Just as there is severity of turbulence, there seems to be a spectrum of quality too. Flying across eastern Oregon in the middle of a warm summer day is like riding a simmering sea of nacho cheese. The thermals letting off from the surface sort of bubble up, then descend back as they cool off, or surrounding air is displaced by warmer rising air. It's a mellower sort of turbulence, though I've been hit with thermals so hard that it couldn't really be considered mellow.

Mechanical turbulence caused by winds over terrain, or topographical features that impede the wind somehow, always seem to be much more sharp edged and violent, although ridge lift can be the smoothest and nicest sort of turbulence too. Got nailed by a rotor once in the Washoe valley coming off Slide Mountain that nearly knocked me out, swore I had broken a tooth. It hit so hard and fast that it was what I'd call of the harsh variety, whereas mountain wave, if far enough away from turbulence-inducing terrain, can be fairly "unharsh."

Then there are the shears. Faster moving air over/under slower moving air, where the differential occurs over a very short range of altitude. Those seem to be the sharpest edged, if we're talking mild. I've only been in moderate turbulence once, and that was more of the wave type in the mountains. Not so much hard bumps as it was a wild altitude rollercoaster ride alternating between full throttle, and no throttle.

Just recording some random thoughts on air quality as I stare out the window at the nice day and think of the Columbia river gorge winds.

My experience is not much and I'm curious to hear what others think, or have compiled in their experience as to the quality of turbulence. Some ____ are uglier than others.

Worst bump I ever hit was over Yellowpine while making the turn inbound for JC. I almost went through my skylight. It was the only one in that area and instantaneous.

I've been in some gnarly Clear Air in the big airplane before going over the ocean. The official definitions of turbulence are pretty entertaing. I'm pretty sure the airline guys have their own definitions. Pretty sad that a passenger would not fly a particular airline again because it was a bumpy flight but it must happen.

I agree. Add thunderstorms into the mix and both the desert and the mountains get bad but the mountains still beat you up more.

Used to fly tours in the Grand Canyon when you could go down in the canyon (early 80's).
Summertime there is, by far the worst turbulence I've encountered in many thousands of hours flying.
I laugh when the airline types report turbulence (when I'm up there in the same area).
I'm also amazed at how the airplanes stood up to the Grand Canyon turbulence. I'm talking shit flying around the cabin daily!
Scenic Airlines had a Cessna 401 with over 20,000 hours flying in the canyon, and it was still going strong.

My two cents

Wyoming turbulence deserves its own category, at least in my experience.

Ugh...

Older I get the earlier I fly, and the earlier I'm parked on the ground. Especially if no one is paying me to go.

Stay the f**k away from anything that says "Cape" on the map up in Alaska when it's blowing.

Gump

The worst turbulence I ever "felt" even had an after shock. In 2006 I was flying home a newly purchased PA-18 L4 over the Sand Hills of Nebraska with my step father in the back. He is one who will not use a seat belt. He is only 5'6 but after banging his head on the ceiling of the Cub I did notice he strapped himself in. I still don't know how to rate the quality of that one yet. Might be a 10.

Bob

I've been beat a lot coming home to Idaho from J-Hole over the Tetons in the afternoon, the only smoth way is don't come home until morning. I'll have to agree with skytruck though, I've never been in turbulance like I experienced as a passenger on a terrifying afternoon tour of the Grand Canyon. In 45 minutes I went from to to to to when we landed. I've never been back

Gump, as usual, is right on. while i dont know about alaska, i can tell for certain that wind and wind/shear in the frank can and will eat ur lunch...and HP isnt always the answer...i've had a few times that my turbo 540 was really no match. so like gump, i fly as early as possible...be damn careful back there and get it done early. while i still do some late afternoon/early evening arrivals, almost never do i depart those hours...call me a wimp i guess....

Due to a recent "Pancake landing" near here where the cause was reported as a downdraft (over fairly level ground) I've been wondering about the likelyhood of being forced right to the ground in a downdraft.

I remember (that happens sometimes) being taught that you can't power out of a downdraft, you haft'a TURN out of it, so hopefully you have some lower terrain to turn to. I'm very aware of mtn. waves, cold air sliding down hillsides, windshear (up higher) and that it's often bumpy near the surface due to thermal actions.

I do wonder if it's possible to hit a serious downdraft when flying over relatively level terrain??

Absolutely you can get severe down drafts over level ground! One day I was out flying over wheatfields of western Nebraska, 3K overcast, winds on the ground were calm. I was watching a friend of mine in a Pawnee doing some crop spraying down low. I was about 1K just messing around watching him when I noticed the ground changing to my relative altitude. I checked my VSI and Altimeter and I was decending at 1Kft/min. Absolutely no turbulance, nothing as far as visual indication of a downdraft or storm or power setting of the plane. I made a hard left turn and flew out of it about 10 seconds later. As far a turburbulence out here over the flat prairie, it can be just as rough on any given day as flying over mountainous terrain. Something was said of flying over Wyoming...most consistant area for turbulence!

I've always wondered about this! I learned to fly in Oklahoma, and that's where most of my experience is, so I'm curious, because our turbulence seems kinda brutal...maybe something to do with living in Tornado Alley, with lots of terrain variation? I've always thought of turbulence through my own experiences and couldn't imagine what mountain waves or rotors or mountainous thermals must be like! So, they're not always so bad?

Mountain wave and turbulence is the worst kind IF you fly into it. Most people don't talk about it because they've never experienced it in it's entirety. Most of those that have are no longer around to tell you about it. Emmet and I got into a form a mountain wave coming home from Idaho last year and I hope that's the last time I experience it. Uncontrolled 1000fpm climbs and descents with 1500ft altitude changes on a perfectly timed cycle for about 100 miles. At one point I was at idle with the nose dumped and still climbing at 1000fpm. Then just as fast it would switch over to full power and Vx and still descending cycle. During one of the climb cycles I just pulled back and let her go. At 12,000ft I popped out the top and it was smooth so we stayed up there for the Sierra Crossing. 12,000 ft over the Sierras in basically a glorified ultralight with a screaming two stroke motor going 80mph is a little nerveracking. I'm seriously considering breaking my return trip into two days this year. The past two trips home have been miserable coming over the Sierras West bound when full of fuel towards mid afternoon.

I wonder what the quality of turbulence is when flying through a dust devil shortly after rotation? That is not something I want to repeat.

mountainmatt wrote:I wonder what the quality of turbulence is when flying through a dust devil shortly after rotation? That is not something I want to repeat.

I'd reckon.... poor quality.

AvidFlyer wrote:Mountain wave and turbulence is the worst kind IF you fly into it.

This is why I've brought up the concept of quality of turbulence. What's more unpleasant to you? A relatively smooth wave ride with large altitude fluctuations? Or choppy, bumpy, droppy dirty air? It seems like you can get both from mountain wave depending on where you are in relation to terrain.

Glider guys love the wave because of the powerful lift, but they understand it well and know that it doesn't mix well with proximity to terrain. Should "mountain wave" be characterized by powerful rotors that occur closer to the surface? Or considered as just the oscillation phenomenon as a whole, over a wider area? It can extend far out into the flatter terrain well clear of mountains, I assume because the oscillatory motion has some sort of momentum? Maybe the soaring guys can weigh in.

I flew one time from UT47 near Hurricane Utah to Marble Canyon (L41) to have breakfast with some friends who had gone on ahead in an RV9. It was a beautiful early morning flight in the Fall. I had a nice tailwind as I came over the rim of Marble Canyon at about 400 ft. AGL west of the airport. The canyon rim is about 3000 feet above the airport and the cliffs are as close to vertical as you can get. It was glassy smooth as I started the descent. When I reached an altitude just below the rim, I realized I had gone over Niagara Falls in a yellow barrel. I was a leaf in class 5 white water. I was flying at around 100 kts indicated but every couple of seconds the stall warning sounded and the red light flashed. Control was a joke. I was just an object and the air was doing whatever it wanted with my airplane. Both hands on the yoke, I had no use for instruments, just concentrated on keeping the view out the windshield looking somewhat sane. There was about a thousand vertical feet of that ass kicking and then the turbulence dropped off, not completely mind you. There was one last big suck over the gorge off the approach end of runway 3. I flew the length of the runway at about 10 ft. to check the conditions near the ground. I had 40 degrees or more of crab and the runway there is about as wide as a pickup truck bed. Before I got to the departure end, I had already decided: ass-kicking turbulence (strike one), ridiculous crosswind (strike two), pencil thin runway (strike three). I climbed out towards the south rim of the canyon fully expecting to get pulverized again, but that sheet of air flowing across the canyon floor turned into a big smooth elevator at the southern cliff face. I flew back to home base and about 30 minutes after landing, Hurricane UT lived up to its name.
Oh, and the guys in the RV? They both cracked their skulls on the canopy on the way in, did a go-around at the big suck and landed on the second attempt, but then, he was a navy pilot and didn’t know any better.

Now, if anybody asks me "How close have you flown to your destination and still aborted?" I say 10 feet.

My hat’s off to those scenic tour pilots who fly that territory in the summer with rivers of Japanese puke in the back of the plane.

I have not tried the imbedded thunderstorm route, but I have a hard time believing flat land turbulence can compare to hi gusty winds in really rough terrain like down in the Snake/Salmon river canyon or some of the mountain passes in Alaska with close side walls and lots of corners and high wind. You become more of a passenger than a pilot. Scares the crap out of me!

I've got about 200 hours in wave but nothing (even close) as impressive as Gordon Boettger flights in wave one of which was 2200 km or 1360 miles starting in Minden and ending in Winnemucca after zig zaging up and down the Sierras last year up to fl 270. I was at a speaker seminar in Reno last weekend that he spoke about his flight and others. Very impressive
http://soaringcafe.com/2011/06/photos-f ... ow=gallery
http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gl ... Id=1702059

One memorable flight in glider as far as turbulence was from Crystal Air in Llano up the Sierras to the Inyos crossing the Owens Valley at Lone Pine and up to Yearington after getting hammered on the Inyos and Whites in thermal lift for about an hour and a half I was almost ready to give up at about Bishop. My cruising speed was only about 70-90 kts. Once I'd left the Whites and headed towards Hawthorn most of the turbulence eased up. I fly mostly 18 meter (wing span) with 200lbs water ballast and the wings will bend about 3'-4' they're great shock absorbers but they'll only absorb so much.