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."