Quote:

---

The plane, flight KL1204, had diverted to Sandefjord Torp, located about 110 kilometers from Oslo Airport, after departing Oslo earlier. The decision to land at Torp Airport came after the aircraft experienced a malfunction in its hydraulic system, which authorities believe contributed to the incident.

According to a statement from KLM, while the emergency landing was successful, the plane lost control after touching down and went off the right side of the runway.

The airline confirmed that no injuries occurred as a result of the accident, but an investigation is now underway to determine the exact cause of the hydraulic failure

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

IMO there is nothing wrong with the hydraulic system. Flight radar shows their initial approach from south to North but we know they landed north to south. The berm is only on the south. So initial approach is aborted after bird strike and they don't go all the way around, instead turn tight and land to the south, landing level and on the runway which would have been damn near impossible with full loss of hydraulics.

The flight radar track is missing the last 1000' or so of data.
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=71c088

Concise info on Hydraulic system redundancy in the 737-800.
https://www.johanpercherin.info/airline-pilot-training/boeing-737-800-loss-of-hydraulic-system-b/

I think the biggest issue is they landed LONG only using about 40% of the runway. The reason they landed long is probably a bunch of things task saturation being a big one. I think the Captain had over 6000 hours, will be interesting to know his culture or adherence to CRM (crew resource management).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management

I cant imagine looking out the window thinking awesome pilots got this and then poof your kneeling before God.

---

PA24 said:

---

Brewskis said:

---

What an odd statement…

---

Not really.

It's no secret airlines have rushed to fill those left seats with POC. They have replaced required thousands of man hours of flying experience with a dependence on automation of the machine. That works great until the unexpected happens like a bird strike.

---

PA24 said:

---

Brewskis said:

---

What an odd statement…

---

Not really.

It's no secret airlines have rushed to fill those left seats with POC. They have replaced required thousands of man hours of flying experience with a dependence on automation of the machine. That works great until the unexpected happens like a bird strike.

---

PA24 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PA24 said:

---

Brewskis said:

---

What an odd statement…

---

Not really.

It's no secret airlines have rushed to fill those left seats with POC. They have replaced required thousands of man hours of flying experience with a dependence on automation of the machine. That works great until the unexpected happens like a bird strike.

---

And yet statistical research in private aviation accidents contradict your statement. Being old and male increases the risk of accidents in GA.

"General aviation (GA) accounts for more than 82% of all air transport-related accidents and air transport-related fatalities in the U.S. In this study, we conduct a series of statistical analyses to investigate the significance of a pilot's gender, age and experience in influencing the risk for pilot errors and fatalities in GA accidents. There is no evidence from the Chi-square tests and logistic regression models that support the likelihood of an accident caused by pilot error to be related to pilot gender. However, evidence is found that male pilots, those older than 60 years of age, and with more experience, are more likely to be involved in a fatal accident."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50288086_Impact_of_gender_age_and_experience_of_pilots_on_general_aviation_accidents

---

Commercial airlines have an upper age requirement.
Nothing to do with gender or race, most GA pilots are white males. Very few GA pilots become commercial pilots due to what it takes in hours of flying and the cost, at least that was before government mandates. I trained for my multi engine with a black CFI, excellent pilot but few blacks in GA. I also know some GA females that can fly circles around me but just not very many women in general aviation.

For every commercial airliner there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of GA aircraft. Of course there are more accidents in GA, many more flights. No max. age requirements either.

My preference is someone that came up thru GA with thousands of hours of flying in all kinds of conditions.

Not sure what this pilot was doing, maybe after the strike, the automation took over or he let it and the computer calculated the best land speed and configuration.

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PA24 said:

---

American males, older white males make up the best airline pilots, a plus if non military. But that is just my opinion.

General aviation in the USA teaches young teenage pilots how to fly an airplane. By the time they are 20 years old, they are tested by experience.

On the other hand, few countries have general aviation and those that do are restricted by limited airspace, resources, and training planes. In the USA, there are thousands of air fields and most American white males learned to fly in a Cessna 150 or172 sitting beside an old CFI that put them thru a wringer. Each rating was harder than the last and they will fly anywhere, anytime to get those hours.

Next time you board a commercial plane, look into the cockpit and if you see a fat, balding old white guy with a wrinkle shirt. Sleep tight, you are in good hands.

---

Being old, white and male isn't the issue. It is being an American pilot.

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PA24 said:

---

Brewskis said:

---

What an odd statement…

---

Not really.

It's no secret airlines have rushed to fill those left seats with POC. They have replaced required thousands of man hours of flying experience with a dependence on automation of the machine. That works great until the unexpected happens like a bird strike.

---

And yet statistical research in private aviation accidents contradict your statement. Being old and male increases the risk of accidents in GA.

"General aviation (GA) accounts for more than 82% of all air transport-related accidents and air transport-related fatalities in the U.S. In this study, we conduct a series of statistical analyses to investigate the significance of a pilot's gender, age and experience in influencing the risk for pilot errors and fatalities in GA accidents. There is no evidence from the Chi-square tests and logistic regression models that support the likelihood of an accident caused by pilot error to be related to pilot gender. However, evidence is found that male pilots, those older than 60 years of age, and with more experience, are more likely to be involved in a fatal accident."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50288086_Impact_of_gender_age_and_experience_of_pilots_on_general_aviation_accidents

---

So, the largest demographic with the most flight hours has the most accidents?

You don't say?

---

Ag with kids said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

IMO there is nothing wrong with the hydraulic system. Flight radar shows their initial approach from south to North but we know they landed north to south. The berm is only on the south. So initial approach is aborted after bird strike and they don't go all the way around, instead turn tight and land to the south, landing level and on the runway which would have been damn near impossible with full loss of hydraulics.

The flight radar track is missing the last 1000' or so of data.
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=71c088

Concise info on Hydraulic system redundancy in the 737-800.
https://www.johanpercherin.info/airline-pilot-training/boeing-737-800-loss-of-hydraulic-system-b/

I think the biggest issue is they landed LONG only using about 40% of the runway. The reason they landed long is probably a bunch of things task saturation being a big one. I think the Captain had over 6000 hours, will be interesting to know his culture or adherence to CRM (crew resource management).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management

I cant imagine looking out the window thinking awesome pilots got this and then poof your kneeling before God.

---

Not saying this is it, but...

Having watched a lot of those Aircraft Distasters shows, one of the things that came up multiple times is that in the Asian culture, there is massive deference to superiors, where the FO was afraid to speak up and correct the captain...

---

nortex97 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

IMO there is nothing wrong with the hydraulic system. Flight radar shows their initial approach from south to North but we know they landed north to south. The berm is only on the south. So initial approach is aborted after bird strike and they don't go all the way around, instead turn tight and land to the south, landing level and on the runway which would have been damn near impossible with full loss of hydraulics.

The flight radar track is missing the last 1000' or so of data.
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=71c088

Concise info on Hydraulic system redundancy in the 737-800.
https://www.johanpercherin.info/airline-pilot-training/boeing-737-800-loss-of-hydraulic-system-b/

I think the biggest issue is they landed LONG only using about 40% of the runway. The reason they landed long is probably a bunch of things task saturation being a big one. I think the Captain had over 6000 hours, will be interesting to know his culture or adherence to CRM (crew resource management).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management

I cant imagine looking out the window thinking awesome pilots got this and then poof your kneeling before God.

---

Not saying this is it, but...

Having watched a lot of those Aircraft Distasters shows, one of the things that came up multiple times is that in the Asian culture, there is massive deference to superiors, where the FO was afraid to speak up and correct the captain...

---

Yes it's been a problem specifically cited I think in the big Asiana 777 crash/landing short of the runway a decade or so back in SFO. They had a terrible safety record at that point, to my recollection, and in fact for some bizarre reasons I don't really get I think most Korean airlines seem to lag overall in safety ratings.

---

PA24 said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

Let's get back to the crash and away from DEI. The pilot had over 6000 hours, thats pre DEI level of experience.

---

Wondering how many of those hours were without autopilot?

---

rackmonster said:

---

Just something to point out about Slat/Flap Deployment and Retraction. (. Background...35 years Airline Pilot..flew every Boeing except 787, DC-10, no Airbus).
Deployment and Retraction are normally hydraulic. The back-up are electric motors. The electronic backup takes a lot longer than hydraulic. So if you need to do this, you're going to follow a rather long procedure involving switches that you don't normally use, so it's vitally important to verify that you are pressing the correct switch with the guy beside you. I had to do this 3 times in a 767 coming into London Heathrow. I declared an emergency, had them vector me away from the normal approach/landing corridors, and I took my good old time getting set up. (this is a good reason to save every drop of fuel you have when you're at altitude. When you get rushed, you tend to miss stuff). Once I was set up, and myself and my crew were comfortable, I told Heathrow I was ready. Because I'm an Emergency AC, they get everybody out of my way.
As far as Flap Extension, here's what's important to understand. Normal Landing Flaps are 30 (or 25 if you have crosswinds). If you extend flaps electrically, they will not extend beyond 20. (hence a higher approach speed). Why won't they go any further than 20 with the electric motors? Simple. Go-Around Capability. You can go-around safely with Flaps 20. At flaps 25 or 30 it would take too long to retract the Flaps to a safe Go-Around position with the electric motors.
Not sure what this crew was dealing with, but all I can say is I'm glad I'm retired.

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

The study adjusts for those factors and is done on a per capital per flight hour basis. Please show me any data that disputes these findings or that old, white males are safer airlines pilots?

Let me be clear, I hate DEI policies and only the best person available for the job should ever be hired. There are a number of examples where DEI policies have caused major problems but it isn't in commercial aviation pilots.

The arguments being made here are like the ones made about women drivers being worse than men when the data doesn't show that argument to be valid. The real data shows that in current times, men and women are statistically similar.

---

The pilot flared the aircraft several times; almost as if he was trying to sit the nonexistent main gear down on the runway but didn’t realize that the gear wasn’t extended. I know it is early and I shouldn’t draw conclusions, but it is hard to arrive at any other conclusion…

— Moe ☕️ (@MauriceCooley) December 29, 2024