Scudrunners

Came across this on a FB page I follow. This got me thinking I’ve never really checked the winds aloft with regards to turbulence when I was flying piston bangers around the mountains. I guess I just used the LAR method “looks about right”

Not knocking the guy for having his limits and sticking to them (good decision making) wish more pilots would do that.

I guess I just knew which side of the valley was going to be bumpy and which would be less.



What do you guys think?

Don't give a fuck about how rough it is. Never understood that. Pax
shit when you hit a bump. When was the last time an airplane broke
up due to turbulence? Tighten up the belts and LOOK OUTSIDE.

What scares the shit out of me, is downdrafts that exceed the climb
capability of the aircraft. Maybe if you have two afterburners 20,000
FPM down is no big deal, but ...

I remember the winds in Wyoming were so bad, they were warning
people not to drive on the roads. 60 mph at the surface or something
crazy like that. Flipping trailers over. I don't think I'd want to try to
fly a little airplane close to the ground, in that.

I saw that thread also and responded to it thusly:

"Ten knots aloft is probably a little conservative; twenty is probably doable for comfort. We did a trip to Vernon from Penticton a few weeks ago; on the return trip, the winds were 35 - 40 knots across the valley. We got the snot beat out of us... We were at 5500'; finally called "uncle" and descended to better air... It would have been decidedly uncomfortable in a C182."

Here’s the definition of moderate turbulence:

…… consists of changes in your altitude or attitude, but your aircraft remains in positive control at all times. You'll feel a definite strain against you seat belt or shoulder straps. And if you have unsecured objects in the cabin, they'll become dislodged.

We were in moderate turbulence for our type of aircraft for the first half of the trip; however, what initiated the decision to descend was entering an area of turbulence bordering on severe, as there were abrupt and uncommanded changes in attitude and the occupants in all three aircraft had encounters with their canopies.

As we commenced our descent, a Cessna 172 called Kelowna tower for clearance through the NW portion of the Kelowna CZ at 8500 feet enroute from Salmon Arm to the Lower Mainland. Tower cleared him as requested at 8500 feet. The aircraft acknowledged but said they were having altitude excursion plus or minus 500 feet…

He must have made it as nobody was reported missing that day.


On the other hand, we have stroked over-the-top from Vernon to SE BC in 30-40 knot winds with nary a ripple...

PS It's great having a wind vector available to help in decision making...

Had my eyes opened a cpl times in Pangnirtung and I know of Hawker that never flew straight after a "Pang" experience. Winds from the east there at more than 10 kts you likely should not be going.

I would say local knowledge really plays a big factor in this. I’ve spent tons of time over and through the Rockies, coastal range and of course up in the Yukon and Alaska.

I guess you just learn to read the mountains.

Some days would be severe clear and you knew to go low and which side or route to take. If you’re getting paid to fly vs poking around for fun is a different world.

Valley to valley it differs, same goes with altitude. Guess I never put much weight into winds aloft reports and just went with my gut.