Severe Turbulence

[ QUOTE ]
I gotcha Lloyd. I thought we already solved this....
grin.gif
Oh, that's right.......A----B conversation. I'll Ceee my way out.
cool.gif
I'm sure JT will get it the second time he reads it.
insane.gif
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

grin.gif
grin.gif
No, you're cool...lol. I'm just going to Ceee my way out, too...lol.
 
As far as I remember, it's usually "...moderate turbulence reported at one-six thousand by a Beech Baron" unless I'm imagining things.

But considering the average pilots knowledge of what light/moderate/severe turbulence/chop, you've really got to use your judgement and make a decision.

You can err on the side of safety by building an expanded team of people to build a picture of the situation or you can throw caution to the wind and hope it's not really the faa-definition of moderate/severe turbulence and press on.
 
Ah here I go posting one more time.

Lloyd! Nothing against you! Not pointing fingers at anyone!

Well,... I'm pointing my finger at inexperienced pilots who report turbulence incorrectly.

Back to your question though, I tend to think that turblulence is turbulence. A bigger plane may ride through it with less "drama" - but the in-flight indications will be the same. I'm not sure there is such a thing as an "almost moderate" turbulence level that will change the path and altitude of a C-172 but not do so with a B-737. I felt the bumps just as bad in the big one as the little one.

Just my limited experience with that one ...
grin.gif
 
I would have to say I would CYA and follow what is in the company manual and divert unless, I could get a pirep from a larger aircraft in the same area that states something less than severe. Still a tough call...you are potentially damned if you do go (an someone gets hurt) and damned if you don't go and divert (then other airlines start landing there)..
 
[ QUOTE ]
OK, John...you're right...that's what you like to hear.
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

That's right and don't you forget it!!! <shaking finger>

Now is that the best reparte you can give me Lloyd? Come on! I've come to expect great "discussion" from you!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, John...you're right...that's what you like to hear.
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

That's right and don't you forget it!!! <shaking finger>

Now is that the best reparte you can give me Lloyd? Come on! I've come to expect great "discussion" from you!

[/ QUOTE ]

grin.gif
grin.gif
Girlfriend and I have been "discussing" all weekend...I'm all worn out!
tongue.gif
 
ahhhhhh........but what if your flying into an airport like Palm Springs where Moderate turbulence is 99% of the time in effect??????

Couple of weeks ago we were advised of some turb going in there descending thru 8,000ft. it was the worst turb I've ever been in. I had no idea what was going on. I could not control the aircraft until the turb had stopped. Once I was in it, there was no turning back because no dials could be read. If you lifted your hands off the wheels they would have been violently thrown against something. We were thru the bad stuff at around 4,500 ft.
 
Turn the seatbelt sign on, drop the gear, blast full-speed ahead. We have insurance, right?

I'd definitely consider the source of who's reporting it, because (siding with Lloyd) what I'd report as moderate in the RJ is not what I'd report as moderate in a 172. Taking that into consideration, I'd highly consider diverting. Better safe than sorry. Besides, as you're flying near where you wanted to go and get rocked around, the pax will get nervous anyway and actually thank you for not continuing.
 
I would divert and fly back to the original airport. If the original airport was too far away to make it on fuel, then I would turn back the other way and land at the nearest airport with a long enough runway.

There's no sense in taking a chance with severe turbulence and risking my own life and the lives of the passengers and people on the ground.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If you lifted your hands off the wheel

[/ QUOTE ]

What were you doing by the undercarriage during decent?? Trying to get the turbine on your head???

Shouldn't you have been in the cockpit with the yoke!!
 
curse you Iain Holmes, you shall get yours in due time! In due time!

Hey man, in case you haven't noticed, chicks dig turbines! At least the 3 I got numbers from this last 2 day trip!
shocked.gif
 
Mate, you have to teach me to tie a turban - I know I have Pakistani roots, but I struggle. I can ride a mean cammel though.
 
I would disagree that the turbulence is the same regardless of the size of the aircraft. Several variables. I've flown in areas where 737s reported severe while I was in a light airplane and only found up and downdrafts but smooth conditions (moving too slow through it to get the jolt). Conversely, I've flown in places where I know it would be rough in a light airplane, but the heavy jet I was flying hardly was doing more than light.

As I've said before, if you like the stuff around PSP, you need to try the area around China Lake with a cold front approaching. It will make your PSP stuff seem like smooth air, and I've flown a lot in both regions!

I do think pilots tend to report it as rougher than it is fairly often. My favorite was one morning going into ANC. ANC approach was asking for ride reports as each aircraft got on base:

Alaska xxx how's the ride? "light chop"

FedEx xxx, hows the ride? "light chop"

Atlas xxx, how's the ride? "light chop"

Alaska xxx how's the ride? "light chop"

United xxx, how's the ride? "SEVERE TURBULENCE!!"

Alaska xx, how's the ride? "light chop"

FedEx xx, how's the ride? "light chop"


Above repeated, wtih those crews who obviously did not fly into ANC as often all reporting much worse turbulence than the experienced crews. It can get rough there, but you acclimate to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top