I was flying from SYD to LAX over the weekend, and we had the worst turbulence I've ever experienced. There were only a couple scary bumps, but there was a moderate chop that lasted for at least three hours. The guy behind me told another passenger it was the worst he had seen as well.

I was amazed by some of the people who could just sleep through it or, better yet, some of the people who got out of their seats while it was happening.

What's weird is the flight crew were never asked to sit down, even though I can recall two transatlantic flights when the turbulence was less severe yet meal service was interrupted. One FA looked nervous but of course told me I had nothing to worry about.

Is this true? Am I crazy for thinking the pilot is going to lose control of the aircraft or getting worried at all?

This FA sure thought is was time to get worried!

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ght=turbulence

After flying a plane myself I realized that the thing really does want to stay aloft. It's designed that way. That's not to say the most extreme circumstances can't bring it down, because we all know it does happen, but not too often. It takes just the right combination of unfortunate circumstances to cause something so catastrophic.

While I am not an aeronautical engineer, I know that planes can handle a great deal of turbulence. They are stress tested many times to determine what it can happen. The pilots know of the limits, ATC knows of any reported bad air, can I don't think a captain would want to go fly in turbulence on purpose.

The only time that I get worried is when I see the engine moving on the wing.

I had an ATA FA put turbulence into perspective for me once. I was in the window seat exit, across from the jump seats, and we were chatting. The wings were bouncing like I've never seen before as we descended towards MDW. I commented on it and he laughed and said, "I did a military charter into Iceland once, and that it NOTHING! Even I was amazed at just how much give those wings have; I saw them stressed to the max on that Iceland flight." Not something I'd want to see personally, but it made me feel much better about "normal" turbulence.

A number of years ago a client of mine, who was a Boeing engineer, described the stress test that was done on the 777 wings. Boeing has a machine that bends both wings up until they fail. The guy said that the wings almost point straight up before they snap. I never had any concerns about wobbling wings since then.

I also got over turbulence concerns once I realized that most turbulence is not much worse than a car bouncing a bit after hitting a rough patch on the highway.

But then again, I've never been in a plane during a free-fall where stuff is flying around all over the cabin and flight attendants are being slammed into the ceiling...yikes!

To put it in a nutshell, there's nothing to worry about if unrestrained people and objects aren't yet hitting the ceiling. And even then, the aircraft still has lots of structural reserve.

Bad turbulence on a SYD-LAX flight?? Am I the only one who immediately thought of the first episode of "Lost" upon reading this thread?

Yes, you should worry. You might spill your drink.

Won't hurt the airplane, though...

Yes--Australia to US in the spring. A few years ago, the bumpiest flight of my life, and the FAs said the bumpiest in theirs too. I only worry during take-offs, landings, and if an engine bursts into flames. For the rest, I just enjoy the roller-coaster effect.

Turbulence is as normal as road bumps. I learned a long time ago that if the flight seems bumpy, look around to see how the FAs are handling it. If they don't react, why should I. It's normal.

I've seen plenty of turbulance which has made people sick, and one very memorable flight in a CAL MD11. We hit some bad turbulence where my walkman ended up floating over 4-5" above my knee. Sort of interesting until it slammed into my knee. It was surreal, the overhead bins were moving front to back and the seats were moving left to right. After that experience I'm more paranoid of flying objects and hitting me than the wings snapping off and crashing into the ground.

Does anyone know how much a pilot can do to work around the "bumpy air"? I sort of wonder sometimes whether the pilot can't just more easily go above/below/around the air pattern, altering the trajectory slightly. Obviously, this is not so easy on certain routes, but on less-crowded ones, I sort of wonder why it isn't done more often. After reading about the Gatwick-LAS flight on Virgin posted above, I'm even more curious.

If there's more than a passing encounter with turbulence that's more than an irritating chop, the first thing the tech crew will be doing will be looking for somewhere else to fly. But in the cruise, it's often difficult to know exactly where the air is turbulent and where it's smooth, because it's usually all clear air so that you can't see where the problems are. And trans-Atlantics like that LGW-LAS flight are flying through some of the most crowded airspace in the world - it really isn't that easy to find some other altitude or route that isn't already occupied, or that doesn't involve crossing airspace that's already occupied.

The only time I get worried is when I see the gorilla on the wing tearing open the cowling...

My Dad was a pilot and he once told that he thought pax sometimes confused comfort with safety. More recently a FA told me that she did not like turbulence but for a surprising reason: it interferes with carrying out their duties.