Almost Invisible Radio Masts

[Dick Smith]

A while back I started a thread about one of the most difficult to see wires in NSW – one out in the west towards Broken Hill that ran over the railway line from a mountain top.

Well now I would like to mention to everyone – hopefully to save a life – the two radio masts that are at Urunga. They are about 360 feet high, they are painted camouflage or possibly have simply corroded into camouflage to the point where they are almost invisible to see.

I seem to remember about twenty years ago they had flashing strobe lights on them, but in recent times they have had no lights at all, or I have noticed one single small red light near the top. It is almost impossible to see in normal daylight.

Yes, I know – everyone should be flying at 500 feet. But I see lots of aircraft coming up the cost at 300 feet or so, and that will be a killer in relation to these radio masts.

Does anyone have any suggestions about what we can do before an avoidable accident occurs?

Dick Smith

[1a sound asleep]

1. Complete an incident form and send it to CASA
2. Wait 5 months
3. Be interviewed by CASA
4. Have your licence suspended for low flying
5. Spend $200,000 on legal fees

Seriously are they marked on the WAC?

[aussie027]

Dick,
I think if the towers had strobes at one time then they should probably still have them as opposed to just a red light.

I think there is a standards criteria that covers lighting of obstructions, I know in the AIP it says obstacles away from airports should usually be lit the same as those near airports.

Are they marked on WAC or any other chart or are they too low in height AGL to be considered worthy of marking???

It might be worth a call to CASA to see who is responsible for obstruction lighting.

[Frank Arouet]

A duty of care applies;

Power company owes duty to low flying aircraft (http://www.mckeown.com.au/articles/power-company.htm)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I gave up low level scud running on 12 July 1989, after a close encounter with a Telstra tower north of Charters Towers. They can be very hard to see - even when you know they are there!

Dr :8

[AussieNick]

It's well know in IFR circles that a an made obsticle can be up to 360ft in height and CASA doesn't have to be notified. Thus we take this into account when working out LSALT's on spot heights.

I know personally I didn't know this little fact before I was studying for my MECIR. Now, I know that, as responsible pilots (fixed wing anyways) we should never be below 500ft agl, unless taking off, landing or due stress of weather. BUT we all know it happens, and I believe (and i could be wrong) that our whirly bird friends spend alot of time below this height.

Durning the day, strobes or beacons on these obsticles are going to do nothing, therefore I feel the best thing we can do is improve pilot awareness. Also, make it mandatory for any tower over say 200ft to be placed onto the relevant VTC/VNC/WAC.

But at the end of the day, the regulator can only do so much, its going to be up to the pilot to ensure that they know the dangers of the areas they are flying into

[185skywagon]

There are towers west of YBHI, which are wind finding towers for proposed wind farms. They are difficult to see at the best of times. They are dangerous and cannot be be seen until one is very close.They are up to 250 feet tall.
They are not marked on any charts.
They are also all through the hills between Adelaide and Jamestown.
They can be taken down and put up anywhere, anytime.
I have had to deal with these with the SA kangaroo survey (250 feet) since at least 2006.

We are going to drop some survey lines this year because of them.

treacherous.
185.

[Ultralights]

on a slight tangent, but wind farm towers are popping up all over the place, why cant these wind farm towers be maked on WACS VNC and VTC charts? as they can be seen for miles away and make great vfr nav fixes. :ok:

marking them would be far more beneficial than moving all area height limits to a chart on an obscure location..:ugh:

[multime]

185, same type of towers exist south of merridan here in wa, thin grey box steel 250 feet tall and almost invisible behind a grey sky. Recently surveyed in that area, from memory 5 exist. Very dangerous.

[CaptainMidnight]

but wind farm towers are popping up all over the placeAnd its that sort of thing that becomes a problem - chart clutter.

All wind farms, all towers over 200Ft AGL, mining and quarry outfits wanting danger areas for everywhere they blast to a few hundred feet well away from AD/ALA ....... what else? Latest I heard from a contact was a model aircraft mob somewhere wants a danger area instead of their existing chart symbol. Do that and you set a precedent.

And with respect to wind farms and towers, how do the map makers find out about all of them, and satisfy themselves that they've been provided with accurate coordinates?

No simple solution.

There is a CAR, CAAP or something that relates to hazards to navigable airspace and is fairly wide in scope. If you see something that you consider presents a hazard to aircraft, report it to the local CASA office (a pix would probably help) for them to assess.

[185skywagon]

Multime,
I don't how many I didn't see. Yep single gray pipe with guywires.
They are not marked because they may not be up for very long.
Also, most people have no business being down at that height.
Gee it gives me the willies. It is dangerous going anywhere near windfarms, but they are all through one part of our survey area.
Aside from that, they are an eyesore (windfarms).


185.

[chimbu warrior]

Seriously are they marked on the WAC?

Sadly, with the almost universal reliance on GPS, many modern aviators don't bother to carry a WAC, or an ERSA.

All pilots should acquaint themselves will all relevant information concerning their planned and alternate routes.

[puff]

That tower in Dalby is huge - I knew it was there but was still shocked the first time I flew out after climbing away for quite a while to be looking across it and and it was still higher than I was !

Feel a thought for the people that climb them for a living !

[onetrack]

The Collgar Windfarm project, with the area central location about 15 miles SE of Merredin, Western Australia, is the largest wind farm project currently being undertaken in Australia.
The land area covered by the current project of 111 wind turbines is 13,000 Ha. An additional 16 wind turbines are planned to be added in the future.
Construction has already commenced; wind turbine towers are currently being erected; and the project has a completion date of April 2012.

The towers have a height of 80 metres, and the blades have a 44 metre span. This makes the total height of the vertical blade and tower, 122 metres (400').

Collgar Wind Farm - Collgar Wind Farm | Collgar Wind Farm (http://collgarwindfarm.com.au/)

News item - First turbine erected at wind farm - State News - Agribusiness and General - General - Farm Weekly (http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/first-turbine-erected-at-wind-farm/2012296.aspx)

[Ultralights]

Helicopter pilot killed after flying into powerlines today. Toowoomba. :(

Pilot killed in chopper crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/18/3115819.htm?site=news)

[onetrack]

I note that all the planning work at Collgar didn't include or invite any aviation users input. Conservation, landowners, and local communities, were all "part of the consultation process". Obviously, aviation users input doesn't warrant any consideration... :ugh:

It's interesting to see that the aviation lighting on the wind towers at Cullerin Ridge, NSW, was turned off after complaints by the locals. There are apparently no CASA regulatory requirements for wind tower aviation lighting?
I understand there has been at least one event involving an aircraft collision with wind turbines whilst on a landing approach?

Lights out at wind farm - Local News - News - General - Crookwell Gazette (http://www.crookwellgazette.com.au/news/local/news/general/lights-out-at-wind-farm/1984801.aspx)

[zanthrus]

There goes the Forced Landing practice in Training Area South.

Do wind turbines still work with Grobs embedded in them?!? :uhoh:

[Desert Flower]

Aside from that, they are an eyesore (windfarms).

Can't say I agree with you there. I love watching the ones around Hallett in the mid north as we're heading up to the Riverland.

DF.

[Super Cecil]

Also, most people have no business being down at that height.
Gee it gives me the willies. It is dangerous going anywhere near windfarms, but they are all through one part of our survey area.
Aside from that, they are an eyesore (windfarms).


185.

Windfarms shouldn't be a problem, if yoo listen to the press blurbs the NIMBY's. You will have a heart attack, pass out from a heavy migrane, get hit with thousands of birds falling from the sky or the aircraft will explode from the pressure difference from the giant rotating blades way before you get anywhere near them.

Powerlines on the other hand are a problem, seems nobody wants to take any resposibility. From low SWER over crops to lines strung longspan between high country is a major risk of working low.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Is that bitch of a thing that runs up the hill still there out Ivanhoe/Cargelligo way? Must be well over 10 years now.....probably longer.

Can't find the form on the CASA website at the moment but from memory there may be one similar to that for Operational Assessment of Existing or Proposed Structure.

What about a NOTAM on "Structure Remote from Aerodrome". I think that has something to do with lighting out.

Oh, and on the windfarms, there about as much fun for me to watch as a 33' LP going around on a turntable (sorry DF!)

[QSK?]

onetrack:I understand there has been at least one event involving an aircraft collision with wind turbines whilst on a landing approach? Are you able to provide more information on this aspect, whether in Australia or outside of Oz?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Feel a thought for the people that climb them for a living !

Check this video out (ignore the cartoony beginning)

The scariest video you have ever watched in the name of science (http://io9.com/5639113/the-scariest-video-you-have-ever-watched-in-the-name-of-science)

[onetrack]

QSK? - The information I have, is that the collision was in 2008, in Northern France, between a twin-engine aircraft on approach, and two wind turbines. The incident does not appear on any significant aircrash database, so I have to presume the aircraft landed safely.

Even in the U.S., there is now a serious clash between plans for the greening of America via wind turbine power, and the requirements of the military for training purposes.
The Americans are still trying to establish a set policy for wind farm installations near military bases, that might lead to training accidents.
Naturally, it goes without saying, that if you have wind farms, you have HT powerlines and pylons, as part of the deal.

I do not understand why powerlines can't have simple, visible markers installed on the lines. Surely the cost is little, in comparison to the powerline cost.
It's interesting to note that before one single teensy bit of construction commences on a building... especially where powerline contact possibility is increased... the powerlines are marked better than any school crossing... :ugh:

GAO report: When airplanes and windmills collide (http://www.greeningofoil.com/post/GAO-report-When-airplanes-and-windmills-collide.aspx)

[SgtBundy]

TIEW - that was an awesome video.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I agree. I feel sick just watching it at times. At the very top, when he lets go with both hands to prepare his carabiner, he is just standing on the tiniest of platforms. Man, that is a long way down!!

[CaptainMidnight]

Can't find the form on the CASA website at the moment but from memory there may be one similar to that for Operational Assessment of Existing or Proposed Structure.

Couple of references. The first isn't set up for individual reporting it seems, but it does indicate a database is being built up.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/139/139c08.pdf

CASA assessment forms, so if you report something and provide sufficient detail, presumably this is what they look at:

http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regulate/misc/form406.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/manuals/regulate/misc/form407.pdf

This is also interesting reading:

http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/wind_energy_-_aviation_interests_study_report.pdf

[Desert Flower]

Helicopter pilot killed after flying into powerlines today. Toowoomba

News on Imparja just said it was an ultralight. So maybe it was a gyrocopter?

DF.

[Jabawocky]

Was a Drifter .....2 Stroke engine failed....hit power lines in forced landing. :(

[The Chaser]

I responded to the original question with an answer (thankyou whoever assumed it was not pertinent).

Here is the reference document quote
DO242A MASPS page 3

For the purpose of this document, the term aircraft/vehicle (A/V) will refer to either 1) a machine or device capable of atmospheric flight, or 2) a vehicle on the airport surface movement area (i.e., runways and taxiways). For simplicity, the word aircraft is used to refer to aircraft and vehicles, where appropriate. In addition to A/Vs, ADS-B service may be extended to identify obstacles (e.g., an uncharted tower not identified by a current NOTAM). The full set of A/V categories, in the context of ADS-B, is provided in §2.1.2.3. While this section focuses on aviation applications, interoperability between different applications is desirable; for example, search and rescue operations.
As I said, very low cost, short range obstacle marker transmitters :hmm:

Can be announced on Display and Aural :ok:

[QSK?]

onetrack:

Thanks for that. Also found this on the 'net which may be of interest to you:

FAA Suggests Markings For Met Towers
A pilot in California was killed earlier this month when his airplane struck a 197-foot-tall tower during an agricultural flight, just a few days after the FAA published a proposed policy that would establish voluntary procedures for marking such towers. Meteorological, or met, towers gather data to determine if a site would be profitable to develop for wind power, and they have proliferated in rural areas in recent years. Many of the towers are built to heights just a few feet below the 200-foot level that would require FAA notification and markings. The towers are often "narrow, unmarked and grey in color ... nearly invisible under some atmospheric conditions," according to the National Agricultural Aviation Association. The FAA proposes that the towers should be painted in alternating orange and white stripes, but compliance would be voluntary. The FAA is accepting commentson its proposal until Feb. 4.
Several of the comments already in the docket suggest that the FAA's guidelines should be mandatory. Others suggest that lighting should also be required. Iowa's Department of Transportation wrote, "Voluntary compliance ... falls short of a comprehensive national solution that addresses MET tower hazards." The DOT also suggested that strobe lighting should be required to ensure nighttime visibility. Brian Fox, of the Idaho Army National Guard, also said compliance should not be voluntary, and added that the wavelength "needs to be compatible with night-vision goggles." AOPA wrote, "Because of the danger to aircraft that exists from unmarked and unlighted meteorological towers, it is essential that they be made as conspicuous as possible"; however, AOPA concurred with the voluntary nature of the FAA plan.

FAA Policy link:

Federal Register | Marking Meteorological Evaluation Towers (http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/01/05/2010-33310/marking-meteorological-evaluation-towers)

Accident Link:

WPR11LA094 (http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20110110X53722&key=1)