Having to fly a lot for work, I regularly check the PIREPs for turbulence reports. Bumpy flights are unpleasant and unproductive. Maybe the reports are just getting more prevalent, but there has been a noticeable increase in cases of commercial flights reporting severe, and even extreme, turbulence for commercial flights in North America.

DFW area had two reports of extreme during the storms last week. Both at 12,000 feet. One 777 and an E75L. Southeast region had ten this morning (mix of 737s and A320s). Earlier this month, St. John's area had four wide bodies heading east over the North Atlantic encounter severe turbulence within an hour of each other. There were some days where the Atlantic jet streams were S curves, so a lot of upper level wind shear. In the past, I would see maybe one or two severe PIREPs a month that was not a small prop, and most were biz jets.

The recent HA incident is another reminder of what can happen. The FlightRadar24 playback shows HA35 experienced about a 400 foot loss of altitude from 40,000 feet (can't tell if it was a free fall or more gradual loss, but looks less like a free fall if the indicated vertical speed is correct). While statically small, that's still a 40 story building in height. A 10 foot drop will put your coffee on the ceiling.

In ten million miles of global flying, I have encountered severe only once. It was 30 years ago and it was terrifying. Mid-scale moderate is enough to make most passengers a little nervous, and very few have ever truly hit severe. When people talk about or post videos say "severe", they are rarely actually more than base moderate. Severe almost always results in a lot of broken things (glasses, dishes, ceiling panels, passengers, and oxygen mask assemblies falling down), and the airplane being taken out of service to be inspected more thoroughly before the next flight and/or repaired. Having experienced severe for less than a minute, I can't imagine what extreme would be like. Most line pilots I know have had severe at most once in their careers flying a heavy jet.

Definitely seems that some carriers work harder to keep their aircraft away from it than others. The 777 that hit extreme at 12,000 near Fort Worth was going into Alliance and was not FedEx. It was flying in front (east) of a tornado-producing super cell thunderstorm at the time, as was the Embraer. No idea what made anyone think that was a good idea. The Dallas/Fort Worth area is as well equipped to monitor strong thunderstorms in high detail as anywhere in the world; between the resources on the ground and on the flight deck, someone should have known better. Those skies were treacherous looking when that happened, visually and on the doppler.

There are accepted clearances (distance from radar returns) depending on severity of the return, and the winds aloft. You say “in front of,” the storm, which is hard to interpret. I’d be most concerned with the distance to the storm, and the wind direction. That said, weather off the coast of South Carolina, and Georgia today (12/22) was producing moderate turbulence with fairly weak radar returns, so your theory about increasing instances of potentially harmful turbulence could be correct. There were at least two pireps of severe today. It used to be rare to hear pireps of severe turbulence. Edited to correct spelling.

I could not figure out how to post images of the PIREP locations (approximate). Regarding the two extreme Fort Worth incidents, the storm was moving west to east and at the time the locations looked to be around ten miles east of the line (estimated). While the precip was lagging, the cloud buildup was well ahead of the rain wall and the clouds were pitch black with visible rotation at the base. The winds alone coming from the storm had already triggered warnings on the ground well ahead of the system. It seemed unusual to have air traffic so close to that. Usually they give a those a pretty wide berth.

Should have been around in the late 80’s….
For one, the detection technology is far better, especially for shearing winds.

Two, the pilots of today are far different than the pilots of the 60’s, 70’s, and even the 90’s. Flying through turbs was just expected, a “real” pilot did not let it bother him, or he would lose face among other company pilots. Today, a couple of light bumps is reported as turbulence.

ConciergeKeyz wrote:

Having to fly a lot for work, I regularly check the PIREPs for turbulence reports. Bumpy flights are unpleasant and unproductive. Maybe the reports are just getting more prevalent, but there has been a noticeable increase in cases of commercial flights reporting severe, and even extreme, turbulence for commercial flights in North America.

DFW area had two reports of extreme during the storms last week. Both at 12,000 feet. One 777 and an E75L. Southeast region had ten this morning (mix of 737s and A320s). Earlier this month, St. John's area had four wide bodies heading east over the North Atlantic encounter severe turbulence within an hour of each other. There were some days where the Atlantic jet streams were S curves, so a lot of upper level wind shear. In the past, I would see maybe one or two severe PIREPs a month that was not a small prop, and most were biz jets.

The recent HA incident is another reminder of what can happen. The FlightRadar24 playback shows HA35 experienced about a 400 foot loss of altitude from 40,000 feet (can't tell if it was a free fall or more gradual loss, but looks less like a free fall if the indicated vertical speed is correct). While statically small, that's still a 40 story building in height. A 10 foot drop will put your coffee on the ceiling.

In ten million miles of global flying, I have encountered severe only once. It was 30 years ago and it was terrifying. Mid-scale moderate is enough to make most passengers a little nervous, and very few have ever truly hit severe. When people talk about or post videos say "severe", they are rarely actually more than base moderate. Severe almost always results in a lot of broken things (glasses, dishes, ceiling panels, passengers, and oxygen mask assemblies falling down), and the airplane being taken out of service to be inspected more thoroughly before the next flight and/or repaired. Having experienced severe for less than a minute, I can't imagine what extreme would be like. Most line pilots I know have had severe at most once in their careers flying a heavy jet.

Definitely seems that some carriers work harder to keep their aircraft away from it than others. The 777 that hit extreme at 12,000 near Fort Worth was going into Alliance and was not FedEx. It was flying in front (east) of a tornado-producing super cell thunderstorm at the time, as was the Embraer. No idea what made anyone think that was a good idea. The Dallas/Fort Worth area is as well equipped to monitor strong thunderstorms in high detail as anywhere in the world; between the resources on the ground and on the flight deck, someone should have known better. Those skies were treacherous looking when that happened, visually and on the doppler.

DFW is very busy airspace, and ATC can be very strict about the arrival and departure lanes.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Should have been around in the late 80’s….
For one, the detection technology is far better, especially for shearing winds.

Two, the pilots of today are far different than the pilots of the 60’s, 70’s, and even the 90’s. Flying through turbs was just expected, a “real” pilot did not let it bother him, or he would lose face among other company pilots. Today, a couple of light bumps is reported as turbulence.

I didn't fly much in the 80s but it was like you described in the 70s when I would fly UA from DTW to California.

Ever more frequent "turbulence reports" using IT devices capable of sharing the "experience" in real time to the worlds audiences, IMHO contributes to a false perception that turbulence related incidents are increasing.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Should have been around in the late 80’s….
For one, the detection technology is far better, especially for shearing winds.

Two, the pilots of today are far different than the pilots of the 60’s, 70’s, and even the 90’s. Flying through turbs was just expected, a “real” pilot did not let it bother him, or he would lose face among other company pilots. Today, a couple of light bumps is reported as turbulence.

Very true, and while I admit this is not a controlled study it also seems that crews are far quicker to turn on the fasten seat belt sign than in years past. Perhaps liability concerns are increasing or maybe airlines are just worried about bad PR now that everyone with a phone is a "journalist".

Indeed weather radar on the aircraft and on the ground has gotten a lot better, as has flight dispatching. The volume of PIREPS per-hour available for the last several years I have been looking at them (maybe 10 years through various online reporting tools) has been pretty consistent, but the noticeable change has been an increase in commercial flights reporting severe and extreme.

No doubt that until good color doppler and all the gadgetry with advent of glass cockpits in the mid 80s helped a lot. My observations were that is that a lot of current modern aircraft are getting into it. Of course CAT is still invisible, but the predictive jet stream/weather models seem good.

When there is a report of severe, the chatter on LiveATC for the regional control is abuzz with pilots wanting as much detail as possible to avoid it. It does seem a lot of cargo flights just fly the shortest path they can and take the hits. Some carriers in other regions of the world seem to do the same, and I won’t fly them.

The general public sensationalizes light moderate as overly dramatic and love to post their light chop as extreme, but commercial pilot-reported severe is a legitimate concern.

There's no way to answer this question as there's no concrete definition of the types of turbulence, what is severe turbulence for one may be moderate for another. What is moderate turbulence in a RJ might be light turbulence in a B777.

I've never personally experienced what I would call severe turbulence. I've experienced some pretty good moderate turbulence flying out West, but never the point of being severe.

ConciergeKeyz wrote:

Some carriers in other regions of the world seem to do the same, and I won’t fly them.

Care to name names, for those of us without the data available?

johns624 wrote:

ConciergeKeyz wrote:

Some carriers in other regions of the world seem to do the same, and I won’t fly them.

Care to name names, for those of us without the data available?

For outside the US, I just look at flight radar 24, particularly during significant weather, where most carriers are flowing along certain paths and others choose to fly directly through on same/similar destinations. Now the real world weather is not in perfect real time, but it’s close enough and you can see by other flights avoiding the area that they must be seeing something they don’t want to fly into. I use FR24 on i flight wifi a lot and am impressed how close the weather overlays of clouds and precip seem to match location. Of course precip on the ground radar is no indication of what the clouds are spitting out/winds are doing at 35,000 feet. So again it is a very rough estimate. Flying hail at high altitude in seemingly clear air several miles away from a CB anvil or blowoff can surprise anyone. Flying near (especially downwind) white or magenta seems crazy to mean, and is why I was shocked to see the 777 and E75 so close to Fort Worth tornado and down at 12,000 feet; less surprisingly… both reporting extreme turbulence.

I prefer not to name companies as it’s probably unfair to judge publicly by a sample, but will say Indonesian carriers as well as smaller airlines in Southeast Asia and Latin America are the most prevalent. Particularly in monsoon/cyclone/typhoon season. If one goes through a seemingly nasty area, the playback data available usually shows some points where there were apparent bad encounters. The HA35 playback clearly shows their encounter. What a playback does not show (or at least mine doesn’t) is the relative weather at the time of the flight data.

I’ve been on a reputable non-US carrier over the Pacific in some bad stuff and the FR24 playback was surprisingly detailed. I’d label it moderate, but the type of moderate that had a lot of white knuckles among seasoned flyers. Altitude varied by hundreds of feet for sustained periods. No sudden drops, just unnerving elevator rides up and down. The data was surprisingly detailed. Was the only time I can recall the flight moving map on seatbacks showing major altitude changes due to a rough ride.

SoCalPilot wrote:

There's no way to answer this question as there's no concrete definition of the types of turbulence, what is severe turbulence for one may be moderate for another. What is moderate turbulence in a RJ might be light turbulence in a B777.

I've never personally experienced what I would call severe turbulence. I've experienced some pretty good moderate turbulence flying out West, but never the point of being severe.

Actually, there is a very concrete description of the types of turbulence. As it happens, staying within the details of those descriptions pilots tend to overstate the turbulence (and icing) they encounter by far. Nearly everything is reported at least as moderate. When in reality and keeping to the definition, it is actually light.
If ATC asks, I most of the time reply „some light chops“ as it rarely is more than that.

Just because the ride is unpleasant, exaggerated by the characteristics by specific types (back of E95 as an example), it’s not moderate or severe turbulence by the definition.

Turbulence is today what it always has been - mechanical, wind shear or storm induced. Combined with speed of the aircraft through the air, intensity can vary. I don't believe there is any more or less turbulent air now than 50 years ago. There is certainly more detection and forecast ability. The 30 point flight plans have a SR coloumn indicating shear value along the route of flight. Over the Atlantic, those SR's are pretty accurate. Anything greater than 3 was a probability of light to moderate. I rarely saw anything more than a 6. Approaching those areas produced announcements about precautionary illumination of the SEAT BELT signs. Many passengers ignore the sign; some to their peril.

All one needs to do is a simple Google search to find tons of articles and research pieces (including reputable organizations like the NTSB) about how severe turbulence is becoming more prevalent and is forecasted to get progressively worse over the next few decades due to changes in climate (notice how many more severe weather events there are now, backed up by insurance claims for disasters being a record highs). I can’t recall a flight in recent years that hasn’t encountered some level of light chop, sometimes throughout the entire flight. I recall many flights in the 90s and early 2000s that were as smooth as butter from takeoff to landing. I’m surprised that everyone here seems to be under the impression that turbulence levels haven’t changed. The evidence speaks to the contrary.

Jeremy

SESGDL wrote:

All one needs to do is a simple Google search to find tons of articles and research pieces (including reputable organizations like the NTSB) about how severe turbulence is becoming more prevalent and is forecasted to get progressively worse over the next few decades due to changes in climate (notice how many more severe weather events there are now, backed up by insurance claims for disasters being a record highs). I can’t recall a flight in recent years that hasn’t encountered some level of light chop, sometimes throughout the entire flight. I recall many flights in the 90s and early 2000s that were as smooth as butter from takeoff to landing. I’m surprised that everyone here seems to be under the impression that turbulence levels haven’t changed. The evidence speaks to the contrary.

Jeremy

I know about the forecast of increasing turbulence due to climate change and don’t doubt it.
But 90% of my flights are smooth and I don’t mean as passenger.

I've been flying between SEA and DFW or ATL to get to LAW, TUL or OKC at least monthly for the better part of 20 years. Sometimes the flights are relatively smooth the whole way. Usually, you pick up light to moderate turbulence around the COS and Pueblo with extreme predictability, worse in the winter months. Also pick up moderate chop around the Wasatch mountains and then the Cascades. Dallas and Atlanta can both get very bumpy any time of the year. I haven't noticed any more than usual.

Sancho99504 wrote:

I've been flying between SEA and DFW or ATL to get to LAW, TUL or OKC at least monthly for the better part of 20 years. Sometimes the flights are relatively smooth the whole way. Usually, you pick up light to moderate turbulence around the COS and Pueblo with extreme predictability, worse in the winter months. Also pick up moderate chop around the Wasatch mountains and then the Cascades. Dallas and Atlanta can both get very bumpy any time of the year. I haven't noticed any more than usual.

Your anecdotal feeling is not statistical data.

Starlionblue wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

I've been flying between SEA and DFW or ATL to get to LAW, TUL or OKC at least monthly for the better part of 20 years. Sometimes the flights are relatively smooth the whole way. Usually, you pick up light to moderate turbulence around the COS and Pueblo with extreme predictability, worse in the winter months. Also pick up moderate chop around the Wasatch mountains and then the Cascades. Dallas and Atlanta can both get very bumpy any time of the year. I haven't noticed any more than usual.

Your anecdotal feeling is not statistical data.

I only shared my experience,

Sancho99504 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

I've been flying between SEA and DFW or ATL to get to LAW, TUL or OKC at least monthly for the better part of 20 years. Sometimes the flights are relatively smooth the whole way. Usually, you pick up light to moderate turbulence around the COS and Pueblo with extreme predictability, worse in the winter months. Also pick up moderate chop around the Wasatch mountains and then the Cascades. Dallas and Atlanta can both get very bumpy any time of the year. I haven't noticed any more than usual.

Your anecdotal feeling is not statistical data.

I only shared my experience,

Fair play.

Something that would be interesting to consider is global warming and the increase in major storms. We might be better at spotting it and reporting it now so that the raw numbers of flying through it have improved. But the impact of improved detection and larger/more intense storms due to global warming is that there'll be more disruption to operations without needing to fly through it.