Fife Airport threatened by Wind farm Proposal
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Smithy
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.
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
Smithy
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
Mad Jock,
Do I detect your politics are slightly to the right of Attila the Hun?
DO.
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.
.Mad Jock,
Do I detect your politics are slightly to the right of Attila the Hun?
DO.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jockistan
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect to potential noise from wind turbines, this article might be helpful:
Officials cover up wind farm noise report - Times Online
Officials cover up wind farm noise report - Times Online
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Aberdeen, UK
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ
Well that should definitely reduce the numbers of car thefts in Perth and Angus
Eventually Fife will hopefully be floated off the rest of Scotland and into the North Sea
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jockistan
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by 140KIAS; 27th Jun 2012 at 19:48.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reports are available at:
http://planning.fife.gov.uk/online/a...=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.
http://planning.fife.gov.uk/online/a...=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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(I was speaking to another Scottish airfield operator who was offered 50k a year if his grass strip stopped objecting.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
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
NS