"Wind 285 at 186"

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message Taking Kennesaw "Mountain" and Stone
"Mountain" out of the equation, you need to get pretty far North in Georgia
(75 miles from Atlanta, at least) to find anything more than 500' hills...

The light chop we encountered was normal when crossing the south side of the
Jetstream. It wasn't mountain wave activity. Even though mountain wave
activity from the Rockies has been blamed by the NTSB for high altitude
upsets with injuries as far east as New Foundland, I'm guessing that
Thursday's severe turbulence was caused by the Jetstream bunching up on
itself.

D.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...



You should have seen it Thursday afternoon. Several reports of severe
turbulence between 28,000 and 31,000 just north of Atlanta. It
sucked!!!

Chip, ZTL

A little mountain wave action? Rotors?
--

I doubt it. We did have severe Saturday reported by a Navajo at 11,000 near
Mount Mitchell NC which was undoubtedly mountain wave. However, the area in
question Thursday was in the triangle described by Atlanta GA, Knoxville TN
and Chattanooga TN and at high altitude.

There was a wicked jet-stream blowing. The aircraft reporting the severe
were all business-class aircraft (C550, C560 and a LR45) climbing NW-bound
out of the Atlanta terminal area. The aircraft enroute through this same
area/altitude band heading the opposite direction were calling it
"continuous light chop, pockets of moderate..." Of course, for the next
couple of hours once people heard about the severe reports, everyone bailed
out of the FL280-310 stratum.

One of the hardest parts about the enroute ATC business is delivering
turbulence reports to aircraft operating in the flight-levels. Frankly,
there is absolutely no "chop" which is operationally significant to ATC. We
could care less. We care about the buzz-word "turbulence", not "chop." If
we're getting reports of "continuous light turbulence", we take notice.
"Moderate" or greater turbulence, and we take action. "Severe" and we put
the word out far and wide and move airplanes far away to miss it.

Winter days when the rides suck are bad days in ATC land because the
workload goes through the roof. Many professional aircrews spend the entire
flight looking for smooth air and the bug the crap out of ATC with reports
of "occasional light chop" or "how's the ride ahead?" Some companies are
much worse than others. In our neck of the woods, Delta Airlines is the
absolute worst (but not the only offender). They have a corporate culture
that encourages their crews to ask early and ask often about the ride ahead,
even on the smooth days. It has something to do with an FA winning a
lawsuit against the company for an injury. Delta seems to figure if they
constantly ask about the ride ahead, then they shed some liability or
something. It also doesn't hurt in the customer service department.
However, it really sucks to have every Delta check in with "Delta So and So,
blah blah blah, how's the ride ahead?" Now, not only does ATC have issue a
control instruction, they also have to waste air time giving a dissertation
on rides ahead that may or may not be accurate. This, even on smooth days.
Universally, we call smooth air "Delta chop".

One of the funniest things I have ever heard on the radio happened last week
when the rides were crap everywhere. This AirTran B717 had climbed up to
FL330 figuring that if he couldn't get a smooth ride, at least he could get
a good fuel burn on the way to Akron. A Delta MD88 was about 20 miles in
trail at FL290. The Delta crew was wearing me out, bitching about "light
chop" at three different altitudes they had leveled at. Delta heard me call
some traffic to the AirTran, and asked me to "Ask Citrus how his ride is up
there at Thirty Three please". The Airtran pilot keyed his mic, and you
could hear by the sound of his voice that he is getting jolted pretty good.
"Atlanta [jolt] tell Delta [groan] that [bounce] it's nice and [thud] smooth
up here at [ouch] 330. Barely a ripple. [BANG!] Send him
[bounce-thud-shudder] on up- he'll love it!" Delta didn't say another word
about light chop.



Chip, ZTL

Frankly,
there is absolutely no "chop" which is operationally significant to ATC. We
could care less. We care about the buzz-word "turbulence", not "chop."

What is the difference to you (at ATC)? I always understood "chop" to
be rapid bounces, and "turbulence" to be slower bounces. You could have
(for example) light turbulence or severe chop.

Do you not read the words that way?

Jose

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Kyle Boatright" wrote

Taking Kennesaw "Mountain" and Stone "Mountain" out of the equation, you
need to get pretty far North in Georgia (75 miles from Atlanta, at least)
to
find anything more than 500' hills...

I'd guess wind shear was the source of any turbulence.

KB

It was my understanding that you could get standing waves that could go
for
100 miles, or more. Wrong?
--
Jim in NC

No doubt about that, but the real mountains in Georgia are pretty far North
and/or Northeast. Since wind from 285 close to due West, I woudn't think
anything more or less West of Atlanta would cause standing waves anywhere
near the city..

Of course, all of this goes back to what the original poster considered to
be "Near Atlanta"..

KB

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:28:57 GMT, Chip Jones wrote:

One of the hardest parts about the enroute ATC business is delivering
turbulence reports to aircraft operating in the flight-levels. Frankly,
there is absolutely no "chop" which is operationally significant to ATC. We
could care less. We care about the buzz-word "turbulence", not "chop." If
we're getting reports of "continuous light turbulence", we take notice.
"Moderate" or greater turbulence, and we take action. "Severe" and we put
the word out far and wide and move airplanes far away to miss it.

Hi Chip,

Wouldn't "chop" be synomonous (sp?) with turbulence based on 9-2-8 at
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/FSS/fss0902.html?

Below is the excerpt from that section. Note Item B below.

9-2-8. REPORTING TURBULENCE IN PIREPS

a. Turbulence reports should include location, altitude, or range of
altitudes, and aircraft type, and should include whether in clouds or clear
air. The degree of turbulence, intensity, and duration (occasional,
intermittent, and continuous) is determined by the pilot. It is essential
that the report is obtained and disseminated when possible in conformance
with the U.S. Standard Turbulence Criteria Table as follows:

1. Light. Loose objects in aircraft remain at rest.

2. Moderate. Unsecured objects are dislodged. Occupants feel definite
strains against seat belts and shoulder straps.

3. Severe. Occupants thrown violently against seat belts. Momentary loss of
aircraft control. Unsecured objects tossed about.

4. Extreme. Aircraft is tossed violently about, impossible to control. May
cause structural damage.

b. Report CAT or CHOP if used by the pilot to describe the type of
turbulence

I fly a lil ole Sundowner, so I figure you wouldn't hear from me at FL33
*smile*.

Keep up the good work. Everytime I fly, I am amazed how calm and cool you
ATC folks are when the weather goes south.

Allen

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
Frankly,
there is absolutely no "chop" which is operationally significant to ATC.
We
could care less. We care about the buzz-word "turbulence", not "chop."

What is the difference to you (at ATC)? I always understood "chop" to
be rapid bounces, and "turbulence" to be slower bounces. You could have
(for example) light turbulence or severe chop.

Do you not read the words that way?

I don't exactly read the words that way. Here's a link to the relevent
portion of the AIM: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0701.html#7-1-23
..

Note that the highest intensity "chop" is moderate chop. There is no
"severe" chop. ATC is interested in reports of moderate or greater
intensity turbulence because they effect flight safety. "Chop" does not
pose a safety of flight hazard because it does not cause changes in aircraft
attitude or attitude, and other than discomfort, it does not pose a risk to
passengers or crew.

Chip, ZTL

"A Lieberman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:28:57 GMT, Chip Jones wrote:
[snipped]

Hi Chip,

Wouldn't "chop" be synomonous (sp?) with turbulence based on 9-2-8 at
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/FSS/fss0902.html?

Howdy Allen. I say it isn't synonymous. "Chop" has a specific definition.
See the AIM at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0701.html#7-1-23 .
As you can see, "chop" doesn't rise to the level of "turbulence." Chop is a
nuisance, but it isn't a flight safety hazard like the higher intensity
turbulences are.


Below is the excerpt from that section. Note Item B below.

9-2-8. REPORTING TURBULENCE IN PIREPS

a. Turbulence reports should include location, altitude, or range of
altitudes, and aircraft type, and should include whether in clouds or
clear
air. The degree of turbulence, intensity, and duration (occasional,
intermittent, and continuous) is determined by the pilot. It is essential
that the report is obtained and disseminated when possible in conformance
with the U.S. Standard Turbulence Criteria Table as follows:

1. Light. Loose objects in aircraft remain at rest.

2. Moderate. Unsecured objects are dislodged. Occupants feel definite
strains against seat belts and shoulder straps.

3. Severe. Occupants thrown violently against seat belts. Momentary loss
of
aircraft control. Unsecured objects tossed about.

4. Extreme. Aircraft is tossed violently about, impossible to control. May
cause structural damage.

b. Report CAT or CHOP if used by the pilot to describe the type of
turbulence



You're quoting from the FSS manual. FSS has a different function than ATC
with regards to mission. En Route ATC doesn't have the time, nor is it
their function, to report "chop". That's why the FAA has Fligh****ch. The
requirements for ATC are spelled out in FAAO 7110.65P. See
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp2/atc0201.html#2-1-1 , which is quoted
below:

"2-1-9. REPORTING ESSENTIAL FLIGHT INFORMATION
Report as soon as possible to the appropriate FSS, airport manager's office,
ARTCC, approach control facility, operations office, or military operations
office any information concerning components of the NAS or any flight
conditions which may have an adverse effect on air safety."



All reports of "turbulence" of moderate or greater intensity will be
reported to the CWSU NWS weather guy so he can disseminate UUA's etc.
"Light chop" and "moderate chop" don't adversely effect air safety, so they
won't be reported into the system. When one sector controller relieves
another sector controller on a position, things like "chop" and "turbulence"
will be mentioned when the weather brief is conducted, but "chop" doesn't
get reported out of the control room. Most controllers, including me, will
voluntarily pass along chop reports on the ATC frequency when we have time.
The problem is that time is one of those things we have less and less of
these days as the traffic rises.




I fly a lil ole Sundowner, so I figure you wouldn't hear from me at FL33
*smile*.

Actually, I would. My airspace goes from the ground to 60,000. :-)


Keep up the good work. Everytime I fly, I am amazed how calm and cool you
ATC folks are when the weather goes south.


Thanks bro,

Chip, ZTL

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 20:37:50 GMT, Chip Jones wrote:

Howdy Allen. I say it isn't synonymous. "Chop" has a specific definition.
See the AIM at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0701.html#7-1-23 .
As you can see, "chop" doesn't rise to the level of "turbulence." Chop is a
nuisance, but it isn't a flight safety hazard like the higher intensity
turbulences are.

Thanks Chip!!! I learn more and more from your posts!

Allen

"Chip Jones" wrote in message One of the funniest things I have ever
heard on the radio happened last week
when the rides were crap everywhere.

You missed a good one on Wednesday then. On the way up to O'Hare, an
American pilot came on whining that he would retire before he reached his
destination. He was ranting and raging for short-cuts and better altitudes
(apparently he never learned about O'Hare and shortcuts). He kept at it for
awhile when several other pilots keyed up with successive "Wahs".

D.

No the jetstream was pushed quite far South, nasty ride if your not
careful. A sharp drop in OAT near the jetstream is a good indicator.
Where are you flying at Doug?

Bush

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:54:50 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:




You should have seen it Thursday afternoon. Several reports of severe
turbulence between 28,000 and 31,000 just north of Atlanta. It sucked!!!

Chip, ZTL

A little mountain wave action? Rotors?