The R&N forum on the AF 447 disaster is replete with statements by pilots contributing to the forum that flight through severe CBs is incredibly dangerous, and to be avoided at all costs. My question (as an ignorant SLF) is this. Every hurricane season, the USAF and NOAA fly planes through the middle of these storms to gauge their strength, etc. These planes are Lockheed C-130 Hercules, P-3 Orions, and even Gulfstream GIV's. See:
Hurricane Hunters Association and
NOAA's Hurricane Hunters .
Clearly, these are not "certain death" missions. How do these facts square with the R&N statements about the inadvisability of commercial aviation encounters with turbulent weather. Is it: (a) hurricane hunting is extremely dangerous; (b) the aforementioned planes are more robust than commercial Airbus and Boeing products; (c) hurricane hunter crews have more refined skills for this task; (d) the turbulence found in hurricanes is less or more consistent than the turbulence found in major CBs; (e) the commercial planes and crews are quite adequate, but the PAX can't abide by the ride; or (f) none of the above?
Again, I'm not trying to point any fingers, just interested in resolving the apparent disconnect. Thanks.