صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

money in any kind of security system if they were going to get it otherwise. This is the attitude that I was getting.

Senator CANNON. Senator?

Senator HART. How long does it take to train dogs to do this?

Mr. ANDERSON. We pretrain the dog without the handler. This is a multiple-handler dog, anyone who knows how to handle a dog can handle any of these dogs. We can pretrain him in 6 weeks. We can train the handler in 2 weeks. Now, what we are saying is that any system like this should be contracted, whether by us or someone else, on a performance test basis. Any contracts would have written into it, a certain performance criterion, and the dog would have to meet that performance criterion before it is taken.

That is the only logical way to handle this. That way, you are sure you are getting a detection device that will work.

Senator CANNON. How many dogs have you trained?

Mr. ANDERSON. We keep between six and 10 dogs going through various processes. We have worked with three different breeds, currently, german shepherds, labrador retriever, and the great dane. We know from our experiences in conditioning procedures and laboratory work et cetera that any long nose dog can learn this. Our suggestion to the FAA was the use of labrador retrievers because of their friendly disposition or standard poodles because they presented a friendly image to the public. I would simply not use german shepherds, reaction of the public to a german shepherd is a police attack dog. And that is not the object. Any young lady could handle these dogs. My 14-year-old daughter is a very excellent handler of these dogs. They are definitely not attack dogs.

This has been an outgrowth. The systems have been known for years, by research psychologists. In 1970, Dr. William Crowder at the University of Mississippi was given a contract to apply conditioning procedures to explosive detecting dogs. I worked with the doctor on that project. This project produced two dogs who are now working with the New York Police Department. These are the same two dogs that discovered the bomb on board the TWA plane about a year ago. I think they deactivated that bomb about 10 minutes before it was due to detonate.

Our system is a considerable advancement over the basic research project we did at the university, it is totally automated, it insures a detection capability by the dogs that has, before now, been totally unknown, and they can do it on a systematic basis. It allows us in the first 2 or 3 days of the training to screen a dog and tell whether he has an olfactory or learning disability, therefore, we do not spend a lot of time with the dog then find out he is not usable. We can do this in the first 2 or 3 days.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson, for an interesting presentation. I might want to talk to the airport operators council people, some of the airport operators themselves might be interested in some assistance like this in getting at the problem that they are confronted with.

Mr. ANDERSON. Right. We think it has application over what is currently available since they can detect in areas other instruments can't handle.

(The following information was subsequently received for the record:)


Dogs, trained in eight weeks to the customers' specifications, to detect either bombs, concealed firearms, drugs or any combination of these is the product of Scent Unlimited of Oxford, Mississippi. The company was founded to apply knowledge of scientific conditioning procedures to improve and expand the use of animals, particularly dogs, in various areas of service to man. As part of their research program during the last year they have developed a scientifically based, automated training system to utilize the olfactory ability of dogs as odor detection devices to a degree not previously known.

Richard E. Anderson is Managing Director, Stanley G. Smith is Research Consultant, and William David Carpenter is Supervisor of Training. Mr. Anderson attended the University of Mississippi in the early fifties and majored in psychology. He became interested in dog training in 1959 and participated in dog training as an avocation until the fall of 1969 when he was employed by the Department of Psychology at the University of Mississippi to work on several dog research projects. One of the projects, directed by Doctor William Crowder, produced the bomb search dogs Brandy and Sally that discovered the bomb on the TWA plane several months ago. Mr. Smith is completing his Doctorate in Behavioral Psychology and has numerous publications on animal learning including several on utilization of automated conditioning procedures with dogs. He is currently working for the Department or Pharmacology as a research scientist and is engaged in research concerning the effect of drugs on animal behavior. Mr. Carpenter has attended the University of Mississippi as a pre-law student and worked full time as a handler/trainer for Dr. Crowder on the explosive detector dog project.

Using knowledge gained from basic research and their own research and development program they have devised a three phase training system that uses automated conditioning procedures as the first phase with a transfer to human trainers in the second phase. The third phase consists of training the customer's handler.

The first phase automated conditioning chamber is a room 30' x 18' and is so arranged that any desired odor can be presented or not at various locations around the room. The procedure trains the dog to make a discriminative response (signal) when the desired odor is present. The system requires the dog to search the various locations where the odor could be present and when found, the correct response must be made. Immediately following the response a food reward combined with verbal praise is given. In the first phase training the verbal praise is given by means of a speaker system since there are no humans in the chamber to give cues to the dog. The verbal praise reward, which becomes a strong secondary reinforcer, is continued and emphasized by the human trainers in the second stage.

The use of electronic relays, counters, etc. in the control of odor presentations and the recording of both correct and incorrect responses permits the screening out, in the first week of training, any dog with a learning or olfactory impairment. With electronics the amount of odor can be systematically reduced to just above threshold without a decrease in the search and detection behavior. This develops a strong sniffing response and insures that the dog will detect and signal to minute quantities of odor.

The preciseness of automated conditioning reduces the training time to eight weeks for a basic bomb and gun search dog. This includes the two weeks training time for the customer's handler. This also reduces the price to $1,800 for a dog that is trained to any one of the three groups of odors. For a dog trained to any two groups of odors (bomb and guns, guns and drugs, etc.), the price is $2,100. For a complete multi-purpose dog who can detect all three odor groups the price is $2,400. All of the above prices include complete two weeks training for the customer's handler with room and board paid.

The training system used by Scent Unlimited eliminates the old style one dogone handler concept and permits handlers to be trained in two weeks as opposed to four to six months in conventional training. Also, since the dogs are not trained to one handler this allows multiple handlers and greatly reduces personnel turnover costs for anyone using the dogs.

Handler training involves two weeks of intensive classroom and applied work to enable the handler to use the principles of psychological conditioning by which these dogs have been trained. This is particularly important since their system provides a way to insure a continuous detection capability over an extended work period by reducing or eliminating neurophysical sensory fatigue which reduces their ability to report the presence of a specific stimulus. This is the result of a buildup of neurological inhibitions caused by a change in the neuronochemistry and neuroelectrical functions in the brain and this change is such that reception capability of incoming sensory stimuli are reduced or blacked out for a period of time. This phenomenon occurs in any occupation where the human, or animal, works continuously at a task for a period of time. In the case of odor detection dogs, one way to determine whether the attentional fatigue factor has progressed beyond acceptable limits is to periodically test the dog while he is working. A test situation followed by reinforcement also serves to dissipate the neurophysiological blockage and permits the dog to continue working at or near the peak of his attentional capacity. The training system used by Scent Unlimited has such a test and reinforcement procedure built in.

There are various ways that odor detection dogs can be utilized by law enforcement agencies with the most obvious being as an effective tool for bomb squads. Beyond this obvious use there are such possibilities as screening packages and mail of persons who have received threats or are subject to bombs due to their position. This use is a distinct possibility with the advent of the new "envelope" bomb now being used. The gun detection capability extends the potential use to checking individuals for concealed firearms quickly and without touching them. This would be most effective when it is necessary to screen persons entering a high security area. They can also be used to screen crowds at political rallies and other events when good security should be maintained. One unique possibility would be their use by bank security guards to search all persons entering the bank. These dogs are trained not to exhibit attack behavior and since the dogs can be handled by women it is very unlikely that any but a very small minority of the public would be unduly upset when "searched" by a friendly, tail wagging Labrador Retriever or Standard Poodle being led around on a gold leash by an attractive young lady. Narcotics agents can use odor detection dogs in routine search of people, rooms, houses, automobiles, etc. Small breeds of dogs such as Miniature Poodles could be special ordered and used by undercover agents on special assignment.


1. Training time is five to six months and is a one man/one dog training procedure that requires the handler to train with the dog for the entire period. 2. Confines the dog to one handler. If handler is not available the dog cannot be used.

3. Cost of basic bomb search dog, including handler's salary and maintenance for 5 to 6 months-approximately 6 to 8 thousand dollars.

4. Dogs are limited to detection of bombs.

5. If the dog handler resigns or becomes incapacitated the dog and new handler must undergo extensive training for several months. This results in very high personnel turnover cost.

6. Traditional training requires two to three months training of the dog and handler before an evaluation of the dog can be made. If the dog has an olfactory or learning disability and cannot perform adequately the handler must start over with a new dog.


1. The dog is pre-trained in six weeks and only two weeks is required for handler training

2. Establishes a multiple handler dog that can be handled by anyone familiar with the system.

3. Cost of basic bomb search dog, including maintenance for handler$1,800.

4. Dogs can be trained to detect concealed firearms and narcotics as well as bombs. Additional cost $500.00.

5. If regular handler resigns or becomes incapacitated a new handler can be trained in two weeks. No retraining of the dog is necessary.

6. Screening of the dog for olfactory or learning impairment is done in the first week of training at no cost to the purchaser.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much.

Next, Mr. John J. O'Donnell, president, Airline Pilots Association.


Mr. O'DONNELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With the permission of the committee, I would like to insert our statement into the record, and give a short introduction of the gentlemen who are with me, to allow you gentlemen the opportunity to question them. Senator CANNON. Very good.

Mr. O'DONNELL. As you know, I'm president of the ALPA. I have with me Capt. Lee Hines on my left, the captain of the Eastern Airlines flight that was hijacked out of Houston, Tex., when the ticket agent was murdered. On my right is Capt. Bill Haas of Southern Airways, and I have heard his famous flight discussed the last 2 days in detail.

I would respectfully suggest that perhaps you can get a different outlook into the circumstances of those two hijackings from questioning these two gentlemen. I would like to state very simply that the Airline Pilots Association's position of the last few years, particularly since 1969, when we had our first meeting with Mr. Volpe, who was the newly appointed Secretary of Transportation, and Mr. Schaffer, that our position in regard to hijacking has not changed one bit.

That something must be done to overcome hijacking. In 1969, we outlined certain actions that should have been taken by the Secretary and the FAA. To date, some of those are becoming a fact, primarily by the force of your legislation attempt last year, and the sad evidence to all of us that the House could not come up with an adequate security bill. We would like to state first, the association feels primarily that, without question, there has to be a central Federal authority over lawenforcement presence in the air transportation system. The reason is, basically, there must be one level of quality; we must also prevent fragmentation of responsibility, which has occurred in the last few hijackings, prevent confusion, and solve the question of authority.

Testing the adequacy of the systems at the airports must be uniform. Also, one standard of maintenance must be established for the equipment, such as metal detectors and other surveillance systems.

More important, the quality of law enforcement should not be left up to the pressures or whims of local governments, communities, airport owners, or operators, or the airlines' budgets.

Secondly, we would like to reiterate our position stated to you last year that the only way to eliminate the hijacking problem in the final analysis is going to be the elimination of sanctuaries. We stated that last year in the final moments of our testimony.

We advised and recommended to you gentlemen that if the boycott is eliminated from the actions taken by Congress, we felt that the crime was not going to be eradicated or even reduced.

Today, this week, there is going on in Montreal, an ICAO convention on this problem. I have representatives up there, and the informa

tion that I am getting from Montreal is that as we expected, very little will come out of ICAO. There is just too much of a diverse opinion there. You will recall that the action of the U.N. recently was to study terrorism, rather than do something about it.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. I have heard many important questions this morning and yesterday that probably could best be answered by the two gentlemen sitting beside me. Thank you very much.

Senator CANNON. Thank you for your statement. We will make your prepared text a part of the record in full.

Senator CANNON. Captain Haas, were you here yesterday during the testimony?

Captain HAAS. Yes, sir; I was.

Senator CANNON. So you heard that. I wonder if you would now tell us, tell the committee, what happened, and, keep in mind that we are interested very much in the confusion that might have existed and why, and also the confusion that existed between the different law-enforcement agencies in different communities, that is in the area that you covered, and would you just give us a brief rundown and don't hesitate to intersperse your comments with recommendations as to what could be done to get away from those particular problems.

And also keep in mind that the question Captain O'Donnell raised with me yesterday about the security, that is, is there or was there a secure method of providing you information in the airplane in the face of a hijacker in the cockpit with you? So, if you would just go from there, I would appreciate it very much.

Captain HAAS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think I spoke before several groups, pilot groups and members of the association, and the only way that I could term some of these operations was that they were just agonizingly slow. Especially when you are faced with a situation in the cockpit that we pilots were faced with in this particular incident, and of course, in the other hijackings as well.

When you have a man there who threatens you and it takes a gas truck 2 hours to go 211⁄2 miles, you feel like there is a lack of communications on the ground or they are not being exactly coordinated and there is not much organization.

And several times during those 2 days, we penetrated borders and went into different countries. And even in those instances we found that we had a lot of problems on the ground there in getting things organized. Many airports that serve major cities may be in an adjoining county.

And you have local law-enforcement personnel there that comes out to take charge of these things who know nothing of airline procedures or the operation of the airport. We had several cases like that. I can't think of anything that would help more than having one organization, one head directing the ground operation force. I think that they should be people who are briefed on the situation and know how to cope with these hijackings.

We have made some recommendations. They are probably a matter of record. Our statement will probably reflect some of these things. I would be glad to answer the Chair on anything that you might ask me specifically.

« السابقةمتابعة »