Would you fly with PIREP's like these

Leo O'Farrell

Leo O'Farrell

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
65
Location
Lakeport, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Leo O'Farrell
SFO UUA /OV SFO270008/TM 2038/FL030/TP P28A/TB SEV-EXTRM 030-020/RM ALSO REPORTED BY C172
HAF UA /OV SQL-HAF/TM 2145/FL025/TP C172/TB OCNL LGT
HAF UA /OV HAF/TM 2145/FL025/TP C172/TB MOD 015-025

Did some touch and goes yesterday and thought of flying for cheap fuel today, but seeing these type of PIREPs has me thinking about a bike ride. 16 years into my private pilot career, I'm getting more cautious.

Would like to hear from these pilots...or those who've been up in this type of condition. Does not sound fun, but on the ground a nice sunny day, but also reports of LLWS.
 
Turb is subjective. Your extreme might be my light chop.

I Pireped last week light to mod continuous and I was unable to hold altitude and shearing 20 knots. A few times I was unable to change the radio. My note book came up off the seat a few times.

That's mod to me. My wife would have called it a death wish and never flown again.
 
What did the isobars look like? The rest of the surface analysis?
 
Getting knocked around isn't fun, especially if you're flying with pax. Don't put your pax through that.
 
I'm doubtful about the first pirep. AIM 7-1-23 says severe/extreme turbulence involves loss of control and possible structural damage. I'm guessing the 2nd guy is under-reporting and the 3rd is most accurate.

To answer the original question, I might if I didn't have passengers but really probably not.
 
jordane93 said:
Getting knocked around isn't fun, especially if you're flying with pax. Don't put your pax through that.
Click to expand...

This is pretty good word. I'll tolerate a lot solo...Va is your friend...also pitch mode rather than alt hold on attitude based the autopilot.
 
Unit74 said:
Turb is subjective. Your extreme might be my light chop.

I Pireped last week light to mod continuous and I was unable to hold altitude and shearing 20 knots. A few times I was unable to change the radio. My note book came up off the seat a few times.

That's mod to me. My wife would have called it a death wish and never flown again.
Click to expand...

Student pilot here. AIM Table 7-1-10 tries to make it less subjective, no?

I am guessing that turbulence is transient. A "severe" or "extreme" could be a spotty area of turbulence that moves with the winds surrounded by lesser intensity turbulence, thus different reports at only slightly different times and only slightly different areas.
 
Moderate turb makes many non-pilots and some pilots scream and/or defecate. Severely uncomfortable does not make it severe turbulence. Still if I saw that report Combined with the report of moderate I would question my need to fly that day. :D
 
I use "moderate" (non-pilot pax are screaming/puking), "extremely moderate (my head is hitting the head-liner and side window), "severly moderate" (I'm screaming and puking).

Hitting, and holding, the stops on the elevator is severly moderate.
Bloody nose or head lumps is extremely moderate
Praying passenger is moderate

I might go alone. Wouldn't take someone I liked. . .
 
Clark1961 said:
This is pretty good word. I'll tolerate a lot solo...Va is your friend...also pitch mode rather than alt hold on attitude based the autopilot.
Click to expand...
Ask me how I know! I made the very dumb mistake of taking my friend up on a 25kt day:mad2: Stupid on my part.
 
Sounds like high winds at 3000. It happens. Often the terrain tells you whether you get your butt kicked.

I've been happy as a clam over SFO at 3500 with a 45 knot north wind, negative turbulence, while listening to a 172 calling Approach from Half Moon Bay with a report of "extreme." Montana Mountain accounts for the difference. I got hit by it later, but I'd call it moderate.

Even moderate is a bit much for a passenger. But it can be dealt with.
 
MAKG1 said:
Sounds like high winds at 3000. It happens. Often the terrain tells you whether you get your butt kicked.

I've been happy as a clam over SFO at 3500 with a 45 knot north wind, negative turbulence, while listening to a 172 calling Approach from Half Moon Bay with a report of "extreme." Montana Mountain accounts for the difference. I got hit by it later, but I'd call it moderate.

Even moderate is a bit much for a passenger. But it can be dealt with.
Click to expand...

So being downwind of Montara Mtn causes a wave of turbulence....makes sense.
 
The Navion handles turbulence better than most. I wouldn't worry about anything another plane characturizes as light or moderate. I'd take a extreme reports with a grain of salt. I heard a pilot freaking out on 121.5 one day asking for FSS to find him a place he could land because of the turbulance. I was maybe 20 miles away from him. It was bouncy but it wasn't that bad.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yes. Any significant terrain with significant wind can do that, especially below the peak.
Click to expand...

One time I actually had to scrub a landing at KHAF during a strong east wind that caused such bad waves that it literally flipped me on the side when I got close to shore.
 
Unless I have to go somewhere,I avoid moderate turb. and don't take any pax,that are unfamiliar with turb.
 
I've flown with guys who thought some moderate turbulence was severe. Frankly, to them it was. They freak out so much they do lose control. Severe turbulence is Violent and you literally feel helpless for seconds at a time. Not because it's scary but because there is nothing you can do other than not make abrupt movements and fly it out.

I saw that Sfo 172 pirep the other day. I figured it was a 172 student being just that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well, it looks like two aircraft reported that same turbulence… that would be enough to make me take notice. While severity is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (despite the AIM attempting to make it more objectively categorized), I still take heed when I see numerous reports of the same weather phenomenon from different aircraft.

I had a friend (CFI at my local FBO) return from a flight earlier in the year to report turbulence he described as 'severe', on a day when two other similar reports existed. This guy isn't squeamish in the least, so I took that to mean that it was a lot worse than 'bumpy' on that afternoon.
 
I was at the local square today and watched a 172 take off... Only plane other than a Lear to leave.

Winds were 300 24G31 and he took off RWY22

I was about to PIREP it for the 172. Wings were rockin worse than the back of a Chevy on prom night. I'm sure he was working to keep it level.

Pretty ballsy if you ask me. Whats the crosswind component of a mid 80's 172?
 
As for the PIREPs sure, if I had somewhere to go these would not keep me on the ground. The turbulence is isolated about a 1000 feet thick and I should be able to climb through in short, though rough, order. Looks like a wind shift, mtn wave or possible shear at that altitude. Above should be much smoother.
Just to go bounce around in the sky, probably not.
 
Sac Arrow said:
One time I actually had to scrub a landing at KHAF during a strong east wind that caused such bad waves that it literally flipped me on the side when I got close to shore.
Click to expand...

KHAF can have some wicked weird winds.

Once taking off on 30 into a 15 knot crosswind, I encountered a brief roll at 400 AGL strong enough that I was convinced it was a wake turbulence encounter. Except I was the only airplane in the pattern.
 
I once hit my head so hard I cut my forehead on the zipper on the headliner. Couldn't control airspeed, altitude, or the aircraft. At one point I was in about a 90 degree bank. I thought the airplane was going to come apart, but the old sled stayed together. I was in that for about 20 seconds. There is no turbulence report in the lower 48 not associated with mountains or convection coming from anything smaller than a 737 I would think twice about.
 
Unit74 said:
I was at the local square today and watched a 172 take off... Only plane other than a Lear to leave.

Winds were 300 24G31 and he took off RWY22

I was about to PIREP it for the 172. Wings were rockin worse than the back of a Chevy on prom night. I'm sure he was working to keep it level.

Pretty ballsy if you ask me. Whats the crosswind component of a mid 80's 172?
Click to expand...

That's definitely pushing it in a 172. Crosswind component is NOT a limitation however. 30 across is challenging in any airplane. 40 is getting pretty spooky, and at 50 you better have a damn good reason to be landing there. When I was flying a 172 135 in AK 35 was my hard limit across, anything above that it was impossible to land without sliding sideways a little bit.
 
PIT often adds to it. Trying to fight it vs going with the flow.
(Pilot Induced Turbulence)
 
Whenever I see a PIREP for turbulence I look at the type of plane reporting it. So if a C172 is reporting severe or extreme turbulence I don't tend to take it very seriously. Light turbulence in a C172 can feel like a lot.
 
OK so I checked the weather a day after these PIREPs and the briefer was "that was then, this now..." and I went flying. I also flew yesterday for and early dinner and then night currency work in the pattern. All good. I just don't like CAT and learning to try and avoid it if possible.

I just fly for fun.
 
Yeah, when that type of wind happens around here, it usually doesn't last long. It's often associated with a passing front or a storm passing north, and once it's past, it's done.

Check the prog charts.
 
attachment.php
My buddy feels turbulence a lot more in his 152 than I do in my 172. It was turbulent yesterday w/ winds in the teens gusting low 20's, but not reportable IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top