What would you have done differently on this video?
I had two options:
Over the Croatian mountains, where the airflow may have been smoother, but that would have been IMC
Southerly as current but nearer to the Italian coast. Probably a lot smoother. But more fuel needed.
We had some 30kt headwind. This is the pic from just before the flight, but it is clearly wrong because it fails to show the headwind component which was a lot stronger than the crosswind component. Yet, the crosswind is what was causing the turbulence. I guess the actual wind may have been 70kt from the SE…
Was there a reason you had to stay relatively low? Terrain-induced turbulence typically reduces the higher you get.
Very true, and we came off the Alps at FL150. The problem is that one would need to later descend through IMC, plus some of the IMC was very high.
So long as I was below the bottom of the yellow arc (V-turb) and I didn’t have a nervous passenger, then I’d just plough on trough. If you’re above Va (but below V-turb), then you have to be conscious not to use a full control deflection, but that’s easy to avoid. Of course a change in altitude can often help, but if you were at FL100 and still getting it, then you’d probably need a significant climb to help.
If it bothers you or your passenger, then getting further away from the source, flying upwind of the source, climbing and slowing down can all help.
Today, Irene and I flew back from Scotland and we had a 35kt headwind and lots of turbulence. It was her first time flying in an turbulence. Given the terrain, the wind speed and the fact that we would be flying low, it was guaranteed that we’d have a lot of turbulence. She told me she didn’t like the turbulence, but was ok with it. Still, I got a deadly glare the two times her head hit the roof 
Plenty was as bad as in your video, but it wasn’t as constant. Maybe a few minutes here and a few there.
Clearly you were in control of the aircraft, even though you did make to make lots of significant control inputs, so it doesn’t qualify as severe turbulence
would you have had less headwind lower? what about cancelling IFR, descending, and flying off the coastline?
BTW there is a reason for Va which is that the wing should stall before exceeding the max G, if hitting an updraught. This is even with zero control deflection.
Yes – lower is less wind but also a lot more fuel burn. It’s a very interesting Q. IME the wind doesn’t change much once you are above about 1000ft, up to about 15000ft. But that does vary…
Peter, have you ever considered revisiting your aversion to enroute IMC
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
would you have had less headwind lower? what about cancelling IFR, descending, and flying off the coastline?
That would be the recipe for severe turbulence in a situation like that.
Peter wrote:
BTW there is a reason for Va which is that the wing should stall before exceeding the max G, if hitting an updraught. This is even with zero control deflection.
I think you’re mixing up V-turb (turbulence penetration speed, which is the bottom of the yellow arc on your asi) and Va (Manoeuvring speed-which isn’t marked on the asi but often a placard).
I’m not getting any sound, is that normal?
Very difficult to judge the turbulence you experienced, I mean maybe your hand flying’s a bit rusty is all :-)
I would have climbed, fwiw.
