New (as of 2019) airport CT scanners

[Dr. no]

This week’s report:
Albuquerque (whole new security area), Houston IAH international transfer security (no Precheck ) and Mexico City: no ct scanners, film developed with no artifacts. (Fuji superia 200, Arista Edu Ultra 400).

 

[Agulliver]

According to a friend who used London Luton airport last month, it now has CT scanners for hand baggage. I just checked their website and this is confirmed. There's no way to contact that particular "department" so when I travel from Luton next month I shall request hand inspection of my film and report back as to what happens. A reminder to people travelling to/from UK airports, the UK Department for Transport has instructed all airports to action requests to hand inspect photographic materials.

I'll be travelling to Arrecife (ACE) Lanzarote and the website for that airport still states liquids must be separated in zip bags so I am guessing they're still X-ray scanners.

 

[wiltw]

According to a friend who used London Luton airport last month, it now has CT scanners for hand baggage. I just checked their website and this is confirmed. There's no way to contact that particular "department" so when I travel from Luton next month I shall request hand inspection of my film and report back as to what happens. A reminder to people travelling to/from UK airports, the UK Department for Transport has instructed all airports to action requests to hand inspect photographic materials.

I'll be travelling to Arrecife (ACE) Lanzarote and the website for that airport still states liquids must be separated in zip bags so I am guessing they're still X-ray scanners.

Since you will be travelling thru a location with known presence of CT at gate security, any chance we could get you to put a sacrificial test exposed roll of film in your hand luggage and leave it in there for a deliberate test of CT scanner damage? We have seen reports of damage and of no-damage and slight damage...it would be useful to get another testimony about known CT exposure.

 

[koraks]

With a nod to the inherent amusement value of an experiment like this - what would this prove? That one particular type of film in one particular luggage configuration taken through one particular type of CT scanner operated in one particular type of fashion with one particular firmware/software version processed in one particular way will or will not sustain damage that others may then assess according to their varying, subjective standards? By all means, indulge, but I think the kind of testing that ADOX/Bessonova have done, which despite its extensive scope still suffers from several of the limitations implied above, already draws a bit of a picture of what we may expect.

 

[Saganich]

There are too many potential confounding factors just for film let alone all the CT factors associated with radiation output: kV, mA, rotation time, pitch, beam collimation, scan sfov (filtering)... all of which may be different by location and manufacturing. Wouldn't surprise me that for operator safety considerations the CT output and scatter is minimized and the automatic exposure control wouldn't ramp up too much unless there was something very dense in your bag.

 

[dokko]

By all means, indulge, but I think the kind of testing that ADOX/Bessonova have done, which despite its extensive scope still suffers from several of the limitations implied above, already draws a bit of a picture of what we may expect.

I see this a bit differently..

ADOX/Bessonova did a great test, but it was one test only, so it doesn't give a good overview how risky different CT scanners are in average, but only of the one in their particular trip.

if everybody would send one film through a scanner on every trip and fill it into a database, it would be of great value with enough samples.

now getting everybody involved to risk a roll and setting up the infrastructure to collect/process/present the info is unlikely to happen, but with a few hundred samples it would be a fantastic resource.

 

[wiltw]

I see this a bit differently..

ADOX/Bessonova did a great test, but it was one test only, so it doesn't give a good overview how risky different CT scanners are in average, but only of the one in their particular trip.

if everybody would send one film through a scanner on every trip and fill it into a database, it would be of great value with enough samples.

now getting everybody involved to risk a roll and setting up the infrastructure to collect/process/present the info is unlikely to happen, but with a few hundred samples it would be a fantastic resource.

my point made here...another test result contributes a bit more insight into the None-Some-Horrid damage that has been reported.
Were the 'no damage' reports simply...

• the lack of apparent visibility to the viewer of slight fogging (i.e. looking for more obvious damage)
• the lowered sensitivity of unexposed film to CT apparent damage?
• or some other variable in this not-well-understood phenomenon that we were warned by film manufacturers about

The previously long unsympathetic security agents at London Heathrow have apparently been sufficiently convinced about real damage by CT to have changed their official position on requests of hand inspection, after all!

 

[Agulliver]

Lina Bessanova's tests remain the best we have, and I doubt any of us will try to duplicate or better her efforts.

One thing to be aware of is that many of us have, down the years, accidentally put a loaded camera or roll of film through the checked baggage system and got away with it. I am equally sure that Joe Public did so back in the day because he didn't know there was an issue with checked luggage x-rays/CT scans.

For the most part I intend to get my films safely to my holiday destination, shoot some nice photos, and get them back home. But, @wiltw has given me one idea. On the same trip last year, I had a Nikon F601M with me who's battery failed...and I had not had the foresight to take a spare with me. So I ended up putting that camera in my checked luggage, forgetting there was a partially shot roll of FP4+ in it. That roll is actually still in the camera. I might just let that roll of film go through the hand baggage CT scanner for sh!ts and giggles and report back on if it's damaged from going through both the different CT scans. I might also make up a short 10 exposure roll of some B&W film and put it through the CT scan for hand baggage.

More data points, but in no way comparable to Lina Bessanova's work. I'm most interested in if I can successfully get me films hand checked at LTN, which ought to be possible given the instructions from the DfT but you never know until you try.

 

[Agulliver]

I decided to email the general enquiries address for London Luton Airport and got the following encouraging reply.

"Yes, the officer will be able to do this for you. When you are at the loading area please speak to the officer on the lane and they will be able to arrange a hand search for you. "

This should be the same across all UK civil airports.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

In UK, I have gone through multiple airports with CT equipment, like LHR, BHx and GTW, they all comply with hand inspection. However the same airports do not comply with hand inspection if you are on the like for XRay scanner.

 

[Agulliver]

In UK, I have gone through multiple airports with CT equipment, like LHR, BHx and GTW, they all comply with hand inspection. However the same airports do not comply with hand inspection if you are on the like for XRay scanner.

Good to know that UK airports are complying with requests for hand inspection where CT scanners are present. They're unlikely to be so accommodating where older x-ray scanners are used because it simply isn't necessary to hand inspect film.

I decided to finish and develop the FP4+ that went through the hold CT scan at ACE airport last year, and it came out perfect as far as I could tell.

I will roll a short few frames of 400ISO B&W film as a sacrificial offering to the gods of CT scanning for my trip next month....keep it in my cabin bag and let it get zapped.

 

[flavio81]

Reporting in right now from Amsterdam Schiphol (AMS).

They had the horrible, dreadful CT scanner and the scanner had a big banner that read "I KILLED KODACHROME AND TECHNICAL PAN". So the machine is the work of the devil.

I asked the airport personnel to please check my photographic films visually. They asked me what ISO was, i said "400", they said "it's safe", so I insisted (with a "please, i would really want it to be inspected visually"). They accepted, so a person inspects it, it takes a bit longer but they had no problem with that. They were very kind.

So Amsterdam Schiphol --> APPROVED!!

I take an opportunity to thank to the entire airport personnel, they're very nice and kind, i felt at home.

 

[BrianShaw]

That’s funny… they advertise that they killed Kodachrome TechPan yet say it’s safe for ISO400. There may be a generation gap between the sign and the statement.

 

[koraks]

a big banner that read "I KILLED KODACHROME AND TECHNICAL PAN"

Did it have little icons depicting rolls of film somewhere on the housing of the scanner, preferably close to the operator area, that symbolized the number of rolls of film it had destroyed? That would be neat.

 

[flavio81]

That’s funny… they advertise that they killed Kodachrome TechPan yet say it’s safe for ISO400. There may be a generation gap between the sign and the statement.

There wasn't such sign, it was just a joke.

If there was such a sign, that would mean a PHOTRIO member is working there at the airport.

 

[flavio81]

Did it have little icons depicting rolls of film somewhere on the housing of the scanner, preferably close to the operator area, that symbolized the number of rolls of film it had destroyed? That would be neat.

LOL!!!

 

[MattKing]

There wasn't such sign, it was just a joke.

If there was such a sign, that would mean a PHOTRIO member is working there at the airport.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There wasn't such sign, it was just a joke.

If there was such a sign, that would mean a PHOTRIO member is working there at the airport.

Grade A Humor! I appreciate that.

 

[loccdor]

Just remember you are the most interesting part of that security guard's day. You're a mandated part of their training. The rare stuff of myth and legend. Seldom seen and seldom remembered.

the number of rolls of film it had destroyed?

*enhanced

 

[koraks]

The rare stuff of myth and legend. Seldom seen and seldom remembered.

Or, should we say...
"...one of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant, never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die."

 

[Ben 4]

Or, should we say...
"...one of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant, never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die."

I've read that book but didn't recall the quote—had to look it up! Thanks for taking me back there.

 

[Agulliver]

A lot of younger airport security people don't seem aware of what film is, nor that some cameras cannot be switched on and produce an image on a screen. I've been asked to turn on a 1930s Ikonta and demonstrate that it works. Sure, I can demonstrate that the shutter fires, but the security bod was expecting an electronic image....I was eventually saved by his colleague who looked to be in his fifties. Truth is, it won't have been necessary to train new staff in the ways of photographic film in recent times....until the CT scanners manifested.

hopefully in areas where staff have been trained/instructed to hand inspect film this will not be a problem.

 

[Bazamat]

I believe Heathrow in the UK has them but I showed them my film and they directed me to the x-ray machines at the end. I asked for a hand check, no problems.

I use bulk rolled film with ISO1600 stickers on, in a clear plastic bag without the plastic canisters for their ease, stick a note with translations on the front. I have been asked what ISO the film is but haven't had any issues on my travels so far.

 

[flavio81]

A lot of younger airport security people don't seem aware of what film is, nor that some cameras cannot be switched on and produce an image on a screen. I've been asked to turn on a 1930s Ikonta and demonstrate that it works. Sure, I can demonstrate that the shutter fires, but the security bod was expecting an electronic image....I was eventually saved by his colleague who looked to be in his fifties.

On the other hand, a BIG reason the current film manufacturers run their machines at full capacity, is due to the younger people who find film fashionable.

On the Amsterdam airport, the people who kindly accepted my film to be visually inspected, was between 20-33 years old.

 

[Agulliver]

I think it depends on the young person. Sure, if you're lucky enough to have a security officer who is also a film photography enthusiast that's great. But ours is still a niche hobby. Hopefully staff will, in time, all be sufficiently trained in this.