actually, the PerkinElmer (used to be EG&G Astrophysics) LineScan series machines can also detect explosives and are often used as a pre-screen (Stage II scan) to direct baggage to the CTX (Stage III) screening. This is done because the CTX machines are really slow - like 30 seconds per bag, while the LineScans are about 5 seconds per bag. The LineScans use a directed + backscatter imaging system.

 

Both will automatically highlight suspect objects for the operator on the control CRT.

 

And for Don Feinberg, I'm game - I'm asking, how do you know?

[alan_krantz]

Steve,

 

that might be true but does it have an influence on hand luggage where "hand checking" would be relevant ?

[paul_ashton]

Back from the airport (seriously I had to go meet my mother-in

law off a flight from London) and a comment from Seth, who

suggested I conduct a scientific survey of film fogging and

publish the results. Seth, I think you are asking the wrong camp!

You see I am perfectly willing to take the risk that my film will not

be rendered less than perfect by too many scans while on

multiple leg trips. I really think you should be asking someone

who is a doubter to produce the evidence.

 

More often than not, questions like the one asked my Peter M. on

this thread actually seem to relate to only one or two passes

through an X-ray machine. If experienced travelers can relate

numerous examples of multiple scans with no fogging, why not

simply believe us when it comes to a simple there and back

assignment?

[studio jb]

"Kodak has posted new information about x-rays at;

http://www/kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtm

If you don't need to start shooting the minute you get off the plane, express ship your film to your destination ahead of time. Or buy it when you get the location. Don't want to ship your exposed film back? Have it processed locally. ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) is in the process of compiling a list of recommended labs. Some of these labs are already posted on the national site and more are being added. Or, simply go to ASMP "Find a Photographer" page and call a photographer for recommendations." www.asmp.org

This was published at ASMP winter 2002 issue. Hope this will help.

[peter nelson]

<I>Wrong. Wrong! WRONG!!!

There are in fact CTX 5000 machines used for checking hand luggage at a number of US airports of which I'm aware. They are not used for "everyone", but they are certainly used (ask how I know...!)</I><P>

 

OK, how do you know?<P>

 

We had someone posting here last fall who insisted that CTX-5000's were in use for carry-on luggage at Heathrow, too, but wasn't able to support his claim. Anyone can "claim" anything but since CTX5000's WILL fog your film and carry warnings to that effect we'd be hearing a lot more about it a lot faster if it were true.<P>

 

And just to correct your misimpressions about El Al - they actually X-ray 100% of all luggage going onto the plane, unlike US airlines which only X-ray a small percentage. They do a lot other other stuff as well, like profiling and interviewing that US airlines should be doing, but don't let that fool you about their x-ray methods. <B>Everything</B> gets x-rayed and <B>everything</B> goes through a decompression cycle (although I've never figured out why they bother with the decompression because any 1st-year engineering student could defeat that easily with parts available at any Radio Shack)

[peter nelson]

<I> http://www/kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtm </I><P>

 

This link doesn't seem to go anywhere. I also tried http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtm

[studio jb]

Apperantly there was a typo: also you could go to www.kodak.com and click on the protect your film.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml

Regards.

[peter nelson]

<I>Apperantly there was a typo: also you could go to www.kodak.com and click on the protect your film. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml Regards.</I><P>

 

. . . And it says . . . <BR>

<B>

X-ray equipment used to inspect carry-on baggage uses a very low level of x-radiation that will not cause noticeable damage to your film. </B>

[david_henderson]

Seems to me that there's a number of people contributing to this thread who actively want to believe there's a problem with the process that those of us that fly a lot go through week by week with no problems. Articles get "misread", claims are made which turn out to be unsubstantiated. What goes on here? There's enough real problems associated with photography trips without inventing others just so you feel justified in asserting "rights".

[felipe_sangines1]

What would happen to roll film 120/220 ? It has no metal

cartridge to protect it !!!

[david_henderson]

I use rollfilm- both 120 and 220. There has been no problem with the machines used to X ray hand baggage.

[peter nelson]

<I>Seems to me that there's a number of people contributing to this thread who actively want to believe there's a problem with the process that those of us that fly a lot go through week by week with no problems. Articles get "misread", claims are made which turn out to be unsubstantiated. What goes on here? There's enough real problems associated with photography trips without inventing others just so you feel justified in asserting "rights". </I><P>

 

I agree with Dave. Everytime this subject comes up we get a few people making wild, unsubstantiated claims about film being fogged in one pass, or CT-scan x-ray equipment being used for carry-on film, and they <B>never</B> come up with proof. It reminds me of the UFO-crowd. "We surgically removed this piece of space-alien metal from the nose of a 47-year-old housewife in Kankakee, Illinois, and then we , uh, lost it . . . ".<P>

 

I've flown all over the world a zillion times. On one multi-week trip to and throughout Australia and back I made a total of <B>23</B> flights with the same rolls of film! None of it came back fogged. Several of my lenses broke or failed in varying ways in the Outback; and a strap got ripped off a backpack in a luggage conveyer machine, and I got sunburned on the Great Barrier Reef, and a bottle of duty-free booze broke in an overhead compartment and soaked an expensive hat I bought, but the film was fine.

[robert_kennedy]

Well I found this on http://www.martweiss.com/film/ctx5000.shtml

 

 

It is a quote from the Kodak website. Although the origonal link is dead.

----------------

AIRPORT X-RAY ALERT

This information is presented as an alert to travelers carrying unprocessed film. A new FAA-certified explosive detection system is being used in more than 50 international airports to examine (x-ray) luggage. The InVision CTX-5000SP, produced by InVision Technologies, Inc., employs conventional x-ray and cat scan technology.

The system pre-scans baggage to evaluate it for any potential threat (explosive), then scans further using a focused, more intense narrow width beam if suspicious materials are detected.. This concentrated high energy beam (1cm wide / 100 - 300 mR in power) is causing fog damage to unprocessed photographic films. By comparison, older, conventional x-ray inspection units produced less than 1mR of energy and after "many" passes through these systems, unprocessed films could exhibit a radiation caused effect.

 

Systems employing this new technology start with an initial inspection at lower x-ray intensity. If anything is deemed suspicious about the shape, size or content of objects in the luggage, it automatically triggers additional scanning with the CTX-5000SP machine.

 

The silver halide content of film and the metal container it may be packaged in are sufficient to trigger a high intensity x-ray scan. Conventional precautions such as wrapping unprocessed film in lead-lined containers will also trigger use of the CTX-5000SP. These high intensity rays will penetrate the lead lining and fog the film. So far, the CTX-5000SP is not typically used to inspect carry-on luggage, but the FAA has indicated that this practice is subject to change in the future.

 

Tests conducted by the Photo Industry Marketing Association (PIMA) indicate that the CTX-5000SP will cause significant fogging of all unprocessed color negative films with an ISO speed of 100 or higher with the film sustains a direct hit by the machine�s high intensity x-ray beam. The orientation of the fog stripe is dependent upon the orientation of the film relative to the x-ray beam. The density of the fog stripe depends upon the film speed; the faster the film the more dense the stripe. Additionally, whether this stripe is seen in the photographic print may depend upon the scene content. Busy scenes with flowers, foliage, etc. may tend to obscure or lessen the x-ray effects.

 

 

Kodak suggests a number of common sense precautions:

 

Never ship unprocessed film as checked luggage with commercial airlines.

If you plan to hand-carry unprocessed film on an airplane at an international airport, contact the airline security office well in advance of your flight time and see if they will agree to conduct a manual inspection. Bring a light-tight changing bag in case it is needed.

The Kodak Professional Motion Imaging division can deliver motion picture film to most parts of the world safely and will provide information about the locations of motion picture film processing laboratories.

Check the policies of commercial package and mail carriers and reputable courier services regarding x-ray scanning in the cities where you will be receiving and shipping unprocessed film. Kodak can assist in making arrangements.

Be cautious with short-ends and other film purchased from re-sellers. Ask about the source of the film, and consider shooting a test before you use it in production.

---------------

[peter nelson]

<I>Well I found this on http://www.martweiss.com/film/ctx5000.shtml </I><P>

 

No s---, Sherlock. Did you read any of the preceding messages? We all know that the CTX5000 fogs film, but as was already pointed out about a half-dozen times in this thread, it's for <B>CHECKED LUGGAGE ONLY</B>. Claims to the contrary have never been substantiated.<P>

 

Everytime someone on Photo.net mentions airport x-ray machines the Chicken Littles of the photography world all have a spontaneous riot here, but in the end there's nothing to be concerned about.

[curt wiler]

The effect on film of the low-dose radiation used for carry-on luggage is much more subtle than the obvious effects of high-power checked baggage machines. I, for one, can supply samples of slide film renedered unmarketable by one pass through security when I was refused hand-inspection. This was E200 pushed one stop, and the effect was to impart a reddish-brown base fog. Test samples of the same emulsion batch before the trip show no such coloration. Was it scanned just once? I don't know. Once it is out of your hands it is difficult to watch, but often the scanners reverse the belt. The United Airlines supervisor at the station in Los Angles said "he didn't care what the Federal Regulations state" when hand inspection was requested and he was informed that the zip-lock bags also contained ISO 1600 film (the mandatory signs are still posted at the machines saying passengers can request hand-inspection). In my opinion, these people "don't care about the Federal Regulations," then I don't have much confidence in their ability to protect me. All regulations should be consistently enforced.