Narrative:

We requested routing from ATC using named waypoints for departure from runway 8 at juneau. The winds were beyond our tailwind limits for a departure using runway 26. ATC informed us that that route was a proprietary route and denied our request. The sic (PF) briefed the JNU5 departure. The plan was to stay below the 2;000 foot ceiling and follow the procedure which would have us make a 210 degree right turn and climb in visual conditions. We could clearly see the terrain south of the airport during taxi. During our climb we noticed that we were rapidly approaching the clouds at about 1;200 feet MSL and significantly reduced our climb rate. We then encountered moderate turbulence and an updraft that forced us into the clouds. At that point in time the sic (PF) started to climb to 3;000 feet MSL to ensure terrain clearance. I agreed with this decision and monitored the terrain awareness display and the radar altimeter. The radar altimeter never showed less than 1;800 feet. We asked for turbulence reports with departure and was informed that there were no complaints. We then reported the moderate turbulence to ATC. Contributing factors were ATC not willing to approve our route request; ceiling reported higher than actual ceiling; and the updraft.human factors: our plan seemed good before takeoff but about one minute after takeoff we realized the clouds were lower than reported to the south and the turbulence would be a factor. Our plan did not consider the clouds being lower to the south and the complications associated with maintaining visual conditions at low altitude with strong updrafts.corrective action: the FAA should develop an RNAV departure procedure that follows the bay southeast bound similar to the [proprietary] departure.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Embraer Legacy 600 flight crew reported encountering turbulence and lower ceilings than expected on departure from JNU and suggested an improved departure procedure be developed by ATC.

Narrative: We requested routing from ATC using named waypoints for departure from Runway 8 at Juneau. The winds were beyond our tailwind limits for a departure using runway 26. ATC informed us that that route was a proprietary route and denied our request. The SIC (PF) briefed the JNU5 departure. The plan was to stay below the 2;000 foot ceiling and follow the procedure which would have us make a 210 degree right turn and climb in visual conditions. We could clearly see the terrain south of the airport during taxi. During our climb we noticed that we were rapidly approaching the clouds at about 1;200 feet MSL and significantly reduced our climb rate. We then encountered moderate turbulence and an updraft that forced us into the clouds. At that point in time the SIC (PF) started to climb to 3;000 feet MSL to ensure terrain clearance. I agreed with this decision and monitored the Terrain Awareness display and the Radar Altimeter. The radar altimeter never showed less than 1;800 feet. We asked for turbulence reports with departure and was informed that there were no complaints. We then reported the moderate turbulence to ATC. Contributing Factors were ATC not willing to approve our route request; ceiling reported higher than actual ceiling; and the updraft.Human factors: Our plan seemed good before takeoff but about one minute after takeoff we realized the clouds were lower than reported to the south and the turbulence would be a factor. Our plan did not consider the clouds being lower to the south and the complications associated with maintaining visual conditions at low altitude with strong updrafts.Corrective action: The FAA should develop an RNAV departure procedure that follows the bay southeast bound similar to the [proprietary] departure.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.