do stong winds aloft = bumps?

[phxflyer]

I'm heading back from Christmas with the family on Sunday morning from EWR to AUS. I've taken a look at some maps and noticed that the Sunday winds aloft at 35,000 feet are 160+ knots, and this would be a direct headwind for me. At 30,000 feet they're still over 125+ knots, so going lower wouldn't be all that advantageous. Doesn't this pretty much spell out a bumpy flight?

[spiffytoo]

I'm so not a pilot, so feel free to ignore what I say, but wanted to offer an answer. My experience as a passenger has been that the prevailing wind at cruising altitude is either headwind (slows your flight down but not very bumpy) or tailwind (you get to destination faster than planned). I THINK that at certain times of year the prevailing winds are generally known at certain altitudes (example - in fall they are west to east and in spring the other way, or something like that).

I think the things that make flights bumpy tend to be crosswinds and moisture/clouds. I have been on several flights that were bumpy ascending and descending as they went through clouds/winds. Usually the pilots are able to find a cruising altitude that is not too bumpy. It's rare for it to be bumpy for hours, the whole flight.

This would be a great question to ask the pilot or FA on your particular flight. I am not aggressive enough to ask to meet the pilot in general, but if I am worried about bumps, sometimes I ask the FA as I board if they think it will be bumpy. If I look forlorn enough sometimes they grab the captain or FO and have them explain it to me. Either way I feel much different about the bumps if I know ahead of time to expect them.

I hope that helps - a real pilot may come on and contradict everything I say :tongue:

[Barb-SAN]

I'm heading back from Christmas with the family on Sunday morning from EWR to AUS. I've taken a look at some maps and noticed that the Sunday winds aloft at 35,000 feet are 160+ knots, and this would be a direct headwind for me. At 30,000 feet they're still over 125+ knots, so going lower wouldn't be all that advantageous. Doesn't this pretty much spell out a bumpy flight?

When you were looking at the "maps", did you look at the turbulence maps? http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/turbulence/turb_nav.php
Note that you can change the altitude (in the box where you see "max", and that the turbulence forecast varies quite a bit with different altitudes and locations.

I hope Capt. Hutch will post of his experiences up there at 30,000+ feet, since he looks at the wind and turb. info before every flight.

I seem to remember Capt. Ray saying that you can have turbulence when you cross the boundary of the jet stream, and that changes locations with the seasons. Also there may be turbulence encountered when passing from areas of high pressure to low pressure, crossing fronts, and passing over mountains. Clouds may or may not produce turbulence, depending on the type. Pilots avoid cumulonimbus clouds (that cause thunderstorms) as they can be very turbulent. I can recall passing through clouds (and rain...but not thunderstorms) as a passenger on commercial flights that weren't bumpy at all, and others that were a little bumpy.

O.K....just checked the "Bible"...Capt. Ray's book, "This is your Capt. Speaking"

""Jet stream" :A river of fast-moving air, often more than 100-200 miles wide, usually between 30,000 and 35,000 ft. above the ground. Jet stream winds have been clocked at over 150 miles per hour. They often generate much of the turbulence felt at high altitude, especially along the edges of this fast moving mass of air where eddies, like those along the edge of a stream, make for rapidly changing wind directions and speeds, and thus, turbulence. Jet stream winds are most powerful in the winter months, and slow down by more than half during summer months."

It seems that there would be an economic incentive to avoid a strong headwind, if possible, when flying east to west, since it increases flight time and fuel consumption. Going west to east, the tailwind would be a good thing...shorter flight time = less fuel consumption. I suppose that's part of what determines the route a particular plane will fly on a given day, as well as trying to avoid turbulence for the comfort of the passengers.

Phxflyer...if you really want to study this, you could track your flight on www.flightaware (http://www.flightaware), and see where the plane flies (and at what altitude...check the flight log), and compare it to the turbulence forecast maps. ;)

[spiffyone]

Again a nonscientific answer based on a single flight. Today we had what the pilot described as a "kickin' tailwind" that turned a 1:50 flight into a 1:25 flight. Not at all bumpy. When we descended through the low cloud cover before landing, then it was bumpy.

Non sequitur: I saw my beach house from the air today for the first time. So cool!

[Barb-SAN]

I'm heading back from Christmas with the family on Sunday morning from EWR to AUS. I've taken a look at some maps and noticed that the Sunday winds aloft at 35,000 feet are 160+ knots, and this would be a direct headwind for me. At 30,000 feet they're still over 125+ knots, so going lower wouldn't be all that advantageous. Doesn't this pretty much spell out a bumpy flight?

So, how was your flight? This turbulence map for 36,000 ft. is a bit late, as it's valid for 4PM EST Sunday, so you are probably already back in Austin. I'm wondering if the areas that show turbulence are in some of the areas of the jet stream? A number of the "red" areas are over mountains.

On my flights from SAN (San Diego) to DTW (Detroit), quite often there is at least mild turbulence over Colorado, which you can see on this map.

[Barb-SAN]

I was just checking out the turbulence forecast for today. This is the maximum turbulence potential between 20,000 and 45,000 ft. There's not as much at any given altitude. It looks like it is in the shape of the jet stream that's diagrammed in Capt. Ray's book.

Any comments, Capt. Hutch, about flying in or around the jet stream?

[Captain Hutch]

You are definitely, i.e. 100 percent chance, going to get some turbulence when you cross the boundary of the jetstream. If you can stay in it, you may or may not have some. Thinking back, I would have to say that in a very strong wind that you describe that you have a somewhat higher chance of turbulence than if you were in calm conditions. I think the reason is that it is almost impossible that your course is going to be coincidental with the course of the wind and thus you will cross some type of velocity gradient. That being said, the dispatcher will if possible plan a course that will take advantage of strong tailwinds and keep you there as long as possible. I think there is more info under another post somewhere.

Hutch:tiphat:

[phxflyer]

The flight did turn out to be pretty bumpy for about the first 2/3 of the way down to Austin from Newark. The turbulence wasn't monstrous, but it was steady light with some extended periods of moderate. It was enough for the pilot to come on a few times to assure us that things were fine. We cruised at 30,000 feet, and also tried 32,000 and 34,000, but nothing was smooth. He reported that the rides lower were also reporting rough stuff so we stayed at 30,000.

Things weren't helped by the fact that we were stuck inside a high level cloud for this portion of the flight or the fact that we were hugging a big storm system on the way down to Austin. Once we were clear of the cloud, the flight turned glass smooth for the last 1/3 of the way down.

All-in-all, the flight wasn't terrible but it had me worked up because the bumps just seemed unrelenting for 2.5 hours...

[Barb-SAN]

All-in-all, the flight wasn't terrible but it had me worked up because the bumps just seemed unrelenting for 2.5 hours...


Thanks for reporting in about your flight...sorry it had you "worked up".

I'm not sure if this analogy will help or not...but have you ever driven on gravel roads for extended periods of time? I've driven some back roads in Michigan that were full of ruts and potholes, and it is tiring after awhile. It's more relaxing to be on the smooth pavement of the freeway. But...driving on bumpy gravel roads isn't unsafe because of the bumps...it is just more tiring because of the jostling. It's also harder to be a car passenger on those rough roads, as you don't know when to expect the bumps. The driver is paying better attention, and has control of how fast the car will hit the potholes.

If you have never driven on rough back roads, or off-road, before, the first time might be startling, and you might wonder if your car is going to be shaken apart. After awhile, you know what to expect, and know that if you plan your route on gravel roads, the ride will not be like the freeway....and you don't think any more about it.