Stolen topic from a.net:
abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story … 502&page=1
Thoughts?
Mine… 
.
I bet that guy feels really 
. Well, the only positive is that given all the troubles at O’hare, those flights could have been cancelled. 
The TSA agent was attempting to determine if someone could break into a parked aircraft, according to Montenegro.
What a stupid reason to inspect these planes. Last time I checked, you had to get into the airport first, and then find your way onto the tarmac without being tackled by security. I mean come on, who could ever get into an airplane on the tarmac, save employees of the airline.
edit for spelling.
“Our inspector was following routine procedure for securing the aircraft that were on the tarmac,” Montenegro told ABCNews.com.
It seems they’re taking the “Too bad for you, we didn’t do anything wrong” position which is asinine. It’s a full-on CYA now. THE TSA needs to be disbanded. They’ve protected us from terrorist attacks as much as the my elephant repellent device has protected my lawn.
I was also just thinking, if airlines follow their “Normal ops” for any RON a/c, there should be NO way in hell ANYONE who doesn’t know how, to get on an a/c. Now what the TSA is pulling is going to result in “We the TSA feel you the airlines need to secure your a/c better”…Dumb donkies 
Like I’ve always said, TSA stands for Terminally STUPID Assholes.
I flew to LAX last week and returned on Monday. You know those quart size bags your suppose to put your liquids in? Well, both my girlfriend and I forgot to take them out of the carry on luggage. Yet the folks at OAK didn’t say anything about it. So much for good security - not that limiting liquids to 3 ounces only is good security!
What the hell was TSA doing sending somebody out to check the security of the aircraft that obviously had no training? The TSA is entirely out of control. Part of the problem, sadly, is the American people who put up with this bullshit because “it’s for our security”.
My lawn has been screwed as well… 
The 3 ounces thing is a waste of time. I could purchase all the liquid I want post security.
I know! Mohammed Terrorist bring in 6 bottles of 3 ounces each in his carry-on as does Mohammed Terrorist 2, 3, and 4. Guess what? You now have the terrorists with 24 bottles x 3 ounces which is 72 ounces which is pretty good about of liquids to make something go ka-boom.
Friggin’ TSA idiots! The difference between the Boy Scouts and the TSA (and many other government agencies)? The Boy Scouts have adult leadership.
I agree. There is so much incompetence in the direction of the TSA. All of America should be laughing at their attempt to make our lives safer. They could get rid of some stupid procedures, and make every one’s life easier and safer.
Taking a trip on an airline use to be so much phone pre-9/11. Now, with the so-called security checkpoint, it’s nothing but a pain in the ass. Pre-9/11 security was efficient and cheaper. Now, I’m paying a security fee to be abused by my government. And evidently I’m paying that security fee at connecting airports even though there’s no possibilty of me exiting the “secured” area at the connection airport.
Yeah, it’s just not as exciting to fly an airline as it was BEFORE THE LIQUID BAN! I like living on the edge. I think they should allow fireworks, handguns, blasting caps and grenades too.
Come on now, NeedleNose. You are smart enough to know (I hope) that I’m talking about the whole TSA idiocy when it comes to security.
Here’s another example of their stupidty. Last Christmas, we took a cheese set as a gift through security. The idiots in charge at first wouldn’t let it through because it had two small knives. We got the supervisor to check it out. He agree it could go through provided one of the knives was removed. You know he picked the SMALLER and DULLER of the two knives to remove from the gift. What morans.
TSA is a behemoth organization sworn to protect the traveling public. There has to be a process to accomplish their mission of protecting airline passengers. Pain in the ass? Yeah, but consider the alternative. Better to err on the side of caution than allow a terrorist to succeed in one of their missions. Some procedures like secondary screening of 90-year-old ladies traveling with grandchildren are ludicrous, but it’s not THEIR fault! It’s required because the American public has somehow been duped into believing that profiling in any form is wrong.
Large organizations can sometimes find it “hard to find good help”, and an occasional cretin can somehow filter through the employment process. Who knows, a few might even make it to a supervisory position. Suck it up and deal with it or stay home. Take names and file formal complaints if a particular incident rubs you the wrong way.
This is the EXACT problem with the security as defined by TSA. There is nothing wrong in my opinion with profiling. This BS about not offending anybody, especially islams, is wrong. How many 90 years old women and 80+ years old Medal of Honor winners were involved in the terroristic acts against the USA. It’s a small number - 0 (zero).
Timothy McVeigh would have walked right on any plane as a non-threatening white male with military service. Just food for thought.
Still, profiling is a great tool that is not being utilized.
I think the TSA has done some great things, and I applaud them for that. But the liquid has loopholes you can get around, and to me is comical that they have this rule. To me, this situation with this planes is just as comical.
It’s not perfect but it is, like you say, a tool that should be utilized.
What “procedures” were being followed here? The aircraft were parked in accordance with regulations, steps, jetbridge pulled away, SO, did he gain access to the AOA w/o credentials? That’s worth a bust, swinging from the TAT of an aircraft to gain access? That worth your job. Alls I gotta say is too bad it wasn’t Winter, and too bad the pitot heat wasn’t on.
I’m not saying there is no need for a TSA like organization, but it seems like the FAA did a fine job with that. They seemed to have a little more experience in the aviation environment. I can remember when TSA first started hiring I recall many airline/aviation employees being turned away. I know some who have been hired since, but I still never quite understood that.
my first thought when i saw that quite was: how many other a/c have they damaged?..lo and behold:
"A flight crew member who has been in contact with ANN previously, with solid credible info on this and other matters, reports the following, “This was not the first time that this same TSA agent had done this. After one of our ORD mechanics caught him doing this he explained that he could damage the TAT sensor. The agent then admitted that he used the sensors many times in the past doing the same thing. The AMR spokesperson states that no TAT sensors were damaged, but she was speaking about the particular aircraft inspected on the 19th. There were no damage found on the morning of the 19th, but another aircraft did have a damaged #1 TAT sensor that was discovered on the morning of the 16th at ORD that the mechanics suspect was caused by the same agent.”
from the Flying e-newsletter:
TSA Turns Attention to GA, Starting With
Large Jets
For now, the rules would only apply to general aviation aircraft over 12,500 pounds, but newspaper reports indicate the TSA is planning to address general aviation directly for the first time. According to a USA Today story last week, the security agency is planning “massive expansion” of security protocols for larger private jets and charter aircraft. The National Business Aviation Association is on record opposing any new regulation that does not “strike the right balance between the need for security and for mobility.”