Scanner approval may lift ban on taking liquids onto aircraft
Share
Airports could allow passengers to take liquids over 100ml in volume as hand baggage from 2013 after approval of a new scanner.
The INSIGHT100 system uses a proprietary technology called partially offset Raman spectroscopy (SORS), which was pioneered at the Science & Technology Facilities Council’s (STFC) Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire and which led to the creation of spin-out Cobalt Light Systems.
The advantage of the system lies in its ability to identify explosives unambiguously inside opaque bottles such as coloured plastic shampoo containers or green glass wine bottles.
Previous systems have led to large numbers of false alarms or to missing genuine threats. Cobalt claims it can screen individual bottles in less than five seconds to determine whether there is a security threat.
The scanner exceeded the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) standard for use at airports with an almost perfect detection capability and negligible false-alarm rate in unopened containers. The system is currently in trials at several major European airports.
Prof Pavel Matousek, the STFC’s inventor of the SORS technique, said: ‘Since the STFC made the breakthrough in discovering SORS a few years ago, we have worked closely with the team at Cobalt Light Systems to develop and refine this technology.’
Readers' comments (7)
John Fulcher | 23 Jan 2012 1:07 pm
I might perhaps feel happier when the "ALMOST perfect detection capability" statement loses that important word.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Stitch | 23 Jan 2012 1:44 pm
In the meantime the airports could provide water fountains inside the terminal to avoid people being forced to buy water as soon as they are through security. It is all most people need.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Neil Philp | 23 Jan 2012 4:05 pm
I agree completely with John Stitch. At airports in the USA there are drinking water fountains conveniently located close to every restroom. Both before and after security and the service is free of charge. In Europe, if passengers require drinking water, they are obliged to pay (often inflated) prices for bottled water.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Martyn Davies | 24 Jan 2012 8:27 am
Instead of creating a lot of expensive machines that ultimately travellers must pay for, why not just use a statistical sampling technique for selecting some passengers for an in-depth security check?
After all, the threat they are guarding against is an exceptionally rare one. How many occurrences of strange liquids have there been? Two? In five years?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JDVF | 24 Jan 2012 12:51 pm
Martyn,
i could not disagree more. I was in Casablanca in April 2003. Anyone neqar the bombs there or at the many other outrages by mad idiots would say the same. I would rather be strip searched each time than allow them the slightest chink in our armour. I would like spot checks of potential suspects in the street as well for terrorism and crime prevention. i never object. In fact i always say thank you and usually explain why. removing one's shoes is often required, takes time, but compared to what we ould lose if we let one on board, ...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard May | 24 Jan 2012 2:35 pm
Until recently I was a frequent flyer to the West Coast USA and as such spent many hours waiting for or being processed at security systems.
All the checking is necessary but the time taken or efficiency of the procedure needs updating.
100% checking need not apply after all most car accidents are in cars that have been tested and driven by people who have previous good character.
A determined fanatic will find a way. Luckily there are very, very few of them and tens of millions of people who are not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Vitaly Voloshin | 24 Jan 2012 3:50 pm
To John Fulcher:
There is ALMOST everywhere. All equipment have percentage of reliability. In modern technology, this percentage is extremely high, but still it will never reach 100%.
So, there will always be "ALMOST" somewhere. I would rather be surprised if they would say "perfect detection capability" WITHOUT this important word.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment