The TSA's Full Body Scanner

I am disappointed. Sorely, sorely disappointed.

Today, I had the opportunity to pass through the Tulsa International Airport (three letter ICAO ID: TUL) on my way back to Illinois. Why was I in Tulsa today? I drove with my family this weekend down to Tractor Grandpa and Grandma B's house in Stillwater, OK, then flew back so I could work while they renovate Amy's grandparents' house to get it ready for sale.

Coming back, I knew that the Tulsa Airport was the test bed for the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) new full-body scanners. Why Tulsa, and not someplace else? Good question. The early results from the full-body scanners seem to be decent, with most passengers not minding the intrusiveness of the scan. I'm guessing the TSA wanted to use a smaller airport like Tulsa's for its testing, since installing these scanners is expensive ($170,000 apiece), and they do take slightly longer to scan a person than does a normal metal detector.

It could be the TSA also wanted to pick a fairly conservative region of the country for this initial test. Why would that be important? The imaging technology used in the full-body scanner actually shows just about everything under a person's clothes, including the outline of the body. The TSA has had to defend the new scanner from attacks by privacy-minded groups ever since the announcement that they were going to use this technology. Conducting the first test bed in Tulsa allowed the TSA to introduce people to the scanners in a part of the country where people generally favor security and doing the right thing more so than defending a person's right to privacy over all other concerns.

Having been through the scanner, I have to say I was disappointed. Introducing new technology, a new way of scanning a person for potential hazards to flight, should either simplify or streamline the screening process. If the new scanner was searching for metal objects, then it should be an improvement over the current metal detectors, right? Instead, I actually had to remove more things from my pockets, including anything that would not set off a metal detector, in order to pass through the new full-body scanner. I had to remove my belt, which normally would not set off a metal detector. I still had to remove my shoes to pass through the scanner. On a personal hassle basis, the new scanner was no better, and in some ways worse, than walking through the normal metal detector.

Another way the new scanner is worse than a metal detector is that, with the full-body scanner, it actually forces the person being scanned to stop completely, hold his or her hands above the head, and wait until getting clearance to proceed through the exit. In a normal metal detector, of course, the person continues walking, as long as the detector does not beep while in the middle of the detector. I also thought it strange that I had to hold my hands above my head, which is not something you normally do with a metal detector. I joked that it was like an electronic frisking, which elicited a laugh from the TSA agent (thankfully!).

I also found the current test bed in Tulsa was very selective. Only one or two of the new scanners were installed at the airport, with the majority of travelers passing through lanes that used the traditional metal detectors. I had to choose a lane that processed people through the new full-body scanner in order to see what it was like. The TSA agents manning that lane were almost apologetic about the delay and the hassle involved in passing through the new scanner.

Overall, will these new scanners make air travel safer in America? That's hard to say at this point. The full-body scanners are coming to more airports around America, so more air passengers will get a chance to experience them. Having been through one once, I am disappointed. Before going through the scanner, I half-expected (and really hoped!) that I would not have to remove my shoes or completely empty my pockets, and that was not the case. Personally, I can get through a metal detector with less fuss and in less time, so that will be my preferred option in the future.