One would expect a similar, if slightly toned-down, local response following the recent hijacking attempt on an SAA flight by a syringe-wielding man desperate to have the flight diverted to Maputo.

Surely those responsible for flight security would feel the need to allay passengers' fears by demonstrating a heightened awareness of security?

This does not appear to be the case. An iafrica.com staff member recently boarded a Kulula flight from Cape Town to Johannesburg with Mace spray in her handbag and a razor in her hand luggage. Neither was picked up by the security system.

Following this incident, a Cape Town newspaper reported a similar case in which a man had boarded a flight with a set of steak knives in his hand luggage (he was reportedly unaware that they were contained in a gift-wrapped package). The knives were not picked up by the security system. Knives, Mace and razors are all prohibited items.

Before the hijacking of the SAA plane, hypodermic syringes were not regarded as prohibited items because certain passengers need to carry them for medical reasons. Since then, the regulations have been altered so that passengers may only carry syringes if they have proof that they are a medical necessity.

Commenting on the use of a hypodermic needle during the recent hijacking attempt, Transport Minister Jeff Radebe said "despite what the regulations may define as either dangerous or prohibited, the screening process needs to incorporate a certain discretionary element that interlaces the strengths of the sophisticated x-ray and other technology with personal observation."

It may be that neither of these individuals appeared to be dangerous and were therefore not deemed threatening armed with their Mace and knives. However, using the appearance of the passenger as a screening criterion is a dangerous game. A terrorist is not likely to look like a terrorist and he or she is even less likely to declare prohibited items.

While some onus does rest with the law-abiding citizen to make sure that he or she doesn't take prohibited items on board a flight (making it easier for officials to single out those who do), the responsibility for flight security doesn't lie with the passenger.

Perhaps the most disturbing outcome from the security breach is the unwillingness from various organizations involved to take responsibility.

The communications manager of Kulula pointed to ACSA as the culpable party. Similarly, after the hijacking attempt, South African Airways suggested that ACSA was responsible for the syringe being on the plane. At the time, ACSA's response was fairly limited, tending to focus on the fact that no security regulations had been breached because syringes were not prohibited items. They, in turn, redirected all questions to SAA and the South Africa Police Services.

Once again ACSA has refused to take responsibility for or even comment on this latest failing of airport security systems. The first individual contacted by iafrica.com — who works in ACSA's legal department — refused to answer any queries. The second, who works in the communications department in Johannesburg, referred iafrica.com to the communications department in Cape Town. The relevant individual in Cape Town was not available and did not respond to telephone messages and emails.

In his Board of Airlines Representatives of South Africa (BARSA) speech Jeff Radebe criticized individuals who reported "alleged breaches" without understanding how the security systems are conceived or designed. However he went on further to say: "At the same time, we must not be dismissive of the public's right to safety and security, and indeed their right to know enough about how the systems work, why certain regulations and procedures are in place, in order to give them comfort and assurance."

ACSA's failure to respond means that the public continues to be ignorant about how the security systems work. Furthermore, their attempts to fob off legitimate questions demonstrate ineptitude and an unwillingness to accept culpability. This, combined with our staff member's flight experience, is hardly likely to give the public "comfort and assurance".