Keep TSA away from aircraft

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.

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/st...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/st...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.