Fife Airport threatened by Wind farm Proposal

[lurker06]

A company named Infinis has submitted an application for planning permission to site five wind turbines within the Fife Airport ATZ. The tips of the blades would be 360 feet agl. The proposed location is almost exactly on the extended runway centreline, approximately 1.5nm from the Rwy-07 threshold.

Full details of the application and any comments can be seen on the Fife Council website at 09/01861/EIA | Erection of 5 wind turbines, one anemometer mast, substation building, construction of access, hardstandings and temporary construction compound. | Westfield O C C S Fife (http://tinyurl.com/yaz2ekv) where objections may be submitted by clicking on the ‘Do It Online’ tab. Fife Flying Club has submitted its objection and hopes that other pilots will lend their support. The FFC letter of objection includes a map showing the layout of turbines in relation to the runway.

[xrayalpha]

Hi,

An objection will be lodged on behalf of the flyers at Strathaven Airfield.

A query. Why has there been no submission as yet by the owners of Fife. The CAA response states that the owners were given the opportunity to give feedback early on but didn't.

The application is dated the end of July. Why is it only now that it is getting publicity? I had heard of it - but asumed it was pre-application consultations - a couple of months ago.

This needs to be fought. It needs to be fought seriously. And the objections need to be focussed completely on Planning Policy - which, I am afraid to say, a focus on EFATO doesn't cover.

We at Strathaven are 5km from Europe's largest onshore windfarm and INSIDE the council's preferred area for windfarm development, so I have been doing some research, and so perhaps know some of what I am talking about.

The Royal Aero Club is having a seminar on wind farm development threats in London on November 12th. It is free, so someone from Fife should be there.

The aviation community also needs to get specialist planning consultants on board right now to fight for Fife.

I am surprised, though, that the owners of Fife Airport are not already doing this - or if they have, no-one is being told.

If money is needed, the British Microlight Aircraft Association have a small fighting fund. And I am sure there are others. Indeed, I hope there are, for we at Strathaven will be needing their help in due course.

[xrayalpha]

Personal objection lodged:

As a private pilot in central Scotland who visits Glenrothes, I object to this application on the grounds of safety which would make Fife Airport unusable, and therefore be contrary to the local plan which seeks to protect and promote it. The safety grounds are obstacle clearance and wake turbulence. The issue of obstacle clearance in emergencies is such that the construction of these proposed turbines would render the airfield unusable. In aviation, we are taught to prepare for the worst case, and in the case of engine failure on take-off, or wind shear/wind gradient on arrival, the worst case would be impact with these turbines. So, in assessing the safety case prior to choosing to fly from Fife, I would then decide not to use the airfield. From an economic point of view, it only takes the loss of a small proportion of business to make the airfield unviable. The second - and perhaps more major problem - is that of wake vortex. To my knowledge, there has been no data collected on the wake vortex generated by wind turbines. The CAA's official submission agrees. Obviously, the stronger the wind, the stronger the vortex, then the more difficult it is for pilots to control their aircraft. Indeed, this may be why no volunteers have investigated this problem. I would suggest, that if minded to proceed with this application, the council should insist on a pre-condition being such a survey of wake vortex and its affects on aircraft. A similar such survey in respect of the effect of wind turbines and secondary surveillance radars is being carried out at Strathaven Airfield at present at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds to the windfarm developers. If the proposers of these turbines are certain of the lack of effect of wake vortex, may I suggest they complete an in-depth survey. This would not place an undue cost on them, since the data if made available commercially worldwide would easily more than earn back its costs.

Strathaven Airfield one will be written with proper references.

[Sir George Cayley]

Is Fife Airport officially safeguarded with the Council? Even if not, has the owner reached an agreement to be told about any contra developments within a certain distance?

If an aerodrome owner fails to look out for threats to their business, be it wind farms, birds, housing developments or whatever, then shirley some acceptance of negligence must attach?

If how ever, they have fully engaged in the system and have been let down to the extent their business fails, then a case against the council should stand a reasonable chance of success.

The is a British Wind Energy Group or something like that. Maybe a call to them might diffuse the situation?

Sir George Cayley

[lurker06]

Thanks for the support and advice so far. I am just a humble member of Fife Flying Club so I cannot speak for the owners/operators of Fife Airport, but potential objectors may care to approach them asking for their views so they may be backed-up in personal objections to the planning authorities.

The Club has taken professional advice on the issues and members are working to try and bring matters to a successful conclusion. Sorry to be so cryptic.

Lurker06

[Charlie Zulu]

If you have a look at the Fife Flying Club objection comments then you will find point 2.7 which points to a "draft" Kirkcaldy and Mid-Fife Local Plan (Ref: GLE45) which states "Fife Airport and associated land will be safe guarded for airport and aircraft-related employment purposes".

I'm just a member of Fife Flying Club with a share in a private aircraft based at Fife. I'm going to be writing my personal objection and will submit it in due course.

Not sure why Tayside Aviation who own the airport haven't objected yet. Unless I missed something in the Fife Flying Club objection although I'm sure Tayside Aviation will submit their own? Surely?

[Slopey]

One of our (Aberdeen based) group members is a local councillor and has these points to make (reposted with his permission):


As your friendly local member of Aberdeenshire Council let me offer some
advice on this matter:

1 - the objectors need to write in to the planning service for Fife with
their objections. Objections from users of the airfield should be
considered valid so make sure you note you are a user of the airfield.

2 - individual letters are a lot more effective than copying a widely
circulated letter. So do write your own letter.

3 - letters to planning officers need to address substantive issues that
relate to the local development plan. This is what makes the major
difference. Lots of objectors say they are against it but fail to say
why the proposed development fails local planning policy. Frankly,
every planning application has some NIMBY's and they get ignored if all
they do is moan. But substantial matters of relevance in the local
development plan are important and MUST be considered by the planning
officer.

4 - lobbying of the local councillors on the matter IS effective IF it
is done POLITELY. Planning officers discourage it but there is no law
against it. The key is to be polite, reasonable, brief and to the point.

5 - get the representations in QUICKLY. The law now limits the
opportunity for representation so objections must normally be lodged
within 3 weeks of the application being made valid. Local councils do
have discretion but we in Aberdeenshire hsve recently tightened up on that.

Ideally we should find someone in the locality who already knows the
Fife local development plan and can draft a quick brief for others to
read so hat they can base their letters of the plan.



He's also alerted "Action for Airfields" to the proposal to give it a wider audience, and he's a friend of the chap who drafted the Edinburgh objection.

If anyone would like to be put in touch with him for advice/discussion, drop me a PM and I'll facilitate it - not sure if he's on here directly.

Cheers,
S.

[140KIAS]

Many thanks to everyone who responded to our previous appeal for support – over 100 objections have now been lodged with the Planning Authorities.

Unfortunately we need to reach out and ask for you support again as an second planning application has been submitted, this time to erect a 120m Wind Turbine at the Bosch Rexroth factory in Glenrothes. This lies pretty much directly under the dogleg final approach to runway 25. If successful then it is highly unlikely that Fife Airport could continue to exist.

Fife Flying Club has submitted a detailed objection to the proposal. This can be viewed at http://www.fifeflyingclub.co.uk/committee/FFCObjection_Bosch%20Final.pdf (http://www.fifeflyingclub.co.uk/committee/FFCObjection_Bosch%20Final.pdf)

We have too few good airfields as it is these days therefore please take a few minutes to help stop this ludicrous plan which if successful will not only risk the closure of a great asset, but also be a huge intrusion to many people living in the proximity of the factory.

Should you feel inclined then letters of objection or support can be submitted online at http://planning.fife.gov.uk/online/applicationComments.do?action=showComments&caseNo=10/00144/FULL (http://planning.fife.gov.uk/online/applicationComments.do?action=showComments&caseNo=10/00144/FULL)

Many thanks
140KIAS on behalf of Fife Flying Club

[BHenderson]

Did anyone actually proof read that document before they sent it? It is full of spelling errors and has few references! How can Tayside Aviation be neutral?!

That said, I hope the residents are being vocal. Only 100 objections seems terribly small, considering everyone in Glenrothes is going to hear the noise from the proposed turbine. Local petition?

[TrueFlyer]

Without local support the objections will have little clout with the planners.

[xrayalpha]

OK, let's look at this.

Fife is the first of our airfields to be threatened with oblivion by wind turbines; it will not be the last.

The Royal Aero Club held a seminar to discuss the threats. I think about five airfields were directly represented. Three were Scottish: Prestwick International, Fife and Strathaven.

Scotland is the windiest country in Europe, so at the forefront of the threat to UK GA.

If we don't fight now, we set a precedent.

Note, we have an international airport, a GA field and a mainly microlight airfield all feeling under threat here.

Unfortunately, we are not planners. We are not all ex-journalists, like me. We may not all be computer literate. So, yes, it is unfortunate that no-one seems to have proof-read Fife's submission. But a spelling mistake - while maybe making the message look less professional - does not alter the facts.

At Strathaven, we have proposals in the pipeline for 121m high tubines next to the airfield; See here for the developer's map: http://www.strathavenairfield.co.uk/CarnduffFarm.jpg

Now we have the support of the council for our airfield, although the ultimate decision could be made by the Scottish Government since wind energy is a national priority.

Fife Council have a problem. They feel Bosch might go away from Glenrothes if they don't get a turbine approved. And there are more people work for Bosch than for the airport.

Bosch only want the turbine on their factory for "positive" "green" PR reasons. If they wanted to really generate electricity, they would build a turbine on one of the offshore fields.

So: should we, as aviators, start a "Boycott Bosch" campaign so the company realises PR works both ways?

[140KIAS]

Did anyone actually proof read that document before they sent it? It is full of spelling errors and has few references!

Apart from one incorrect spelling of Tayside I cant see anything else ? I'd hardly call that "Full".

The objection was primarily pulled together by one individual who has a full time job and plenty of other things to keep him busy. So lets not be too harsh please.

How can Tayside Aviation be neutral?!

Tayside are quoted by the applicant in the planning application as saying "We can confirm that as owner and operator of Fife Airport we have carefully considered the proposal and have no objections to this proposal being implemented. This follows our own analysis of the current CAA rules for the establishment of wind turbines in close proximity to an airfield. :ugh: Chances are that statement was made by a certain representative who admits to knowing 4/5th of SFA about aviation. Another representative of Tayside subsequenty wrote a fairly soft letter to Fife Council. The letter didnt specifically state object or support so Fife Council categorised it as neutral comment. That letter has since been removed from the Council's Planning portal.

The company wanting to construct the turbine is in the wind farm business and as xrayalpha says would appear to want to do this for green pr marketing purposes. They employ about 400 people in Glenrothes and it has been suggested that they will close and relocate any factories which have the turbine turned down. I suspect that Tayside dont want to be blamed for the loss of 400 jobs.

That said, I hope the residents are being vocal. Only 100 objections seems terribly small, considering everyone in Glenrothes is going to hear the noise from the proposed turbine. Local petition?

The 100 objections are for a different application to construct 5 wind turbines in a disused opencast mine. The place is a bit of an eyesore and I believe that the local residents have been promised relandscaping etc to get them on side.

This latest development is only a few hunderd meters from residential areas. There have been some objections but nothing to reflect the impact to the area,

Have a look at the last page of this document, I cant imagine anyone living in these houses being supportive. http://planning.fife.gov.uk/online/files/FD4FC4AAABE79D2EE6A462A0EBAD52BA/pdf/document-590822.pdf

Information campaign is on the agenda to ensure the local residents are fully aware. An initial straw poll suggests that perhaps they are not.

Proof read once, apologies if I cause any offence for any spelling or grammatical errors :ok:

[chris-h]

I dont think iv ever seen the turbines near Liverpool & the welsh coast actually turning, I was thinking of donating a 9volt battery.. :ugh:

Goodluck guys

[Sir George Cayley]

Check if Fife is on the DfT list of Officially Safeguarded aerodromes as this might help. If not, then an objection on aviation safety grounds could still result in intervention from above, if the LPA are minded to approve despite the objections.

The key is penetration (no, not that!) but an turbine that's above the obstacle surface. A classic is the Inner Horizontal which is 45m above the runway. (Simplistic explanation)

It's all in that CAP168 so worth a look. :ok:

Of course if the aerodrome decides to relinquish it's licence under the latest proposals........

Sir George Cayley

[140KIAS]

Fife is not officially safeguarded however the proposed turbine breaches the inner horizontal surface by 58m. Due to noise abatement procedures it also lies directly beneath the non standard approach/climb out.

Thats the basis of the objection.

[Crash one]

How can the noise abatement issue be considered valid if it is acceptable to site a wind turbine in the noise sensitive area? Or is the Bosch version going to be silent?

[mad_jock]

You have all got it wrong.

Its not actually going to be a wind turbine as such.

Its just a camo job for a sisemic attached towing post so they can get a datum point for the center of pressure.

There is a top secret plan for a huge number of powered up driving turbines through out Fife.

Once they are installed the Nukes are getting replace in Storness and Hunterston.

Then a huge North South ditch is going to get dug from the Tay to the Forth and then turbines powered up using the power from the nukes and big extension leads from Grotty ferry to the Kingdom and also from Lieth.

Eventually Fife will hopefully be floated off the rest of Scotland and into the North Sea. Where its going to go after that nobody knows cause no bugger else wants it either. Personally I think they will get it as far out as possible then give it to the Argentinians so they stop moaning about the Falklands.

[Captain Smithy]

Fair points MJ, as long as we get to cut out the chunk of land that the airfield sits on so we can keep it where it is, albeit as a nice little island :)
Can we get rid of Weegieshire using the same method as well? As a "reward" they can take the Scottish Executi... oops I mean Government with them.

Smithy

[140KIAS]

Crash One - Ive never been close enough to a wind turbine to hear how much noise it makes but I think my IO540 could be just a tad noisier when 200' above your house on full power climb out.

Mad Jock - sounds like a plan, but until such time as you can realise it an wee objection would be much appreciate :ok:

[Crash one]

140kias I have been close to wind turbines & I can assure you that as the noise is continuous it is like some medieval torture. Your IO540 would only take a few seconds before it was out of earshot. Flying over the "farm" at Great Orton in a gyroplane with an iffy engine was also unfunny!
Given the choice I'll go for the IO540 at 200ft.

[Flyingmac]

Peterlee airfield fought and won.
Parachute centre is back 'on a high'. - Peterlee Mail (Hartlepool, England) | HighBeam Research - FREE trial (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-188691327.html)

[Captain Smithy]

What I don't understand is what is seemingly so attractive about building turbines where they will interfere with airfield operations; this seems to be an increasingly popular practice. Why does it have to be there?

By all means build wind turbines if you like, but don't build them in stupid places, e.g. within aerodrome ATZs, on climb-out/approach paths close to runways, under circuit patterns etc. :rolleyes:

Often with this subject I think we pilots are seen as antis, or some sort of luddites, but all we are interested in is carrying out our career/hobby in as safe a manner as possible (safe both for us and everyone else, i.e. those on the ground) and to be able to carry out that career/hobby in a sensible, mature, lawful, respectful way without any sort of interference from outside parties who seem to nurse sizeable chips on their shoulders. Or, more accurately, to quote Gene Hunt, not mere chips on their shoulders, more like the whole sodding chippy :rolleyes:

Smithy

[cats_five]

Smithy. that sounds paranoid to me.

I doubt very much that they have looked at the map and asked where they can site a wind turbine to cause problems to an airfield, rather the land owner has applied regardless of what is around and above them and is more than happy to let the planning process sort out any other interests.

[Captain Smithy]

You are entirely correct C5, however it is merely an observation I have made that on an increasing basis planning is being requested to build turbines in exceedingly stupid places near aerodromes.

Perhaps the problems aren't fully understood, or no thought is given as to consequences, but we are seeing this scenario occur more often.

Is there any news on the planned windfarm on the 25 extended centerline near Kinglassie? Again though as with this case I had to ask myself, "why there?".

Smithy

[dont overfil]

Smithy,
The site on the 25 centreline is in a quarry - cheap.
The site at Rexroth is where they build them and they have a policy of using windpower for their factory, and yes you probably are paranoid.:ok:.

Mad Jock,
Do I detect your politics are slightly to the right of Attila the Hun?
DO.

[Carbon Cristal]

I would suggenst that first thing is to go and talk to the people concerned, you might find that they may be easier to deal with than you first thought. I would also suggest that you think about offering some free flights to the staff of Bosch let them come out and see the way of life that exists around your airfield, most of them pprobably have nothing to do with the applications, you might even get some new customers,set aside a weekend and one aircraft see what happens. If you get them onside you are laughing.

If all this fails, then talk about the new problems that they will face by having a turbine there, whether it be noise, the added risks to aircraft, possibly falling on them and that you would have to change the noise abatement procedure and fly over their houses.

[Captain Smithy]

Cheers DO. :ok:

Carbon Cristal - probably a very sensible idea.

Smithy

[pulse1]

With respect to potential noise from wind turbines, this article might be helpful:

Officials cover up wind farm noise report - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6954565.ece)

[140KIAS]

With respect to potential noise from wind turbines, this article might be helpful:

Officials cover up wind farm noise report - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6954565.ece)

This particular application was withdrawn by the applicants after the nearby residents found out about it and didnt fancy an 80m turbine in their back garden.

[airpolice]

Message removed at the request of 140KIAS

[Shell Management]

Fingers crossed.:)

[Slopey]

Sorry for the thread bump from ages past, but I've just had a letter from Fife Council (as I objected via their online form), stating that they've approved permission for the erection of 5 wind turbines.

:sad:

[piperboy84]

MJ
Eventually Fife will hopefully be floated off the rest of Scotland and into the North Sea

Well that should definitely reduce the numbers of car thefts in Perth and Angus

[140KIAS]

The proposal was actually approved several months ago but they seem to have only got around to formally communicating this now.

I think its a complete travesty and demonstrates the absurd power the wind farm developers have. When it comes to these developments its David vs Golliath. We are in the midst of a wind rush which is only made economicby the huge subsidies being offered by King Eck.

Infinis initally commisioned 2 seperate reports which stated that there was no risk to aviation. Fife Council commissioned a report which stated that there was a significant risk. The initial recommendation was to reject however Infinis commissioned a 3rd report to rubbish this and the recommendation was reversed.

Unfortunately I suspect that the reality is that the current operators of Fife Airport would be happy to see the place sold off for housing/shopping centre or whatever makes then a huge return. You only have to look at the communication between the operator and Infinis which states that they will remove their objection if they are suitably recompensed. This was meant to be a private communication but found its way into the public domain.

[xrayalpha]

The reports are available at:
http://planning.fife.gov.uk/online/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=L67JV7HF0HC00

I couldn't get the earlier link to work.

Simply shocking.

A pilot claims he has flown directly behind a turbine and felt nothing! No dates, no locations, no scientific measurements (the CAA is now proposing a three-year study to try and get evidence). But this "pilot" knows it all, so the CAA are wasting our money?

Arguements about the type of language used; not fact- and evidence-based argument.

Arguments over whether or not a safeguarding plan was submitted, even though such plans are only recommended and are not binding!

Release of private emails about money. (I was speaking to another Scottish airfield operator who was offered 50k a year if his grass strip stopped objecting. Of course, the chance of getting the 50k a year for the lifetime of the turbines would only happen if the company lasted that long!) So, in reality, when faced with application like this, such discussions are not unusual. (I met one wind farm employee who said it would be cheaper for them to buy - and close - Prestwick Airport than buy all the extra radar gear needed for one wind project!)

Almost everything but the facts.

Shocking.

[Crash one]

(I was speaking to another Scottish airfield operator who was offered 50k a year if his grass strip stopped objecting.

I'm based there & although the circuit pattern can be changed to the north, these things will be well inside the airfield "safe" area. Could be a problem for anyone in a panic from the south.

[Captain Smithy]

I think in all reality we all suspected that this would be rammed through regardless of consequence. A small GA airfield and a group of pilots (neither the most liked groups of people in Britain) vs. the might of King Eck and his mighty Windmill Empire; we all know the way things are done in Scotland by that lot now, what they want is rammed through regardless of consquence or what everyone else thinks because they are right and everyone else is wrong. Nothing stands in the way of political dogma becasue that is all that matters nowadays.

Interesting reading however. A single, unnamed pilot has been quoted as saying that no affects were felt in the vicinity of a turbine. No empirical evidence was used to back up this bizarre claim. We have no details on pilot, qualifications, aircraft type, weather conditions at the time, distance from said site (just how close were they?), etc. There are two possibilities, either this was a throwaway remark made off the cuff by someone and it has been taken at face value without any proper analysis, either that or there is the very strong honk of bullsheecht in the air and it was just a soundbite made up by someone to fit the desired outcome. Either way if this "claim" played any part however small in the approval this is absolutely shocking.

Interesting to also note that what is essentially a bung was offered to another airfield in order to shut them up. I thought there are laws against corruption? Money does not buy safety.

Very concerned for what lies ahead for Glenrothes, yet again it seems King Eck's Empire railroads over all else in the favour of political dogma.

Smithy

[xrayalpha]

Page 13 of the Osprey report also states: A representative of the CAA has recently stated that there is no existing research that substantiates effects from wind turbine induced turbulence on aviation. The reference is to a 26 April 2011 meeting of the CAA's ASI Wind Farm Working Group.


This is very similar, but subtly contrary to CAP 764's statement, at Chapter 2, 8.4: Although research on wind turbine wakes has been carried out, the effects of these wakes on aircraft are not yet known. Furthermore, the CAA is not aware of any formal flight trials to investigate wakeeffects behind operating wind turbines.

ps Actually, the following has also come to my attention:

(so Osprey consultant and un-named "CAA person" didn't actually know the full picture)

CAA and the Environment

Improving Aviation’s Sustainability Now and for the Future

A Consultation on the CAAʼs Environmental Programme
January 2012
Page 25 of 50
Case study: Investigation of wind turbine wake effects on light aircraft
Advances in the wind energy sector have resulted in wind turbine developments in closer proximity to aerodromes, including some as part of the aerodrome development itself, for example at East Midlands, where two wind turbines have been erected near the runway. An increased number of requests have recently been received by the CAA to provide guidance and advice to general aviation (GA) pilots, local authorities and aerodrome officials regarding wake turbulence effects.
In view of the above, and due to a wide range of opinions raised by GA pilots about the potential impact of wind turbine wake turbulence on aviation, the ASI Wind Farm Working Group identified flight operations in the proximity of wind turbines as a risk.
To mitigate the risk, the CAA initiated a 3-year PhD research project with the University of Liverpool that will simulate a light aircraft encounter with wind turbine wakes. The study will collect and compile wake characterisation and wake generation data from existing sources and will perform simulations of aircraft/wake encounters.
The results of this research study will enhance guidance on wind turbine wake turbulence
avoidance distances which will be included in the CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines
(CAP764)xxvii.
It will advance knowledge in relation to the aviation risks associated with wind turbine
developments and foster co-existence of wind farm developments and safe aviation operations.
CAA Doc Jan 2012 outlining 3 year study on wind turbine wake turbulence

[NorthSouth]

I think you have to look elsewhere for the blame on this one. The biggest single factor leading to the aviation objections being overruled was the split of Tayside Aviation into two companies, one owning the airfield, the other providing flying training. As soon as it became clear to the council and the developers that the owners of the airfield weren't bothered about safety, and were prepared to accept a payment, the argument was lost. The CAA has made it very clear that it's the aerodrome licensee (or owner) who should be regarded as the "experts" when responding to planning applications in the vicinity. And when even a rudimentary reading of Fife Airport Ltd's responses revealed no evidence of any aviation expertise I don't think it's any surprise it's ended up where we are now.

In addition to that, the council, like so many others, was terrified that they'd be dragged into a costly appeal inquiry if they refused it. Blame King Eck if you like but it's all part of the general trend of taking powers and budget decisions away from local authorities in the name of empowering ratepayers. Result: nae services and feart cooncils.

As for wind farm developers' bungs to airfields, yes, reprehensible, but no different from the many other mechanisms by which developers of all kinds these days are permitted to ease the progress of their planning applications.

When all's said and done I've no doubt pilots will work their way around this stupid stupid development, but it will require vigilance and accurate flying by all concerned, and a more proactive approach by Fife Radio. Unfortunately you can't assume everyone will meet those requirements.

NS

[NorthSouth]

the CAA initiated a 3-year PhD research project with the University of Liverpool that will simulate a light aircraft encounter with wind turbine wakes. The study will collect and compile wake characterisation and wake generation data from existing sources and will perform simulations of aircraft/wake encountersIf this study doesn't compare the results with light aircraft responses to other turbulence sources it will be useless as a policy tool.
NS

[riverrock83]

Has anyone ever felt turbulence from a wind farm?
I have flown over many but never felt any turbulence (less than 1000 feet above blades, in a SA Bulldog).
I'd have thought the danger was more about running into the tall structures rather than turbulence?

[Captain Smithy]

Nobody knows what the true effects of flying close to turbines are, principally because as with any other obstruction, its good practice and common sense, never mind airmanship, to stay well away from them. Wind turbines also don't tend to be stuck right slap bang on an extended centerline :rolleyes: I suppose however it could make Fife world famous as the GA equivelant of some sort of Kai Tak :rolleyes:

I would imagine the effects of flying close are fairly common sense; as with any other obstruction they will cause mechanical turbulence, in addition to whopping great blades wheechting round, ergo until further reasearch is done and we understand better, don't fly near them, and certainly don't approve sticking them near airfields :rolleyes:

Smithy

[maxred]

extended centerline I suppose however it could make Fife world famous as the GA equivelant of some sort of Kai Tak

I suppose that will be the lovely Sh..a in her element. Been bollocked last time for overflying that bloody village. Apparently a nimby with binoculars, a mobile phone and a deck chair lies in wait for any budding pilot to clip the village.

Interesting that no local residents complain, apparently, about a bloody Great eyesore near their villages- having said that they do have GLenrothes:\

[140KIAS]

I suspect the residents of Kinglassie are in for a bit of a shock;

the location of the turbines will mean the traffic will no longer be able to extend beyond the village for noise abatement

their expectation that the entire Westfield site is going to cleaned up and turned into a nice place to walk the dog

Hopefully the bung to the village will be enough to buy lots of double glazing.