Superguy

The saying "do as I say, not as I do" comes to mind.

Bart

I think many TSA screeners AGREE that senators shouldn't be setting specific travel policies. It's not TSA that's the problem, it's the senators! The point you seem to miss is that once Congress passes a law, federal agencies are obligated to follow that law. This lighter ban is micromanagement on its worst possible scale.

If Congress had merely stuck to the broader guidance of telling TSA and the airlines to have procedures in place for potential hazards presented by flammable materials, then I'm willing to bet we wouldn't have this specific policy or ban in place.

Dovster

Bart, you are unquestionably right. The TSA did not ban cigarette lighters for years and would not have suddenly decided to do so.

My objection to the TSA's role in this farce is extending the ban to include Zippos.

The TSA's logic basically went as follows:

1. Cigarette lighters are not dangerous. If they were, we would have banned them ourselves.

2. Congress banned lighters containing butane.

3. If passengers can not take one type of non-dangerous item aboard, we will also stop them from taking another type of non-dangerous item.

If the government wants me to get rid of $2 disposable Bic that I picked up somewhere, I will be a little annoyed but not truly upset. If it demands that I get rid of the Zippo I have carried since Vietnam -- or one of the various Zippos I have bought as souvenirs for my collection -- it is going to bother me a lot more.

I can imagine where someone who has a $300 gold Dunhill lighter would be infuriated. True, it contains butane but would not be in violation of Congressional law if emptied before boarding. Then the owner would merely have to refill it upon arrival.

Bart

Agreed. TSA took the Congressional ban one step further by banning ALL lighters. Zippos certainly could have been made the exception to the rule since the lighter fuel is absorbed by the inner filter. On that point, yes, TSA certainly didn't help matters much.

As for expensive lighters such as the Colibri (sp?) and other similar "torch" lighters, I'm afraid we've never had much choice in that matter. They've always been prohibited by FAA regulations long before TSA came into existence.

However, your point about empty lighters is valid for checked baggage. If you empty your lighter, you may place it in your checked luggage and we will not confiscate it.

Superguy

I'll agree that Congress shouldn't be micromanaging TSA when it comes to prohibited items list.

However, to place all the blame on them. A lot of FSDs (and hence the screeners) don't even know proper TSA procedure (or ignore it) so these extensions such as banning all lighters are an easy jump.

Bart

This may be picky, but that's not really the way it works. Congress passed the law and TSA HQs revised the SOP with additional guidance. It's not the FSDs who added to the Congressional legislation; they don't have that authority.

I really don't want to discuss this too much and come across as defending this policy. In short: it is a stupid policy. Primary blame goes to Congress (not just the two who proposed this but every single Congressperson who voted for the measure). Secondary blame goes to TSA headquarters who changed the SOP with the additional guidance of just banning all lighters. Then to "flip flop" with the follow-up guidance about empty lighters in checked baggage. In all fairness, perhaps the follow-up guidance was necessary. At my airport, we never confiscated brand new or empty Zippos from checked baggage because we understood that they posed no hazard since they didn't have fuel. Perhaps other airports required this clarification.

Of course, adding to the frustration will be the various misinterpretations of policy that's bound to happen whenver there's a change in direction. Not much I or anyone else can do about that other than to try to minimize it where possible.

Gargoyle

There are a lot of people who collect antique lighters, and they have meets and conventions. They can't ship lighters by most normal shipping methods (post office, etc.); they can't put them in checked luggage, and they can't carry them onboard. Some of these lighters sell for $1,000.

http://www.vintagevault.com/lighterbooks.html lists dozens of guide books and reference books for lighter collectors. It seems to be a pretty popular hobby, but it's clearly a national security threat.

I guess they have to ride the train.

Superguy

Right. I didn't mean to imply that the FSD's were the ones that were adding to it, rather that they often complicate procedures by adding more to it than necessary, like the shoe problem.

exerda

Don't worry, I'm sure DHS will shortly deem lighters to be hazards to trains and busses, too

OutOfOffice

Without saying whether I did it intentionally or not, I passed through 4 airports this past weekend with a bic style lighter in my carryon (backpack, front zipper pocket) with the following results:

SJC- Not detected
IAD- Not detected (left secure area for a smoke)
RSW- Not detected (was subject to SSSS due to one way ticket I assume)
IAH- Not detected (left secure area for a smoke)

As a side note, at the secondary line in RSW, I stood behind a WWII veteran who explained to me he always goes through secondary due to metal in his leg. He said he didn't mind if it made everyone feel safer. I told him he was the last person who should be in that line and I'd feel safe if he bypassed security alltogether.

AArlington

Komrade, smoking is haxerdous to your health.

Mary2e

I'm flying for the first time this weekend since the lighter ban. I normally carry a couple of Bic lighters in my purse. I don't even own any matches.

What should I do? Put one in each pocket? Put one in my husbands pocket & one in mine? Give up? Go on a quest for matches? .

Note - my husband for some reason almost always gets secondary. Not that much when he's with me, but they bug him far more than me. So, I'm concerned about giving him a lighter.

From reading the posts it doesn't look like anyone is losing their Bic lighters.

Advice?

exerda

Having truly fought to make us safer, it's really a bit sad that a WW2 veteran would succumb to the "well, if it makes people feel safer" mindset.

Bart

A Korean War veteran criticized our TSA screening procedures and claimed how he could easily break through and do a lot of damage inside the sterile area. The point here is that we will never please everyone. Some will think we're too intrusive and others will think we're too lax.

SDF_Traveler

I'm sure this Korean War vetran was correct on his assessment.

However, there is only so much airport security can do, without infriging (further) upon civil liberties of US citizens and making security more difficult (and expensive) for everyone.

Airport security will never be 100% effective at stopping certain types of attacks, no matter what one does. Some terrorist or deranged individual can take a gun and shoot their way through a checkpoint and make a mess in the sterile area as an example, but can this be prevented by adding more security? Probably not; a large wall can be built between the landside area and security checkpoint, with only "ticketed" passengers allowed through a doorway which proceeds to the security checkpoint area -- but then all the terrorist or whacko has to do is purchase a ticket.

I believe some airports could be designed better around the security checkpoint, which would provide small benefits which do increase security - but even this won't stop a determined person.

We can add more (armed) police officers to the security checkpoints, but that won't necessarily stop someone.

Bottom line is there will always be risk of something happening at an airport or anywhere you go. One could be driving on a California highway and get shot at. There is only so much the TSA can do at a checkpoint -- which esentially comes down to screening passengers for guns & explosives (and have all baggage screened).

As an another example, take a bank. There is only so much they can do to prevent a robbery. Having worked for a bank I know there is a lot of security behind the scenes, which many members of the general public would never even think of when they walk into their bank. Despite this, there will always be risk - even if big bullet proof glass windows are installed between the tellers and the public. I personally don't like the big bullet proof glass windows you will find at some banks and thankfully many banks don't have to resort to this.

SDF_Traveler