51

EDIT: Having read these great answers I feel a little ashamed for the fear I felt on this recent flight. However, judging by my reaction to the experience and the reaction of those around me on the flight I imagine I am not the only one who felt this way. As others have mentioned here I will agree that passengers are pretty bad at judging turbulence. For those who come to this Stack Exchange site with similar concerns, I hope that you read these answers from those knowledgeable in the field to assuage your concerns.

I was recently on a flight that flew in to central Texas coming from Denver. There was bad turbulence on the flight in the last 45 minutes -- the worst I have ever experienced -- and I was curious about what else was going on behind the scenes from the perspective of the pilot and crew.

I do not know the airplane model. It has ~38 rows and 3 seats on each side of the aisle. I was in row 35. It was a standard commercial airplane that would fly across the United States.

We were first told that we were about to enter a turbulent area based on reports of other airliners in the region. We soon entered an area of lightning and dense clouds so thick that there was no visibility outside the windows.

The first drop came unexpectedly in what I can only describe as similar to a bad, bumpy landing on the freeway. The bags rattled pretty hard and loudly and I felt myself leave the seat. It was loud and jarring enough for most of the people in my area to scream out loud. Over the next 45 minutes, these drops happened continuously and randomly, up to 15 times.

Between these big drops the plane felt like it was swaying from the left and right. There were also many tiny dips between the bigger dips. It was extremely tense for everyone on the plane and generally it felt very uneven below us so there was a constant anticipation of another drop.

After the landing gear went down, it was clear that we were ascending again. The pilot explained that there was a "spacing" issue on the ground so he was going to fly around and try to land again. The guy next to me said (jokingly?) that this meant the pilot was too scared to land.

The cabin crew looked pretty terrified, and they were chatting to each other throughout the whole ordeal. People were sobbing and weeping all around me and they would yell every time a drop happened.

Obviously, you have little information to go off of but I was curious, from what I have provided, about the following questions:

  1. Many people on board were fairly traumatized by the experience. Was there any real danger from turbulence this bad? Is this something a pilot might encounter routinely that they would be equipped to handle or does this seem unusually bad?

  2. What was happening behind the scenes? How does a pilot handle a situation like this? Was there other information about the turbulence that we were not being told?

Any other interesting, related information to give me insight into this experience would be appreciated.

rbp
  • 16,734
  • 4
  • 60
  • 104
syntonicC
  • 613
  • 1
  • 5
  • 8
  • 27
    If the pilot said the go-around was for spacing, he was probably telling the truth. It's a very common reason for go-arounds/missed approaches. If you want to be sure, though, if your flight was in the last 14 days, you can listen to the ATC recording for your destination airport at liveatc.net. I've done that before when I was curious about the reason for a go-around on a flight I was on. In that case, they were just coming in too fast and couldn't stabilize the approach quickly enough (because we were basically dive-bombing the airport after flying around a thunderstorm.) – reirab Nov 30 '15 at 03:12
  • 8
    If there was thunderstorm activity around the airport, it's likely that some takeoffs were delayed, planes are taxing slower, and approaching planes are re-routed around thunderstorm instead of their usual route. Give all this, it is not unusual to expect spacing problems. – kevin Nov 30 '15 at 10:36
  • 9
    Re: your EDIT. I don't think your fear is unfounded. – rbp Nov 30 '15 at 17:02
  • 2
    @rbp I don't think so either... but I always feel a little humbled when I learn the greater context of any situation. I learned a lot from these answers and so with that new perspective I can look back on what I felt before. I hope other passengers will read this and do the same. – syntonicC Nov 30 '15 at 17:06
  • 25
    I always throw up my hands and go WEEEEEEE! as if it's a roller coaster ride. It's about as safe as one, so might as well enjoy the freefalls - a lot cheaper than a trip on the vomit comet. – Adam Davis Dec 01 '15 at 14:41
  • 4
    oh boy, this is nothing. @rbp i think the fear IS unfounded, because OP was never in any danger (well, no more than usual on a plane). that's the definition of unfounded fear. OP's lack of knowledge led to the feeling of fear. happens to all of us. – user428517 Dec 01 '15 at 22:33
  • 2
    wow -- i got that completely backwards. yes, his fear is unfounded. – rbp Dec 01 '15 at 22:38
  • @rbp: No, it's "lightning"; your edit was incorrect. – Lightness Races in Orbit Dec 02 '15 at 15:39
  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit thanks, fixed here and below – rbp Dec 02 '15 at 15:43
  • 1
    I'm surprised nobody asked for flight number and date. That would allow a quick look at historical weather as well as flight track to get an idea of what was going on. – FreeMan Dec 02 '15 at 16:38
  • 7
    Also, I'm surprised everyone missed the obligatory – FreeMan Dec 02 '15 at 16:47
  • 2
    Please don't be ashamed about the question, its a great question. I don't fly airliners, but I feel just the same as you do in turbulence, when I'm not driving myself. I've been out on some gusty days myself but flights on airliners are a different matter. You are sat in the back waiting for the next bump wondering which part of your stomach is going to fly the furthest. When driving, I've had my head hit the roof in turbulence (not all light aircraft have four point harnesses). You just get on with it and concentrate on the job in hand. – Philip Johnson Dec 02 '15 at 18:01
  • 2
    @AdamDavis At least as far as the major airlines are concerned, it's actually probably more safe than a roller coaster. – reirab Dec 04 '15 at 06:40
  • @reirab A quick search suggests that chance of death in airplane is 1 in 11 million, while chance of death on roller coaster is 1 in 24 million, so I was wrong - you're twice as likely to die flying than riding a roller coaster. But then roller coasters don't even make it onto this chart while vehicle and airline deaths do, so I feel pretty safe in saying that flying is still more dangerous than rollercoasters, but it really depends on how you slice the statistics. – Adam Davis Dec 04 '15 at 15:13
  • @AdamDavis Chance of death in an airplane depends very much on the type of airplane, who's flying it, whether you're measuring per flight or per mile, and how far back you're looking at the statistics. For example, over the past decade, the odds of a passenger dying due to an incident on a major U.S. airline have been zero (despite at least hundreds of millions of passengers being carried in that time.) Regional airlines and airlines in regions with less strict regulations and pilot experience requirements have, of course, fared quite a bit worse than that. – reirab Dec 04 '15 at 15:40
  • @reirab You might have to wait until next year to make that claim - Delta Connection Flight 5191 shows you can't simply buy a ticket from a so-called "major" airline and expect to benefit from a decade long "perfect safety record". I'm sure you can take issue with several aspects of this crash, but ten years is a conveniently short window, so again it comes down to slicing the statistics. Regardless, this is waaay off-topic and getting too long for a one-off silly joke I made about turbulence reminding me of roller coasters. – Adam Davis Dec 04 '15 at 15:55
  • @AdamDavis Comair is regional airline, not a major airline. Like I said, the regionals don't have quite as pristine of a record, though it's still actually quite good. – reirab Dec 04 '15 at 16:58
  • To illustrate serious turbulence and how dangerous it can get for passengers - Etihad turbulence: More than 30 passengers injured: "... 22 people had been treated by paramedics for minor injuries at the airport" / "at least eight Indonesian passengers and a foreign flight attendant were hurt, with several suffering broken bones". This is quite rare though. – Czechnology May 05 '16 at 15:18
  • @Czechnology: you can be sure that all those people got injured because they were not buckled up. Outside of northern Europe/North America, it is still pretty common for people to unbuckle as soon as the light is out. – Martin Argerami Jul 11 '17 at 00:58
  • This is a great question. It’s something that goes through every passengers mind during turbulence and great to have more insight! – JMK May 27 '19 at 17:31

6 Answers6

76

Very little to go on (non-pilots are lousy at classifying turbulence) but my best guess is that you experienced moderate turbulence.

If it was severe, your description would have been something more like this:

I couldn't focus my eyes to see. Someone who wasn't belted down was flung violently against the ceiling, then slammed to the floor. The captain was very assertive, telling the FAs to be seated immediately and that all passengers must strap in. The flight attendants wedged the service carts into the gaps between the seats and asked some passengers to hold them down, before sitting down and securing themselves in with their full 4 point harness. During the worst of it, there was no way anyone would have been able to stand, even if you were holding onto the seats or walls. Some overhead bins popped open strewing their contents about the cabin. There was coffee, cups, plastic glasses, books, etc. flying around EVERYWHERE. Several people had to be taken off the plane by stretcher.

Pilots are not "scared to land". If it's not safe, they will divert. If the approach is wrong, they will "go around" (both perfectly normal) and spacing issues are the most likely reason. Why would the captain lie?

Ask a pilot.

The reaction of passengers is not a good indicator of the level of turbulence but the bottom line is, aircraft are designed to cope with the worst turbulence, and then some. You were perfectly safe.

I have to take issue with your use of "air hostesses", I believe you mean "cabin crew" or "flight attendants". We stopped calling them that when we realised that they are actually professionals with a vital safety role as their primary function and are of both genders.

Community
  • 1
Simon
  • 31,213
  • 4
  • 141
  • 163
  • Well it feels good to hear I was safe - I felt the rest of the passengers were overreacting but I wanted to know how to gauge the situation for my own personal benefit. As far as "air hostessess" I could not gauge the reaction of the whole crew, only the two female flight attendants nearby me so that is why I used the term. Thank you for updating me to modern terminology. – syntonicC Nov 29 '15 at 22:44
  • How did it compare to this?. This is moderate. – Simon Nov 29 '15 at 22:52
  • 2
    I would say it was about comparable to the majority of the ride while the bigger dips I described would have been a bit worse than that (and it was the unexpected nature of it that made it unsettling). By the way, I mentioned the "air hostess" issue to my family and they all laughed at me and asked if I was from the 1960's. No idea where I got that from :-( – syntonicC Nov 30 '15 at 03:03
  • 2
    Are not flight attendants still called air hostesses in European English? – Dronz Nov 30 '15 at 05:37
  • 17
    @Dronz. I am as European and English as can possibly be. Maybe a generation ago. Not now. It's pejorative. – Simon Nov 30 '15 at 06:20
  • 4
    A captain has very good reasons to lie. Passengers freaking out aboard a plane has led to crashes due to weight imbalance – March Ho Nov 30 '15 at 06:56
  • 3
    In France, we still call them hôtesse and steward, as demonstrated by this profession profile on the website of the State agency for orientation after school. That's indeed pejorative and this is the way they are seen by many passengers. – mins Nov 30 '15 at 07:03
  • @MarchHo You're using that example to demonstrate that captains have good reason to lie? Really? What does that incident have in common with this story? – Simon Nov 30 '15 at 07:48
  • The incident is unrelated, but it is not inconceivable that a captain would lie in order to prevent passengers from freaking out and running about the plane, causing additional difficulties in controlling the plane. – March Ho Nov 30 '15 at 08:01
  • 15
    @MarchHo Sorry, but your point is both unlikely and completed unfounded - even as someone who "gets" weight and balance, it's still a hell of a decision when faced with something like that. On the contrary - where exactly do you suppose the customers are going to run to on a turbulent plane? Most of the evidence points towards the idea that actually passengers will generally just sit tight in an emergency, accepting that the pilots have just as much riding on it as they do. Pilots may not choose to give all the information out, but I doubt they'd have reason to lie outright. – Dan Nov 30 '15 at 09:28
  • 2
    @Dan From the perspective of the passenger, I am in agreement with you here on all points. I feel bad for accusing the pilot now but I reacted from fear when I wrote this message in the same way that I imagine many passengers would act in this situation. So in a way I'm happy that fear is represented in my original question - other passengers may relate to how I felt. We put our faith in the pilot but when things suddenly feel like they are going wrong, it's easy to start doubting everything. I know there's nothing for me to do but at least next time I will feel better about it! – syntonicC Nov 30 '15 at 17:05
  • 2
    Care to add details to your reference to severe turbulence? – Joel M. Nov 30 '15 at 18:29
  • 2
    @user568458 Read the first link in my answer to the scale of turbulence and the FAA definition. Of course, a Google search will yield both definitions and descriptions of encounters with severe turbulence but please do ignore tales from passengers. The overwhelming majority of passengers are very bad at classifying turbulence. Terry's description is very good - "I can't read the instruments because my eyes are jiggling around so much". Now ask yourself, have you ever been unable to focus your eyes in turbulence? – Simon Nov 30 '15 at 21:18
  • @JoelM. As above. – Simon Nov 30 '15 at 21:19
  • 2
    All I can see that is close to a passengers' perspective description, both in that link and when I googled it earlier, is "...forced violently against seatbelts... Unsecured objects are tossed around. Food service and walking are impossible". To me, that matches the "big drops" described in the question - that's why I wondered what differences you'd expect to see in a passenger's description. So "unable to focus eyes" would be one example? – user56reinstatemonica8 Nov 30 '15 at 21:20
  • 1
    @user568458 That's the problem. OK, you can't focus your eyes. Anyone not belted in will be thrown violently against the ceiling, then slammed to the floor. If there are any service carts not secured, the flight attendants will wedge them into the gaps between the seats and ask 2 passengers to hold them down. All cabin crew will be seated with the full 4 point harness secured. The engines will be throttled back to slow down to turbulence penetration speed and the captain will be seeking an urgent level change. Some overhead bins will pop open and bags will be thrown from within them. – Simon Nov 30 '15 at 21:24
  • 2
    The captain will make a very assertive call telling the FAs to be seated immediately and that all passengers must strap in. There will be coffee, cups, plastic glasses, books etc rising up, then being thrown onto the floor. Have a look at typical injuries and the state of the cabin following a severe turbulence encounter. Very few people will ever experience it. Many pilots have never experienced it. Most people describe moderate turbulence as severe out of ignorance of what turbulence is and how it's classified. – Simon Nov 30 '15 at 21:30
  • Compare this with what a passenger describes as "insane". What's actually being experienced is moderate. I wouldn't even say at the high end of moderate. – Simon Nov 30 '15 at 21:33
  • Here's another aftermath of severe turbulence. – Simon Nov 30 '15 at 21:40
  • 1
    @Simon Sorry, but that video reminded me of all the old Star Trek episodes where the bridge shakes violently and everyone is flailing back and forth trying to keep their balance, but it's really just the camera shaking... :-) – Michael Nov 30 '15 at 22:21
  • 1
    Why do the politically correct terms always double the number of syllables used? – Chris K Jul 10 '17 at 14:39
  • @ChrisK Why do people describe progress as "political correctness" which is just some vague made up term usually used to hide bias? I see nothing "politically correct" about recognising that cabin crew are a vital part of the safety chain. – Simon Jul 10 '17 at 17:40
  • @Simon: I'm not denigrating progress, but why is it always double the syllables, why can't we come up with shorter terms for things? But what do you call them individually when trying to get their attention? Miss? Sir? What's the right thing here? I really don't get what's the big deal with not just using Steward and Stewardess. I definitely realize they're not my personal wait staff, but let's face it - Flight Attendant is most definitely a politically correct assignation. – Chris K Jul 11 '17 at 19:02
  • Anyone's input on my related question here is appreciated: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/93635/do-airlines-record-the-plane-roll-yaw-pitch-angles-during-a-landing-eg-every – Shadi Jun 19 '22 at 07:29
  • @mins Are you still hearing this? PNC or “personnel navigant commercial" seems more common to me, at least in a professional context, and I wouldn't take ONISEP as a reference. – Relaxed Jul 31 '22 at 23:06
  • @mins I know what ONISEP is and it's easy to find other examples (somewhat more convincing than a random préfecture), e.g. ministry, Air France. Just like in English, it doesn't work as well as a profession name (it feels awkward to say “I am a cabin crew”) but in my experience, PNC is in fact becoming much more common. I am pretty sure INSEE will catch up eventually (this classification is from 2003). – Relaxed Aug 01 '22 at 10:21
  • @Relaxed: Yes, but compare the number of results when searching PNC (1,240) and hôtesse/steward (37,300) on tripadvisor.fr, with appropriate filters to remove unrelated uses of words. PNC counts for 3%. Not scientific indeed. I'm not saying this is how professionals talk, only medias/customers. – mins Aug 01 '22 at 16:47
53

I agree with @Simon that, given your description, you were in moderate turbulence, and as such you were not at risk.

You mentioned that the flight attendants looked terrified, which implies that you were able to see their faces, which might mean they were up and about? If so, you were not in severe turbulence. In severe turbulence the flight attendants are going to be strapped down. My guess would be that what you saw on the the flight attendants' faces was irritation rather than terror, unless they were newbies.

As Simon mentioned, passengers are poor reporters when it comes to turbulence. I was in the back of a 727 well aft of the wing over Texas many years ago. They stopped the beverage service when a flight attendant got dumped onto a passenger's lap. I already had my carton of milk (I'm a milkaholic). I was trying to drink it between bumps without much success, and I found my efforts laughable and started laughing. The passenger next to me asked how I could laugh at a time like this when we were obviously in great danger. I said something like, ah, what danger? to which he replied that I should look at the wing tips, that they were moving up and down. Whether my explanation that they were supposed to do that and that we were in no danger really consoled him or not, I do not know.

It's an oversimplification, but the wing is designed to stall before it will overstress the aircraft, regardless of the turbulence. People have been occasionally hurt in severe turbulence, though, by flying about because they didn't fasten their seat belt, or by overhead bag compartments opening and bags flying. It's very rare though, and preventable.

Large aircraft typically have a recommended turbulence penetration speed to ensure margins for both the high-speed buffet and stall speeds. The 747-100/200 aircraft also had a TURB mode for the autopilot for use in moderate to severe turbulence, although I always found I could do a better job hand-flying than those old autopilots could insofar as handling turbulence. I would guess that current autopilots can do a better job than hand-flying.

My personal way of judging whether we were in truly severe turbulence was that if I was having trouble reading the instruments because my eyeballs were jiggling too much, that was severe turbulence. Also, if you're in it long enough, when the flight is over, the area around your hips may be a little sore for having been forced against your seat belt so hard and so often.

user
  • 6,984
  • 2
  • 29
  • 66
Terry
  • 39,137
  • 5
  • 109
  • 184
  • 9
    So, as a practical matter the greatest turbulence danger is when it is unexpected; when many passengers are not strapped in and there are many loose items about the cabin. That turbulence is likely brief, relatively light yet may cause injuries. – radarbob Nov 30 '15 at 01:30
  • 5
    @radarbob Though I don't have the statistics at hand to prove that first sentence, I believe it to be true. Concerning the 2nd sentence: CAT, clear-air-turbulence is usually brief, but I wouldn't characterize turbulence that lifts unsecured items and displaces them as light. – Terry Nov 30 '15 at 02:08
  • 4
    In general my original question (and the fact that I doubted the pilot) has made me feel a little bit silly for asking now. This answer gives me perspective and makes me feel a lot more comfortable about turbulence and what to expect in a flight like this. Given the reaction on the plane and what I expect the average passenger might feel I hope my question and these great answers might put them at ease. As far as the flight attendants, they were strapped down but I could see their faces if I looked out down the aisle. I may very well have misread their expressions. – syntonicC Nov 30 '15 at 03:14
  • I have actually seen some seriously startled FAs in moderate turbulence before, but that was when the pilots didn't tell them to stop service and sit down before we started entering the jet stream on a flight back from Asia. They sat down very quickly after that first drop. - lol – reirab Nov 30 '15 at 03:31
  • @reirab If it was clear air turbulence, the pilots may not have known it was coming. I'd certainly be startled if I was a FA and things went from stable to service carts abruptly coming off the floor or nearly so. – Terry Nov 30 '15 at 07:23
  • 5
    It's when the wing tips stop bouncing up and down that I would start to get worried. – Simon Nov 30 '15 at 07:51
  • @Simon - is that because your assumption would be that the wing has probably stalled in order to no longer be buffeting? – Jon Story Nov 30 '15 at 11:12
  • 5
    @JonStory No, I was just joking. It's a spin on the fact that since the wing tips are flexing up and down, the wing is doing it's job as designed and absorbing the flex forces. – Simon Nov 30 '15 at 12:46
  • Ah ok, I got that it was jokey but wondered if it had a basis in a nuance like the stall...thing – Jon Story Nov 30 '15 at 14:14
  • @radarbob: In a stall lift stops to increase with angle of attack, but plenty is left to cause loads on the wing. Zero g load is only possible in a parabola flight on the Vomit Comet, or on the ground when the wing is at rest. – Peter Kämpf Dec 03 '15 at 21:53
12

Turbulence can be caused by a variety of different weather patterns.

The one you describe in TX as "an area of dense clouds and lightning so thick that there was no visibility outside the windows" is probably a thunderstorm.

Inside the cockpit, pilots have a weather radar system that tells them instantaneously where the densest area of precipitation is, such as the magenta area at the far right of the 40nm arc. Aircraft equipped with radar can easily fly around the worst parts of the storm, but that doesn't mean they miss it all together.

Your pilot probably had to fly through part of the storm to get to the destination. The go-around could have been for 'spacing,' but it could have been a normal missed approach as well.

enter image description here

Community
  • 1
rbp
  • 16,734
  • 4
  • 60
  • 104
10

When I was in training, we had specific explanations on the effects of the different levels of turbulence.

Light turbulence:

Pilot's point of view:
Turbulence that momentarily causes slight erratic changes in altitude and/or attitude (pitch, roll and yaw).

Passenger's point of view:
Occupants may feel a slight strain against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects may be displaced slightly. Food service may be conducted and little or no difficulty is encountered in walking.

Moderate turbulence

Pilot's point of view:
Changes in altitude and/or attitude occur but the aircraft remains in positive control at all times. It usually causes variations in indicated airspeed.

Passenger's point of view:
Occupants feel definite strains against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects are dislodged. Food service and walking are difficult.

Severe turbulence

Pilot's point of view:
Turbulence that causes large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or attitude. It usually causes large variations in indicated airspeed. Aircraft may be momentarily out of control.

Passenger's point of view:
Occupants are forced violently against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects are tossed about. Food Service and walking are impossible.

To comment on the "going around" for another attempt. This is always ok. Perfectly normal. There can be countless reasons why this might happen. And when it happens, the captain has decided that it is safer to go around than to continue.
The only place turbulence may be a problem is close to the ground (ie. on approach to land). If there is a sudden downdraught close to the ground, there may not be enough height to recover. This has happened in the past due to a microburst but most modern airports now have specific radar designed to detect these phenomena.

stuart barkley
  • 161
  • 4
7

If all the flight attendants are strapped in, injured, or crying uncontrollably, and preferably all at the same time, then you probably can go off the flight attendants. Maybe. In all other situations you should not. Even if you correctly detect stress it could be for a whole more reasons than the turbulence you are experiencing - because they fly so often, they will have experienced worse, many times before.

I think this is a good informative article that might help http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/turbulence/

You have a trained professional crew up front, who again will have experienced this many many times, they might not be happy about it because they want their passengers to have a smooth ride at all times, but refer to my first sentence before you even worry about the flight crew getting upset or crying also or it affecting their professional judgement in any way whatsoever. Also its far easier in these situations if you are driving than just sat in the back waiting for the next bump.

If you are on the sea you expect the odd wave and can see it coming, its difficult in the air because you can't see the wave coming. I much prefer sitting in the cockpit myself than sat in the back, in particular if the weather is rough. You would be amazed at how calm it is no matter what the weather (or anything else for that matter). The pilots will be totally relaxed. The only time turbulence will really get their attention is when on approach - the closer you are to the ground when it happens the more attention the pilot will pay to it.

Remember the wings rock when the pilot wants to adjust the direction you are going and the wind often changes more than once on approach (a lot more if its gusty), so its the pilot moving the wings in that case to keep the nose of the aircraft pointing in the right direction because he/she has to do that to change the direction you are heading when the wind blows it off slightly. The wings are used rather than the rudder because its the correct technique, if the rudder was used, now that really would be uncomfortable (and potentially dangerous). Also if the pilot doesn't do this, you will miss the airport by a mile. So what you think is turbulence on approach might be a bit of both - the turbulence itself and the pilot also telling the aircraft exactly where it needs to go. A good game to play is to try to work out which wing rocks are the pilot and which are due to turbulence. The pilot will be smoother (hopefully).

The only other thing I would like to add which I hope will help, is that if you watch a video of airliner wings being stress tested, the wingtips more or less have to touch each other before the wing breaks. Not quite perhaps touch but they move a whole lot further than you will ever see in flight.

Severe turbulence can injure people walking around because it could pin them to the roof and then drop them to the floor the next second. Thats why you have the seatbelt signs on at the first sign of turbulence. However, even if this happened and dozens of passengers were injured in this way, the aircraft would be totally undamaged. Obviously something the pilots will try their best to avoid.

I hope this answer helps. Please just relax and enjoy the ride, aircraft are not designed to fall apart in the air the first bump that comes along, they fly for thousands of hours in situations like this and sometimes pilots just can't avoid the turbulence if its one of those days where its everywhere!

Philip Johnson
  • 1,815
  • 12
  • 15
2

Turbulence is part and parcel of flying. Rest assured that pilots are trained to handle all types of turbulence in the simulator training. Airplanes are equipped with radar to detect precipitation which usually cause turbulence.

Federico
  • 32,559
  • 17
  • 136
  • 184
Terry
  • 21
  • 1
  • "pilots are trained to handle all types of turbulence", but they can do mistakes when dealing with them and brake the plane: The NTSB concluded that the enormous stress on the vertical stabilizer was due to the first officer's "unnecessary and excessive" rudder inputs, and not the wake turbulence caused by the 747 (AAL 587) – mins Aug 01 '22 at 17:12