Bosses admit the new high tech machines, which can see through clothing, leave 'little to the imagination' and will even detect prosthetic limbs and breast implants.
But they rejected claims that the machinery - brought in to improve security and speed up waiting times - will be invasive.
However, staff will have mobile phones confiscated so that they cannot capture the images.
The scanners are designed to detect dangerous objects passengers may be attempting to smuggle on board aircraft and will be trialled in Terminal 2 for a year from today. If successful, the pioneering technology could be rolled out to airports across the country within two years.
X-rays
The £80,000 scanners work by bouncing X-rays off passenger's skin to produce outline black and white images of their bodies.
The image is then transferred to a security officer, based in another part of the building, who will electronically confirm whether the passenger can proceed or if a manual search is required.
Bosses hope that the pilot will speed up the security process with passengers no longer having to remove coats, jackets, shoes and belts.
Manchester Airport spokeswoman Sarah Barrett told the M.E.N. that passengers will be able to opt out of going through the scanners during the trial and insisted that privacy will not be compromised.
She said: "Our passengers tell us that they don't like being patted down by security staff at airports, but they understand that it's a necessary part of keeping them safe.
"Imaging technology offers a potential alternative, but we know that some people see it as controversial - that's why we're running the trial. The process is entirely anonymous. Imaging technology does not allow security staff to see passengers naked.
"The image produced is a black and white, ghost-like outline of an individual's body, without any distinguishing features, such as hair or facial features, making it impossible to recognise people but simple to detect concealed threats."
Children will be asked to take part in the trial but only with their parents consent. And airport chiefs say they have received positive feedback from the Muslim community, amid concerns that faith groups could view the technology as `invasive'.
Reassured
They reassured passengers that the data will not be stored on the system and staff operating the scanners will have mobile phones confiscated before starting their shifts so that they cannot capture the images.
The scanners emit `low levels' of radiation, but tests have shown that people can safely pass through the equipment five thousand times a year, according to Department of Health checks.
They say that anyone passing through the scanners 20,000 times will be subjected to radiation levels equivalent of one dental X-ray.
Manchester is the second airport in Britain to trial the machinery - Heathrow launched a similar pilot in 2004. The results will be studied by the Department of Transport before the decision is made on whether to make the scanners compulsory at airports across the country.
Last week, the aviation authorities in the United States purchased 1,000 of the state-of-the-art scanners with an announcement expected imminently on their future use. Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
I assume Picture 2 was a Photo-opportunity shot..if not,then this apparatus cannot detect a wristwatch or as the terrorists like to call it,a timer.
Whats the big idea ? You can see his tinkle.
Seems like a massive invasion of privacy to me. Since when did airport security need to see people naked?
No stranger is looking at me. I'll wear my lead underpants if i have to !!!.
At the risk of being deemed inappropriate, why has the Muslim community been asked for their feedback on this issue and everyone else seemingly ignored. I for one will not subject myself to this
latest invasion of privacy.
If Manchester Airport are concerned with the downturn in passenger numbers, I fear that this will exacerbate the problem.
Yet more attacks on freedom and dignity
No way that is way to much infomation, surely Parliament will have to pass a law on weather it legal plus complications under the obscene publications act this needs to go back to the drawing board.
As a second thought will the Queen, the Royals and governemnt ministers have to go through this.
Ms B, Manchester
Very good and appropriate question; could a journalist from MEN investigate and let us all know the answer.
What about the poor member of staff who has to look at the images, some of the sights you see these days surely their H & S is at risk, all the fat people:-)
I don't mind if it does its job, I get fed up of having to nearly strip anyway so this quickens things up, and yes why only comments from the Muslim population, what have other faith groups said?
Security crosses all faiths and effects all faiths, so there is no question, if you don't like it don't fly simples.
What happens when children go through this scanner? Will the Security Officer then be charged with looking at indecent pictures of children?
Fact of the matter is we live in a society where terrorism amd smuggling is rife. The only people who will find this intrusive are those WITH something to hide. If you bothered to read it correctly you will realise that the staff you deal with at point of contact are NOT the people that veiw the images. If you don't want to be scanned don't fly, SIMPLE. i'm sure on my frequent flights check in will be quicker and flights will be safer. It's time to stop moaning and get with the programme to protect our country and it's law abiding citezens.
No way how have MIA got away with this. This is outrageous and I would expect this going to The Court of Human Rights. It is unacceptable for any person to be subjected to such treatment. I see the girl/spokesperson extolling the machines virtues not going through the machine to show us all what she has about her.
Think I would rather the incovenience of having to remove belt/shoes etc rather than knowing some random stranger will see an outline of me naked. And the security guards checking the pictures, have they been CRB checked? Extreme I know, but there are some weirdos out there who may get off on this sort of thing.
why when there is a chance to improve things in the UK, we have all the bad comments and none for the good in the story lines.
Imagine you had a choice of 2 planes to get on. The first plane there were no checks and they did not search anybody because those people who believe in freedom and dignity have allowed anyone on board. To board the second plane everyone had to pass through the new security measures. Which plane would you let your family fly on ? Why are people so hung up about letting other people see images of themselves ? Don't tell me you have never changed in a public changing area, the Victorian days are long in the past. Don't worry I don't think they will be showing the images on large screens for everyone to see around the airport unless you want them to... I bet those same people who are objecting will be wearing thongs and going topless on the beaches when they get off for all to see and think nothing off it.
Why are you all complaining.... I am going to human rights... Blah blah.... It is for your own safety.
"The only people who will find this intrusive are those WITH something to hide" - David Duck
No David, I have nothing to hide and I find it intrusive. The fact that I HAVEN'T got anything to hide makes it intrusive.
You only have a phsyical pat-down if the standard metal detector x-ray machine bleeps. Then the pat-down is swift. Can't see this speeding up the process, queues will still be abundant at the incompetent airports following the stupid regulations. Only Schipol airport has it's act together in Europe. This is extremely evasive, but our rule makers don't care about that. If it so wonderful why did not Sarah Barrett (video)use herself as a guinea-pig instead of the poor guy with a bulging waist and tight underpants.
No stranger is looking at me. I'll wear my lead underpants if i have to !!!.
JTC Formerley JimC,
13/10/2009 at 13:17
Lead in your pencil Jim, or as Mark Radcliffe has gleaned, wear top to toe leather as that wrist band does not show.
No long term health problems associated with these then?.
No David, I have nothing to hide and I find it intrusive. The fact that I HAVEN'T got anything to hide makes it intrusive.
Mike, Manchester,
13/10/2009 at 15:38
It is a good point Mike is making... Would you just strip there and then ? Because that is what you will be doing.
I am sure they tried this in the USA, the public are not happy with it there.
One quote "Let's hope there are no child molestors working there.
Why not give woman a mamogram report at the same time,
it truly would save some money under the health plan"
Just imagine if a terrorist did smuggle a weapon on board. Those who oppose this scanner will be the first to cry out " why did Manchester Airport not prevent this from happening"
We are not being asked to strip we are being asked to cooperate in preventing a terrorist from blowing YOU out of the sky. Will you still find it intrusive if the scanner finds a terrorist carrying a weapon and your life is saved ????
The big question is not will they strike again it is when.....
To all those who think this is intrusive or a breach of human rights, GET A GRIP ON REALITY FOR ONCE!
There are people out there who want to KILL innocent people, and will go to any lengths possible to do so. These new scanners will put a stop to that and also stop operator error. The extremists are constantly developing new methods to evade security measures, this includes surgically implanted I.E.D's which cant be detected by searching or metal detectors. This type of I.E.D has been used in the miidle east with devastating effect. So if you think this breaches your precious human rights then dont bother flying again. Its people like you that make the life of these terrorists easier.
if this becomes the rule i'll buy some viagra for the journey