TSA considers replacing airport X-rays with EDSs

Published 6 October 2006

Move prompted by spate of recent problems; ability to detect liquid explosives a key requirement, but technology is immature; cost an issue as well; recent TSA purchases include orders from Analogic and Reveal Imaging

Airport security procedures are in flux these days following a run of bad luck, bad publicity, and bad Londoners intent on blowing up a plane using liquid explosives. These trevails are well known to our loyal readers, who recall that TSA recently suspended the roll-out of GE’s explosive trace detection puffer machines, that a ban on carry-on liquids has exposed an inability to detect liquid explosives, and that Congress is hopping mad about the failure of airlines to screen cargo. DHS, sensitive about outside criticism and the effect it might have on the agency’s budget, is pushing back. Today we hear that the agency is “stepping up its search for better technology to screen carry-on bags,” perhaps by adapting for carry-on items the same explosives detection systems (EDS) used for checked luggage.

Such a transition would be costly — EDS machines range from $322,000 a piece to $1.2 million — and there remains grave doubt about the technology’s ability to efficiently locate liquid explosives. Nevertheless, TSA, as part of its Project Cambria initiative, recently ordered five computed tomography (CT) COBRA EDS machines from Peabody, Massachusetts-based Analogic for $3.8 million and eight CT-80 EDS machines from Bedford, Massachusetts-based Reveal Imaging Technologies for $3.6 million. Testing will begin at select airports early next year.

The idea, says Kip Hawley, is to take “EDS technology that exists today for checked baggage, and shrink it down to checkpoint size.”

We applaud DHS for moving forward on the issue, but remain concerned about cost. According to TSA, there are more than 1900 X-ray machines currently in use, and so long as liquid explosive technology remains immature, replacing them all seems more than a little inefficient.

-read more in John Doyle’s Aviation Now report