New (as of 2019) airport CT scanners

Tel · Aug 17, 2021

Just returned from Seattle. The TSA agent specifically asked (before I could bring it up) if I had film in my carry-on bag and gave me a dish to put it in, which I then handed to the agent next to the body scanner. He took it around the scanner and handed it back to me when I came out the other side. No fuss, no hassle and the film processed perfectly.

Sirius Glass · Aug 17, 2021

Mesabound said:
Perhaps. But there were also 2-3 old scanners that you just as easily could have stood in line for

I was heartened to see several film-specific signs around highlighting the material's vulnerability to the CT machine, including a hand written sign taped to the machine that said "Remove FILM!!!" which made me feel good that at least people are still traveling with the stuff enough so as to not be completely forgotten. Hand checks were also being encouraged via signage.

The real problem is that outside the US, Europe most importantly including the EU banished UK will not allow hand checks.

mooseontheloose · Aug 18, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
The real problem is that outside the US, Europe most importantly including the EU banished UK will not allow hand checks.

Exactly this. As someone who rarely travels to, or through, the US, the reassurances that one can get hand checks is just not applicable in most of the rest of the world. Travelling through Europe or Asia, film almost always has to go through the scanner. In Japan they will hand check, but rarely anywhere else.

MattKing · Aug 18, 2021

The good thing about these stories about US hand checks is that the information is most likely available to the scanner manufacturers.
There is a large potential for them to have an influence on policies around the world.

Bikerider · Aug 18, 2021

I think that in UK you have one line of defence/attack and a request for a hand search should be allowed.

The 1971 Criminal Damage Act Section 1 which states:-

Destroying or damaging property.
(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

The wording in red could come into affect, if clear warning was given to a operator by the owner prior to the start of an examination that you feared that the film would be damaged and that you requested a hand search and this was refused without a reasonable excuse. Not having enough staff to do the task I think would not be a reasonable excuse. Then if they still proceeded and after processing the film was found to be adversely affected, the case would be proven. Not many searchers I think would be willing to take the risk with a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years being a possibility if they did not heed the request.

WHAT IF IT WAS AN ACCIDENT?
The line between accident and recklessness can be a fine one. To prove recklessness, the court should be sure that you were aware that there was a risk the property would be damaged, and, in the circumstances, it wasn’t reasonable for you to take that risk.

tokam · Aug 18, 2021

Government authorised activities such as security and customs at airports would qualify as a 'lawful excuse' to scan your fllm, regardless of consequences. Unfortunately.

Bikerider · Aug 18, 2021

Fortunately for us UK law differs from Aussie law. As there would be an alternative to a scan to search the act provides for this. The searchers would have been be warned about likely damage and would have to take alternative steps to ensure no damage was caused. Clear and simple.

Of course this does not take into consideration some of the dunderheads that work as searchers who follow their instructions to the letter. Let them answer in the courts.

tokam · Aug 18, 2021

Apologies. Yep the phrase 'or being reckless..' would come into play if you advised them of the likely consequences of using the scanner.

pentaxuser · Aug 18, 2021

I fear that Bikerider's approach may be the only one to effect a change but of course it requires someone or several someones ( the more the merrier) to "make a scene" in a proper manner at an Airport and record the consequent proceedings

It might well be a newsworthy item go the likes of the BBC Watchdog programme

Sadly I have seen no evidence that any film manufacturer intends to try and exert its influence over this matter.

pentaxuser

Agulliver · Aug 18, 2021

The very last thing one wishes to do at airport security is "make a scene". One ether subjects oneself and one's belongings to whatever security measures are deemed necessary, or one does not board the plane. It is that simple. You can request a hand search, but outside the USA the staff are not obliged to perform hand inspections. They reserve the right to say "no". You can advise the staff of the likely consequences of scanning your film...and they will probably present you with three choices. Accept the scan and risk it. Refuse the scan, dump the film and board the plane. Refuse the scan and find yourself denied boarding, and likely escorted out of the airport if you make a scene.

I do not think the film manufactures have any influence these days.

However, it is somewhat good news that air passengers in the USA are being told about these new scanners in advance and offered the chance to remove film. Awareness is going to be the key here, and I do not feel that making trouble is the way to spread awareness. Perhaps a better course of action would be for us all to email the airports in our areas and ask about these scanners and what we can do to safely take film on board a plane....."safely" applying to both the film and satisfying the security staff that we're not trying to smuggle something forbidden on board.

pentaxuser · Aug 18, 2021

Agulliver, is there any solution then or do film users outside the U.S. just have to accept that film can no longer be safely carried when boarding a plane? The airport has no responsibility for any damage done by its actions in respect of scanning? The sentence in red provided by Bikerider does not apply at all?

Does this mean that whereas an airport is likely to be responsible for other kinds of damage that is covered by the sentence in red, scanning is not covered despite, as we all know, that there are ways to fulfil its obligation to check luggage such as film without subjecting it to a process that will damage it such as happens in the U.S

pentaxuser

BrianShaw · Aug 18, 2021

Who are you folks thinking of suing or having arrested for ruining your film… the individual screening personnel or an entity such BBC as the airline, airport authority or government? While the words may make sense the application of those words may not lead to any practical redress.

Film-Niko · Aug 18, 2021

Contact your (major) airport(s) and also airlines.
Make them aware of this problem.
Explain the difficulties for you as film shooter.
Explain that a hand check is the best and most easy and cost effective solution for both / all sides.
Tell them that you want use them for your travels in the future.
Do that in a clear, but polite way.

Airports and airlines are in strong competition with each other. Especially in these pandemic times with crashed demand. They generally want you as a customer, and as a satisfied customer.
We will probably succeed in the mid or long term if we bring up that topic regularly and permanently to the responsible people.

Wallendo · Aug 18, 2021

Bikerider said:
I think that in UK you have one line of defence/attack and a request for a hand search should be allowed.

The 1971 Criminal Damage Act Section 1 which states:-

Destroying or damaging property.
(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

The wording in red could come into affect, if clear warning was given to a operator by the owner prior to the start of an examination that you feared that the film would be damaged and that you requested a hand search and this was refused without a reasonable excuse. Not having enough staff to do the task I think would not be a reasonable excuse. Then if they still proceeded and after processing the film was found to be adversely affected, the case would be proven. Not many searchers I think would be willing to take the risk with a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years being a possibility if they did not heed the request.

WHAT IF IT WAS AN ACCIDENT?
The line between accident and recklessness can be a fine one. To prove recklessness, the court should be sure that you were aware that there was a risk the property would be damaged, and, in the circumstances, it wasn’t reasonable for you to take that risk.

The simple solution to this is for screeners to simply not let you on the plane.

Huss · Aug 18, 2021

For all the cr@p that a lot of people give the TSA in the USA, we are actually very lucky that they are so accommodating to us film shooters.

As for traveling abroad? I have been as polite and respectful as could be in England, Germany, Switzerland. And point blank refused hand checks every time. So in the future it is going to be digital when going abroad.

Film-Niko · Aug 18, 2021

Huss said:
As for traveling abroad? I have been as polite and respectful as could be in England, Germany, Switzerland. And point blank refused hand checks every time. So in the future it is going to be digital when going abroad.

But that has been at a time when still no new CT scanners were installed in Europe. Just the standard X-ray machines, which are safe for film up to ISO 800/30°. Therefore no need for hand checks.

Agulliver · Aug 18, 2021

Wallendo said:
The simple solution to this is for screeners to simply not let you on the plane.

Exactly. You have the choice not to take film. You have the choice to risk it in the scanner. You have the choice to dump it at the security check area. Or you have the option not to board the plane.

If you attempted to sue the airport, or the security people or whoever for damage to your films....you'll be laughed out of court if you even get that far.

The best we can do is proactively write, politely, to our local airports and ask if they have the new CT scanners or if they plan to soon....and ask about travelling with photographic film. As the viability of international travel is increasing I'll probably try contacting London Luton, London Gatwick and London Heathrow which are the airports I depart form most frequently. You can also consider writing to destination airports that you commonly use, or plan to use as you'll be scanned there on the way back.

The jury is still out on what real world damage is done to photo films. The reports we've had are not yet sufficient in number to make a decent sample....though at least one traveller had films fogged so as to make them almost useless and another appears to have got away with no damage.

Making a scene at airport security is a one way ticket to being ejected and possibly prosecuted yourself.

Sirius Glass · Aug 18, 2021

Bikerider said:
I think that in UK you have one line of defence/attack and a request for a hand search should be allowed.

The 1971 Criminal Damage Act Section 1 which states:-

Destroying or damaging property.
(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

The wording in red could come into affect, if clear warning was given to a operator by the owner prior to the start of an examination that you feared that the film would be damaged and that you requested a hand search and this was refused without a reasonable excuse. Not having enough staff to do the task I think would not be a reasonable excuse. Then if they still proceeded and after processing the film was found to be adversely affected, the case would be proven. Not many searchers I think would be willing to take the risk with a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years being a possibility if they did not heed the request.

WHAT IF IT WAS AN ACCIDENT?
The line between accident and recklessness can be a fine one. To prove recklessness, the court should be sure that you were aware that there was a risk the property would be damaged, and, in the circumstances, it wasn’t reasonable for you to take that risk.

How come the security people at Heathrow Airport are totally unaware of this law.

BrianShaw · Aug 18, 2021

Huss said:
For all the cr@p that a lot of people give the TSA in the USA, we are actually very lucky that they are so accommodating to us film shooters.

As for traveling abroad? I have been as polite and respectful as could be in England, Germany, Switzerland. And point blank refused hand checks every time. So in the future it is going to be digital when going abroad.

I agree. Much of the TSA bad image originated a long time ago when screening was done by contractors paid by the airlines. Governmentalization improved the process a lot.

BrianShaw · Aug 18, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
How come the security people at Heathrow Airport are totally unaware of this law>

Possibly because it doesn’t directly apply????

pentaxuser · Aug 18, 2021

Wallendo said:
The simple solution to this is for screeners to simply not let you on the plane.

Well there's no denying that as a solution that or a variation of that solves almost every problem in life that I can think of - not just the problem of scanners and film

pentaxuser

wiltw · Aug 18, 2021

Bikerider said:
I think that in UK you have one line of defence/attack and a request for a hand search should be allowed.

The 1971 Criminal Damage Act Section 1 which states:-

Destroying or damaging property.

OTOH, in 50 years of business travel and personal travel, never in all the many trips through the London Heathrow Airport have I ever been successsful in even getting a verbal response from the Secuity personel posted prior to the X-ray machine,, even when handing over a clear plastic bag clearly full of roll film while politely asikng for hand inspection and saying 'Please'.. On POTN I facetiously have called them 'deaf and dumb' because of the total lack of any response, other than to throw the bag back onto the X-ray machine's transport belt.

BrianShaw · Aug 18, 2021

wiltw said:
OTOH, in 50 years of business travel and personal travel, never in all the many trips through the London Heathrow Airport have I ever been successsful in even getting a verbal response from the Secuity personel posted prior to the X-ray machine,, even when handing over a clear plastic bag clearly full of roll film while politely asikng for hand inspection and saying 'Please'.. On POTN I facetiously have called them 'deaf and dumb' because of the total lack of any response, other than to throw the bag back onto the X-ray machine's transport belt.

… for me, any attempted discussion with Heathow’s silent screeners only yielded armed police continuing the conversation. They were always polite, understanding, and occasionally yielded to requests for leniency. Probably about 20% of the time, but only after completing their investigation to their apparent satisfaction.

pentaxuser · Aug 18, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
How come the security people at Heathrow Airport are totally unaware of this law.

Probably because no-one has properly challenged them in the real sense of "making a scene" I had thought it was clear what I meant by making a scene but seemingly not. It is not shouting and screaming but calmly engaging with the security staff and recording it. There are effective ways to ensure that the security "monkeys" who follow the rules they are given have to escalate matters to a supervisor/ manager ( the organ grinder). It may be that the word monkey and organ grinder is not familiar to US respondent so let me say that in the context of the analogy with monkeys and organ grinder, monkey is not a disparaging word it simply indicates that there are those who enforce the rules they are given and those who have control over what those rules are( the organ grinder)

Yes if it is one person alone makes a civilised fuss then even a manager might feel emboldened enough to use Agulliver's options but if this were to regularly happen and there is a simple solution presented, namely acceding to hand searches, then it becomes difficult to simply ignore film users or throw them out of the airport

The history of change, be that big or small, surely tells us that nothing changes without a properly planned "fuss" that gets the attention of the eventual level of organ grinder who can change things.

pentaxuser

foc · Aug 18, 2021

pentaxuser said:
analogy with monkeys and organ grinder, monkey is not a disparaging word

I would disagree with you on that one.

IMO when dealing with any person in authority, I have found that using a polite manner can be successful in making a request.
If the person in authority will not entertain the request, ignore it, etc, then that is that. They know their position, and you can argue till you are blue in the face.
Cause them trouble and you will likely end up having to talk to the police, who may be very polite but may not be in a hurry, and so the flight is missed.

Compliance will make boarding the flight easier, and as Agulliver said,

Agulliver said:
they will probably present you with three choices. Accept the scan and risk it. Refuse the scan, dump the film and board the plane. Refuse the scan and find yourself denied boarding, and likely escorted out of the airport if you make a scene.

New (as of 2019) airport CT scanners

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency