Does airport security make sense?

Rob Lovitt Travel writer • E-mail

Knitting needles, a couple of Christmas presents, and a half-cup of lukewarm coffee.

If you were tasked with the job of preventing terrorist attacks on airplanes, which would you let through security without a second glance?

Apparently, the correct answer is the knitting needles. And if a flight I took last week is any indication, that’s true even if they’re 10 inches long, as big around as a railroad spike and as pointy as a pair of bayonets.

How is it, I asked the needle-wielding woman across the aisle, that she could carry a pair of small spears onboard while I had to toss my last few ounces of coffee before passing through security? She just shrugged and said, “I don’t know. I guess they figure I’m not a terrorist.”

Well, neither am I (and neither, it seems, was that nice grandfatherly man who had to go through secondary screening because he had a few pre-wrapped presents). And while I understand the need for airport security, I sometimes wonder about the reasoning behind the regulations.

Lighters are banned, but safety matches (up to four books) are OK. A six-inch screwdriver is considered safe, but a six-ounce Yoplait is not. Unlike most liquids, baby formula or breast milk is allowed in any quantity — but only if a baby is actually present. And in the newest addition to the TSA’s list of prohibited items, snow globes (of any size) are now forbidden.

Is this any way to run an airport-security system? Are such seemingly random restrictions truly making us safer, or are they, as some critics suggest, simply “security theater,” designed to make us feel safe? And if screeners spend their time searching for snow globes and tubes of toothpaste, can they give truly dangerous items the attention they deserve?

Bombs, blades and penile pumps
It’s not an idle question. In the most recently publicized test of screening procedures (conducted at Newark Liberty International Airport last October), undercover TSA agents managed to smuggle fake guns and bombs past security in 20 of 22 attempts. One explosive device was apparently “hidden” beneath water bottles while another was missed during a secondary pat-down.

More Rob Lovitt columns 10 dollar-stretching destinations Festivals celebrate the beauty of spring New gear for cash-strapped travelers Extreme makeover: extended-stay edition When travel executives attack Winter Games only a year away Hybrids for hire: more cars, more options How President Obama can fix travel U.S. picks 2 potential World Heritage sites Onboard innovators: In pursuit of pain-free flying More Rob Lovitt columns

And that failure wasn’t an isolated incident. Previous tests in other airports have had similar or even worse results, and the sheer volume of passengers and bags passing through security these days doesn’t bode well for improvement any time soon.

(On the bright, or at least lighter, side, screeners have detected a dazzling array of potentially dangerous items, including chainsaws, ax heads and at least one, ahem, male-enhancement device that apparently resembled a grenade.)

MORE FROM NEWS

News Section Front

Passengers flee 747 after smoke fills cabin Airlines’ on-time marks improved in May NWA flight attendants challenge uniform sizes Canadian’s song about United Airlines a hit Ex-airline worker 'mortified' over gun on plane Airfare from Hilo going up Jet returns to Calif. airport with engine problem Rails and tales: Free programs for Amtrak riders Boston airport tests radar to avoid bird strikes United fined for not revealing flight information News Section Front   Add News headlines to your news reader: