|Quoting ItalianFlyer (Reply 6):|
Colgan Air was using the same type extinguisher for both the Saab 340B and Q400 training, although the Q400 extinguisher has a hose.
Ugh. I have no idea if Colgan is good, bad, or indifferent as an airline, other than the ANet and press stuff (never flown with them, etc.).
However, if the FAA is really gunning for them (legit or not), and a hose on a fire extinguisher is the best they can do, then it certainly leaves one wondering if Colgan is all that bad, or, if they are that bad that the FAA should be trying to bust them, then one wonders how good is the FAA team looking into them. I mean, Colgan flies airplanes, and there is always something not 100% perfect with an airplane or the paperwork, and that's it. I can't imagine what the fine would have been for something that really was a hazard?
Colgan obviously had to 'retrain them' (likely would have been a fun class though, but then I list fluency in sarcasm as a language in FB
). And of course the release is suitably conciliatory, but could they actually lose this in the appeal process?
What if they checked the fire extinguisher training of say an AF
A380 crew about to leave JFK
and grounded or fined them because the F/A's hadn't played with their hoses? Would it not be viewed as retaliation for something different (say the DL
incident), and nothing to do with fire extinguishers?