I just read on AVweb 14 American Eagle acft were damaged at ORD by a
TSA inspector using TAT probes as handholds to "test the security of
the aircraft from tampering". 40 flights were delayed while the
aircraft were inspected.

"Our inspector was following routine procedure for securing the
aircraft that were on the tarmac," TSA official Elio Montenegro told
ABC. However, "There is a sign that clearly says don't step," Mary
Frances Fagan, a spokeswoman for American Airlines, which operates
American Eagle, told the Chicago Tribune. TSA workers will be
retrained to ensure that the problem doesn't happen again, Montenegro
said.

So now the TSA is going to train its monkeys not to use aircraft as a
jungle gym? This is what happens when you take someone with zero
aviation background and put them in an airport ramp environment.
Anybody with any experience around airplanes knows not to manhandle
the pointy things hanging off airplanes. This goes beyond ignorant,
it's sheer stupidity. Our tax dollars hard at work, keepinp us all
safe. Not.

"So now the TSA is going to train its monkeys not to use aircraft as a
jungle gym? This is what happens when you take someone with zero
aviation background and put them in an airport ramp environment"

It's just like the FAA and the rest of Guvment. Any warm body that meets
"Diversity goals". The hell with experience or knowledge. We must hire
non-whites so we can purge that evil white heterosexual male with
experience from our work ranks. It is the future of America. A non-white
cluster **** work force. I will bet money that TSA worker was a clueless
overweight Black Female.

People have and will continue to die for "Political Correctness" and
"Diversity" in the spiraling down 3rd world work force America is headed
for.

Political Correctness-Tyranny with Manners

On 2008-08-21 06:51:15 -0700, Kingfish > said:

> I just read on AVweb 14 American Eagle acft were damaged at ORD by a
> TSA inspector using TAT probes as handholds to "test the security of
> the aircraft from tampering". 40 flights were delayed while the
> aircraft were inspected.
>
> "Our inspector was following routine procedure for securing the
> aircraft that were on the tarmac," TSA official Elio Montenegro told
> ABC.

Yep, just doing his job as a member of the Department of Aviation Prevention.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell writes:

> Yep, just doing his job as a member of the Department of Aviation Prevention.

More like the Department of Crash Generation.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>C J Campbell writes:
>
>> Yep, just doing his job as a member of the Department of Aviation
>> Prevention.
>
> More like the Department of Crash Generation.

Troll alert!!!

"Fillard Millmore" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:_Tprk.3586$Ks1.3550
@newsfe02.iad:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>>C J Campbell writes:
>>
>>> Yep, just doing his job as a member of the Department of Aviation
>>> Prevention.
>>
>> More like the Department of Crash Generation.
>
> Troll alert!!!
>
>
>

Fjukkktard CNOTM alert!

Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Fillard Millmore" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:_Tprk.3586$Ks1.3550
> @newsfe02.iad:
>
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>C J Campbell writes:
>>>
>>>> Yep, just doing his job as a member of the Department of Aviation
>>>> Prevention.
>>>
>>> More like the Department of Crash Generation.
>>
>> Troll alert!!!
>>
>
> Fjukkktard CNOTM alert!
>
> Bertie

Oh, so you and Didley are both sockin' for Mx these day, uh?

On Aug 22, 6:59 am, "Bart" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in .com...
>
>
>
> > "Fillard Millmore" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:_Tprk.3586$Ks1.3550
> > @newsfe02.iad:
>
> >> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>C J Campbell writes:
>
> >>>> Yep, just doing his job as a member of the Department of Aviation
> >>>> Prevention.
>
> >>> More like the Department of Crash Generation.
>
> >> Troll alert!!!
>
> > Fjukkktard CNOTM alert!
>
> > Bertie
>
> Oh, so you and Didley are both sockin' for Mx these day, uh?

And you are sokin' for me chowderhead!
Have an extra coffee soaked donut on me ****** boi.

> wrote in message
...
> On Aug 22, 6:59 am, "Bart" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>> .com...
>>
>>
>> > Fjukkktard CNOTM alert!
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> Oh, so you and Didley are both sockin' for Mx these day, uh?
>
> And you are sokin' for me chowderhead!
> Have an extra coffee soaked donut on me ****** boi.

Bull****. We spotted and listed you as a Bertie SUCKpuppet in the first
volume.

What a pathetic existence, sucking for a dildo like Gurtie.

Beat it **** ant.

>> "Our inspector was following routine procedure for securing the
>> aircraft that were on the tarmac," TSA official Elio Montenegro told
>> ABC.
>
> Yep, just doing his job as a member of the Department of Aviation
> Prevention.

The fact that the airplanes were damaged, through abuse that about anyone
with a mechanical knowledge past the repairing of bicycles is bad enough.

What really burns my ass is that someone higher up, that should know better,
actually tried to defend the actions by saying that they did find unsecured
planes.

Is it time for a letter writing campain to our elected officials, demanding
removal of the idiot that defended the actions?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
>>> "Our inspector was following routine procedure for securing the
>>> aircraft that were on the tarmac," TSA official Elio Montenegro told
>>> ABC.
>>
>> Yep, just doing his job as a member of the Department of Aviation
>> Prevention.
>
> The fact that the airplanes were damaged, through abuse that about
> anyone with a mechanical knowledge past the repairing of bicycles is
> bad enough.
>
> What really burns my ass is that someone higher up, that should know
> better, actually tried to defend the actions by saying that they did
> find unsecured planes.
>
> Is it time for a letter writing campain to our elected officials,
> demanding removal of the idiot that defended the actions?
>
It's probably necessary to go higher up than that if the inspector was
indeed "following routine procedure".

Neil

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Our inspector was following routine procedure for securing the
>>> aircraft that were on the tarmac," TSA official Elio Montenegro told
>>> ABC.
>>
>> Yep, just doing his job as a member of the Department of Aviation
>> Prevention.
>
> The fact that the airplanes were damaged, through abuse that about anyone
> with a mechanical knowledge past the repairing of bicycles is bad enough.
>
> What really burns my ass is that someone higher up, that should know
> better, actually tried to defend the actions by saying that they did find
> unsecured planes.
>
> Is it time for a letter writing campain to our elected officials,
> demanding removal of the idiot that defended the actions?

How did you come to the determination that the official was defending the
actions?

In fact, the official described what happened and admitted the inspector's
actions damaged the aircraft. Two days later the airline and TSA issued a
joint statement saying they share the same goals which seems to indicate the
airline was satisfied with the response from TSA which probably means TSA is
in the process of taking actions to prevent a future occurrence and they are
communicating that response to the airline.

In article <C9%rk.603$UX.108@trnddc03>, "Mike" > wrote:

> In fact, the official described what happened and admitted the inspector's
> actions damaged the aircraft. Two days later the airline and TSA issued a
> joint statement saying they share the same goals which seems to indicate the
> airline was satisfied with the response from TSA which probably means TSA is
> in the process of taking actions to prevent a future occurrence and they are
> communicating that response to the airline.

The cynic in me suspects that one reasonable explanation for the airline
being "satisfied" is that you don't **** off the people who can make your
life miserable.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <C9%rk.603$UX.108@trnddc03>, "Mike" >
> wrote:
>
>> In fact, the official described what happened and admitted the
>> inspector's
>> actions damaged the aircraft. Two days later the airline and TSA issued
>> a
>> joint statement saying they share the same goals which seems to indicate
>> the
>> airline was satisfied with the response from TSA which probably means TSA
>> is
>> in the process of taking actions to prevent a future occurrence and they
>> are
>> communicating that response to the airline.
>
> The cynic in me suspects that one reasonable explanation for the airline
> being "satisfied" is that you don't **** off the people who can make your
> life miserable.

I would suspect the reverse. If you don't think a large corporation like
AMR can make the life of the TSA administrator miserable, you have a lot to
learn about being a cynic.

"Bart" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Fillard Millmore" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> news:_Tprk.3586$Ks1.3550 @newsfe02.iad:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>C J Campbell writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Yep, just doing his job as a member of the Department of Aviation
>>>>> Prevention.
>>>>
>>>> More like the Department of Crash Generation.
>>>
>>> Troll alert!!!
>>>
>>
>> Fjukkktard CNOTM alert!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Oh, so you and Didley are both sockin' for Mx these day, uh?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just to underscore your clueless newbie status you're still clueless
about what a sockpuppet is, ainthca fjukktard?


Bertie

"Bart" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:vvyrk.3077$9u1.2459
@newsfe09.iad:

>
> > wrote in message
> news:31fa2956-8b33-4449-ae7d-2b0c49f06295
@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 22, 6:59 am, "Bart" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>>> .com...
>>>
>>>
>>> > Fjukkktard CNOTM alert!
>>>
>>> > Bertie
>>>
>>> Oh, so you and Didley are both sockin' for Mx these day, uh?
>>
>> And you are sokin' for me chowderhead!
>> Have an extra coffee soaked donut on me ****** boi.
>
> Bull****. We spotted and listed you as a Bertie SUCKpuppet in the
first
> volume.
>


Really>? Who's we?


> What a pathetic existence, sucking for a dildo like Gurtie.
>
> Beat it **** ant.

Wow, and the cluelssness continues unabated.

Bertie
>
>
>
>
>

In article <CD4sk.651$5C.279@trnddc02>, "Mike" > wrote:

> > The cynic in me suspects that one reasonable explanation for the airline
> > being "satisfied" is that you don't **** off the people who can make your
> > life miserable.
>
> I would suspect the reverse. If you don't think a large corporation like
> AMR can make the life of the TSA administrator miserable, you have a lot to
> learn about being a cynic.

<snort> if anyone should have a miserable life, it's TSA pukes. Are there
any miserable TSA pukes out there. Anyone? Bueller?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Mike wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>> "Our inspector was following routine procedure for securing the
>>>> aircraft that were on the tarmac," TSA official Elio Montenegro told
>>>> ABC.
>>>
>>> Yep, just doing his job as a member of the Department of Aviation
>>> Prevention.
>>
>> The fact that the airplanes were damaged, through abuse that about
>> anyone with a mechanical knowledge past the repairing of bicycles is
>> bad enough.
>>
>> What really burns my ass is that someone higher up, that should know
>> better, actually tried to defend the actions by saying that they did
>> find unsecured planes.
>>
>> Is it time for a letter writing campain to our elected officials,
>> demanding removal of the idiot that defended the actions?
>
> How did you come to the determination that the official was defending
> the actions?
>
> In fact, the official described what happened and admitted the
> inspector's actions damaged the aircraft. Two days later the airline
> and TSA issued a joint statement saying they share the same goals which
> seems to indicate the airline was satisfied with the response from TSA
> which probably means TSA is in the process of taking actions to prevent
> a future occurrence and they are communicating that response to the
> airline.


This sounds like defending to me. I think it might be the phrase
"strongly defended" that made me lean that way.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5624381&page=1

...."TSA, however, strongly defended its inspector's actions, noting in a
statement that he was able to gain interior access to seven of the nine
aircraft he inspected, which was an "apparent violation of the airline's
security program." TSA said it encourages its inspectors to look for
such vulnerabilities and after reviewing the inspection results, the
agency "could take action against the airline, up to and including
levying civil penalties."

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> Mike wrote:
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>> "Our inspector was following routine procedure for securing the
>>>>> aircraft that were on the tarmac," TSA official Elio Montenegro told
>>>>> ABC.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, just doing his job as a member of the Department of Aviation
>>>> Prevention.
>>>
>>> The fact that the airplanes were damaged, through abuse that about
>>> anyone with a mechanical knowledge past the repairing of bicycles is bad
>>> enough.
>>>
>>> What really burns my ass is that someone higher up, that should know
>>> better, actually tried to defend the actions by saying that they did
>>> find unsecured planes.
>>>
>>> Is it time for a letter writing campain to our elected officials,
>>> demanding removal of the idiot that defended the actions?
>>
>> How did you come to the determination that the official was defending the
>> actions?
>>
>> In fact, the official described what happened and admitted the
>> inspector's actions damaged the aircraft. Two days later the airline and
>> TSA issued a joint statement saying they share the same goals which seems
>> to indicate the airline was satisfied with the response from TSA which
>> probably means TSA is in the process of taking actions to prevent a
>> future occurrence and they are communicating that response to the
>> airline.
>
>
> This sounds like defending to me. I think it might be the phrase "strongly
> defended" that made me lean that way.
>
> http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5624381&page=1
>
> ..."TSA, however, strongly defended its inspector's actions, noting in a
> statement that he was able to gain interior access to seven of the nine
> aircraft he inspected, which was an "apparent violation of the airline's
> security program." TSA said it encourages its inspectors to look for such
> vulnerabilities and after reviewing the inspection results, the agency
> "could take action against the airline, up to and including levying civil
> penalties."

That wasn't TSA's quote, that was ABC's.

Reading on from your link...

TSA acknowledged that its inspector pulled himself up the side of the
aircraft by using a Total Air Temperature (TAT) probe as a handhold. The TAT
probe, which measures outside air temperature and connects to key computer
systems inside the aircraft, is considered critical to flight safety. TSA
said it was not its intent to "cause delays or potential damage to aircraft
as a result of our inspections," and that the agency acted quickly to
"re-enforce education about sensitive equipment located on the exterior of a
plane."

TSA acknowledged its mistake and took prompt action to correct it. It may
have been a stupid mistake, but most of these inspectors aren't pilots or
mechanics. I don't like TSA anymore than anyone else, which is just another
reason why I'm glad I fly myself as much as possible, but trying to invent
some sort of systemic problem out of an isolated incident which appears to
involve only one employee is ridiculous. Now if TSA fails to correct the
problem and it happens again, perhaps the entire agency can be faulted, but
as it is they are hardly worthy of contempt in this situation. The
airlines' own employees cause delays due to incompetence from time to time.
The same thing happens with airport employees, the FAA, contractors, and
practically every other group that works on an airport. Scheiß happens when
you work around aircraft. It's how you deal with these situations which
define the worth of the organization as a whole. Trying to pretend they can
never happen is not realistic.

What I can tell you is that whenever the FAA's equipment or personel cause
airline delays, a detailed report is prepared for the administrator just in
case the airlines ask for it (and they often do). The administrator briefs
the airline on exactly what happened and what the agency is doing to correct
it. I don't know how the TSA operates, but I wouldn't be at all surprised
if they have a similar system in place.

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Just to underscore your clueless newbie status you're still clueless
> about what a sockpuppet is, ainthca fjukktard?
>
>
> Bertie

Maybe in you grossly limited "wanne be" troll world.

Hail Eris! On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:47:13 -0500, Englebert frothed and
foamed:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote...
>>
>> Just to underscore your clueless newbie status you're still clueless
>> about what a sockpuppet is, ainthca fjukktard?
>
> Maybe in you grossly limited "wanne be" troll world.

So that'd be a resounding "YES!!!!!!", then.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
The God of Odd Statements
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.

Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Award nominee > on outing
personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so ****ing scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.

"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pig****er in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.

"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: om>