Most of us know how to fly the plane. I'm throwing this out there to gather how some of us might learn how to fly the sky.

It is said that gaining a pilot's certificate is merely a license to learn and that is very true. Knowing how to safely operate an airplane is just the beginning as the sky and all of it's dynamics are an even bigger subject to digest. We have also determined that most flight instruction only lightly touches on this subject and gaining real knowledge and understanding on this subject is difficult to come by for a myriad of reasons. Grandma always told me it was cheaper to learn from other people's mistakes (don't know why she kept telling me this... ). With that said, this could be a useful source of wisdom that many could benefit from.

I would like to open up discussion here about how some of you have overcome weather dynamics and observations you learned from your experiences. Identify the hazard, what the risks are, how you work around them so that you understood that option in future situations. Subjects such as turbulence: How to anticipate it, where it will have the least influence, if you can't avoid it, best technique to work with it, etc. I would like to hear how you observe the conditions and pick a successful route around difficult weather in mountains and how you determine no go. I expect that numerous levels of personal minimums will surface during this discussion and I invite all of that despite the inevitable clash. Many of the part 135 operators will have great input here but all of us have experiences that are worthy of contribution.

I'm going to kick this off initially with my experiences in turbulence. This will invoke lots of contribution (all good) but I don't want to limit it to this one aspect of the sky.

I have to admit along with others here that I have developed an aversion to turbulence since being exposed to some rather significant jolts. Prior to the real experience of turbulence, I was able to comfortably dismiss the bumps as simple columns of rising and falling air. Now, it invokes a shot of adrenaline in mild turbulence. This didn't use to happen. I deal with it because I still understand what is going on and it is part of the environment we operate in.

I have learned that you can find smooth air above the haze line. This is not always above the clouds, but could be anywhere between 3000' and 6000' AGL, depending on temperature, wind, and barometric pressure. I have also found that summer skies that produce the broken small cumulus are quite bumpy underneath them but over the top is good air and in the flatter parts of the US is within the ceiling limits of most of our aircraft (usually less the 10,000'). What I haven't tested is whether flying closer to the ground in these bumpy summer cumulus skies provides at least a tolerable ride. I would be interested in knowing if closer works and if so, how close?

Turbulence in the mountains is a different story. There are two sources of turbulence: orographic (terrain induced) and thermal activity. The problem with thermally activated turbulence is that the tops are going to be out of reach of normally aspirated aircraft engines. That leaves us underneath them and looking for a way to minimize their influence of the quality of our ride. As long as orographic turbulence is not a component, is close to the surface an option? And if so, how close?

Orographic turbulence is a whole study in itself but I would like to hear what others have learned.

DR,

Desert Turbulence.

What I learned flying the desert SouthWest (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona):

Use Foreflight or Garmin's Airmet/Sigmet layers to prepare you for what lies ahead or encourage you to plan a different route.

Use Foreflight or Garmin's Winds aloft feature. It's generally feels less turbulent flying with the wind then against it. Also lots of times in the desert SouthWest there is a major direction (and speed) change in winds aloft. Of course the boundary of the two will kick your butt but many times I've found smooth air above the change.

Fly areas you know will be turbulent either at the crack of dawn or as the sun is going down. Also fly heavy, and once you are in it fly slow. Remember a ballon in the same place will have no turbulence because it is moving with the air instead of through it.

And like you said, I've found turbulence that goes from the ground to 16,500 feet (as high as the 185 can fly with a reasonable climb rate). In these cases I'm flying low. How low? Assuming no towers or wires I'd be wheeling across the ground if I could, but I'm actually looking for the height that get's me just above the ground induced rotors but still taking advantage of the terrain induced friction to slow the wind speed. Low.

But a HUGE caution here. A week or so ago the pilot and his aerial photographer based out of the hangar right next to mine in Spicewood, were killed after hitting high tension wires out in West Texas on their way back doing a job. And of course we all remember my young friend and BCP'r that was killed a number of years back when at the last second he dove under high tension wires he hadn't seen and hit the branch of an oak tree with a wing tip. A HUGE caution here.

Mountain Turbulence.

Go around the big rocks if you can. If not fly early or late, fly heavy and fly slow once in the turbulence. Sometimes flying low helps, sometimes it doesn't. Know the wind direction so you know where you'll get lift and where you'll get pushed towards the ground. And it's rarely smoother in the middle of the valleys when you've got wind, but rather against the mountain where the updraft is. And of course you shouldn't be flying in the middle anyway just like you wouldn't drive in the middle of the road.

If you are going over the rocks expect to need to be 2,000 or 3,000 feet above them to get free of their rotors. The higher the wind speed the higher you need to be. If there is a wide river or a lake on your route, fly over it, air will be much smoother.

Hope this helps.

"Fly areas you know will be turbulent either at the crack of dawn or as the sun is going down. "

Agreed but I have also found the air is still reasonable till about noon or so and as afternoon clouds begin to loose energy as the sun is more angled to the horizon (5 or 6pm; sunset is about 8:30 in the summer). A good early (first light) departure can get you through the rough areas unless you get delayed by low morning scud (happens a lot in South/Central TX) and don't have an instrument rating.

And yes heavy makes a big difference in the intensity of the jolts. But I'm trying to find a way to spare my pax as much of that trauma as possible.

Flying low these days in this region is hampered significantly by wind farms and their associated power transmission lines. The very least altitude would be 500' AGL.

Flying low to avoid turbulence is unwise and rarely works. The energy that is produced exists down low as well as higher, and the mechanical turbulence from wind hitting obstacles can be greater lower, not always but most of the time. Any benifet of reduced turbulence down low is negated by the additional risk of hitting something. Also, flying low gives you less time to handle an emergency and reduces your emergency landing areas.

I have found if you can determine where the "top of lift" is in the area and fly higher than that then your chances of a smooth ride increase dramatically. Some soaring and hang gliding books explain "top of lift" well. As far as mechanical turbulence, down wind of an obstacle, mountain or otherwise is where the bumps and rotors are. When flying in the wind around obstacles try to visualize rocks in a stream and moving water, avoid where you think the rapids would be, I know, its a simple theory but it works surprising well.

Mountain wave is another consideration, it can go from almost the surface to amazing heights. Wave can be very turbulent or silky smooth.

Kurt

In "Colorado Mountain Weather," Margaret Lamb mentions a turbulence mitigation technique I have used all my life: rudder only to keep the wing level until excessive bank is created by strong turbulence.

This technique keeps adverse yaw out of the equation as long as possible. The severity of turbulence is reported differently by different gross weight airplanes. Helicopter and airplanes with somewhat flexing wings ride smoother. But a good deal of moderate turbulence is actually light turbulence managed with coordinated controls to return the wing level. Coordination of aileron and rudder, fine in its place, is not fine in light to moderate turbulence because the ailerons are used as a trim device. The rudder is the superior trim device in many instances, especially in this one.

When in light turbulence, loosen rather than tighten your grip on the yoke and bring the wing level with rudder only. In moderate turbulence, loosen the grip on the yoke and bring the wing level with lots of rudder. In severe turbulence, start with rudder only. When that is not enough, increase wait time to react. Often, in severe turbulence, it will do its own thing a bit before control is possible. Adverse yaw is going to be an adverse factor that sometimes can be avoided by just waiting the inability to control out anyway.

You will learn to love that rudder.

I would agree with Barnstormer. Turbulence will be much less close to the ground but I am talking below tree level. Some places you can fly that way with little danger but I would not suspect the lower 48 is one of them. So that means getting everybody up early to fly or taking the long way around. I once turned a 3 hr flight into a 7 hr one to avoid rough stuff because I shaken my passenger pretty hard a few days before and did not want to do it again. Turbulence at tree top level on a sheltered strip can cause issue with arrival and departure, On approach have plane set for landing then dive through the turbulence and level out just above ground level for landing. On takeoff stay in ground effect and gain as much speed as possible then zoom up through the turbulence. It sucks to do it but slowing down will be a lot easier on your passengers and airframe.
DENNY

I would like to mention "waves" . I was returning from a sheep hunt, flying down the Kluane valley when there was a very strong, steady west to east wind. I noted the drift before I got into the trench of the North south valley so I moved over to the eastern side to avoid the downdrafts I knew were waiting for me.
Once set up near the top of the Eastern ridge I got into a HUGE rising mass of air. I was going up like the express elevator. I had the throttle pulled back to near idle, 1200 RPM, had the nose pointed down, the airspeed bumping the red zone and was still going up at over 2000 FPM.
When I got to the end of the mountain range the huge updraft just faded gently away so I increased engine speed, raised the nose to a normal attitude and began gliding toward Haines Jct.
That was fun and gave me quite a boost in free speed.
A few days prior to that I had dropped down into a real narrow canyon with a landing strip in the bottom where I wanted to hunt. I had not realized how hard the wind was blowing and I wanted all the room to turn I could get so I laid in close to the left side. As soon as I dropped below the ridge line I got hit with rotating or rolling waves that pushed me right over. I honestly thing it would have been faster to have continued the rotation in a full spiral than it was to bring it back to wings level. Needles to say, I got the hell out of there, landed elsewhere for the night and flew in early the next morning.
I would sure be nice to be able to see what the air up there is doing wouldn't it?

"As soon as I dropped below the ridge line I got hit with rotating or rolling waves that pushed me right over"

Just curious, how much altitude above the ridge line did you have when this happened?

The closer we get to terrain, the better we can speculate where the good air (orograraphic lift) and bad air (unusable turbulence and rotor movement) might be. With water we see what is happening at any depth. Air, we can't see so our read is more accurate close to terrain.

Thermal good and bad air is harder to read. Difference in heat of different terrain is worth reading, but we will lose accuracy as we go up. We can follow wind speed and direction under clouds but lose accuracy the lower we are. Because of our speed, pitching up in good air and pitching down in bad air is more accurate than trying to stay in an updraft by circling.

Understand that when looking for good air: from the surface, we can only go up, but from altitude we can go either way.

I am reluctant to try to answer your question about overcoming weather dynamics because they are best learned by observation and experience. My suggestion would be to ride with a pipeline patrol pilot out there in marginal weather. They have enough leeway, twenty days, to complete their patrols, but don't get paid when they don't fly. Also, contracts can be ended by either party with a month notice. Not really unsafe, but not a walk in the sun either.

"I am reluctant to try to answer your question about overcoming weather dynamics because they are best learned by observation and experience. "

While I do agree with this, it is why I suspect that this thread is conspicuously quiet. Although one can buy books on the subject (I've bought numerous...), a discussion forum such as this would be a great place to get specific questions answered that can't be further gleaned from the text of a book. There are many here I'm sure that are reluctant to share on the basis they may be opening the door to a trap for an inexperienced pilot. However, if this subject is less deserving of discussion on that basis, what are we doing with all other subjects? Shouldn't we be able to rely on each other to develop a collective wisdom? Isn't that what we are really here for? The whole purpose of this thread is actively seeking wisdom that I am unaware I don't have and that may help other pilots benefit from as well.

Finding a willing and appropriately experienced pilot to share a flight (or more) in a target weather circumstance is akin to the proverbial needle in a haystack. Not to mention the logistics and expense of coordinating meet ups across great distances to do so. I have tried this and it didn't work out due to some logistical issues. Not that I won't continue trying, but it has proven more difficult than suggested.

I will try to keep this thread going by refreshing it with specific weather challenges. The approach I'm seeking is:

Identify the hazard
Identify a work around, IF possible
Identify an escape if it becomes the only option

It may be that this discussion goes beyond the personal minimums of some and thats OK. I'm not asking any to exceed their level of comfort. Flying the sky is the biggest challenge that faces us and if we can help each other overcome the challenges without compromising safety we will all benefit. Pilots that blindly/unwittingly fly into challenging wind and weather conditions may become statistics. I don't want to be that pilot. I'm asking because I want to know.

I'll bite.

Hazard: low but stable ceiling under extensive stable stratus clouds.

Work around: go fly but remain clear of C or D airspace. B is not really a problem so long as you stay out of D and airfields with instrument approach. Don't talk to anyone. Stay as low as possible.

Egress: stay calm and fly to where you wish.

Hazard: lifting fog with steady increase in visibility.

Work around: know your surroundings well below 500' AGL. When you can see something a known acceptable distance, make a teardrop pattern. Take off, immediately turn downwind (if there is any wind), energy management ( if enough ceiling) turn to land going opposite takeoff direction. It looks different out there from the cockpit.

Egress: land in the opposite direction from takeoff.

Hazard: Marginal weather with decreasing visibility.

Work around: get as low as possible. If visibility doesn't improve, turn back.

Egress: precautionary landing.

Hazard: strong (for me any) crosswind.

Work around: make base to final into a headwind component and line up for final from the downwind corner to the upwind big airplane touchdown zone marking. Use apparent brisk walk rate of closure or other power/pitch approach and full flaps to touch down on the very downwind corner.

Egress: go to where you can land without running out of rudder either on or off airport.

Spotted this in another thread that would be useful here by MTV:

"I spent a lot of time slithering around in smoke and on one occasion, I was working my way downstream (and downhill) in pretty limited visibility. Duh! Suddenly, I went from very bright grey to rather dark.......meaning there were suddenly lots of cloud above me. Which is when the ass whipping began. Nothing broke, but the seat cushions got a serious workout.

Another “feature” of smoke: You take off in limited visibility, but clear blue sky right up above.....or so it appears. So you climb, fully expecting to quickly get on top, and cruise to your destination in clear skies. But, about the time you reach 12,500 msl, you realize that the vis up here is just as bad, and now you can no longer see the surface.....ie: You are now IMC. That climb to blue thing MAY work early in the morning, before the smoke is lifted by convection."

Found a couple of good resources here:

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch09.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch10.pdf

Now THIS is the type of info I was looking for and highly recommended reading for cross country flying. What is interesting is that the Airplane Flying Handbook and most of the talking heads in the pilot community contrasts what this FAA sanctioned manual provides in that it goes as far as tells you how to actually fly in mountain wave activity. I'm sure there are even better soaring books out there but this is a really good start on the subject and goes into much greater detail about the sky that we fly in than most airplane flying books. I really believe that this type of information should be included in PPL training or at least strongly recommended additional study.

Can't help thinking of this each time I see this thread:

Try to stay in the middle of the air. Do not go near the edges of it. The edges of the air can be recognized by the appearance of ground, buildings, sea, trees and interstellar space. It is much more difficult to fly there.

"Try to stay in the middle of the air"

Who's the author of that?

It may be good advice for some... until they run out of gas...

DeltaRomeo, I agree that the information in the glider references you listed should be PPL material. 65 hp airplanes can easily motor glider around with the engine power compensating for less wing area.

Cross country gliders are a lot slicker and a lot faster than J-3 Cubs and 7AC Champs. When we, or they, are interested in ground speed, circling is zero. We, and they, must focus on going slow in updrafts and going fast in downdrafts while directing our course toward the destination. They will beat the slower powdered airplanes but the faster ones will have to work harder at recognition and utilization of thermal lift/energy.

The part of the glider manual concerning ridge lift is very similar to ridge lift utilisation by powered aircraft. With power, we can safely get closer to the ridge where better lift often resides. This is especially true with lighter wind.

Timing is more difficult with increased power. Learning to identity updrafts are more difficult with thermalling. We can always identity ridge lift by looking at air the same as water in a stream. Increased wind speed by venturi effect in a saddle or slope thermal or heat captured in canyons are a bit more difficult, but thermals out in the desert take more practice.

The big ground speed advantage of both on course thermalling and ridge lift in desert and mountain cross country is elimination of V speed engine climbing. Any attempt to stabilize climb or altitude in this environment is energy inefficient. Greater time spent in good air produces greater ground speed and greater altitude. High altitude gained with much time at very slow speed and much fuel, can be lost in a strong downdraft, especially if we try to save that altitude by slowing down in downdrafts.

The VSI can help us learn to identity updrafts and downdrafts, but it lags. We will do much better when we learn to feel relative buoyancy. Like learning anything new, gross is the place to start. It is very difficult to teach crosswind takeoff and landing in 3kts. It is very difficult to teach on course thermalling in the cool morning air. Learning quickly requires some bumps.

Totally missed this great thread last summer.

Bumping it in hopes some of the experienced guys will be more inclined to comment in the dark days of winter when time is more prevalent.

Came upon this ASI video that contains some really good information about icing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb2lI9uA9So&feature=youtu.be