Oh Dacuj

Acrofox said:
As is continuous misreporting of turbulence versus chop, and the cynical refusal—at some airlines, at least—to label something as 'moderate.'
Click to expand...

The reporting criteria are right there in the AIM. Big letters, I think they even put bullet points in there. Plain English. Difficult to comprehend how it's some kind of hoohaw unless people are too stupid to read or more interested in their subjective emotional experience than in conveying useful information to other humans.
 
FlyingAccountant said:
This exists in every industry.

In accounting, it's whether you've worked for the Big 4 or not and some look down on you if you haven't.

Meanwhile, I didn't work for the Big 4, but I also didn't spend most of my 20s working 70 hour weeks and having to travel to exotic locales such as Fargo, ND and Springfield, MO.
Click to expand...
I worked for one for too may years. It was 80+ hr weeks (yet, they still always had bright smiling faces giving "great place to work" and "best work/life balance kudos). No Springfield (praise baby J!) It was San Antone, Santiago, Moscow, Bern, etc. and, yeah, for a while, Fargo. The worst part wasn't the hard, exacting work or the locales. The worst part was that, ultimately, no one cared.
 
NovemberEcho said:
I’ll tell you now no controller knows the difference between chop and turbulence. You say light chop or moderate chop, it’s getting put in as light or moderate turbulence.

And airplanes and pilot reports are a huge part of weather modeling.
Click to expand...
l always that light chop was less than light turbulence and not worth the report?

Besides, who reports light turbulence?
 
fholbert said:
l always that light chop was less than light turbulence and not worth the report?

Besides, who reports light turbulence?
Click to expand...
That ain't "light chop"; That's just Tuesday. ;)

If you're one of those pilots who can't discern the coordinated state of the aircraft you are flying by the seat of your pants, your chances of even noticing light turbulence are slim to nil. ;)
 
Last edited:
fholbert said:
l always that light chop was less than light turbulence and not worth the report?

Besides, who reports light turbulence?
Click to expand...

Only when it has improved. Such as "Right now, just light turbulence here (or at this altitude) but 20 miles behind us (or while climbing/ descending through ___) it was worse."
 
Boris Badenov said:
The reporting criteria are right there in the AIM. Big letters, I think they even put bullet points in there. Plain English. Difficult to comprehend how it's some kind of hoohaw unless people are too stupid to read or more interested in their subjective emotional experience than in conveying useful information to other humans.
Click to expand...

"Too stupid"?? "Own private Idaho"?? "Self serving selfishness?" Nah, that stuff never happens!!

I know you were talking about meteorological turbulence, but thank you for your concise description of the basis for everything that ails American civilization right now.
 
Last edited:
NovemberEcho said:
I’ll tell you now no controller knows the difference between chop and turbulence. You say light chop or moderate chop, it’s getting put in as light or moderate turbulence.
Click to expand...

That’s slightly irritating, as the standards are published by the FAA, and pilots are instructed to use them verbatim.

Chop is constant, rhythmic changes, with no major variations in pitch or bank. Think driving down a rutted road.

Turbulence involves significant changes in pitch or bank, which often presents a greater risk to the passengers and crew. Think driving off-road.

392C5D2C-9784-4784-9259-12B6CC2A1C7F.jpeg
 
Acrofox said:
That’s slightly irritating, as the standards are published by the FAA, and pilots are instructed to use them verbatim. ...
Click to expand...
You got some high standards. I congratulate you. But still, you got some high standards.

A lot of pilots can't even remember their "engine failure after V1" memory items...

You really expect 'em to verbally convey turbulence conditions verbatim in accordance with the AIM? BTW, what's the AIM again??
 
Reminds me of a conversation earlier this year. In CA's book it was "severe", in my book "legit moderate, speed gain of 70 kts" would have been a more accurate and useful report.
It was a nice "three-hands-required-moment", didn't exceed nothing, so all good.
 
BigZ said:
Reminds me of a conversation earlier this year. In CA's book it was "severe", in my book "legit moderate, speed gain of 70 kts" would have been a more accurate and useful report.
It was a nice "three-hands-required-moment", didn't exceed nothing, so all good.
Click to expand...
I love turbulence (and emergencies, for that matter). Makes me feel like I'm sitting in my seat for some reason other than my devilishly good looks and impeccably pressed shirt. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top