Avoiding air turbulence may soon get easier

Mr. Hartmann,

I initially remained silent in the face of your pompous reply of Tuesday morning, but at this point I have to reply. You've continued to impugn me, belittle me (as you have countless others) and generally make these boards a less than pleasant venue to peruse.

To answer your question regarding my resume (not that you have a right to know), I'm intimately familiar with Part 121 operations, as my career has taken me to the aircraft engineering functions of two different (and both well known) Part 121 carriers. I've worked on major alterations to at least four fleets of aircraft over my career, totaling almost 400 planes. I've been sent to troubleshoot countless aircraft, supported multiple NTSB investigations into incidents (thankfully, with no fatalities), and been involved in several rapid response fleet campaigns.

I'm not the mere ignorant "enthusiast" that you have previously painted me to be. I'm deeply familiar with the technical operations side of Part 121 carriers and with the specifics of how the aircraft operates and how it breaks.

Unfortunately, in this case, GoGo, despite my employer being a longstanding customer, has not graced me with detailed technical schematics for the proposed system. The information I presented was gleaned from the available publications on the subject which were, in turn, likely developed from press releases from Gogo and The Weather Channel.

The technical details of this system would hardly be of little value to me and would far from bore me. I peruse NTSB (and other investigatory agency) reports as recreational reading. I skim schematics over my lunch break. I find all aspects of the airline, aviation, and aerospace industries fascinating.

Joel Wiley has suggested that your piqued curiosity (or whetted appetite) would drive you to research further the design of the system, as it did for me, and to share your findings. This curiosity is what drove me to find the WSJ article which provided a bit more detail. Instead, you suggest that you're too cool for school, too good to do a bit of your own research, and too arrogant to share information you might've learned.

Frankly, I'm done dealing with you, and will likely leave you alone to rant in your corner going forward. Your arrogance and pomposity, once amusing, are now neither a charming affectation nor endearing in the same manner as the crazy uncle. I'll gladly share what expertise I have, what knowledge I've gained, and what observations I've made, both inside my career (when possible) and as a passenger. But as for you and your posts, I've determined you add no value to my experience on FlightAware and won't consider a reply from this point onward.

Good day, Sir.

Avoiding Air Turbulence could be done even now, and most often it is not for ECONOMICAL reasons or others even more stupid. Of course, any technology that would enhance the existing capacities of the Airlines is most welcome.
But before, proper Pilots training, and above all guidelines to provide turbulence avoidance will be most important.
I have flown with 100's of different Airlines and 1000's of Pilots. Some do try to avoid turbulence and try to minimize it when it occurs (I hope you don't need to tall me how...) while other do nothing at all. And amazingly some of the most famous Airlines like Singapore, are the worst! They are money making machines! For them, Passengers comfort translates to food and films onboard...

Another in a long series of "devices to avoid turbulence".

https://www.google.com/search?q=devices+to+help+pilots+avoid+turbulence&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=devices+to+help+pilots+avoid+turbulence&start=20

Northwest Airlines used to have a meteorology center that would publish a "turbulence plot" for each flight giving the areas where turbulence was expected, and the crews faithfully used it. The saying was "follow the red tail for smooth air" and I used to hear all the gyrations the crew used to go through to find the smooth stuff........all gone now.