11 ms·
You can no longer just leave Syracuse airport [video]
- tehwebguy 13y agoWhat purpose could this possibly serve that is more important than have proper fire exits?
- ck2 13y agoWell think of it this way, I am sure law makers and law enforcement don't have to use them so it's no bother at all. I get panic attacks, can you imagine if one of those things accidentally locked on me?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- TallGuyShort 13y agoI suspect it's a reaction to the LAX shooting to prevent an attacker from fleeing on foot so easily - similar to the double bank doors you sometimes see on banks in dangerous countries. More important than proper fire exits? No. Just my theory on the possible purpose.
- ck2 13y agoSo keep the gunman locked in with more people around them to shoot?
- mehmehshoe 13y agoWhile the LAX shooting was happening I kept wondering why the shooter didn't just go backwards through the exit. There is usually just one (half asleep) agent sitting there. This would certainly prevent this. TSA quit screening my thoughts!
- sschueller 13y agoWho is going to take the blame when people are looked in during a shooting? What if the power goes out and there is panic? I hope there are other fire exits.
- Coincoin 13y agoIf it was designed with safety in mind, it would probably need power to stay closed. If there is no power it would prop open. But then, I got stuck in an elevator for an hour last month, so yeah, people would probably diaf.
- marcosdumay 13y agoAnd everything I said is just wrong, before there is no check for living the restricted area.
- cdjk 13y agoHere's an article about it if you don't to watch the video: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/syracuse_airport_exit_portals.html http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/syracuse_airp... It sounds like it's an electronic one-way gate to exit the secure area of the airport, replacing the TSA agent who used to sit at the exit. Physical one-way turnstiles have been around for a while - I'm not sure I've ever seen one at an airport.
- koenigdavidmj 13y agoI would assume that getting a cartful of bags through the turnstiles is kind of difficult, and that's the reason that strategy has been avoided. EDIT: Grammar.
- frostmatthew 13y agoSince it would presumably be located before baggage-claim people are unlikely to have a "cartful of bags" at this point - they would only have what they're capable of carrying on the plane.
- saryant 13y agoGiven the massive suitcases I've seen some people try to gate-check, I'm not sure that's such a great idea.
- sciguy77 13y agoOpen the pod bay doors, Hal.
- rayiner 13y ago> installing the portals has allowed Syracuse to eliminate a security job at the exit lanes Works for me. Unlike TSA workers, automated exit doors can't form unions.
- metaphorm 13y agounlike human workers, automated exit doors don't hesitate to imprison the occupant with no thought about the situation. these are jail cells, not doors.
- res0nat0r 13y agoThey are not jail cells. We had the same thing in restricted hallways when I worked my prior job in big pharma. They were used mainly to allow big hallway access and securely allow one person at a time through the door, with weight sensors at the bottom of the pod. You can override these doors most likely with an emergency button if needed.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- thirdtruck 13y agoOn the other hand, that company building was not an essential destination of travel for millions of people.
- colinhowe 13y agoFrom what I've heard TSA agents don't think about the situation either
- rayiner 13y agoHave you never used an automatic double-door vestibule in a cold city?
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
- privong 13y agoFor what it's worth, a similar system is in place at the Madrid Airport.
- mdip 13y agoIt sounds like the "main purpose" of this system is to create a one-way exit to prevent people from accessing the terminal without going through the security checkpoint (using the exit as an entrance). It's a problem that every airport has solved in one way or another by either posting security or using existing, novel, techniques. In an attempt to "improve" on the one-way exit idea, they've created a user experience that is exceptionally foreign to anyone using it and also adds a one second jarring experience that gives the impression of being detained in a tall, glass, coffin. At one of the major airports I used to travel through (DTW), exiting the terminal involved going through a slow-moving motorized revolving door. It was one way, and also included a brief instant where you could neither enter, nor leave, and could be "stopped" by airport security at that point should detaining you be necessary. Because it's a revolving door that works very similar to nearly every revolving door a person encounters (save for the motor and one-way nature), it doesn't have that same feel and certainly wouldn't warrant an NBC News segment. I'd imagine this over-engineered solution to a solved problem also comes at a much steeper price tag.
- AutoCorrect 13y agonot only that, they've created a novel way to trap people inside a burning building. This is a terrible idea.
- rhizome 13y agoSilly, airports can't catch fire.
- superuser2 13y agoBuilding code would almost certainly require a tie-in to the fire alarm so that it allows free passage when there's a fire. If it's like many airports, there would be other alarmed fire exits, and you could easily go under/over the crowd control ropes if you had to.
- tovmeod 13y agoThis reminds of of a story I heard from a speaker about over-engineering: A toothpaste company had a small rate of faults when producing the product, every couple of thousand tubes produces the machine would put an empty one on the production line, it would then be packaged and shipped, so every now and then a customer would complain he bought an empty toothpaste. The company decided to fix that, hired a couple of consultants, and after a dozen of engineers looked into the problem for a couple of months and burned a couple of millions in research they came up with a brilliant solution. before packaging the toothpaste, they added a very sensitive balance to the production line, every toothpaste would pass there, if the balance detected a difference in the expected wight it would pause the line, then a mechanical arm would push it out, go back to the resting place and continue the line. After implementing the solution the managers waited a couple of months to see the results and compare numbers, to see how efficient the new solution was. It was amazing! 100%. not one complaint of empty tubes after the expensive solution was implemented. The board was so satisfied with the investment that they came to the production floor for a tour on the new QA perfect tool. But it was turned off. They called the floor manager and asked what happened, they couldn't turn off that important piece of the production line, they could have all the complaints back. The floor manager said he doesn't even remember how to turn it on, he said, I turned it off shortly after the put this thing here. So how it is possible they have 0 complaints with if not because of the new tool? The floor manager said it was slowing down production, every now and then it would completely stop the whole production line, so he turned it off and bought a fan, pointed out to the stop, the fan would be string enough to push any empty toothpaste case.
- kyleblarson 13y agoSaving money by spending millions to replace a couple of $20 per hour TSA goons?
- jakewalker 13y agoMountain out of a mole hill. These doors simply ensure that people can only exit, and not enter, a secure area. There are dozens of civil liberty violations to complaint about w/r/t airports and TSA. This isn't one of them.
- PhasmaFelis 13y agoI'm confused. I was ready to be upset about this, but assuming they're telling the truth it's just an overly-complex version of a turnstile/one-way revolving door. I've never seen an airport that didn't have some sort of one-way-enforcing mechanism on the terminal-to-baggage-claim passage. Am I missing something? Or is the issue just that it's unnecessarily complex and failure-prone?
- lambda 13y agoMost airports have large sliding doors that are triggered on one side only. Because they are large, and there are a lot of people flowing through them, it would be possible to slip in while the door is open, so they need human guards to watch and ensure that no one does that. A regular turnstile doesn't really work very well for people with a lot of luggage. So this is basically a large version of a turnstile, that is more secure than just a single gate, so it can be secure enough to leave without full time guards without preventing people with baggage from getting through. Not a bad idea, not horrible civil liberties wise, but could be a problem for people with claustrophobia, and if they are avoiding having a guard, it's likely that there won't be an alternative exit for people for whom these won't work.
- PhasmaFelis 13y agoOrdinarily I'd agree with the claustrophobia point, but I feel like anyone who genuinely can't deal with a few seconds in a glass-walled airlock would never have managed getting on a plane in the first place.
- lambda 13y agoAs a matter of fact, my SO gets claustrophobia in revolving doors; she always refuses to go through them if there's another alternative, even the really big ones. She's fine on planes, however. I'm not sure whether these would give her the same sense of claustrophobia that revolving doors do.
- jcdavis 13y agoThis is a bait headline, its just an automated machine to only allow exits. Several airports in Europe have similar systems
- maxk42 13y agoUnlawful imprisonment.
- jblow 13y agoI am surprised that so many people here are okay with the idea of being momentarily detained as a matter of course. This is not a turnstile, because turnstiles do not detain you or trap you; you can always move freely on one side or the other. This device detains you and then lets you move on. What are you going to do when it decides not to let you move on?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ubernostrum 13y agoThere are already airports which have pairs of sliding doors with a room between them, timed so there's a moment when the first door is closed behind you and the second one hasn't opened ahead, in which you're "detained". And practically every subway system already has one-way turnstiles that can "detain" you in the sense that you can't pass until it opens, and either can't return through it without re-inserting a fare card or can't return through it period. In fact, there's a fuck ton of controlled-access places with systems which effectively do this. What are you already doing for the "detainees" who already are created by those? (not that I like the TSA, I just also don't see why you're treating this as new or unusual)
- jblow 13y agoI have never encountered a situation like this before in an airport. If I were to, I would be very disturbed, and avoid that airport in the future. So, this is new and unusual to me. (Apparently, also, to enough people to make this video notable). Subways that I have seen that require fare cards on exit do not actually prevent you from leaving; you can jump the turnstile or go through a gate on the side that possibly alarms. This is not the greatest thing, but at least while you are inside you can move freely inside a large subway system; being encased in plexiglass until a light turns green is a whole different degree of trapped. Edit: And I guess this is an important part of the point: degree matters. The old boiling-a-frog story is just about slowly increasing the degree of something.
- 13y ago
- blisterpeanuts 13y agoIt's a one-way exit from the secure area of the terminal. Functionally it's the same as a guard standing there watching people file through to a one-way escalator or door into the public part of the airport. Personally, I'd prefer the human. This system sounds too complicated and expensive and prone to malfunction. What if there's a fire and the doors stop working?
- jcromartie 13y agoWho schmoozed and boozed to get this contract, instead of a normal one-way turnstile door?
- ynniv 13y agoI can see how this appears to replace a TSA employee watching for reverse travel, but what has been created is of a different nature. Atlanta's airport has a similar reverse-travel prevention system in the form of a 3 story escalator, but there travelers can't be easily singled out. This individual door system is a security camera and a remote override away from individual detainment. Add facial recognition (the physical conditions are ideal) and the only thing separating this from an automated warrant officer is a willing politician. It seems out of place to be upset by what appears to be an automatic door, but some forethought suggests this is substantially different from what it replaced.
- rhizome 13y agoYet another reason to be happy that facial-recognition doesn't work.
- superuser2 13y agoSerious question: should we not be able to arrest people we have arrest warrants for? Is there a right to flee arrest? The only difference from the status quo is that currently, you could try to run from the police once recognized and they might not be fast enough to tackle you. But as far as I know, the Constitution does not enshrine any principle of "the right to a sporting chance at escaping trial" - just "the right to a fair trial."
- ynniv 13y agoOf course we should. But an automated warrant officer would also be something new... Airports seem to have their own notion of legality, so at what point would it detain someone? An international warrant? US felony warrant? US state felony? Misdemeanor? Back taxes? Unpaid child support? Unpaid municipal fines? We accept all major credit cards! You didn't report for jury duty... mind telling us where you live now? And while you're here, we'd like to inform you that your ex-roommate has run afoul of the law... perhaps you've seen him lately? Let me get the investigating officer on the line... Facial recognition primarily fails because the camera is too far away, and at a poor angle. Please stare at this camera to open the door. Hmm, those glasses are getting in the way, mind taking them off? Please, don't bang on the glass like that, it scares the other travelers. Just a second, I'll black out the "privacy" glass. Anything that can be done will be done in the right context. A little imagination is always prudent!
- arnarbi 13y agoEvery single European airport I have been to has this kind of portals to get from inside the secured terminal area to the baggage claim area.
- ringmaster 13y agoPhiladelphia airport has been like this for years already. The "airlock" isn't a single-person, but a small room that can lock a handful of people in as they pass individually through some unjumpable turnstiles. I'd post a photo, but there are signs around the room forbidding photography.
- jasonlotito 13y agoHaving just gone through the Philadelphia airport in October, I don't remember anything of the sort. Maybe it's only in a specific area for a specific reason? But no, you can go from plane to free air without being in any sort of "airlock" like this.
- ringmaster 13y agoThe airlocks are not at all of the terminals, so it's not surprising you didn't see it. Here's a PDF explaining the airlock rooms at PHL (they call it a "secure exit lane system") with photos: http://www.aci-na.org/sites/default/files/tufts.pdf http://www.aci-na.org/sites/default/files/tufts.pdf If you look closely at the metal turnstiles in the bottom-right photo on page 8, you can see that there are glass doors between them. These separate and close by sensor to allow only one person at a time through the exit passage. This room is, by necessity, fully covered in cameras, and as other posters have said, it's a short jump from this into something with software recognition that locks the doors and waits for the armored men with clubs. Sure, it's a far cry from the firetraps that those glass tubes in Syracuse are, but this method of containment is not new -- we were just not really paying attention to it before.
- gphil 13y agoI actually walked through this thing a couple of weeks ago. It was a little weird, but I didn't feel "detained" at any point. It just felt like going through a high-tech turnstile, as others have theorized it would.
- mgoeppner 13y agoAs a former resident of Syracuse, I think these beat the old barrier ropes, doors which looked like they were from a mental hospital, and a lone slightly pissed off and exhausted TSA agent eyeballing you and your fellow passengers in an otherwise desolate airport at 11 evening. And there are very, very, very few arrivals (and also virtually no departures) between 10PM and 5AM, which means it doesn't make much sense to pay a single TSA agent for an eight hour graveyard shift for 2 or 3 incoming flights.
- mattmcknight 13y agoSeems like yet another challenge when flying with a few little kids...hope it doesn't spread.
- Glyptodon 13y agoWhat happens if there's a fire or something?
- URSpider94 13y agoI'm sure that you can just push on the doors and get out, with an associated alarm that clears the terminal. If there's a fire, I'm sure that all the doors open. Airports are not exempt from building codes.
- stiles 13y agoThis looks like a giant PITA for people with small children or anyone escorting someone with a handicap.
- lxmorj 13y agoWell fuck, I live here. That sucks.
- phy6 13y agoI've seen and used devices like these at various Federal facilities and you stay inside for 3-4 seconds until a guard pushes a button to open the other side. The guards called them scanners and said that they sniff for explosives. These look identical, so maybe sniffing is an add-on feature.
- newman314 13y agoThis has already previously been invented at subway stations. Take this. http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.474936.1314635607!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/alg-subway-turnstiles-jpg.jpg http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.474936.131463560... and make it bigger. Boom, problem solved. Side benefit: This can be an entirely mechanical design = energy efficient.
- bisrig 13y agoHaving been through SYR recently - the doors are pretty annoying. When I was there, they had a bunch of signs telling people to go through in groups, which was hilarious as 1) the door midpoint area is about the size of one person plus their carry-on, and 2) the door timing would close the door much too quickly to actually have more than one person enter. Also, the cycle time is pretty slow. Really, really bad design.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- buyx 13y agoI wonder what the throughput of these doors is, and if it would work at larger airports. My guess would be no. Because of the high crime rate, most banks in South Africa have these double-door man traps (although less sleek-looking), and everyone accepts them as a normal part of life. Reading the comments here reminds me of how abnormal that really is.
- coldcode 13y agoHow does this work with people who are disabled? Elderly people with canes or walkers or on wheelchairs?
- URSpider94 13y agoThis is just a one-way door to prevent people from walking the wrong way into the sterile area. Today, human beings have to sit there and watch people walk past all day -- what a boring and demeaning job!!! This is NOT a new security measure, it's the same old measure implemented in a different way. I think people are freaking out about the fact that the system detains you for a split second in the process. There are better solutions out there. For example, all of the train turnstiles in Japan are set to default-open. If they detect someone going through without paying, they close extremely rapidly as soon as you cross the front threshold. That should do the trick, although I guess it wouldn't stop someone from passing contraband across the gap.
- URSpider94 13y agoAn article I found pointed out the probable root cause -- the TSA is now refusing to staff exits from secure areas, claiming that they are only responsible for screening. That puts the burden for exit monitoring onto the airport operators. Naturally, this cost falls disproportionately on smaller airports where the volume of passengers over which to amortize the cost is less.
- nphase 13y agoThese are all over the place in Frankfurt. They are unmanned and nondescript, it's literally just the door you exit through. There are no lights or anything, but somehow they make it seem pretty clear that it's just to keep people from slipping through in the unintended direction.
- mariuolo 13y agoI hope these news exaggerate facts, because every day I read something it looks like the US is on its path to become a Soviet hell.