Picture it: You’ve just made your way through airport security and onto the aircraft that will transport you to your destination. Running late, you walk hurriedly down the narrow aisle to find that your seat lies next to that of a man who is already settled. You place your belongings into the overhead compartment as the man removes a full-sized, metal-tipped screwdriver from his carry-on bag. “Craftsman Makes Anything Possible,” the red handle reads.

Cleared for takeoff. Are you comfortable?

The above situation is in accordance with the standards and regulations set in place by the Transportation Safety Administration. According to TSA spokesman Brett O’Neil, new TSA regulations are “tested and determined safe,” however in this case “safe” includes tools like pliers, screwdrivers, wrenches, and corkscrews, as long as they are seven inches or less in length. An entire list of these regulations is posted on the TSA’s official website, tsa.org.

At the same time, the TSA has stepped up security on some seemingly harmless items. Just ask Regina Yazbeck, who was dumbfounded when her property was destroyed last year for security reasons. The article in question? A piggy bank.

Yazbeck, an occupational therapy major at UB, found a recent flight more than an inconvenience. Departing from Rochester, she carried in her arms a large, clear, plastic piggy bank jam-packed with 1300 quarters in hopes of delivering it to her newborn nephew in Florida. Wary about packing $400 cash in her checked luggage, but aware she might have some trouble, her father remained a short distance away, ready to haul the item home with him if necessary. As expected, this little piggy was not permitted on the plane; and to make matters worse, not even a handoff to her dad was allowed.

“The screener told me that it was already within the secure checkpoint, so they would have to cut it open,” Yazbeck explained. “I didn’t have a problem leaving it with my dad, so what they were doing made no sense to me.” The TSA screeners cut open the bank as she watched in disbelief, dumping out most of the coins before allowing it on board. From there, her only option was to lug the slain sow all the way to Florida, its jingling, metallic guts on display. “I was just so upset,” she recalled. “I think that they’re putting an emphasis on things that they really shouldn’t when it comes to security measures.”

Despite Yazbeck’s story, Brett O’Neil says the policy stands. “We don’t destroy things, we don’t smash things.” Similar complaints have been made about the searches and investigation techniques employed regarding checked luggage. In regards to items such as wrapped gifts, O’Neil says there is “no guarantee. If we must open the gifts for any reason, when we unwrap them, they won’t be re-wrapped. We don’t wrap gifts.” A recent article from the Associated Press notes that out of 68,540 phone calls and letters that the TSA received last year, 1,253 were complaints. O’Neil seems to understand this but takes it with a grain of salt. “We are doing things that might make people uncomfortable. The criticisms come with the territory,” he remarks.

Debbie Scholl, a woman from the Buffalo area who often plays tag-along on her husband’s business trips, tells a different story. Upon returning home from her annual trip to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida last summer, she found her luggage in a state of ruin. Riding around on the baggage carousel was her hardly-recognizable Samsonite bag, the zipper broken off, with layers of duct tape to serve as a meager replacement. “When I finally opened the damn thing, I found a crumpled up paper that read ‘random check.’ Everything was disheveled, items were even missing.”

The list was comprised of various clothing items, belonging to both her and her husband, John. What upset her most about the incident was that the luggage carried sentimental value, originally belonging to her deceased mother-in-law. “The inside was as bad as the outside, if you could even imagine,” Scholl said. “The fabric flaps that made up the interior lining were pulled out by the rivets. I was furious.”

Recent reports that tracked undercover agents attempting to carry fake bombs past airport security checkpoints reveal data figures that are less than perfect. In an article published this past October, USA Today reports, “Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75 percent of simulated explosives and bomb parts that the Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints…” Screeners at Chicago’s O’Hare airport missed 60 percent.

These numbers have gone up from 40 percent in the late ‘90s to 60 percent in 2002, reaching their apex at 75 percent last year. O’Neil says these numbers do not speak accurately about the screening process. “We are human beings as you are a human being…it isn’t an excuse, but we’re all subject to human error.” He asserts that TSA staff is both qualified and well-trained with an emphasis on the recognition of suspect parcels and the appropriate response. O’Neil compared security error to a student taking a series of academic tests—even if you know the material, and you’ve studied, sometimes you don’t get the A you were hoping for.

“Maybe there was something else happening. Maybe there was something going on at home, and you didn’t do as well as you had expected,” he suggested. O’Neil offered an explanation for the rising numbers, as well. As the Homeland Security and TSA officers widen their scope on the types of items that could be considered dangerous, there is much more to remain aware of. TSA Chief Kip Hawley told USA Today, “We moved from testing of completely assembled bombs…to the small component parts.” Everyday household objects are arousing new suspicions.

With the continuous flow of public opinion and constant media coverage, one might wonder if the skies are safer these days than they were seven years ago. It is up to individuals to educate themselves to answer that murky question. When asked how she felt, Yazbeck replied that she saw both sides of the issue, but that “Sometimes they could be nicer about things.” Landon Kamps, an aerospace engineering major at UB, shared her opinion. “I feel safer knowing that the government has set up these agencies…they wouldn’t go through as much trouble as they do if no one was benefiting.”

Texas Congressman Ron Paul made a stink recently when he called the TSA out on its policies, saying that the organization’s screeners “have no special training, wisdom, intelligence, or experience whatsoever that qualifies them to have any authority over you.”

Mike Lowry, an air traffic controller at Buffalo International Airport disagrees. He has worked for the federal government for 25 years as an airport safety controller, directing the planes that transcend the Buffalo skyline.

“I feel, as an air traffic controller, that in doing what they’re doing, the TSA does their best to ensure that airline cockpit security is not compromised,” Lowry said. He believes that the formation of the agency was an appropriate response to the events that occurred on 9/11, empathizing with the controllers that were working that morning. While Lowry has heard his fair share of criticism of the TSA, he sees a greater good. “I think that they have to balance personal needs and privacy with the need for stringent security.”

“One unpleasant experience,” says O’Neil, “can become a sort of condemnation of the whole organization.” Though it won’t bring Yazbeck’s pig back from the dead, O’Neil offers his word. “We recognize that there is an existing threat. We’re out there, we’re progressing, we’re doing all we can to meet that threat.”