Turbulence speed

[Wally Mk2]

Just curious as to what other pilots out there use as a base to start reducing speed back to the A/C's turbulence penetration speed?

For me if on A/P I reduce pwr hence speed if the A/P struggles to maintain certain parameters. Patient requirements also apply at times.

Someone out there will know the C210 turb speed? 119 kts? Damn I used to hate that, very little holds those wings on...yeeeek:}



Wmk2

[AussieNick]

normally when things start to creak and groan, then i'll bring it back from Vne :}

[Mach E Avelli]

For me. the older the airframe, the lower the turbulence speed. Not based on any science, just a healthy fear of the unknown. I would rather it stalled than broke.

[VH-XXX]

I don't have a gucci autopilot, however I wait for telltale signs for what I know is coming. Eg. fly from Essendon to Latrobe Valley in a strong northerly. You are at 7,500ft no dramas, then descend through 4,000ft over Yallourn. At this point I would be easing back on the go-juice and reducing speed. The slightest sign of turbulence and I reduce further.

How do you prepare for the unexpected though?

[the wizard of auz]

Balls to the wall. You get through it quicker that way. :eek::}

[dudduddud]

And the quicker you get there, the less chance there is for something to break. :ok:

[The Green Goblin]

Barbers pole :ok:

[morno]

Turbulence Penetration Speed, isn't it that speed that the check and training department ask you during your checks, but you never remember nor use later on? :}

[Tassie Devil]

Practically it have to be half way between Vne and Stall , greatest buffer. Dont quote this on a line check:ok:

[Jabawocky]

When your eyeballs bounce that much you can not read the instruments!

Or your other balls hurt too much!:} Sorry girls.....keep watchin the dials!:E

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Wally,
depends on your weight.
Manual figures for a 210M (1978) are 3800lbs 119KIAS, 3150lbs 108KIAS, 2500lbs 96KIAS.
210N (1984) are 125, 113, and 101 KIAS respecively.:ok:

Do you reckon the chance of the wings clapping over the fuselage are any worse than pipers or beechs? All use cantilever wings. Serious question here folks, any LAMEs know?

[the wizard of auz]

Probably no more risk than any other breed.
I do quiet clearly remember looking at the attach points on the C210 when one of the survey company's was forced to change a heap of them out due to working rivets at the attach point to spar joins. I have been scared of those eight little bolts ever since. They are surprisingly small for the job they do. :eek:

[Wally Mk2]

hey 'Wiz' that's exactly what I thought when first I saw a few piddly little bolts holding that C210 wing!!!

Seems the funny side of everyone has been tickled with my thread:ok:

'MIHC' I guess that's why they (C210) have a fairly low turb speed because of the somewhat weak attachment design. What puzzles me though about this speed on any A/C is the fact that & this is why I ask the original Q we are all different as in there wouldn't be too many out there that have an exact set of rules as to when to reduce speed due bumps etc. One pilots might always pull the pwr back when it gets bumpy & to another pilot perhaps the very next driver might be happy with bouncing around the sky like a fart in a bottle & not slow up at all, there in lies the quandary. Turbulence penetration speed to me is more an advisory speed because it can't be defined as the same for every pilot when to adopt it.


Wmk2

[Brian Abraham]

I guess that's why they (C210) have a fairly low turb speed because of the somewhat weak attachment design.
Not really the way to look at it Wally. Depending on the category the aircraft is designed to take a certain "g" (aerobatic 6 g, normal 3.8 g, or utility 4.4 g). The Va speed is a function of the applicable "g" limit and the stall speed (which naturally changes with weight - fuel burn, payload).

Va = stall speed X square root of "g" limit

So,

Aerobatic category Va = 2.45 X stall speed
Utility category Va = 2.1 X stall speed
Normal category Va = 1.95 X stall speed

What one training organisation had to say referring to a C 172 (3.8 g limit)

In Light Turbulence:

* Use Va

In Moderate Turbulence:

* Cruising speeds should be reduced to 1.6 – 1.7 x Vs (1.65 is ideal) A speed greater than 1.7 x Vs may result in a speed exceeding Va in gusts.
* No flaps when flying a Cessna—remember our load factor limit drops to +3.0g’s.

In Severe Turbulence:

* Slow the aircraft down to 1.5 x Vs. (We need to balance the need to slow down and remain below Va even in gusts while not slowing the aircraft down so much that it may become too difficult to retain control or to where the aircraft stalls with each new gust.)
* Once again, no flaps when flying a Cessna

[Wally Mk2]

'BA' all good & well but there is no defined 'trigger' for what constitutes the requirement for reduced speed due turbulence. You mention via a training organisation light, medium & heavy. That's fine I guess you could break it down to 3 cats but what are they to you, to me or others, they might be nothing like what you have added here. Pilots vary & so does a turb speeds application. Unlike a Vlg speed a "no 2 ways about it" speed I find Turb speed "hairy fairy":).

I am just curious as to what others use as a guide for the application of Turb, not a specific formula which can't be applied here due individual perceptions/decisions.
The ref to the C210 having a weak wing att is just my opinion, I used to work on planes & found them to be under-engineered, obviously not so but again just my opinion.
Yr right tho no flaps when flying a Cessna, that much can be done from the 1 hr pilot to the 10000 hr pilot, the rest is guess work believe.



Wmk2

[Tarq57]

Interesting discussion.
I mean, dang, I don't know, and I've always been curious. There are, of course, descriptions of the symptoms each category of turbulence produces, but still the interpretations are subjective. What rocks some passengers to sleep might cause serious nervousness in others. (Ditto pilots.)

I've always slowed down to around Va any time I thought the ride was getting rough, and always slowed to below the yellow line in any turbulence at all. The possible consequences of not doing so seemed to me a bit serious.

That said, although you say you think light a/c are under-engineered, it would appear they are generally over engineered, which is nice. A lot of quite old lighties are still thumping around, being flown by all from the balls-to-the-wall types, to the overcautious, hardly ever do they fall apart, and some of them must have really been through the mill.
Doesn't matter to me. The sticky-out bits are whats stopping me from heading down at pucker/splat speed, I don't mind easing their load if it gets at all choppy, even if that's conservative. Reasoning: I don't have a gauge of what is/isn't conservative, unless a g meter is fitted, with tables for its use. (Eg: if +3/-1 G's are regularly observed, fly at <xxxkt.etc.) So I would err on the cautious side.

I believe the 210 may have got its reputation because of a few inflight break-ups following spatial disorientation in IMC, because they're so quick to wind up to above Vne, rather than any inherent weakness in the structure. (Not unlike another type that has a nickname used by a poster here.)

[sms777]

Turbulance Penetration Speed is when pax go deadly quiet +10 kts
When feel fingernails slowly penetrate back of neck, reduce speed by 20 kts to restore confidence.
It is amazing how it works opposite ways most of times. When encounter roudy pax, induce turbulance to restore calm.

:ok:

[Aerohooligan]

Obviously Va or Vb if specified for your aircraft is the speed you should come back to in moderate to severe turbulence. For me if in light turb I would have no problem sitting 5 or so knots below the yellow arc to allow for gust-induced IAS increases.

I read a very informative article on this subject, relating specifically to the C210. I can't remember the exact figures, but it went something like this:

Va is the speed at which the aircraft will be capable of surviving a 50 fps (3000fpm) vertical gust, theoretically. In actual fact during wind tunnel testing, the C210 was found to be capable of absorbing a vertical gust of (I think it was) 86 fps (5160 fpm).

The article went on to say, and an experienced LAME comfirmed this for me, that aircraft in general, and the C210 in particular, are capable of exceeding Vne by quite a few knots (think like 30+kts). I don't know about you, but for a long time I was under the silly impression that as soon as you got to Vne + 0.0000001kts the wings would suddenly snap off and everything would go to hell REAL quick. The C210 was tested to destruction and it was found that even at Vne, the airframe can absorb a vertical gust of something like 43 fps (2580 fpm) before any structural limits were exceeded.

Further to this of course, structural limits can be survivably exceeded. A normal category aircraft, for example, must be able to maintain +3.8 and -1.52G survivably. In reality of course, you can comfortably exceed these margins in most aircraft...but you are in no-man's land. What I mean to say is that if you were operating in normal category and you inadvertantly stressed the aircraft to +3.9G you probably wouldn't suddenly and spontaneously be a wingless lawn dart.

I am not advocating EVER exceeding the limits specified by the manufacturer in the POH or the Flight Manual, but be aware that these limits are conservative and do not always represent the absolute physical limits of the aircraft or the materials used in its construction.

Finally, I agree with the many people saying that it depends on such variables as the age of the aircraft and its service history. Very important to consider.

[300Series]

interesting post Aerohooligan.

Keep in mind though what you just quoted was for a brand new aircraft, 0 hrs on the clock, 0 damage, nil corrosion.

Most of the aircraft banging around up here are 30 odd yrs old and with more than 10000hrs on them. The machines I am driving at the moment have 14 and 15000 hrs on them.

If it gets to the point where you are starting to go FARK then it's probably time to do something about it and reduce the speed, stop the descent fly level whatever.

I had 1 chief pilot tell me once not to descend above 140kias in this particular 210 because it was full of corrosion and he was concerned the wings were going to come off!:ugh:

At least in the 206 you have the struts for a psychological reassurance!:ok:

[compressor stall]

Hey Wally if you flew your nemesis you wouldn't have to worry! There is no Va for a PC12!

[Brian Abraham]

There is no Va for a PC12
FAA TCDS says,

PC-12
Max. maneuvering design speed Va 170 kts (all speeds EAS)
Max. maneuvering operating speed Vo 154 kts at 4100 kg (9039 lbs)
Vo 136 kts at 3200 kg (7060 lbs)
Vo 123 kts at 2600 kg (5730 lbs)

PC-12/45
Max. maneuvering operating speed Vo 161 kts at 4500 kg

PC-12/47 and PC-12/47E
Max. maneuvering operating speed Vo 163 kts at 4740 kg (10450 lbs)

As I understand it, Vo has the same import as Va, and is calculated in the same manner ie full control deflection at that speed will result in a stall while producing the limit load factor. It looks as though PC put a Va on the early aircraft with an eye to weight increases in the future - note they refer to the Va as the design Va. You can see the Vo in the 47 and 47E at 163 knots, edging up towards the design Va of 170, a further weight increase in the offing?

Further to this of course, structural limits can be survivably exceeded. A normal category aircraft, for example, must be able to maintain +3.8 and -1.52G survivably. In reality of course, you can comfortably exceed these margins in most aircraft...but you are in no-man's land. What I mean to say is that if you were operating in normal category and you inadvertantly stressed the aircraft to +3.9G you probably wouldn't suddenly and spontaneously be a wingless lawn dart.

I am not advocating EVER exceeding the limits specified by the manufacturer in the POH or the Flight Manual, but be aware that these limits are conservative and do not always represent the absolute physical limits of the aircraft or the materials used in its construction.

Worrying points bolded.

Read here of a chap who exceeded his aircrafts 3 g limit load by .37 g. Thats 3.37 g he pulled, a long way to go to the ultimate load of 4.5 g, one guy lost his life and a very, very expensive aircraft written off. http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/dspace/bitstream/1947/4157/1/DSTO-TR-0008%20PR.pdf

The 210 is designed to a limit load factor of 3.8 g (normal category) which means its ultimate load factor is 5.7 g. The 50% safety factor is intended to cover variations in material, load assumptions and construction. It is not intended to cover the case of pilots pushing their luck. Even though the airframe is required to support the ultimate load without failure (but only for 3 seconds, after that the whole shebang can disintegrate), the structure may incur permanent damage (popped rivets, broken ribs, permanent deformation) any time the load exceeds the limit load.

You don’t know what sets a particular limit, Boeing says the Vne limit on the B-17 was set by the strength of the engine cowling attachments. Strength of windscreen may set the limit for all we know on a particular aircraft.

It's a scary scenario, the pilot who routinely exceeds limitations, feeling entitled to take advantage of safety factors used in the design. Because the aircraft hasn’t shown any signs of imminent disintegration, obviously its over designed, right? Unfortunately the airframe may be damaged in a way that escapes notice, and imposing large repetitive loads increases the risk of failure. Metal “remembers” the loads imposed on it and is susceptible to the cumulative effects of repeated high loads. Fatigue failures can occur at loads well below that required to break a structure in a single application. Any time a load is imposed the structure is deformed to a greater or lesser degree. Take airspeed and structural limitations seriously.

An example is a RAAF Bristol Freighter near Adelaide 1953, which shed a wing with the loss of all on board. Later found that a previous crew had subjected the aircraft to loads for which it was not designed ie in excess of the limit load. Presumably the accident crew found no deformation or anything untoward on their pre-flight, else they would not have gone aviating.

[yowieII]

Hey Wal,
You didn't mind the 4 bolts on the LJ holding the wing on:).We won't even go down the DH104 path:eek: My bird says 270/.7, very vague when you are sittin high, just cant do it. I guess at the onset of turb,unless your AFM or Ops manual differentiates the levels of turb, thats what you gotta do:)Common sense I would hope prevails:ok:

[compressor stall]

Cheers Brian, interesting stuff. I only ever flew the /45 and didn't know that the straight -12 had a Va.

[framer]

Thanks Brian,
Aerohooligans post didn't sit right with me but I figured someone who knew more about design /testing etc would point out the bits that were a bit.....borderline stupid.
Aerohooligan , I understand you used a caveat at the end of your post but some folk (maybe less experienced than yourself) will take the info you put up here and run with it like it's the law, when in reality I don't think you understand how g and speed limits are derived yourself.
GA aircraft do break up in flight. Normally in heavy weather. Is that because the pilot was irresponsibly pulling high g at the time or because of long term fatigue of the frame caused by tens of thousands of lower g stresses? I don't know the answer, probably a combo. I do remember bouncing around in tropical weather in C210's wondering how many more years of this the a/c could withstand. Cheers, Framer.

[Wally Mk2]

Good to see this thread still 'bouncing' along here:)

What amazes me a little here though is a fair amount of ref is to the G loading of a particluar A/C. 3.5 g's, 4.2 g's for Eg, fair enough there is a limit to everything but what's the point of it all if we as pilots in most common GA A/C haven't got any way of knowing what G we are experiencing in the first place. I guess if the wings fall off then you found that ultimate 'G'.:}
So my original Q still stands, what constitutes (diff words this time) turb enough to reduce the airspeed? It's really only a personal assesment I believe, all the 'g' factors listed,all the kings horses & all the kings men couldn't put the "sh1t out of luck pilot" back together again:E
Been fun riding the roller coaster of late in ML, TS's everywhere:sad:Times like this I wish I was a truckie on 'no-doze':E


Wmk2

p.s.................fancy flying around in a PC12 worrying about turb speed, that's the least of yr worries:E

[Brian Abraham]

So my original Q still stands, what constitutes (diff words this time) turb enough to reduce the airspeed? It's really only a personal assesment I believe, all the 'g' factors listed,all the kings horses & all the kings men couldn't put the "sh1t out of luck pilot" back together again
Too true Wal, and there was a Aero Commander just north of your work place not too long ago that couldn't be put back together again. You would have greater insight than I surrounding the accident.

Interesting that in the latest "Flightsafety" mag they have an item on ageing aircraft and Cessna in particular get a mention. Quote "the wing spars of some popular Cessna models corrode - sometimes badly - but they do so from the inside out. Since there are no inspection holes in the area, by the time anything's visible - from the outside - the wing may already be seriously weakened. Most LAMEs won't know that, because there is nothing about it in the Cessna maintenance manuals."

Aerohooligan, I was going to say go stoke up that 15,000 hour 210, rack the needle past the Vne and pull limit load. You said you had more sense than to do it, but I hope you now see that your be aware that these limits are conservative and do not always represent the absolute physical limits is very, very poor advice in the extreme. You're only 21 so you have a lot of living and learning to do yet. But heh, we're all here to learn. :ok:

[Aerohooligan]

Could not agree more, 300series. I don't have a lot of experience so I hope I didn't come across as a know-it-all.

I did my training on aircraft with a MINIMUM of 11,000hrs on the airframe and the oldest had just short of 18,000. I just thought it was interesting that aircraft limits are apparently fairly conservative when the plane is new.

I guess the manufacturer must consider the anticipated service life of the A/C when setting such limits?

[Aerohooligan]

BA, sorry that I sounded the least bit cowboy. I really hate quoting material like that because I can tend to sound irresponsible if I don't pick my words extremely carefully. ;)

I want you and all here to know that I have never exceeded airspeed or load factor limitations in an aircraft, let alone 'routinely'. To be honest the thought of doing so under any circumstances scares the **** out of me. I have established a personal SOP that states except in an emergency I will never pull more than 2.0-2.5G in a normal category aircraft. := For any flight which may exceed those limitations (ie a private joy flight) I make sure I am flying an aerobatic aircraft.

I am not hugely experienced, for which I try to compensate by reading lots, having very conservative personal SOPs and trying to learn as much as I can from everyone I meet and talk to in the know.

Please feel free to PM me or reply on this post with the information you have on how such limitations are derived, I'd be really interested to know more. I was pretty much paraphrasing the most interesting points of the article I read.

[Aerohooligan]

Framer...

massive my bad. I entirely forgot to consider that metal fatigue is cumulative. Thanks man. :O

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Just curious as to what other pilots out there use as a base to start reducing speed back to the A/C's turbulence penetration speed?

Wally, I try to stay out of the yellow arc, and if the bumps are uncomfortable for me - I back it off to Va for the weight.

I was flying a C210 around western Qld when one lost a wing on descent into Cloncurry - so its something that I have paid a bit of attention to over the years, though four years of flying in NZ adjusted my turbulence sensors!

Dr :8

[poteroo]

VANS RV AIRCRAFT

If you own an RV, or fly one, checkout what's said about exceeding design speeds at Van's Aircraft - Total Performance RV Kitplanes (http://www.vansaircraft.com) and locate 'bigger engines' in the performance numbers for each model. It's sobering.

happy days,

[framer]

AeroH,
One of the best attributes you can have in this industry is the ability to put your hand up and take responsibility when things don't go quite to plan, like you just did. Not bad for a 21 yr old mate. Nice work.
As far as deciding when to slow to turb speed, I do it if it's too bumpy to drink my coffee....seriously.

[Cap'n Arrr]

To be honest, probably the thing that scares me the most is that I'll go out one day to do a session of steep turns, and not come back because some clown has been fooling around or f:mad:ed up some other way, overstressed the plane and decided not to tell anyone in order to cover their ass.:uhoh:

As far as turb, that's a hard one Wal! I know when I slow down, but it's a bit hard to quantify. :}

[framer]

but it's a bit hard to quantify.

coffee man coffee....it's the best turb monitor.

[Wally Mk2]

Am enjoying the responses here, thanks Guys, a good debate for sure.

Brian I along with many others knew SK (one of two whom had their lives cut short in the AC50 crash Nth of ML) very well. I wasn't flying that particular night but I believe it was very rough down low (BLW 8000 ft)
I guess when turb is severe all one can do is slow to the suggested turb speed & let the A/C go with the flow rather than fight it. Everything has a limit, but where & what is it? That's the $64 Mill Q. I can recall some years ago that when I was driving a light jet over NZ sth Is that I had to ask for a block Alt clearance purely 'cause I couldn't keep the beast at any particular level due severe turb. The auto pilot said..............ya gotta be joking mate!:sad:
Now during my pre-flight (daily) I check the upper surface of the wings to see if I can spot any deformalities 'cause the old Beech rides rough air like a Mack truck & being a "T" tail I shudder to think....One of the old girls has 20000 ldgs now, one day it's gunna snap in two whilst ldg, only hope there's grass under me bum when it does:E

'Dr' in my early green days of flying I was sh1t scared of that yellow arc on the lighties, & the red meant dead to me!

For now if in doubt hang 'em out (the 'dunlops'):ok:


Wmk2

[Aerohooligan]

Framer, I agree. I know what the AIP says about it, but coffee is realistically prob the best indicator you've got IMHO of the severity of turb. :ok:

PS thankyou for your kind words.

[framer]

The only problem with the coffee is if I haven't got one going at the onset of turbulence I have to ding the girls and sometimes it's so bumpy they can't make me one...in that scenario I speed up to get through it quickly.:eek:
I was driving a light jet over NZ sth Is that I had to ask for a block Alt clearance purely 'cause I couldn't keep the beast at any particular level due severe turb.
I've done a couple thousand hours around NZ but the only time I've had to get a block clearance cause I couldn't hold a height was in Aus!

I guess when turb is severe all one can do is slow to the suggested turb speed & let the A/C go with the flow rather than fight it
Thats a very good point, it may seem obvious to pilots with a bit of experience but if you are having your first encounters with turbulence (300hrCPL up north etc) then don't try to fight it as you will only load the thing up more and increase your chances of over stressing it.Roll with the punches.
This is a good thread for learning.

[framer]

The whole "don't fight it" thing made me think about the protection afforded at Va. If my memory serves me correctly Va only means the a/c will stall prior to (or at) it's g limit if you are at Va. Am I right in saying that at Va you could apply full elevator and the stall would protect the a/c but if you did the same with aileron then all bets are off? If thats correct it backs up the ides of not fighting it. ie if you were in a down draft and applied back stick to maintain height and then got a roll which you also countered with aileron you could exceed the load limits prior to stalling as you are loading the wings up with the roll as well as the pitch.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'Day 'Wal',

"I guess when turb is severe all one can do is slow to the suggested turb speed & let the A/C go with the flow rather than fight it."

Early '80's.....
Coming back from 'Warbo' to Kal one HOT summer's day in trusty ole' 210, did encounter the BIGGEST line of CB's seen around for looong time.
Was at A100, cruising and noticed the turb / outflow of the smoke from the recently started spinifex fire - all the smoke was going horizontal in all directions from the downdraught.

Picked a 'gap', pulled back to 90IAS, dropped the gear - to maybe 'slow me down a bit' just in case - and let the wonderful beautiful machine (Because she still flies...in Broome) - 'waffle' through, up a bit, up/down mucho/down a lot! - and eventually come out the other side at around 4,000ft.
(Hats and bags on the floor under the seats - do not stand up - intentionally anyway!)
Was 'relatively gentle' in the end.
Powered back up to A100 and came on home. Wot a 'learning experience'....

Told the 'gingerbeers' about it when we got home so they could have a 'look'.

All OK - but never did like going near that Yellow arc in more bumps than would cause the coffee to jump out of the cup....
Probably 'psycho' not really being able to see struts or any other 'visible means of support', and had heard about the one in Qld. vs the Cb......

Cheers:ok:

[Brian Abraham]

Very insightful question framer, at Va you can move any control to its stops without harming anything, but it does not mean control reversals or in combination. Control reversal was why the fin fell of the Airbus in New York. In one aircraft I flew the manual stipulated when pulling g while rolling the limit was two thirds of the limit load. The limit load was 6 g being a military aerobatic trainer so pulling g while rolling made 4 g your limit - we had a g meter. Will see if I can dig up info on why rolling g limits what you can pull. And yes at Va pulling g the aircraft will stall and be at the limit load simultaneously. The idea is that if you hit a gust of sufficient intensity the aircraft will stall and not exceed the limit load when at Va.

[Fantome]

Probably 'psycho' not really being able to see struts or any other 'visible means of support', and had heard about the one in Qld. vs the Cb......


They was a (strutted) 210 lost a wing nr Burketown after flying up from Bankstown. Early sixties.

[Wally Mk2]

.....................I've done a couple thousand hours around NZ but the only time I've had to get a block clearance cause I couldn't hold a height was in Aus!............... 'Framer' that's 'cause you where not the at the time buddy:) As you would know it was the nasty bent jet streams that hang around the land of the long white cloud:ok: And yes it is a good thread for learning, got off to a 'rough' start but where in 'smooth' air now:ok:

Hi 'Griffo'. Am sure there are a lot of stories like yrs that will never make the pages here. Funny you know often when in nasty bumps I think of the tail plane in the old Beech, sheeeez am sweating about it now just thinking about it:sad:
Many years ago now a 'T' tailed Lance lost it's tail over the Great Divide I think, east of TW?? Anyone recall that?

I recall back about 3 to 4 yrs ago going thru the worst turb I'd ever struck in nearly 30 yrs of flying. Like you 'Griffo' was running down a line of TS's (they where sitting along the SW coast of Vic) on or about sunset heading west. I was in VMC mostly. On decent into HSM conducting a GNSS App for a routine job I got to about 3000 ft & WHAM !!!! It was like I had just been dumped in a huge wave whilst surfing. The auto pilot said no way buddy & chucked the towel in, the paramedic (female) let out a huge scream involuntary & we both lost our headsets to somewhere else within the plane. Maps & stuff went everywhere. The master caution light came on briefly and am not sure what set it off as I was rather busy there for a little while. The ride was unreal. I couldn't even reach the radio knobs or any other switches like the ice-vanes. I advised ML ctr of my sitaution & that I was conducting a missed app (all they said was 'confirm ops normal?', I love that statement) & would be requesting a clearance back to base (EN). High pwr was selected with the plane cleaned up for climb & all I could do was head towards a clear patch in the sky between clouds ahead to remain visual as possible, flying in those conditions IF would have been a real challenge. To sum it up both hands on the steering wheel & 170 kts. The ride back was a shocker. Upon ldg we both kissed the ground & I advised the ginger beers that I think the plane is bent, best go see if there is more dihedral than normal!

Perhaps Bi-Planes are the way to go, they are built much like a box but take one side away & they fall apart like a house of cards!

I live another day:)

Wmk2

[framer]

The master caution light came on briefly and am not sure what set it off as I was rather busy there for a little while.
Some a/c I've flown the cabin door and cargo door lights set off the master caution in severe turbulence, I think the frame bends and takes the pressure off the micro-switch!
Nasty.